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.

 

To 9-11 Debunkers

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Name ONE Ph.D that was at ground zero during the clean up and has verified thermite. Wait, there isnt any. You have ONE phd that studied a piece of metal that supposedly came from Ground Zero and he found chemical residues that include those you might find from thermite...of course you would also find the same materials in a normal high rise building (aluminum oxide, manganese etc...).

he directly said he found superthermate on the metal. hes a ph.d and you're not so i take his word over yours. I expect you to give me the same treatment. Im not an pgd but im an eet and we learned in physics class that newtons laws state that a falling body will take the path of least resistance. every Ph.D agrees with that, yet the building came down to the ground at a 90° angle. im not worried about freefall speed here. im not worried about lateral ejections. im talking about the bulk of the building came down perpendicular to the ground. that means there was as little resistance from the impact zone to the ground as there was in free air surrounding the tower.




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I am not entirely sure just who started the "black smoke means an oxygen starved fire" baloney, but it is just that, baloney.


Salami, salami, baloney. You are unconditionally right that many types of fires put off massive amounts of sooty deep black smoke. But fires that generate smoke, never, and I repeat never ever burn ‘invisibly’. Where was all the to be expected glow at the ‘impact holes’ at the WTC’s? Therefore we must conclude, no flames — no fire.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 





Nice thread, you've succeded in drawing out the "it's just the way we were told crowd" right off the bat! Swampy and Cappy will no dought keep you very busy. Their arguments are somewhat sound and they will have list of experts and evidence to back it up, but I still feel there is something terribly wrong with 911 and the justification of subsequent wars on the other side of the world.


Nah, they rely totally on government sources, which is their weakness. I have combed through the dubunkers movement arguments and have found them rife with circular reasoning based on preconcieved notions, while ignoring much of the smoking-gun evidence. They rely, almost exclusively, on the weaker parts of the 9-11 truth movement (insider trading and Ashcroft flight warnings, etc). Most of what I have read has been opinionated banter with no backing.

One thing that I have read over and over is the, "where's the source", or "the source seems unreliable" excuse used to try and debunk some interesting points coming from the truthers. The thing that you have to keep in mind is that this just proves how shoddy the so-called "official" investigation into this crime really is. Much of the information and sources have been destroyed or have dissappeared with little or no analysis. Many of the very key questions will remain unanswered and that is the real travesty of the greatest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. That the investigation was so pathetic, rushed, and incomplete to leave the families of the victims with virtually no answers to their questions.

The firefighters blast Giuliani: source

Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering, a 125-year-old-monthly firefighting trade magazine with ties to the New York City Fire Department, wrote in an editor's opinion piece in the January 2002 issue called "$elling Out the Investigation", "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

If the official government story is correct, then the remains should have at least been allowed for study by structural engineers from across the nation in order to determine the cause of such a catastrophic failure. Not only this, but they lost money by shipping it overseas, when there were American companies right here that could have done the job for more money minus shipping costs. The only way that this makes sense is if it were a cover-up. Coincidentally, the same company that did the clean-up after 9-11 was the same company that cleaned up the debris at the Oklahoma City bomb site.

With the six year anniversary of this heinous crime coming up, let us attempt to find the answers to the key questions for those that no longer have an earthly voice, and the ones that they left behind. Let's leave the sophistry and lawer's tricks to the government and please find some real answers to the pertinent questions surrounding the events of September 11, 2001.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
No fire huh?





posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
There are all kinds of pictures floating around, it’s a real swamp out there. The following two are more representative. They match what was shown ‘live’ on tv.




Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   


every Ph.D agrees with that, yet the building came down to the ground at a 90° angle. im not worried about freefall speed here. im not worried about lateral ejections. im talking about the bulk of the building came down perpendicular to the ground. that means there was as little resistance from the impact zone to the ground as there was in free air surrounding the tower.


Exactamundo! Ay there's the rub, isn't it? All you have to do is use the two eyes that God gave you and your brain.. A so-called "pancake" collapse isn't going to look anything remotely like this. And please explain to the gallery how such catastophic failure could have occurred at nearly the exact same time, through the entire structure of a 110 story concrete reenforced steel skyscraper, built to withstand fires, hurricane force winds, and plane impacts, and has a huge steel core in the center of it, all made of construction-grade steel? Not just once, but three times on the same day in the same place for the first time in the history of skyscrapers? Can anyone answer this riddle for me? I mean, I could buy a partial collapse of maybe one of the Towers, but not three buildings on the same day. I'd lover for the resident mathmetician and conspiracy dubunker to calculate the odds on that.

Here's a picture of the Alfred P. Murray building after it was bombed on April 19, 1995, supposedly by McVeigh:


Yet, it still stood, until they demolished it (the same company that cleaned up Ground Zero at 9-11). Hmmm. Why didn't this building collapse on its own after having half of it blown off? If you look at the pathetic amount of damage done to one corner of Building 7 of the WTC, and it makes you wonder why anyone thought that it was going to collapse, especially when it had never happend before to a steel skyscraper, reenforced command bunker.

And you admit that not only was the steel construction-grade, i.e., was designed to withstand higher temps than regular steel, but that it was also fireproofed with someting besides the asbestos that PBS and other sensationalist hackjobs claim was blasted off of the steel, leaving it bare.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by HothSnake1]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   


Really? Do you hold allodial title to your car or your house? Do you have a reprasentative government, i.e., do you hold as much clout in Washington D.C. as Wal-mart or exxon? You have heard of something called the Patriot Act, right?...


I love the jump you make from wal-mart having more money/influence then me so that means one day I will be in a concentration camp. Also there are many economists that see walmart as a positive thing for the public/economy. What about civil liberites/environmental lobbying which have made amazing and positive change over the years? You ignore all things positive and concentrate only on the negative. YOU SEE only what you want.



"But if conspiracies exist, they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy theory.' ...



Thanks for that.. I haven't had a good laugh like that in a while. Either this guy is really dumb, or I need to send a 419 advance fee letter fast. He's the easiest mark I've ever seen.


I still have time and precedent on my side. Your so quick to write everyone off as sheep while at the same time you ramble on about how evil the world is and how everyone is out to get you. ( ohh that's a new line) The world is not that simple, it's not good vs evil/black and white. Its shades of gray. It's compromise. Also, you quote FDR, yet condemn all politicians as evil. You pick and choose the evidence that supports your side and ignore all other evidence.




Your demonstration is nice, but it fails to prove anything. At what point will construction-grade steel, designed to withstand much higher temperatures for a sustained period of time, completely fail within the engineering construction of the WTC Towers? We already know that jet-fuel is capable of weakening steel at 1400 degrees. Your calculations are flawed, anyhow, for they presuppose perfect conditions, i.e., a perfect burn.

I ALREADY STATED MY INACCURATE ASSUMPTIONS! They don't affect my conclusion.

Construction grade steel is designed to withhold higher temperatures? construction grade steel isn't even the strongest steel. If your so qualified tell me then the specific heat of "construction grade" steel. You won't do this. Gimmmie a break man I love how you get on me about my inaccurate assumptions(at least I stated mine), yet you are willing to throw assumptions around like wild. What are your credentials that you know exactly how long the fire was burning for and how hot it was. I only stated who was possible. Even at 50% burn there is still enough to bring 500 tons up 1400 degrees, OR 250 tons to 2800. YOU don't get the point, fire temperature is not just about fuel quality it's also quantity. Don't forget about all other fuel in the building. Your good at ignoring all my main points. Typical conspiracy theorist once one of their arguments is shot down they, don't bother asking themselves ohh maybe I'm not right, they just search for another one, Are you a lawyer by any chance?

You also claim to know exactly how long it should have taken for the tower to fall if it was controlled demo, which presumes you also know how long it SHOULD HAVE taken had it fallen pancake theory style. how could you know the speed at which a building struck by a plane SHOULD fall if it never happened according to you. you must be one gifted structural engineer to model that all by yourself.


Two 110 story steel structures engineered (study the engineering specs) to withstand two consecutive...


Can you really prove anything from that paragraph, what engineering specs are you talking about? If you can show me how you know that the buildings were designed to take four plane hits, please.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   


Exactamundo! Ay there's the rub, isn't it? All you have to do is use the two eyes that God gave you and your brain.. A so-called "pancake" collapse isn't going to look anything remotely like this. And please explain to the gallery how such catastophic failure could have occurred at nearly the exact same time, through the entire structure of a 110 story concrete reinforced steel skyscraper, built to withstand fires, hurricane force winds, and plane impacts, and has a huge steel core in the center of it, all made of construction-grade steel?


AND how do you know how it should look falling after being struck by a plane if it never happened? you don't know and neither did anyone else pre 9-11. Who cares if it could take hurricane force winds, it wasnt hit by a hurricane it was hit by a passenger plane. Built to withstand fires? No it was built to withstand fires for a period of time. Again with your construction grade steel line like it can't be softened by fire because its "construction grade" please.

No one can model 100% accurately know what till happen when a plan strikes a building, therefore it couldn't have been built to withstand FOUR plane hits. Why would it need to be built this way anyhow?



[edit on 3-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Im not an pgd but im an eet and we learned in physics class that newtons laws state that a falling body will take the path of least resistance. every Ph.D agrees with that, yet the building came down to the ground at a 90° angle. im not worried about freefall speed here. im not worried about lateral ejections. im talking about the bulk of the building came down perpendicular to the ground. that means there was as little resistance from the impact zone to the ground as there was in free air surrounding the tower.


Why would the building move to one side on the way down, what force would push it to a side? The portion of the building underneath could ONLY provide a normal force (aka a vertical force). This normal force was overcome by gravity, and the building fell straight down, as it should have.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
HothSnake1, why are steel buildings required to have fireproofing if "construction grade" steel doesn't lose strength when exposed to fire?



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Why would the building move to one side on the way down, what force would push it to a side?
A. the resistance from the building underneath.
The portion of the building underneath could ONLY provide a normal force (aka a vertical force). This normal force was overcome by gravity, and the building fell straight down, as it should have.
It could not be overcome by gravity alone, or all buildings would fall.

so unless there was NO resistance from underneath the building would fall to the side.

ill give you that the building could have failed at the point of impact due to impact+fire. however i will not concede that this caused global failure from the basement up. That is what happened according to the laws of physics. that does not coincide with the official story.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I am not entirely sure just who started the "black smoke means an oxygen starved fire" baloney, but it is just that, baloney.


I'm curious as to what Swampfox thinks really causes black smoke, since surely there must be a physical difference between what causes white smoke and what causes black smoke.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   


originally posted by HothSnake1
Nah, they rely totally on government sources, which is their weakness. I have combed through the dubunkers movement arguments and have found them rife with circular reasoning based on preconcieved notions, while ignoring much of the smoking-gun evidence. They rely, almost exclusively, on the weaker parts of the 9-11 truth movement (insider trading and Ashcroft flight warnings, etc). Most of what I have read has been opinionated banter with no backing.

Doesn't it seem ironic that in the very same post as this paragraph you link to prison planet as a source? As we all know, Prison Planet is the pinnacle of journalistic integrity!

Can debunkers use any of the following as a source?

I'm just curious to know what sources I can use.

ABC CBS NBC
CNN MSNBC Fox news CNBC
Associated Press Reuters New York Times Washington Post Washington Times
NIST FEMA 9/11 Commission ASCE FAA NTSB DOD DOJ FBI CIA NSA DOHS
ETA: BBC Al Jazeera NYPD FDNY PAPD NEADS NORAD

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Boone 870]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Bsbray... and others. There has been a couple threads in regards to the colors of smoke and what they mean. I personally posted video and pictures that showed how plastics caouse black smoke. (think of how many computers were up there)

The fires were not oxygen starved.

Mr. Jones was NOT at ground zero. The piece of steel he allegedly took his test from was from a piece of steel that someone he knew gave to him. ( i think it was a momento of some sort) There is such thing as a chain of command in this type of experimentation. This was not followed.

As far as UL and Mr. Ryan...Mr. Ryan was not involved with any types of steel or structural engineering at UL. He worked for a division of UL that was involved with water testing. YES WATER.

Keep going to Prison Planet for your information though... you will learn that the other Jones states that the FDNY was "in on it."
I for one think your better off going to Pizza Planet!



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Can debunkers use any of the following as a source?


The only 911 truth sites I use are the ones that back their theories with facts.

Loose Change finally did some good and got the NORAD tapes. Too bad for them and others...it appears there in FACT was not a stand down order. (Griffin and others are calling them fakes)



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Why would the building move to one side on the way down, what force would push it to a side?
A. the resistance from the building underneath.
The portion of the building underneath could ONLY provide a normal force (aka a vertical force). This normal force was overcome by gravity, and the building fell straight down, as it should have.
It could not be overcome by gravity alone, or all buildings would fall.

so unless there was NO resistance from underneath the building would fall to the side.

ill give you that the building could have failed at the point of impact due to impact+fire. however i will not concede that this caused global failure from the basement up. That is what happened according to the laws of physics. that does not coincide with the official story.

I see why you stuck with electrical...

All buildings at any point that are standing(not falling) have a normal force equal to the force of the weight of the building above regardless of position. You still haven't explained where this force that pushes a several thousand ton building to one side comes from. But that is typical always avoiding the hard questions. According to your theory the plane hits the building and causes the building to fall cartoon style like a tree falling after being chopped down?

lemme try this again.
The building failed at point of impact first right? we can agree with that.
So now the normal force at point of impact(POI) is smaller then the weight of the building the above POI, so the top portion slams into the bottom portion, say for example level 82 crashes into level 81 this shock is too much to handle for level 81 as it is also weakened so it crashes into 80 which is less weak but still weak, and so on. But as the building is falling velocity is increasing, and we know momentum = velocity * mass. SO it cuases a global failure as the momentum of this massive object is so huge.

Also If I am correct the plane hit the building at an angle weakening not just 1 level but several right off the bat.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


The reason I asked HothSnake1 if I could use any of those resources as sources, is because, apparently, if you use any source that doesn't tow the conspiracy line you are a government stooge or Bushie or something to that effect.

Regarding the recent NORAD tapes that Dylan acquired, there will probably only be three outcomes.
1. They're fake.
2. They're edited.
3. They will be interpreted wrong and/or intentionally misrepresented.

I could be wrong though. I guess time will tell.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
You still haven't explained where this force that pushes a several thousand ton building to one side comes from.


Why don't you explain where it came from? The floors weren't laying in stacks at the bottom floors when it was all said and done. The vast majority of the debris was sent considerably outwards, out of the buildings' footprints.


And the force that "pushes" it to one side is gravity, and it would be a "pull". The weakest part of the structure is where it would lean first because the electromagnetic resisting forces there would be weakest, and smallest in proportion to gravity (which is constant). Do you really know what you're talking about?



The building failed at point of impact first right? we can agree with that.
So now the normal force at point of impact(POI) is smaller then the weight of the building the above POI, so the top portion slams into the bottom portion,


Wrong! Nothing "slams" as a single unit, and if anything, it would be the floors, not the entire mass of everything above! What failure mechanism are you describing, exactly? It sounds exactly like a tree shredding itself downwards to me, if you have columns landing on top of columns and all and smashing it all straight down. How are the columns coming lose and then dropping down onto themselves? Think about it, Mr. Engineer. I thought the idea was pancake collapse? NIST has dropped the pancake theory by now, btw, if that's any help.

And the fact that the building lost stability there is not indicative of why it lost stability. You're not ruling anything out with that.



But as the building is falling velocity is increasing,


Prove it. This is a dynamics problem, and the energy being spent on all the destruction must be less than the energy being added by each floor, for the collapse wave to accelerate.


and we know momentum = velocity * mass. SO it cuases a global failure as the momentum of this massive object is so huge.


13 floors, crushing 97 floors, in WTC1, is because the "momentum of this massive object" (13 floors) "is so huge"? In relation to what? Static forces? You can't compare a static load rating to dynamic forces. A steel beam doesn't have to shatter anywhere just because you smack it with a dynamic load that peaks greater than its static yield strength. This is dynamics, not statics.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   


Why don't you explain where it came from? The floors weren't laying in stacks at the bottom floors when it was all said and done...

And the force that "pushes" it to one side is gravity, and it would be a "pull". The weakest part of the structure is where it would lean first because the electromagnetic resisting forces there would be weakest, and smallest in proportion to gravity (which is constant). Do you really know what you're talking about?




The building failed at point of impact first right? we can agree with that.
So now the normal force at point of impact(POI) is smaller then the weight of the building the above POI, so the top portion slams into the bottom portion,



Wrong! Nothing "slams" as a single unit, and if anything, it would be the floors, not the entire mass of everything above! What failure mechanism are you describing, exactly? It sounds exactly like a tree shredding itself downwards to me, if you have columns landing on top of columns and all and smashing it all straight down. How are the columns coming lose and then dropping down onto themselves? Think about it, Mr. Engineer. I thought the idea was pancake collapse? NIST has dropped the pancake theory by now, btw, if that's any help.


Wow were do I start.
This is a very dynamic problem and of course columns don't just fall straight onto other ones things are tumbling and moving and further weakening the structure. The levels weren't found in neat piles because they had just fallen from such a large height, and the potential energy was so massive it pulverized everything in its path.
Electromagnetic resistance force? come on man your just trying to fool people with big words now. Also I obviously don't mean that only level 82 falls into 81 I mean 82 and everything above it. Don't split hairs with me its a waste of time. Also again gravity can act to pull a body in no other direction then straight down. How do you figure that gravity pulls this massive object to a side? ive never fallen to the right I only fall down. If you actually look at the white radio antenna it does lean to one side as the center portion of the building is caving in and falling on the level below it, but the overall motion is down. A tree is top heavy and connected at a point on the bottom so it topples to a side a building is vertically proportional and a piece of steel isn't going to be strong enough to just bend but stay connected to this massive 13 floors of building, so it falls straight down.

NIST has not dropped the main points of the pancake theory wtc.nist.gov...
call it what you will but its just a name to try and explain it to laymen.


But as the building is falling velocity is increasing,


Prove it. This is a dynamics problem, and the energy being spent on all the destruction must be less than the energy being added by each floor, for the collapse wave to accelerate.



Thanks for the physics lesson.(once again CTers teaching others the truth) If i need to prove that the velocity of an object increases in free fall then you are truly a lost cause.

I don't need to prove that the 13 floors had enough energy to continue the collapse, I saw it. Not to mention the 200+ engineers that were on the ground doing tests to prove it. Where you at ground zero doing tests on the steel? yet you know for certain that it was a controlled demo just from looking at a youtube video and reading some conspiracy theory websites. Please tell me how you know for sure that 13 floors couldn't cause the other to fail for sure, when the physics is there for such an event to occur.

Please don't bother telling me that all these engineers, who have a much better grasp on the necessary physics then you or me, were in on the plot too.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
As steel is heated it begins to soften, At 1000 F it loses 10% of rated
strenght, at 1200 F 25%, 1400 F 50%, 1800 F only 10%. The steel
expands as it is heated, at 1000 F it expands 9 1/2 inches per 100
linear feet.


All true. Except that it doesn't just expand linearly. It expands in all directions. Like decreasing the diameter of bolt holes and such.


The expanding steel begine to twist, bend and sag under the
stress.


Also true. So tell me. If NIST's analysis is true, how does expanding steel decking (which has no added horizontal force) pull in columns to shear them not once but twice?


At some critical point the steel will have reached a point where
it can not support the load and fail. The load is transferred to adjacent
parts of the structure which if under heat stress will fail in a cascading
manner.


True. But, with the towers, when one floor would fail, the load would be transferred to the columns (which were already designed to take those loads). Either that or there would be a pancake collapse but not like we saw. There would be a lot more interior and exterior columns standing. All my opinion of course.


Witness the violent failure of the exterior columns which
initialed the building collapse


Please point out ANY steel high-rise structural fire where the columns (even when there is partial damage from floors failing and such) that just collapse. Please show me because that goes beyond any reasoning and everything I have ever learned as an engineer. Granted, I could have just not learned the mechanism, so please educate me.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join