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.

 

9-11 Truth Movement or 9-11 Cult?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
bush lies on 911, why?. bad president!

cult better describes those who ignore LIES of their glorious leader, and the obvious hiding and destruction of evidence..

septembergate is coming, the birth of the 911 LIE movement.




posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I have and I still don't understand how the cores fell to the ground. Microscoping into themselves. What class did you take that taught this?


I believe the term is telescoping. It is real simple the cores can't. People keep wanting to treat the towers as a solid structure. They were not. They were an assembly of millions of parts. They failed when the joints were over loaded. Look at all if the pictures of the WTC debris. Look for failures in the beams themselves. You won't find any. You will find failures in the joints. You said that you have taken some engineering classes. Have you taken Statics? Think about moments and you will have your answers. If explosives had dropped the towers, where are the sections cut by the charges? Explosives shatter metal they don't bend it.

Don't even go into Thermite. I went to a Veteran's Day dinner last Saturday. My wife and I were seated at a table with an older couple. The man we were seated with spent 45 years working in the railroad industry. We were talking and got on the subject of the WTC collapse. He said that he got a laugh everytime someone on the news mentioned Thermite being used to cut the WTC's structure. The railroad has used Thermite for years to weld track rails togather. They also tried to use it to cut sections of rails. This failed for as he explained it a very simple reason. Gravity. When the Thermite starts burning the Iron Oxide in it turns to liquid. When it is being used to weld rails it is this liquid that is used as a filler in the weld. However when you try to cut with Thermite, there is nothing to hold it in place long enough to heat the material that you are trying to cut. The Thermite tends to flow in the path of least resistance. You end up with a triangular section of uncut metal because the Thermite melts its way along the path of least resistance. If you put it on top of an I-beam, it would melt through the flange leaving the web of the beam intact.



Originally posted by Griff
Then you really haven't been looking. There are plenty of people (mostly engineers who know what molten metal looks like) who reported them. There are photos of steel being pulled out that is glowing red hot.


Enlighten me. Where are the photos?


Originally posted by Griff
So, basically you're saying that just because some renovations were going on that the buildings couldn't have been undergoing other "suspicious" activity?


Define suspicious? I am saying that there is no way that both towers could have been rigged with enough explosives to cause them to collapse the way that they did without someone finding out and leaking the information. Hell! I wish the Government could keep that kind of secret.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
JIMC5499,

Great post AGAIN.... Although I do belive there is a conspiracy with how the government allowed this to happen...or FAILED to do what was necessary to prevent it. They also botched the 911 commission report.

Your posts are always well researched and based with FACTS. The 911 Truth movement i feel should concentrate on getting the facts about a few things:

1. Why did Bush wait over 450 days to investigate
2. Why was the budget so tiny (in comparison to the Clinton blow job, and the Shuttle Colubia investigation)
3. Why was kissinger asked to be the chairman?
4. And why did he resign only after beign questioned by the Jersey 4.
5. Oh...and WHY did he refuse to be questioned unless Cheney was present?

Again... .great job getting the truth and the facts out there!

[edit on 17-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
The 911 Truth movement i feel should concentrate on getting the facts about a few things:

1. Why did Bush wait over 450 days to investigate
2. Why was the budget so tiny (in comparison to the Clinton blow job, and the Shuttle Colubia investigation)
3. Why was kissinger asked to be the chairman?
4. And why did he resign only after beign questioned by the Jersey 4.
5. Oh...and WHY did he refuse to be questioned unless Cheney was present?

Again... .great job getting the truth and the facts out there!

[edit on 17-11-2006 by CameronFox]


If they went by the facts the 911 Truth movement would have no reason to exist.

1. The cause of the collapse was obvious? I mean the planes did hit the towers. I was lead to believe that originally the investigation's objective was on how to make buildings more survivable in the event something like 9-11 happened again. I am referring to the NIST investigation not that 9-11 Commission circus.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I believe the term is telescoping. It is real simple the cores can't. People keep wanting to treat the towers as a solid structure. They were not. They were an assembly of millions of parts. They failed when the joints were over loaded.



No one has ever shown that the towers were ever overloaded before they began to collapse. Everything else in your post aside, we have never seen a reasonable amount of perimeter buckling pre-collapse for either building. If what NIST suggests is true, then simply buckling a handful of columns per floor is apparently enough to make a whole floor's worth of trusses fail globally, instantly. That's for WTC1. For WTC2, there was a tilt, as in angular momentum, that was then lost to the air for reasons never explained to us, to allow the building to fall straight down.

Once the global collapse begins, it seems like people coming from a structural background all throw their hands up and claim the rest was inevitable, no matter what "the rest" entails. The collapses did not slow down, despite thickening structure towards the base, and despite the majority of the mass of each floor being chucked right out of the towers' footprints. Unless you believe the WTC collapses were free energy machines just because overloading = any failure is justified, the collapse waves should have at least slowed down.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No one has ever shown that the towers were ever overloaded before they began to collapse. Everything else in your post aside, we have never seen a reasonable amount of perimeter buckling pre-collapse for either building. If what NIST suggests is true, then simply buckling a handful of columns per floor is apparently enough to make a whole floor's worth of trusses fail globally, instantly. That's for WTC1. For WTC2, there was a tilt, as in angular momentum, that was then lost to the air for reasons never explained to us, to allow the building to fall straight down.

Once the global collapse begins, it seems like people coming from a structural background all throw their hands up and claim the rest was inevitable, no matter what "the rest" entails. The collapses did not slow down, despite thickening structure towards the base, and despite the majority of the mass of each floor being chucked right out of the towers' footprints. Unless you believe the WTC collapses were free energy machines just because overloading = any failure is justified, the collapse waves should have at least slowed down.


Actually they should have (and did) speed up. Once the section of the tower above the impact point started falling the momentum of the components started increasing along with it's Kinetic Energy. As it collapsed the floors below the impact area the mass of those floors were added, increasing the amount of energy availible. It was quite literally like the snowball in the cartoons that just keeps getting bigger and bigger as it rolls along.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
bsbray11,

A Controlled demolition requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, controlled demolitions required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside an empty,closed down building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was. Think about it ...all the beam that had to be cut...for how long? Read the post about thermite...and how it is not appropriate for cutting steel. I will look and try to find the information about how much thermite it would have taken (in was measured in tons) to take down the towers.

Yes the buildings fell FAST but, the huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they didn't provide much resistance.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Actually they should have (and did) speed up.


Can you prove that they did?


Once the section of the tower above the impact point started falling the momentum of the components started increasing along with it's Kinetic Energy.


I'm having trouble understanding how you could come to this conclusion when I've just stated that the majority, the GREAT majority, of the mass of each floor was sent OUTWARDS, not straight down!

There is a page on this information here: www.studyof911.com...


From FEMA:




From the NOAA:




WTC2's footprint:




Around WTC4 (near WTC2's footprint):




Where is all the debris, if it simply fell straight down?

The simple answer is that it did NOT fall straight down and you are making a pretty bad assumption there.


It was thrown out of the buildings' footprints en masse as they fell:





[edit on 17-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
bsbray11,

A Controlled demolition requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it.


Is this a rhetorical question of logistics, or of science?



Second, controlled demolitions required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside an empty,closed down building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel.


There were explosions reported all during the fires, before each collapse. There were even massive explosions reported during (ie just before) the impacts, by a number of people. Lower-level explosions, basement destruction, etc.

There was plenty of pre-collapse damage, and plenty of time, and plenty of opportunities, and plenty of circumstantial evidence that explosives could have been causing the sufficient preliminary damage before each building was brought down.


Also consider that the towers were NOT implosions. They were explosions. They did not come straight down; rather, they were blown out, primarily in four directions (at least the perimeter was).

There is nothing to suggest that these were conventional demolitions. There is nothing to suggest that they followed the same strategy and procedure as your run-of-the-mill building implosions. However, that does not mean that the towers crushed themselves by nature alone.


Read the post about thermite...and how it is not appropriate for cutting steel. I will look and try to find the information about how much thermite it would have taken (in was measured in tons) to take down the towers.


A lot, I would imagine, because you're assuming conventional thermite.

When you make the iron oxide and aluminum particles much smaller, more total surface area of each substance is making appropriate contact for the thermite reaction itself. I believe these are called "superthermites", or something similar, when nano-technology is involved, and the particles are very, very fine. They burn faster and more efficiently, and can be applied as a gel substance to a column.


Yes the buildings fell FAST but,


Acceleration (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with a velocity, but changes in velocity. There were none, so far as I have ever been able to tell, for the perimeter collapses.


the huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly.


These are words. Prove them.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
BSBAY ,

All of the structural and civil engineers in the world who have studied the collapse and made public statements agreeing with the NIST report. Of the structural and civil engineers who have studied the conspiracy theories and made public statements, NOT ONE has supported it. The proof is not one paper by ANYONE has passed peer review in a respected civil engineering Journal saying the towers couldn’t have collapsed as the NIST suggests. NOT ONE!

Are all of these Engineers in on it too? Why hasn't anyone from the truth movement hired a structural or civil engineer to back up their claims?



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
All of the structural and civil engineers in the world who have studied the collapse and made public statements agreeing with the NIST report.


Nope, sorry. Four structural engineers are with Scholars for 9/11 Truth (go to their site and look at their member list). There are others that are civil engineers. That should tell you something. A fifth SE, Charles Pegelow (look HIM up, too!), a man with some 30 years experience as a licensed professional with numerous major contractors, has also publically criticized NIST's report for failing to show enough pre-collapse buckling, and for not analyzing the global collapses after initiation (which they did not). Griff, one of the members that posts here, is also a civil engineer, and also disagrees.


Not to mention, SE's (no offense to them) are not relevant experts when it comes to building collapses in the first place. They deal primarily with statics. They don't study steel when it's heated to a certain temperature, and they don't study building collapses. That isn't what a structural engineer does. And it's a logical fallacy to assume that because you've not heard any of these people protesting NIST, that therefore NIST is correct. That does not logically follow, and it is certainly not scientific. And if you do what I've instructed above, you'll see that there ARE structural and civil engineers that believe the towers were blown, and they are qualified as such if you insist on believing that they're the real experts.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
BSBRAY,

you said mine are just "words". Isn't that all you have ? All my research is gathered from studies that are done by legitimate structural and civil engineers. Not Alex Jones. I at one time was suspicious of the towers...but after all the research i have done...I have to go with whay the professionals ALL agree on. Not ONE engineer has come out against what the NIST report.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
you said mine are just "words". Isn't that all you have ?


Pick out anything in my post above and I'll back it up with sources, or else logically deduce it from photographs or etc.


Not ONE engineer has come out against what the NIST report.


I'll let you read my last post to catch up with this one.

This is the Scholars for 9/11 Truth member list: www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

They include a number of engineers, including structural, civil, mechanical, etc., all disagreeing with the "official story".

P.S. -- The Charles Pegelow interview can be found here: www.911blogger.com...

[edit on 17-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I am by no means saying that all or any members here act like this, but I have seen this behavior on other boards, and presented on sites like prisonplanet.

That 9-11 scholars show on Cspan definitely fits these descriptions, with the aggresive political activism and support of the half truths and distortions of Loose Change.

While I am extremely skeptical of the demolition theories, I am open to the more plausible Let It Happen On Purpose theories.

What do the rest of you think of this?


What is your agenda here then? I mean you read the threads, you appear to be active here even though I don't remember you for some reason?

You CHOOSE to believe what you WANT to believe.. so do you want my opinion on what your sociological profile likely is?



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
BSBRAY,

Thanks for his name... I will be doing some research on his interview and look into his claims. One think i do tend to do is keep an open mind to what EVERYONE has to say.

Thanks for the info.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
[edit on 17-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
BSBRAY11,

I did some quick research on this gentleman, and read the transcript of the interview.

Here are a few things I have gathered that I would like answers to... ( if you can answer them, great...if not maybe He can )

1. There are MANY discrepancies on his DD-214 here are a few:

a. DD-214 lists no foreign service and he claims to an 8 month tour in Afghanistan.

b. Why does his DD-214 leave out several ribbons that he should have received (not merit based requiring his commander to submit them) based on his service, including 1 NDSM, an NCO Professional Development ribbon, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and a NATO medal?

c. Why does his DD-214 list a 14 week Special Forces Q course, despite the fact that the course takes a LOT longer, and it also makes no mention of SFAS or Airborne training, both prerequisites, and does not list a Special Forces MOS?


2.Why, even though he claims expertise with explosives does he claim that thermite, an incendiary, is an explosive and a component of C-4?


3. Why does he say that Afghan soldiers could not have flown the hijacked planes, when nobody has ever claimed they did?

4. Chavez claims to have spoken with a good friend Lieutenent General, who was a former commander of the Army Corp of Engineers at CENTCOM in 2001, when the only 3 star assigned to CENTCOM at that time was Lieutenent General Michael P. DeLong who in fact was a Marine!

www.cnn.com...

5. He also says he flew in a C5 into Kabul on 9/25 (or 9/26 his story changes) 2001, when Kabul was securely in Taliban hands until it was liberated by the Northern Alliance on November 13th, 2001. www.csmonitor.com...

6. Why does he say that he pulled roving guard on an oil pipeline in 2001-2002, when in fact this pipeline is still in the planning stages 5 years later?
www.ens-newswire.com...

7. Why does he repeatedly claim that he received a Chapter 13 separation discharge to enter school, when a Chapter 13 is a discharge for "unsatisfactory performance"?www.usapa.army.mil...

8.What type of shoulder weapon causes could cause the type of damage seen at the Pentagon, as he mentioned in his interview?

9. He makes several claims that Dick Cheney was head of NORAD in 2001. I believe at that in 2001 the NORAD commander was General Ralph Eberhart. www.9-11commission.gov...

Anyway...this man does not seem quite credible. Hey I could be wrong. HE is claming he is now getting death threats at his place of work.







[edit on 17-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Actually they should have (and did) speed up. Once the section of the tower above the impact point started falling the momentum of the components started increasing along with it's Kinetic Energy. As it collapsed the floors below the impact area the mass of those floors were added, increasing the amount of energy availible. It was quite literally like the snowball in the cartoons that just keeps getting bigger and bigger as it rolls along.


some of your cohorts in blind nationalism have argued that they have measured the acceleration. it started at 8.something m/s^2, and after the first impact slowed to 4.something m/s^2.

if someone would just give me twenty million bucks, i could hire a few good men, and we could solidy document these important things.
as it is, i have to do it in my spare time with a brain worn down from the rigors of day to day life.

not all conspiracy theorists GET there info FROM alex jones, either. some of us find info elsewhere, and then later notice that guys like alex jones, william cooper, phil shnieder, and other famous conspiracy researchers are in agreement on most salient facets of the onslaught of totalitarianism on a global scale.

once again, why did bush say TWICE , "i saw the plane hit the tower on television" BEFORE he went into the classroom, and NO FOOTAGE HAD EVER BEEN BROADCAST of the first hit until that evening.
that is a plain lie proving foreknowledge of the event.

did none of you 'CTs are kooks' crowd follow the link to youtube, and watch the president respond to the biggest attack on america since pearl harbour? di d you listen to his words?

so, how did the president SEE something that was never there, and why did he LIE immediately following the attack? why did he say, "let us NOT TOLERATE any outrageous conspiracies theories" before there even were any?

there is a cult out there, but it not conspiracy theorists, it is BIG MONEY.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Griff
I have and I still don't understand how the cores fell to the ground. Microscoping into themselves. What class did you take that taught this?


I believe the term is telescoping.


First, you're right.. my bad.


It is real simple the cores can't. People keep wanting to treat the towers as a solid structure. They were not. They were an assembly of millions of parts.


This is almost true. The core was welded to itself. No assembly of millions of parts, excluding the horizontal bracing (which atually makes it stronger I might add not weaker). I have a question for you. Since all the surrounding building fell neatly around the towers, why did the core fall into itself? Ask yourself that question again. Think of an anthill with center sticks making up the core. This would be after everything collapsed. We know it would be like this because we have all seen the videos of the standing core columns. Now, think about if the sticks were in the foundation before the anthill was made by the ants. Then in about 14 seconds the ants build the anthill. What makes the sticks desolve into themselves?


They failed when the joints were over loaded. Look at all if the pictures of the WTC debris.


When there are no joints, what has failed then? I'm talking inside the core. Dispite what Howard would like you to believe with his famous picture, the horizontal bracing was not in the same areas of the welded "joints" of the core columns. Thus adding stability and not in anyway detrimental to the overall stability of the core columns. This is my speculation without the oportunity to do any structural analysis because I need real construction drawings to do it. Why can't I? If I could even prove to myself that this or that could have happened, I'd be satisfied and walk away. But I can't, why?


Look for failures in the beams themselves. You won't find any. You will find failures in the joints. You said that you have taken some engineering classes. Have you taken Statics? Think about moments and you will have your answers. If explosives had dropped the towers, where are the sections cut by the charges? Explosives shatter metal they don't bend it.


First, I did see shattered steel, so what are you saying? Gravity only would bend the steel IMO. It would shatter the bolts and such, yes, but IMO I don't think it would have done what it did to the core. If you have been keeping tabs on my posts, you'd see that I feel the core is the key to this whole thing. I can see failure of the building. I just can't see that core coming down the way it did. Also, I do know about moments. What beams were there to fail in the core other than the horizontal bracing? I can see a huge partial failure in the towers but not a global one. Sorry. The core was just too strong to fail like it did. The debris should have caused a pyramid like debris pile around the still standing partial core structure if gravity alone pulled it down. I'm sorry, I don't see how a gravity driven collapse becomes a mass of scattered debris.


Don't even go into Thermite.


Why not?


I went to a Veteran's Day dinner last Saturday. My wife and I were seated at a table with an older couple. The man we were seated with spent 45 years working in the railroad industry. We were talking and got on the subject of the WTC collapse. He said that he got a laugh everytime someone on the news mentioned Thermite being used to cut the WTC's structure.


Hmm...funny how the news really isn't reporting it huh? So he gets a chuckle when? The only couple times anyone has had a say about it? What, on Hannity or Scarborough, who didn't even let the guys speak? Come on.



The railroad has used Thermite for years to weld track rails togather. They also tried to use it to cut sections of rails. This failed for as he explained it a very simple reason. Gravity. When the Thermite starts burning the Iron Oxide in it turns to liquid. When it is being used to weld rails it is this liquid that is used as a filler in the weld. However when you try to cut with Thermite, there is nothing to hold it in place long enough to heat the material that you are trying to cut. The Thermite tends to flow in the path of least resistance. You end up with a triangular section of uncut metal because the Thermite melts its way along the path of least resistance. If you put it on top of an I-beam, it would melt through the flange leaving the web of the beam intact.


This is a good point. There are a multitude of other derivatives of thermite that essentially could melt through. You know, things like higher temperatures and such with the right combinations of chemicals and things.


Enlighten me. Where are the photos?


Around here. Anyone want to help? If not, you can go to another forum. I'm not sure if I can say the forum but if you'd like, U2U me and I can give it to you.


Define suspicious?


Actually, what do you find suspicious? Because, that's essentially what we are talking about here. What would you consider suspicious if you worked in a building where thousands of people worked on a day to day basis? Not to mention the thousands of tourists. How about the couple hundreds of maintenence men, building engineers etc.? How much attention do you think those people payed to what any maintenance man was doing? Plus, if you had the right credentials, who's to stop you from installing anything?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...


I am saying that there is no way that both towers could have been rigged with enough explosives to cause them to collapse the way that they did without someone finding out and leaking the information. Hell! I wish the Government could keep that kind of secret.


I don't. That's all I have to say to that.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
some of your cohorts in blind nationalism


Sorry Dude I'm a solo act.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join