Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
Yes it does...it's the exact same thing, just a different location... you are looking at a still image and deducing that it was an explosion rather than looking at a video to see the real time ejection. (In other words, you are taking the image out of context of the event)


This squib is some 30 stories below the demolition wave. How could it be caused from compressed air so far down? And it looks EXACTLY like squibs seen in demolitioned buildings. Also, interesting how most of the squibs seen at the WTC shoot out down the middle of each side of the building. Guess that's all coincidence too?



The common hypothesis is that the building collapsed due to the weakening of the structural supports on the floors where the fire was started from the airplane impact. In order to invalidate that hypothesis, you have to DISPROVE it.... that fire COULD NOT have weakened the metal sufficiently, that the weight of the mass above the impact could have been supported by the weakened metal support system. That hasn't been done.

Instead you offer an alternative hypothesis, but no supporting evidence that isn't consistent with catastrophic collapse. A hypothesis without evidence is nothing more than a wild-ass-guess.


Dang, I was just commenting about a squib that looked like it was caused from an explosive. You again are the one that's taking something and running with it.




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
How in the world would anybody who was not part of the conspiracy be able to answer any of these questions? Such ridiculous questions you ask to people who were not in on it.
If you have no evidence, how can you assert a conspiracy? You believe something you cannot show evidence of. What you have is faith...and it's no different than the religious faith of the fanatics that flew planes into those buildings.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by spartacus_wi]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
If you have no evidence, how can you assert a conspiracy? You believe something you cannot show evidence of. What you have is faith...and it's no different than the religious faith of the fanatics that flew planes into those buildings.


We do, your types just refuse to see it or believe it.

We show evidence of explosives used. Why would it matter then about how many people were involed, how much they used, or how did they plant them without being seen? If it is evident that there were explosives used, all other question essentially become moot.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by diggs]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggsThis squib is some 30 stories below the demolition wave. How could it be caused from compressed air so far down?
elevator shafts, ductwork, you name it there are plenty of logical explanations to include a faulty window seal...but of course simple explanations don't fit into your sense of reality so it must have been an explosive device.


Originally posted by diggs And it looks EXACTLY like squibs seen in demolitioned buildings.
How many times have you handled explosives? How many building demolitions have you participated in?


Originally posted by diggsAlso, interesting how most of the squibs seen at the WTC shoot out down the middle of each side of the building. Guess that's all coincidence too?
Or maybe not...that's just as easily an idication of how the pressure wave traveled through elevator shafts to be ejected on the floors where the elevator lobbies were?


Originally posted by diggsDang, I was just commenting about a squib that looked like it was caused from an explosive. You again are the one that's taking something and running with it.
If you think it was an explosive device, then you are obviously indicating that there was a conspiracy. Can't have the first without the second.

Occam's Razor



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggsWhy would it matter then about how many people were involved, how much they used, or how did they plant them without being seen?
LOL. Because it goes to the heart of what you are asserting..if it required 300 tons of explosives how could it have been moved into the building un-observed? If it required less but had to be put on every floor on every structural support, how would that have been accomplished?

Just because you THINK you have evidence of explosives, doesn't mean that all other logical constraints are thrown out the door.

Having faith in something doesn't make it fact...



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggsI'm still waiting for the hard evidence that Osama did it!
Wait no more..........

From the horses mouth



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
How come some of the hijackers are still alive then? Wouldnt have they died in the plane crashes? How come Norad was told to stand down for the first time in history by the Vice President? How come 4 planes turn off their beacons within minutes of each other for hours IN the MOST controled airspace on this planet and no fighters are dispatched, and yet a famous golfer that died a couple of years ago in a plane crash...his plane got off course for less than 15 min in 2000 and he had 4 jets on him. How come the Incident commander sent all those firefighters in those buildings if he knew it was gonna come down? How come they cleaned up all the evidence after the building fell and melted all the steal if they had nothing to hide?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Its pretty easy to put bombs in a building..espicially when ur brother is head of the security for the whole area



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
elevator shafts, ductwork, you name it there are plenty of logical explanations to include a faulty window seal...but of course simple explanations don't fit into your sense of reality so it must have been an explosive device.


So the demolition wave pushes this air down an elevater shaft and then all of a sudden, it open an elevator door and does a 90 deg turn, then travels down a hallway, breaks out a window, and creates a puff of smoke just like an explosive squib would? That's a real simple explanation there.



How many times have you handled explosives? How many building demolitions have you participated in?


Why do I have to have handled explosives or participated in a demolition to know what a squib looks like? Can't seeing squibs from a building in a real demolition be enough?



Btw, people don't need a degree in computer science to be able to use a computer, or would that go against your logic?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
Because it goes to the heart of what you are asserting..if it required 300 tons of explosives how could it have been moved into the building un-observed? If it required less but had to be put on every floor on every structural support, how would that have been accomplished?


Very carefully?



Just because you THINK you have evidence of explosives, doesn't mean that all other logical constraints are thrown out the door.

Having faith in something doesn't make it fact...


You missed my point, if you HAVE evidence of explosives, the "who/why/what/how" doesn't matter anymore. The explosives ARE there so they MUST have been placed in there. How they where and by whom does really matter after that.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi

Originally posted by diggsI'm still waiting for the hard evidence that Osama did it!
Wait no more..........

From the horses mouth


That's it? That's hard evidence? That's all the evidence you have? If I admitted to the attacks, does that mean I did it? I'd love to be a defense attorney if you were the prosecution.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggsWhy do I have to have handled explosives or participated in a demolition to know what a squib looks like? Can't seeing squibs from a building in a real demolition be enough?
Great image....Look at it.... compare it to the Collapse image of the WTC you posted.... what's the difference?

In your latest image... the squibs have all fired....yet the building is only just starting to collapse. In the WTC pics, the building is collapsing, and then the "squibs" are firing... what's that bad timing? Mysterious conspirators planted explosives only to set them off after the building was collapsing?

And how many squibs are in use on this building in you image? Compare that the the WTC...lot bigger building...would have required a lot more explosives in a lot more places. You are completely understimating how much explosive is required and in how many places to drop a building the size of the WTC.

That's why experience with demolitions is important. You can use a PC without a degree, but don't think for a minute that you're qualified to implement for example an ERP system for a business because you can use a PC. Neither are you qualified to comment on the power requirements for managing a Data Center just because you can turn on a PC.

Without experience actually blowing stuff up with det cord of C4, you're just poking thin air.

You DON'T have evidence of explosives being used...you have faith that they were.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggsYou missed my point, if you HAVE evidence of explosives, the "who/why/what/how" doesn't matter anymore. The explosives ARE there so they MUST have been placed in there. How they where and by whom does really matter after that.
No, I didn't miss your point. The point is you don't HAVE evidence that explosives were used. You have only faith.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
and ur lack of evidence shows that someone smoking a cig could of been that puff...or maybe it was COMPRESSED AIR omg!.....not



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
Nice drawing but stick lines cannot represent the structural supports of each floor...try this image to more accurately show what the damaged interior loookEd like and why it couldn't support the weight above it anymore


Can you show me any single photograph or video clip from either collapse showing anything remotely resembling that in either building?

WTC2 leaning outward and then began falling straight down. There was no multi-floor bending and buckling and etc. as you see in that image. The number of "buckled" columns was very few, and these columns haven't even been conclusively shown to have been buckled from heat or even buckled at all the in first place.

But even if they were buckled from heat, and I'll accept that for the sake of argument, then where is the rest of the required damage? Again, show me any real photos to correlate with that theoretical image. You won't find a single one.

Spartacus, I want you to show me that gravity alone caused those collapses. Use whatever evidence you think is definitive and conclusive from NIST or FEMA or the 9/11 Commission or any other institution or etc. pushing a natural collapse theory. See my contention not so much as one of explosives as one of seeing it as impossible for gravity alone to have caused such collapses, without making any assumptions or forming any thoughts past that.

That is to say, I won't necessarily say explosives brought those towers down, but first you have to show me conclusive evidence that fires did indeed sufficiently weaken the structures, and that the failed structures could indeed have totally destroyed everything below them in a matter of seconds. If you can't do that, then explosives is my next logical conclusion from a process of elimination, because as I see it, the physics involved would not have permitted such collapses naturally even theoretically. So see what you can do for me in regards to establishing your case first.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnityHow come some of the hijackers are still alive then? Wouldnt have they died in the plane crashes?
Oh new one by me...and pray tell Where are these living terrorist sightings?


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity How come Norad was told to stand down for the first time in history by the Vice President?
Please provide a website...and not one of your nut conspiracy sites either.


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnityHow come 4 planes turn off their beacons within minutes of each other for hours IN the MOST controled airspace on this planet and no fighters are dispatched, and yet a famous golfer that died a couple of years ago in a plane crash...his plane got off course for less than 15 min in 2000 and he had 4 jets on him.
Flight 11 (WTC 1) flight attendent Betty Ong called an AA reservation desk at 8:20AM, in turn the call was relayed to an AA operations center, and then to the FAA. The FAA told NORAD of the possible hijacking at 8:40. At 8:43, the FAA tells NORAD of a possible 2nd hijacking. At 8:45 flight 11 hits tower 1. 8:46 F-15's are scrambled to NYC from Massachusetts. 9:03 AM flight 175 hits tower 2.

Total time from NORAD notification to WTC2 hit: 23 minutes.

Payne Stewart-
- Plane loses contact with controlers: 9:44 AM
- F-16's already in flight asked to check it out (they never intercept): 10:08 AM
- F-15 finally intercepts : 11:09 AM

Total time to request 24 minutes.... sounds about right eh?
Total time to intercept: 1 hr 25 minutes

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnityHow come the Incident commander sent all those firefighters in those buildings if he knew it was gonna come down?
Uh...because he DIDN'T know it would collapse? Did you know that when the plane hit?


Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnityHow come they cleaned up all the evidence after the building fell and melted all the steal if they had nothing to hide?
Should they have left it for eternity? Much of the steel was turned into Navy vessells.

Just becuase you think something conspiratorial happened doesn't mean everyone should operate as though you're right.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
Its pretty easy to put bombs in a building..espicially when ur brother is head of the security for the whole area
Marvin Bush was on the Board of Directors of Securacom from 1993-2000. I often see the board of directors for my company in day-to-day operations
Oh yeah 2000...that was what...like a year before 2001, right? And even then Securacom did not provide security for the entire WTC site... so nice shot but no cigar.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11Can you show me any single photograph or video clip from either collapse showing anything remotely resembling that in either building?
How can a photograph of the destroyed area of the interior exist?


Originally posted by bsbray11WTC2 leaning outward and then began falling straight down. There was no multi-floor bending and buckling and etc. as you see in that image. The number of "buckled" columns was very few, and these columns haven't even been conclusively shown to have been buckled from heat or even buckled at all the in first place.
The issue isn't the columns but the floor supports, as soon as they were hot enough to loose rigidity, the floors began to collapse. WTC2 leaned under the force of the collapsing floors and then started going straight down...just like gravity would predict....


Originally posted by bsbray11But even if they were buckled from heat, and I'll accept that for the sake of argument, then where is the rest of the required damage? Again, show me any real photos to correlate with that theoretical image. You won't find a single one.
Again...I have no image of the interior...no one possibly could but you can't argue the interior wasn't gutted by the 767 that hit it either... because you have no photo's showing the interior was intact.


Originally posted by bsbray11Spartacus, I want you to show me that gravity alone caused those collapses.
Uh, I never said gravity alone caused the collapse... it had more to do with a 767 with 10,000 gallons of av-gas hitting the building.


Originally posted by bsbray11 Use whatever evidence you think is definitive and conclusive from NIST or FEMA or the 9/11 Commission or any other institution or etc. pushing a natural collapse theory. See my contention not so much as one of explosives as one of seeing it as impossible for gravity alone to have caused such collapses, without making any assumptions or forming any thoughts past that.
Are you arguing the laws of gravity are suspended in lower manhattan? The structural support for a 30 story building (the upper portion) were weakened and Gravity did indeed exert its influnce upon that mass...pulling it straight down over the area of failure.


Originally posted by bsbray11That is to say, I won't necessarily say explosives brought those towers down, but first you have to show me conclusive evidence that fires did indeed sufficiently weaken the structures, and that the failed structures could indeed have totally destroyed everything below them in a matter of seconds.
See Here. Two paragraphs above and including the section entitled Collapse.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Lets stay on topic.


So far the only explanation that we have so far for the sqibs are compressed air...

So far debunking that theroy is:



  • The buildings were not air tight as they collapsed. Obviously, there was even much solid matter from within the buildings being ejected. No reason for the air to not have likewise escaped. The floors were being opened up to the atmosphere one by one.
  • There were expulsions coming from floors which did not have HVAC terminals (from floors that weren't mech floors).
  • There were expulsions very early in the collapses, so we are apparently to believe that the pancaking of a few floors would cause violent explosions of solid debris.
  • The fact that there is solid debris being blasted out of the buildings, well ahead of the collapse wave.
  • The expulsions contain dust particles of the same consistency of the concrete dust and etc. that "snowed" down over Manhattan and coated the streets. This couldn't have travelled down the building ahead of collapse like that, and came out of a non-mech floor.
  • All other air shafts were in the core, necessitating air fly across the floors in a jet without decompressing, before blowing solid debris forcefully off of the sides of the buildings.


And that air would have went through the broken walls...
If air didnt do this, what did?



Support for the demo theroy is that it did indeed "snow" over Manhattan and that there were no “whole” bodies, but over 1500 body parts were found, and most of the passengers were identified through the use of DNA.

Why? If the building pancaked, why were no whole bodies found?
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...
This was taken from a website that debunks loosechange.

Wouldnt you expect to see crushed bodies? And alot of them?

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus_wi
How can a photograph of the destroyed area of the interior exist?


Your image clearly shows distortions of the exterior columns.



Again, back this theoretical illustration up with real photos.


WTC2 leaning outward and then began The issue isn't the columns but the floor supports, as soon as they were hot enough to loose rigidity, the floors began to collapse.


You don't seem too familiar with your own theory.

The buckling was allegedly the result of the failure of the trusses, or "floor supports" as you put it. I'm not talking about heat-damaged columns.

If you were familiar with the theory you're backing then I wouldn't have to explain this to you. Your whole comment here was unnecessary.


WTC2 leaned under the force of the collapsing floors and then started going straight down...just like gravity would predict....


No, because you're leaving out a little something known as the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Things "falling" at an angle or rotating don't just stop rotating and fall straight down without additional forces being applied.


Uh, I never said gravity alone caused the collapse... it had more to do with a 767 with 10,000 gallons of av-gas hitting the building.


You know what I meant. Stop avoiding the question and present the evidence I'm asking for: the evidence for your case, so that we have somewhere to start.


Are you arguing the laws of gravity are suspended in lower manhattan? The structural support for a 30 story building (the upper portion) were weakened and Gravity did indeed exert its influnce upon that mass...pulling it straight down over the area of failure.


Do me a favor and chop into a tree until it falls, and then note how it falls.

Why didn't it fall straight down?? Like omg shouldn't gravity have exerted its influence upon that mass and pulled it straight down over the area of failure???

No! Because gravity is the weakest force in nature. There's a reason something can free-fall for 20 minutes via gravity and yet be stopped dead in its tracks as soon as it hits a solid surface: electromagnetism, the force preventing objects from falling straight through one another.

Gravity isn't a magic word that you can throw in to explain why the buildings fell as they did, no further questions asked. You're going to have to do better than that.


See Here. Two paragraphs above and including the section entitled Collapse.


I'm familiar with Eager's work. Please post the specific scientific evidence he offers of a natural collapse.

(You should find that his work is actually all theoretical, just as those who presented the image you posted earlier.
)

Btw, he's also outdated by the NIST Report now, as far as official stories go (all, what, 4 or 5 of them now?). Just thought you'd like to know.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by bsbray11]






top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join