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.

 

Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

page: 20
9
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


You need a formula to help you see the massive amounts of dust generated? How old were you when this happened?

The dust was massive, and impossible if the NIST story were true, that office fires caused these buildings to collapse at near free fall speeds.

Have you no common sense?


How "impossible" was the massive amount of dust? The dust is the result of the collapse, regardless of the cause of collapse. All evidence says that the cause was not a planned demolition.


I certainly agree that the dust was the result of the collapse, but maybe my analytical skills and penchant for asking questions are superior to yours?

That is, the cause of the collapse in assessing the meaning of the dust is very important, an essential part of the analytical process.

The official NIST explanation is intellectually bankrupt, whether one chooses as scientific analysis, as many including AE911Truth have done, or if one chooses to apply common sense to the analysis, as I have done.

The NYPD would not have sent men to the top floors of the towers if they had a clue that the towers were going to collapse, for the simple common sense reason that no tower anywhere has collapsed from office fires burning on less than 10% of the floors.




posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander





The NYPD would not have sent men to the top floors of the towers if they had a clue that the towers were going to collapse, for the simple common sense reason that no tower anywhere has collapsed from office fires burning on less than 10% of the floors.



Neither did the twins.

Is there a daily quota you need to fill?

How many times a day do you need say that the towers collapsed because of office fires where its never happened before?

How many times are you required to repeat the same nonsense?



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




The NYPD would not have sent men to the top floors of the towers if they had a clue that the towers were going to collapse, for the simple common sense reason that no tower anywhere has collapsed from office fires burning on less than 10% of the floors.

No it's in their nature to save peoples lives.
After the first collapse the order for all NYFD to exit the second tower, but they didn't all leave right away because they felt they had a little more time.

Instead of arguing on the internet why don't you go and talk to a few of them?



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


You need a formula to help you see the massive amounts of dust generated? How old were you when this happened?

The dust was massive, and impossible if the NIST story were true, that office fires caused these buildings to collapse at near free fall speeds.

Have you no common sense?


How "impossible" was the massive amount of dust? The dust is the result of the collapse, regardless of the cause of collapse. All evidence says that the cause was not a planned demolition.


I certainly agree that the dust was the result of the collapse, but maybe my analytical skills and penchant for asking questions are superior to yours?

That is, the cause of the collapse in assessing the meaning of the dust is very important, an essential part of the analytical process.

The official NIST explanation is intellectually bankrupt, whether one chooses as scientific analysis, as many including AE911Truth have done, or if one chooses to apply common sense to the analysis, as I have done.

The NYPD would not have sent men to the top floors of the towers if they had a clue that the towers were going to collapse, for the simple common sense reason that no tower anywhere has collapsed from office fires burning on less than 10% of the floors.


It is apparent that our analytical skills are quite different from one another. You say that "The official NIST explanation is intellectually bankrupt, whether one chooses as scientific analysis, as many including AE911Truth have done, or if one chooses to apply common sense to the analysis, as I have done" but never say what scientific analysis makes it intellectually bankrupt or how your common sense is equivalent to the A&E analysis.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


You need a formula to help you see the massive amounts of dust generated? How old were you when this happened?

The dust was massive, and impossible if the NIST story were true, that office fires caused these buildings to collapse at near free fall speeds.

Have you no common sense?


How "impossible" was the massive amount of dust? The dust is the result of the collapse, regardless of the cause of collapse. All evidence says that the cause was not a planned demolition.



The official NIST explanation is intellectually bankrupt, whether one chooses as scientific analysis, as many including AE911Truth have done, or if one chooses to apply common sense to the analysis, as I have done.


Let's start with a statement right from the A&E site

AE911TRUTH ENTERS SCIENCE MARCH WITH WTC EVIDENCE

www.ae911truth.org...



Rachel Colton organized a coalition of 9/11 Truth volunteers to attend the recent March for Science. “Why?” you may be asking. Because she believes that scientists can — and do — help uncover the truth behind 9/11 — especially the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse.

“A building will not descend at free-fall acceleration unless the structure underneath has been removed” by demolition explosives, maintains Colton, who represented Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at the Washington, D.C., march on April 22nd — Earth Day.


One, what building at the WTC did not offer any resistance?

For the towers....
9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...



The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.


For WTC 7.........
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation
www.nist.gov...




The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity



A&E pushing the false narrative that the WTC buildings offered no resistance and fell purely at free fall speed is ethical?

And from the article linked to, the only "evidence" offered at the march was A&E complaining about NIST not releasing the NIST model? All the information to model the WTC 7 is publicly available?

No arguments of NIST pseudoscience? Strange? Do you have a specific example?

edit on 9-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added purely



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

For A&E to claim video of the Tehran Plasco high rise building collapse holds evidence to warrant a CD investigation to exploit their 9/11 view is ethical?

Can you even cite a logical argument by A&E the building investigation should include CD? The truth movement mantra "watch this video" is not a rational argument, just a truth movement cliche.......



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Funny quoted sign displayed predominantly to the linked "Architects and Engineers" news page..... from the science march....

www.ae911truth.org...



AE911TRUTH ENTERS SCIENCE MARCH WITH WTC EVIDENCE

“I'm not an engineer or an architect or a physicist, but I’m pretty sure a 100-plus-story building doesn't fall apart like that.”Rachel Colton


One would think you could find an engineer, architect, or a physicists to quote at a "Science March". I guess the eloquence of the statement has a certain charm? Like that.

I guess NIST is now a misogynistic order too, and that is evidence of CD?



During the march, a woman came alongside me and confided, ‘They hauled those buildings down to NIST where I work.’ I told her she needs to get NIST to release its data on Building 7. She didn’t seem to be aware that they hadn’t and said she was going to ask someone about that. I offered her a pamphlet, but she refused and explained, ‘They aren’t very nice to women over at NIST.’”


As opposed to the other places they haul off buildings too?

I thought the truth movement said the buildings were hauled off straight to China.....
edit on 9-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Salander





The NYPD would not have sent men to the top floors of the towers if they had a clue that the towers were going to collapse, for the simple common sense reason that no tower anywhere has collapsed from office fires burning on less than 10% of the floors.



Neither did the twins.

Is there a daily quota you need to fill?

How many times a day do you need say that the towers collapsed because of office fires where its never happened before?

How many times are you required to repeat the same nonsense?






I suppose as many times as you are required to repeat any of the talking points of the official myth?



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

How about the myth the towers fell at free fall speed as pushed by AE9/11Truth. Their whole argument for the towers are based on a myth they never address or correct. They Just keep milking the misconception for their sake to stay relevant. And you keep pushing this false narrative people support the official narrative. When the truth lies in there is no evidence of thermite or explosives at the WTC. All evidence points to flight 93 crashed at shanksville. All evidence at the pentagon points to large jet impact.

And still no rebuttal to this.....

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...




Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement. Public feedback shows that the false Pentagon hypotheses undermine public acceptance of other highly credible scientific findings, such as the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC7) in New York City.

Most rank and file members of the 9/11 truth movement take their cues on the Pentagon from well-known speakers, writers, and acknowledged leaders of the movement. The quickest way to end the ongoing damage to the movement’s credibility and bring closure would be for these prominent individuals to publicly repudiate their former endorsements, views, and statements on the Pentagon event and acknowledge the scientific method and its conclusion of large plane impact. In the absence of public repudiations, the damage caused by false Pentagon hypotheses is likely to continue indefinitely, even if those who fueled their spread cease to promote them. Consequently, the surest way to end the debate and enhance the credibility of the movement is for each individual to study, without bias or prejudice, the evidence for themselves.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

and before you go an a rant about the towers and WTC 7, please cite the "highly credible scientific findings" that point to CD?

Especially over the evidence that the towers fell from buckling induced by long drooping floor trusses that contracted while cooling.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: neutronflux

Core columns above the impact zone came down through the floors too, the falling mass went through the (comparatively) flimsy floors like they weren't there IE some resistance but too little of it because the floors were only intended to bear their own weight as well as stabilising the core and outer walls horizontally.

Lightweight concrete and drywall being smashed by massive steel sections would produce considerable amounts of dust
Thermite only comes into theories in an attempt to explain the lack of explosive demolition. It's really an impractical option for such a purpose though.


Your theory is not based on reality.

Have you seen other buildings that have had structural failure?

Normal, indeed



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

and before you go an a rant about the towers and WTC 7, please cite the "highly credible scientific findings" that point to CD?

Especially over the evidence that the towers fell from buckling induced by long drooping floor trusses that contracted while cooling.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...


Your argument is entirely based on an image, taken in grand leaps.


All the real evidence shows the reality, but who wants that?
edit on 12-8-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So far your only claim is too much dust? Your view has been debunked by showing video of explosives setting off produce very little dust. What is visible is probably more smoke than dust. Videos of buildings brought down by CD and earthquakes that show dust production is a function of build collapse. Not CD. Sources cited that explain the collapse of one tower released and converted potential energy to kinetic energy equivalent to 280 tons of high energy explosives being set off. And dust production of a building collapse full of light duty concrete, drywall, and ceiling tiles is part of a building collapse.

Would you like to cite other earthshaking evidence along the lines of you didn't like the dust produced at the WTC?



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You provide no argument to counter and explain the buckling seen in the video clip in this thread.....

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Or why there is no sounds of explosives setting off in WTC videos. For thermite and explosives, why no flashes of light. For thermite, no visible sparking or molten metal. For a energy weapon, why there is no distortion in the video from heat. Why there is no visible off gassing of material heated by a fantastical heat ray.

edit on 12-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Move link and added clarity



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Your theory is not based on reality.

Have you seen other buildings that have had structural failure?

Normal, indeed


As opposed to a theory based on dust volume and colour or whatever?

I'll leave you to your 'solid' theories



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You provide no argument to counter and explain the buckling seen in the video clip in this thread.....

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Or why there is no sounds of explosives setting off in WTC videos. For thermite and explosives, why no flashes of light. For thermite, no visible sparking or molten metal. For a energy weapon, why there is no distortion in the video from heat. Why there is no visible off gassing of material heated by a fantastical heat ray.


It is assumed to be 'buckling', based on an image(s) which appear to show 'buckling'. You have no other support for your argument, right?

What about showing me all the images of that same area, from before, and after, the 'buckling' image(s)?

What was the source of that image? Is it a frame taken from video, or is it a photo?

You assume it is 'buckling', without any research of other image sources. That would confirm whether or not there was any 'buckling'.

Anyone can edit images afterwards, to support the official story, so how do you even know if the images have been edited, or not? Only the original image shows this. And we don't have it.


Even assuming there was 'buckling', it cannot explain the uniform collapse of the building(s). The main supports were the massive steel core columns, which was studied afterwards, and showed the columns didn't fail.

I go on the actual evidence, and it doesn't support your argument in any way.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




I suppose as many times as you are required to repeat any of the talking points of the official myth?


Find just 1 occasion

JUST 1 OCCASION where I have repeated any talking points of any official myth?

since you don't deny that you are required to say such and you can be found doing so at least twice in any 9/11 thread you interact in its points to 1 of 2 things.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




It is assumed to be 'buckling', based on an image(s) which appear to show 'buckling'. You have no other support for your argument, right? What about showing me all the images of that same area, from before, and after, the 'buckling' image(s)?



images?

you do see that you and the other poster are talking about video?




What was the source of that image? Is it a frame taken from video, or is it a photo?


do you see what you quoted?

your answer is in there.




You assume it is 'buckling', without any research of other image sources. That would confirm whether or not there was any 'buckling'.


or you could simple watch the video you are attempting to debate another poster with.




I go on the actual evidence, and it doesn't support your argument in any way.





posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Salander




I suppose as many times as you are required to repeat any of the talking points of the official myth?


Find just 1 occasion

JUST 1 OCCASION where I have repeated any talking points of any official myth?

since you don't deny that you are required to say such and you can be found doing so at least twice in any 9/11 thread you interact in its points to 1 of 2 things.







Sorry, my apologies. I did not realize you were a truther, that you see the Emperor is quite naked.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
'Buckling' doesn't even account for what happened, anyway.

You can't replicate it, as scientific method requires.

Nobody says a building collapses without proof, replication, or anything to account for a theory.

That's what you are trying to do, here.


It's not about looking for the truth, it's about propaganda, and sticking to it. Nothing else.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join