Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx
With that being said.. No, there isn't a single website that can disprove all the 911 inconsistencies and you know why? Because they can't all be disproved.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by danx]


Well then that isn't a theory, that's a fact. Nice of you to cut out the top 20 links which weren't just "opinions". Care to share these facts though that prove controlled demolition?




posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
Well then that isn't a theory, that's a fact. Nice of you to cut out the top 20 links which weren't just "opinions". Care to share these facts though that prove controlled demolition?


bsbray11 already addressed them.

Taking into consideration your posts, you are not a serious man and have already made up your mind about the people that don't agree with the official story of 911.

There's nothing else to be said.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
ccaihc,

NOVA worked with NIST to provide this apparent illustration of NIST's theory:




Also, NIST explicitly stated in an August 2006 FAQ that their theory does not support the pancake theory, which requires floors to fail at the connections, while NIST's theory requires the connections to pull the support columns inward. So it can't work both ways, even though both of these theories are absolutely atrocious models for accounting for what physically happened to the buildings.

And, the NIST investigation found no evidence of any support columns being significantly heated. They did computer simulations and even admitted to raising the parameters beyond anything realistic, and still could not get sufficient heat transfer to such massive columns in such little time. Again, their theory is simply that the trusses sagged and that this deflected the outer columns, pulling them inwards somehow.

Like I said before, if you actually go through and read these things, or even check out their numbers in some simple physics cases, you'll find that they aren't consistent and that they even have major problems when you try to fit them to reality. Scientists and engineers have been doing generalized energy problems back and forth just to see if there was enough falling mass to cause all the destruction below, and even when they can find some (unrealistic) model in which it can be done, the minimum time still comes out way too high to match the actual collapses, for example. Tons of conflicting positions and bad models.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Bsb, can you explain how they're both atrocious, and how controlled demolition is not atrocious. Seriously, I'm very curious as to how explosives are the most obvious example. I honestly don't care about the how they brought down the towers, if you say controlled demolition, I'll go with that for now. However, I don't see it PHYSICALLY possible to wire the building for explosives without someone noticing or anyone involved saying anything.

That boggles my mind. The resources required to do this would be IMMENSE, when a simple blow job from a secretary gets out. Or when a group sneaks into watergate, or when Gonzalez fires attornies for dubious reasons it is leaked and media pounces on it. The fact that the theorists are confined to paranoid people on the internet and not ANY serious amount of scientists/engineers(sorry an english major is not someone who should be involved, sorry scholars for 911 truth or whatever your name is) should be enough proof that nothing happened. If it was SO obvious then perhaps it would be in the news more often, or more people would be noticing it without thinking, "that's bull#."

There is always a simple explanation for everything, it's never the convaluted theories that people think of. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Actually, in my line of work, we use real science.
I went to one of your links, "Here are some more from actual engineers...
www.icivilengineer.com..."

What I read, was conjecture, not displaying facts, but what he believes happened.
When you work up the science, it doesn't add up.
Do the work yourselves. Stop following blindly.
Global warming idiocy comes to mind here.



Originally posted by ccaihc
I... what? Did you even read the links I posted or did you pick your own links to refute some point I wasn't trying to make?

Seriously, did you read even the first link, which is almost enough alone to disprove most theories.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weatherguru

Actually, in my line of work, we use real science.
I went to one of your links, "Here are some more from actual engineers...
www.icivilengineer.com..."

What I read, was conjecture, not displaying facts, but what he believes happened.
When you work up the science, it doesn't add up.
Do the work yourselves. Stop following blindly.
Global warming idiocy comes to mind here.



Originally posted by ccaihc
I... what? Did you even read the links I posted or did you pick your own links to refute some point I wasn't trying to make?

Seriously, did you read even the first link, which is almost enough alone to disprove most theories.


Opinions from a engineer.

What do you do for a job?



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I'm not so much on ranting, or responding to ranting.


Originally posted by ccaihc
The fact that the theorists are confined to paranoid people on the internet and not ANY serious amount of scientists/engineers(sorry an english major is not someone who should be involved, sorry scholars for 911 truth or whatever your name is)


The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice organization has a number of scientists and engineers, and I'll let you guess how many are in the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth group.

As of me viewing it right now:


135 architectural and engineering professionals and
247 "Others" including A/E Students
have joined us in calling on Congress for a new investigation.


There's a member here with the username "Griff" who I think is a member of that group, and he's a civil engineer.


And how the demolition was accomplished under everyone's noses is a separate issue from the physics. If it blows your mind how anyone in the world could accomplish such a thing (and I bet, if ANYONE could, our military industrial complex and intelligence agencies could), then stop dragging it into more technical discussions of what exactly happened to the buildings to make them fall. That's not to say you can't ask, but it's hardly a legitimate response to something completely different. That's called a non-sequitur.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Wait, how is that not related? If it's physically impossible to move explosive into a building then it has everything to do with it. Also the basic fact the building fell from the top down and not the bottom is pretty damning evidence enough that it wasn't demolition.

Listen I know you're response. Something along the lines of "well our military/government is privy to higher technology that can do magical things which we can't even imagine such as moving tons of explosives into a building without anyone noticing." You want to know what that's called? That's called a deus ex machina and they're pretty crappy.

This is seriously like arguing with a creationist. "Well god can do whatever he wants." The government isn't god, sorry.

By the way for ever engineer you find that supports the demolition theory, there are probably 2 or 3 that don't.

edit: heh, about half the engineers on that list are chemical engineers.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

However, I don't see it PHYSICALLY possible to wire the building for explosives without someone noticing or anyone involved saying anything.


Read-up on the Bath School Disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

One man, over the course of a year, planted enough explosive throughout the school to collapse half of the building even though a significant portion of the bombs didn't explode. To say the least, this was a much smaller building than the WTC with far fewer maintenance areas and less restricted space.

Nobody noticed until they went off.


You'd be surprised of how oblivious people can be to things around them, particularly when it comes to things that make no rational sense existing where they are. If someone saw an odd band wrapped around a support beam, their first instict isn't likely to be, 'Geez - that's thermite! I'd better call the police!'.

Consider during the Martin Bryant's shooting spree how many people were killed simply because they didn't take cover, not taking the threat that Bryant posed as serious. Consider how easily masked any explosive could be, simply by boxing it in a container labelled 'Danger: High Voltage', or any number of similar warning signs.

EDIT: You could also note that there would not have been some necessity for a large number of people to have been involved in wiring the building, assuming it was done over a long period of time (and if that seems far-fetched, consider how long the alleged hijackers were allegedly training and preparing themselves for before committing the attacks).

[edit on 4-8-2007 by GrinningMoon]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
Wait, how is that not related? If it's physically impossible to move explosive into a building then it has everything to do with it.


It's NOT physically impossible to do it, it just has nothing to do with what we're talking about! When I say the sky is blue, and you counter me with "but how could it exist without anyone creating it?", I don't consider that a valid problem with the fact that the sky is blue.



Also the basic fact the building fell from the top down and not the bottom is pretty damning evidence enough that it wasn't demolition.


Why does this mean it wasn't a demolition? Why does a demolition have to start at the base?

It isn't "magical technology"; I'm an electronics engineering major. Not only is it not magic, but it's technology that's been around for decades, if not longer. It all has to do with the way you sequence the triggers that cause the detonation caps or etc. to fire.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Falling from the top down, as you say, what is the mechanism to make the floors below it pancake?
And when, exactly, did the laws of physics change, in that steel and concrete vaporize into small particles.
Did I miss something.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ccaihc
Wait, how is that not related? If it's physically impossible to move explosive into a building then it has everything to do with it.


It's NOT physically impossible to do it, it just has nothing to do with what we're talking about! When I say the sky is blue, and you counter me with "but how could it exist without anyone creating it?", I don't consider that a valid problem with the fact that the sky is blue.

Your analogy is terrible. If it's physically impossible to get explosives into a building without someone noticing it makes the theory that it was explosives that destroyed the WTC impossible.


Why does this mean it wasn't a demolition? Why does a demolition have to start at the base?

It isn't "magical technology"; I'm an electronics engineering major. Not only is it not magic, but it's technology that's been around for decades, if not longer. It all has to do with the way you sequence the triggers that cause the detonation caps or etc. to fire.


Cool, I'm a computer science major, doesn't mean I know anything about building processors. And I'm not saying it has to, it just has... for ever single demolition ever.


Originally posted by weatherguru
Falling from the top down, as you say, what is the mechanism to make the floors below it pancake?
And when, exactly, did the laws of physics change, in that steel and concrete vaporize into small particles.
Did I miss something.

Damn dude, you're really focused on these particles eh?

anyways,

www.journalof911studies.com...
more specifically therewithin:

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.


One more thing, your avatar is #ing huge and is breaking tables, please resize it.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
Your analogy is terrible. If it's physically impossible to get explosives into a building without someone noticing it makes the theory that it was explosives that destroyed the WTC impossible.


When did we conclude that it would've been impossible to smuggle explosives into the buildings? When did we, ccaihc? You keep saying "If it's physically impossible...", but I'm saying IT'S NOT.

I'd like to have someone explain to me why it would have to be impossible. It's not like I get up in the maintenance man's business when he's working with a bunch of cables in the wall. I expect that the only people that would, would be the building's security, and people relevant to the actual work being done, and if you have clearance, then you have no worries. Securacom has a good record of bad things happening under their watch.



And I'm not saying it has to, it just has... for ever single demolition ever.


Not really. I've seen video of a building being blown from midway up, so that only half the building tilted and fell off in one direction, and I've seen demolitions of stretches of buildings coming down in a kind of wave pattern from the middle outwards.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ccaihc
Your analogy is terrible. If it's physically impossible to get explosives into a building without someone noticing it makes the theory that it was explosives that destroyed the WTC impossible.


When did we conclude that it would've been impossible to smuggle explosives into the buildings? When did we, ccaihc? You keep saying "If it's physically impossible...", but I'm saying IT'S NOT.

I'd like to have someone explain to me why it would have to be impossible. It's not like I get up in the maintenance man's business when he's working with a bunch of cables in the wall. I expect that the only people that would, would be the building's security, and people relevant to the actual work being done, and if you have clearance, then you have no worries. Securacom has a good record of bad things happening under their watch.


Well, the employees would notice some guy who doesn't work there putting # all over the place. And let's face it, the explosives would be EVERYWHERE to take down the WTC. These are massive buildings, larger then anything that has ever been demolished.

This is where, in my mind, the controlled demolition argument falls apart.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
How in sam hill can some one say it's physically impossible to carry explosives into a building without being detected? O_O

There are numerous threads on this board in which I refer to an incident in I believe December 2001 in which a group of mideastern men were arrested in Tennessee attempting to get fake IDs. One of these men had a WTC badge dating in the first two weeks of September 2001 just days before the attack. Upon interviews it was found that two of the men had been in the WTC towers to "do work on the sprinkler system" under a contractor. The Port Authority stated they do not allow contract companies to perform maintenance on their sprinkler systems, they do all the work themselves. The contracting company named by the men could not be located.

Now - why would you say that there couldn't be explosives brought into the building without detection? How did the 1993 bombing happen?

Silly statements to say the least.

By the way - I'm an engineer - FTW.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
How in sam hill can some one say it's physically impossible to carry explosives into a building without being detected? O_O

There are numerous threads on this board in which I refer to an incident in I believe December 2001 in which a group of mideastern men were arrested in Tennessee attempting to get fake IDs. One of these men had a WTC badge dating in the first two weeks of September 2001 just days before the attack. Upon interviews it was found that two of the men had been in the WTC towers to "do work on the sprinkler system" under a contractor. The Port Authority stated they do not allow contract companies to perform maintenance on their sprinkler systems, they do all the work themselves. The contracting company named by the men could not be located.

Now - why would you say that there couldn't be explosives brought into the building without detection? How did the 1993 bombing happen?

Silly statements to say the least.

By the way - I'm an engineer - FTW.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Valhall]


Driving a car into the basement filled with explosives is inumerbly different then strapping highly advanced explosives on two of the largest buildings in the world. The amount of knowledge required to do this is mind bending. They would have to go into nearly every room on several floors, and you're telling me no one ever noticed this? There are people who were in the WTC that are still alive you know, and no one has ever said they noticed any strange work.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Yes they have.

And no they wouldn't have to go into virtually every room. Not if the explosives were set to bring the core columns down at the basement level - the level, I might add, where unexplained explosive damage took place.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Yes they have.

And no they wouldn't have to go into virtually every room. Not if the explosives were set to bring the core columns down at the basement level - the level, I might add, where unexplained explosive damage took place.


Sure, but it fell from the top down not from the bottom up. So this makes no sense.

Not to mention every single post here has those silly LOOK AT THESE SQUIBS pictures that are all on floor 50 and up.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The core was holding at least half of the building's loads, and the perimeter columns were weakest where the planes had impacted them. If you severed the core structure at the base, then all of the loads would be redistributed onto the perimeter columns, they wouldn't be able to take it, and the collapse would begin right where the plane impacted.

Once that gets going it has to be sustained, and how exactly that was accomplished is harder to say, but that's not to say it couldn't be or wasn't done. At least three explosive devices were pulled out of the Murrah Building during OKC. Those were apparently sneaked in without a problem, whether they were being stored there or were planned to go off or whatever.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc

Sure, but it fell from the top down...


Did it really? I don't believe you are correct. I'm an engineer (a qualification you demanded yourself). I've spent just a little time looking at this. It is my educated and fact-based conclusion the core fell from the bottom.

And with that said - the statement that it is physically impossible for explosives to be brought into a building undetected is still tremendously silly. It's actually thoughtless is what it is.

And that was my point. I don't think we need to get so dogmatic in our "position" that we start spitting out really silly statements.


[edit on 8-4-2007 by Valhall]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Valhall]





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join