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.

 

WTC Challenge

page: 34
4
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by white4life420
The rest of it was who I quoted. Thanks for the insults though -- since I was in agreement with you and all.


OK, well I apologise for misunderstanding you and throwing insults that weren't waranted...

I'm sure you can understand my confused as to what you meant by "read a book" though ...LOL

I mean, you quoted me and then that was your reply...

But seeing as you're on "our side" I'll forgive ya (this time)...


(you didn't answer my question though, still curious...got any 420 to share hehe?)

AP&F....


I understood which is why I didn't say any worse. I actually chose this screenname when I was 17 and in highschool. I am now 22 and do not smoke pot anymore. It's kind of like how people generally use the same password on everything... I just never gave up this screen name.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
Let's say that fires did get hot enough to melt the steel to cause a complete failure.

How is it that the fires in the first tower took 45 minutes longer to achieve this? Did the second tower have more cubicles?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

North tower collapse = 102 minutes
8:46 - hit
10:28 - collapse

South tower collapse = 57 minutes
9:03 - hit
9:59 - collapse

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

(Figured I'd repeat it since I didn't get a proper debunking. I'm feeling all left out.)


As you should have.


In fact, I say we reintroduce specific points that haven't been duly explained to get back on subject. The demo squibs seem to have been the latest part of the discussion, right? So maybe somebody from the other side can finally offer concrete evidence that air pressure could possibly cause that? That's keeping in mind all of the observations we've made about those squibs thus far.

Logical explanations, anyone?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
You know what I find funny. The argument for the Twin Towers collapse is almost opposite for the Pentagon attack.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The plane didn't cause a lot of damage to the Pentagon. That's why the hole was so small. The planes did cause a lot of damage to the Towers. That's why they collapsed.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
In fact, I say we reintroduce specific points that haven't been duly explained to get back on subject.



Not a bad idea. Maybe we should start a new thread. Each post can be a different anomoly with a brief description of it. Then we won't have to keep hearing "comment on the NIST report".

Anyway, here is my list again. Not very well thought out. Just stuff off the top of my head. You guys do a much better job at adding the meat.

Anomalies 101

1. Bush's reaction
2. Insider trading
3. "Pull-It" quote
4. People heard bombs
5. Fire not hot enough
6. Free fall towers
7. Penta-lawn
8. Beltway witnesses hearing "whoosh"
9. Pentagon Line photo
10. Small fires in WTC 7
11. "Missle" slips by Rumsfield
12. Bush security work towers
13. Power outages week prior
14. GPS tracking of metal
15. Quick disposal of evidence, er metal
16. Whitewash of 9/11 probe
17. Refusal to release all video evidence
18. NORAD stand down
19. Saudi flights out of country
20. Hijackers found alive in Egypt
21. Unburned passports
22. Extremist Muslims going to strip club
23. Bad pilots - skilled execution
24. Instant Messages warning of attacks
25. Normal Tuesday 40 - 50,000 > only 3,000 killed
26. Roof door locked
27. Firefighter report only a few fires
28. Second tower hit falls first




Stop Hiding the Truth!

[edit on 7-25-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
If anyone is wondering about #9 allow me to enlighten.

www.spaceimaging.com...#





(click for larger images)



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
You know what I find funny. The argument for the Twin Towers collapse is almost opposite for the Pentagon attack.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The plane didn't cause a lot of damage to the Pentagon. That's why the hole was so small. The planes did cause a lot of damage to the Towers. That's why they collapsed.


Completely different construction. The Pentagon was reinforced concrete with kevlar lining strong enough to withstand a truck bomb. The WTC was regular concrete and steel.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
1. Usama not being caught.

2. PNAC - Project for new american century.

3. Iraq war - Planned before Bush years.

4. More money spent on investigating Clinton sex antics than on the 911 report.

5. Secret government.

6. Neo-conservitives calling for a 21st Century Pearl Habour.

7. Secret service reaction to the attacks.

8. FEMA in place on the 10th.

9. Cheney running war games on 9/11 - even though the US was on HIGH alert for terrorists. And Andrews airbase lied about FA-16 and 18s being on alert.

10. Security personal and bomb sniffing dogs removed just before 9/11.

11. EPA LIED to New yorkers and the rest of the world. 14 rescue dogs who were used at ground zero have died from lung cancer and many people have permanent respitory problems.

12. Condi lied about not knowing that terrorists were about to attack and using planes to attack US landmarks.

13. FBI got stopped from arresting Al-Q "suspects".

14. Light flashes just before planes hit the WTC towers. BOTH plane. Possibly DU penetrators.

15. Pentagon decontamination.

16. Very little wreckage at pentagon.

17. "Squibs" and suspention of the laws of physics.

18. WTC 7 fell with insufficient damage also suspending the laws of physics.

19. Mainstream media lying on a daily basis.

20. The United States government or part of the gov. LIED to the American People and the rest of the world. To this day the media and government are lying.

The absolute nicest thing we could say about the Bush administration is they let the attacks happen and did not warn the public. However THAT is still High treason and conspiracy to commit murder.

The US Gov. lied. CASE CLOSED. = Treason No matter how you look at it. Its Treason.

Peace



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Completely different construction. The Pentagon was reinforced concrete with kevlar lining strong enough to withstand a truck bomb. The WTC was regular concrete and steel.



True. Disregard that post. It was insomnia induced.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
the NIST report fails to account for the molten steel in the sublevels.
the NIST report fails to do an overall energy analysis, opting instead to look only at localised reactions.
the NIST report fails to qualify most of it's statements, which instead are admittedly(by NIST) conjecture, yet pronounced as fact.
the NIST report fails to convince 'us' of anything other than an elaborate cover-up of an eloborate crime.
the NIST report fails to explain how bush 'saw it on tv' when it wasn't on tv.
the NIST report fails.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I’m glad to see we are not the only ones who don’t belive the U.S. Inc. bu# story

Forensic Seismology Of 911 – Update
By Steve Davis Geologist & Researcher
7-25-5



The seismographic analysis of WTC 911 is still undergoing research. From the initial reports that these seismographs were recording the buildings as they were hit by the planes and as they hit the ground, to more recent intense scrutiny of events, videos, eyewitnesses by experts and other researchers, a more complex sequence of events and causes for these collapses is developing.

Snip~

We rounded up evidence that shows there were ground motions consistant with the 2+M quakes just before the collapses, rather than as they hit the ground. Videos are also backed up by eye witnesses and reporters of such motions. Plus, testimonies of those who survived the destruction of the sublevels, and those who confirmed all sorts of smaller explosions throughout the building.

Just seconds after the ground motions, which are probably due to huge secondary basement blasts, the videos showed huge black plumes shooting up from the roofs. Then within a minute showed the bursting of the impacted floors with an incredible explosion and shattering of steel beams, hurling them upwards and far and wide, plus total pulverization of everything else into fine dust. No other building was ever so completely destroyed.

We then tried to find info on mini nuclear tests, of which there have been an increasing munber not only at the Nevada Test Site but worldwide. This new refined nuclear technology is highly desired by the world's military to expand options for destruction and warfare.

To further this investigation we are asking that samples of the dusts, that still are all over NYC, be given a whole new range of the most sophisticated tests to determine what unusual contaminants and or isotopes may be present. At the time, the iniital dusts were sampled for asbestos, toxins and so forth, and were not tested for things beyond the usual spectrographic or microscopic work up. Plus, no one ever really got to see the real data, just what the gov't. said it showed, no peer review nor independent tests.


Yes I know its a Rense link but the 30 suporting links listed are not



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the NIST report fails to account for the molten steel in the sublevels.
the NIST report fails to do an overall energy analysis, opting instead to look only at localised reactions.
the NIST report fails to qualify most of it's statements, which instead are admittedly(by NIST) conjecture, yet pronounced as fact.
the NIST report fails to convince 'us' of anything other than an elaborate cover-up of an eloborate crime.
the NIST report fails to explain how bush 'saw it on tv' when it wasn't on tv.
the NIST report fails.




And they start with a conclusion, working only within the limits the official story provides.


Anyone looking at this info fairly and unblinded by ego or paycheck can see where there are questions to be raised with the official story, whether we'd like to admit it or not. Something seriously wrong happened at the WTC on 9/11, and nothing that the government has since done as a result has been good for us as a country, whether it be war or freedoms limited.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   


the NIST report fails to account for the molten steel in the sublevels.


Why should they? First of all, there is no definitive proof of molten metal, let alone steel. Secondly, if this steel did exist, there is no way to tell if it collected before or after the collapse. Finally, there is definitive link between this anedotal report of molten steel and the collapse mechanism.



the NIST report fails to do an overall energy analysis, opting instead to look only at localised reactions.


Did you read through the reports detailing the computer simulation of the fire? Do you have definitive proof that these simulations did not in fact account for all the energy of the fires?



the NIST report fails to qualify most of it's statements, which instead are admittedly(by NIST) conjecture, yet pronounced as fact.


There are lots of qualifications. The data presented as per their analysis of the photographic evidence is pretty straight forward. The computer simulations are qualified. It is understood that they are computer simulations with numerous variables. In fact they show various results of those simulations as a result of changing the input variables.



the NIST report fails to convince 'us' of anything other than an elaborate cover-up of an eloborate crime.


Well, it is not intended to convince "you" of anything. It is intended to provide information to architects, structural engineers, scientists, etc, that are more qualified to understand the underlying concepts.



the NIST report fails to explain how bush 'saw it on tv' when it wasn't on tv.


What has that got to do with the collapse mechanism.
You are reaching here.




the NIST report fails.



The NIST report does not fail, you fail in your understanding of it. Sure it has limitations. But it clearly achieves exactly what it intended to do, determine the collapse mechanism.



And they start with a conclusion, working only within the limits the official story provides.





Prove that assertion. Provide proof that early on in the NIST investigation they did not consider all possibilities.

Just because they did not list all those possibilities in the final report does not mean that they did not consider them.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
the NIST report fails to account for the molten steel in the sublevels

Why should they? First of all, there is no definitive proof of molten metal, let alone steel. Secondly, if this steel did exist, there is no way to tell if it collected before or after the collapse. Finally, there is definitive link between this anedotal report of molten steel and the collapse mechanism.


How do you explain thermal hotspots howwie?

"The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to." [ABC News, 9/18/01]

"Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert on the fires caused by jet fuel burning in the WTC buildings: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

cms.firehouse.com...

"Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon."

www.americanfreepress.net...

"Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center."

"A few seconds after 10:00 am", former Colonel Donn De Grand Pre notes, "we see a great white cloud of smoke and dust rising from the base of the [South] tower. The anchor gal on Fox 5 News video exclaims 'There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion! Another building in the WTC complex …'" [Barbarians Inside the Gates: Book Two: The Viper's Venom: p 50]

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"Dr Eaton said: ‘We were given a fascinating insight into what had been happening at the site. Our hosts, under the firm’s principal engineer George Tamaro (F), had been constantly involved at Ground Zero for several months. They had been called in as foundation engineers within a week of 11 September, and had spent several months examining the stability of the debris and the diaphragm wall all around the site, commonly known as the “bathtub” They had been key individuals in advising on the excavation of the site, with a great deal of care being needed before debris could be removed in order to maintain the stability of the original slurry walls.
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ he continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’."

www.libertypost.org...

UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."

From Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site - www.ehl.cc)

A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
(Company site - www.ul.com)

www.vinesbranch.com...

Sorry for all the cut and paste mods, but I doubt howwie would bother clicking on links and reading if it doesn't .gov or something simular.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


the NIST report fails to account for the molten steel in the sublevels.


Why should they?


i thought you were a scientist? they should because a proper forensic investigation of a CRIME SCENE leaves no stone unturned. you are the one who claims that the NIST report is the be all end all of tower collapse info. yet you are willing to blantantly ignore the FACT that doesn't fit the official lie. maybe you're coming down with alzhiemer's? the sattelite photos clearly show thermal hot spots. it is not conjecture (unlike much of the NIST report). anok's kind contribution will serve to remind you(MAN, you have a really short memory for certain facts) that this is FACT and not conjecture.




Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did you read through the reports detailing the computer simulation of the fire? Do you have definitive proof that these simulations did not in fact account for all the energy of the fires?


oh, MAN! i LOVE it! now, i have to 'prove' that the NIST report was not thorough? homey don't play that. the NIST report is not thorough, exactly as the 911 (c)ommision's report was not. i feel no need to 'prove' the truth. the truth speaks for itself.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
There are lots of qualifications. The data presented as per their analysis of the photographic evidence is pretty straight forward. The computer simulations are qualified. It is understood that they are computer simulations with numerous variables. In fact they show various results of those simulations as a result of changing the input variables.


there is no reference to the total energy sink or the pyroclastic behaviour of the dust cloud. there is no reference to the COMPLETE pulverisation of the concrete in the tower. the report is not thorough. it COMPLETELY IGNORES the MOST RELEVENT data concerning the collapse, ie. the total energy sink.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well, it is not intended to convince "you" of anything. It is intended to provide information to architects, structural engineers, scientists, etc, that are more qualified to understand the underlying concepts.


don't "you" mean underLIEing?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
What has that got to do with the collapse mechanism.
You are reaching here.


it has everything to do with LIES, which is part and parcel of the whole official whitewash attempt.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
The NIST report does not fail, you fail in your understanding of it. Sure it has limitations. But it clearly achieves exactly what it intended to do, determine the collapse mechanism.


really? do you REALLY think that there is enough information detailed in the report to allow a REPRODUCTION of the collapse? any good scientist knows that you MUST be able to repeat your experiment's results successfully in ordo to claim a scientific 'fact'.
the NIST report FAILS. my understanding is quite complete. i am not inhibited by foregone conclusions, unlike NIST.




Just because they did not list all those possibilities in the final report does not mean that they did not consider them.


what kind of bogus argument is that? oh, right. it's the same bogus argument disinformationalists apply to the confiscation of the pentagon videos. and that is, 'these are not the droids you are looking for'.
save your "jedi mind tricks" for the weak.

ffffuhhhnnnnnnnnehnnnn. (that's a light saber sound)

[edit on 26-7-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Did you read through the reports detailing the computer simulation of the fire? Do you have definitive proof that these simulations did not in fact account for all the energy of the fires?


What, did the NIST report not tell you whether or not they had? That would sort of be important, wouldn't you say? I'm sure if they had nothing to hide here, and weren't just sloppy unprofessionals, they would specify exactly what they tested and how they tested it, variables and all, and maybe even, dare I say, allow enough information for their simulations to be reproduced? That's the scientific way to go about it, after all.


Well, it is not intended to convince "you" of anything. It is intended to provide information to architects, structural engineers, scientists, etc, that are more qualified to understand the underlying concepts.


If you don't expect the NIST report to convince us of anything, why did you make this thread, and why do you constantly refer to it as if it is the holy grail of 9/11's physics analyzed? If it's nothing more than a bunch of suggestions to engineers, then I don't see how it can be used here without extensions to explain the problems with the gravity theory.


What has that got to do with the collapse mechanism. You are reaching here.


There actually is a bigger picture you can look at here, Howard. Can't see the forrest for the trees? Or a paycheck, or something. Bush's testimony as to what he was doing on 9/11 does not add up.


The NIST report does not fail, you fail in your understanding of it. Sure it has limitations. But it clearly achieves exactly what it intended to do, determine the collapse mechanism.


It does not 'determine the collapse mechanism'! I'm assuming by this you mean the totally unsupported idea that a slab of concrete fell and caused a whole skyscraper to collapse, top to bottom. Not once, but twice! Not only does the NIST report not provide any evidence here, as there is none and this is total conjecture, but you are being extremely hypocritical by embracing this idea while dismissing others that offer much better explanations, ie demolition.

The implications of the buildings being demolished are great, yes, but that is no reason to be stupid and believe total conjecture of magical concrete slabs over the evidence as it aligns with the demolition theory. You cannot have it both ways, and accuse us of conjecture when you yourself believe something so ridiculously unsupported.


Prove that assertion. Provide proof that early on in the NIST investigation they did not consider all possibilities.

Just because they did not list all those possibilities in the final report does not mean that they did not consider them.


Since they did not say they considered other possibilities, and they did not detail any findings or research on any other investigated causes, we must assume that they did not investigate any other possibilities.

Is that hard to comprehend? Are you not familiar with scientific reports, maybe? And do you have any evidence that they did research other possibilities?

Because, Howard, if you don't, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that they did. You can't use the same reasoning back, either, because this is supposed to be a freaking professional, scientific report! They're supposed to publish all of their findings and how they got to the conclusions that they did. When this is the case, and they don't even mention a possibility, it's safe to say they likewise didn't investigate it. That's the sad truth. You might as well stop trying this bit. I also have to unrestrain myself to say that if you think just because NIST doesn't say something, then it cannot be true, then you are quite frankly a fool, plain and simple. It's their job to publish their findings.


Edit: Part of my original post was missing.


[edit on 26-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I want to say to HowardRoark:

The fact that you are defensive about this topic is understandable. It's a pretty sensitive subject. I did want you to just answer this question:

I think it's pretty much understood, that it takes a lot of different forces at once to collapse -- let alone implode -- a skyscraper. Would I say it's possible that a collapse by these buildings could happen from being hit by a plane? Yes.

However, what are the odds that three separate buildings, with three separate instances, would all completely implode in one day from fire?

The coincidence must at least be huge right? We are talking about certain support beams being taken out, jet fuel pooling in the right spots to weaken the supports equally, immensly hot burning fires, and a pretty uniform collapse. (not once, but twice... and one more time without the plane in building 7).

What do you suppose the odds are? Seriously.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by white4life420]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
The steel a week after the attack (in some places) was abit over 1350 FH.

That's some magical steel there, an Office fire can do that?

I remember hearing from people after 9/11 that the debris was still smoking like a month after the attack.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
That'd be an interesting claim to follow up, Aelphaeis. I'm not aware of any photographs showing any steel from the WTC glowing any colors indicative of being heated to high temperatures, either before or after collapse. However, I remember back when all of this was still happening, that the debris at Ground Zero was smoking for a very long time after the collapses. I didn't suspect anything at the time, but I also understand that explosives like C4 can cause just that sort of effect somehow or another.

Can anybody with more knowledge on this sort of thing shed any light on the long-smoldering debris and how that may tie in with specific types explosives?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can anybody with more knowledge on this sort of thing shed any light on the long-smoldering debris and how that may tie in with specific types explosives?


How about reading my post on this page about 4 posts above yours?

Could the answers you're looking for be somewhere in there?

Take a look....How could you have missed it?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can anybody with more knowledge on this sort of thing shed any light on the long-smoldering debris and how that may tie in with specific types explosives?


How about reading my post on this page about 4 posts above yours?

Could the answers you're looking for be somewhere in there?

Take a look....How could you have missed it?


Yeah, I saw you were responding to the molten steel bit but wasn't considering your post in terms of what explosives were used in the actual demolition of the building (what I was going for). The explosions mentioned in your post were after the collapse, right? That would sort of create a problem, then, because I was wondering if there was any evidence in the debris as to what was used to bring the buildings down. If explosions went off afterwards, that would certainly affect what evidence would be available.

Maybe you can explain to me what exactly it is that you believe caused those hot spots, Anok, because it's not really something I've looked into or know much about.





top topics



 
4
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join