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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The only issue with the demolition theory is that detonators aren't the most stable thing.


That's still a much-needed improvement over a theory that can't explain the squibs, disappearance of angular momentum, or the fact that the buildings did not retard in their collapses as the top portions disintegrated.


That might be true, but I don't think that there's any way that they could have kept at least SOME of the charges from going off sometime before 9/11. The very first thing we were told about having even a POSSIBLE explosive is NEVER use a radio or cell phone anywhere NEAR it because it would very easily set off the detonator. That's how sensetive they are.




posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Zaphod,

Then maybe you can come with another theory of your own that explains both that problem and the gaping holes in the physics of the official explanation. Personally, I feel as though unconventional equipment would have been used, but I understand how hard that would be to prove, besides the great improbability of any conventional explosives, etc. being used to bring down such a massive building.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I haven't got any theory as to what might have happened, I just know that based on what I've been taught over the years there are holes in both theories that don't make sense.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Ok, Ive done some thinking on the so called syringe theory.

I saw the story posted by Jedi_master and decided to do some research.

It seems that as the second tour fell the last team of firefighters, on the landing of the fourth floor stairwell all got knocked off their feet by a tremendous gust of wind.

They liken it to a wind tunnel, and recall being unable to get up because of the force of the air blasting past them in the stairwell.

Here is my source article:

www.acfd.com...


Their tower was now disintegrating. Hundreds of thousands of tons of cement, steel, and glass began to melt away. And Ladder 6 was still in the stairwell.
Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”
Stone Phillips: “A rumbling sound, this gust of wind? And then what happened?”
Sal D’Agostino: “When I hit the fourth floor landing, I remember the plaque on the door. And that’s when the building started shaking. And you heard the rumble. And I said, ‘Oh, here we go. This is it for me.’”
Sal D’Agostino lurched toward a doorway, thinking its metal frame might protect him from what was to come.
Sal D’Agostino: “I didn’t even make it to the doorknob. The door got blown open at me. Just missed my face. Hits my shoulder. And that’s when the gust of wind blew me backwards. I got on my side and I crawled to the doorway, and then I just laid there. And waiting for it to come. This is it. This is horrible, and this is it. And I said a prayer.”


The air being forced down from the top of the building was enough to blow the door open, and then knock down a firemen leaving him unable to get up.



Tommy Falco: “I remember I was on the stairs with Josephine. And I imagine we got knocked down the stairs. I just remember laying down, and ‘OK, this is it.’ You know. ‘What’s it going to feel like?’
And I said, ‘This is how it ends for me.’ I just kind of like covered my head. And, you know. Just, you know, it was just shaking and everything coming down, and the noise. It was, it was terrible.”
Richie Picciotto: “We’re like rag dolls. Getting tumbled. And I had that feeling of falling, too.”


The article goes on as each member of the team recalls being hurled down the stairs by the enormous wind rushing down the stairwell.

If the "syringe theory" is impossible, then how did such a powerful gust of air hit these people?

Secondly, if this wind was powerful enough to knock firemen down stairs and blow open doors, than isn't it poweful enough to blow debris out of windows?

I think so, and this story is powerful evidence for air causing the squibs.
The "syringe theory" explains the phenomena just fine.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
For the final time… I have never seen a thread where the word “troll” is used some often & so incorrectly. Not living on the boards & having a different opinion is hardly what makes someone a “troll”. Please depend less on smilies & more on merit.

Now, I may not have all the answers to all the questions in any of the theories, official or alternate, but just filling in blanks isn’t the answer (cut n paste links, so on). Neither side needs to be a scientist to have an opinion, but a basic understanding of the concepts involved is normally a good idea. I have a 25+ year background in Architecture (Design & Construction) and Construction (Concrete, Wood & Steel). I have been involved with 11 controlled demolitions. Now lets look at the WTCs, these 2 buildings were 2 of the largest ever constructed, not to mention their methods of design & engineering. Pretty much, two of your three required explanations can be tossed out right away, “angular…” & “retarding…” because so many factors were involved. Frankly, I don’t think you even understand your claims, let alone rely on them alone. Understanding a specific law of physics doesn’t give you an understanding of a controlled demolition which involves many at once, especially when NOTHING of this size has ever been demolished. The gaping holes are not in the physics, but simply your understanding of them. On the job site, I’d trust any of my guys before some pencil necked physicist when it comes to my life or safety. Luckily, the massive amounts of footage support the official theories more then any of the conspiracy theories, like it or not. Face it, you'd believe this theory even without any footage.

That leaves the Controlled Demolition Theory with the question of the “squibs”, which is the single point your theory relies on. Actually to even call them squibs adds more creditability to the theory then any believers will ever dream of. Why are 2 of the largest sky scrapers ever constructed, 2 planes loaded with fuel, 2 gaping holes in the buildings from impact, 2700+ dead civilians & the vast majority of engineers/architects/designers knowledge not good enough for you? Also, lets not forget, this was the 2nd try on these buildings. Add the anti American sentiment of some of the sand countries towards the US, public admissions (both present & historical) & the confirmed legitimate factual records of the involved terrorists. You expect not being able to explain why some windows blew out or puffs of concrete occurred to be the only proof required to negate such evidence? Then you make blanket statements about the dust & debris or the lack or abundance of either one? Many explanations of all of these points have been put forward, only to be mocked & patronized by your believers, who have yet to answer basic questions. You are throwing crap on wall to see what sticks… if you understood how abundant the evidence of Con Dem should be, I don’t think you would be so arrogant. In my opinion the only thing that has been proven in this thread is just that, your arrogance.

Speaking of arrogance, the resulting “Challenges” you taunt with are designed to never be won. The same “challenge” can be written to prove up is down & human life isn’t possible, so it serves no useful purpose other then sensationalism. I had a college physics professor who was (and still is…) in to such shenanigans, but it does teach one to think things through even though they don’t always add up. I like the guy and he would love you two gals, but I digress…

So, with all that being said, yet again… you have yet to explain where all of the proof of such a massive undertaking has gone. Have you ever seen our government in action? Have you ever worked for a government contract? Have you ever trained/taught a government class? Have you noticed our president isn’t the sharpest tack in the box? Either was our last one? Lets forget about the massive logistics, all of which is in the record, for such an operation though it would have taken years… but we can over look that…

Do you realize how much product & preparation evidence remains after a Con Dem? Where is all the wire, casings, receivers, plans, taps, packings, welded pockets, relief cuts, detonators, prepped columns, prepped beams, product shipping, transport or storage? At one point even your theory admitted the massive amounts of “squibs” that would have been required for just 1 floor. But, lets forget about all the product evidence for now…

What about the byproduct evidence? All the byproduct evidence I have seen or read about is from fuel, impact or collapse… none from massive controlled cutting explosives going off before or during the main collapse had started. Massive amounts of jet fuel in an open framed structure could have spread 30 stories below the point of impact, some burning fumes, some burning pockets, who knows. Again, your own theory mentioned air ducts and a very open floor design. There is plenty of burn evidence, not to be confused with post collapse burn, even though your theory says fires were hardly present, let alone hot enough, to cause much damage. Hot enough for what? Metal heated ¼ of its melting point loses over 80% of it’s strength. But, hey, lets disregard any byproduct evidence…

That leaves 3 pretty big holes in your theory. Theories involving David Blaine & Mass Hypnosis are looking better then yours right now, IMHO. You seem to have much more to explain then anyone else. At this point, NOTHING is getting heard or accomplished in this thread. Regardless of what you say & how you say it, the burden of proof is on you. You are making statements that go against both the official story, logic & common sense. Everyone I have run across has questions about the events of September 11th, both practically & scientifically, yet very few (if any) have come to the conclusion that our own government destroyed the WTCs. Ironic how, in a way, your views have kept this thread on topic by showing how convoluted the beliefs need to become to subscribe to the notion of a controlled demolition. You seem to exemplify the theory actually.

I am done with this thread because you only seem to be able to prove that you have this theory, not that the theory has any sound basis. Your theory reminds me of religion. No proof, yet I require more then faith.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I'm also tired of this thread, others like it, and indeed the constant rehashing of this entire issue, as I showed to myself by allowing LeftBehind to irk me so when he in fact was not deserving of such a reaction. I'm also tired of the insults and insinutions, and yes, the trolls who just seem to rock up to start flinging insults about us "paranoids" in order to get a reaction. They don't seem like trolls to you and the others who constantly cheer them on because you agree with them and their insults. Perspective is an amazing thing, my friend, and if we treated you the way that many here treat us, judging by your penchant for indignation I'm sure you'd be running crying to a mod before you can say "double standards". And you also display several of those same traits yourself, although milder and just under the moderator radar, with your hopelessly transparent taunts and baits. Hey, I'm sure one of my old professors would probably love you too, sweetheart.

But regarding your post, wow, what an enourmous rambling rant, and 95% of it ad hominem attacks on someone - I'm not sure who, because your use of the word "your" appeared to reference different aspects that many of us have been discussing separately. But keep heaping it on, we're used to it since it seems to be the SOP for you and your "not really trolls but look, smell and poop like trolls", and although it makes some others think you're smart and witty, it does absolutely zero for your case, and makes you appear to be just as arrogant as you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being.

But seriously, 99%, if not all of the accusations you level at "us" could be and are in fact applicable to the official story, and defenders of it. If you'd like to cut down your post and just state the facts and your theory on the actual issue itself, then great, let's do that. Otherwise, after reading your rambling post three times over (and finding it basically amounts to, "you just don't understand") I don't know where to start replying since I simply don't want to get into an exchange where I am defending myself personally.

If you want to discuss the topic of me or one of the others who question the official story, then perhaps U2U would be a more appropriate avenue to express your concerns.

[edit on 2005-9-20 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If the "syringe theory" is impossible, then how did such a powerful gust of air hit these people?

Secondly, if this wind was powerful enough to knock firemen down stairs and blow open doors, than isn't it poweful enough to blow debris out of windows?

I think so, and this story is powerful evidence for air causing the squibs.
The "syringe theory" explains the phenomena just fine.



If you look closely, there is video evidence of the "syringe theory" as well.

Taking this video as an example:

Notice the alleged "squib" appearing on the right side of the building, about a second into the video. You'll see that the dust is being blown in a continuous stream out of the windows, indicating that this is being caused by air being pushed out. Now, had this been a "squib" or explosive charge, it would have caused a short sharp blast, and the dust would have moved quite differently. You would have seen a single mass of dust expelled in an instant, not "pouring" out over time as can be seen in this video.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Jake,

I fail to see how any of that post even begins to rebutt any of our arguments made here.

You make references to the angular momentum problems and the lack of retardation as the 'plunger' disintegrated but in no way offer any reasons as to why they might be flawed. Do you seriously just expect us to take your word for it with no further insight?


Originally posted by Blackadder_no
You'll see that the dust is being blown in a continuous stream out of the windows, indicating that this is being caused by air being pushed out. Now, had this been a "squib" or explosive charge, it would have caused a short sharp blast, and the dust would have moved quite differently. You would have seen a single mass of dust expelled in an instant, not "pouring" out over time as can be seen in this video.


Such an explosion would easily cause a current of air. The air wouldn't simply start moving and stop moving precisely with the charge's explosion, but act independently, as it was a separate event from the explosion itself.

Further, you could only really expect all of the dust to be ejected in the same instant if the charges were placed on the outside of the building, such as around the perimeter columns on the outer facade, and if that were the case then I seriously doubt you would see much concrete dust at all.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Why are 2 of the largest sky scrapers ever constructed, 2 planes loaded with fuel, 2 gaping holes in the buildings from impact, 2700+ dead civilians & the vast majority of engineers/architects/designers knowledge not good enough for you?


Who are these magical engineers and architects we hear about?
What the same ones in Popular Mechanics who said the concret slabs absorbed most of the explosion impact in the '93 bombing which saved the building, or the same ones that said the same floors had zero resistance on 9/11?

The engineers and architects that should be listened to are the ones who designed and built the damn building - they said it should stand, they are surprised it didn't. Anyone else is taking a guess without all the information because FEMA and Port Authority won't release the WTC construction prints and they won't give a final answer on the collapse either.

So unless you hold those original blueprints which the building was constructed from, who cares how much 'experience' you have. Frankly, no one has the experience to say what happened because a) these types of buildings have never been brought down before and b) a government conspiracy with a trillion dollar investment that needs a plan to work so it can save it's sorry ass in 15 years when energy costs more than gold will not use off the shelf techniques when they have agencies within NASA and the Pentagon who develop weapons and explosive technology for a living so the government is ALWAYS on the forfront of technology.

The number 1 rule of planning a successful covert operation is don't leave open doors that can be back tracked to you or your clients and it helps when you have agencies like Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Advanced Technology Office (ATO) at your disposal, as Rumsfeld has.

NASA came up with an industry standard for steel cutting explosive, how many years ahead is their research from whats available commercially?

1. Using the WTC blueprints, you develop a 3D CAD model which gives a real life sequence of events depending on certain elements. CAD models have been in use for years as a logistical tool for testing mulitple scenarios.
2. Using this model you find the least amount of spots needed for explosive charges to work along side the buildings weight. The only computer model worth anything is the one built with ALL the information available prior to the event and the one you've developed can output ratio's and even produce example animations of what will happen. Is this why FEMA won't release the original plans anymore and that the 9/11 comission can only sight 'undated Fema WTC plans'?
3. You find issues that will need to be addressed and what form of explosive will be needed in certain areas crucial to the buildings downward resistance as in certain connections which will need more direct and focused cutting power and/or areas which will need longspan shattering explosives.
4. You use DARPA and the ATO to develop an explosive technology which resolves any obvious issues that commercial demolition would face. Mainly getting more power out of a smaller package and you set up groups of wireless systems which are encrypted to only go off with a certain key which completes the circuits digitally to avoid accidental detonation and provides accurate sequence and monitoring from your location.
5. You have a map of where the charges need to go and exactly what needs to be done before entering the buildings and you have a week prior to install this system under the guise of maintaince.
6. Grouping the explosives per region gives you the 'christmas lights' fail safe for unexpected damage when the planes hit their GPS locations. Grouping helps remove the worry of losing the connection incase the plane damage doesn't stay within the 10-15 floors designated.

All this technology exists in one form or another. The DoD's budget could easily improve and mesh this technology to suit their needs. They are now (publically) developing improved armor/concrete/steel cutting explosives which on paper would meet some of the issues faced with commercial demolition explosives - why would they not already have that developed when they had the foresight to plan mulitple middle eastern invasion and financially set up Wall street to profit from the day? If it's public knowledge now, it's been years previous in development, simple and obvious rule of military research.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackadder_no

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If the "syringe theory" is impossible, then how did such a powerful gust of air hit these people?

Secondly, if this wind was powerful enough to knock firemen down stairs and blow open doors, than isn't it poweful enough to blow debris out of windows?

I think so, and this story is powerful evidence for air causing the squibs.
The "syringe theory" explains the phenomena just fine.



If you look closely, there is video evidence of the "syringe theory" as well.

Taking this video as an example:

Notice the alleged "squib" appearing on the right side of the building, about a second into the video. You'll see that the dust is being blown in a continuous stream out of the windows, indicating that this is being caused by air being pushed out. Now, had this been a "squib" or explosive charge, it would have caused a short sharp blast, and the dust would have moved quite differently. You would have seen a single mass of dust expelled in an instant, not "pouring" out over time as can be seen in this video.


Thanks for the video


Yup, sure looks like air from the collapsing floors to me, not from some so called "squib"...



Besides I don't see any air from "squibs" that high up, affecting the firemen that were that were on around the 20th floor...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Now that the jets of air, or squibs have been explained I would like to examine the question of angular momentum and the issue of the fires heat.


On the angular momentum question.

Some would say that when the top of one tower tipped, that it magically lost it's angular momentum and fell straight down. This is a misunderstanding of the physics involved here.

What really happened was that there was a partial collapse which caused the very top to tilt slightly. This was followed by a general collapse which resulted in the total progressive collapse we saw on that day.

It's not that the angular momentum disappeared, but that there was never enough to topple the building sidewise. It never projected it's center of gravity far enough to the side.

Source.

www.pbs.org...


NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.


At no time was the top tilted out 100 feet from the sides, so there was never enough angular momentum to cause it to tip. The angular momentum that did exist transferred to the floors supporting the top, leading to total collapse.




Some have claimed that the fires could not have burned at 600-700 Celsius for any sustained amount of time. Some point to the fact that the fires alone would not have caused the collapse. This is a gross oversimplification of what was involved. If you prove that they never burned at those temperatures for a sustained amount of time it is essentially a strawman argument. This is because difference in temperature on the steel beams can result in distortion and buckling. The fires didn't have to burn constantly at 600 C the temperatures present and the differing temperatures were enough to buckle and weaken the steel.

From the above source.


NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure?

Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.


As you can see the temperature differences first caused distortions, then when the fire did reach the temperatures needed to weaken the steel, the building collapsed. The complexities involved in the collapse leave it open for some to simplify the issue and claim that physics have been violated.

The truth is it took many factors, buckling and heat, as well as the widespread area of the fires to cause the collapse. When buildings are designed they don't expect the whole floor to be engulfed in flame instantly. They are designed to resist small fires that slowly spread into big areas, allowing the steel to cool as the fuel is burned up. No one designed the WTC to withstand instant acre wide fires.


So there we have it. IMHO the "squibs" are no longer a mystery. The physics of the initial tilt, and the fires have been explained.

Now that these misunderstandings have been cleared up, are there still glaring physics problems? I don't think so, but I welcome any challenge and hope that I can explain them.



ShroudofMemphis, while I find the demolition technology interesting and well researched, where is the evidence that such explosives exist? Also, since the collapse fits in with a progressive collapse I don't see where they fit in with a controlled demolition, even an unconventional one.

Contrary to claims that no one looked at the debris, the wreckage was actually extensively examined and no trace of explosives was found.

Here is the testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers or ASCE. He is a Senior Vice president of CTL engineering in Chicago, not a government official so this should lend some weight to his testimony for those who disbelieve any government source.

www.house.gov...


Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse. On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.



During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey. Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.


As you can see they had unrestricted access to all the wreckage and debris on site and at the recycling centers. There is no conspiracy to hide the wreckage, and much of it was analyzed. No mention of traces of explosives found on any of the wreckage.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
lmao


Thanks for your opinion, Jedi. It has greatly furthered our quest for truth here.

Maybe you'd like to show (objectively) how you've come to accept events that defy physics, instead of just stating your opinion?

The logic you use is no different than the logic of, "Wow! Look at that small hole in that ring of the Pentagon! No 757 could possibly have fit into that hole."

I'm sure you could convince yourself of many things if you so wished, as anyone could, especially with those old Jedi mind tricks, but I'd prefer hard science any day. And as far as I know (but please show me otherwise!), science dictates that it is impossible for the air to have moved through buildings in any fashion that could have possibly caused those squibs.

WCIP has posted some pretty extensive posts to explain the problems with the theory you guys have, and yet you continue to spatter it out as if it has any evidence going for it. It does not. As I said, and has we have shown you, the idea simply will not work in real life because of the real nature of compressed air (which is not to fly in jets willy-nilly and bust out random parts of the building with insane amounts of force). There is no such limit on explosive charges causing the squibs. There is no scientific law that directly contradicts that idea, and it would also easily explain where the massive amount of force came from and why concrete dust accompanied the explosions.

Your idea that the dust was carried by the air down those floors ahead of the collapse has been debunked as well. Pretty elementary, too: it would've been impossible for the collapsing region to propel concrete dust through the building at 2 to 3 times the velocity of the actual collapse.

So while you say, "Yep. Looks like air to me," I will compromise your opinion with my own "Nope. Impossible," as well as additional information detailing why it is impossible. Your best rebuttal of science is that there were gusts of wind in the stairs around the 23rd floor. No idea why the wind was present to begin with, or any way the wind could've been strong enough to replicate a squib, but nonetheless, you say "Yep. There was air. Must've been the air."

Please try a little harder to offer a reasonable explanation, and any objective information will be most definitely favored over 100% opinion.

[edit on 24-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Yep, another long winded post by you, that says nothing but an insult...

Quite plain, quite simple, the air presure from the collapsing floors ( in a building that is 90% air ) caused the windows to burst, and that's why you see smoke coming out...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Well, quite simply, that is impossible.

Anyone that wants to know why can simply read the multitudes of posts on the subject. You obviously don't care for facts.

Btw - it's not smoke coming out of those squibs.

[edit on 24-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
You know I don't care how impossible you say it is, I don't see explosives being used in the WTC collapses, simply because of the logisitics involved in placeing them...

BTW the smoke being forced out of the windows looks consistant with the smoke of the fires...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
You know I don't care how impossible you say it is, I don't see explosives being used in the WTC collapses, simply because of the logisitics involved in placeing them...

BTW the smoke being forced out of the windows looks consistant with the smoke of the fires...


looks like powdered concrete to me. i don't think it's consistent with the smoke.
where is the floor plan that traces the 'syringe theory's path to the outer edge of the building. picture it. the air would have to be running parallel to the outer wall to push the air out in that location(in the above pic).
without seeing the floor plans, i would expect any air pathway to be in line with the core, and so any 'syringe theory' 'faux squibs' would also be expected to be more centrally aligned.
without a floorplan, the tube-o-air tunneling through multiple floors theory is weak, at best.

also, i believe our new argumentator has forgotten the paramount lynch pin of truth, .... the ratio of the total energy output over time to total energy available.

i've been on job sites, too, and most the workers that you(not jedimaster, but new guy engineering/architect/wonderboy guy) say you'd trust over physicists are the same guys who are constantly getting injured, or injuring others through haywire, overconfident behaviour or sheer ignorance. overconfident pencil necked geek architects and engineers are also often WAY out to lunch with there cypherin' and whatnot. you can point at something built to spec that is leaning like the tower of pisa, and they will make you look at the drawing and tell you it's impossible.
overconfidence is the malady common to both types.
i say, if the towers could theoretically fall in a runaway progressive collapse, then the extensive number of bombs usually required could be greatly reduced by using the potential energy of the towers, and their natural tendency to 'pancake'(i'm using the official lie against the official lie. how exciting!). also, there is no ONE RIGHT WAY to do things. there are always many choices. if you were a demo expert hired to bring down the towers clandestinely(what a glorious challenge!), you would do your best to hide the signatures of controlled demolition.

on another page of possibilty, there is the use of sonic or scalar weapons. or particle beam weapons. YOU just don't know what happened, and neither do i, but i at least admit that i don't know what did happen. i do think that the conspiracy theory kicks the official lie's arse in a major *pwned* sort of way.
i tired of this argument long ago, but one only need watch tower seven fall to know that it was brought down by controlled demolition.
i don't usually say stuff like this, but you have to be reality challenged to think otherwise.
the official lie has one side of it(WTC7) severly damaged(strangely, there are no pictures of this). an yet, the building didn't gradually fall over towards the damaged side. it instantly collapsed STRAIGHT DOWN. i'm amazed at the power of spin and disinfo. there is simply no way that could happen.

there is also the matter of tower six, which had it's roof blown 550 ft. into the air at the same time that a plane was hitting the second tower. totally ignored and unexplained.
you gotta love chaos. what a great facilitator of misdirection and confusion it be.
some people here know too much to be swayed by servile arguments over minute details.
PNAC made it happen for the CFR and the NWO. this is true. if you(anyone) don't know that this is true, you haven't done the right kind of homework, and you should hit the books.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

looks like powdered concrete to me. i don't think it's consistent with the smoke


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one in the pic I posted the smoke looks black to me, consistant with the smoke of the fire...

You know folks, this whole 9-11 happening is something that has never happened before, so who is to say how these buildings are supposed to act ?

I mean, as far as I know these are the only two buildings in the world that have that type of construction...

So who is to say unless you are actually viewing the beams after the fact like this guy Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl how they are supposed to act ?

Folks I don't buy the theory of bombs in these buildings, simply because of what would be involved in putting them there...

I mean you would have to put in a crew to rip out the drywall, a crew to cut the beams, and place/wire the explosives, then replace the drywall and then mud and re-paint the areas that were ripped out to cause no questions from the inhabitants of the building...

According to the popular theory this took place over a weekend, folks this is impossible, mainly ( to me ) because of the mudding and re-painting, I've done this type of work and I'm here to tell ya, you have to put up at least 3 coats of mud and that should take about at least 2 days to dry and sand ( and this also depends on the environment, sometimes it takes longer )...

Then you have to paint it the same color as to not raise questions, and this all taking part over a weekend ?

Now to this day I've not seen any reports of any changes to the walls, if you have them post them...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Ah, maybe now we can clear things up then. Bomb-sniffing dogs were removed the Thursday before the attack, which would've allowed an opportunity to place anything at the last minute that those dogs would otherwise detect.

But before then, there were multiple instances that WTC workers have reported of whole sections of the WTC being closed off from employees for days at a time, security cams shut off and all, while multitude of engineers came and went 24/7. The purpose of this work on the building was said to be "cable upgrades," but of course that's now questionable.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Where did you get your info from bsbray, Alex Jones ?

If so I don't drink from Alex's chalice of koolaid, I think for myself...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Yeah, ok. Don't accept it then. And actually, no, I don't get it from Alex Jones. I got it from the investigative studies of a former professor of Claremont School of Theology for some 31 years, David Ray Griffin, one of the most conservative, objective, and respectable 9/11 dissenters available in the mainstream press. But I suppose there's only so far you can go before you refuse to believe.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join