It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

page: 12
89
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


oh dear. Further back in the thread. And I also pointed out those kind of collapses are carried out after extensive demolition work is carried out inside the building to pre weaken it.

To which I replied yah, impact and fire weakened the structure…


Need I say more.


Please and thank you for not bringing one link to our conversation. Nothing like the 911 forum begs me to wonder. Oh, to get a glimpse of the person I am conversing with… just_one_glimpse.




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: largo


There is that annoying 47 story building collapse that just seems to float above the fray about planes.

I'd have that condition looked at.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthNow88

Bet Rahm knew about it.

en.wikipedia.org.../ File:Barack_Obama_in_Air_Force_Two.jpg



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: superluminal11

What does either Rahm Emmanuel or Obama have to do with 9/11?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I bet a lot more than Osama ??



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


oh dear. Further back in the thread. And I also pointed out those kind of collapses are carried out after extensive demolition work is carried out inside the building to pre weaken it.

To which I replied yah, impact and fire weakened the structure…


Need I say more.


Please and thank you for not bringing one link to our conversation. Nothing like the 911 forum begs me to wonder. Oh, to get a glimpse of the person I am conversing with… just_one_glimpse.


Like I said earlier to Bruce, it's just going around in circles. Who knows what really went on that day. Going backwards and forwards on an online forum will never change anything I suppose. Many different people have different opinions on the matter and that will always be the case. You may be correct and I may be wrong. Who knows. One thing I'm sure we can agree on is that everything that unfolded on September the eleventh was tragic and innocent people lost their lives. Regardless of who or what caused it, it should never have happened.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 05:33 AM
link   
There is no doubt in my mind that the buildings were blasted into oblivion. Plenty hard enough to make certain they came down not leaving a lot of rubble piled up too high to make clean up easier and less costly. Imagine if half the buildings had been left standing, they could still have blown them down but they would have been much harder and dangerous to access after the planes hit. They made sure those buildings came down far as possible in my humble opinion.


I still want to know the real reason the buildings were destroyed, was it really a false flag operation to blame the rag heads for terrorism, so we could go after them?



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: soulwaxer

USAir 427.

Nice try...

I can see several large sections of wing and even a piece of the fuselage with windows in it. Lots of big pieces of debris that would easily be discernible in a better quality/more up-close image. This doesn't compare AT ALL to the "crash site of flight 93".

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer

And there were recognizable pieces of Flight 93 recovered. They just weren't laying on the ground.

I suspect that I could show you a picture of a plane shredded into tiny pieces and you'd still find something wrong with it.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: soulwaxer

And there were recognizable pieces of Flight 93 recovered. They just weren't laying on the ground.

I suspect that I could show you a picture of a plane shredded into tiny pieces and you'd still find something wrong with it.
Confirmation Bias at work. Accept research that supports your bias. Discard, dissect, and discredit any narrative that does not support it.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Unflattering response removed.
edit on 16-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst


No mention that those building were in fact designed to take the damage from an airliner strike, albeit not as large as a 767.

What about Kamikazie style, 400 miles per hour, full of fuel and intent on doing as much damage as possible?


We build Skyscrapers to withstand hurricane force winds and earthquakes.

hurricane winds at 200 mph same as 400 mph Jumbo Jets?


No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint, other than controlled demo.

Is there another speed for things to fall? I mean cement and steel and all, not feathers. You just used three BS terms in one sentence. Is that a free fall record?


Typical. I'll accept sniping as your only tactic, and not take it personally. I'll continue the discussion in an honest manner for others benefit.

What we are talking about is force. Like I said I don't have the answers. There are several ways to look at it. Rather than rehash, I'll just address your points.

No they were not designed to withstand an airliner used as an attack. That is immaterial. I was refuting the claim that no one ever designed a building to withstand an airliner impact which is patently false. Several smaller plane strikes into buildings (empire state for example) created enough fear for engineers to design and plan for such worst case scenarios. WTC was specifically engineered to withstand a plane strike. Again, not a 767, but not the claim I was refuting.

I've worked on projects that had storm drains designed to be impervious to rpg attacks. There is no end to the engineering for worst case scenarios on these types of projects.

Let's see 200 mph wind or 400 mph airliner.

Well if the 200 mph wind moves a half billion ton building as much as 6 inches over 3 seconds (not enough data to calculate force exactly I know, at least not without fitting a curve to the data, which could be guessed at, reasonably accurately), how fast does a 200 ton plane have to go to have the same force? If you guessed orders of magnitude greater than 400mph, you would be more sensationalist than I, but I couldn't argue. Point being, the structure could handle and dissipate MUCH more force than the plane could impart. Now this is still only circumstantial, without knowing how the impact force was localized, however it is clear that we are to believe the structural members were cut by the plane. This seems impossible, although the maths would be very complicated and subject to some assumptions/guesses/interpretations which could(would) push the data significantly in either direction. It also seems intuitive that if they were cut on one side, the building should topple to one side.

Is there another speeds for things to fall? Yes. Absolutely. LDO. Everywhere and anywhere between the maximum force due to gravity up to terminal velocity, and down to none at all. How fast does a hang glider fall? How fast does a grape fall through setting jello. A rock through water? A steel girder through 100 thousand tons of steel.

You'd have to point out the other "BS" terms in the sentence. All numbers in this post were skewed (very) heavily towards your side of the debate. That's as much as I can do without reinventing a new math and physics that only applies to 2 building and 2 planes. Wish it was more help.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I found more info on this site.

Context of 'Before 9:00 a.m. September 11, 2001: Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska Is Directing Global Guardian Training Exercise'

www.historycommons.org...



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Voyager1


I still want to know the real reason the buildings were destroyed, was it really a false flag operation to blame the rag heads for terrorism, so we could go after them?

Oil… dollars, greed and control.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst


No they were not designed to withstand an airliner used as an attack. That is immaterial.

No, thats the biggest factor.


Point being, the structure could handle and dissipate MUCH more force than the plane could impart.

They did… for a while.


It also seems intuitive that if they were cut on one side, the building should topple to one side.

The fires after impact burned around the whole building. You can see it here…

Whole floor on fire



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst


No they were not designed to withstand an airliner used as an attack. That is immaterial.

No, thats the biggest factor.


Point being, the structure could handle and dissipate MUCH more force than the plane could impart.

They did… for a while.


It also seems intuitive that if they were cut on one side, the building should topple to one side.

The fires after impact burned around the whole building. You can see it here…

Whole floor on fire


More sniping. Clearly not interested in a discussion, or even reading. Perhaps you don't even speak English and just have a table with keywords matched to canned responses. I will assume such, as it is preferable, to me, to intellectual dishonesty.

We will skip your first point as I already demonstrated your strawman.

2nd point, you conceded, and followed by implying that the force of the impact was sustained for the entire time the building remained standing. Ludicrous. Although I am happy you agreed that the impact did not cause sufficient damage to the structural members. Possibly something to bring up in your canned table revision meetings.

Third point. Fire. Because... well... Fire. It's scary I know. I'm sure you can show me lots of steel structures that imploded due to fire. Probably happens every day.

Actually, it's happened several times. By it, I mean a plane slamming into a skyscraper, or a skyscraper burning down. By burning down, I mean burning down to a steel skeleton. Not falling into itself. It doesn't happen. Not when a b25 slammed into the empire state and caused a massive fire. Not when several Skyscrapers burned in Sarievo, however it is spelled. Not even building built in the 1800s. Let alone one with a steel super structure far in advance of anything at its time, using materials far in advance of anything used previously, and engineered to be stronger than any other building by a significant factor.


Time to revise the tables. Shouting fire may work in a movie theater, but your nonsense offers no danger of burning here.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst. The mere mention of the B-25 and the Empire State Building calls into question your argument. But, I will offer this, had the Towers been constructed the way the ESB was, they MIGHT have remained standing.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Dodged again. Go up two posts to my earlier reply. The book you are writing isn't cutting it.


--What about Kamikazie style, 400 miles per hour, full of fuel and intent on doing as much damage as possible?


--hurricane winds at 200 mph same as 400 mph Jumbo Jets?


--Is there another speed for things to fall?


edit on 16-2-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
In relation to the theme of the thread, people might like to check out an old thread with posts discussing an interview given by an Air Traffic Controller about the confusion that was occurring among ATCs between Delta 1989 and United 93, the plane alleged to have crashed in Pennsylvania.

The (one page) thread is Interview with Cleveland Center 9/11 Air Controller.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The main point of the thread is that a case can be made that the military were trying to confuse Cleveland ATCs about the identity of the hijacked plane (Delta 1989 or United 93 ?) in their control area on 9/11.

This particular sequence of events is seldom discussed or appreciated.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I have a question...Maybe I missed the information there was a LOT). I'm not a truther - but I'm open minded. Let's say that someone did swap the planes, etc, and land the real commercial planes.
What happened to the passengers on those planes?



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join