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.

 

New Video: 9/11 Mysteries

page: 15
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

As long as people stay in denial I suppose.

And thanks tazadar for the info. I'm going to download it tonight....or maybe even give the 10 bucks donation for it....if it's good enough. But by the responses here, I'm thinking it's good enough to buy.


In denial of what exactly?

have you watched any parts of the video at all?

Kind of strange that you do not try to verify the information in the video, and instead rely on what most members have to say about it.

I am not saying not to buy it, it is your right to do whatever you want with the money that you earn, but I just find it strange that you rely on the "opinions" or other members instead of watching some of the video and then decide for yourself.

This topic has been discussed so many times, and some members keep bringing up theories which have been debunked time and again, but still, people will believe what they want to believe.

What i find strange is that you call yourself a civil engineer, and decide that because most members around here think it is a good video you rely on their "opinion" instead of doing your own research and deciding whether or not the information in this video is valid.

If other more serious researchers/members and i can find inconsistencies in the video, the video is just another piece of propaganda, exagerations and lies being used as a political tool.

I wonder why is it exactly that all the members that get supposedly outraged about lies and exagerations, don't get outraged when videos such as this one keep propagating more lies and exagerations, and in quite a few cases the same ones that have been used sonce 9/11 happened....

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Muaddib]




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First question is, how is this video "so compelling" when for example they claimed the towers fell in 10 seconds....when it has been proven in these same forums it was much longer than that, and nowhere "near freefall" despite some people's claim?...


Then I take it that you also take exception with the NIST, FEMA, and Kean Commission reports?


If I can find inconsistencies in the first 2 minutes or so of the video, i wonder what else I can find which has been debunked already in these same forums?


Change "minutes" to "chapters" and "video" to "report" and you echo my feelings on the above-mentioned literature.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Then I take it that you also take exception with the NIST, FEMA, and Kean Commission reports?


Actually you should know by now that i rely mostly on the data and information which has been corroborated by several independent structural and civil engineers, information and links that other members and i have given to such research.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Change "minutes" to "chapters" and "video" to "report" and you echo my feelings on the above-mentioned literature.


bsbray, i have discussed in threads which you have started on this topic, among other threads having to do with this same topic, and pretty much everything you have presented has been debunked.

One claim which has been presented in the past: "there were no firefighters anywhere close to tower 7 from 11 am" or so, in which case i posted pictures which showed the time the video/pictures were taken and where we see firefighters right next to WTC7 and where we can see the fires clearly coming out from the windows of WTC7, the fires were reported to be seen for the first time in wtc7 around 4 or 430 pm.

But even after your theories keep being debunked, we are looking for truth here not for exagerations and lies, you keep coming up with other theories which make no sense, and have no basis in reality, so excuse me if I take your "opinion" with a grain of salt.

Now back to this video in specific, I would like to find out exactly why so many people find the video so "compelling", when much of the information being given in that video is a blatant lie.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   


This is table 1.1 from the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study. You'll notice they derive their collapse times the same way the documentary 9/11 Mysteries did.

The only reason we know it took longer is because us "conspiracy theorists" took the trouble to question these methods.

From the Kean Commission's report:


From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.


Source (Mirror of actual Kean Commission government site)

And from NIST:


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).


Source (NIST)


So, I'm assuming you also take exception to these reports, and admit that they have made very obvious and careless mistakes in some assumptions they made regarding this issue. Why should we believe anything else in these reports is up to snuff?



This is relevant to the video in that you keep saying the video is full of crap, and yet you suggest the official reports are very thought-out by various engineers and etc., and yet they make the same mistakes and you ignore this fact. Does 1 = 1 have exceptions in your biased forms of logic?

An error is an error. The official reports all had plenty of them and it wouldn't hurt if you realized this before criticizing a documentary for echoing the official reports, which you apparently support. Makes no sense, except that you are flat-out biased as hell.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
First of all, which report is that which you are linking. There was a preliminary report, and several others because as more evidence and information was found, the reports were updated.

Second of all, most of the research i link to is from independent researchers.

The following is one of those links.

www.icivilengineer.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Those are from the final reports from FEMA and the 9/11 Comission. The NIST excerpt was from a post-report "FAQ", released in August. It's all "final". It's all wrong. And it's all from government-sanctioned reports.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Humm...i am watching the video now...

First question is, how is this video "so compelling" when for example they claimed the towers fell in 10 seconds....when it has been proven in these same forums it was much longer than that, and nowhere "near freefall" despite some people's claim?...

If I can find inconsistencies in the first 2 minutes or so of the video, i wonder what else I can find which has been debunked already in these same forums?


Firstly, I believe that he got the times of failure from FEMA. So, I wouldn't go and just say he's debunked from his mistake of the collapse times. When it was FEMA who mistoke it from the beginning.

Edit: BsBray11...beat me to it again.

[edit on 10/9/2006 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Firstly, I believe that he got the times of failure from FEMA. So, I wouldn't go and just say he's debunked from his mistake of the collapse times. When it was FEMA who mistoke it from the beginning.

Edit: BsBray11...beat me to it again.

[edit on 10/9/2006 by Griff]


Firstly, those are the "signal duration" of the earthquakes caused by the collapse....

Those signals were recieved from stations which if i remember correctly were a bit far from the towers...

I would say it would take some time after the start of the collapse, for a seismic station to pick up the signal from the collapsing towers.

The signal would be very weak at first, and gain strength as more mass is added to the debris collapsing from the tower/towers.

The seismic stations would most probably not pick up the start of the collapse, but the signal would be picked up a few seconds after the collapse started.

The signal duration/strength would also lessen the farther away the seismic stations were from the towers.

I thought you were a civil engineer.... If you were a "civil engineer" you would have at least some basic understanding of this, but i guess you forgot huh?...

Here is some information about the signals picked by seismic stations, some of which were 34 km away, others were 428 km away from the towers.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Woo, so now Muaddib's attacking the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and FEMA!

Btw, civil engineers don't really study seismic activity, you know? I know post-9/11 "scholars" have made civil and structural engineers seem like Jesuses on Earth that are walking encyclopedias while no one else should have even graduated high school, but are you sure you know what you're talking about here?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
No, but being an engineer... he should be able to have a basic understanding of this.

BTW, you are just posting some pictures which you probably do not even understand, you need more information to make an educated "guess" of what that signal is showing, more than just a couple of pictures of seismic signals.

You have to take in consideration the distance of the seismic stations from the towers, the background noise, etc, etc.



[edit on 9-10-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Oh one more thing.

If you take a close look at that picture you keep presenting, you would notice that it shows not only "signal duration" but magnitude, it is not saying that's how long it took for the towers to collapse. It is showing for how long the seismic waves, provocked by the collapse, were picked by a certain station or stations.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Only for the FEMA Report. Those are the ONLY TIMES FEMA gives.


But the 9/11 Comission Report and NIST say EXPLICITLY that the collapse times were both 11 seconds or less. So what do you think of NIST's conclusions, Muaddib?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
You need to present direct links and excerpt the quote were they say this. You would also need to supply the page number were that quote is. I don't make up my mind in such topics just by the statements of people, which could or could not be right.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Dude, I did that in an earlier post. Scroll up.

You should have read it when I posted it.

From the Kean Commission Report:


From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.


911research.wtc7.net...

Use the search function on your browser and you'll find it easily enough.


NIST cites Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1.

And again, that table is table 1.1 from the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study. It represents the only times given for collapse. Table 1.1 also indicates that it's in the first chapter of the FEMA report.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Yes, it does say what you state, but they were obviously wrong as it has been proven that it took longer for the towers to collapse.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
So at least we can accept that these errors aren't coming just from one side, but are also coming from official reports. In my opinion, there are no good times for the collapses, but around 15 - 17 seconds is a reasonable estimate for reasons that, as you point out, have already been addressed.

You asked in a previous post, if they can get something like that wrong, what else might be wrong? In that documentary, there are probably a good many more technical errors, but at the same time, there are a lot of people now who are complaining of problems in the official reports as well, for various reasons. So this goes both ways and I think we should focus on any errors from anyone, so long as we can reasonably show that there are indeed inadequacies in presented information. What do you think, Muaddib?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
....................
So this goes both ways and I think we should focus on any errors from anyone, so long as we can reasonably show that there are indeed inadequacies in presented information. What do you think, Muaddib?


Yes, in that we can agree, what i don't agree with is many of the theories which some like yourself keep posting and have more fallacies than "the time it took for the towers to collapse"... Just because there might be other errors in some of the official reports it doesn't mean that anyone should be able to make up stories and exagerate.... that is not "searching for the truth"... that is using the tragedy of 9/11 for political agendas...

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   


Skule & Bones are not secret?


Yes they are but there not really important at all. I am not going to debate this, you just need to do more research.




Also, they do not support pancake theory.


I was just wondering, what theory do they support then? From what I have heard their theory is that the fires caused all the core columns in each of the buildings to give way and collapse in on themselves.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

I thought you were a civil engineer.... If you were a "civil engineer" you would have at least some basic understanding of this, but i guess you forgot huh?...


I didn't forget. Your original beef was with the 10 second collapse time of the video. We have shown you that he got that information from the government "official" story. If he is wrong...then so is the "official" story...plain and simple.

Further, I don't like being goaded with "if you were a 'civil engineer'". If you'd like to see my credentials U2U me and we'll talk.


Here is some information about the signals picked by seismic stations, some of which were 34 km away, others were 428 km away from the towers.

911research.wtc7.net...


We are not arguing about seismic stations, distance and such. We are arguing because you stated that the whole video is bunk because of 1 error. Well, if that is true, then the "official" story is also bunk for the same error. Understand?....I doubt it.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
I was just wondering, what theory do they support then?


NIST's August release says that they have "proven conclusively" (or some wording like that) that the perimeter columns buckled inward, causing the floor above to collapse, and then that somehow propogated downwards through the perimeter columns themselves.

How that would happen, is beyond me. NIST did a piss poor job of even outlining that mechanism, let alone proving it. The buckling they show to justify even the initiations is insanely inefficient; a few buckled columns per floor and suddenly they want you to think a whole floor's worth of trusses is going to fail instantly at the welds, simultaneously.




top topics



 
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join