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.

 

Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Nor is it possible to tell much else about it! From all we can tell from that photo, it's possible that none of that is from a floor slab at all.

But even if those two chunks were from a floor slab - you still understand that the amount of dust to actual chunks is extremely disproportionate, right?


Well, you are right, there is certainly the probability that the dust contained large percentages of materials not related to the concrete floor slabs. This includes ground up drywall from the core area and the tenant build outs, fiberglass from the soundproofing in the walls, above the ceilings and in some of the ceiling tiles, Cellulose from other ceiling tiles, binders and fibers from the fireproofing, etc.




posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Not everyone has all day to trawl the internet, some of us work, go to school/college, spend time with friends and partners, sleep, eat, go out, fish, go shooting, bike riding, running, jogging, walking, go to the movies, walk on the beach, shop, party, etc, etc.
It's not that easy to find stuff sometimes that's good enough quality to watch.
And all the stuff that I saw from a 'conpiracy' site that you or bsBray I think posted seemed to show that the demo theory was crap anyway.

You didn't respond very well I must say, sometimes silence is better than trying to have the last word (Yes I know I should pay attention to my own advice sometimes
).

[edit on 25-8-2005 by AgentSmith]


You can say that again. Some of us guys have LIVES. We have girlfriends. (Do you?) We have school, jobs, sports, etc. Some of us just don't have the time to be exposed to and suckered in to believing some wacked out conspiracies.
just joking.


If you really can't find the video's of the two towers collapsing then what the hell are you doing on this forum ? You sure aren't looking for the truth.


Of course I have seen and can find videos of the towers collapsing. It is just that I've never seen any one of them that remotely shows me that the building exploded to cause the collapse. These close videos show that what appears to be an explosion was caused BY the collapse instead of the explosion causing it:

www.911research.com...

www.911research.com...

ps. Those vids even came from one of your own beloved websites.
[edit on 25-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

[edit on 25-8-2005 by DaTerminator]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I think he is talking about the mystery explosion hoax



[edit on 25-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
so far you tried to point out that

first
- squibs are coming from escaping air.
then
- there are no squibs! just smudges on the screen.
now
- look at this, a video of a smoke plume without showing any collapsing tower and as such not one squib, but lets point and laugh anyway.

Could you guys collectively agree on something ? Would make it easier to comprehend what it is you're trying to proof.

And thanks DaTerminator for backing me up, that north tower video shows exactly the movement of the camera before the tower collapses.
Or do you mean that was from the first tower falling ? Mere seconds before the second one ? I don't need to paste the timeline do I ?



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
OMG, i can't believe this forum has grown a few more pages. There is only one explaination for this.....monkies. Because you see a monkey would only think up a conspiracy as outlandish as this. Now, i know they "appear" to be human, but don't that fool you.

You see, i've uncovered my OWN conspiracy TRUTH. Conspiracy theorists have been trying for decades to get people to believe in their total B.S. However, this truth didn't SINK IN because the reasoning of it came from the semi-intellect of the human brain. Conspiracy Theorists had enough intellect to realize in order to fool the average norm they HAD to create the PERFECT CONSPIRACY THEORIST MIND. In order to do this, they HAD to mate with primates. This happened back in the 70's and 80's and now we see PROOF POSITIVE. These same abominations of human-monkey spliced D.N.A. results are posting on these very same boards. They speak english, they have drivers licences, they seem to human. However, they're monkies.

These same monkies have taken over corporate America. I know you've seen them. You see them every day, on the interstate not using their turn signals...etc. Your boss may very well be a monkey. You see, they shave enough of their hair off to "LOOK" like they're human.

This is NO joke. I've uncovered the TRUTH. Don't let these monkies tell any of you any different! They want to take over your minds!



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Congrats on your ability to rant mercilessly without offering any real evidence, Faust.

In response, I ask you to look in the eye...





Alright. Hopefully it's all out of your system by now, and you can get back to your ever-so-long nap.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Congrats on your ability to rant mercilessly without offering any real evidence, Faust.


As he was pointing out, everyone else seems to do it. He has as much 'evidence' as you or anyone else.
Know you now know how some of us feel about some of these elaborate, over the top and unlikely theories.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by bsbray11
Congrats on your ability to rant mercilessly without offering any real evidence, Faust.


As he was pointing out, everyone else seems to do it. He has as much 'evidence' as you or anyone else.
Know you now know how some of us feel about some of these elaborate, over the top and unlikely theories.


And here you go, also ranting.

What about what we have posted so far is so unscientific? Do you just automatically dismiss any evidence any conspiracy theorist brings forward out of hand? Or do you actually examine it in an unbiased fashion? Because we have brought points forward that, even if wrong, are totally valid questions in regards to the collapses, etc. And yet all you have really done, AgentSmith, and Faust, is ridicule these theories, dismiss them out of hand, and provide no reasonable rebuttal. I could provide a lot of examples, but it would be just as easy for one of you two to go over to one of the other threads and look at the discussions going on there, using references to physics and structural engineering and sources and photographic and video evidence.. And there is an actual debate. What you two are doing is arguing. I don't know what to tell you, because you don't seem to grasp the difference, but rest assured that what we are saying is not so nutty as you may like. You would know this for yourself, whether you'd like to admit it or not, if you were to actually take part in one of these more intelligent discussions in the other threads.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
just ignore them, they're obviously in need of some attention.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Now I'm a big skeptic of 9/11 conspiracies. I've heard alot of irrational takes on the subject from illuminati mind-controlled people hijacking airliners to ufo's crashing into the pentagon. To me, this is all irrational and if you would like to prove me wrong go ahead.

I watched the towers burn. I watched as the second jet crashed into the side of the building while people watched in terror. I have seen video footage of the 19 terrorists entering the plane and heard audio of the telephone calls concerning the hijackers. I find it insulting to believe anything other than that islamic terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden materminded and executed the 9/11 attacks. Where is your logic? Mind explaining these things to me?




You saw the towers burn. Therefore, Bush is not lying. Is that right ?

Nice logic dude: Did you see Kenny gettin shot too ?

Do you really believe they a lone Oswald did it ?

Come man, you SAW that too !!


Go watch: 9/11 In Plane Site - The Director's Cut

You will soon sooon soooon become a true trueee belieeever.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

Go watch: 9/11 In Plane Site - The Director's Cut

You will soon sooon soooon become a true trueee belieeever.




Does the directors cut have the mystery explosion hoax in it or not?

And one more time, (just for the heck of it)

What they don’t show you in the “in plane site” video.

The exterior columns of WTC 2 bowing inward just prior to the collapse.



the exterior columns of WTC 1 bowing inward, just prior o the collapse


"You will soon sooon soooon become a true trueee belieeever."

Spoken like a true carney hypnotist.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
mr conspiracy you have no idea, these are people that would buy the magic bullet theory sooner then a government conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

And one more time, (just for the heck of it)

What they don’t show you in the “in plane site” video.

The exterior columns of WTC 2 bowing inward just prior to the collapse.



Here we go again with the buckling.

Nobody is saying that didn't happen Howard, get that through your thick skull, but it's in no way proof for a total collapse.
Just because a tower has damage to the upper part does not make it ok for it to come down.
Keep thinking a little piece of the tower has enough weight and momentum to crush the rest of the tower though and you'll story will hold up just fine.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
the first thing that came into my mind when i saw the first tower fall
was "oh they decided to implode them in case they might fall down on their own" and was laughed at by co workers (probobly should have kept that thought to myself) anyway the more and more i read about it, it seems as if my initial thoughts were correct



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Keep thinking a little piece of the tower has enough weight and momentum to crush the rest of the tower though and you'll story will hold up just fine.


And just how much do you suppose that "little piece of the tower" weighed?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Shroomery
Keep thinking a little piece of the tower has enough weight and momentum to crush the rest of the tower though and you'll story will hold up just fine.


And just how much do you suppose that "little piece of the tower" weighed?



That's pretty much irrelevant, but I'd assume about somethig along the lines of less then 1/10th of the remaining tower (very generous number).
Ever crushed something that's 10 times heavier than yourself Howard ?
Try crushing an 800 kg car by jumping of a ladder.

But I hear the apples and oranges excuse coming up.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Shroomery]

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Just because a tower has damage to the upper part does not make it ok for it to come down. Keep thinking a little piece of the tower has enough weight and momentum to crush the rest of the tower though and you'll story will hold up just fine.


That piece of tower is able to fall through the floors, wich causes whole tower to collapse.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464

Just because a tower has damage to the upper part does not make it ok for it to come down. Keep thinking a little piece of the tower has enough weight and momentum to crush the rest of the tower though and you'll story will hold up just fine.


That piece of tower is able to fall through the floors, wich causes whole tower to collapse.


Yes, how nice of you to explain the pancake theory in such detail yet again, I was beginning to think I had missed a few points.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And just how much do you suppose that "little piece of the tower" weighed?


That's pretty much irrelevant, but I'd assume about somethig along the lines of less then 1/10th of the remaining tower (very generous number).
Ever crushed something that's 10 times heavier than yourself Howard ?
Try crushing an 800 kg car by jumping of a ladder.

But I hear the apples and oranges excuse coming up.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Shroomery]

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Shroomery]


Oh, my.


Just when I thought you couldn’t come up with anything more ridiculous, you pull out a doozy.

It appears to me that your contention is that the top part should not have collapsed the bottom part because the top part only weighed 1/10th the mass of the bottom.

In other words, you seem to feel that the structural strength of a building is related entirely to its mass. Is this correct?

BTW, are you familiar with the terms “live load” and “dead load” when used in connection with structural engineering?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And just how much do you suppose that "little piece of the tower" weighed?


That's pretty much irrelevant, but I'd assume about somethig along the lines of less then 1/10th of the remaining tower (very generous number).
Ever crushed something that's 10 times heavier than yourself Howard ?
Try crushing an 800 kg car by jumping of a ladder.

But I hear the apples and oranges excuse coming up.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Shroomery]

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Shroomery]


Oh, my.


Just when I thought you couldn’t come up with anything more ridiculous, you pull out a doozy.

It appears to me that your contention is that the top part should not have collapsed the bottom part because the top part only weighed 1/10th the mass of the bottom.

In other words, you seem to feel that the structural strength of a building is related entirely to its mass. Is this correct?

BTW, are you familiar with the terms “live load” and “dead load” when used in connection with structural engineering?



I wanted to say it Howard, but even though my puny mind could 'picture' or 'see' it I didn't know the words/terms to explain it


The worst thing though, was that it is just too big to put in the signature box...

[edit on 26-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join