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.

 

Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
You have yet to provide any scientific evidence that contradicts the established explanation. If you can, please do!


All you need is a stop watch, and a video of the WTC collapsing, to know that the buildings collapsed with help from an outside source other than gravity, and the weight of the damaged section of building.

I have already provided you with seismic data and a timer, that shows that one of the buildings fell in 8.4 seconds. The same exact time it would have taken a rock to fall through the air if it was thrown off the roof of the WTC.

There is no possible way on this Earth that a structure that is designed to hold many times its own weight could fall under its own weight.

Thats all the scientific evidence anyone needs. The problem is, once again, that people need 100% proof. Some reason 51% proof isn't enough for this (yes or no) question.


[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 





Name one thing I have misunderstood. You quoted NIST saying that the ceiling AIR temperatures were 1000C. Then in the same statement by NIST, they say that exposed steel would become the same as the air temperature.

Then you quoted a source saying that runaway failures happen at 700C.

I showed you were NIST said of the samples they analysed none were over 600C.

Show me where I'm misinterpretting anything.


The part where NIST clearly states that only a small selection of the total steel structure from the floors affected by fire was available, and that those parts did not accurately represent the entire area effected. The part you left out of every quote.




I never said that the NIST analysis was a complete one. I'm not the one that stated that the air temperature was 1000C and then said that unprotected steel would reach this temp in the given time. Even though we know runaway type failures occur at 700C, how would they get higher if they fail out of the fire?


Citation


Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers.


You don't half like misrepresenting the facts.




That aside. I then told you to quote the part of NIST where they say their examples showed no exposure to those temps.


That you did, and I still fail to see how it is my job to prove your points?




Where is my logic flawed?


Your logic is flawed in that you expect me to prove your points, and then when you do provide some sort of citation, you misrepresent the facts. You accuse me of not showing the full picture, when you don't even quote the entirety of your own citations. How you expect any reasonable person to believe you is a bit of a puzzle.




Or could it be that you need to take a break and come back here with a clear head? No offense.


You like projecting don't you?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 





All you need is a stop watch, and a video of the WTC collapsing, to know that the buildings collapsed with help from an outside source other than gravity, and the weight of the damaged section of building.

I have already provided you with seismic data and a timer, that shows that one of the buildings fell in 8.4 seconds. The same exact time it would have taken a rock to fall through the air if it was thrown off the roof of the WTC.


Please note that the collapsing section is not a rock. By the way, did you stand on the top of the two towers and drop a rock to time it?




There is no possible way on this Earth that a structure that is designed to hold many times its own weight could fall under its own weight.


There is when structural failure is involved.




Thats all the scientific evidence anyone needs. The problem is, once again, that people need 100% proof. Some reason 51% proof isn't enough for this (yes or no) question.


I don't see where you prove the towers collapsed faster than they should. How fast should the towers have collapsed?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
The part where NIST clearly states that only a small selection of the total steel structure from the floors affected by fire was available, and that those parts did not accurately represent the entire area effected. The part you left out of every quote.


I even stated that I never said the NIST analysis was a complete one. Where'd you get that from? I'm done talking with you. If you want to argue everything, that's your perogative but I'm too busy for you.




You don't half like misrepresenting the facts.


So, we are arguing semantics now? Got it.




That you did, and I still fail to see how it is my job to prove your points?


It never was. But to be fair and balanced, we need to quote the parts where they state one thing and then state another by their analysis. To be fair and honest.




Your logic is flawed in that you expect me to prove your points, and then when you do provide some sort of citation, you misrepresent the facts. You accuse me of not showing the full picture, when you don't even quote the entirety of your own citations. How you expect any reasonable person to believe you is a bit of a puzzle.


What did I misrepresent? That NIST didn't test EVERY SINGLE STEEL MEMBER. Jee, I thought we all knew that. Sorry for making assumptions.




You like projecting don't you?


No, I like having a meaningful conversation with a person who doesn't just fly off the handle and argue over anything. Got it?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
himselfe, you know I'm going to leave you with this video, and a website, that can give you all the scientific calculations you need, then I'm going to put you on ignore since you absolutely bring nothing to this debate.

b.t.w yes I did drop a rock off the wtc and time it. Its called a scientific simulation. You can find all the tools you need here:

www.explorelearning.com...

Now watch this video with scientific evidence that the WTC 7 fell as fast as free-fall in a vacuum with ZERO RESISTANCE, yes, even ZERO AIR RESISTANCE.





Did I mention WTC 7 is the smoking gun as well? There are so many of them. Also, the video above is almost exactly like WTC 1 and 2's calculations.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Well, himselfe, if you actually had something to hide in your posts then maybe your "censorship" worries would hold meaning. But the fact is, not one single post of yours had anything important in it, hence the reason why deleting your posts is equal to leaving them there.

Anyway, thanks to the admin's here this thread is less filled with rant, and more filled with useful information.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Man.

And I thought he might have something to say. Oh well. Just a reminder to folks. Criticism is not an argument. I am full aware that I get defensive also, but let's have a reasonable discussion. All I'll say on the matter.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Now that my internet works again, allow me to explain what I said about 2 pages ago.

Had it been an inside core explosions, then it would have exploded, and as all explosions do, wave out. Unless you're using a cannon/gun, an explosion will wave out and brake all things around it. I don't remember seeing any form of cannon inside there ever before 911.

If they were on the outside, then you would see light flashes. And I mean big light flashes. Explosions, not little lights

Basically, the squibes do not equal out to building strength. You claim the building could have survived a fully fuelled jet liner, but then go and say that it was brought down by little exoplosions equivilant to that of a car bomb or 6 pack of grenades. You'd need bigger explosions if it could have survived a plane.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   
3x post by accident, sorry

[edit on 25-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   
3x post by accident, sorry

[edit on 25-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Had it been an inside core explosions, then it would have exploded, and as all explosions do, wave out. Unless you're using a cannon/gun, an explosion will wave out and brake all things around it. I don't remember seeing any form of cannon inside there ever before 911.


Let's make sure we are debating the same video. I created this animation to show that everything is exploding outward from the core, and breaking all the windows and exterior steel.. The dust and particles are "waving out" exactly like you are talking about.



This means a very high amount of "air" is being release out of the top, yet STILL air is being forced out of the lower part of the building?? You can see the tiny "explosion" on the gray section (mechanical floors) of the WTC. This shouldn't be happening, its a clear sign of explosives.


Originally posted by Gorman91
You claim the building could have survived a fully fuelled jet liner, but then go and say that it was brought down by little exoplosions equivilant to that of a car bomb or 6 pack of grenades. You'd need bigger explosions if it could have survived a plane.


Just to clear things up. Both jet's that hit the WTC's were NOT fully fuelled. Both Flight 175, and Flight 11 were carrying only 10,000 out of 24,000 gallon capacity. That means they were less then half empty.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
wtc.nist.gov...

Also, the WTC was able to survive the impact of the jet, it was why the WTC was famous. After the B-25 hit the empire state building in the picture below:



..they decided to design the WTC to be able to survive and impact of a Boeing 707 (the biggest jet of the time). According to calculations, if the buildings can survive a 707 hit, then they can survive a 767 hit no problem.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Now, a uncontrolled explosion such as that from the jet, is not enough to bring down the buildings. BUT, a controlled explosion that is designed to focus all the explosion force on certain sections of column, does more damage with less force. The difference is the cutting force it has. A linear shaped charge is controlled, a pack of hand grenades is semi-uncontrolled.



[edit on 25-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
those squibs on the lower section of the video simply are not enough. The others look odd, but perfectly in line with a collapse. Usually, you blow all the explosions at once, then let it fall, or blow the lower section and upper section of a building and let gravity do the rest. I do not know what to say.

I tell you one thing. If I get rich one day (or know someone rich one day) I'll work out some way to rebuild the towers in the middle of no where, then redo 9-11. I'll put cameras everywhere and then have a look at just how it would go down from an independent viewpoint.

Hey, maybe if all you conspiracy people give $10, you can rebuild it and do it your self.

The reason I doubt all this is because I know people and they know that it is bad. It's just that if there was a NWO, they seemed to have abandoned the US as their nation to lead from. In all honestly, this NWO seems to be dieing. I cannot stress the amount of faith I have in the people of the US to take back their government in the next generation.


Going off topic,
If you REALLY want to know something, a few of my friends who work in the lower sections of the gov. say that everything is messed up. At the rate we are going, with terrorists growing and the US's integraty crashing and burning, we have about 20-25 years left as a nation. that could be cut in 2 if we are attacked again. It seems like a civil war between the lower government and higher government.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You keep saying that you would see flashed from the explosions. I challenge you to go find videos of demolitions (other than 9-11) and show me on everyone of them the flashes. I'll bet you that you will not see flashes on all of the ones you find. To assert that you would is just silly.

But explosives and flashes were seen and heard...

A fox news reporter...


There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.


Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:


[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit.


And Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:


When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too... I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things around, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

Source

I guess they're all delusional also?

But having said that flashes can be seen along with the squibs.
I can't find the video I posted in another thread a while back that showed big flashes as these squibs appeared, but here is the graphic I used to point them out. You can argue from the pic that they're not flashes, but they can be clearly seen in the video which I'll keep searching for.



Do you hear this explosion?...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I posted something with flashes, I'll post it again.

video.google.com...

The superstructures with steel inforcements have explosions, the brick layed and shorter ones do not. Skyscrapers must have an explosion with light due to their strength.

Take the statdium in the middle of the video for example. It's steel, no brick, so you see light.

WTC did have alot of dust, I'll give you that, but it could be insulation and other degradable objects.

And again, the flashes you showed are smaller then a grenade, how would it blow anything up? At most it would brake the windows and everything inside, not the superstructure.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
And again, the flashes you showed are smaller then a grenade, how would it blow anything up? At most it would brake the windows and everything inside, not the superstructure.


Sry but you found ONE that you can see flashes on. Not good enough, not good enough by far. And they wouldn't be where the windows are.

Show me where the flashes are in this vid...

video.google.com...

Smaller than a grenade? Are you kidding? That would make the WTC about 40 ft wide if that...


They didn't need to 'blow anything up', just cut through the outer mesh structure. You are trying to make out that they should be massive explosions when only a number of small explosive would be necessary.

Also in the pics they don't look as big as in the vid because I could only catch part of the flash in the stills. I think you are arguing for the sake of it.
This will be my last reply to you cause you obviously only want to argue, not learn anything. A brick wall comes to mind...
I've got better things to do than keep repeating myself...

[edit on 27/8/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I just have one final point to make:

Watch the following video closely, particularly 20s in:


Google Video Link


I realise that this video is trying to prove the controlled demolition theory, however there is one important thing that this video shows. If you look closely 20s in, you can clearly see the debris that are actually in free-fall are falling faster than the collapse sequence, clearly showing that the collapse sequence is not at "free-fall speed" as many of you put it.

This video also clearly shows the coherence between the sustained dust streams and the collapse sequence above.

That is all I have to say, you can say anything you want, I won't be replying because (a) I'm banned, and (b) objectivity is clearly not the theme of this thread.

Direct link to video in case the above doesn't work.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by him_selfe]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
himselfe's video showed some good points of a demo, but the other explosions from above simple are not large explosions. if a jet didn't breach it, those little explosions wouldn't have chance in hell.



[edit on 27-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by him_selfe
I realise that this video is trying to prove the controlled demolition theory, however there is one important thing that this video shows. If you look closely 20s in, you can clearly see the debris that are actually in free-fall are falling faster than the collapse sequence, clearly showing that the collapse sequence is not at "free-fall speed" as many of you put it.

This video also clearly shows the coherence between the sustained dust streams and the collapse sequence above.

That is all I have to say, you can say anything you want, I won't be replying because (a) I'm banned, and (b) objectivity is clearly not the theme of this thread.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by him_selfe]


himselfe, once again, try learning what the speed of free-fall is!

Hint: IT IS NOT TERMINAL VELOCITY.

B.t.w. the only thing your video shows, is that the debris were falling FASTER THAN FREE-FALL. Meaning they were accelerated downward with a force, "explosion".

If I was in an helicopter at 10,000 feet, with 2 bullets and a gun. And I loaded one bullet into the gun, and held the other in my hand, then I shot down at the ground with the gun, and at the same time I let go of the bullet in my hand.

What bullet do you think will reach the ground faster? The one I dropped, or the one I shot out of the gun??

Same thing happened on 911, all those fast falling debris you see have been EJECTED out of the building with a force. Be it air, or explosive, the FACT is that the debris were falling FASTER THAN FREE FALL. While the WTC towers fell about the same acceleration as free-fall.

Actually WTC 7 fell faster than free-fall with air resistance. WTC 7 fell faster than free-fall.



himselfe before you get "IP Denied" from the admins, I suggest using your multiple accounts only to make a GOOD claimS.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by 11 11]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join