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.

 

Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
This is quite an interesting thread.

I'm just so glad that the U.S. Government understood how important a study of the destruction of these buildings could be to civil engineering and avoiding future building failures and saved massive amounts of the structural steel and concrete from these building for study by scientific professionals. That shows how open they were to finding out EXACTLY what happened, and why.

Oh wait, they didn't do that? They instead rushed to have the materials sent to foreign countries (at great expense) for immediate destruction? They spend extra money to have the trucks carrying the debris (it's just debris after all) equipped with tracking and monitoring devices? That seems a very peculiar way of assuring that we fully study the issue.

That's an interesting style of "transparency."

But, in the end, I agree with an early poster on this thread. 9/11 is best left alone, because the truth will lead to a civil war and tens of millions of dead R's in the streets. As much as I would like to see justice in America, I don't think it's worth the price.

Charlie L
Portland, OR




posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I disagree CyberChas although I understand your POV on this. I personally believe that the greatest threat to this or any country is when its government is usurped. If a conspiracy did occur it needs to be rooted-out and the perpetrators prosecuted. Frankly, I believe not only would we survive it, it would make us stronger.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Yes, they DID take a year sifting through the debris. For what? They were looking for body parts and other perosnal items left behind. This had nothing to do with structural analysis.

I posted multiple links for a reason, sifting for body parts isn't the only thing they did....

more links (pics)
www.hq.usace.army.mil...[/ulr]

How did all of this come about if there were no investigations?
[url]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


NIST and FEMA released reports and recommendations on how to make buildings safer based on their findings and investigations. How did they do that if there was no investigations?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I'm not sure how NIST did it, Weird. Nor are lots of far more qualified people than me.

NIST Evasion



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
Again you are misconstruing my points and taking them out of context – the only way you’ve countered them.


Ok, listen dude. Stop ignoring this.

You have stated that you believe at least SOME of those expulsions were caused by air. So I want you to respond to these problems that debunk your theory!



  • 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.


This is like, what, the 6th time I've asked you to do this?

Come on, man.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberChas
But, in the end, I agree with an early poster on this thread. 9/11 is best left alone, because the truth will lead to a civil war and tens of millions of dead R's in the streets. As much as I would like to see justice in America, I don't think it's worth the price.


Millions of deads, right but that's what you will have when the thruth will not come out any soon. If it was an inside job it has a purpose. And the purpose will come to your mind if you review what happend from 2001 till now. If you go back in history you will be able to see where it will end. The 9/11 was the start trigger to the worst future scenario on earth you can think of. Since 9/11 it is takeing form. And I see the pices clicking in day after day slow yes, but like a clock in a predestinated and unstoppable way. It could happen no better than if the gov would stop playing the public and the world. Unfortunatly they will not do that out of theirself.
So is this about justice? No it is about our future, see this clear.

Sorry to paint black here but with the current world politics development it is a more serious situation than what you think and I am also still a little 'pissed' form the edited and falsified pentagon videos released by the gov. (check flight77.info therad) although I should have known it. Their play is so mad. And yet they get away with this. They hide and fake and lie just as it is needed and play with your childrens life. Yesterday, it really made me feel sick. And it still 'bites' me also today.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tacitblue
Can't simple physics explain whether this was an accelarated free fall or not?
[...]
If this was a controlled demolition the rate should be faster than the rate that gravity would bring down the building... I guess all we need to know is the mass of each building to calculate acceleration...


You're actually leaving out a lot of variables, dude, if you want to try to figure how long it should have taken the buildings to fall naturally. You can make rough estimates, though.

But consider this:

The collapse rates did not slow. They started at a speed just below free fall's terminal velocity (even ahead of free-falling material for a short period as it accelerating, as BillyBob has pointed out in videos) and must have stayed at that speed the whole way down (or even faster if you go by government figures for collapse times).

For WTC1, that was 13 floors falling upon 97 floors. The lower 97 were much stronger for obvious structural reasons, and most of the mass from each floor did NOT fall straight down onto lower floors, but over the sides of the building. And yet, the building continued falling, the whole way down, at a constant rate.

There is also a page describing this same impossibility from another angle here: The Case for Controlled Demolition.

A chart showing at least how long it should have taken with transfer of momentum between falling floors from that page:



[edit on 19-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I did already - shall I break up my post and place the relevent sentences under each bullet for you?


Originally posted by bsbray11So I want you to respond to these problems that debunk your theory!



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
I did already - shall I break up my post and place the relevent sentences under each bullet for you?


Yeah, because specifically, you haven't told me how air would be trapped within the buildings when the floors were being destroyed and falling outwardly. Most of the SOLID material of each floor fell outwards. So the most obvious problem with what you're saying is the fact that air should not have become pressurized to begin with.

You could try to post something to give credibility to what you're suggesting of vibrating steel, too, if you want to wrap things up quicker. Some evidence; some scientific substance to show that vibrating steel beams could have caused some of those squibs.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
How about learning to spell properly. Then maybe someone will have a little
respect for any intellectual opinions you may have! Any reasonable educator
would have dismissed your comments with spelling that bad!



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
whoa
who are you talking to



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Why...when a thread gets really heated and the debate rages, is there always a spelling nazi who comes out of his closet to apparently debunk the errant spellers entire post based on grammar, punctuation or spelling???

It's a good thread, with a lot of back and forth ideas...who really cares about spelling being absolutely perfect - it's about the ideas being generated.

Sheesh...

and BTW I watched the 911 Eyewitness video as well...there's some really good points made and they are corroborated by quite a few mathematical formulas and extremely well explained (is the narrator Mr. Sulu??? Sure sounds like him!) I am still on the fence...however about the "squibs".

I have very little doubt that the WTC 1, 2 & 7 had pyrotechnical assistance in falling though. It's unfortunate that it will likely not be proven as fact.

Air pressure still seems a more than likely explanation in spite of the possibility of conspiracy.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberChas

I'm just so glad that the U.S. Government understood how important a study of the destruction of these buildings could be to civil engineering and avoiding future building failures and saved massive amounts of the structural steel and concrete from these building for study by scientific professionals. That shows how open they were to finding out EXACTLY what happened, and why.

Oh wait, they didn't do that? They instead rushed to have the materials sent to foreign countries (at great expense) for immediate destruction? They spend extra money to have the trucks carrying the debris (it's just debris after all) equipped with tracking and monitoring devices? That seems a very peculiar way of assuring that we fully study the issue.

That's an interesting style of "transparency."

But, in the end, I agree with an early poster on this thread. 9/11 is best left alone, because the truth will lead to a civil war and tens of millions of dead R's in the streets. As much as I would like to see justice in America, I don't think it's worth the price.

Charlie L
Portland, OR



That and about a hundred + other odd happenings that need to be explained that happened prior and on 9/11...



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by justgeneric
It's not a mystery.


No it isn't, they were explosive squibs.

What you're saying is not possible unless the air in the building is under pressure.
It wasn't. The air pressure in the building was the same as outside the building.
There are so many places the air would have gone, it could not have built up enough to squeeze out one or two small spots.

And how do you explain the squibs before the colapse? As in this pic of building 7...



Those were not caused by air pressure...

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]


i think what he's saying is that it wasn't the pressure of the collapsing building that caused the blowout, but the immediate result of the plane exploding. it's possible that along with the obvious air and smoke and debris being ejected in the general area of the plane, air and smoke from that explosion was forced through other paths in the building, like air ducts. i'm not saying this is the only explaination or anything, and i'm actually leaning towards the squibs theory, but i'm just exploring all the possibilities to their fullest potential



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ender

i think what he's saying is that it wasn't the pressure of the collapsing building that caused the blowout, but the immediate result of the plane exploding.


I doubt it unless he thinks the plane exploding would cause squibs an hour later


[edit on 20/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Here is a somewhat long article that is, in my opinion, extrtememly well laid-out and with comprehensively footnoted references. It goes into all of the aspects noted in the collapses:

Analyzing the Collapses

Now, there are those that will never be convinced. I get that. But these are significant issues that call into question the plausibility of the official story. What deserves particular emphasis is exactly what NIST analyzed and at what point in the collapses their analysis ended. Look at this carefully. It is as important as it is subtle. According to this article by its own admission NIST never actually modeled the collapse.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Weren't the elevator shafts air tight? And how could the path of least resistence be so far away from that which precipitates it ? I, too, am no physicist; but there should be an obvious and easily understood explanation for all this, and none seems to be forthcoming.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Did I miss something?


How where the tops of the building opened up?

Until the top disappears you can clearly see it is intact during the collapse. Especially in the air jet photo first shown.

As to the few that happened well ahead of the collapse, well lets see, they could either be caused by the forces of the collapse, or they were explosives placed on the face of the building going off early.

I know which one makes sense to me.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Spudbudd,

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you. I think you are making the same mistake that many of the posters here have done (on both sides).

IMO, there cannot be an "obvious and easily understood explanation" for how the combination of air and debris acted in the collapse of the twin towers. Each tower, in and of itself, was a massive and complex system, and the variables included in any theory of its collapse are too numerous to be explained simply. Thus, I find it extremely troubling when individuals who have no background or expertise in the field they are discussing make claims that an event absolutely could or could not have happened because of their simple and easily understood logic. For example, the "Analyzing the Collapses" that jtma508 posted, was written by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of theology. Now, if we were discussing the evolution of Eastern theology I would trust Mr. Griffin’s knowledge of the subject matter, but I do not trust him to adequately explain how a progressive collapse can or cannot occur.

In trying to understand an event such as the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, we should look to the experts and as far as I know, other than a few isolated individuals, most of the world's engineers, physicists, and demolition experts, believe that there is nothing to indicate that the towers collapsed from the anything other than the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.

Just my .o2$

-Cypher

P.S. In regards to the NIST models; accurately modeling complex systems is nigh impossible. (Just look at the the current attempts to model weather systems.) The amount of money and time it would take to model the collapse of the two towers would be exorbitant, and it is my understanding that in NIST's opinion, the information learned from the models would not be significant enough to justify an outlay of that amount of resources. I fully understand that those of who believe that the towers did not fall due to a progressive collapse feel that no amount of money is too much to get to the truth. However, if you look at it from the NIST experts view, there is nothing to indicate that it wasn't a progressive collapse, and thus it makes no sense to spend millions of dollars to study something in depth that they already fully understand in general.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Did I miss something?


Critical thinking. That's all.


How where the tops of the building opened up?

Until the top disappears you can clearly see it is intact during the collapse. Especially in the air jet photo first shown.


For one thing, the caps were destroyed in both buildings before the collapses finished. For another, until they were, the air would've been escaping where the floors were being opened up to the atmosphere.

It wasn't like, when a floor was utterly destroyed, the top floors fell down onto them perfectly and made an air-tight container.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join