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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

page: 15
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Try again, it appears you are unblocked now.


How do you know that?




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


Try again, it appears you are unblocked now.


How do you know that?
A little birdy told me.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




It's harder to find good footage of the South Tower collapse. I'm pretty sure I saw it once long ago, but can't seem to find it anymore. If you are able to find a good clip of it, please post it.


The entire east wall of the South Tower "unzipped" as the support columns buckled - remember that the perimeter columns comprised part of the support structure

As a column failed the loads were transferred to adjacent columns which were under great strain .

These in turn failed transferring an even greater load (original load + failed column loads) to the support columns

The collapse sequence progressed down the line until the entire row of columns on that wall had collapse

Now you have an entire side of the building hanging in space unsupported - South Tower pivoted toward the
unsupported side and then fell



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

If you don't understand a column meant to be straight loses strength as it is bent/bowed out of being perpendicular to its anchor, then you are hopeless.

The trusses pulled in on the vertical columns, creating a bend/bow. When bowing reached a critical point, the columns buckled. The load was no longer transferred to the foundation. But the point of strain in the bowing columns.

I am sorry you don't get that tall and thin items are more likely to fail as the angle of load changes from being perpendicular to an angle.


And yes. Lifting eyes are rated for a maximum lifting capacity. If they are not special thick necked lifting eyes, their lifting capacity decreases with angle.

If you are trying to find fault and look intellectual, you are failing.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I was going to do a thread on a white paper of 25 points, proving the NIST Report is a fallacy.

Just tried to open a new thread in the 911 forum, no such luck.

So tell your birdy it didn't work.
edit on 27-5-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


If you are trying to find fault and look intellectual, you are failing.


Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. You cherry picking bits and pieces of partial information from different websites, without any real scientific content, makes you talking out of your....


edit on 27-5-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nothin


Your dishonesty is sickening.
False allegations made of me and the original poster of the statistics.


Will not discuss your talking-points any further
Dude, it was your talking point, you brought up the same tired '2800 architects and engineers can't be wrong meme'.

You don't think that's been played out 1000 times previous to you bringing it up?

Like really dude, if you dispute the evidence, it's your turn to provide your own evidence.



Please stop posting false numbers, and misleading erroneous calculations.

As far as the claims of the "misleading erroneous calculations", wth are you talking about?

Like seriously, you can't take those three numbers and calculate a percentage from that? haha, I even double checked the math to make sure I didn't miss an error, the answer is still 0.3% just like the initial posters claim.


Too each their own I guess, but debate is debate, if you have an issue with the data or the math, it's up to you to prove it wrong, and you cannot do that.

And thats why I participate in 911 threads, to stop BS like you are trying to sell.
It is the motto of ATS to Deny Ignorance, and thats what I do.
Schooled



Schooled? Do you see yourself as an educator?

Why do you just keep coming back with the same disingenuous and dishonest comments?
Why did you not start a thread to promote your talking-points, like was suggested?
Why do you keep insulting people?
Why do you continue to attribute comments and beliefs to me, and others, that are completely fabricated?

Could you please post a link to the BS you accuse me of trying to sell?

Why would you portray yourself as a defender of denying ignorance, when you constantly twist the words of others, falsely attribute or distort other posters comments, and continue to display massive arrogance?

That's what you do? Do you ever get a day off?
edit on 27-5-2017 by Nothin because: Was trying to remove the words "extra DIV", that appear at the end of my post. Don't know how they got there, nor what they mean. Please disregard those two words, if you can see them.
extra DIV



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




It's harder to find good footage of the South Tower collapse. I'm pretty sure I saw it once long ago, but can't seem to find it anymore. If you are able to find a good clip of it, please post it.


The entire east wall of the South Tower "unzipped" as the support columns buckled - remember that the perimeter columns comprised part of the support structure

As a column failed the loads were transferred to adjacent columns which were under great strain .

These in turn failed transferring an even greater load (original load + failed column loads) to the support columns

The collapse sequence progressed down the line until the entire row of columns on that wall had collapse

Now you have an entire side of the building hanging in space unsupported - South Tower pivoted toward the
unsupported side and then fell


That is plausible on its face, but we're left with a question of: where do we see anything similar happen in any other structural failure? A column failing, and immediately transferring its load to nearby columns so they collapse in rapid succession like dominos.

Has any other structure ever collapsed in this manner? Is it even possible to model?

The biggest problem for me is the suddenness with which the first column would have to fail.

Supposedly these columns are slowly increasing in temperature. As they slowly increase in temperature they slowly weaken. When a moment arrives when one of them is too weak to hold, it should be only just barely too weak at that moment, and so it would give way gradually. Not suddenly.


Unless maybe something inside suddenly breaks. I guess?
edit on 27-5-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: shorten

edit on 27-5-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: add a space



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

How many architects and engineering professors at universities and colleges support NIST. I know Prude University has constructed WTC models that supports the NIST findings! Along with other Universities.

How many architect and engineering journals support AE 9/11 Truth?

How many AE 9/11 Truth papers peer reviewed in architect and engineering journals? Vs published and peer reviewed articles supporting the NIST findings.

I can only find a few 9/11 Truth Movement articles. The first is not peer reviewed? And had disclaimers...

www.europhysicsnews.org...



NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat di erent from our usual purely scienti c articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is su ciently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.


The 9/11 Movement only has speculation.

Then after the article was published, more notes from Europe Phyics Journal.

via.hypothes.is...://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/05/epn2016-47-5-6.pdf#annotations:9xqwKMCeEeaPFttNOnh56A


It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC buildings. e Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.
In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other related publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles.



The only other published works I can think of are based on Steven Jone? His work was proven to be falsely peer reviewed in a hack pay for play journal.

Is Jones even an architect or structural engineer?

An overwhelming majority of architects, engineers, scientists support the NIST findings.

An overwhelming percentage of peer review papers, scientific journals, and colleges research supports the NIST findings.


Sorry: but can't think of any reason; so why could you possibly be asking me these questions?
Are you trying to direct the narrative, and introduce your talking-points again?

To be fair: it seems like you have succeeded in drawing-in one-or two people, into your desired topics.
But you missed-out on so many more! Maybe your discourse could use a little refreshing?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It's one of the most basic concepts of structural design. A vertical column's properties are based on material and straightness. If the column leans off center or becomes bowed or bent, is loose its ability to resist the load/strain it was designed for.

As the load on a vertical column transfers from sitting atop the column to an increasing angle to the column it is not designed for, the column is more likely to fail.

It's not cherry picking anything. It's basics of structures. Your false sense of authority doesn't change basic physics of structures.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

There was no "twisting". You used 2,800+ to try and convey that the ideas of A/E911Truth were widely accepted in the architect/engineering community, when at best, they are the very fringe and not taken seriously by the rest of the community.


Nope. Didn't do that at all. Was only responding to you calling them idiots.

Why are you twisting my original question, once again?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Really? You don't understand vertical columns. Vertical columns are strong due to being perpendicular to the foundation. The load is distributed straight through the soild material to the foundation. As soon as the contracting trusses pull the vertical columns in just enough to bow to a critical point of strain, the load was not transferred to the foundation any longer. The load was transferred to the bend in the vertical column, thus it buckled. Any scientific person claiming not to under stand that a vertical column gets its strength form its material, and is at its strongest when perfectly straight and perpendicular to the foundation is a fraud.


I understand the concept. And I believe that is exactly why pancake collapse was inevitable once a "hammer effect" had been achieved. Falling rubble would sever the horizontal supports, and once those were gone the vertical columns would be paper. The moment they're not straight they are much weaker.


However, that doesn't match up very well with the video, which shows the spire on top of the building beginning its descent at the same time as the walls.

I don't disagree that the walls failing first would be more plausible as a collapse scenario. But it doesn't visually appear to be what happened. And also it is much less likely for the walls to reach the critical temperature, which runs contrary to NIST's description of the collapse being triggered by overheating of the supports.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nothin


Your dishonesty is sickening.
False allegations made of me and the original poster of the statistics.


Will not discuss your talking-points any further
Dude, it was your talking point, you brought up the same tired '2800 architects and engineers can't be wrong meme'.

You don't think that's been played out 1000 times previous to you bringing it up?

Like really dude, if you dispute the evidence, it's your turn to provide your own evidence.



Please stop posting false numbers, and misleading erroneous calculations.

As far as the claims of the "misleading erroneous calculations", wth are you talking about?

Like seriously, you can't take those three numbers and calculate a percentage from that? haha, I even double checked the math to make sure I didn't miss an error, the answer is still 0.3% just like the initial posters claim.


Too each their own I guess, but debate is debate, if you have an issue with the data or the math, it's up to you to prove it wrong, and you cannot do that.

And thats why I participate in 911 threads, to stop BS like you are trying to sell.
It is the motto of ATS to Deny Ignorance, and thats what I do.
Schooled




Why do you just keep coming back with the same disingenuous and dishonest comments?



Dude... Quit getting all bent out of shape and deal with the issue at hand, would that be too much to ask?

Here's the claim, now it's up to you to prove it wrong.

110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......





Could you please post a link to the BS you accuse me of trying to sell?



originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nothin

110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......

What was your question again?


Your numbers are grossly wrong, very misleading, and a total distraction.

Your dishonesty is sickening.

Why do you just keep coming back with the same disingenuous and dishonest comments?



edit on 27-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
My posts have went sideways? whats up with that?

edit on 27-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

What don't you get? The overwhelming majority of scientific published and peer reviewed material concerning the WTC supports the NIST reports. The overwhelming majority of individuals in technical disciplines supports the NIST conclusions.

Please list peer reviewed papers that do not support the NIST conclusions? Link to them?

What happen to the NIST employee that you were hanging arguments on? Can you cite one section of one NIST report the individual found fault with and why? I thought you were all about proof?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I really have no idea what that poster was trying to prove, if they had an issue with the stats or the math alls they had to do was prove it was inaccurate. Instead I'm told I'm pushing a narrative and that my dishonesty is sickening? You'd think with such slanderous claims as that, the poster would want to man up and provide some evidence of their accusation being true, but nope. Nothing. It's interesting from a psychological perspective to interact with people like that, to watch how they will respond to a request for evidence. In this case the evidence and the math are very easy to obtain, it's amazing what some will to do avoid admitting that they are on the wrong side of the fence, that logic and reason are not behind them.

It's one of the reasons I participate in the 911 forums, a study in abnormal human psychology, I find it fascinating.


Nice to see that you guys have made buddies here.
It is plain to see what you have in common: Fabrication; dishonesty; dis-ingenuousness; disrespect; name-calling;
insults; twisting others words and comments; pushing tired old talking-points; etc...

It is interesting to note that you think you are observing "abnormal psychology" here.
What are your qualifications to make such an outlandish commentary?
Do you believe that insulting people, is a good fishing technique, to draw them into your narrative?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Just can't dispute these numbers and you must turn to deflection?

Most interesting.

110,168 Number of registered architects in the United States in 2015.
820,000+ Number of civil engineers in the United States.

.3% of engineers and architects are A/E 911Truth......



What are your qualifications to make such an outlandish commentary?


I'm working on that, I'm not accredited yet but I am taking courses, I find it fascinating.
edit on 27-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Ever going to argue the proof of thermite?

Whatever...

www.debunking911.com...


A "scholar" says the bow was due to the core columns being cut. He points to the movement of the north tower antenna which some originally thought moved first. But this was not the case..

"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." (NIST 2005)

The "scholar" is starting from a false premise and building a case around it. Something the "scholar" suggests the NIST did.

Putting this irony aside, the real evidence that the core did not move over time is the fact that the other faces showed no signs of the core moving until the collapse.


Don't know what to tell you. A cut and falling core would have pulled in every wall of the tower all at once above the created gap in the core. Not just on an isolated sections a couple of floors tall on the perimeter. There is no evidence the top floors of the tower were being pulled and collapsing inward in your claims of a sinking antenna to indicate a falling core. The whole section above the small and isolated area of inward bowing and buckling fell as a unit pulling the antenna down with it. There is no evidence the core fell first, then pulled on the vertical columns. Other than misinterpreting one camera angle, and ignoring othe captured video from other angles.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You started with this long litany of innuendo ? Now the proof of nanothermite is down to the misinterpretation of the video of the WTC antenna. The antenna shown to be tilling in various camera angles, not sinking into the tower?
edit on 27-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Redefined fall



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

Going to answer any questions directed at you? Or just completely ignored honest and open debate? Typical conspiracists, post a sight gag instead of engaging in debate?

I still think you are a fizzle no flash bomb kinda person?


Why are you jumping to conclusions, and directing another insult at conspiracists in general?

Trying to peg me into a definition of your own making? That. Right there.
You are able to state here, that you think something about me, that you believe something about me, of which you have absolutely no inkling of any indication why that leap of faith is possible. None whatsoever.

So what can we learn from a comment like you just made?

A
You are a very poor fisherman, resorting to attempted ego-hits on your targets.
B
You are able to make leap-of-faith assumptions, with no facts nor information to back them up, and then be so arrogant and bold as to attempt to state them here, as if there was the least bit veracity to them.

This is beyond clear to anyone objectively reading, or studying, this thread, and seriously leaves no doubts as to your motivations.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join