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.

 

Just how convoluted can you get?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
some replies to points raised , in no particular order :

" dust "- what exactly does dust proove ? the mechanical collapse of the structure would produce all the dust you could ever want and more besides


" squibs " - a quick look at just what a squib is: en.wikipedia.org...(explosive) pay particular notice to " very suseptible to EM radiation "

" missile / plane " half the audience are back peddling , and the rest claiming " remote control " - KISS
in any senario you have to dispose of the jets and passengers , so flying them into buildings is the best " solution " for any senario

alas thats all for now

Mod Edit: Fixed Link



[edit on 11/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I'm simply waiting for any PROOF of anything happening other then what 90% of experts claim happened... with the other 10% not being able to make up their minds.

Understanding construction & controlled demolition, how else would those towers have fallen? Fall over like a tree? Open like a banana? Make no dust?

Looking for answers to questions that have been answered with PROOF, though you may not like or even understand, does not constitute PROOF or even plausible DOUBT in a rationally thinking person's book.

Finding "experts" who perpetuate questions like these isn't really that hard, but finding "reliable experts" is...



[edit on 11-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
What proof are you talking about? The fake hijacker list? The missing black boxes? The never shown security tape? The fires that weren't there?

Are you talking about the same experts who claim that building 7 came down because of fires? The same experts that are claiming fires also brought down the other two towers?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
some replies to points raised , in no particular order :

" dust "- what exactly does dust proove ? the mechanical collapse of the structure would produce all the dust you could ever want and more besides


Not without explosives.

It requires energy to turn concrete slabs into a fine powder, and it would require a great deal of it to turn concrete slabs into fine powder on such a degree as you saw on 9/11. Steel beams falling onto slabs of concrete will break them up, and produce some dust (but also much larger chunks), but if you want to explode those mother's into nothing but a fine powder, you're going to need a source of energy that is far greater than falling steel beams, especially when those beams are only on the outer-most and inner-most parts of the buildings.


" squibs " - a quick look at just what a squib is: en.wikipedia.org...(explosive) pay particular notice to " very suseptible to EM radiation "


Just so you know, "squib" is also a demolition term for an explosion caused by a charge. But you can call them cottage cheeses if you want. The fact is that there were explosions coming out of those buildings laterally as they fell, exactly as happens in controlled demolitions, and there is absolutely no physics-based explanation of what in the blue hell they were going by any of the theories sympathetic with the official lie.


" missile / plane " half the audience are back peddling , and the rest claiming " remote control " - KISS
in any senario you have to dispose of the jets and passengers , so flying them into buildings is the best " solution " for any senario


Who's still claiming a missile?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I'm simply waiting for any PROOF of anything happening other then what 90% of experts claim happened... with the other 10% not being able to make up their minds.


Besides pulling those figures out of your ass, keep in mind that there is no PROOF of the official story, either. None. All theorizing. They've come up with their theories on how the towers collapse, just as we have ours.

However, their theories all have at least three huge problems from a physics point of view:

1) The disappearance of the angular momentum of the top floors of the buildings during collapse.

2) The lack of retardation of collapse speed (which was way too fast anyway) as the force that would have been bearing down on the lower floors began coming down the sides, etc., and the building ended up with something like 80% of its mass ejected outside of its footprint. And yet no retardation in the speed of the collapse.

3) The explosions blowing concrete powder laterally from the buildings as they collapse, before the collapse is even near the particular region of the building, for which no theory sympathetic to the official story can account.

Those are just three serious problems that I can come up with off the top of my head. These are physics problems, scientific errors, that your theory makes. Again, your theory is no more proven than the "conspiracy theories." But our "theories" have no problem accounting for those problems in your theory. So while you may not have the proof you desire from either side, you can figure out which one makes more sense, and it isn't yours.


Understanding construction & controlled demolition, how else would those towers have fallen? Fall over like a tree? Open like a banana? Make no dust?


Are you supporting the demolition theory now? That's what it sounds like.

"Fall over like a tree?" Yes! The tops of the buildings would have. This is the whole angular momentum issue. When the towers began falling, this is exactly what was about to happen.





But then, this angular momentum mysteriously vanishes!, and the buildings, tops and all, proceed to fall perfectly symmetrically and vertically, exactly like a controlled demo down onto their footprint.

Well guess what? The disappearance of this tilt is physically impossible without explosions destroying the frames of the top floors! It's as simple as that; end of discussion; scientific fact. The only way that the angular momentum you see in the above pictures could *mysteriously* disappear, is if the object fails to continue acting as a single solid object. That means those sections of the buildings had their frames destroyed. This is all according to the law of conservation of angular momentum. If you want to argue against this scientific fact, you will have to "debunk" a scientific law. Good luck, I say.

And again, you can expect dust from a gravity-driven collapse, but also very large pieces, ie, chunks of concrete. What you got on 9/11 was nothing but freaking dust, as if the slabs had been exposed to powerful explosions that sent forth enough energy to so thoroughly pulverize those slabs. This is borderline common sense. The steel columns were on the outside of the buildings (perimeter columns), and on the innermost part around the offices (core columns), and yet whole #ing sheets of concrete are somehow turned to dust via these columns falling by gravity. And you even have photos and video footage of this dust being produced before the collapse even gets to that part of the building, blown out of massive lateral explosions!! It doesn't take a freaking genius to realize something's up with that!


Looking for answers to questions that have been answered with PROOF, though you may not like or even understand, does not constitute PROOF or even plausible DOUBT in a rationally thinking person's book.


The official story has no proof. Maybe you're not familiar with the scientific method? There needs to be something called reproducibility. Hypotheses need to be tested via experiments, and these experiments need to have reproducible results that confirm the hypothesis. There is a whole thread on this forum challenging people to prove the official lie, and no one can do it. People have been trying to simulate the WTC collapses for over four years based on the official explanations, and haven't been able to get squat. Long story short, the official explanations have no proof, and to claim that they do shows an ignorance of the scientific method.

Edited for grammar.

[edit on 11-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Again, I believe that YOU might believe this stuff. I also believe that YOU even think it is supported by “scientific fact”. Neither of those make it so. You have taken some basic laws of physics and taken them to a totally illogical degree. I even began to list your points & why they are so weak, but I felt it was too petty. You obviously, due to incomplete knowledge, have your mind made up and will never believe it was not a controlled demolition… by the way, how do you get from;

quote: Understanding construction & controlled demolition, how else would those towers have fallen? Fall over like a tree? Open like a banana? Make no dust?

To;

Are you supporting the demolition theory now? That's what it sounds like.

"Fall over like a tree?" Yes! The tops of the buildings would have. This is the whole angular momentum issue. When the towers began falling, this is exactly what was about to happen.

The last statement really shows your lack of understanding of physics, let alone practical physics. You need to cut down some trees, build some buildings, demolish some buildings or drop some large things from planes some more before you make that leap of logic. Even then, it would be quite a leap. Better yet, take some training & do some parachuting. This brings us back to point that you are taking some very basic principals to an absurd conclusion. One minute you claim they fell “too straight” and another you “80% out of footprint” or some such nonsense… of course I’m paraphrasing, but you need to find a theory & stick to it.

Do you even understand how idiotic YOU sound by saying “nothing but freaking dust” or “no large chunks”. That is almost shameful… though the floors were each huge, each about 50,000 square feet, they were only 4”-6” thick, poured onto metal substrate. I would expect nothing but for them to be totally pulverized. Not to mention all the drywall, ceiling tile, furnishings & such needed to finish the interior of each of the 200+ floors. Do the math… take your time… do you still stand by your asinine statement? Do you realize that controlling dust, debris & dust infiltration to the surrounding area is a massive job in a controlled demolition (YOU maybe have seen one on TV…) taking weeks & 10s of 1000s gallons of water being sprayed? It isn’t as neat & easy as it looks. Do you realize that just one of the towers was 5 times as much mass/area as had EVER been demolished at once? Do you realize NOBODY had ever witnessed a total collapse of buildings this size? If you didn’t see enough “large chunks”, you should get a new cable provider or get your eyes checked. There is also a huge field in North Jersey filled with a lot of “no large chunks”. Do you realize how much “evidence” is left behind with a controlled demolition? Do you realize steel cutting shots are not held in place with playdoe or duct tape, like in the movies? Then again, none of the burn evidence, metallurgy or steel beams support your claims either (ie squibs, missiles, etc), yet they support the “official story”, but I guess that’s why you are not mentioning that. Stick with what you THINK you know.

Though your version lacks most, if not all, merit… logic, proof on film from multiple angles, artifacts, LACK of artifacts, rubble/debris, burn samples, metallurgy & physics DOES support the “official story”, like it or not (ALL the “evidence” is PROOF enough for me). I don’t know what kind of perverted pleasure you are getting from all this but there has been no person, claim/statement, artifact or rubble/debris to support a controlled demolition. Panicked claims of “explosions” (my mother once thought a bomb went off… turned out to be the electric water heater bursting) or lack of understanding (in YOUR mind) to explain puffs of concrete hardly constitute proof (its really kind of laughable that the dust is all you have… oh wait, there’s also the misunderstood physics… sorry). Why is overwhelming evidence not enough for you? I am open to somebody having an alternate point of view, I just insist they have some PROOF, not just another version of events.

Don’t hide behind a claim of “scientific method” or anyone rewriting the laws of physics either (and please don’t post those tired pictures again). There have been a few private studies on the events leading up to & the collapse of the WTC Towers, but they all pretty much come to the same basic conclusion. Honestly, they take some more looking because the internet is swamped with CONSPIRACISTS, like yourself & high school physics students. I’m certain someone, wise as yourself, has found them at some point, but simply discarded them because they were not sensational enough for you. To summarize, there are a few differing “reasons” (lack of fire proofing, inadequate floor beams, floor anchoring brackets, etc) they all lead to total collapse (maybe YOU should visit the Collapse thread, they all disregard the PROOF too). Reproducing a reaction is only needed, to the degree that you are requiring, when basic science & knowledge (with known variables factored in) are not understood. You don’t need to kill a second person to prove how the first died, nor should anyone be expected to do so (especially when it was ALL on film ie evidence). When you trust no one, who do you trust? Even the people with different views about events at the Pentagon have a small amount of circumstantial evidence to help them with their theories. YOU have puffs of dust.

Once again, I have shown up on this thread to see if YOU have any PROOF… and you still don’t. Frankly, I don’t even think YOU believe some of these claims. You may think that I am being a troll (in this case, a relative term), like you stated before, but I simply am trying to keep this thread on topic & asking “How convoluted…” & “where is the PROOF”.

I’ll check back next week, though I’m certain no real proof will be put forth. I realize I am pretty much beating a dead horse, but how else does one show PROOF when faced with ignorance & pseudo science?

BTW- I restrained myself from the obvious joke about “retardation”, so I really am not a “troll”… granted, I did had to point that out! LOL!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
The purpose of the 9/11 & 7/7 Conspiracies Forum is to discuss the various aspects of the specific Conspiracies, not the members participating within the forum. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Thanks.

Moderator Monkeys, not just for being the new sheriff in town anymore...



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Jake,

Congrats! I have to say that your last post was a total ramble and nothing presented in it was the least bit objective. You're nice enough to tell me how weak my understanding of the sciences are, but don't bother telling me how that's so (objectively, anyway).


By comparison, my references to scientific laws, such as the mentioned conservation of angular momentum, are not illegit here. Those top floors should've continued moving in those directions, but they didn't. The top floors stopped moving in that direction because their structures were broken up and they failed to continue to act as a single falling object, but rather a multitude of dissociated steel columns, etc. This would've had to have been accomplished with explosives this early into collapse. I really can't break it down anymore than that.


One minute you claim they fell “too straight” and another you “80% out of footprint” or some such nonsense… of course I’m paraphrasing, but you need to find a theory & stick to it.


The collapses were symmetrical, but somewhere along the lines of 80% of the mass of the buildings were ejected outside of the footprints. The buildings still fell symmetrically, and the centers of gravity were still within the footprints.


Do you even understand how idiotic YOU sound by saying “nothing but freaking dust” or “no large chunks”. That is almost shameful… though the floors were each huge, each about 50,000 square feet, they were only 4”-6” thick, poured onto metal substrate. I would expect nothing but for them to be totally pulverized.


Your reasoning here is that, since the concrete sheets were so massive, it was inevitable that they be ground into such a fine powder and leave no large pieces. I think clarifying your reasoning here is enough of a response.

Eh, I don't really think I have to go on.

When you're ready to evaluate the information objectively, I'll start replying to you again.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the recent allegations / counter allegations regarding the " flash " prior to impacts at the WTC have set me thinking


DISINFORMATION. Missles, millitarized planes, drones flying into the pentagon,e tc. All disinformation, to keep people from the REAL smoking guns like WTC 7, the explosives, NORAD, forewarnings, etc.

If the 911 truth movement focused entirely on the more scientific evidence and anomalies instead of some of this obviously outlandish stuff, people wouldnt be alughing at all of it as tinfoil hat stuff.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
bsbray11: It would seem to me that the top section of the tower correcting its tilt means that it's hitting something on the way down to straighten it out. Otherwise, would it not continue to free fall down at an angle if it had no resistance?

The puffs of dust seem more likely to me to be crushed powder from concrete and wallboard being forced out of broken windows, because of their randomness. There isn't a uniformity I would expect to see if there were explosives on each floor.

I find it more likely that an explosive was set off in the sublevels, damaging or destroying the base of the core and causing the core to drop down, caving in the floors. There is a video where you can see the spire on the tower dropping faster than the outer walls. However, I don't know if that alone is indicative of this happening. Does anyone know how far up the core goes? Does it go to the roof level? I would suspect it would to support the weight of the antenna.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
bsbray11: It would seem to me that the top section of the tower correcting its tilt means that it's hitting something on the way down to straighten it out. Otherwise, would it not continue to free fall down at an angle if it had no resistance?


Only the bottoms of the top floor sections would've touched the rest of the building below, if that (since the floors below were apparently already simultaneously collapsing downward in their symmetrical manner). It would be pretty hard to stop the tilt of the whole top section simply by contacting the very bottom of those, shall we say, "detached" floors.

Imagine holding a heavy board of some length over your head, and when it leans, you try to correct it while only holding on to the bottom of the board. Would be pretty hard, right? It'd take some strength. Well, add to that the fact that there would be no pushing back or correcting, but simply material being in the way (while also falling downward, remember). Try correcting the board from falling while not pushing back on it, while still holding on just to the bottom. Impossible, right? This sort of thing would cause more a tripping sort of motion if it were even a factor at all. But instead the tops of the towers just stop in their directions completely.


The puffs of dust seem more likely to me to be crushed powder from concrete and wallboard being forced out of broken windows, because of their randomness. There isn't a uniformity I would expect to see if there were explosives on each floor.


This actually did happened to some degree, except less with concrete dust, etc. and more with smoke from the fires being forced out of the buildings. But the squibs are distinct in that the materials are ejected much farther, and air pressure or etc. would not be able to accomplish blowing such things out of windows that are as much as 50 floors below the collapsing region. Air pressure wouldn't last long at all, going down floors and mixing with less dense air. It would just equalize.


I find it more likely that an explosive was set off in the sublevels, damaging or destroying the base of the core and causing the core to drop down, caving in the floors. There is a video where you can see the spire on the tower dropping faster than the outer walls. However, I don't know if that alone is indicative of this happening. Does anyone know how far up the core goes? Does it go to the roof level? I would suspect it would to support the weight of the antenna.


Yeah; that might've had to have happened for the buildings to fall the way they did. I remember reading someone saying that if they were to demolish buildings of that kind, they would have to place bombs in the basement to take out critical supports before the rest building could implode. Sounds fair enough.

I'm not sure about the support of the antenna. I've heard that the core columns thin out in the upper floors since they wouldn't have to hold as much weight, but I would think that they would still go all the way up to support all the floors and the roof. But I could be mistaken. The blueprints still aren't publicly available, so..
I would suspect core columns held the antenna up, and I too find its collapse suspicious of core columns being taken out. You might have to ask Howard what exactly held the antennas in place.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Not all of the concrete was reduced to dust.

While much of if was, there still remained large amounts of concrete in the debris piles at ground zero.



And they went through the debris before placing it in a landfill in New Jersey.



You probably think this is just semantics, but is incorrect to state that ALL of the concrete was pulverised into dust.




I also think that it is incorrect that all that dust proves controlled demolition.

Here is an article on the controlled demolition of the kingdome, and not only did they have to cut the steel beams and do this first:



But they had some 50,000 tons of mostly concrete debris after the implosion. Almost all of it falling in it's own footprint.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

All of this is against what some say is the trademark of a controlled demolition.

If anything the debris from WTC being outside the footprint argues against controlled demolition, IMHO.



[edit on 12-9-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Not all of the concrete was reduced to dust.


All of the slabs or not, it was still an insane amount of concrete powder that would've taken great amounts of energy to bring about. I don't mean steel-beam-falling-onto-a-slab energy, either. I mean squib-like, explosion-shooting-debris-over-100-feet-out-into-the-air energy. This is one of the points that seems like common sense, but when people don't pick up on this use of common sense, it becomes rather difficult to try to prove exactly how there would not have been enough energy available from falling beams of steel to completely destroy so much concrete, turning it into a powder ridiculously fine. If you want to argue more objective points, then of course you have the squib and angular momentum problems.


If anything the debris from WTC being outside the footprint argues against controlled demolition, IMHO.


Only if the center of gravity wasn't still in the footprint, but it was. The debris didn't just fall off one side, etc., like you'd expect from a gravity-driven collapse. It was ejected out pretty consistently in all directions, outside of the footprint, while still being centered around the footprint of the building. That's not indicative of a gravity-driven collapse. That's indicative of some force ejecting materials laterally.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Only if the center of gravity wasn't still in the footprint, but it was. The debris didn't just fall off one side, etc., like you'd expect from a gravity-driven collapse. It was ejected out pretty consistently in all directions, outside of the footprint, while still being centered around the footprint of the building. That's not indicative of a gravity-driven collapse. That's indicative of some force ejecting materials laterally.



From what I understand, nothing would have been strong enough to make the buildings fall to either side, with the forces involved, demolition or not, the only way they could have collapsed would have been straight down.

I agree that the dust was shot out in all directions.

However from what I can find, controlled demolitions are designed to do just the opposite of that. So I can see how some might think it is indicitive of explosives, IMHO the immense forces involved and the speed at which they fell make it perfectly plausible that those jets would be consistent with progressive collapse.

Some do look odd, but in the loose change video they point to jets of air only a few floors down from the collapse which I don't think lend weight to their explosives argument.

Do you know of any controlled demolitions that shoot debris out like that?

All the ones I can find have the debris mainly in the footprint of the building, so I don't see how the debris shroud is consistent with controlled demolition.

It could be consistent with bombs planted for terror purposes, but I don't see how that would cause the collapse.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I must admit, even the morning of 9/11, the verticle nature of the collapse
deffinately rubbed me the wrong way, it's hard to plan an implosion that straight. To further this, the pentagon claiming they had no clear footage of their strike REALLY rubbed me wrong.
If there's one place in this nation covered by security cameras from EVERY conceivable angle the pentagon is near/at the top of that list. Not to mention their confiscating tapes from nearby hotels and gas stations.

WCPO origionally posted this on the morning of 9/11

web.archive.org...://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

Now it's replaced with this

www.wcpo.com...

Supressed info or the biggest mistake in AP history?

The whole 9/11 "story" reaks of "operation northwoods" stench.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.gwu.edu...

especially the last 6 lines of #3 on pg #5 and #8.a. on page 10!!!!!
These manuvers were actually proposed by OUR government. Just replace Cuba with al qaeda.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by redmage]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
From what I understand, nothing would have been strong enough to make the buildings fall to either side, with the forces involved, demolition or not, the only way they could have collapsed would have been straight down.


The buildings started to do just what you say is impossible (see above pics in thread). Then mysteriously stopped, breaking the law of conservation of angular momentum.



I agree that the dust was shot out in all directions.


Er, you agree on a fact? That's awesome, I guess, lol.




Not that much to disagree with. o.O


Some do look odd, but in the loose change video they point to jets of air only a few floors down from the collapse which I don't think lend weight to their explosives argument.


Would you like to argue that air caused the squibs? I would have no problem with such an argument, but you would have to prove that jets of compressed air could move down air shafts and halfway across whole floors, offices and all, without equalizing. Then you would have to prove that, after accomplishing this, compressed air could pulverized concrete/sheet wall/etc. into dust and eject it over 100 feet laterally into the NYC sky. Because that's pretty much the air compression argument on the squibs.


Do you know of any controlled demolitions that shoot debris out like that?





A video.
Another video.
Source.

Also,




Look familiar?

And definitely check this out:

A series of pics showing a building collapsing, and then a cloud of concrete dust enveloping the area.


Look up gravity-driven collapses. No comparison. All of these pics are of demolition jobs.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I'd like to keep this civil, there's no need for sarcasm.


What I was talking about was your contention that 80% of the debris lying outside the footprint proved controlled demolition.

The dust clouds both fly out in similar ways, however the debris in the pictures you have shown land mostly inside the footprint.

What I was asking about was a controlled demolition where 80% of the debris was outside the footprint.

Have you seen that before?

If not how do such conditions point towards demoliton?

I don't see why it seems impossible that air pressure blasted down elevator shafts to fly out windows 20 stories down. After all, after the collapses dust covered all of manhattan. If the forces existed for the latter, why is it impossible for the former?

Another thing is the time scale of the collapses. If in the half second before the collapse reached said floor dust reached the window, why wouldn't it burst out? The pressure seems more than adequate in that timescale.

Again, I'd like to keep this civil, there's no need to act patronizing, mock me, or roll your eyes. I am just trying to clarify things.

IMHO, it is common sense to see those jets as caused by the enormous forces at work above them. Obviously we disagree.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Would you like to argue that air caused the squibs? I would have no problem with such an argument, but you would have to prove that jets of compressed air could move down air shafts and halfway across whole floors, offices and all, without equalizing. Then you would have to prove that, after accomplishing this, compressed air could pulverized concrete/sheet wall/etc. into dust and eject it over 100 feet laterally into the NYC sky. Because that's pretty much the air compression argument on the squibs.



I would like to argue that air could have caused the "squibs". If compressed air can shoot nails into houses, I have no problem seeing it happen on a much larger scale. I don't see why the air would have to pulverize anything.

It seems to me that the debris was shot down the elevator shafts with the air, the air wouldn't need to pulverize anything but the windows.

I would also argue that it could have been huge chunks of debris hitting the floors with the "squibs" and then shooting dust and air out the windows.

There are many possibilities here, not just one.

Keep in mind that these all happened within seconds of the collapse reaching said floors. That unleashes a ton of pressure.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What I was talking about was your contention that 80% of the debris lying outside the footprint proved controlled demolition.


The charges in the above pics didn't eject the debris as far as the WTC collapses did. The explosives used in the above pics were much less powerful, obviously. This would be expected. Would you expect a gravity-driven collapse to eject materials farther than a controlled demolition job? This is an extremely trivial detail anyway in the face of how eerily familiar the above pics should look to you, and I never claimed that 80% of the debris being launched out of the footprint is any "proof" of controlled demolition.


I don't see why it seems impossible that air pressure blasted down elevator shafts to fly out windows 20 stories down.


It doesn't just "seem" impossible. It is impossible. Compressed air will equalize immediately upon reaching less dense air. For the squibs to have been caused by air, this scientific fact would have to be proven false. Show me that this scientific fact is false. Show me that compressed air magically travels in jets through all other air.

Asking questions such as "why would it not be impossible?" does not prove that scientific fact is false. For the squibs to have been caused by compressed air, you must prove that compressed air can travel in jets through less dense and not equalize. We're talking about going down air shafts and across half the distance of an entire WTC floor. I can tell you right now that air will equalize immediately. This is common sense. You'll have to offer a case built on very hard evidence to prove the squibs were caused by air, as you'll have to refute well-known science.


Another thing is the time scale of the collapses. If in the half second before the collapse reached said floor dust reached the window, why wouldn't it burst out? The pressure seems more than adequate in that timescale.


The time is irrelevant. Compressed air does not travel in jets through air of less density. They equalize. This isn't an opinion.


Again, I'd like to keep this civil, there's no need to act patronizing, mock me, or roll your eyes. I am just trying to clarify things.


So am I, and frankly, it's getting nowhere. I just showed you pictures of demolitions that look a little closer than cousins to the WTC collapses, to say the least, and you discount the similarities because the demolition charges in those buildings did not eject the debris as far as the charges in the WTC towers did. And you perpetuate the long-abandoned theory of air squibs, despite the idea being impossible. You might as well hold the opinion that the sky is green. Seriously, there is a difference between fact and opinion, and being flat-out wrong. Just accept there is something wrong with the official story here and move on.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I realize my above post doesn't prove the attacks were "created" by our government but "northwoods" does prove prescident that staged terror campaigns are not beyond our government's capabilities or suggestions. Claims of cia drone planes and the old switcheroo were within their grasp 43 years ago and technology and planning have only improved since.
The associated press release through WCPO about the flight 93 emergency landing adds fuel to the fire and I feel it is a great disservice to their memories. That's a pretty big inaccuracy by the network to just claim the story false at a later date. The AP apparently spoke with, and retrieved comments from, Mayor Michael R. White and the airline CEO James Goodwin before running the story yet no correction on the "actual"
plane that had an emergency landing. If it wasn't 93 then which plane was it? Obviously something landed.

As any free-thinker can see, alot of the official story doesn't add up and I for one would like to know the truth.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join