It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

page: 13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 12:48 AM
I guess there's no hope for you guys...I done explaining the same old stuff...If you guys think that 911 was a is a website for you guys to read it, learn it, then come back and debate, but if you don't, then I don't want to hear it.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 12:48 AM

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by amfirst

You all can find the real truth here.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 03:57 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
Why is it that anyone who speaks for the official story is a neo-con or some such. I truly thinks this comes down ot most of you bieng jealous you do not have the niknd of money they do.
So does that mean that everything that Popular Mechanics posts is BS? What a joke....

WHO DO YOU Believe???????

I believe that everyone is somehow a hustler or a thief. I believe that everything is somehow a con (as in confidence scam, not conservative). I believe that I am the intended mark. Beyond that I don't believe much of anything, except that you can't win an argument simply by being smug and attributing the unwillingness of some to discount the power of greed as jealousy. If you want to make your points with facts, then fine, state the facts and go about your day. Otherwise, you're just "noise posing as signal" (to quote Philip K. Dick).


[edit on 7-4-2007 by teleonaut]

posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by dariousg

Originally posted by devildog832916
Well, we all know that if Rosie doesn't eat regularly she gets these crazy thoughts. Fire does melt steel, I mean what do you think they use to melt it in the first place.

The only thing I agree with is that the buildings fell awful neat.

People keep taking this statement out of context. What is OBVIOUSLY meant is that FIRE at the temperatures displayed in those buildings, especially in WTC 7, do NOT melt steel.

How hot do the temperatures have to be before steel is melted? Close to 3,000 degrees. Okay, it has been commonly stated that the temps of these fires (in the towers, not WTC 7) barely went over half that temp. Sure, the steel can begin to weaken but not all at once.

That is what she is saying.

There is just no way those buildings could be toppled in the manner that they did and as fast as they did. Controlled demolitions is the only true explanation.
Sadly, not enough people were warned in time to evacuate so innocent Americans as well as other nationals died an untimely death and that equals murder. This happened because powerful people in powerful places wanted more money than they could possibly spend. Rosie O' Donnell is simply pointing out the truth of this situation.

[edit on 11-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 09:52 PM
telenaut, how did you come with that quote for me? That looks like a bad paste job from CNN or something.

Popular Mechanics offered explanations for what happened based on the facts and evidence they had. Rosie stated 9//1 was to cover Enron. I mean, do people realize that?

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
telenaut, how did you come with that quote for me? That looks like a bad paste job from CNN or something.

Popular Mechanics offered explanations for what happened based on the facts and evidence they had. Rosie stated 9//1 was to cover Enron. I mean, do people realize that?

Popular Mechanics offered explanations for what happened based on the LIES and SMEAR TACTICS they had. Rosie stated 911 was Partly done to cover Enron. I think people do realize that!

posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 09:41 PM
One either has to believe in the laws of physics relative to conservation of momentum or trust that the official narrative of the 911 atrocity is true. They are mutually exclusive.

Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings.

Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth “for my own good”, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo.

posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 04:51 PM
The buildings didn't fall at freefall rates. You guys once again been fooled by the truth movement.

Free fall would take under 9 secs. The building fell over 12 secs.

posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by amfirst
For the building to hold, the impacted floor would have had to catch 40 floors above, when it drop. I don't think that particular floor was made to catch a drop like that.

No, but the columns that were designed to already hold up that load were. And the columns wouldn't have experienced a "drop". The only way to have the columns "drop" is to use something to sever them. Are you suggesting controlled demolition? That's the only way to have columns drop into themselves straight down. Otherwise, they buckle. But, the problem is that a stiff structure tends to buckle all in the same direction. Meaning a slumping of the building to one side. Then, using the angle of internal friction that everything (except for large steel buildings on 9/11) has, we can assume that the "cap" would have sheared off at a given angle. I don't know the angles for steel and concrete but sand is around 25-35. That means when you pour sand into a pile, the natural angle that it will hold itself up is 25-35 (depending on the type of sand or anything for that matter).

So, two things here that are wrong with the official account. The concrete was pulverized to sand sized particles. Where is the cone shaped mound of concrete that would have settled there? How did the columns telescope into themselves?

Disclaimer: If anyone can prove my hypothesis wrong, feel free. That is not a challenge. Just, if anyone can prove me wrong, I'm all for it.

Edit to add: Rosie
To be on topic.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by Griff]

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:08 PM
"My gnod what an idiot, how in the world do we make any of the formations with any metal we have?? we molded/melted them some how right!"

Ahh, the personal insult. Emotionalizing the event instead of explaining your position surely seems desparate.

Fortunately, David Ray Griffen has released his "Debunking 911 debunking" in which he takes direct aim at Popular Mechanics, and destroys them! For 13 bucks at amazon, you can have it all!

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:38 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
God forbid anyone makes money, it must be illegal. Are you guys jealous?

See, it's statements like this that make debating anything virtually impossible. (No pun intended)

Come on Es, get your head out of you rear end. Making money is of course, NOT illegal but doing it corruptly and outside the law? Well, hopefully in your current mindset, you know, the one that likes to oversimplify things, you will understand what I just told you.

Furthermore, I don't have the time or inclination to hold your hand on all the fallacies that I found in the NIST report or whatever ilk PM has come out with but one thing I will hold your hand on:

Neither NIST NOR PM has explained away how it was possible for WTC 1,2 or 3 to collapse at the speed that they did, and that's only ONE thing that they have wrong. Now, before you go off and tell me.. OH.. they DID.. post it here in great detail with links and I'll go over it line by line with you.

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by amfirst
The buildings didn't fall at freefall rates. You guys once again been fooled by the truth movement.

Free fall would take under 9 secs. The building fell over 12 secs.

12 seconds..even 15 seconds does not reconcile the collapse to the laws of physics. The buildings, had they collapsed by pancaking would have taken MUCH longer than what was seen..

The simple fact is this.. the buildings fell at a rate of speed that COINCIDES with controlled demolition. (ESPECIALLY buliding 7) Go time some builds that were taken out with demolition elements and you find an indisputable like correlation in collapse times.

It's obvious the core failed before the outer perimeter did so the outer perimeter definitely slowed things down a bit. You can rest assured if that core was not taken out those buildings would not have collapsed the way they did, it would have been impossible. Someone here posted a great link showing come great modeling and math that basically explained how long it would have taken for the buildings 1 and 2 to have collapsed had they done the fairy tale 'pancake'. I can't find the information at the moment, if someone can beat me to it please post it.

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:17 AM
Also the rate of speed seems to accelerate rather than slow down, as it should have.

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.


(note NIST says 9 seconds for building 2, faster than free fall in a vacuum)

Basic physics 101...

An object can only fully give up its potential energy, and turn into kinetic energy, in a vacuum with no resistance. So the towers, as they collapsed, should have been experiencing massive resistance from the lower floors that were undamaged. There is no arguing that. So the buildings should not have been able to fully give up their potential energy.
The problem is for the towers and building 7 to have fallen so quickly, all of their potential energy would have to have been lost.

Simple equation, follow along now boys and girls...

(I'm pasting this whole thing because I know a lot of you don't bother looking at links)

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)


2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds (Ed: Note NIST said 9 secs for WTC2) to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

If dropped at the same time, which would reach the ground first?...

And that's just talking about air resistance, remember we also have thousands of tons of steel bolted and welded together in the path of the falling building. You don't think that should have created massive resistance?

C'mon guys, you still think it was jet fuel?
That's a good one, eh?

[edit on 30/6/2007 by ANOK]

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:15 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
Nothing has been debunked, nad the Popular Mechanics and Nova both explained it in great detail, amazingly without thermite, reptilians or laser beams. She is a media whore, and wanted more attention than Anna Nicole.

Ad Hominem attacks are well explained in any number of areas. Commonly in political campaigns and so forth this strategy yields votes, but the facts are the facts. You usually do not need to resort of Ad Hominem attacks when your arguments are sound. Most 911 researchers try to avoid the trap, which is a sign of desperation from those who attempt to defend the official story. That old slap 'em on the back and ridicule strategy will not erase any facts whatsoever, nor support anything in your weak argument. The proofs it is weak are in the abundant evidence, and your position does not offer a debate. People know something is wrong, and they cannot in any intellectual honesty go along with your approach.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by SkipShipman]

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:36 AM
Am I reading this right?...

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

NIST Fact Sheet

So they are admitting the structure bellow the impact level offered little resistance? (actually it offered no resistance but...) And they saying it fell as it did because it offered little resistance? So where is their explanation of why it offered little resistance? They don't have one, their analysis is incomplete. Based on missing out one huge freakin problem, why did the lower structure offer no resistance. They have no answer because they didn't consider planted explosives.

And then they say this...

In other words, 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.

NIST fact sheet

The floors above the impact zone DID NOT fall on the lower floors. That is a total fallacy which is easy to see in any of the collapse videos. WTC 2 is the best one, the top was rotating and tilting, how did it drop on lower floors causing a perfectly symmetrical, all 4 corners at the same time collapse when it was shifting at an angle was anything but symmetrical. The thought is ludicrous....I laugh in NISTs face, I fart in their general direction, who do they think they're fooling? You?

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:48 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
Nothing has been debunked, nad the Popular Mechanics and Nova both explained it in great detail, amazingly without thermite, reptilians or laser beams. She is a media whore, and wanted more attention than Anna Nicole.

Amazingly, they neglected to explain why the tower that was hit first, thereby causing the subsequent fires to burn longest, failed to fall first.

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12   >>

log in