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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I'm quite new here so forgive me for my ignorance if these points have been discussed before but I felt I should try and reply to your post Mr C Fox.

- A Controlled demolition requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building.
* Actually a CD just needs a small amount of precisley placed charges.

- When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it.
* Good point, but p4 copper demolition cutting charges arn't that difficult to wrap around a beam or several beams very quickly; 'in the right hands'

- Second, controlled demolitions required more than just explosives.
* Care to quantify what else is needed? Planning and logistics is a given I take it in your statement!!!!!!

- Demolition experts spend weeks inside an empty,closed down building planning an event.
* Of course they do, we all know that and your point here is?

- Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel.
* I'd love to know where you got this piece of info?????? Industry norm 20 - 30 % before a buliding is rendered unsafe and that is only on 40% of the superstructure. Cutting charges do the work these days!

- 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?
* Moot point see above.......... (90%!)

- 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.
* Agreed, I don't think thermite had anything to do with it, just disinfo, but still see if you can get the thermite information.

-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.
* Quick enough to almost defy the laws of resistance and fall at the speed of gravity!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they didn't provide much resistance.
* Of course! The 47 steel core Columns were so fragile they barely held up the bulding!
Nonsense, these were the structural integrety of each tower, the core columns were designed to withstand mph 100+ hurricanes.

So Mr C Fox what happened to the 47 core columns of each building, (not to mention floor pans, outside faciasi, internal, external concrete etc etc) ?

94 in total, I guess they just disintergrated, pulverised, vapourised and disappeared along with the publics attitude for caring for this event.


But thats another story


MR




posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Hi Marlborough Red,

Thank you for your input on my post. I will try my best to answer your questions to my posts. Please keep in mind that not one Engineer has come out publicly to refute the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC towers. Let me re-phrase that...no CREDIBLE engineer. There is one (Lauro Chavez) that has come out recently and after reading his interviews, i did some research and found him to be quite a...well..toots his own horn with quite a fabrication of the truth.

First of all, if you take into consideration the size of the WTC, you would be setting explosives for a VERY long time. Contolled Demolition Incorperated spent 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives in the 26 story Hudson Building. This is a video of the Hudson Building
www.history.com...

This incredible dust clouds were not ALL concrete as some say. The results of analyses completed show a consistent picture: the samples are largely composed of gypsum, cellulose, and miscellaneous materials common in a building, with minor asbestiform minerals.
www.wisegeek.com...
pubs.usgs.gov...

As far as the gravity speed or freefall speed:
Dr. Frank Greening has a great piece on this that explains why it fell at such a high speed.
www.911myths.com...

Also, as documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1:the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Lets take into consideration how many people would have been involved in JUST the WTC attacks? Here are some rough numbers:

Demolition Experts: 12 at the Hudson building...lets at least double that to 24
NIST: Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia.
NYPD: (witnesses of explosions)
FDNY: (same as above)
EMS: (same as above)
Survivors of the WTC's: (would have reported somthing)
The Entire Bush Administration
FEMA
I think you get the picture with this. Hell Clinton couldn't get a BJ, Nixon got busted for Watergate, Reagan for Iran Contra, Bush with his WMD lies didn't even attempt to fabricate the discovery of some.

Besides the 200 or so technical experts working for NIST, any true engineer that has come out publicly in regards to the WTC has agreed with the NIST findings, here are a few that have done studies:
Jerome Connor, professor of civil and environmental engineering at M.I.T.
Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering
Robert McNamara, president of the engineering firm McNamara and Salvia.
The National Science Foundation has done studies
The American Society of Civil Engineers has done studies.
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers
W. Gene Corley, senior vice president of the Construction Technology Laboratory

Anyway...i could go on and on. I hope you find this information useful.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marlborough Red

-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.
* Quick enough to almost defy the laws of resistance and fall at the speed of gravity!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Please...what are the laws of resistance? Was I asleep that day?


-The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they didn't provide much resistance.
* Of course! The 47 steel core Columns were so fragile they barely held up the bulding!
Nonsense, these were the structural integrety of each tower, the core columns were designed to withstand mph 100+ hurricanes.


Intead of going through the physics of F=MA and KE = 1/2 MV2 lets do a simple thought experiment.

Set a 20 lb brick on your toes...some discomfort, but you're ok
Set a 40 lb brick on your toes....more pain, a little damage maybe, but no catastrophic failure.
Drop the 40 ;b brick onto your toes from 10 ft.
No more toes, just a bloody mass of blood, bone and tissue.
I realize a foot is not a steel and conc bldg but the principal of KE is clearly demonstrated.

Furthermore, the structural components on a steel frame multi-story bldg designed to bear lateral wind loads are separate from vert. load bearing systems. They are connected but separate.



[edit on 11/17/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Interesting.

This thread, has become, like so many others before it, an excuse to re-hash old arguments about how the towers fell.

The point of this thread, as I see it, is to determine whether 9/11 truth-seekers are cultish.

In fact this question is itself loaded. There are thousands - probably hundreds of thousands, and indeed millions worldwide - of people who find the events of 9/11 suspicious.

There are more than enough threads dealing with the specifics of the case. The 9/11 forum is probably the largest and most active on ATS. Why? Because the logical inconsistencies from that day simply will not go away.

I've been reading through this thread and just as I think the believers of the official myth have scored a point, back come the truth seekers with something equally valid. Ultimately, the USG has failed to provide adequate evidence of their claims about how that day played out. I am still open-minded about what happened. This means I'm prepared to entertain the most outlandish theories - even the one that says 19 guys with box-cutters made it happen all on their own.

Perhaps you can tell from my choice of words that I don't really give that one a very high probability.

Like so many others, I watched the news that day and as the story unfolded, the suspicion that it was a massive piece of theatre began to take root in my mind. When I watched the towers go down, I thought, bringing down buildings that tall into their own footprint doesn't happen by chance. That suspicion has not been laid to rest, and the hedging and temporising of the official story doesn't help.

The hijackers were named so fast, and OBL's name came into the frame so quickly, that was suspicious in itself. Then there was all the "evidence" found... like the passport in the wreckage, handed to a policeman by an anonymous guy in a suit. The utter lack of forensication of the scenes. The tiny, tiny hole in the pentagon (I'm talking about the original hole, less than 20 feet across).

Then the antrhax attacks - a classic piece of PSYOPS warfare on the US public. Every time that came up in the news, I heard the words "anthrax" and "foreign terrorists" in close proximity, but with no actual evidence to link them... and so it proved (after the story went really, really quiet.

There are so many legitimate reasons to be highly suspicious of the official version of the events of that day... and to rhetorically smear those people investigating it with accusations of cultism is, at best, inaccurate.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Originally posted by bsbray11
What I'm wondering is how long he stood over the shoulders of the guys doing the work to watch exactly what they were doing, and at what point they became annoyed with him.

I'm not saying they were planting explosives, or hooking up/activating detonators or whatever, necessarily, but the fact that people were around is no great shock. I just wonder how one can make such concrete statements unless they were up in the faces of those doing the actual work.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by bsbray11]


And on the reverse of that coin I can't understand how people that weren't even there can even speculate as to the intensions of the electricians in the building, yet every day I see someone rehashing the VERY tired electrician/explosive theory.

Not to point a finger, of course.

911 Truth is the new Alien Disclosure, as far as I can see. Just something new to blame on the government with speculation and conjecture. Heck, there is MORE evidence that the United States Government is hiding an Alien then there is evidence that they were involved in this plot.


Hi, Hank,

These are not alien facts. You want something on explosives--here you go.
See if you can explain this away. (If you can, you'll be the first.):


The US Government…incriminated by its own facts—how ironic and yet so perfect.
The perfect evidence, because it is from the US Government.
------------
------------
Summary:
The real 9/11 smoking gun…no one has debunked this yet…and it’s not a “theory”—just the facts.
“Plane Impact” Times: Incriminating Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross, Scholars for 9/11 Truth: www.st911.org...

The official times for plane "impact" [precise to the second] as declared by the US Government, from both the 9/11 Commission and from NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), are different and yet both are true and accurate times. What can this factual contradiction mean? Looking exclusively at WTC1, there is found the indisputable causal link:

One World Trade, September 11, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11 “impact” time:
8:46:30 UTC, per LDEO seismic data (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
8:46:40 UTC, per FAA last primary radar contact (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)

Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event that occurred 10 seconds before the actual aircrash at 8:46:40?
A- The only possibility is huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses at the time.
Q- Who caused these explosions before the plane hit?

Notes:
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the earlier seismic event time (which had been, in error, attributed by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, originally in 2001 as “plane impact”).
In 2005, NIST avoided addressing the 9/11 Commission’s later time for the aircraft’s actual impact.
Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST avoided addressing the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed.

Summary:
This precision data has yet to be refuted by anyone. It is from the two highest governmental entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11, and both declared these times as accurate, and in doing so they corroborate William Rodriguez and the many eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. This is indicting evidence of governmental coverup, and thus implication of complicity.

Before it is too late, demand a new, truly independent 9/11 investigation, this time a real one.
Justice waits...[and there is no statute of time limitation on murder]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

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.



Agreed--don't look to thermite.

Instead, try looking at a much more powerful variant of it, super-thermite (aka thermate, which has tremendous explosive power...please research it for yourself).



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:53 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. 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.


And what, pray tell, happened to all these millions of parts?

I.e., where was the huge debris pile one would expect for such destruction?
It just wasn't there.

You could almost say it went up in smoke...
or...

it was blown to kingdom come...
or...

well, let's just say, before it is too late:
Demand a new, truly independent 9/11 investigation, this time a real one.

Justice waits...[and there is no statute of time limitation on murder]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
BSBRAY11,

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


Who are you talking about? I see "Lauro Chavez" in your post title. I have no idea who this man is. I'm sure I could figure it out with a quick Google search, but what I'm wondering is why you've addressed this post to me when I don't even know who this guy is.


Again: www.911blogger.com...

That's the interview with Charles Pegelow. And Scholars lists their civil and structural engineers (MULTIPLES -- not just ONE, one that I've never heard of, that you've picked to attack).

[edit on 20-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
BSBRAY ...

My Bad... I got information for a "whistleblower" from the military. He was not one of the engineers you were talking about.

Sorry about that. If I do find information in regards to the engineer you spoke of, I will let you know.

Thanks dude !

Cam


[edit on 20-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
What do you mean if you find information on him? Are you just digging for any excuse to discredit him, or are you actually listening to what he's saying and considering it? Because if you're just digging for dirt then we're already having a problem: I'm looking at information while you're looking at people.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Bsbray...

There are a couple legitimate "engineers" listed. What I find interesting is that of the 76 full members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, only four are listed as having backgrounds in physics, three in engineering; the other 69 “scholars” are mostly in the humanities and social sciences. This group of "leading academcis" is pretty small. For instance, here is a few of the titles of the"scholars" that make up this organization....

www.st911.org...

1.Visiting Professor of English at Kyungpook National University in Daegu, South Korea

2. Assistant professor of English literature at Dogus University in Istanbul

3. Radiology, Medical hypnosis

4. French language and culture

5. professor of “English and theater” at the University of Guelph (Canada)

Here area a couple that I though I would use their names.

1.Basil M. Hantash, Ph.D., MD
Instructor, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University

2. Joseph M. Phelps
MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
This guy is legit...and a very young 82 years old !! (and runs a golf coarse)

3. Doyle Winterton
BES degree. Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering with Brown Associates (ret.)
This guy is in his 70's. and according to this site:

secure.utah.gov...

Doyle Winterton had a Engineering Trainee Licence that expired in 1999.

Charles Pegelow from what I can find is the only legit Engineer listed at a FULL MEMBER. What I have found in my limited research, is that he may have designed oil rigs.

I understand that the ASCE estimates their membership at aapprox. 125,000. So far only one has come out agasint the NIST report.

With all this information I have gathered on the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" ...Not one seems to have the credentials to make an appropriate hypothisis on a controlled demolition. I will however hold off on juding Mr. Pegelow for now... i havent found any information about him that would credit OR discredit him.

I will say, I will take the words from over 200 experts WAY before those from a DERMATOLOGIST !!!



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What do you mean if you find information on him? Are you just digging for any excuse to discredit him, or are you actually listening to what he's saying and considering it? Because if you're just digging for dirt then we're already having a problem: I'm looking at information while you're looking at people.



I am also looking for information... i too want the TRUTH. But, I will make DAMNED sure that the people I get if from are LEGIT !

I hope you found my last post useful.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Don't base your conclusions on how many people are coming out man. Originally, NO engineers were going public. It was only after the NIST report that they started trickling out, and that's not considering the day-to-day reality for a professional engineer. It's not pouring over thousands of pages of a government study and then calling up an organization of conspiracy theorists. An engineer would have to be a real nerd to do that in his/her spare time, without a genuine interest, something that snags them into the collapses to begin with. I don't think I've ever met a person in real life who's even heard of the freaking NIST report, and I'm around engineers all the time (albeit not structural). And you shouldn't assume they'd all come out with this stuff anyway; it's a good way to lose your job if you're employed with the wrong institution.


As nice as it would be for fresh discussion, I'm going to stop responding if the focus stays on the credibility of the engineers criticizing NIST and how many or few there are. Putting your faith into crowds of people rather than actual science is a good way to bandwagon yourself back into the naive masses.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't base your conclusions on how many people are coming out man. Originally, NO engineers were going public. It was only after the NIST report that they started trickling out, and that's not considering the day-to-day reality for a professional engineer. It's not pouring over thousands of pages of a government study and then calling up an organization of conspiracy theorists. You'd have to be a real nerd to do that in your spare time, as well, without a genuine interest, something that snags you into the collapses to begin with. And you shouldn't assume they'd all come out with this stuff anyway; it's a good way to lose your job if you're employed with the wrong institution.


As nice as it would be for fresh discussion, I'm going to stop responding if the focus stays on the credibility of the engineers criticizing NIST and how many or few there are. Putting your faith into crowds of people rather than actual science is a good way to bandwagon yourself back into the naive masses.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by bsbray11]


Bsbray,

The actual science I leave up to the Scientist the CROWDS are what alot of Ct'ers on here are listening too. ie: Jones, Avery ...etc.
I dont believe the 911 Commision Report...it was a MESS. That why im here. To gather TRUTHS. The "scholars" are filling their website with lies and 1/2 truths. When your tooth hurts...would you call a PHD in American Literature? I don't think so....

My reasons behind looking at the credentials of ANYONE trying to go agasint the NIST report is obvious. Look at the credentials of the 125 NON GOVERNMENT engineers that did the NIST investigation. They are the BEST at what they do. Not perfect...but the best.

Thanks for your time dude! Im tired...gotta get to work in the AM...I will post more tomorrow



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
The "scholars" are filling their website with lies and 1/2 truths.


And what would those be Dr. CameronFox



My reasons behind looking at the credentials of ANYONE trying to go agasint the NIST report is obvious. Look at the credentials of the 125 NON GOVERNMENT engineers that did the NIST investigation. They are the BEST at what they do. Not perfect...but the best.


Alright so the NIST report was a mess and you don't believe it.. but in this paragraph you seem to be crediting them as if they did everything right and are just.

What?



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
The "scholars" are filling their website with lies and 1/2 truths.


I'm sensing some bias here. Show me where the Scholars site is "filled...with lies and 1/2 truths", and how you can even tell the difference when you have to constantly retreat to non-existant expert majority opinions.


When your tooth hurts...would you call a PHD in American Literature? I don't think so....


Calling a structural engineer, that deals with statics, to investigate supposedly heat-related, dynamic failures, is like calling metallurgists and demolition engineers to build you a house.


Look at the credentials of the 125 NON GOVERNMENT engineers that did the NIST investigation.


NIST is a government agency.

And this will be my last post until this thread turns technical rather than popular.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I am also looking for information... i too want the TRUTH. But, I will make DAMNED sure that the people I get if from are LEGIT !

I hope you found my last post useful.



Doesn't take a Bachelors in Structural Engineering to look at the evidence presented from the NIST report, and what was witnessed at the WTC site to paint a picture of what happened. Puzzle pieces dont fit. The fires weren't as destructive as they wanted them to be and the planes didn't do jack to the overall structural integrity.

::IMPACTS::

Exterior WTC 2 Damage:



Interior WTC 2 Damage:



Exterior WTC 1 Damage:



Interior WTC 1 Damage:



Key:




posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Summary of what Masisoar just posted: Less than 15% of the perimeter columns in the impacted regions of either building failed.

For the core columns, NIST assumed dead-on plane impacts. Notably, they did this for WTC2, when WTC2 was impacted at a great angle, missing nearly all of the core! So NIST, in its pursuit of *truth*, moved Flight 175 to a full head-on impact to provide the most structural damage possible from that flight in its analysis of WTC2's collapse initiation. NIST did not ever analyze the global collapses, or attempt to explain how they were sustained. Only initiations.


So, clearly minority of columns failed by the impacts. This is even from NIST, even as they were trying their damnedest to make it as hard on the buildings as possible. That leaves a LOT of building left to fail by fire alone, even if all of that damage was centralized to one floor and not spread across multiples.


Now go back and check NIST's own tests on trusses and their exposure to prolonged fire, controlled fire that is more severe than the WTC fires would've actually been, similar to how they also modified Flight 175's path to also make it more severe. In none of NIST's tests did they get the structural failures they were looking for. Trusses heated and sagged but that was it. No pulling in of the perimeter columns, no snapping of connections, no uniform failures of bolted and welded trusses simultaneously across whole floors.

Remember the floors were not one big piece. They were many trusses, and for WTC1 to have fallen straight down, they would've all had to have failed at the same time, and jerked in all the appropriate support columns -- at the same time. From irregular, asymmetrical damage, that, by all available evidence, was insufficient to begin with assuming the WTC was up to building codes (and most everyone agrees that they were). When you have ego or something equally stupid on the line, or maybe when you just don't get it, that may not seem like a big deal. I can't understand how people can watch that and not see something wrong with any notion of a "natural" failure.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
By the way.. don't let the dots in those pictures fool you as to the mass of the steel:






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join