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.

 

Conspiracy theory versus Conspiracy facts of 9/11

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Actually the picture you posted looks electrical in nature to me. Main feeder still hot and burning like a torch.

mikell


That would explain why it apparently kept going into the night, but I think I'd be wondering what's falling through the air, what's burning to produce white smoke, and what's glowing an orange-ish color.




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Electrical Conduit



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Finite Element Analysis

Vushta, they had the building parameters set in, what it could hold, what it could take, what it couldn't take. They accounted for the aircraft impacts, and then put up scenarios that they tested, combined with evidence of what was shown to be damaged from fires, etc all together to create their analysis of how it fell.

It's a speculative approach as to what could of happen to cause the buildings to fall the way they did.


You're right, those are some of the things involved, but how is an exacting science "speculative"?
What other method would you suggest..what other method is even possible? Build a mock up of the towers and fly a plane into them?

If you're judging finite element to be speculative how do you judge the validity of someone looking at a picture and concluding "Yup..there it is..evidence"?

If one level of criteria is going to be used it must be applied with the same guidlines for all things proposed to be evidence.

This goes back to my somewhat repetitive "criteria for what constitutes valid evidence" schpeil--you can't say a well developed scientific method is "speculative" and therefore can't be taken as valid and at the same time present nothing more than a picture and say--"proof"

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
You know something, i'm beginning to think 9-11 was a conspiracy allright, but certainly not the conspiracy being discussed here. Again that doesn't mean I don't think Islamic extremists orchestrated and pulled off 9-11, but i'm beginning to think something far more menacing is going on in this country and it doesn't necessarily involve who everyone wants it to involve. But, this is just my thinking. I think too much sometimes....it gets me into trouble. I should probably just hush because freedom of speech seems to be limited to one type of mentality anymore.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
You know something, i'm beginning to think 9-11 was a conspiracy allright, but certainly not the conspiracy being discussed here. Again that doesn't mean I don't think Islamic extremists orchestrated and pulled off 9-11, but i'm beginning to think something far more menacing is going on in this country and it doesn't necessarily involve who everyone wants it to involve. But, this is just my thinking. I think too much sometimes....it gets me into trouble. I should probably just hush because freedom of speech seems to be limited to one type of mentality anymore.



aaaaaand?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
You need look at the world around you and face the fact that the U.S.A. is not the source of every little bad thing that goes on in this world. I'm just saying I think some have it wrong and may be pointing the finger in the wrong direction. There is that possibility right? Or are they so brainwashed that they can't see any other possibilities?

Edited to add....I jumped to the conclusion that perhaps you weren't considering other possibilities in my post. Sorry. I will edit that.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by zenlover28]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Vushta, I don't want this to be a burden of proof issue but if you or Howard, or anyone else can point me to a published source that discusses the parameters they used to take down the building in the 2 hour time frame, I'd like to see it.

As far as I'm concerned they just talk about the buckling and the fires.

In my opinion, no I'm not satisfied their overall work done in the World Trade Center investigation. Sure they can create a mock up on a computer to tell what might of happened, but they didn't take a thorough look on the building, they didn't study all the pieces. And yes every piece is vital, it could reveal the heat and temperatures produced by the fires, helping things become more conclusive.

And yes it is suspicious they just hauled it away to scrap yards to get it shipped out, you had a huge crime scene you had to sort through. The building wasn't just a giant scrap heap they had to get rid of because "they already knew what happened".

The investigation was a bit too speculative rather than conclusive I should say.

Those are my personal thoughts.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
You need look at the world around you and face the fact that the U.S.A. is not the source of every little bad thing that goes on in this world. I'm just saying I think some have it wrong and may be pointing the finger in the wrong direction. There is that possibility right?


Sure, but I haven't seen any incriminating evidence at all for any nation or group other than the US (various agency/official actions before, on, and after 9/11), Pakistan (ISI), 'al Qaeda' (funded via ISI), and Israel (and there's not much on Israel at all besides a few off-hand comments from a leader or two). Have you found some new documentation to bring someone else into the picture?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Nice Fact BSB!
Let's keep this post on that track.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

Was the glowing molten material slowly eating it's way toward an opening for some time (through piled up debris)?

The material emerges a few moments before the collapse of WTC-2 ... does some local, precursory structural instability in WTC 2 (bowing, leaning, sagging) suddenly allow a pool of glowing molten material to pour from the opening?


If you read the NIST report, they clearly document movement of the floor slabs in that corner when the material started to pour out.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Actually the picture you posted looks electrical in nature to me. Main feeder still hot and burning like a torch.

mikell


I've never seen a main feeder for electricity built into a steel column have you? Actually that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. How would the electricity still be running through that? I'm sure the electricity had been severed or turned off by that point don't you think?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Is this also aluminum that piled up? Where's the heat source for this?



Notice that is directly above the Y columns which would put it about between 10-15th floor.

edit: err. Y columns not T...darn these big fingers.

[edit on 6/27/2006 by Griff]





Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Actually the picture you posted looks electrical in nature to me. Main feeder still hot and burning like a torch.

mikell


How do you figure?


You aren’t serious, are you?

That looks like someone is torch cutting the columns in the recovery effort.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Fires on the exterior columns were documented to of reached 250 degrees Celsius, what does that have to tell us about the fires? Globally. Considering that the exterior columns were more oxygen bred than the inner fires. Better conclusions can be made. So were the majority of trusses really weakened by a sufficient fire to cause enough buckling to give way? Don't forget you still had a core around.

Howard, really though could you find how the WTC had the 50/50 load distribution between the inner core and exterior columns. I need to see that.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

You aren’t serious, are you?

That looks like someone is torch cutting the columns in the recovery effort.




Are you serious? I don't see anyone. I don't see any scafolding there either. I don't see any type of temporary safety features there also. You do know that in NYC you have to have temporary life support systems in place when someone is more than 1 story right? I do, I'm cetified by Spider/Safeworks to do inspections on scafolding/swingstages in NYC.

edit: recovery effort? Who were they recovering on a column 10-15 stories high?

[edit on 6/28/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Actually the picture you posted looks electrical in nature to me. Main feeder still hot and burning like a torch.

mikell


How do you figure?


You aren’t serious, are you?

That looks like someone is torch cutting the columns in the recovery effort.







Haha, where's the ladder. Oh wait, haha it's superman, he just FLEW up there.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Masisoar go to this site and click on the link to "Rare Pics of Ground Zero" and just look at it.
www.lolloosechange.co.nr...

Are you saying that ALL those pieces shpould have been sent to a lab? Why? How?



As far as I'm concerned they just talk about the buckling and the fires.


They talk about those 2 basic dynamics initiating a sequence of other dynamics both known and unknown that culminated in the global collapse.
What do you think they left out?



In my opinion, no I'm not satisfied their overall work done in the World Trade Center investigation.


What do you actually know about the investigation--scientists involved--facilities--methodology--and peer review?
Is it possibly that you're not satisfied because questions remain unanswered to YOU?
My guess is that the goal of the investigation was to arrive at an answer to what most likely caused the global collapse from a mechanical and structural basis and not to satisfy each and every question in anybodys mind. The basic cause was obvious---2 planes fully foaded with fuel flew into them at 500 mph.



but they didn't take a thorough look on the building


How do you know this?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Masisoar go to this site and click on the link to "Rare Pics of Ground Zero" and just look at it.
www.lolloosechange.co.nr...

Are you saying that ALL those pieces shpould have been sent to a lab? Why? How?



As far as I'm concerned they just talk about the buckling and the fires.


They talk about those 2 basic dynamics initiating a sequence of other dynamics both known and unknown that culminated in the global collapse.
What do you think they left out?



In my opinion, no I'm not satisfied their overall work done in the World Trade Center investigation.


What do you actually know about the investigation--scientists involved--facilities--methodology--and peer review?
Is it possibly that you're not satisfied because questions remain unanswered to YOU?
My guess is that the goal of the investigation was to arrive at an answer to what most likely caused the global collapse from a mechanical and structural basis and not to satisfy each and every question in anybodys mind. The basic cause was obvious---2 planes fully foaded with fuel flew into them at 500 mph.



but they didn't take a thorough look on the building


How do you know this?



Why and How they should be collected? Oh, alright, let's NEGLECT evidence, sure, that'll get the investigation done.

Let's see Vushta, if the questions to me weren't answered, then why would I be satisfied, that's just common sense. This isn't a problem of deliria.

What do you know about the investigation? What do you want to know about it?

It's because bits and pieces tell a different story than what the NIST has to offer.
Testimonies, visual evidence, yes questions DO need to be answered.

How do I know this? Oh I forgot my dear Vushta, no there were no scrap yards holding the metal awaiting to be scrapped, they were all shipped to huge warehouses where the EVIDENCE can be studied. However long it might take.

But let's neglect that. Let's say the debris of the World Trade Center didn't matter but a few pieces that looked interesting. That paints the WHOLE picture of what happened. Definately.
I'm glad you made such a successful deduction of scientific investigating and arrived on the same conclusion that the NIST has done.

Way Above Top Secret for you bud.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Haha, where's the ladder. Oh wait, haha it's superman, he just FLEW up there.


Ya Rly

The worker is in a basket on the other side of the column. The small size and cropping of the picture makes it seem like he is not there.

Where did that picture come from? I bet if there are a series of other pictures with that one, this would be abundantly clear.




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   


Oh Really Howard?

There are clear distinctions in either of those pictures:

Exhibit A




Exhibit B




--------------------------------------

Ahem, in Exhibit A you notice a few things:

- Where's the ladder to get the cutter up there
- There's white smoke coming from the molten area, meaning something is burning
- You can see a molten mass in the center of that, notice I say MASS, meaning there's substance of molten metal there.

In Exhibit B, you also notice a few things:

- The guy has a method of getting up there, as you can clearly see he's caged in for safety, not "supposeably sitting on an exterior column cutting the steel".
- There's no smoke emitting from the cutting area.
- There's no molten mass around the cutting zone.
- Below you can see the steel being lit up from the cutting torch.

Clear distinctions - Jah huh!


Weak argument bud.

Provide some analysis.

I'm still waiting to see where you got the 50/50 load distribution information for the inner core and exterior columns.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Notice that in the second picture he is not on a ladder, but in a basket suspended from a crane.

Notice that you can see part of the basket behind the columns in the first picture, and you can see what looks like the silhouette of a worker behind the last column.

So what if there is white smoke. These guys weren’t worried about setting any incidental materials on fire.

Where did that first picture come from?

Let’s see if there are any others from the same source. I'll bet that there are and that they show the workers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join