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.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 21
1
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You can not possibly separate the two events in terms of the causes of the collapse. They are inexorably linked.

The impacts did not cause the towers to collapse. . . . by them selves.


You have just defeated your own logic. That was my exact same argument.

And by "significant" I mean something that is going to result in collapse from inability to transfer loads to other columns with sufficient safety factor ratings to handle those loads.




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AscendedMaster
The people who designed the WTC complex said that the towers were designed to withstand MULTIPLE jet liner impacts.


Oh, please back that up. Remember it has to be one of the people who actually designed the WTC towers. Not the construction manager in 2001, who had nothing to do with the original design and construction of the building.





Why didnt the government do anything to stop the hi-jackers? Where was NORAD? 2 hours pass and nothing is done, yet if your Cessna goes off course for 15 minutes, youll see how fast you have fighter jets surrounding you.





www.ntsb.gov...

please read the NTSB report on the Payne Stewart case and tell me exactly how long it took them to divert an already airborne F-16 (it was on a test flight) to intercept a plane flying straight and level with it’s transponder on.

How much time elapsed between the ATC losing contact and the intercept?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You can not possibly separate the two events in terms of the causes of the collapse. They are inexorably linked.

The impacts did not cause the towers to collapse. . . . by them selves.


You have just defeated your own logic. That was my exact same argument.

And by "significant" I mean something that is going to result in collapse from inability to transfer loads to other columns with sufficient safety factor ratings to handle those loads.


nice selective editing of my words.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   


5 Inner core columns "failed", and 4 "severely damaged".



3 inner core columns "failed" and 4 "severly damaged"

Those are the damages simulated by the NIST, and I'm assuming to be their best bet at trying to get the building to fall without getting over-ridiculous with damage.

I wouldn't exactly consider that severe impact damage to the core.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
HowardRoark,

You said the jet impacts and subsequent fires could not be separated when speaking of the causes of the WTC collapses. But then in your very next sentence, you did just that. I don't see how you can possibly deny this, and I do not see it as "selective".

At the very least you could have worded your post better, so that it would come across consistently. Instead, you effectively just ended up confirming exactly what I was saying: the fires and impacts can be separated and analyzed for their respective damages to the structure.

Only in a fairy tale world would the damage add up to more than the sum of its parts.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
World Trade Center 1

View of the impact:


Indepth view of the impact:


World Trade Center 2

View of the impact:


Indepth view of the impact:



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Well after watching Loose Change I don't call it an A class movie, but for a sub $10K movie it wasn't bad, there are some omissions like what happened to the passengers as well.

But, Operation Northwoods along with Smedley Darlington Butler plot to overthrow FDR shows intent. An earlier poster question that ON existing was not a crime. Well if someone planned to kill their wife, made explicit details on how to do it, they would be charged with attempted murder. The same for any terrorism plot, intent with evidence is enough for a conviction. The people involved should have been prosecuted not sacked.

Additionally three questions arise that appear to have been lost by the debate on the collapse. The nine alive hijackers, where did the information come that they were involved?

Two, how did a passport fly out of a plane avoiding the heat generated to bring down both towers survive why didn't the black boxes survive? Does anyone seriously believe this?

Three, the video of the Pentagon, why haven't they been released from the surrounding buildings? This would end the debate, it is there and would shift things greatly one way or the other. For an administration under fire surely this would give them breathing space? Or have they visited Industrial Light and Magic to doctor the tape?

The fire and collapse is too contentious to decide, no matter if you are left, centre or right there are facts that have not been refuted by screw loose change. ON describes scenarios, it is a proposal, the execution is not discussed so determining whether there were victims or not is irrevelant, that would have been decided if the proposal was approved.

But the narrative of justification of an attack on Cuba by ON is enough to see that 9/11 justified Afghanistan and Iraq. For the poster who stated that 9/11 didn't justify the Iraq invasion you should go ask Bush what the link was.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Loose Change did a good job of putting out all kinds of just flat out WRONG information. Like the engines of Flight 77 that weighed 6 tons each according to them.
The RB211 weighs in at just over 16,000kg, which is in the 3 ton range. And the "pods" that are wing boxes on the WTC 767s.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
video.google.com...

The Aliens were behind the collapses of the WTC buildings. Here is some proof of them a day before analyzing the area one last time before they cause massive chaos. But what they didnt realize is their plan wasn't thouroughly complete. They forgot to add some more explosives to the insides of the WTC and they didn't have enough time to fly back and put more so they contacted Lucifer himself for some assistance... Proof here..

www.abouttwintowers.info...

Now thats the real conspiracy noone is seeing. Thnx to me.. This case is over... Whew!



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Only in a fairy tale world would the damage add up to more than the sum of its parts.


Right.

That and the real world.


en.wikipedia.org...

Because they are nonlinear, complex systems are more than the sum of their parts because a linear system is subject to the principle of superposition, and hence is literally the sum of its parts, while a nonlinear system is not.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Loose Change did a good job of putting out all kinds of just flat out WRONG information. Like the engines of Flight 77 that weighed 6 tons each according to them.
The RB211 weighs in at just over 16,000kg, which is in the 3 ton range. And the "pods" that are wing boxes on the WTC 767s.


I've heard people say that the 6 ton figure is wrong, but never really checked it out because I don't look at the Pentagon issue much. But you say they weighed 16,000kg? That's 16 tonnes (15.75 long tons), not 3 tons.

The European Aviation Safety Agency lists the RB211 at 6271kg dry weight. That's 6.271 tonnes (6.172 long tons).

So whats' the deal?





[edit on 2006-9-16 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
The deal is that I was tired and misfigured it when I typed that.
I'll dig up the CORRECT figures for it if I have time this weekend.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
I tried reading through the "viewers guide" and his questions and comments were so dumb that I couldn't continue any longer. Sorry.


I have had discussions with Marky, and the man(bearpig?) is a cocky, rude individual. Be that as it may, I tried to watch his film, and was struck ill by the condescending, even haughty tone as he mocked the original, rather than systematically addressing any real issues.

I couldn't get past the first ten minutes. If he had any valid points to make, they were lost to me through his gruesome arrogance.

I have no issue listening to rational though about the events on 9/11/2001 - but I will not sit still for poor behavior.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prideless
video.google.com...

The Aliens were behind the collapses of the WTC buildings. Here is some proof of them a day before analyzing the area one last time before they cause massive chaos. But what they didnt realize is their plan wasn't thouroughly complete. They forgot to add some more explosives to the insides of the WTC and they didn't have enough time to fly back and put more so they contacted Lucifer himself for some assistance... Proof here..

www.abouttwintowers.info...

Now thats the real conspiracy noone is seeing. Thnx to me.. This case is over... Whew!


LOL! I had seen that a while ago - but I thought it was Uncle Sam! [wink]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   
what are all of you actually discussing about? The same thing since 5 years.

There are those who see the truth and want it out.
There are those who know the truth but don't want it out.

Just stop discussing with those stupid neocon debunkers with their silly arguements. The arguement itself is a tool to prefent you of doing something. TRY TO SEE THIS.

Winning the discussion won't be the solution to the problem. We allready know who was/is responsible for 9/11, war in Iraq, thousants of dead soldiers, and a world of chaos. If you don't see it, it's because YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE IT.

The BIG problem is: They(debunkers) are doing their job very well. As long as all of you keep discussing over and over again on the same facts nobody will move on to The next step



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie

Originally posted by diggs
I tried reading through the "viewers guide" and his questions and comments were so dumb that I couldn't continue any longer. Sorry.


Because your theories are so weak that you can't answer them?


If the proof was out there for it to BE PROVEN, we wouldnt be sitting here trying to convince people what really happened.

Think about it, they control.. what comes out to the media and the people.
So when they release the only evidence, about that day... and it comes under so much scrutiny... how do you really expect us to be able to use this manipulated proof.. to show you what really happened.

The whole bush administration/family is involved in this day..
from partnerships, to relatives, to colleagues...

Not one part of sept11, involved SELF public ownership...

Not the towers, not the planes, not the airports.. add to this some cia stout... and youve got the tools to create an incident in your own network, blame someone and make sure the only thing people see... is that man.. with your version of events.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The buildings aint there anymore,be it by two planes hitting them or be it by a massive operation by various organisations making it look that way.
Move on, whatever the steel did it didnt stay up....
We all should concentrate on whats happening here and now,HOLY WAR.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
or McRobbiee we could focus on both issues. The war and the arguments attacking the official story because both are equally important. One being the cause and the effect of a lot of destruction and saddness right now.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
You all are focusing on the wrong thing.

The answer to 911 can be found by studying WTC7. It's completely obvious 911 was planned.

-First they claim the fire damage to WTC7 was to much, and so many lives were lost in WTC 1 and 2 because of the collapse, it would be useless to put firefighters in WTC7 to put out the fires, so just "pull it".

-Then NIST and ScrewLC claim it was structural damage, caused by debris from the initial impacts or the WTC1/2 collapse.

A few things wrong with this...

First, no steel building has ever fallen do to fire, EVER.

Second, WTC7 fell perfectly straight down with characteristics of controlled demolition.

Third, the owner of WTC7 said himself the term "pull it", "it" being the building. How do you pull a building? A rope? No...

Fourth, the only way you can structural damage a steel building is with high explosive cutting charges, or plasma cutters and torches. It would take an unimaginable amount of BLUNT force to structural damage it, like NIST and SLC claim. WAY more force than an impact of a 767. Even a direct 767 impact didn't make WTC1/2 collapse, "fires" did, remember? So to think a chunk of engine, or a piece of cement from WTC1/2 collapse damaged the WTC7 in such a way to structurally damage it in a kung fu single one hit to the vital organ fatality, is pretty damn ridiculous. WTC 3/4/5/6 didn't even completely collapse even nearly as much as WTC7 did, and they were closer and actually had almost 1/4 of WTC 1 and 2 fall on top of it, AND they were designed nearly the same.


WTC7 is the weakest link. If you want the answers to 911, WTC7 will point you in the right direction. Ignore everything else, because you will just run in circles.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slice


First, no steel building has ever fallen do to fire, EVER.


Actually thats not true. The McCormick Convention Center, a steel framed convention center, and one of the largest of its time had collapsed due to a small electrical fire which lit up all the flammable objects within the center and brought the building down in 30 minutes.

www.iaei.org...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join