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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark



You aren’t serious, are you?

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



Forgive me for my ignorance, but can you please specify who and/or what they were recovering???




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   


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


Nice deflection. How about addressing the question?



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.


This actually does address my point.
You're taking an impartial investigation of the evidence and personalizing it to the point of expecting everyone to jump thru your hoops and when it isn't done to your satisfaction just cry--"FOUL!..cover up! what are you hiding?"
Why do you think its the responsibility of professionals conducting an incredibly complex investigation to explain everything to you or anyone else.

Its like watching a homicide investigation in which a man is shot dead and the crime covered up by blowing up his house. The murder is caught on video--the planting of the explosives is video taped--the bullet retrieved from the body-- the murderer confesses to the crime--his weapon matches the bullet--and then someone cries "COVER UP!"--when their request to take every smoldering splinter to the lab and conduct an investigation to see if the man didn't really die as a result of hanging is ignored



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


I know it was conducted by the most experienced forensic scientists in the most state of the art labs and peer reviewed.

What do I want to know about it? I want to know how you arrived at the conclusion that the investigation was somehow lacking and what you base that conclusion on.



It's because bits and pieces tell a different story than what the NIST has to offer.


And what is that story? What "bits and pieces" give credibility to that story?



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.


I don't understand this comment.



Let's say the debris of the World Trade Center didn't matter but a few pieces that looked interesting.


No one said that.
You're attempting to set up a straw man.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Why do you think its the responsibility of professionals conducting an incredibly complex investigation to explain everything to you or anyone else.


1. Because as an American Citizen they are responsible TO ME and paid by ME.
2. Your "professionals" failed to follow even the most basic rules of disaster/crime scene investigations and MUSt be held accountable.
3. Please describe their job to me. You seem to think they just needed to figure it out in their own heads and that would be that.


Originally posted by Vushta
I know it was conducted by the most experienced forensic scientists in the most state of the art labs and peer reviewed.


Then why were so many mistakes made? Why did they not invite truly independant researchers? Why were they ALL on the government payroll? Who are the "peers"?


Originally posted by Vushta
And what is that story? What "bits and pieces" give credibility to that story?


If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.

Vushta is on the payroll.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Vushta, your approaching an argument where it's going to end up opinion against opinion in the end on how the investigators should of dealt with the scenario. In your eyes, obviously they did a great job (they being the NIST), collected the right amount of evidence showing exactly what happened, and through that evidence, they painted a good picture on a computer simulation of what happened.

I seem to show a differing stand point, but you're so locked onto yours, as I am to mine so how is there to be any real valid argument to try and convince.

What do you want to try and get at with the NIST report? They did the correct job?

Show me a publication where they showed the analysis they went through in their computer simulation to bring down the towers. The parameters, how much heat they had to pump into that flame to cause the trusses to give out and to cause the mass failure and buckling, which inevitable supposeably brought down the World Trade Centers.

I wanna know how they both fell the same considering different substantial damage.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]


So, are you saying that the hundreds of structural engineers worldwide that peer reviewed the report failed to notice these errors and baseless assumptions?

Are they all “on the payroll” also?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]


So, are you saying that the hundreds of structural engineers worldwide that peer reviewed the report failed to notice these errors and baseless assumptions?

Are they all “on the payroll” also?


They are all on the payroll if they were contracted by the government, any government agency or recieve government grant monies.

Please point me to the list of "peer" reviewers.

The NIST themselves admit that much of their findings are conjecture... why would you even argue this point?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Why do you think its the responsibility of professionals conducting an incredibly complex investigation to explain everything to you or anyone else.


1. Because as an American Citizen they are responsible TO ME and paid by ME.
2. Your "professionals" failed to follow even the most basic rules of disaster/crime scene investigations and MUSt be held accountable.
3. Please describe their job to me. You seem to think they just needed to figure it out in their own heads and that would be that.


Originally posted by Vushta
I know it was conducted by the most experienced forensic scientists in the most state of the art labs and peer reviewed.


Then why were so many mistakes made? Why did they not invite truly independant researchers? Why were they ALL on the government payroll? Who are the "peers"?


Originally posted by Vushta
And what is that story? What "bits and pieces" give credibility to that story?


If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.

Vushta is on the payroll.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]


1. Wrong.

2.You made a serious accusation. Back it up with some detail.

3.Their job is to follow time tested and constantly evolving forensic investigative procedure using the most qualified personel and state of the art facilities and based on this expertise, arrive at a conclusion in whatever case is before them.

What are you basing the absurd comment that they "just figure it out in their heads" on? That is the most simplistic comment I've read for quite a while.



Then why were so many mistakes made?


Well--maybe I was premature in my comment about being the most simplistic... never mind.
You claim there were "mistakes made" What are the mistakes, and what are your qualifications to judge this?



Originally posted by Vushta
And what is that story? What "bits and pieces" give credibility to that story?





If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.


Nice predictable dodge of a direct question.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   



If this is the same thing in the background of this photo, it sure took a long time for them to torch through that area since this photo is at night. Look into the background. As far as where these photos came from, you'd have to ask BillyBob. But, I'm sure Howard you will say that since the guy in the foreground is torching that that is what is going on in the background.

Click picture for larger view.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap NutsPlease point me to the list of "peer" reviewers.


wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Howard, I still can't find any publication explaining how the exterior columns and the inner core/columns had a load distribution of 50/50, where do you get this figure from? Please tell me.PLEASE.

[edit on 6/28/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
It's pretty obvious if you think about the way the floor trusses worked.

anyway:


Although the WTC towers were similar, they were not identical. The height of WTC 1 at the roof level was 1,368 ft above the Concourse level, was 6 ft taller than WTC 2, and supported a 360 ft tall antenna for television and radio transmission. Each tower had a square plan with the side dimension of approximately 207 ft. The corners of the tower were chamfered 6 ft 11 in. Each tower had a core service area of approximately 135 ft by 87 ft. All elevators and three egress stairs were located within the core, although on any given floor the arrangements of the elevators and the location of the stairs varied. Placing all service systems within the core provided a nearly column-free floor space of approximately
31,000 ft2 per floor outside the core. The two towers had about 10 million ft2 of rentable floor area.

The towers were designed as a “framed-tube” structural system with closely spaced exterior perimeter columns connected by spandrel beams around the perimeter at each floor level. The core was designed as a conventional frame with a grid of columns interconnected with beams.

The exterior walls were composed of box-shaped welded steel columns and spandrel beams comprised of a steel plate. Each building face consisted of 59 columns spaced at 3 ft 4 in. on center. As part of the framed-tube system, the exterior columns were designed structurally such that they resisted the total lateral loads and about 50 percent of gravity loads. Below floor 7, the columns were combined in groups of three to form single base columns which were spaced 10 ft on center and extended to the footings. An important architectural feature of the towers was the uniform look of the exterior walls, presented by the uniform width of the exterior columns up the height of the buildings. This was produced by maintaining a constant exterior dimension the columns and changing the strength of the steel with height. Thus, twelve different grades of steel, with yield strengths ranging from 36 ksi to 100 ksi, were used for the exterior columns. The external cladding, which covered the columns and spandrel beams, consisted of aluminum sheets. The window openings were infilled with glass fitted into aluminum covers and sealed with neoprene gaskets.

The core columns were of two types: welded box columns for the lower floors and rolled wide flange shapes for the upper floors. They were designed to support about 50 percent of gravity loads. Below floor 7 to the foundation, where there were fewer perimeter columns in the outer walls, bracings were used in the outer perimeter of the core area to increase lateral stiffness. In the lower part of the towers, the outer core columns were designed to resist a portion of the lateral forces. Hidden within the building, the core columns were thicker and larger on the lower floors. Thus, core columns used fewer grades of steel. The box columns were either 36 ksi or 42 ksi. Core wide flange columns were one of four grades, yield strengths ranging from 36 ksi to 50 ksi, but most (approximately 90 percent) were primarily 36 ksi or 42 ksi steel.


Page xxxvi



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by openfire

Originally posted by HowardRoark



You aren’t serious, are you?

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



Forgive me for my ignorance, but can you please specify who and/or what they were recovering???


OK, call it the clean up effort.
they had to cut up the remaining parts of the building to haul them off.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Thank you Howard, means much.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Who? Casper?

I don't see anybody up there. And in the pic you post as a comparison (posted again below), the size of the yellow cage is such that it could be clearly seen behind any perimeter column.

And not only that, but there's a big glowing area from where the molten material (or in your argument, sparks) were coming. As in suggesting a somewhat large region of heated metal. Not consistent with a clean-up.

And just to go that much further, the molten material is also falling straight down. If it were sparks from a torch, you would see arching in the trajectories, and sparks generally flying around in various directions, like this:



Notice that, in fact, there are sparks flying above the actual cutting. Again, in the other image, everything is just falling straight down because the only thing moving it is gravity, because it lost its rigidity.

That's three different problems with what you're suggesting.

Edited to withdraw a problem that didn't pass a self-peer-review, and to expand upon a couple others.


[edit on 29-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Sorry for going back....


Originally posted by Masisoar
The coincidences being:

- The Muslims accused of the terrorist attacks, who had lacked sufficient flight training experience had nailed World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2 and the Pentagon in a 1 round shot. They didn't miss and turn around. They nailed each one where they wanted to. Not to mention how difficult that is traveling at the high speeds they were accused of going at.

You don't need training to crash and airplane. You don't need to know how to fly good to crash an airplane. The Twin Towers are unmissable (if that's a word) and there are no buildings around the pentagon that would cause anyone just wanting to crash a plane to miss. How could you not miss any of those targets??


- They took over planes with box cutters, with the plane's passengers submitting to them, minus flight 93, who knows what really happened.

1. These were the first hijackings in American airline history. The American public is not necessarily trained on what to do in a situation like that. You see the dead pilots, they have weapons you don't, you don't know what they want. Who's going to risk their lives? The passengers of flight 93 knew what happened to the other planes so they had incentive to attack back.
Speaking of 93. Why did it crash in the middle of nowhere? If it was the government, why didn't they just crash it in DC like they were supposed to? If they shot it down, why would they do that?


- World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 fell perfectly symmetrical and in their footsteps despite different damage factors.

No they didn't. They fell EXTREMELY sloppy, spreading debris for blocks around. From the point of impacts upward, that part of the building (on both buildings) fell extremely tilted before the rest of the building came down. On every collapse video, watch the top parts of the buildings and see how they are when the rest of the building starts to collapse.


- World Trade Center 7 fell symmetrical and was accused of being brought down by a fuel fired by a ruptured deisel fuel tank.

?
That fuel stuff was mentioned but I can't recall and report stating that was the cause of the collapse. All the latest of 7 has shown that there was indeed significant structrual damage to the south side of the building and that the fires were not containable.


- The collapses of the World Trade Centers mimicked the effects of a controlled demolition.

No they didn't. Not one building has EVER been demolished like how the Towers fell. And no demolished building has ever looked like what the towers looked like when they fell.


- There was a brief military stand down in the time frame of the aircraft being hijacked and flying them into the buildings.

People keep saying this and I'm not sure where they're getting that from. There was no stand down. The FAA did screw up and not notify NORAD as soon as they learned of the hijackings like they were supposed to. And there was some confusion at first as to whether this was part of a drill or not...


- The fires inside the World Trade Centers lacked the efficiency to burn hot enough to cause the flowing molten metal seen oozing from the World Trade Centers.

And you know this how?
What are you comparing this event to that would lead you to that conclusion?


- The fires inside the World Trade Centers lacked the efficiency to stay as hot as they did for as long as they did, even after rain and the huge amounts of water being dumped onto the debris.

You're talking about after it fell?
Again what are you basing this on? I can't recall two 100+ story buildings ever collapsing before to see how they'll react....


- The tapes that caught the impact of the Pentagon attack were confiscated and nothing vital in respect to video footage has given us an accurate portroyal of what his the building.

Fact is the flight was hijacked (and it's hard to make planes disappear), it was being watched from above (C-130), it was being tracked on radar, and it was seen by numorous eyewitnesses.


- The World Trade Center 1 and 2 fires weren't efficient enough to bring each other down in the 2 hour time frame from the impact to collapse.

link?


- The building seemed to of met virtually free-fall fall times, even as the building's mass was being dissipated and pulverized on the way down, with allieviation of mass, less force, but still continuously and effectively brought down the rest of each other.

When you look at the videos, try and look at the building itself and not the outer walls that came raining down.



There are far more coincidences that are pointed out on websites looking further into the 9/11 issue, but those are some that I feel need to be pointed out. I'm sure more members can point out more.

The problem with alot of those websites is that they make claims like "this was supposed to happen" or "that wasn't supposed to happen"
The thing is....THIS has NEVER happened before! Making definate claims like that is ridiculous. If something like this had happened in the past and you'd know how things would react and what to look for then yeah you can make those claims. But with this, it's just speculation.



Things I'd like answers for:
If it was an inside job....
1) How did they keep it a secret? This is the US we're talking here, holding anything like that secret is impossible lol

2) Something like that would take years of planning so....as that would spread across two administrations, who did they planning and how did they get the other administration to agree?

3) How do you explain the passengers on the planes? Where they all paid or something? Did they all agree to kill themselves and play along?

4) How did they demo the buildings? How do you install explosives and not have it go unnoticed? How do you plant thermite (which is extremely reactive) in such a way that it's not seen and have it not go off? How do you plant explosives EXACTLY where the planes went in and have the explosives undammaged?

5) We've known that terrorists have been waiting and wanting to do this. Then when it finally happens, the blame is placed elsewhere. Why? Why is it evil to even have the thought cross your mind that terrorists who were planning to do this actually did it?

6) Why is question 5 always ignored? There are about 47 (not including the stickies) threads on the front page of this section. Maybe 2 or 3 mention the terrorists. Wouldn't discussing them be an important factor in trying to present evidence the government did it?

7) Can someone please turn off the waterworks! It's about to rain here yet again as if the over foot of rain so far this week wasn't enough! Unreal!!

I have more questions but there's a lot of lightning with this storm so I'm off for now



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Is this also aluminum that piled up? Where's the heat source for this?



[edit on 6/27/2006 by Griff]



Is this also "thermite?"




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I don't see smoke coming off that.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
You don't need training to crash and airplane. You don't need to know how to fly good to crash an airplane. The Twin Towers are unmissable (if that's a word) and there are no buildings around the pentagon that would cause anyone just wanting to crash a plane to miss. How could you not miss any of those targets??

Billy RAY! Dat dare is a good staetment cepta... you do need to know how to fly good, to flys a plane, speciallys when trying to aims it at somethins whiles goin 500 mph. Don't cha know that!

Have you ever read the comments by their flight instructors? They said they were horrible pilots, really, that means you DO NOT KNOW HOW TO FLY. More or less BANK a commercial jet liner to nail the Pentagon. Jesus man, give me a break or give me a bite of that.. KIT KAT BAR! :-D


I'll get to the rest of your post later



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
You don't need training to crash and airplane. You don't need to know how to fly good to crash an airplane. The Twin Towers are unmissable (if that's a word) and there are no buildings around the pentagon that would cause anyone just wanting to crash a plane to miss. How could you not miss any of those targets??

Billy RAY! Dat dare is a good staetment cepta... you do need to know how to fly good, to flys a plane, speciallys when trying to aims it at somethins whiles goin 500 mph. Don't cha know that!

Have you ever read the comments by their flight instructors? They said they were horrible pilots, really, that means you DO NOT KNOW HOW TO FLY. More or less BANK a commercial jet liner to nail the Pentagon. Jesus man, give me a break or give me a bite of that.. KIT KAT BAR! :-D


I'll get to the rest of your post later


So what exactly are you saying? If they didn't fly the planes, who did?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

They are all on the payroll if they were contracted by the government, any government agency or recieve government grant monies.


How would that work? "Bonus pay" above their regular salaries?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join