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.

 

TIME: Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I want a final answer just as much as the next person, but there is no conspiracy to WTC collpase. There are questions that need answers, but there is no conspiracy in my eyes.


Then why bother poting the same ramblings over and over on a "alternative theroy" board?

When are you going to SUPPORT THE "PROOF" the NIST presents?

When are you going to support the "PROOF" in the FEMA laugher?

When are you going to suppoort the "PROOF" in the 9/11 Comission report?

You DEMAND "PROOF" from us, yet claim the gov'ts assertions and guesses are "PROOF". I think you are confused regarding the definition of PROOF.




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by esdad71
I want a final answer just as much as the next person, but there is no conspiracy to WTC collpase. There are questions that need answers, but there is no conspiracy in my eyes.


Then why bother poting the same ramblings over and over on a "alternative theroy" board?

When are you going to SUPPORT THE "PROOF" the NIST presents?

When are you going to support the "PROOF" in the FEMA laugher?

When are you going to suppoort the "PROOF" in the 9/11 Comission report?

You DEMAND "PROOF" from us, yet claim the gov'ts assertions and guesses are "PROOF". I think you are confused regarding the definition of PROOF.



I don't post ramblings Slaps. [Edit] Is that good enough for you

I do support the proof from NIST
I do support the facts from FEMA
I have read and understand the 9/11 commission report.

You, my friend, discredit these reports through your own thoughts and conjecture, with no proof. You have nothing, where as if i feel I can refer to specific points in any of these reports I will. You choose, with no evidence to back you or support, to not beleive the official reports. I could understand if there was one report, and it was a complete line of bs.

You can call in SE's and people from the ACSE, however this arguement in the professional field is like asking a scientist if he believes in UFO's. If he say yes, you want proof, right, or you wouldn't believe him. Even though there are tons and tons of photos, are they actually proof? If you don't believe it, then in your eyes it must not be true. Pretty closed minded.

I do not feel that those who want more concrete proof to the collaspe of wtc are CT'ers. it is the ones who still believe in the holographic planes that are.

[Mod Edit: Let's keep it civil please - Jak]

[edit on 7/9/06 by JAK]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You choose, with no evidence to back you or support, to not beleive the official reports. I could understand if there was one report, and it was a complete line of bs.


We have gone over each of the reporst hundreds of times on here... do a little research and ask yourself why I will not repost over and over why each of these three "reports" are full of errors, omissions and occasionally flat out lies.

How can you "believe" the NIST report when they never give final conclusions? They change their own theory on a quarterly basis. Which "version" of their guesses and conjecture do you believe?

Pancake?
Truss Failure?
"Clip Failure"?
No core?
Foot of God?
Pile driver?

which is it today?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I have to ask all of you...
What's the sense in this continued discussion? There are many threads that address both sides of this story. The CTer's (those that are at the very least reasonable vs those that are just whacky) are not going to change their minds. Certainly, those of us that do not believe in the CT are going to change our minds. What's the use of a continuing discussion? All this does is result in name calling and disrespectful bickering. I believe our collective time and energy is better used elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I do support the proof from NIST
I do support the facts from FEMA


Then why don't you post it, and show it to us? You NEVER DO.

You constantly assert these guys have proven their cases when so many people disagree and even explain why exactly they disagree.

NIST, for example, fails to show enough buckled columns to justify a collapse in either building, considering the perimeter columns alone were 5x redundant and NIST can't even show 4/5 of those columns even buckled.

So what's the deal? Can you do math or do you just ignore this kind of stuff? Or just assume it's meaningless because you've made up your mind either way?

Seriously, you can discuss this beyond "They have proven their case! They have proven their case!"



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Well even the NIST refute there original claims. They just dont know what the hell happened.

And its not there fault, afterall, all theevidence was smelted down in china.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
They just dont know what the hell happened.


That's absolutely true in terms of global collapse. At least if they do have an idea, they certainly haven't shared it with the public, which one would assume they most certainly would considering rumors of scandals erupting within the agency and everything else.

All NIST has done in their report, is try to show that a collapse could have initiated. They offer a hypothesis on how it could have initiated, but then fail to support it in either of the tests they conduct (one in a lab, one with computer simulations in which they admit to upping the variables to favor their theory). Then the kicker: they publish it as verified fact anyway. And so many people take its presentation (as fact) over its actual informational content (which I've just summarized).

Even their hypothesis on how the collapses initiated has a major flaw. It isn't just a lack of evidence, but actually evidence that shows contrary to what they claim.

What I mean is that they say the perimeter columns buckled, and when enough of them buckled, a single floor's worth of support columns suddenly lost its ability to support its load and instantly failed, across the board. They also state somewhere in that mass of pages, that the perimeter columns had a safety factor rating of 5. That means the perimeter columns could hold 500%, or 5 times their expected loads.

Logically, this would mean that they would need to show something equivalent to 4/5 of the perimeter columns being totally severed, before a collapse of an entire floor of perimeter columns could be justified. When they talk of buckled columns, it would have to be even more than 4/5 of them, because buckled columns still carry some load.

Now realize that photos of such massive buckling on a single floor DO NOT EXIST. There was no such buckling before either collapse began. Only a handful of perimeter columns were buckled on each floor, and this can be seen in NIST's own photos in their report. What does this mean?

It means either

A) A floor went from very little buckled perimeter columns to an equivalent of >4/5 of them instantaneously before each collapse, without being overloaded to begin with, so quickly that it was invisible to the naked eye or video cameras, because it simply was not observed.

B) Buckling itself was simply not the initiation mechanism.

People have been pointing out for years that (A) is extremely improbable, if not impossible; there is no information in any scientific literature anywhere to suggest such an event is physically possible, and it is extremely counter-intuitive in terms of building behaviors.

Wayne Trumpman pointed this out in a paper posted a good while ago. Professor Steven Jones has pointed it out, and ridiculed the notion while summarizing the core problem with cartoons in his presentations. Charles Pegelow, the 30-year experienced, LP structural engineer that Fetzer interviewed, also said the exact same thing.

If anyone were to look at the real facts behind the NIST Report, they would notice the above information, and see that the report contradicts itself simply because of the technical information inherent to it. We did not see enough buckling, not nearly enough, by a long shot, to explain a floor failing instantly, just because of the great number of columns that were still intact on each floor, and their great redundancy.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   


NIST, for example, fails to show enough buckled columns to justify a collapse in either building, considering the perimeter columns alone were 5x redundant and NIST can't even show 4/5 of those columns even buckled.


There is no precendent for what happened, which makes this all the more difficult to explain for anyone. I have in previous threads posted many direct links, that no one wanted to see anyways because it is NIST, so I have grown tired of it. YOu have read is BS, and so have I, all of it. I tire of people popping in and making assumptions that others may not be knowledgeable. Not an expert, but knowledgeable. I will explain this in simple terms.

The 'outer columns' were like a cage around the exterior of the building. The interior columns provided the support, and the lack of floor columns is what attracted commercial business to the WTC. The entire floors were basically wide open for commerce. This was the design, for commercial property, not safety.
The floors are connected to the outer columns. During the impact, Columns were severed and destroyed. Not all or even half, but enough for a building of this size, would you not agree? This is not a 3 stroy townhome.

During the fire, buckling occured, removing floors from the outside 'support' that is given by the perimeter columns all began to fall and pull parts of the outer structure inward. This placed all the load on the interior columns, which eventually gave way under the weight of supporting the upper floors. WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 1 because it was attmepting to hold a larger load. WTC 2 was hit lower than WTC 1.

There is no math needed. I do not believe that there will ever be a universal aggrement on what happened, since as I stated. This is a precendent that nothing else can be used to compare against.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I'm still 50-50 on what happened that day, but the Time columist seems to be more interested in making people who questioned what happened that day seem mentally deranged than actually answering any questions that have been asked. And the Nist report is clearly shoddy at best.Hmmmm



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn

However...nobody has given strong enough evidnece at least in my opinion that 911 was an inside job, or that it was a CD. cuase then, how do u explain AQ attacking other targets around the world before and after 911? are all those government jobs too?

And what about the 1993 bombing of the WTC? he was a us agent to right?

and still nobody will answer my question, WHAT HAS THE GOVERNMENT GAINED FROM 911.

so far the answer i see is nothing...


Thank you for introducing a great opportunity to set the record straight...
YES! the 1993 bombing of the WTC has been revealed by court documents to be a agent provacatuer scenario...
An agent infiltrated the group, and then recruited them for the bombing...

OKC- same deal... a undercover agent that has tried to come forward has been gagged and threatened with treason by means of violating a national security secret (they were going after elohim city)

and regarding the previous AQ attacks... OBL had attacked many
military targets before...
like the nefarious dinghy bomb... gee, he went a long way from row boat bombs against a single ship to several jet airliners killing thousands...

the difference of scope and victim doesn't faze you at all does it?
for a more discerning mind, it might be a clue...


It's proven that in the 1993 WTC bombing, the FBI planted Emad A. Salem to infiltrate an Arab group in New York. His job was to act as an agent provocateur, inciting violent attacks. It was Salem who convinced the other participants to bomb the World Trade Center. When he was asked to assemble the bomb, he went to the FBI to ask for harmless powder to avoid a catastrophe. The FBI essentially cut him off.

from (amongst many parrot sites): inside plots are more common than you think

Oh, and regarding the answer you seek... (what did the government get out of it?)
that isn't the right question to get to your answer...
the correct question would be what did the influence buyers and lobbiests get from the attacks...
and the answer...
the greatest thing the military industrial complex has ever dreamed of (to the tune of nice retirements with more money than god)

Perpetual war, which means a perpetual solid, well paying, high profit customer (the USG) and their attitude is who cares about the price of war to people, as long as the checks cash"
It is their business, and when you look at corporate profit loss statements, the war costs in human suffering dont even show up on the cost sheets...


[edit on 7-9-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Esad, that is a good theory, however I would be more inclined to believe that if the building did not fall so fast.

The building burned for to short of a time, WTC 1 2 and 7 and the Pentagon have been the only skyscrapers to fall from fires. Well the pentagon is not a skyscraper so never mind that, the point being a gradual fall, a few floors falling, depris or floors falling over the edge, not a complete pancake of the building.

If the floors under such strain and fire (although the fires in my opinion are not that large compared with other skyscrapper fires) fell so fast, then the building it's self was not that stable for everyday business. Had NY been hit by an earthquake or a hurricane with strong winds how much could the building take.. you make it sound so weak. A little wight shifting and it falls? And if the fires where so great like NIST says they where, the material in the floors would have burnt away leaving plain steel, furniture and paper and even people all would have burned away, the effect of the trusses falling does not equal enough wieght to bring an entire building down into it's footprint..



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Operation Northwoods was an 'drafted operation' that was designed by the military, which never even crossed the presidents desk. Read up on it. It is a bold plan and I still believe it's dismissal help to seal a nail in Kennedys coffin.


I think it's unreal that you can state and believe this but 9/11 you can't believe? If they were willing to kill the president over Operation Northwoods....what's a few thousand peeons?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I have in previous threads posted many direct links, that no one wanted to see anyways because it is NIST, so I have grown tired of it.


There you go again, dude.

I'm asking for you to show us NIST's proof. What I mean by that, is break it down for us. Explain why NIST is correct, and how they have proven themselves.

Can you do that or can't you do that?

Simply asserting that NIST has proven their cases does not cut it. Simply linking to NIST does not cut it. This is a discussion forum.

Simply stating that the building just couldn't take it anymore does not cut it either, especially when not even a 50% majority of columns were compromised, and you even readily admit this yourself.


Not all or even half, but enough for a building of this size, would you not agree? This is not a 3 stroy townhome.


No, this is ridiculous, as skyscrapers are much more over-engineered, as a rule of thumb, than any low-rises. Knocking out a clear minority of columns is not going to do a damned thing in any skyscraper. I'm sure you would know this if you kept on the SE path.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The 'outer columns' were like a cage around the exterior of the building. The interior columns provided the support, and the lack of floor columns is what attracted commercial business to the WTC. The entire floors were basically wide open for commerce. This was the design, for commercial property, not safety.
The floors are connected to the outer columns. During the impact, Columns were severed and destroyed. Not all or even half, but enough for a building of this size, would you not agree? This is not a 3 stroy townhome.


Let's get something straight before we continue...k? From outside columns to inner core columns on one side of the building was + 62.5 feet. The other side was + 38 feet. I think people are really getting confused when they say that the buildings had an acre of open space per floor. They did NOT have an acre of open space per floor. The square footage of a floor including the core is 47,017 square feet. An acre is 43,560 square feet. The core is 12,987 square feet. 47,017-12,987= 34,030 square feet. That is a difference of 9,530 square feet. So, please people stop with the "oh, there was too much open space" BS.

When you think about the distance from outer to inner columns (62.5 ft & 38 feet), that's really not that long of a span. So, let's stop this "open space" crap please.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
You want a discussion, and I am giving it to you. The building was not designed as a regular building would. Think outside of the box here, I had to, or I would have never understood it. That is all I am asking.

and No, I won't stop the open space bs, because this is a main componenet of why it collapsed. Generally a grid is used througout in a design, giving more stabilty but losing rentable sq footage. The WTC was not designed that way. Look at buildings and they all have support columns evenly placed throughout.

Basically, real simple, the floors, all 4 inches thick, we supported by the inner columns and attached to the outside with welds or bolts. This were very large floors that basically 'hung' between the inner support columns and the outer columns. This is not for stability, but too squeeze out every square inch of footage.

Here, this is easier. Take 12 pencils, and then take a piece of paper. put all twelve right in the middle, and tell me what happens... the paper folds, right?. This is the design of the WTC. Now, in order to hold up the floors, you attach them to a skeleton on the outside. This is your support for the WTC.

Now, in other buildings, you will see evenly placed columns, that support the entire floor above it.Take the pencils and spread them out. Looks a little more stable, right? If the WTC was built like this, I beleive it is highly unlikely they would have fallen.

This is why I see no need for mathematics, it is common sense.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I thought you said you believed NIST, esdad? NIST doesn't support pancake theory.


Originally posted by esdad71
Here, this is easier. Take 12 pencils, and then take a piece of paper. put all twelve right in the middle, and tell me what happens... the paper folds, right?. This is the design of the WTC. Now, in order to hold up the floors, you attach them to a skeleton on the outside. This is your support for the WTC.


Now just get one piece of paper to fall down on the next, and onto the next, and etc., while simultaneously destroying all of the pencils. Tell me when you've perfected it.

That structural engineer that Fetzer interviewed also covered pancake collapse theory, explaining that concrete floors with no solid connections to the vertical columns can pancake, but the WTC Towers should not have. This is because the trusses under each slab were not only solidly bolted into place, but were also indepedent of each other. The failure of one does not necessitate the failure of any others, and the concrete slabs themselves, of course, weren't what we're told failed.

And even given all of that, it does not explain why independently-braced core structures would fail, or even why the perimeter columns would be flung outward, when the pulling from the trusses, if that's what actually happened, would have pulled them inward, and also kept them intact at the spandrel plates and welds.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
A pancake theory is one then another then another, building momentum, correct? Well, This was 30 pacncakes collapsing at once...
man, even i have to laugh at this one.

www.architectureweek.com... This is a good article that explains it with pictures.

This is a good video

www.architectureweek.com...://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Please select impact to collapse, there are 6 videos.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
A pancake theory is one then another then another, building momentum, correct? Well, This was 30 pacncakes collapsing at once...


So, how exactly did all of the support columns fail at the exact same moment releaseing the "pile of pancakes" or FOOT OF GOD on to the floors below?

The stack of pancakes should have tilted towards the damage as simultaneous failure of all the columns would be mathematically impossible without explosives...

Asymmetrical is how it should have gone down... WAIT... IT DID... WTC 2 the "pile of pancakes" rotated gaining ratation velocity nd momentum then... suddenly STOPPED and turned to dust... how does that fit in to your amazingly analogus example with the pencils and pancakes?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Watch the videos in the supplied links, and I think you will see how simple it all really is. Trust me, it is better than Loose Change.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Watch the videos in the supplied links, and I think you will see how simple it all really is. Trust me, it is better than Loose Change.


I did, it does not explain:

1. The rotational inerta of the WTC 2 block and subsequent disintegration.
2. How the collapse of WTC 2 would continue without the PE/KE of this block.
3. How the collapse could have been symmetrical at WTC 2 given the rotation and subsequent evaporation of the block.
4. How a triple (at least) redundant building collapses symmetrically driven only by gravity due to localized column failures.

As an aside... do not throw a veiled insult at me with the Loose Change comment. When did I reference "Loose Change"?

If all you bring to the table is FEMA and NOVA (from your links) you are just a parrot... why bother?

Why not answer my questions regarding rotational inertia, simultaneous column failure and symmetry?

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join