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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:56 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. Ask ANY member of the US Armed Forces, especially those in aviation, just what color smoke comes from a jet fuel caused fire...heres a hint DARK BLACK. Hell ask any resident of Mayport, Florida or San Diego what color smoke came from the firefighting schools, back when we still actually used jet fuel, diesel and mogas to start the fires...they will tell you the same thing. Big, raging fires producing billowing black smoke. Good grief, does anyone actually look for information OTHER than what they read on conspiracy sites?


Yes we do. Although you are correct, the jet fuel burned up in a few minutes. The other things in the building would have produced black smoke also.

Either way, the fires didn't burn hot enough to produce what we saw IMO, black smoke or white.




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
HothSnake1, why are steel buildings required to have fireproofing if "construction grade" steel doesn't lose strength when exposed to fire?


Because it expands. Not because it looses it's strength specifically, but the more threat is the expansion. Look what happened at the underpass in San Fran recently.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Well if the decking sagged downwards wouldn't it pull the attached columns inward providing the sheer force. Hence the horizontal force. I don't know if this happened exactly but it is very likely, and doesn't defy all laws of physics like some claim.

I agree that eventually the falling mass would reach a level that was designed to handle the load(ie not heat stressed), but not a load that is falling with considerable momentum. Consider for example placing a small diameter steel ball on a piece of tissue paper then placing this on water. The tissue paper sinks and the steel ball can actually float! Now take this steel ball and drop it into the water, it sinks.

How do you know the columns just collapsed? the inside columns were inside so its hard to say what actually happened. What should the columns on the outside have done? just stand there while several tons of concrete and steel are falling on them. How does this defy logic?

I looked at the video of the first falling building and it does indeed lean to one side slightly as if one side was weakened more then the other, but that is to be expected as this wasn't nice clean controlled demo. But again the overall motion is down just like any other building falling from controlled demo or not. THIS BUILDING FELL just like any other building falls. Again how should a building of fallen after being hit by a plane? how do you know this if it never happened in your eyes? There are just sooooo many holes in the controlled demo logic.


[edit on 3-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
Well if the decking sagged downwards wouldn't it pull the attached columns inward. Hence the horizontal force. I don't know if this happened exactly but it is very likely, and doesn't defy all laws of physics like some claim.


Look into statics. The load is a vertical load (shear). The reactions are on the column. They are also vertical. The column does have a horizontal component included with moments. A sagging truss would add a horizontal component while lessening the vertical component. How does this shear the outer columns? Unless we are talking about a floor failing onto another floor and causing a huge dynamic moment that would shear the column. But, I still can't see how it would shear at 2 locations (top and bottom) at the connection instead of just one.


How do you know the columns just collapsed? the inside columns were inside so its hard to say what actually happened. What should the columns on the outside have done? just stand there while several tons of concrete and steel are falling on them. How does this defy logic?


It doesn't defy logic. What defies logic is sagging trusses shearing the outer columns in 2 places and not just 1.


There are just sooooo many holes in the controlled demo logic.


There are more in the plane damage and jet fuel logic to be honest. Something brought the interior columns down IMO. There's no other way. BTW, that might cause outer columns to shear.

[edit on 9/3/2007 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The structure weakened on more then one level because the planes went in at an angle spraying jet fuel everywhere all over office furniture, papers, other fuels...etc. This heated multiple horizontal trusses. The two hottest horizontal trusses failed first at the top and bottom pulling in the columns. How could a plane flying into a building only heat 1 level when all the levels are connected and steel is a great conductor of heat.

I'm not going to sit here and say that the controlled demo logic is impossible, as it is possible that:
1. people went in and rigged the building without anyone noticing.
2. all blast caps/ rigging wires were removed without any volunteers/photographers at ground zero noticing
3. blasts were perfectly coordinated with plane crash.
4. blasts were perfectly coordinated with fall of building.

Yes possible but, i think the NIST theory is much more plausible. Not to mention it is the opinion of engineers and scientists that actually got their hands on the tangible evidence.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
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.


What exactly is "things are tumbling and moving"? Do you have specific kinds of failures in mind? Either way, your assumption that an entire floor's worth of mass is going to come loose and fall straight down all at once is absurd.


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.


What about the ones at the very bottom? They're not there either. Where did they go? Do you not get the problem? Btw, "pancake theory" has been abandoned by the government reports too, now.


Electromagnetic resistance force? come on man your just trying to fool people with big words now.


rofl man, it's physics. There's no such thing as a "normal force" in reality. What do you think the normal force really is coming from?



Also I obviously don't mean that only level 82 falls into 81 I mean 82 and everything above it.


No -- HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? If the floors are pancaking, how does EVERYTHING above a certain floor fall straight down onto the floors below? Think! The floors falling would be a shear motion against the perimeter and core columns. Those columns wouldn't fall straight down into themselves too! They were solidly welded together, solid lengths of columns sticking up in the air with lateral bracing every floor.


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?


Have you never seen ANYTHING fall to a side on its own? If there is nothing to resist gravity, then what's going to happen, man? If I cut a chunk out of the side of a tree, like we've all seen, where is it going to lean? Towards where the chunk was cut out? Because there's nothing there to RESIST the force straight down?


ive never fallen to the right I only fall down.


This is a huge simplification of vectors in 3 or even 2 dimensions. Have you ever had vector math? It would really simplify this stuff if you have. Forces add as vectors. Gravity can be applied at -90 degrees, but motion results at some off angle like -45 degrees. When you fall, everything on you is shifting around on all three "axes," moving left or right, up or down, front to back, even if slightly, all at once, including your center of mass if you wanted to simplify yourself down to a single point, for example. It all depends on how the individual forces interact at any given point in space.


A tree is top heavy and connected at a point on the bottom so it topples to a side


No, it topples to a side because gravity isn't strong enough to rip it apart from the inside out. Only topple it. To do anything else would require extra energy.



call it what you will but its just a name to try and explain it to laymen.


No, there's a huge difference between NIST's theory and pancake theory. That's why they say themselves, explicitly, that they do not support pancake theory.


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


Where is the free fall? You don't even have true free fall in our atmosphere, let alone through a steel building. Try again.

Like I said the first time, this is a dynamics problem, with the frictional forces the upper floors are smashing into, and other various energy sinks to match the pulverization of concrete, etc., being subtracted constantly from the kinetic energy of the upper falling mass. Most of the mass is going out over the sides, while the structure below is becoming stronger and stronger, and not to mention that pulverized/destroyed floors don't make very good "hammers".


I don't need to prove that the 13 floors had enough energy to continue the collapse, I saw it.


Deep. Case closed, I guess.



Not to mention the 200+ engineers that were on the ground doing tests to prove it.


Where are they? Where's their report?


yet you know for certain that it was a controlled demo just from looking at a youtube video and reading some conspiracy theory websites.


I'm sorry to say that this isn't going to get me down coming from someone who can't understand how gravity can cause something to fall asymmetrically.


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.


Rofl, then how would you be able to tell the difference? Why bother if it all just comes down to you blindly trusting some undefined group engineers anyway? If you don't know what you're talking about, that's your fault, not mine.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Kudos to bsrbray 11 and Griff... Nice work, you saved me some valuable time and effort. These guys love to dwell in fantasy land, where aluminum jet airliners can pulverize 110 story steel concrete skyscrapers with a single impact. Commonsense should be enough to dispel their rumors, but the tangled web they weave can be a monumental minefield of mental traps and deadends. Confuse the issue as much as possible and the general public will walk away believing the establishment line out of sheer laziness, ignorance, and confusion.

I see that the main and most important question still remains unanswered by our government sources and on this forum: I shall repeat for those of you that are very afraid....


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 love for the resident mathmetician and conspiracy dubunker to calculate the odds on that.


I realize that you would like to pull another NIST report and ignore this most important question altogether, but I demand a valid answer.

Also, explain to me how Jet airliners could produce this:


and this:


Here's a picture of of the South Tower, the one with the antenna on it; notice what falls first:


If you follow the photographs from left to right, you will notice that the first thing to fall was the t.v. antenna. Infact, if you infer distance from the photograph, you can tell that it fell some 50 feet before anything else. Now, so what? Well, we know that a giant concrete reenforced steel core spiraled up the center of the structure and that this antenna would be sitting directly on the core. The NIST report, the 911 Commission, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, and the PBS documentary on 9-11, echoing the government party line of a pancake collapse, have all failed to show us what happened to these steel cores:


If the antenna fell first, then the core had to have been blown out from bottom to top. This is most definately not a pancake collapse. It is total catastrophic failure from bottom to top to bottom, and is proof of a controlled demolition. The antenna didn't just slowly pick up speed and momentum on its descent, but just fell suddenly with virtually no resistance from a huge steel core. No matter how you look at the video footage of this collapse you will note that it is not a chain reaction, there is no pancaking, and the resistance is nil.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
The two hottest horizontal trusses failed first at the top and bottom pulling in the columns.


How can horizontal trusses fail AND pull in columns at the same time?


How could a plane flying into a building only heat 1 level when all the levels are connected and steel is a great conductor of heat.


Exactly. So, how did the steel get to failure temperature then on 1 or a few floors?


Not to mention it is the opinion of engineers and scientists that actually got their hands on the tangible evidence.


What engineers got their hands on the tangible evidence? Can you list them? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

How could a plane flying into a building only heat 1 level when all the levels are connected and steel is a great conductor of heat.


I thought I'd add that, because it's a great conductor of heat, doesn't mean you're going to get more columns to fail from heat more easily. It means just the opposite: all the heat that accumulates in a column at a certain place, will spread out and become more diminished, but over a larger area. I should probably also tell you that NIST found no evidence of significant column heating from fires. The columns were way too massive to heat to any significant temperature in only



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   


Rofl, then how would you be able to tell the difference? Why bother if it all just comes down to you blindly trusting some undefined group engineers anyway? If you don't know what you're talking about, that's your fault, not mine.


I like this guy... You hit the nail on the head with this one. Society is trained to follow the authority, like Cartman's "respect my authoritay". Certain, so-called "authorities" of the establishment are never to be questioned and are to be blindly followed by the sheeple. And then people love to question alternative explanations of events like these, saying "how could such a huge conspiracy go on right under our noses and the perpetrators get away with it?" It's easy when the general public is trained from the time they start government school to believe anything and everything that they are told by their establishment educators and politicos. Someone flashes a degree from some government institute and the debate is suddenly over. No further questions can be asked, and the "anyone that disagrees lacks the credentials and the 'authoritay'" ad hominem is passed at nauseum. teebigins is their posterchild.




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.


Politicians, evil? To an extent, but most are just useful idiots, much like the 9-11 debunkers movement. Time and Precident on your side? How so? I can't wait for this answer.

"Why did the most brilliant scientist [Tesla] in history die penniless with his inventions benefiting megalo-maniacal governments and ruthless organized criminals? Why are the world’s most profitable businesses oil, chemicals, war, pharmaceuticals, “illegal” drugs, human slavery and prostitution? Why do “democratic” governments rule their people with oppressive, police-state tactics? Why do these “democracies” poison the food, the water, the air and the land; why do they tax and regulate their people into slavery?" external source

Answer these questions and you'll have all that you need to figure out that nothing in this world happens by accident. "Like God, I do not believe in coincidence, nor do I play with dice." A foray into quantum reality tells us that everything is connected, nothing stands alone, and time and space are an illusion.

Point infact, time, precident, and history are on my side. Here's a small smattering for you: external source




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.


Tell that to FEMA.



there are many economists that see walmart as a positive thing for the public/economy.


There are also idiots out there that beilieve in fairies, gargoyles, and that Hitler was a great guy.

Some idiots, I suspect that they are paid hacks, suggest that Wal-mart is good for the economy because it helps "lower inflation." First of all, there are soooo many things wrong with this analysis that I scarcely know where to begin. (continued on my next thread)



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." - JFK

I love that quote! Looking at the circumstantial evidence, why is it not plausible to think our Government created or allowed 911 to happen. President Dwight Eisenhower warned us to BEWARE OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! Our nation is built on War! After the Cold War, what did we have? The U.S. acted as a the Big Brother in small skirmishes, but never really satisfied the needs of the Military Industrial Complex!

For example, In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SOONER
 




www.newamericancentury.org...

June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?



[edit: clipped quoted content, added source link and external source tags]
Mod Note: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: Very large Copy/Paste removed. Please see the post above for a link to the full article]

[edit on 4-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SOONER
 


The men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was “a new Pearl Harbor.” Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true. Furthermore, check out the PNAC website www.newamericancentury.org... you can see the U.S. foreign policy was written in advance of 911. The neo-conservative got their pretext for war with the “NEW PERAL HARBOR” as they have mentioned.

Captain Obvious, do you really believe in coincidences? A member of PNAC, Jeb Bush declared Marshall Law on September 7, 2001 by signing EXECUTIVE ORDER 01-261!

Section 3.
The Florida National Guard may order selected members on to state active duty for service to the State of Florida pursuant to Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes, to assist FDLE in performing port security training and inspections. Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes

Section 6.
This Executive Order shall remain in full force and effect until the earlier of its revocation or June 30, 2003.

Why would Jeb Bush have activated the National Guard to full time status to support law enfrocement? His brother (George) would be in town, and the loveable George, reading to school children with the camera’s rolling when he was informed of the attack! Reads almost like a reality show!

Coincidently, Presidents younger brother (Marvin Bush) was on the “Board of Directors” for a Kuwait backed company (Securacom) providing security for Dulles International Airport, United Airlines, and The World Trade Center!


Coincidently, the Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.

Coincidently, John Ashcroft and Willie Brown were advised not to fly on Tuesday September 11, 2001!


Hothsnake! Right on man! I loved everything you had to say! Keep up the good work!
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
President George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002


THE PRESIDENT: "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country." (Mission Accomplished speech aboard USS Abraham Lincoln) May 1, 2003



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SOONER
 


Below is letter from PNAC to Presidents, and Congress leaders! Trying to use their doctrine to influence American foreign policy! They were making the case for WMD’s years before 911. Interestingly enough, their prophetic phrase a “NEW PEARL HARBOR” enable them to fulfill their agenda!


Iraq, September 20,2001



We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means
www.newamericancentury.org...



January 26, 1998





We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. www.newamericancentury.org...



May 29, 1998



Mr. Speaker and Mr. Lott, during the most recent phase of this crisis, you both took strong stands, stating that the goal of U.S. policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime. And, at the time of the Annan deal, Senator Lott, you pointed out its debilitating weakness and correctly reminded both your colleagues and the nation that "We cannot afford peace at any price."
www.newamericancentury.org...




[edit on 4-9-2007 by SOONER]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by HothSnake1
Also, explain to me how Jet airliners could produce this:
external image

and this:
external image


Here's the link:11-settembre.blogspot.com. If you will notice in the first picture you posted, there is slag on top of the debris around the column that has been cut. Why would there be slag on the collapse debris if the column was cut before the collapse?

It's not my explanation, but it sounds reasonable to me.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I am going to write a brief description of the founders of a Project for a New American Centuary and the correlations between them and the Bush Administration. My goal is to prove they had the motive to create a “NEW PEAL HARBOR” and the capabilities to pull off this atrocity!


On October 7, 1991, Abrams pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress. Abrams admitted that he withheld from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in October 1986 his knowledge of North's contra-assistance activities. In support of his guilty plea, Abrams admitted that it was his belief ``that disclosure of Lt. Col. North's activities in the resupply of the Contras would jeopardize final enactment'' of a $100 million appropriation pending in Congress at the time of his testimony.3 He also admitted that he withheld from HPSCI information that he had solicited $10 million in aid for the contras from the Sultan of Brunei.


Although his portfolio in President George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) involves democracy promotion abroad, Abrams is widely regarded as being one of the key champions of the neoconservative line on foreign affairs, shunning negotiations in favor of confrontational, militaristic U.S. policies. One of his major targets has been Middle East policy, serving as a point person for policies related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and pushing a hardline stance on Iran, Syria, and Iraq. And just as he did during the Contra wars, Abrams seemed to use his perch in the NSC to fight efforts by some administration officials and members of Congress aimed at pushing diplomatic approaches to Middle East issues!




05/11/03: (Information Clearing House) Unless you were around and following events in the 1980s, especially Central American affairs and later, the Iran-contra scandal, you probably won’t know who Elliot Abrams is. More’s the pity too. As Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs he used to oversee US foreign policy in Latin America, and was active in covering up some of the worst atrocities committed by the US-sponsored Contras. According to congressional records, under Abram's watch, the Contras "raped, tortured, and killed unarmed civilians, including children," and that "groups of civilians, including women and children, were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded." www.informationclearinghouse.info...




[edit on 4-9-2007 by SOONER]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SOONER

I am going to write a brief description of the founders of a Project for a New American Centuary and the correlations between them and the Bush Administration...

[edit on 4-9-2007 by SOONER]


Your motives are pointless if it is plausible that the building fell from a airplane crashing into it.



[edit on 4-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   


Do you have specific kinds of failures in mind? Either way, your assumption that an entire floor's worth of mass is going to come loose and fall straight down all at once is absurd.

There isn't one. It's not like planes fly into building all the time. I don't think that actually happened, but eventually there is a breaking point. I like how you twist my words. Who is to say that sections didn't come loose piece wise and eventually too many section came loose and it fell completely. I can't see inside the building before it fell.


rofl man, it's physics. There's no such thing as a "normal force" in reality. What do you think the normal force really is coming from?

The Electromagnetic Force
This is the force which exists between all particles which have an electric charge....
Are you really bringing particle physics into a problem that can be explained with Newtonian physics. Once again just like all conspiracy theorists your just trying to impress people, when in reality you can't prove anything with the basics.



No -- HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? If the floors are pancaking, how does EVERYTHING above a certain floor fall straight down onto the floors below? Think! The floors falling would be a shear motion against the perimeter and core columns. Those columns wouldn't fall straight down into themselves too! They were solidly welded together, solid lengths of columns sticking up in the air with lateral bracing every floor.

Ok, maybe I was unclear. The horizontal trusses weaken and then sag. So assume the horizontal trusses are concave down ellipses. They now have both a vertical and horizontal force inward( aka towards the center of the building) Yes its an oversimplification, but then again building one did lean to a side before falling. So failure wasn't uniform. I'm just refuting those who say "either you believe it was demo, or you don't believe in the laws of physics."


This is a huge simplification of vectors in 3 or even 2 dimensions. Have you ever had vector math? It would really simplify this stuff if you have. Forces add as vectors. Gravity can be applied at -90 degrees...

Yes I have actually. Once again trying to impress people, and push them around. typical I love how etiquette rules don't apply to Conspiracy people. And if you have a point please say it don't teach me basic physics, which doesn't doesn't prove anything either my way or yours.



No, it topples to a side because gravity isn't strong enough to rip it apart from the inside out. Only topple it. To do anything else would require extra energy.

Again please make a point. I made a simplification to try and explain that a building unlike a tree wouldn't fall the same way. Perhaps had the terrorists hit the building at a corner (repeatedly) then yes it would fall to a side but that is not what happened.



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.

Again you don't have a point who is to say that that wasn't accomplished. DID you do a conservation of energy equation to figure this out?



Where are they? Where's their report?

NIST report.

I'm sorry to say that this isn't going to get me down coming from someone who can't understand how gravity can cause something to fall asymmetrically.

look at you, you can't even counter the argument you just look to belittle people infront of other because in reality you don't have a point. Where are the mods on this one. NO WHERE!!! This is the most biased page ever.

None of you have yet to explain how it should have fallen. And if your saying that it couldn't have fallen the way it did from a plane hitting it then this implies you know how it should have fallen, had a plane hit it.

Bring it I love 5 vs 1 argument!



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Dick Cheney, while he was CEO of Halliburton, he took part in founding of the Project for the New American Century! Visiting the PNAC web site you can easily find the push for war with Iraq! They needed to created just cause, I.e. 911!

I ask you, is the following a coincidence or a sinister force at play:

Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 through August 2000. The company's KBR subsidiary is the main government contractor working to restore Iraq's oil industry in an open-ended contract that was awarded without competitive bidding.

According to Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure report, the vice president's Halliburton benefits include three batches of stock options comprising 433,333 shares


Halliburton has contracts worth more than $1.7 billion for its work in Iraq, and it could make hundreds of millions more from a no-bid contract it was awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers, The Washington Post has reported.

No bid contracts? What the hell, and some people seem to believe that the leaders of today could not have manifested 911!



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join