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.

 

How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
jake wrote: "
BSBray has unwittingly proven my point… the diagram she is using is WRONG. "

okay, is bsbray a man or woman?!

bsbray11 wrote: "Can you say lack of retardation? Yes, I know how to make immature jokes too, but the collapses continued at the exact same speed even as the driving mass disintegrated and the collapse descended on too thicker columns. Flawed concepts "

Okay, now where is your scientific fact to backup this statement, becuase I cant seem to find it. Where is it? am i not looking hard enough in your post? Remind everyone with your scientific facts why this couldnt have happened without demolitions. I see the statement and implication, but I cant seem to find the backup for it, maybe you can help me find it.




posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I can see a 300 page thread about the yawn inducing back and forth about structural intricacies. For the people who feel in no way shape or form the government was in on 9/11 or knew about it, can you accurately also counter all the massive anomalies in the official 9/11 story?

Even if somehow the WTC1&2 were brought down like they say, there's still countless other stark anomalies to consider(NORAD, insider trading, BUSH/bin laden ties, CIA and al Qeada, hijacker FBI connection, forewarnings, PNAC, etc)



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bob2000
jake wrote: "
BSBray has unwittingly proven my point… the diagram she is using is WRONG. "

okay, is bsbray a man or woman?!


I'm a guy.



bsbray11 wrote: "Can you say lack of retardation? Yes, I know how to make immature jokes too, but the collapses continued at the exact same speed even as the driving mass disintegrated and the collapse descended on too thicker columns. Flawed concepts "

Okay, now where is your scientific fact to backup this statement, becuase I cant seem to find it. Where is it? am i not looking hard enough in your post? Remind everyone with your scientific facts why this couldnt have happened without demolitions. I see the statement and implication, but I cant seem to find the backup for it, maybe you can help me find it.


You can witness collapses barreling down through the lower floors, just as unimpeded as when they began and without retarding, in video footage such as this and this, both being shot from below the buildings, giving them a good view. In the second clip, though shorter, you can even see the floors blowing out row-by-row with ejections of material eerily similar to the squibs, as well as refusing to retard in the slightest.


As far as the core columns being thicker in lower floors, the blueprints of the WTC have not been released to the public, so I can't refer you to those, but it's common sense enough and even members like HowardRoark will tell you that they were thicker at the bottom. The columns near the bottom would have to support more weight than those at the top, and to make those at the top thicker despite having to carry much less weight would only add to the weight that the bottom columns would have to carry. At any rate, the momentum should have diminished regardless, unless you think the bottom columns were thinner (and I doubt you would want to argue that), and yet it did not diminish at all.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
BSBray is a man or woman... what does that matter? I'm fairly certain that they are a girl, but I don't know... or really care. What I do know is that she is very good at taking over threads (atleast 3 at this point) with her graphics & links at the mear mention of 9-11, or conspiracy for that matter. There is a time & place for everything.

The badgering, name calling & smart alec comments are all a ploy to make you forget that she hasn't really answered questions herself, but simply cut & pasted stuff. The 3 points of "proof" can not be backed up, except with a claim of laws of physics, as she thinks. Facts are tossed out of the way if they don't fit. Terms are being used thatshe has little to no knowledge of outside of the conspiracy. It's getting old...

BTW- I realize this isn't about JFK, but that event was brought up by someone and I offered an example of how people see & hear the same event differntly. I also offered facts that simulations are not reliable when all the correct facts are not taken into consideration... that was not understood & the ranting continued. Nobody can win, unless you agree with her/him.

[edit on 25-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I suppose I'm going to have to make it a habit of keeping Jake's claims in check. It's too bad he won't attempt the same for me.


The badgering, name calling & smart alec comments are all a ploy to make you forget that she hasn't really answered questions herself, but simply cut & pasted stuff.


Let's see how many examples of this you can provide of me. I might've said you act as a troll once or twice, but I rather think that justified anyway.


The 3 points of "proof" can not be backed up


Please show me specifically where the evidence I have provided is lacking, or where scientific fact contradicts anything I have stated.


Facts are tossed out of the way if they don't fit.


Please provide me with the specific facts that I am 'tossing out.'


Terms are being used thatshe has little to no knowledge of outside of the conspiracy.


Please provide me with the terms that I make use of but of which I have little knowledge.

Further, provide me with how you are able to tell how you can determine what I do and do not know.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

What do you THINK they're going to do as floors are collapsing onto them? Or as the fire is burning through them? You're dropping several hundred TONS of steel, do you really think that these things are NOT going to explode as this is happening?


I think they would fall any which way but to fall like perfect pancakes was a Red Flag.

The fire was not even near as hot as we are supposed to believe when the buildings collapsed. That's why we could see the people who had survived and remained alive after the initial crash, begin to stand halfway outside the building and waving for help – that was before it came down.

The fire was not burning through the floors on the lower levels. Those lower floors would have at least slowed down the collapse, assuming that the law of physics allows a delay for the floors to fall onto each other, from top end to the bottom. I have seen few buildings collapse this way due to fire lasting days or even a week – no matter how hot.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
You are not really worth the time, though I have wasted plenty coming to that conclusion. People, other then myself, have taken your "points" and explained why they are not so over & over, with follow-up questions that you choose to ignore. Honestly, I have trouble talking to anyone who refuses to understand the need for proof & evidence before such claims can be entertained. I liken it to talking to a 7 year old or banging my head against a wall…

Do you understand the point about the JFK “magic bullet” & the limo seat being removed? Therefore ALL attempts to mimic the results have been flawed? Yet, when the seat removal was factored in, a sniper (Austrian, I believe) was able to get the same results 3 times straight? This could explain lots of small factors in 9-11 not being known/available to answer ever single little petty question? Do you understand how this is directly related to the claims/evidence of 9-11?

The "proof" or "points" you think you have are note enough for a logical person to entertain such a claim. The burden of proof is on you. Do you honestly feel like you have enough evidence to even file a complaint? You barely have enough evidence to write a speeding ticket, let alone bring down a government.

Side Note, I will apologize for thinking you were a chick. I am sorry. I meant nothing by that & it certainly wouldn't matter in the slightest anyway. I thought I had read a post of your before I was a member that you stated that.


[edit on 25-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Once again...


People, other then myself, have taken your "points" and explained why they are not so over & over, with follow-up questions that you choose to ignore.


Please provide specific examples of this. Point me to any posts where this has happened.


Do you understand the point about the JFK “magic bullet” & the limo seat being removed? Therefore ALL attempts to mimic the results have been flawed? Yet, when the seat removal was factored in, a sniper (Austrian, I believe) was able to get the same results 3 times straight? This could explain lots of small factors in 9-11 not being known/available to answer ever single little petty question? Do you understand how this is directly related to the claims/evidence of 9-11?


I understand what you mean, but that's hardly any excuse to keep saying that I have no evidence. I seriously think that you 100% believe the official story, and therefore go off total faith when you say I am wrong. You have no evidence that supports your statement that my claims are wrong, and you do not even try to prove me wrong, but your absolute faith in your ideas gives you the confidence to say I'm wrong anyway. That's not proof. I'm believing physics over the government here, and there's no way those towers could've fallen via the official story.

I don't know much about the JFK thing, but I doubt extremely that moving where a person sits can explain in the least why there is so much evidence of 7 or 8 bullets being fired rather than 3 or 4 (a man was even injured by one of these extra bullets as proof, as well as so many extra bullet holes, etc.). And either way, no such small detail can explain why the towers stopped falling with angular momentum unless the government confesses to demolition out and out.


The "proof" or "points" you think you have are note enough for a logical person to entertain such a claim.


I disagree. Further, you refuse to tell me how I am wrong. You simply continue to repeat that I am without telling me why.


The burden of proof is on you.


Not when you state that you have proof against my statements. That puts the burden of proof on you. Further, burden of proof is also on the official story, which has none.


Do you honestly feel like you have enough evidence to even file a complaint? You barely have enough evidence to write a speeding ticket, let alone bring down a government.


Says you, and a majority of those here will disagree.


I will apologize for thinking you were a chick. I am sorry. I meant nothing by that & it certainly wouldn't matter in the slightest anyway.


It doesn't offend me. It's not like I'm sexist or anything.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by realrepublican

What do you THINK they're going to do as floors are collapsing onto them? Or as the fire is burning through them? You're dropping several hundred TONS of steel, do you really think that these things are NOT going to explode as this is happening?


I think they would fall any which way but to fall like perfect pancakes was a Red Flag.

The fire was not even near as hot as we are supposed to believe when the buildings collapsed. That's why we could see the people who had survived and remained alive after the initial crash, begin to stand halfway outside the building and waving for help – that was before it came down.

The fire was not burning through the floors on the lower levels. Those lower floors would have at least slowed down the collapse, assuming that the law of physics allows a delay for the floors to fall onto each other, from top end to the bottom. I have seen few buildings collapse this way due to fire lasting days or even a week – no matter how hot.


If you're gonna answer the question, at least answer what I'm TALKING ABOUT. The question was about the transformers, gas pockets, and gas lines. NOT THE FLOORS.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
“I don't know much about the JFK thing, but I doubt extremely that moving where a person sits can explain in the least why there is so much evidence of 7 or 8 bullets being fired rather than 3 or 4 (a man was even injured by one of these extra bullets as proof, as well as so many extra bullet holes, etc.). And either way, no such small detail can explain why the towers stopped falling with angular momentum unless the government confesses to demolition out and out.”

Again, you have shown how you add & subtract where you want, not to mention seem to disregard how basic facts do affect a simulation. You are the one who keeps insisting on physics & simulating the collapses. PLEASE read the post, instead of just skimming it over. You are missing too much...

Now keep up, because I need to get to bed…
- I also told you I don’t know much or care much about the JFK thing. The effect that leaving out facts during a simulation is pertinent though. I realize you might not understand that case, but don't you see how the tendency repeats itself in this one?
- “I doubt extremely that moving where a person sits can explain”… doesn’t that sound foolish? When the mockery known as the “Magic Bullet Theory” is being discussed for almost 4 decades, not factoring in that Connelly was seated considerably lower then Kennedy… might not explain anything? I am surprised we even take measurements anymore with your new method saving so much time & effort and all...
- I never stated ANYTHING about ANY number of bullets, or number of shooters. This is where you pick & choose & add & ignore. I made 3 points of flawed facts, you only chose 1 to misunderstand.
- Though “angular momentum” is farther from the topic then JFK… you are attributing too much on one law. I am no physicist, though I have read many explanations of this claim, and their comments are not as nice as mine. There were many other forces that day that can explain this “magic bullet” of angular momentum. As I stated before, you need to spend some time in the service dropping things from planes...
- You repeatedly claim that I believe the government… official report… whatever. I think you give them more credit then they deserve, but that is another thread. I don't & wouldn’t believe them just as I don’t believe you until a creditable scientist, computer model, evidence or proof. I feel there is sufficient evidence to support the official story, again, I am speaking of the WTC 1&2 collapsing only (you have a tendency to add meaning & words to my statements). You claim there is none for the official story, well there is even less on a controlled demo theory.

I do wish you could keep this to the threads that already are discussing such matters. Please don’t feel the need to swing all the threads your way so you have more places to go. ALL the threads really are not about YOU or personnel attacks on YOU. Really.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
bsbray wrote:

"You can witness collapses barreling down through the lower floors, just as unimpeded as when they began and without retarding, in video footage such as this and this, both being shot from below the buildings, giving them a good view. In the second clip, though shorter, you can even see the floors blowing out row-by-row with ejections of material eerily similar to the squibs, as well as refusing to retard in the slightest.

As far as the core columns being thicker in lower floors, the blueprints of the WTC have not been released to the public, so I can't refer you to those, but it's common sense enough and even members like HowardRoark will tell you that they were thicker at the bottom. The columns near the bottom would have to support more weight than those at the top, and to make those at the top thicker despite having to carry much less weight would only add to the weight that the bottom columns would have to carry. At any rate, the momentum should have diminished regardless, unless you think the bottom columns were thinner (and I doubt you would want to argue that), and yet it did not diminish at all. "

okay, you still havent given me the scientific evidence your famous for. I agree that the bottom collumns were thicker. I agree that the collapse was "fast" as seen in the videos. Its nice how your pointed out this stuff, but that is not what I was asking from you. You assert that the momentum should have diminshed because the base was thicker etc., it sounds intuitive that that would be the case, but so did a flat earth back during midieval times; what I wanted was scientific evidence that this would be the case. Just becuase something sounds intuitive, doesnt make it scientifically valid or true. So backup your assertion that momentum would have diminished in the absence of demolitions with some scientific facts that you are famous for
.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

If you're going to answer the question, at least answer what I'm TALKING ABOUT. The question was about the transformers, gas pockets, and gas lines. NOT THE FLOORS.


Sorry, if I misunderstood you. I did look and cannot find any information showing how your gas pipes, pockets or transformers can produce the end result of the Twin Towers.

Assuming ignition on the upper pipes or pockets, before the lower pipes would blow, and assuming from falling floors, why did the floors blow and fall in such a uniform manner? Are pipes blocked off upon each floor so perfect as to not blow up sporadically anywhere else, or are they centralized throughout the entire building? If it was centralized, why then did not the entire building pull a giant super nova and explode?

More importantly, can you provide an example of a building that fell pancake –like, as the twin towers did, from exploding transformers, gas pockets, or gas lines?

Because if you cannot provide an example - how hard do you think it would be for me to show YOU evidence of a demolition of buildings of the like, twin towers?


[edit on 25-9-2005 by realrepublican]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Ok, you're still not understanding me. Let me spell this out more simply for you. I really didn't think it was that difficult to understand, but I guess I was wrong.

The gas pipes, the transformes, and the pockets of fuel did NOT bring the buildings down. They COULD have contributed to it, but they were NOT RESPONSIBLE for it.

What I am saying is that they could have been responsible for all the eyewitnesses saying they heard what SOUNDED LIKE explosives going off. NOT causing the buildings collapse. The sound of explosions was going on well before the buildings came down, so something OTHER THAN explosives was causing it. If it was explosives as early as the first eyewitness accounts came in there is no way the buildings could have stood for as long as they did.

[edit on 9/25/2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
One question really for the skeptics here...

This looks like a Fire related to collapse to you?





Squibs



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Again, you have shown how you add & subtract where you want, not to mention seem to disregard how basic facts do affect a simulation. You are the one who keeps insisting on physics & simulating the collapses. PLEASE read the post, instead of just skimming it over. You are missing too much...


Jake, I'm sorry to break this to you, but no sane person on the face of the Earth will ever believe that removing a seat will somehow explain Oswald's ability to pull of 7 or 8 shots from various locations. The two facts are totally unrelated, and your seat response, whether taken into account or not, does not explain the extra bullets. I will accept that the seat was moved. Now tell me how in the hell does that explain the extra bullets? Give up? It doesn't. End of story; good game.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with the case of 9/11's physics problems. At all.


- “I doubt extremely that moving where a person sits can explain”… doesn’t that sound foolish? When the mockery known as the “Magic Bullet Theory” is being discussed for almost 4 decades, not factoring in that Connelly was seated considerably lower then Kennedy… might not explain anything? I am surprised we even take measurements anymore with your new method saving so much time & effort and all...


The SBT is still a load of crap anyway, IMO. It would still have to change directions numerous amounts of times, and it would still be the same almost completely undamaged bullet.


- I never stated ANYTHING about ANY number of bullets, or number of shooters. This is where you pick & choose & add & ignore. I made 3 points of flawed facts, you only chose 1 to misunderstand.


This is where you pick and choose. The fact that there is much evidence of other bullets makes your preaching of seat-removal null, as if I would not accept seat-removal in the first place (because I will, easily). Since when does moving a seat magically create extra bullets that magically whiz around from various locations? Was Kennedy shot in the Twilight Zone? I am ignoring anything here; you are.


- Though “angular momentum” is farther from the topic then JFK… you are attributing too much on one law. I am no physicist, though I have read many explanations of this claim, and their comments are not as nice as mine. There were many other forces that day that can explain this “magic bullet” of angular momentum. As I stated before, you need to spend some time in the service dropping things from planes...


Yes, there was another force. Demolition charges. It's the only way, man.

Let me explain this law to you, btw.

Wikipedia states:


In physics, angular momentum is analogous to (linear) momentum except that it applies to rotating objects.


Whole article here.

So what then, is momentum? Wikipedia, again:


Momentum can be defined as "mass in motion."


Whole article here.

And who remembers Newton's first law of motion?

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

In our case, the motion would have to be balanced by an equal and opposite force, unless we take into account a shattering of the frame, because the momentum totally disappeared while the top floors themselves stayed in the same position.

Well, now that I've taken this back to elementary school science, let's apply this freshly-acquired knowledge.



See that? Guess how those top floors got in that tilted position?

They moved there!

For them to move there, obviously they would've had momentum.

But then the momentum disappeared. The top floors stopped tilting outward in that direction and proceeded to fall straight down with the rest of the building - will all angular momentum somehow vanishing.

Well at this point, any open-minded person unfamiliar with the demo theory should be asking themselves "WTF!?," because, believe it or not(!), there was no giant ogre pushing those top floors back up! In fact, the top floors didn't straight up at all, lol, they just stopped falling in that direction!


Clearly, it would take a incredibly massive amount of force to stop all of that mass - tons and tons and tons of steel and concrete - and totally, 100% compromise the motion so that it would only fall downwards.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, there is a way this could have happened without the help of Superman, or God, or even, yes, or even Allah.

If we all accepted that the frames of the top floors were shattered via explosions, such as demolition charges, then this problem would be immediately explained. Easy as that; end of story; perfectly logical and physically reasonable explanation. Why? Well, I'll explain it to you.

Scenario A:

Imagine you're holding a tall board over your head, and it starts to lean. You can't muster enough energy to correct the board, so it begins to fall as per angular momentum. It would continue to fall over angularly, until it hit the ground. Then you might drop the base of the board maybe, and it might hit you in the head, or on the foot, and you might utter some profanities.

Scenario B:

Imagine you're holding a tall board over your head, and it starts to lean. You can't muster enough energy to correct the board, so it begins to fall as per angular momentum. Then!, the board, by some holy miracle of God, is shattered into pieces of board only a few inches each. The board no longer falls as per the law of angular momentum, but instead, each individual piece, falling regardless of the other pieces, will proceed to fall straight down!

This is because when something is shattered like that, the object no longer acts as a single object (obviously... because it ISN'T a single object), and the bottom of the board will no longer tilt only as the rest of the board allows it, as in, in relation to the rest of the board. The other end of the board similarly would act in relation to the rest of the board, and so would the middle parts, etc., all in relation, causing the board to fall, as one, single board, as per the laws of physics relating to angular momentum.

Well, on 9/11, we clearly saw scenario B. If you don't believe me, watch any video of either collapse, and if it shows the top floors, it will show some tilt. The South Tower (pictured above), leaned especially.

So what does scenario B mean in terms of the WTC buildings? It means that the top floors had critical support beams, or something similarly binding in the buildings' structures compromised, and so the top floors were simply falling as a big mass of steel and concrete that was no longer acting in relation as it fell. No more angular momentum. Blown away from the inside of the buildings.

I can see how you would be compelled to say "how do you know? maybe it was something else.." and leave it at that, but frankly, this is ignorant. The only other possible explanation would be along the lines of 'some holy miracle of God', which is of course unscientific in the extreme.


- You repeatedly claim that I believe the government… official report… whatever. I think you give them more credit then they deserve, but that is another thread. I don't & wouldn’t believe them just as I don’t believe you until a creditable scientist, computer model, evidence or proof. I feel there is sufficient evidence to support the official story


What evidence? There's a professor that has been trying to simulate the collapses for four years and still has no proof to show you, but rather over four years of failure. This man is going by the official word. If he plugged in some explosive variable, I have no doubt that he could get those buildings down like that.

But if you think these sorts of things are "proof" of the official story (because really you won't find much more than that), then whoever taught you to be so hypocritical needs to be shot immediately for the benefit of humanity. While I create posts like this, explaining in great detail one of the points that the demo theory emphasizes, you continue to blindly assert that the official story has proof while not even referencing a single claim of the official story. Like I said, whoever taught you to be so hypocritical needs to be shot, immediately. I've been through some posts on this part of ATS with some pretty knowledgeable people, that I've actually had reasonable, factual debates with, and if there was any direct evidence going for the official story, I promise you I would have seen it by now. But there is none. If you don't believe me, then try to provide me with some.


, again, I am speaking of the WTC 1&2 collapsing only (you have a tendency to add meaning & words to my statements). You claim there is none for the official story, well there is even less on a controlled demo theory.


No. There is no conclusive evidence for the official story or the demo theory, but the demo theory is more logical and easily complies with scientific fact, whereas the official story often contradicts scientific fact. I'm speaking pretty objectively here, as I have posted a good body of evidence to back up the claim I just made; if you feel this is untrue, then please show me how. I could easily say the Easter Bunny has more evidence than the Sun, but really, who wants those sorts of opinions, that are never backed up and only arrogantly asserted?


I do wish you could keep this to the threads that already are discussing such matters. Please don’t feel the need to swing all the threads your way so you have more places to go. ALL the threads really are not about YOU or personnel attacks on YOU. Really.


This thread is actually an attack on 9/11 conspiracy theorists in general, I think, judging by the author (Faust's) tone (ie, the 'copy and paste from blogs' bit). Faust acts pretty trollish anyway, so this has never caused me any great wonder, and by your posting habits, neither has your attachment to it's first post.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bob2000
okay, you still havent given me the scientific evidence your famous for. I agree that the bottom collumns were thicker. I agree that the collapse was "fast" as seen in the videos. Its nice how your pointed out this stuff, but that is not what I was asking from you. You assert that the momentum should have diminshed because the base was thicker etc., it sounds intuitive that that would be the case, but so did a flat earth back during midieval times; what I wanted was scientific evidence that this would be the case. Just becuase something sounds intuitive, doesnt make it scientifically valid or true. So backup your assertion that momentum would have diminished in the absence of demolitions with some scientific facts that you are famous for
.


Ok, Newton's first law of motion:

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The unbalancing force would be the steel and concrete that the building was collapsing into, providing massive resistance to the falling mass. This would've caused a significant diminishing in terms of the momentum if the buildings were falling via gravity. Will you agree on this?

I will admit, though, that there is a lack of evidence to conclude that the towers did not retard at all. Obviously, if the collapse retarded at all, it was not much, judging by the rough 14- to 16-second collapse figure of the North Tower that one can gather from the combination of the CNN clock (for collapse initiation time) and seismic record timings (for when the 20% or so of the mass in the footprint hit the ground). However, since there is no clear indication as to the exact moment either tower hit the ground, due to the free-falling masses of concrete dust and other debris, I haven't been able to gather the exact figures required to offer conclusive proof. If it means anything to you, though, my dearest Bob, I am fairly confident that the collapse did not retard as much as it should have if it was truly gravity-driven, if at all.

I'm sure I could provide proof that the bottom columns were thicker if the good old US of A would release the blueprints it has to the public. So maybe you should write your congressmen on that one.


Your post is much appreciately, actually, Bob. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Zaphod,

What do you really think caused Building 7 to fall symmetrically?



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Ok, you're still not understanding me. Let me spell this out more simply for you. I really didn't think it was that difficult to understand, but I guess I was wrong.


Yes, as a matter of fact you are wrong on several points. I was going to leave this alone but now I’m a little curious as to the true nature behind your intention to correct us on what the people heard as far as explosive triggers and sounds are concerned. Are you somehow attempting to distract in a flimflam sort of method?


The gas pipes, the transformes, and the pockets of fuel did NOT bring the buildings down. They COULD have contributed to it, but they were NOT RESPONSIBLE for it.


So what else could be responsible for it then? Using your logic, once we eliminate the possibility of it being gas pipes, transformers and the like, what do we still have left? I have not seen you write anything about the possibility of deliberately placed explosives, why not?

Without insulting my intelligence again, I already know that any accidental explosions certainly didn’t help keep the towers standing. Demolition waves were felt while during the fall of the towers. Do you really believe that there were ONLY 3 explosions heard before the towers fell and also while during the fall? Do you think people standing there were just plain stupid and made the assumption that the 3 explosions are be-all and end-all of everything?

So what do you think brought the buildings down in a pancake-like fashion? Was it a mumbo-jumbo consortium of random events, which still somehow ended up contributing to what looks like a typical demolition? Remember you said it couldn’t have been ONLY the gas pipes, transformers, and the pockets of fuel, so what is left, huh?


What I am saying is that they could have been responsible for all the eyewitnesses saying they heard what SOUNDED LIKE explosives going off. NOT causing the buildings collapse. The sound of explosions was going on well before the buildings came down, so something OTHER THAN explosives was causing it.


What is this other something? Care to lend your opinion on that sometime?

Let me just suggest mine – if the Towers were infested with deliberately placed honeycombed explosive bombs on TIMERS, it would explain those other noises or little explosions or rumbles a little better and also explain why the buildings fell down so straight. Random, unintentionally placed so-called explosives like Transformers or gas pipes cannot do as much and I think somehow you already know that, so why even bring that subject up. The explosions people are referring to are not only the ones heard before the fall, but also during.

You also wrote:

Ok, how hard is this to understand? WHY is it AUTOMATICALLY an explosive if you have an explosion in the WTC?


So you’re just innocently trying to tell us that an explosive sound could be caused by something other than explosives, correct? Well, that’s why we got whoopee cushions. Now what else are you trying to imply here?

Then you wrote:


Because everyone is desperate to believe that they were brought down?


No. Not everyone is desperate to believe the towers were brought down by explosives, just a few are. Most people who study the footage actually KNOW by understanding basic physics that fire and water does not usually bring down a building, nice and straight. They may also have come to the conclusion that the way it fell must have had something to do with deliberately PLACED explosives. What kind of sick desperation is that?

You also wrote:


You don't have to have an explosive to have an explosion! It's that simple. There were PLENTY of things in the WTC that would cause explosions that had NOTHING to do with explosives.


Actually, yes you do have to have an explosive to have an explosion. May be to avoid confusion next you could add the word “Sound” after explosion.


You want to know the real reason that intelligent people can ignore eyewitness accounts of explosives? Because we don't know that they WERE explosives. There were MILES of natural gas pipes in the buildings. There were HUNDREDS of transformers in the buildings. There were pockets of jet fuel that created vapor clouds. ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN EXPLODE. And yet NONE OF THEM are explosives.


No. All of them are explosives but not the real nasty type which would bring down the buildings. The difference is, you continue to forget to mention about deliberately planted explosives.

My my, arn't you just a sneaky little conspiracy poo-pooist



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
You know, I just LOVE it when people tell me what I mean after I reply to these threads.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm sure I could provide proof that the bottom columns were thicker if the good old US of A would release the blueprints it has to the public.


From the NIST WTC Report:


NIST 1-1 Structural and Life Safety Systems (pdf)
p11 (pdf71)
Exterior Walls
Columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of thinner steel plates, as thin as 0.25 in., with the grade of steel dictated by the calculated gravity and wind loads. In this manner, the gravity load on the lower stories was minimized. In the lower stories the perimeter column webs were often more than 2 in. thick.

Core Columns
The columns in the lower floors were primarily very large box columns, as large as 12 in. by 52 in., comprised of welded plates up to 7 in. thick. In the upper floors, the columns shifted to the rolled wide-flange shapes.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join