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.

 

Science is great, but what about the non-scientific smoking guns on 9/11?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   


bsb you state what in your opinion didn't happen. But don't state what did.

So...after the planes flew into the buildings what happened?











(btw I'm still waiting for someone to show me where planes the size of the ones that crashed into the WTC flew into buildings the size and shape of the WTC and that building didn't collapse)




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

(btw I'm still waiting for someone to show me where planes the size of the ones that crashed into the WTC flew into buildings the size and shape of the WTC and that building didn't collapse)


I'm still waiting for someone to show me where a steel structure has ever collapsed due to minor structural damage and fire, especially only after 1.5 hours. Yes, the damage from the planes was minor compared to the redundancy of the towers. WTC7 by comparrison was very minor since it wasn't hit by any planes. Give me one example.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I suggest you do a little more research, and look into the structure of the WTC. The reason it was a small pile of rubble, is that the entire structure of WTC accounted for 5% of the building, the rest was air. There was nothing to collapase. Try to understand architecture, and how msot buildings are designed, then take a look at WTC. It is not an atypical steel structured skyscraper, and was not even built close ot standard.This was a hollow structure with no masonary.

Columns lost strength in the initial strike, leading to the collapse. You need to get away from 'fire doesn't melt steel arguement', because it does not have to. The length of the beams was far longer than most structures, and this also lead to failure. They were supposed to be half the size which would have spread the load balance better.



Taken from www.skyscraper.org)

The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."




Zing???? I gotta laugh


why don't you take a look at this thread for the WHY of the collapse...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



[edit on 22-3-2006 by esdad71]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The reason it was a small pile of rubble, is that the entire structure of WTC accounted for 5% of the building, the rest was air. There was nothing to collapase.


Wasn't anything to collapse? Let's just see how much concrete there was. This is only concrete....this doesn't account for any steel trusses, beams, columns, drywall and drywall supports, all the office equipment, the supports that held the floor slabs, anything in the core structure (elevators, shafts, lateral bracing etc.) etc.

Area of one floor = 207 ft. x 207 ft. = 42,849 square feet.
Area of core structure = 141 ft. x 91 ft. = 12,831 square feet.
Subtract the core area from the entire floor area = 42,849 - 12,831 = 30,018 square feet.
Now at 4 inches thick concrete (0.333333 ft.) we get the volume of the concrete in cubic feet = 30,018 square ft. x 0.3333333ft. = 10,006 cubic feet.
10,006 cubic feet converted to cubic yards (that is how concrete is measured) is 370.59 cubic yards per floor.
At 110 stories that equals 40,765 cubic yards of concrete.

Just to compare.....a concrete truck holds a maximum of 10-12 cubic yards (10 is the usual to make things easy to calculate in the end). So, for comparison...that's 4,076 concrete trucks worth of concrete. That's concrete alone. Towers were mostly air.....they would have you believe this.

If any of my calculations are incorrect please feel free to correct me.


[edit on 22-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
You're doing the same thing Griff. You're saying what you believe didn't happen. Well then tell us what did?

If the planes didn't bring down the towers then what did?

According to you it couldn't have been any demolitions. Demolition crews cause structural damage (with no fire) to bring down buildings but according to you that's impossible.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

According to you it couldn't have been any demolitions. Demolition crews cause structural damage (with no fire) to bring down buildings but according to you that's impossible.


Huh? When did I ever state this? I said minor structural damage. Demolition crews bring down buildings with major structural damage due to the explosives. Tell me where you got the idea that I said that. Can't you see there's a huge difference between minor damage and major damage?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Huh? When did I ever state this? I said minor structural damage. Demolition crews bring down buildings with major structural damage due to the explosives. Tell me where you got the idea that I said that. Can't you see there's a huge difference between minor damage and major damage?


So a plane crashing into a building and exploding isn't an explosion and only causes minor damage?

This is minor damage??




riiiiiight....


Anyway, so answer the question. What happened after the planes crashed into the buildings?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by esdad71
The reason it was a small pile of rubble, is that the entire structure of WTC accounted for 5% of the building, the rest was air. There was nothing to collapase.


Wasn't anything to collapse? Let's just see how much concrete there was. This is only concrete....this doesn't account for any steel trusses, beams, columns, drywall and drywall supports, all the office equipment, the supports that held the floor slabs, anything in the core structure (elevators, shafts, lateral bracing etc.) etc.

Area of one floor = 207 ft. x 207 ft. = 42,849 square feet.
Area of core structure = 141 ft. x 91 ft. = 12,831 square feet.
Subtract the core area from the entire floor area = 42,849 - 12,831 = 30,018 square feet.
Now at 4 inches thick concrete (0.333333 ft.) we get the volume of the concrete in cubic feet = 30,018 square ft. x 0.3333333ft. = 10,006 cubic feet.
10,006 cubic feet converted to cubic yards (that is how concrete is measured) is 370.59 cubic yards per floor.
At 110 stories that equals 40,765 cubic yards of concrete.

Just to compare.....a concrete truck holds a maximum of 10-12 cubic yards (10 is the usual to make things easy to calculate in the end). So, for comparison...that's 4,076 concrete trucks worth of concrete. That's concrete alone. Towers were mostly air.....they would have you believe this.

If any of my calculations are incorrect please feel free to correct me.


well, i read everywhere that there were 432, 000 sq. ft per floor. maybe that includes core area.
in the core the floors were normal concrete, and on the mechanical floors there was aggregrate, so minusing the entire area of the core gives the old 'hollow core' illusion a leg up.
i like your perspective better than howard's super thin 'potato chip' floors. four inches of concrete's not much, but times and acre times 110 sure is a lot of concrete. for it to have been instantly powderised into ultrafine dust would take a mechanism not present in the collapse. only bombs (or something exotic like tesla resonators) could do something like that.

but, how about charlie sheen being on alex jones as a non-scientific smoking gun? that guy ROCKS in my books, now. one brave mofo.

no arabs on either passenger lists or autopsy reports. that's a non-scientific smoking gun.
the gut instinct of EVERYONE who watched the towers collapse that told us all, 'that looks like a controlled demolition'.

the case of immigration worker 'mary schneider' being fired for trying to report the red carpet treatment being given to known moroccan terrorists by florida immigration is a nonscientific smoking gun.

bsuh saying he saw the first plane hit the tower on tv, when it wasn't on tv is a non-scientific smoking gun.

'able danger' is another.

sibel edmunds testimony is another.

william rodriguez is another.

bin laden saying he didn't do it is another. (terrorists NEED to claim responsibility for their acts of terror. that's the WHOLE POINT of terrorism. otherwise it's just psycho-killing)

the fact that they have ILLEGALLY put all the evidence either into lock-up or into oblivion is another.

the fact that bush has issued many laws excusing his administration from any criminal prosecution for illegal behaviour is another.

the downing street memo is another.

the case of mike vreeland is another.

the non reporting of tower seven by mainstream media is another.

the non-following up of the anthrax attacks is another.

there are so many smoking guns, it looks like high noon at the OK corral.

and yet, ......nothing happens. talk about pyramid power!



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Griff
Huh? When did I ever state this? I said minor structural damage. Demolition crews bring down buildings with major structural damage due to the explosives. Tell me where you got the idea that I said that. Can't you see there's a huge difference between minor damage and major damage?


So a plane crashing into a building and exploding isn't an explosion and only causes minor damage?

This is minor damage??

riiiiiight....


Anyway, so answer the question. What happened after the planes crashed into the buildings?



it's relatively minor. the planes hitting the building did not change it's normal oscillation frequency. that is the relevant litmus used to check a tower's integrity. the percentage of support that was SUPPOSEDLY removed by impact(as we only have perjurNIST to rely on for that info) was not critical. that's why the towers didn't fall immediatly after the planes hit them; because they were structurally sound. the towers regularly took more force from wind alone then the plane impacts were able to impart.

what happened after the planes hit the buildings was bombs went off and knocked them down. it's obvious. watch the videos. they explode.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Billy bob, nice points on the non-smoking guns, but most of those were explained out earlier in the thread. Conspiracy created from coincidence.

However, whether you want to believe NIST or not, the fact remains that their was ALOT of residual damage when the planes hit. The WTC 2 shook for over 4 minutes AFTER it was hit. You state they were not hit hard, butHow much power is needed to do that, to make a 110 story building shake for 4 minutes. This is recorded and shown on video.

There were also reports from people inside who felt it tip so far, they were unsure it would right itself. Some people reported that where they used to have a view of the river, it was now facing another direction after it was struck. I am not sure about you, but that seems like quite an impact to me. The fact that they found pieces of the airliner 'blocks away' also shows the magnitude of the strike.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Billy bob, nice points on the non-smoking guns, but most of those were explained out earlier in the thread. Conspiracy created from coincidence.

I'm sorry esad but I dont see any debunking.
The aswers provided do not hold any debunking , any evidence for the contrary, in other words it does not explain anithing , it just states that the conspiracy didint take place based on the fact that we are all crazy or imagining things.
I have reviewd the whole thread, I dont see any strong points that I can debate with you, becaue your analisis is not based on any factors.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I never stated anyone was crazy or imagining things, I answered the questions that were stated in the original post. Thank you for letting me know you read the whole post, but did you understand any of it.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Explaining away something as mere coincidence is not debunking (or proving) anything in my book. I could say that it was just coincidence that L.H. Oswald was in the book depository but does that prove anything?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I never stated anyone was crazy or imagining things, I answered the questions that were stated in the original post. Thank you for letting me know you read the whole post, but did you understand any of it.

Yes I did
Here are your quotes that debunks it all.




Bin Laden was sick, right? we can all agree on that. Rapid wieght loss/gain can occur during sickness so this can explain the difference simply.

How do you know he was sick?
Did he come on air and said he has problems, and what kind of problems, got any evidence for that?




The ring he has been seen wearing on many occasions in seperate pictures at seperate times. Maybe this is something that is very sentimental to him that we are not aware of. This is not proof he is not Bin Laden.

Okay, where are the pictures?
You said it's sentimental, so you must of seen some article that we didint?
Any links to credible source for it?
Hey I wana see a picture.
All I know is that he is a very religios figure and the islamic law does not alow for him to wear rings.





THere is also the left handed/right handed issue in the video from 2001, which even puzzled the CIA. This only further pushed the notion that he may have a double for protection.

You even contradic your self, now it's a double,it's not binladen anymore?




IF you READ the FBI site, it also mentions that the names may not translate properly. Enjoy the goosechase, they were burnt to hell when they drove the planes into the towers. Do you really think that if there was ONE of those guys alive the would not be on Lary King live?

Wow what an explenation.
You didint answer and refuse to.

A how did the FBI come to the coclusion that those were the hijackers.
B Why would terorists steal identities when they are planing on dieing?




I have given more than enough evidence, to real things, and real people, to know that what I am stating is correct. The fact is that there is no evidence, you are rehashing half truths, and you choose to beleive who you want. This is your choice.

Yea I can see that, it's all debunked.
You didint even bother to coment on the adrews air force matter.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Explaining away something as mere coincidence is not debunking (or proving) anything in my book. I could say that it was just coincidence that L.H. Oswald was in the book depository but does that prove anything?


in 'the biz', we call it 'hand-waving'.




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Which question are you referring too? I mean, god forbid I try to answer 9 of 10 questions and you want to harp on the one you feel i wirte off as coincidence.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Which question are you referring too? I mean, god forbid I try to answer 9 of 10 questions and you want to harp on the one you feel i wirte off as coincidence.


Well here it is.
And about my last post, you got there what you call debunking.
You did not explain anithing.
I dont see how that can be called a debunk.
So review it and give some explenations with a credible source.




Other things.
Now I haved talked about this subject but I'm going to talk about it again.

I'll start up with some facts.


Prior knolege.
In betwen the last crash from wtc and the one from the pentagon there was an hour.




The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:
" 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"
--'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (2)


They knew what hapend, they didint do anithing.


And here is a quote made by oficials from adews air force base


Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"

Yes adrews thought the pentagon didint know, so that's why they never scrabled jets.


But it seems that the whole pentagon knew when the impact took place at wtc, that gives them an hour to call adrews and inform them????????
One call and their up in the air, full armed fighter jets on the run way.

Here is the pentagon, They were waching tv.


'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next
'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'" --'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3)



Other factors.
1 why did the fligh instructors quoted"we cant belive on this day that they managed to fly" ?
2 The hotel where they stayed was just a step away from NSA.
3 Why continiue to pay if you flunk and suck at it?
4 Why continue to pay for it if you plan on dieing in a crash?

None of the things make sence, you didint even manage to answer my first dilema with a debunk.






Just to be clear


"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed."
--'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5)







[edit on 22-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Griff
Explaining away something as mere coincidence is not debunking (or proving) anything in my book. I could say that it was just coincidence that L.H. Oswald was in the book depository but does that prove anything?


in 'the biz', we call it 'hand-waving'.



It's all true.
Fema came a day before the atack in new york, all prepared.
Coming knowing the outcome of it all.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
It might be a good idea to keep in mind that the WTC was involved in business and there were all kinds of transactions going on before the attacks that some people ended up benefitting from. Probably just as many transactions as where people got the shaft from the attacks. Any big event like that will naturally produce "winners" as well as "losers." Many people benefitted after the Titanic sank.

It also helps to sort out the urban legend nonsense from the facts before coming to any huge conclusions about who did what and when and for what reason. At some point, the "conspiracy" gets so big that WTC should have been deserted on 9/11, since everybody apparently knew about it beforehand and were able to keep the secret from everybody else.

Personally, I think people are lousy secret keepers. One of the first rules of keeping something secret is to minimize the number of people who know the real poop. If you keep adding to the number of people who knew about it beforehand, it makes it seem more improbable that it could have been kept a secret.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
what happened after the planes hit the buildings was bombs went off and knocked them down. it's obvious. watch the videos. they explode.

Sorry, try again buddy.

1. If you watch the videos you won't see an explosion. If there's a pile of dust on a desk and you slam your hand into that pile, what happens to the dust?

2. Even if it was an explosion, you just went through all that telling how how they buildings were able to withstand the impact and explosion of the planes. If the impact and explosion of the planes only caused "minor damage" what makes you think a less explosion would cause enough damge to bring them down?

'Well because they place them in the right spots...'
lol
How did they do that unnoctied? Thousands of people worked in the Towers. You would have had to do major work trying to plant enough bombs to bring them down. There's NO WAY ANYONE could have done that and it not be noticed. And how did they know where the planes would go in? How did the bombs not explode when the planes hit or why were they not damaged?

Headline 20 years from now:
"Unclassfied: Secret psychic government demolition crew used cloaking devices and their ability to walk through walls to plant magical bombs, that can withstand huge explosions, to bring down the twin towers"




the gut instinct of EVERYONE who watched the towers collapse that told us all, 'that looks like a controlled demolition'.


Define "everyone"
I have seen plenty of controlled demolitions, the towers falling didn't resemble them. CDs are MUCH cleaner. They prevent debris from spreading, not engulf whole cities in ash and debris


but, how about charlie sheen being on alex jones as a non-scientific smoking gun?

Smoking gun of what?
Why should I listen to Charlie Sheen over....some nut on the street pretending to be Santa Clause?
Sheen is an actor. His opinion means squat. He doesn't have any more evidence than you all.


no arabs on either passenger lists or autopsy reports. that's a non-scientific smoking gun.



We have cell phone calls from each flight

Flight manifest of Flight 11:
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

flight manifests from 175:
Flight 175


On flight 77 Majed Moqed, Khalid Almihdhar, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salem Alhazmiare selected for CAPPS. But how can this be if they're Arab and there were no Arabs on board!? On 93, Ahmad Alhaznawi is selected.

Please explain...




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join