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: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04
I thought neo-nazis were far left wing and for more government? So they could control the population. By suggesting someone is far-right wing i would believe that to mean that they were conservative.

defined as "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change"



Here you go:


The term "far-right" is often used to describe persons or groups who hold nationalist, racist, religious extremist, or reactionary views. This can include ideologies that range from absolute monarchism to neo-nazism and fascism. The term has also been used for certain populist or authoritarian regimes.

In some contexts—particularly in the United States—the term "far-right" may also be used to denote supporters of extreme conservatism, such as paleoconservatives and other isolationists; it is occasionally applied to the supporters of extreme laissez-faire capitalism such as some libertarians. However, libertarians have little or no political connection to most other groups labeled "far-right".
en.wikipedia.org...



In the majority of present-day countries, the far-left is seen as being composed of communist or anarchist groups, who strongly oppose capitalist governments and institutions. Sometimes the term "far left" is used pejoratively by those on the right wing to describe any view they perceive as hostile to capitalism.en.wikipedia.org...




where did you get that image from? I'd like a link. i've got photoshop and can make some squiggly lines too.


I've added the link to the original post, it is reproduced in that Popular Mechanics article but it originates from the seismic laboratory that the accompanying graph also comes from. Of course most conspiracy sites like to omit the detail graph as it throws doubt into their wild claims.



as for the 50 ton press..

he said “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!”

that doesn't suggest to me that it was broken up into pieces.. it makes me think exactly what he says.. which is that it is gone, no where to be found, incenerated, vaporized, whatever.


No it means that it was no longer in view, the force required to actually vaporise it would be so immense there wouldn't be anything for him to be standing on to look to see if it's there, it was obviously covered or had gone through a wall (and probably still covered).
Explosions will tend to just blow objects away if they are not securely attached to anything, I don't think you grasp the explosive force necessary to vapourise an object like that and the effect it would have in turn to it's enviroment.


Originally posted by Senseless04:
So how again was a 50 ton press vaporized?


Why do you keep saying 'vaporised'? as you said in your previous post to that he said it was 'gone', stop trying to exaggerate things to your own end.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]




posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

No it means that it was no longer in view, the force required to actually vaporise it would be so immense there wouldn't be anything for him to be standing on to look to see if it's there, it was obviously covered or had gone through a wall (and probably still covered).
Explosions will tend to just blow objects away if they are not securely attached to anything, I don't think you grasp the explosive force necessary to vapourise an object like that and the effect it would have in turn to it's enviroment.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]


so you agree that there were tremendous forces at work. I don't doubt that. What i do doubt is that a 747 crashing 90 stories up caused it.

the explosion again was 90 stories (1080feet) away... how was the explosion so big that it picked up and "blew away" a 100,000lb press. Roughly 1/3 the weight of a 747.

extremely doubtful, unless of course you throw some c4 or thermite into the equation.






[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Oh, there were multiple explosions. That couldn't possibly be because as I pointed out there were fuel lines and multiple tanks throughout the building, now could it?
Nor is there any chance what so ever that there were truck bombs as well, which have been used in every previous Al Qaida attack on the trade center.

Nope, there were multiple explosions and a really big fire- obviously a sign that the government did it.

Also, you have apparently been trying to convince me that there could not possibly have been a fire under all that rubble, but lo and behold, there was. What you say is impossible did in fact happen.
How would a government bomb maintain that heat for so long any better than a gas explosion?

If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid. It happened, therefore it was possible.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04
the explosion was 90 stories away... how was the explosion so big that it picked up and "blew away" a 100,000lb press. Roughly 1/3 the weight of a 747.

extremely doubtful, unless of course you throw some c4 or thermite into the equation.


You obviously have never made or seen Thermite in action, it doesn't explode for a start.

It didn't weigh 50 tonnes, do you have a reading impediment? That refers to the pressure it exerts. IT most certainly does not weigh 1/3 weight of a 747.


If there had been an explosion caused by explosives at that point, what purpose would it have served? Obivously it was not at a time the building collapsed as the guy was in it. And once again, the force necessary to vaporise the device would have left so little of the room the fact there was no press in there would have been the last thing on his mind.

And as you obviously underestimate the potential force of fuel air mixture explosions, I suggest you do some research.
Jeez man, just look at the force generated in an engine by very little fuel and air? I know it's a near perfect mixture, but magnify it a few times....

IF you lived in the UK I'd suggest watching 'Brainiac', it's a stupid but funny program, but they do interesting stuff like blowing up caravans with a different explosive every week, it is interesting to see the effect different explosives have.
The best one was Oxygen and Acetylene, but that's a different story.


[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Oh, there were multiple explosions. That couldn't possibly be because as I pointed out there were fuel lines and multiple tanks throughout the building, now could it?
Nor is there any chance what so ever that there were truck bombs as well, which have been used in every previous Al Qaida attack on the trade center.

Nope, there were multiple explosions and a really big fire- obviously a sign that the government did it.

Also, you have apparently been trying to convince me that there could not possibly have been a fire under all that rubble, but lo and behold, there was. What you say is impossible did in fact happen.
How would a government bomb maintain that heat for so long any better than a gas explosion?

If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid. It happened, therefore it was possible.


nero, started fire to rome to blame it on the christians
hitler, burned the reischstag to blame it on poland
kgb, caught planting a bomb in a hotel near czech republic to blame it on them, to continue the war
mi6, caught planting a bomb in a government office by scotlandyard of all people to blame it on the ira

"If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid. It happened, therefore it was possible. "

indeed.

most of what you mentioned (except the fuel tanks igniting, which im not sure is in the official report or not) is not in the official report, meaning.. that isnt the way it happened. So trying to convince me that I am wrong, you have proven yourself, that the official story is questionable.

Release the video and audio tapes from the pentagon and the fire fighters..



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Oh for the love of God Senseless, please do not do as Agent Smith has suggested. Do not even play with matches. If you don't respect it, don't mess with it. Or at least wait till fire season is over if you live anywhere near me.

If you would like to see what air-fuel explosives can do though, just screw around with the fuel pressure regulator in your car. Be warned though, if it does what I've seen it do to a friend's car in the past, it will COMPLETELY DESTROY you intake manifold. We're talking about just the small amount of gas that is in there- not even a fraction of the whole gas tank.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

You obviously have never made or seen Thermite in action, it doesn't explode for a start.

It didn't weigh 50 tonnes, do you have a reading impediment? That refers to the pressure it exerts. IT most certainly does not weigh 1/3 weight of a 747.


If there had been an explosion caused by explosives at that point, what purpose would it have served? Obivously it was not at a time the building collapsed as the guy was in it. And once again, the force necessary to vaporise the device would have left so little of the room the fact there was no press in there would have been the last thing on his mind.

And as you obviously underestimate the potential force of fuel air mixture explosions, I suggest you go experiment in a field somewhere and get some idea of what your talking about.
Jeez man, just look at the force generated in an engine by very little fuel and air? I know it's an ideal mixture, but magnify it a few times....



LA LA LA LA LA.. your disinformation is getting old.

1) Yes, i have seen in thermite in action, and yes i know it does not explode. All you guys who are trying to prove the conspiracy theorist wrong dont even have a clue what we're arguing.

2) If it was a press with a maximum pressure of 50 tons it would read "a small ass hydraulic press with the lifting capability of 50 tons was gone". Instead it read "a 50 ton press was gone".

I'm reminded of the camel through the eye of a needle argument.

3) The reason fuel can be so explosive is pressure. If you take a stick of dynomite worth of powder and throw it on the ground it isnt going to explode. If you roll it up into a tight roll and apply pressure, it exerts more initial force causing a blast radius to be exerted from the stick.


for as long as you've been arguing with me (4 hours now) i'm going to have to conclude that you're a disinformationist..

IM NOT TRYING TO MAKE UP MY OWN STORY OR TRYING TO SAY I KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

IM JUST TRYING TO PROVE THAT THE ENTIRE INCIDENT WAS QUESTIONABLE AND THAT THERE ARE MANY LIES ABOUT EVEN WHAT TIME CHENEY WAS AT NORAD.

Official story 10:10, nothing corroborates it.

there is a lie, which is enough cause to question the entire incident.

WHICH OPENS A CAN OF WORMS THAT CANNOT BE CLOSED, NO ANSWERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR ANY INCONSISTENCIES FOR THE REPORT. JUST MORE COVER UPS AND DISINFORMATION. Theyve changed the facts how many times now?


Larry silverstein admitted to blowing up the building!

.....

There is nothing to argue, he admits it.

Go watch the movie in my bio, for until an official story which has answers to the unsolved questions and apparent inconsistencies .... Until that is made avalible, this is open to question and arguement.

If you want to end this once and for all, call up the white house and ask them to release the rest of the footage.

then everyone will know, and it wont be refutable.





[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Oh, it has to be enclosed? So if for example you had a bunch of fuel enclosed in a big friggin tank, it would go boom pretty well?

And yes, Agent Smith really is THE Agent Smith- he's a disinfo agent here to keep you locked in the Matrix. Give me a break. Maybe he's just smarter than you and is trying to help you out so you don't make a fool of yourself.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Oh, it has to be enclosed? So if for example you had a bunch of fuel enclosed in a big friggin tank, it would go boom pretty well?

And yes, Agent Smith really is THE Agent Smith- he's a disinfo agent here to keep you locked in the Matrix. Give me a break. Maybe he's just smarter than you and is trying to help you out so you don't make a fool of yourself.



Larry silverstein admitted to blowing up the building!

.....

There is nothing to argue, he admits it.

Go watch the movie in my bio, for until an official story which has answers to the unsolved questions and apparent inconsistencies .... Until that is made avalible, this is open to question and arguement.

If you want to end this once and for all, call up the white house and ask them to release the rest of the footage.

then everyone will know, and it wont be refutable.

4.5hrs of this is enough for me, ill come back and argue more tomorrow i guess.. before i can respond ive already got 2 more responses to respond to. sheesh, now i know why i didnt joint he debate team.

Even senators are starting to wake up to this fact. For something that is supposed to be "the official story" there seem to be less and less "officials" that agree with it.







[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
That's a convenient way of saying it. He said that they decided to "pull it", speaking only of WTC 7. He didn't "admit to blowing up" anything.

"Pull it" is pretty ambiguous. It might mean one thing in demolition, but it would mean something entirely different for somebody making a decision about an effort to save a building.

I worked in construction for a few years. Pull it, kick rocks, hit the white line, roll up, etc- were common expressions for quitting for the day.
I suppose that if my boss told me to hit the white line you'd assume that I was doing coc aine, just because in some circles it means one thing while in my circle it meant another?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04
1) Yes, i have seen in thermite in action, and yes i know it does not explode. All you guys who are trying to prove the conspiracy theorist wrong dont even have a clue what we're arguing.


Your right I don't, mind filling me in?



2) If it was a press with a maximum pressure of 50 tons it would read "a small ass hydraulic press with the lifting capability of 50 tons was gone". Instead it read "a 50 ton press was gone".


I do office work in a workshop enviroment, when we talk about a press in term of tonnes we are talking about the pressure it exerts.

Type '50 Tonne Hydraulic press' into google and the first thing is:


50 Tonne Hydraulic Workshop Press Extra High

Capacity (tonnes) : 50
O/A Frame Height mm : 2230
Frame Height mm : 2030
O/A Frame Width mm : 1560
Frame Width mm : 1270
O/A Frame Depth : 800
Min.Daylight mm : 270
Max.Daylight mm : 1170
Side Clearance between Posts mm : 260
Front Clearance between Posts mm : 1050
Ram Stroke mm : 175
Pump type: Two Stage
Approx. Weight Kg : 690



www.swge.co.uk...


Only weighs 690Kg, that's a shade over half a tonne. What's your 747 made from? Cornflake packets?

I'll just go tell the guys in the workshop that we've been referring to our press in the wrong way, because senseless says so, shall I?



3) The reason fuel can be so explosive is pressure. If you take a stick of
dynomite worth of powder and throw it on the ground it isnt going to explode. If you roll it up into a tight roll and apply pressure, it exerts more initial force causing a blast radius to be exerted from the stick.


I am aware of that, I have seen explosives in action. As has been pointed out the source may have been gas lines, or the fuel coming down shafts.
It is possible for these things to happen.
In the town I used to live in the whole front of the kebab shop was blown out in the night from a fire that started and ignited a gas canister, literally blown out across the street.
Maybe Bush did that too heh?

These things happen all the time in 'normal' fires, no-one thinks it's weird then do they?



for as long as you've been arguing with me (4 hours now) i'm going to have to conclude that you're a disinformationist..


Oo you as well, I'm going to run out of room on my monitor for all the ticks.
I just get fed up with hearing the same tired stories every damn week which stops us from pursuing the more interesting stuff.



IM NOT TRYING TO MAKE UP MY OWN STORY OR TRYING TO SAY I KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

IM JUST TRYING TO PROVE THAT THE ENTIRE INCIDENT WAS QUESTIONABLE AND THAT THERE ARE MANY LIES ABOUT EVEN WHAT TIME CHENEY WAS AT NORAD.


Oh I don't deny that, I just think that the explosives story is so weak that everyone spends too much time discussing it instead of looking at the more interesting stuff.
It wouldn't be so bad if every day/week for 2/3 years someone piped up with the same tired old argument that have already been discussed to death. Thing is by allowing them to continue it makes the whole 'investigation' go backwards instead of forwards, how many times do we have to go over the hydraulic press?
How many times do we have to go over the temperatures of the fires?
How many times do we have to go over the seismic reading.. geez..


[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
By the way, I assume you are aware that it takes a lot of careful time and planning to "pull" a building. You don't just run in and throw a few bombs on the floor and run out and flip the switch. No one in his right mind would do that. Why in the heck would the fire department allow something so hasty and disorganized, which could easily cost additional lives?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I'm arguing that the entire official version of events is questionable enough to warrant and independent investigation into 9/11

How do we know it wasnt a 1000 ton press that weight 50 tons? he just says 50 tons, could be weight, could be max pressure.

People do however think its weird that 3 steel structures collapse in 1 day, after many before it have been raging infernos, and not collapsed. Which also had backup diesel power systems.

So by questioning inconsistencies im bad? Maybe they should oulaw dissent!

to respond to vega.. yes i am aware. if you look at the collapse of the tower, debris are thrown in a huge area as they collapse.

tower 7 on the other hand was demolished no if and or buts about that one.

by the way, i havent mentioned yet that the fire fighters said that the fires were "to small isolated pockets of fire" and the guy on the radio "should be able to take it down with 2 lines over".

the fire fighters seem to think there were explosives all over the building. I guess we won't know since most of the tapes right before the collapse have been labeled secret. Wonder why.

It did cost additional lives, 1 secret service agent died in tower 7. I called for larry silverstein to be arrested per his comments on america rebuilds.

I'll call columbia universities seismology dept and see if they can forward me over a copy of the 9/11 blast. I'll even try to get ahold of the guy about the press to see exactly what kind of press it was.

nero, hitler, kgb, mi6, cia.



[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04
I'm arguing that the entire official version of events is questionable enough to warrant and independent investigation into 9/11


Fine, but don't go jumping to irrational conclusions or nobody will ever take you serious enough for such an investigation to be conducted.


How do we know it wasnt a 1000 ton press that weight 50 tons? he just says 50 tons, could be weight, could be max pressure.


Because hydrolic presses are rated and described by capacity, not actual weight. Same with trucks. Didn't you ever notice how a half ton truck is exactly the same size as a 3/4 ton truck? That's just how it goes.


People do however think its weird that 3 steel structures collapse in 1 day, after many before it have been raging infernos, and not collapsed. Which also had backup diesel power systems.


Considering the size, vintage and vintage of these particular buildings and nature of the fire? No, not really.


to respond to vega.. yes i am aware. if you look at the collapse of the tower, debris are thrown in a huge area as they collapse.


Exactly. Not what you'd expect from a controlled demolition. It would have taken A LOT more explosives to do it that way, and the NYFD never would have allowed it.


by the way, i havent mentioned yet that the fire fighters said that the fires were "to small isolated pockets of fire"


Perhaps speaking for one isolated area. Looking at the big picture there is no question that the fire was signficantly larger, since it in fact survived the collapse and continued burning for a very considerable period of time.


It did cost additional lives, 1 secret service agent died in tower 7. I called for larry silverstein to be arrested per his comments on america rebuilds.


Now we're going to arrest everybody whose words you take at the wrong meaning?


I'll call columbia universities seismology dept and see if they can forward me over a copy of the 9/11 blast.


Proving what exactly? That there was an explosion and then a large thud as the largest building in NYC can tumbling down? That wouldn't do anything to rule out the strong possibility that they recorded the schock of fuel tank explosions and building collaspses.

As for the 50 ton press- do you have any idea how much 50 tons is? That's SIGNIFICANTLY bigger than the Telsmith jaw crusher we used in the pit where I worked for crushing solid friggin granite into aggregate. What do you think a press so large that it weighed 50 tons would be used for in the WTC? Were they smashing engine blocks into flat sheets to be stamped into coinage????



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Oh, there were multiple explosions. That couldn't possibly be because as I pointed out there were fuel lines and multiple tanks throughout the building, now could it?
Nor is there any chance what so ever that there were truck bombs as well, which have been used in every previous Al Qaida attack on the trade center.


You do know that the FBI let those 93 bombings happen or even ordered them to?

www.lectlaw.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Funny, not even Coast to Coast AM has gone that far. I was aware of Salaam's contact with the FBI, but my understanding was that it was a botched sting operation, in which their informant ended up stabbing them in the back.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Considering the size, vintage and vintage of these particular buildings and nature of the fire? No, not really.

Exactly. Not what you'd expect from a controlled demolition. It would have taken A LOT more explosives to do it that way, and the NYFD never would have allowed it.

Perhaps speaking for one isolated area. Looking at the big picture there is no question that the fire was signficantly larger, since it in fact survived the collapse and continued burning for a very considerable period of time.

Now we're going to arrest everybody whose words you take at the wrong meaning?


8/5/1970 a 50 Story office building in new york burned for 6 hours

may 4 1988 a 62 story sky scraper in los angeles burned for 3 hours over 4 floors

feb 23 1991 a 38 story sky scraper in philidelphia built in 1973 burned for 19 hours over 13 floors

oct 17 2004 a 56 story sky scraper in venezuela built in 1976 burned for 17 hours over 26 floors

WTC 1 and 2 were built in 1970 & 1973

The south tower fell first, the plane hit the south east corner. If this was due to jet fuel, the tower shouldve bent over like someone climbing out onto a tree limb.

By all means, 45 minutes is not a considerable amount of time. With the amount of smoke, and the lack of visible flame would suggest to me that the fire was smothered.

People have called him to ask him what he ment by what he said. He refuses to comment about it. Other people have speculated and twisted his words to mean this or that. But really, unless he comes out and says what he means we'll never know. I would say, it is definately indictable.

There are rumors circling that the bush administration has been subpoenad to court for the valarie plume incident, others speculate something more. I have a feeling we'll know one way or another for sure real soon. If they are being indicted for attempting to hijack the country, they'll set off a nuke and declare martial law real quick. Or, they'll be vindicated.







[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The structures you mention are all roughly half the size of the WTC's twin towers. That's a lot more weight to hold on weakened steel.

As for the fact that flames didn't continue gushing out of the impact holes, has it ever occurred to you that once a fire has burned up all available fuel in an area, it no longer burns in that area, although it would have spread to other areas?
The fire made its way down to the diesel tanks and that was all she friggin wrote, that's my theory on the matter.

As for the indictment, we shall see. Bush's presidency is so controversial that the indictment and even a conviction in and of itself would be virtually meaningless. When, or should I say IF we see the evidence, we'll have to weigh it for ourselves. I doubt there will be anything conclusive- or anything even relating to the WTC attack



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The structures you mention are all roughly half the size of the WTC's twin towers. That's a lot more weight to hold on weakened steel.


they also had far less structural support. no 47 central colums, or 150 exterior colums.

I feel sorry for anyone who works in the sears tower, or the large twin-tower in malaysia. If a little more weight can cause that much damage....



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The structures you mention are all roughly half the size of the WTC's twin towers. That's a lot more weight to hold on weakened steel.


That doesn't matter and you know that very well...
That's like saying a boeing could never fly cause it's a gazillion times heavier then a musquito.

In fact, if anything a larger building will stand longer because the fires have to spread over a larger area.




top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join