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.

 

Just Wondering...

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: sophie87
a reply to: In4ormant

really?


4 eva eva? Yes




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant



Superman must have bent them. They are indestructible by any earthly means I've been led to believe.


Fire was responsible. Let's take a look at what fire can do to steel.

rustylopez.typepad.com...

www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Seagull if you spent one day work'n that iron. You would
know there is no voila. I'm sorry my good man but you're
wrong and not at all because I just want you to be. But
because you are and you would see it yourself.

Faulty rivets are you kidding me? The native americans who
worked that job would tear a man to pieces if he said that on
the wrong nite in the rite bar.
edit on Ram72515v03201500000014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm familiar with the skywalkers.

What I was commenting on, was the fact that those two buildings were hit by airplanes moving at a substantial speed. No construction is going to deal well with that. I cast no aspersions upon the skill/integrity of the men who built it. Why would I, when I know next to nothing about the topic?

However, New York is New York, graft and corruption are rampant in the construction business. ...and you know that. Building inspectors are bought off. Contractors are bought off. Any number of people can, and are, bought off. Happens regularly in a town with those sorts of Mob connections.
edit on 7/25/2015 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I didn't indicate those to be your words. I was just using that
as an example because it was said here recently. But they are
true men to everything they do up there. The inspectors just
follow thru on most of their inspections because they're already
familiar with the outstanding work performed. Everything is done
beyond what any specs call for, because no.1. The lives of everyone
up there depend on them. Do you understand what that means to not just
the mohawks, but to every iron worker? Anything can be beefed up
as you go, so why wouldn't it be. And do you guys know how hot
a torch has to be to cut thru the iron used in even a two story
school. An accurate approximation would be six thousand degrees
farenheit. That's a cutting torch. Nothing outside of a meteor
or a demo team could've taken those buildings down.
edit on Ram72515v49201500000048 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




Nothing outside of a meteor


To all intents, and purposes that exactly what those planes were. Meteors. How much did those aircraft weigh, my friend?

Two hundred thousand pounds, give or take a ton? Travelling at goodly portion of the speed of sound? That is going to inflict a helluva lot of damage. Couple that with the fire?

But, I suspect that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull




But, I suspect that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.




At least until I get you up there so you can see for yourself.
The massive structure created by 46 vertical columns of
one and three quarter inch gauge iron? No plane no fire
would be any kind of a match for a cage like that.
And we both understand the velocity and weight of the
planes about the same I bet. Unless you truly believe
the planes were the same as a meteor?
But ya, come on up?




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
That hunk of metal was aircraft aluminum vs hi-strength steel - the towers used A36, which is common structural steel with a yield strength exceeding 36ksi. They also used A242 which exceeds 100ksi. The higher strength steel, the A242 was used on the upper floors as it required less mass (thinner sections with less weight), resulting in lighter loads, enabling more floors to be built. The planes cut through the steel like butter. Does that seem reasonable to you? Ever see a bug hit a windshield? How about a bird hit a window?


ASTM A242 has a 50ksi minimum yield strength and a 70ksi minimum tensile strength (not 100+KSI)


The upper wing skin, main spars & beams are made of 7178=T6 Aluminium alloy has a 78ksi tensile yield and a 88ksi ultimate tensile strength.

I have seen what a paint chip does to the space shuttles windscreen.

ccar.colorado.edu...

Force = mass x acceleration.
edit on 25-7-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
After 14 years of information and disinformation about conspiracies concerning the events that transpired that day, how many of you have changed your mind?


I haven't changed my mind.


originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Did you believe the original media reported version and now you don't? Or did you not believe it and now you do? Or has your belief been exonerated or obliterated?


This is one of the sticking points of the conspiracy, the media reporting of that day was changing every minute, and people confuse this confusion with "conspiracy".
The conspiracy theorist wastes so much time repeating what a talking head said on that day as though it's "proof" of something, when all it's proof of is the confusion of that day.
News broadcasters rely on the information they are getting from the people there and from emergency services, they are not all-knowing infallible Gods.
Just because they said something on-air does not mean that when it's proven to be incorrect it means there's a conspiracy.


originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Did the findings of NIST convince you?


It's not about convincing, it's about evidence and science.
Everything I have read about the events of the day, and as someone who watched it happening live on-air, is scientifically validated through gathered evidence.


originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Have you done any research on your own?


Plenty.
I spent a good while looking through all the various conspiracy theories, covering everything from "holographic planes" to the belief that bombs were planted in the building.
I came to the conclusion that these beliefs had no basis in reality, and everything used to support those beliefs was misrepresented, taken out of context, exaggerated, or simply manufactured for entertainment.


originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Have you just decided no matter what you are shown or told that your mind will always be unable to change either way?


No, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I have seen absolutely no evidence to convince me of any greater conspiracy than the one we know occurred.
Not a single person has been able to provide adequate proof of what they claim, I have asked them to, repeatedly, and all I get is the same YouTube videos, the same misrepresented statements from witnesses, the same out-of-context clips from the news, the same confused media broadcasts being presented as being "lies" because they weren't accurate.

If someone can offer evidence of something, of course opinions should change to reflect that awareness. The problem is that no one has been able to provide any compelling evidence for their belief, so my opinion remains unchanged.


originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
The endless list of inconsistencies is all the more reason to not believe the official version, so, if you still believe they have given you the truth, why?


Because the "endless list of inconsistencies" is mostly comprised of nonsense, unscientific claims and outright lies.
Your view is based on a biased assumption of evil and paranoia, while ignoring scientific reality.
Again, the pancake theory is proven, the structure of those buildings is proven, we know how they were constructed and we know that this failed due to heat, weight and gravity.

You say that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire... no other steel framed building designed in the way these buildings were designed has ever been hit by a passenger jet in the way these buildings were. Until one has, you cannot claim that another building constructed in an entirely different way not collapsing due to IMPACT and FIRE is in any way "evidence" of a conspiracy.

I've said this in every thread about this issue, but I'll say it again as it seems to be the primary misunderstanding people have and then use as "evidence" of a conspiracy:

You have one floor designed to hold a specific weight
It is supported by join points on the outside and inner ring of that floor
It is suspended by the core of the building and the outer integrity of the structure
It can only hold its own weight
Now imagine ten floors above suddenly land on it
That floor IS ONLY DESIGNED to hold a certain wight, not the weight of ten floors above it
Of course it collapses, and it would do REGARDLESS of the fire
Onto the next floor, which is also ONLY DESIGNED to hold its own weight, now it has the weight of 11 FLOORS suddenly hitting it.
That floor designed to hold up only itself now collapses, of course.
That collapses, because it's only designed to hold its own weight, and now has more than 10 x the weight upon it, and hitting it with great force.
The next floor now has even more weight suddenly dropped onto it...

The pancake action we saw on that day is entirely consistent with this. Increasing weight collapsing onto a floor designed only to hold itself will create exactly what we saw happen on that day, and this would likely have happened without that fire. The moment the structural support for a floor above was damaged, the risk of collapse in that manner was there. The fire merely exacerbated that weakness and that collapse.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Further to the above, I might have a more understandable way to expalain the pancake action we saw that day. Please tell me if you see anything wrong with this explanation or can "debunk" the science...

Imagine you have a wall.
You put up ten shelves on that wall each one above the other
Each shelf weighs 5 lbs
Each shelf has a weight limit of 10 lbs.
You load the top shelf up with 20 lbs,
It collapses onto the one beneath
Remember, each shelf weighs 5 lbs, and can only hold 10 lbs
25 lbs has now dropped onto a shelf only capable of holding 10 lbs
This collapses onto the one beneath
That one is only capable of holding 10 lbs, and itself weighs 5 lbs
It now has 30 lbs of weight
It collapses onto the one below
That one now has 35 lbs on it when it can only hold 10 lbs
It collapses onto the next
That one now has 40 lbs when it can only hold up 10
It collapses onto the one beneath
That now has 45 lbs...

Do you now see how the pancake effect works?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
The planes cut through the steel like butter. Does that seem reasonable to you? Ever see a bug hit a windshield? How about a bird hit a window?


You ever see a ping pong ball punch a hole through a paddle?




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
This post's style reeks of CIA psychological disinformation. Any investigation into this author would be enlightening.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: beijingyank
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
This post's style reeks of CIA psychological disinformation. Any investigation into this author would be enlightening.




So because they agree with scientific reality and reject entirely unproven conspiracy theories the only explanation is that they are "CIA"?

Does that make me CIA too?

Please debate the points raised and provide evidence to support your conspiracy theories. It's not much to ask for. If you have been convinced that this event did not happen the way we all believe it happened (supported by science and evidence) then please show us the evidence you have which convinced you that this was not as it seemed.

Again, unless the evidence is offered, why the hell should rational people be simply expected to abandon all science and reason and "just believe" you?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013


The scientific reality is, that there is simply no proof for weakened core columns due to pre-collapse fires.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read my following posts with regards to the explanaition, why that fact didn't bother Nist too much. At this point their report shows some serious signs of stress.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And we didn't talk about the Langley-flight yet (and Giant Killers meddling with their scrambling orders)...
edit on 25-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




Angels on the sideline again.
Been soon long with patience and reason.
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering when this tug of war will end.









posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
9/11 is probably one of the only conspiracy theories that I've never really changed my mind about. I never have and never will believe the official story unless it changes to something more plausible. I base my opinion purely on probability, I don't think 3 buildings could be taken down so perfectly by terrorists with box-cutters. Maybe 1 or 2 buildings I could believe, but not 3. Building 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, we're supposed to believe it just collapsed due to fire. No I'm sorry but I just can't believe those buildings went down the way we are told.
edit on 25/7/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Has anything over the last 14 years changed my mind? No. Do I have problems with parts of the official story, yes I do, but they do not affect the fact that the hijackers took over four airliners and used them as missiles to destroy the WTC complex and damage the Pentagon.

Now, on the OP, have there been 14 years of disinformation?...yes, and most of it has come from those who proclaim they are seeking the truth.

"Not only was there never a building reinforced with steel burned down before that day, there has not been a single one since."

Wrong. There have been many steel structures that have died solely due to fire. Look up the Madrid Windsor Tower, 17 steel framed floors collapsed from fire alone, it was only the concrete transfer slabs that kept the entire building from coming down according to the investigators. No structural damage needed....FIRE ALONE collapsed 17 steel framed floors.

"Isn't it a bit strange that the only recorded steel buildings that have ever collapsed in free fall, foot print without the use of "demolition", happened on the same day, not just one but 3?"

Well, first..please show me another day in history that matched what we watched that day? Freefall? Nope they were ALL slower than "freefall". Footprint? Nope, if they had fell into their footprints, they would not have damaged/destroyed every damned building around them.

"The heat necessary to melt or even bend steel was not caused by jet fuel and office furnishings."

The heat required to soften structural steel, is WELL within the temperature range of an office fire. Why do you think they coat the steel with fireproofing? The steel at the WTC, was rated to survive for a maximum of three hours IF, and ONLY IF, its fireproofing was intact. After that, no guarantees that the steel would not fail, and we know that the fireproofing in the Towers was old, brittle and had broken off the steel in many places....and THEN two high speed airliners slammed into them.


" The people they claim are responsible had no motive and gained absolutely nothing and the one's that did gain from it have gotten away with murder repeatedly since and profited in the same manner continuously since."


Well, this just shows a distinct lack of knowledge when it comes to history.

"Larry Silverstein"

Has lost money on the deal, since the insurance proceeds did not come close to paying to rebuild the site AND maintain his lease payments to the Port Authority.

"The trade centers (1&2) were full of asbestos, not only is that a fire retardant itself, it is extremely toxic and expensive to remove."

And which, the abatement was going to cost a relatively small number compared to the revenue created by the complex.'

" 3 trillion dollars unaccounted for wiped out by a strategic plane crash to the pentagon?"

Nope, not wiped out, because it was never money missing, it was accounting adjustments......which, unless you have missed the news recently is STILL being worked on. I guess we should watch for another airliner huh?

"That pipeline they wanted."

Which, was killed long before 9/11/01.

"The greatest defense system in the world? Where was the defense that day?"

Postured for offense....overseas. We basically stood down all of our "defenses' post Cold War. On that day, we had FOURTEEN fighter planes across North America to defend the continent.


The only reason that you listed those as examples of why you think the "official story" is a lie.....is that for fourteen years you have been swallowing the disinformation coming from the "truth" community.




















edit on 25-7-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: spelling...



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Never believed it. Never will. May never know.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I base my opinion purely on probability, I don't think 3 buildings could be taken down so perfectly by terrorists with box-cutters. Maybe 1 or 2 buildings I could believe, but not 3.


Those buildings were not brought down by terrorists with box cutters, they were brought down by terrorists with planes.
They flew massive passenger jet liners into those buildings, which weakened the outer and core structure of those buildings, causing a catastrophic failure of the integrity of those buildings, which led to massive amounts of weight being dropped onto a an already damaged floor which then collapsed onto the one beneath... and on and on until nothing was left but rubble.


originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Building 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, we're supposed to believe it just collapsed due to fire. No I'm sorry but I just can't believe those buildings went down the way we are told.


Building 7 was damaged significantly in the attacks. There didn't need to be a plane hitting that building for the debris and rubble to cause massive structural damage to that building.

You are aware, I take it, of parts of both the planes and the buildings landing streets away from those towers?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
The scientific reality is, that there is simply no proof for weakened core columns due to pre-collapse fires.


Due to pre-collapse fires? How about the impact of two jet planes impacting those beams?
How about their integrity as supporting structures being dependent upon the outer supports remaining intact?
How about their weakening/failure as the immense wight of the floors collapsed around them?
And regardless of those facts, why is that considered evidence while you ignore the scientific reality that a floor capable of only holding a certain weight will collapse when holing ten times that weight?

Once again, the reality that something designed to hold ten tonnes of weight will collapse when 100 tonnes is dropped on it is entirely ignored.

Please, someone, tell me how you believe that a floor designed to hold a certain weight will not collapse when 10 times that weight is dropped onto it.

It's basic science, yet the conspiracy theorist expects us to believe in magic, and that massive concrete floors can somehow defy gravity and "levitate".




top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join