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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.’”
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?
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.
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.
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...
originally posted by: turbonium1
Your theory is not based on reality.
Have you seen other buildings that have had structural failure?
Normal, indeed
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.
I suppose as many times as you are required to repeat any of the talking points of the official myth?
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'.
I go on the actual evidence, and it doesn't support your argument in any way.
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.