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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
She has more PhDs than you do, and according to the establishment, that is all that matters. I love how debunkers never try to win on the merits of their theories, but instead rely almost exclusively on lawyers tricks of sophistry, like ad hominem attacks. Anyone that comes out against the establishment is personally attacked and slandered, while losing their jobs, and then you wonder why more professionals don't put their lives on the line and come out against the establishment. Now you call her a liar? What motive would she have to lie?

Let us examine the other steel evidence from Ground Zero. We find many photographs of bent and contorted steel, but we do not find broken or buckled steel. Here's an example:


We also find huge piles of fused concrete
and steel, plus steel tangled in more knots than you could count. How did jet fuel cause this? A demolition blast can cause steel to bend and thermite could cause it to melt and fuse with concrete, but not jet fuel.

Why did the Ground Zero burn for two months after the event?

What about the molten metal spewing from the side of the Towers and found at Ground Zero. This could not have been caused by Jet fuel.




posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by Hoth
What about the molten metal spewing from the side of the Towers and found at Ground Zero. This could not have been caused by Jet fuel.


Henry62 posted a link to his blog on page 5 of this thread. His explanation seems a lot better than most theories thrown around.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins

[Billybob Quote

evidence proves the towers were blown. however, this particular truth can be easily ignored by the massive cognitive dissonance which it creates

What evidence? The evidence is ignored because it's isolated and weak (ametuer youtube video anylsis, shoddy liberal art professor testimony, lack of true expert testimony). If, for example, you have 10 pieces of evidence 8 pointing one way and only 2 point the other then of course your going to pick the theory with more evidence and ignore the others. Thats not called coverup its called common sense.

Flahes of light could be anything, perhaps you can give me a min/sec to goto.



there is so little evidence pointing to bin laden that the FBI has NONE connecting him with 911.

there are so many holes in the official story, you can barely even see it anymore. it is a wafer thin slice of swiss cheese.

it is not my job to convince those pretending to be blind that they can see. i gave links to the PROOF for those who are actually interested in finding truth. those who simply wish to ignore or bury it can find their own minutes and seconds to goto.

have a nice day.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Henry62 posted a link to his blog on page 5 of this thread. His explanation seems a lot better than most theories thrown around.


I wonder if these two are working together?


Attribution. You must attribute authorship of the work to "Boone 870; a member of AboveTopSecret.com", and include the title of the message thread, WTC2 Dripping Thermite?; and this full link URL to the post: www.abovetopsecret.com... (Unless otherwise noted, photography and other artwork linked within member posts are subject to the usage rights of the individual owners of the linked artwork.)


www.abovetopsecret.com...

A link in his blog.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I will answer your question for you Griff. No!

I posted that thread over nine days ago and no one replied to it so I stopped watching it. I didn't know that BillyBob had replied to it until about 20 minutes ago. I thought that he had done some good research into this subject so I posted it.

Today is the first time I've had any communication with Henry62. Regrettably, I did not ask for his permission to link to his blog. I don't even understand what the Creative Commons Link means. I will contact a moderator tomorrow to see if I have violated any rules.

Maybe he found this web site by checking who is linking to his web site. I don't know, you will have to ask him.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by Boone 870]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
I will answer your question for you Griff. No!


Ok. It's ok even if you were. There is no harm in working together to find truth. I have no idea what all that stuff means either.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
I finally found what I needed to prove my point. This is almost exactly what i have been trying to say the whole time but stated by an engineer.

In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800◦ C.


I'm sorry, but the NIST report states that the column temps did not exceed 650 F and that they were not exposed to the elevated temperatures for the entire duration of time between impact and collapse. So - the writing you reference does not agree with the data provided by NIST.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Thanks Valhall. You said in a paragraph what took me 3 posts to achieve. I sometimes wish I had a better way with words.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


To Boone 870

Hi,
I have no problem if someone links my blog.
Don't worry: it's all OK!

I want to thank you for your attention to my blog.
Feel free to link my blog everywhere and every time you think it could be useful.

I write here because I cannot send private messages in this forum.

I hope you excuse me for my delay in answering to your post.

Thank you very much,
best wishes,
Enrico (Henry62)

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Henry62]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
its really really obvious that it was an inside job....but bush didnt do it he isnt that smart....the same people that killed kenedy did it......i cant believe that people actually believe this puppet government is real......i dont blame them because they have been eating all this propaganda and mind control the government shoots through the speakers.....when u tell someone about somthing like this they think ur a loonatic especially the ones that rock flags on their cars, shrits ,and homes.....the illuminati is probably sitting back laughing and cant believe that these people are praising them like they are some zombies......the only thing between me and them is the people brainwashed by every thing around us.....tv show,some movies,builbourds,books, fox news, etc.....if u know when they are trying to brainwash u then, and wats propaganda then itll have no effect on u.......



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake1
She has more PhDs than you do, and according to the establishment, that is all that matters. I love how debunkers never try to win on the merits of their theories, but instead rely almost exclusively on lawyers tricks of sophistry, like ad hominem attacks........


Hoth, is it lawyer tricks to check the credibility of a person? No way. Kevin Ryan of UL was always praised by those "truthers" for what he did in contacting NIST. Everyone was all excited that he stood up!! When the truth came out, it was learned he was a water tester. That was his profession. So instead of a #1 whistleblower, he was fired from his job, and lost all court cases he brought up against UL. (Appeals were dismissed with prejudice.)

Judy Woods is another loony that professionals have all laughed at and discredited her theories backed up with facts. Not government officals! Its not trickery...its facts. Facts that do not fit a persons agenda are often dismissed in here and most other "truther" sites. We are called shills and sheeple for being skepticle to the entire truth movement.

Hoth, your passion for the truth is apparent, but to ignore some basic important facts will lead you down the wrong road.

You post 1/2 truths (not your fault) because that is what you are being fed from the loons like Alex Jones and Judy Woods. They all have warped agendas.

Look at the picture for example and your quote "and steel, plus steel tangled in more knots than you could count"

Do you know for a fact that is steel? How thick is it? Could it be the rebar that was layed with the concrete? I'm not sure if you are implying that the steel in there is part of the support columns or what not.

You also stated:
"What about the molten metal spewing from the side of the Towers and found at Ground Zero. This could not have been caused by Jet fuel"

Now, I don't want to get into the debate with the Molten metal at Ground Zero, but i do give you credit for saying METAL and not steel.

As far as what was flowing, that was more that likely aluminum and batteries from a UPS system that was stored there. I opened a thread quite a while back that shows this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

please take a look. I would like your feedback.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I have not read all of the replies as I just got these thoughts in my head and I wanted to add them before I lose them (too lazy to type up a document). I know precious little about demolitions, aircraft, the size and mass of the supporting structure and stats. I just want to give a few points to ponder:

1. We have two 110-storey (I think) buildings which are both relatively wide. One would expect the supporting struts to weigh a few tonnes, eh? The buildings are designed to take a hit from a heavier aircraft, so those struts should be pretty sturdy. How much fuel did those aircraft tanks contain and would there be enough to soften the entire frame of each building?

2. I've seen a few controlled demolitions on TV and the little I know about it (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you want the building to come straight down so you put explosives around the supporting struts (right?) and I presume they have to go off in sequence (up or down? I dunno). Those planes hit pretty high up and the buildings went straight down in 10 seconds (I believe). Two massively reinforced buildings go down like controlled demolitions in record time. Any statisticians out there wanna give us the odds on BOTH going down in a pretty identical way? Add to that the fact that they were hit by different planes of different masses with different amounts of fuel. Another probability I would like to know is that of the flaming fuel of BOTH planes getting into and damaging the ENTIRE support structures of the buildings in a way that brought both straight down.

3. The planes pretty much exploded on impact. Wouldn't that consume most of the fuel, i.e. very little left to flow down approximately 100 floors of support struts?

I apologise if these are stupid questions and if they have been covered before.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock
1. We have two 110-storey (I think) buildings which are both relatively wide. One would expect the supporting struts to weigh a few tonnes, eh? The buildings are designed to take a hit from a heavier aircraft, so those struts should be pretty sturdy. How much fuel did those aircraft tanks contain and would there be enough to soften the entire frame of each building?


The planes were not designed to take a hit from a "larger "plane. It was designed to take a hit from a 707. That was lost in fog..not designed to take a hit from a kamakazi terrorist traveling at over 400 MPH.

I beleive there was about 10k gallons of Jet Fuel in each plane.

Originally posted by Lannock
2. I've seen a few controlled demolitions on TV and the little I know about it (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you want the building to come straight down so you put explosives around the supporting struts (right?) and I presume they have to go off in sequence (up or down? I dunno). Those planes hit pretty high up and the buildings went straight down in 10 seconds (I believe). Two massively reinforced buildings go down like controlled demolitions in record time.......


Actually if you talk to most professionals, WTC 1 & 2 did not go down like a CD. Even the CD expert that looked at a video of WTC7 and thought that it did indeed look like a CD, he also said (i believe) that WTC 1&2 did not look like CD. Laymen like you and I may think otherwise. The collapses of 1& 2 were actually quite different.


Originally posted by Lannock3. The planes pretty much exploded on impact. Wouldn't that consume most of the fuel, i.e. very little left to flow down approximately 100 floors of support struts?


The planes did in fact explode on impact, this does not mean that the entire craft disingrated. Literally tons of aluminum, steel, etc etc impacted many areas of the floors within the impact areas.
NIST actually estimated that less than 50% of the jet fuel was consumed in the original fireball.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lannock
 


Your questions are all very valid Lannock, and this thread is dedicated to answering those questions.

Skyscrapers just do not collapse due to fire. Can anyone give me an example of a skyscraper completely collapsing because of fire prior to or after 9-11-01? Saying that the plane impact caused it is being disingenuous, for the buildings were over engineered to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 (as Lannock so perceptively pointed out, the planes that hit the Towers were comparable in size and weight to a 707, and they were not even close to full capacity). As evidence of this fact, the Towers stood well after impact.

Capt. O, I spread circumstantial evidence (that is all we have), while you provide alternatives to isolated phenomena that may or may not be viable. I think that when you look at the totality of the evidence, it is obvious that those alternatives do not fit the overall evidence and cannot explain how two skyscrapers, seemingly exploded on 9-11, almost simultaneously. This is why Lannock is right to question the official story of fire causing the most catostrophic of failures, throughout two steel concrete structures on the same day at nearly the same time in the same way (I'd love to know how you can say that the collapse of Tower 1 was different than the collapse of Tower 2?). Don't forget that the Tower that was hit second collapsed first?



Hoth, is it lawyer tricks to check the credibility of a person? No way. Kevin Ryan of UL was always praised by those "truthers" for what he did in contacting NIST. Everyone was all excited that he stood up!! When the truth came out, it was learned he was a water tester. That was his profession. So instead of a #1 whistleblower, he was fired from his job, and lost all court cases he brought up against UL. (Appeals were dismissed with prejudice.)


Yes, infact, it is... The merits of any case do not depend upon the personal facts of the person(s) presenting the case. The case should be won or lost based on the evidence and the facts, and not based on your personal likes or dislikes or emotions concerining the matter at hand. Trying to smear someone's character is typical of politics and not of truth finding-- it is indicative of a weak case.

As for the mangled steel, you can tell that its steel because of the rust that is on it, i.e., iron. I will read your thread in good time... Right now I have to go to a ball game.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by HothSnake1]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
As for your molten metal thread, I don't buy it, and I'll tell you why: As somebody pointed out on there, motlten Aluminum/lead looks very different than molten iron/steel, because they have very different melting points. The hotter the liquid metal, the greater its glow and varying color... Gray-hot, red-hot, and white-hot. What we saw pooring out of WTC was white-hot molten metal. Based on this I think that it is more than safe to say that it was molten iron and the temperatures involved were far hotter than a Jet fuel/karosene dirty burn could produce, thus it was thermite/thermate.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by teebigins
I finally found what I needed to prove my point. This is almost exactly what i have been trying to say the whole time but stated by an engineer.

In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800◦ C.


I'm sorry, but the NIST report states that the column temps did not exceed 650 F and that they were not exposed to the elevated temperatures for the entire duration of time between impact and collapse. So - the writing you reference does not agree with the data provided by NIST.


You're pulling together facts from different sources to make the official story questionable at best, but in science you look at observations and then find the facts to match. In pseudo-science you make up elaborate schemes of government cover-ups, mass media brain washing, and bigfoot (an example being the included quote by freedomfighter 21). Heard of Akums Razor? You have discovered facts everyone else has ironically enough "missed". As much time as your kind spends on this site it makes me wonder what your facts are. After all, you are who you talk too.


Originally posted by HothSnake1
Yes, infact, it is... The merits of any case do not depend upon the personal facts of the person(s) presenting the case. The case should be won or lost based on the evidence and the facts, and not based on your personal likes or dislikes or emotions concerining the matter at hand.

Exactly why your emotional knee jerk conspiracies have hardly held back intellectual and coherent debate, regarding 9-11 events in the good ole' US of A.

Quote by hothsnake1,

"I spread circumstantial evidence"


And just when you thought he was done.....


Trying to smear someone's character is typical of politics and not of truth finding-- it is indicative of a weak case.

point in case.

So sit in a circle and stroke your wangs, but just remember your "truth" lingers only as a irritating pimple on the ass of the time.

Typical conspiracy theorist...

its really really obvious that it was an inside job....but bush didnt do it he isnt that smart(but I am)....the same people that killed kenedy did it(i figured it out!!)......i cant believe that people actually believe this puppet government is real......i dont blame them because they have been eating all this propaganda and mind control the government shoots through the speakers(gov cov ups/media brainwashing).....when u tell someone about somthing like this they think ur a loonatic (for good reason)especially the ones that rock flags on their cars, shrits ,and homes(bitter about something?).....the illumin...Blah blah blah


Your dispose alone is enough to question your rendition of reality.

**END GOV2993 DEMORALIZER TRANSMISSION** Ohh # woops@!!#$





[edit on 7-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Ok because yous only speak through conspiracy theorizations. I got one for you.
In the near future the outcome of the war in araq is on the horizon. But regardless of the outcome all attention, and considerable money has blessed some of the middle east. Did the dumb,smelly, arab, box cutter wielding terrorists actually get what they wanted?

Cost analysis.
Cost of 9-11 terrorist attacks where estimated at 500000 us.
Gain: some estimate it could approach a trillion.

great business men.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by teebigins
He never assumes no resistance, you assume he assumes no resistance.


Show me where he includes the resistance of the buckling columns.


What he actually says is that the columns lose their load carrying capacity.Doesn't mean no resistance.


No it doesn't. But then he goes on to assume a freefall speed (which means no resistance). Again, show me in his calculations where he includes resistance from buckling columns.


The downward displacement from the initial equilibrium position to the point of maximum deflection of the lower part (considered to behave elastically) is h + (P /C ) where P
= maximum force applied by the upper part on the lower part and h = height of critical
floor columns (= height of the initial fall of the upper part)≈ 3.7 m. The energy dissipa-
tion, particularly that due to the inelastic deformation of columns during the initial drop
of the upper part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to move through distance h [B]almost[/B] in a free fall (indeed, the energy dissipated in the columns during the fall is at most equal to 2π × the yield moment of columns, × the number of columns, which is found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy release if the columns were cold, and much less than that at 800◦ C). So the loss of the gravitational potential energy of the upper part may be approximately equated to the strain energy of the lower part at maximum elastic deflection. This gives the equation mg[h + (P /C )] = P 2 /2C in which m = mass of the upper part (of North Tower) 58·10 ^6 kg, and g = gravity acceleration. The
solution P = Pdyn yields the following elastically calculated overload ratio due to impact of the upper part: dPdyn /P0 = 1 +calculated overload ratio due to impact of the upper part: Pdyn /P0 = 1 + 1 + (2C h/mg) ≈ 31 (1)
where P0 = mg = design load capacity. In spite of the approximate nature of this analysis, it is obvious that the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order OF a magnitude.

The link to this pdf is posted on page 5.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Thanks for proving my point. Columns fail plastically. Not inelasticly. The temperatures were found to not exceed 650 C.

Why do you use a study from 9/13/01 to prove your case when we have found that it is erroneous? And you have the gall to say bad things about "truthers"?



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Thanks for proving my point. Columns fail plastically. Not inelasticly. The temperatures were found to not exceed 650 C.




The counter to plastic deformation is ELASTIC deformation not inelastic. when a material exhibits elastic deformation it bounces back to its original shape (as the name implies) once a stress is removed. Plastic, or inelastic, once deformed stays in some new shape. The author assumes INELASTIC or plastic deformation the whole time, how does this prove your point? You have to first make a point.

I like how you have abandoned your "author assumes free fall theory" then say "exactly my point" then add some completely new but erroneous, argument.

As for temperature, just look at the quote I posted before this one, he says
"2% of the gravitational potential energy release if the columns were cold, and much less than that at 800◦ C"

IF THE COLUMNS WERE COLD, now your going to tell me that they weren't cold they were 650 C so the whole study was flawed.



Why do you use a study from 9/13/01 to prove your case when we have found that it is erroneous? And you have the gall to say bad things about "truthers"?


I am using a study from 2001 because the laws of physics have not changed since 2001, nor have they every changed. It's a simple psychics proof for the plausibility of the official story.

[edit on 8-9-2007 by teebigins]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join