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: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
you seem to have a problem understanding that the towers release ZERO PERCENT of the potential energy from gravity, until they actually move.

and the idea that only 12% of this potential is enough to fail even cold columns is plain silly. the perimeter columns could bear 2000%(20X) more than they had to bear.
the (inane) scenario proposed by brazant zhou is a non-starter. without the unleashing of gravitational energy, there is no force beyond what the towers held every single day. without all the columns of the collapse area giving out at the same time, there is no sudden freefall descent. the columns cannot fail without some great crushing force. the crushing force doesn't exist until the columns fail. the columns won't all fail at the same time without some instant extra load beyond what they held every day. without failing columns, there is no release of potential energy. the potential energy cannot be released without the columns failing simultaneously first. etc. etc. a logical loop.

911research.com...




posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you seem to have a problem understanding that the towers release ZERO PERCENT of the potential energy from gravity, until they actually move.... the columns cannot fail without some great crushing force. the crushing force doesn't exist until the columns fail.... without failing columns, there is no release of potential energy. the potential energy cannot be released without the columns failing simultaneously first. etc. etc. a logical loop.

911research.com...


forget failing columns, portions of columns were straight up removed by the original impact of the plane. Not to mention those supports nearest the initial trauma were also the areas that were coated with the most jet fuel.

Unless your the type who thinks it was a holographic plane.

Your 911research link is weak. No sources, all he does is criticize the author for assuming 2 to 1 safety ratio, but doesn't say where the author makes this assumption. And at the same time forgets the plane removed some of the safety ratio. Or reserve strength as he calls it.


[edit on 8-9-2007 by teebigins]

[edit on 8-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
forget failing columns, portions of columns were straight up removed by the original impact of the plane. Not to mention those supports nearest the initial trauma were also the areas that were coated with the most jet fuel.

Unless your the type who thinks it was a holographic plane.

Your 911research link is weak. No sources, all he does is criticize at a personal level. I may do the same thing, but at least I provide sources,references,facts from unbiased locations.


There is absolutely NO evidence that ANY of the central columns were damaged in any way, let alone 'straight out removed'. Think logically, an aluminum plane goes through the steel facade and is still in one piece enough to damage the massive central steel columns?
Remember the plane that supposedly hit the pentagoon? The wings of that that plane, along with the engines, disappeared without leaving a mark, yet were supposed to believe they could slice through, not one, but two sets of steel columns at the WTC? Both scenarios beg too many questions. The plane that hit the second tower didn't even hit the central columns, so where does that leave your theory?

And so what if they were coated in jet fuel, which common sense should tell you they weren't, they still would not have got hot enough to cause global collapse. Office fires, even if helped with jet fuel, simply do not get hot enough in an hour to cause global failure of thousands of tons of construction steel.

Billybob is correct in what he says, it's not rocket science just simple physics.

What's weak is the official story, which has so many holes it collapses globally on itself from the slightest questioning.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


There is absolutely NO evidence that ANY of the central columns were damaged in any way, let alone 'straight out removed'. Think logically, an aluminum plane goes through the steel facade and is still in one piece enough to damage the massive central steel columns?

Im not even talking about central columns. im talking about the outer columns. pay attention.

You say that the planes couldn't cut through the building yet in one video we can clearly see portions of the plane coming out the other side of the tower. it's not rocket science just simple physics. unless of course you think that there was demo rigged to send a fireball out the other end.


Remember the plane that supposedly hit the pentagoon?


Lets stay on topic, whos talking about the pentagon plane? Completely different scenarios.


And so what if they were coated in jet fuel, which common sense should tell you they weren't, they still would not have got hot enough to cause global collapse. Office fires, even if helped with jet fuel, simply do not get hot enough in an hour to cause global failure of thousands of tons of construction steel
Maybe, maybe not your not exactly qualified to say. Do you have test results, a study, evidence? I have asked this many times,but none has come up. NIST has and confirmed that is was possible. Also this was not a typical office fire, not to mention winds were 100% realized because they were not bound by other buildings on any side. Many have reported considerable winds that day. I will post sources if you want. One is wiki's sept 11th timeline.



[edit on 8-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   


Im not even talking about central columns. im talking about the outer columns. pay attention.


Conveniently, you, PBS, NIST, and FEMA all ignore the central collumns altogether and that is the problem. Who cares about the outer collumns? If they fail, it still doesn't explain how the central collumns all failed at the same moment in both structures.

I think that his point is quite relevant about the Pentagon (I like how you, and your NIST report, ignore anything that you can't confuse within your little paradigms that you construct around your false assumptions that Griff has already pointed out). The Pentagon is made of concrete, while the Towers were made of both steel and concrete. How does an Aluminum airliner slice through steel, when it barely made a hole in the Pentagon's concrete?



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
Im not even talking about central columns. im talking about the outer columns. pay attention….
…it's not rocket science just simple physics. unless of course you think that there was demo rigged to send a fireball out the other end.
...Lets stay on topic, whos talking about the pentagon plane? Completely different scenarios.


Hehe pay attention? Look bro maybe if you'd paid attention in 9-11 101 class you'd know that the steel mesh design of the towers outer structure was not compromised in any way by the planes impact. The whole point of that design is redundancy. You can make huge holes in the structure and it will transfer the load among the remaining undamaged sections, which is exactly what happened. So no, that hole in the facade had no effect on the buildings stability or collapse.
The official stories claim is that the planes also severed some of the 47 massive central columns that held most of the vertical load. Their whole hypothesis is based on that. Without that happening then they have no collapse. Seems you missed that part somehow? I just assumed you knew that seeing as you are so sure the official story is the truth…
Who is that isn’t paying attention?

Yes some of the plane came out the other side of the building, how does that equate to the structures load bearing columns being damaged to the point of global failure?

Simple physics you say? I agree. Using simple physics, and staying within the official story you advocate, maybe you could share your knowledge with us? (and no links, your words pls) How did the undamaged columns fail? Why didn’t the undamaged columns create friction (resistance) and slow the collapse? How did gravity have the energy to throw pieces of the outer structure, weighing in the tons, up to 600 ft. away from the building? How did gravity have the energy to pulverize almost everything in the building to micron sized dust particles?

BTW you obviously missed the point of my pentagon comparison in your rush to deny. Read it again slowly a few times till it sinks in…Simple physics…

Pay attention indeed...



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

the (inane) scenario proposed by brazant zhou is a non-starter.


oops. bazant, not brazant.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
There are so many flaws in the official story, it would take a government agent to debunk the 911 conspiracy.




posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Anok Said:

I agree. Using simple physics, and staying within the official story you advocate, maybe you could share your knowledge with us? (and no links, your words pls)
Yes because my account of the collapse is somehow more legitimate then a MIT physicist. Ill try, but im sure you will all pick it apart and completely miss the main points.

How did the undamaged columns fail? Why didn’t the undamaged columns create friction (resistance) and slow the collapse?
Because as the building fell it gathered momentum countering resistance forces.

How did gravity have the energy to throw pieces of the outer structure, weighing in the tons, up to 600 ft. away from the building?
Uhh how did wind, have the ability to blow dust from the collapse, over 600 feet from the building? Ill let you figure that out. But gravity as it pulled down the building displaced air/everything in its path sending a small portion of it outward.

How did gravity have the energy to pulverize almost everything in the building to micron sized dust particles?
I saw alot of mangled steel/concrete at ground zero. the clean up took 1000s of truck loads. How do you figure controlled demo would turn the building into micron sized particles anyway? Besides didn't you just say there were ton sized particles 600 feet from the building? Which is it micron sized or ton size particles? Its both bud, but you exaggerate like all other conspiracy theorists.

I would appreciate legitimate complaints/arguments with my story or else I will assume you all believe that planes, did infact bring down the twin towers.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
Because as the building fell it gathered momentum countering resistance forces.


Hmmmm so what caused the buildings to start to fall in the first place?
How does a falling object when meeting the resistance of a stationery object manage to gain momentum?


Uhh how did wind, have the ability to blow dust from the collapse, over 600 feet from the building? Ill let you figure that out. But gravity as it pulled down the building displaced air/everything in its path sending a small portion of it outward.


Huh? What has dust and wind got to do with pieces weighing IN THE TONS (2000lbs is a ton)? You're trying to tell me wind and air displaced by the collapse did it? ROTF!



....Besides didn't you just say there were ton sized particles 600 feet from the building? Which is it micron sized or ton size particles? Its both bud, but you exaggerate like all other conspiracy theorists.


Pls show me pictures of pieces of concrete. No I didn't say, 'there were ton sized particles 600 feet from the building'. Pay attention! I said there were pieces of the buildings outer mesh structure, i.e. steel, laterally ejected up to 600 ft. away. Don't tell me with all your WTC knowledge you are hearing this for the first time? I thought you had all the answers?

BTW I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I'm not exagerating. You need to learn to read instead of skimming and then making assumptions based on stereotypes. You have obviously done very little research, as you failed the test miserably.



I would appreciate legitimate complaints/arguments with my story or else I will assume you all believe that planes, did infact bring down the twin towers.


Wow aren't we full of ourselves? Dude when you come here repeating garbage we've all heard before, and de-bunked yrs ago I'll add, then don't expect too much respect. You have nothing new to add here and what you do have you don't even understand yourself.

[edit on 10/9/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins


forget failing columns, portions of columns were straight up removed by the original impact of the plane.


well, i'll pretend you're REALLY thinking about this.

after the planes hit, or, alternatively, the holographic planes' images passed through holes created with preplanted explosives, the towers stood.

understand? the towers stood. so, the removed columns (15%) have been removed, and it is now a different building which STILL STANDS.

it is still an intense and integral steel weave.

ever seen how steel acts when heated? it warps, because some parts expand more than other parts, depending on how much heat they absorb.
now, if you had looked at the heat distribution graphs from NIST, you would know that the cores didn't get very hot at all(for steel, that is). you would also know that the hot spots were short-lived, as the fuel(office furniture, mostly, as the jet fuel burned off within minutes) was consumed.
you would also know that the NIST claims that the floor trusses pulled in the exterior perimeter columns, while ignoring that the EXPANSION of these trusses would have pushed the columns OUTWARDS before pulling them in.
however, that never happened because THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT FORCE from expansion OR contraction to affect the MASSIVE TIGHT STEEL WEAVE that was the perimeter. it's just a damn COVER STORY to try and hide the fact that there was insufficient heat from the fires to do any critical damage to the over-engineered steel behemoths. (this is indicated by NIST's actual empirical testing on actual physical evidence, as opposed to the plethora of GIGO simulations which can 'prove' that....


"Theoretical physics can prove an elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, but use your eyes -- your common sense -- ..."



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
This is nice...
Everything that I was going to say has pretty much been pointed out by billybob and Anok. Kudos guys! But I'll repeat some of this anyhow.




Ironically enough, von Mises did mention the idea of such a mutualist system in his initial essay. He wrote of a system in which "the 'coal [miners'] syndicate' provides the 'iron [workers'] syndicate'" with goods and argued that "no price can be formed, except when both syndicates are the owners of the means of production employed in their business" (which may come as a surprise to transnational companies whose different workplaces sell each other their products!) Such a system is dismissed: "This would not be socialisation but workers' capitalism and syndicalism." [Op. Cit., p. 112]


Anok, isn't that free trade? Sorry, but I'm a free market capitalist, but today, through semantics, the term Capitalism is often confused with communism, socialsim and fascism. This world has never known true free market capitalism, although the U.S. came very close decades after Reconstruction and prior to the Federal Reserve (not counting the manipulations from the Bank of England of Gold and Silver reserves,) but has existed as a purely fascist state since 1913. What the world usually describes as American Capitalism is nothing like true Capitalism. I still think that true freemarket capitalism is the best system, but we will have to do away with the Federal Reserver System, corporatism, and government in order to realize it. Sorry, I know that I'm off topic, and its my topic...




Because as the building fell it gathered momentum countering resistance forces.


Your theories are based on assumptions that are, frankly, impossible. As Anok pointed out, what caused it to fall? If the outer mesh, which is comparable to a screen door or window made of steel, were penetrated, it would not cause catostrophic failure. It would be analogous to a pen poked through an aluminum screen door. The hole doesn't cause the door to collapse, and even if it did, there is a steel core to contend with. The disappearance of both within seconds is the real mystery here, and you have failed to explain this. As I have already pointed out, and billybob pointed out again, the buildings stood well after impact and initial fire. If your theories were correct, then we should have seen collapse immediately, since collumns were removed and floors fall for no reason, but the core would still be standing, making the huge mental leap that presupposes the floors collapsing with virtually zero resistance from an over-engineered steel structure.



"Theoretical physics can prove an elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, but use your eyes -- your common sense -- ..."


I like this movie...



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
external source

A man described as "the premiere collapse expert in the country" thought the collapse of the south tower of the WTC was caused by explosives and not jet fuel, before the implosion of the north tower killed him on 9/11.

Deputy Chief Ray Downey, the head of the FDNY's Special Operations Command, was also described by colleagues as "the most knowledgeable person on building collapses there was," and 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to Downey as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse."

According to a World Trade Center Task Force interview with FDNY' Chaplain Father John Delendick, immediately after the collapse of the south tower at 9:59am, Delendick met with Downey below the nearby World Financial Center and asked him if jet fuel had brought about the bizarre and sudden implosion of the building. According to Delendick, Downey "said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even."



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


You cannot make the claim that his points have been debunked, because that is the scary part, they havent. Weather you believe the entire 911 official story or not, NOTHING has been properly or openly investigated. There are enumerous loop holes to both sides of the coin. I choose to remain neutral and to wait and see because in the end the truth always surfaces. The good part is that we still have a country and reguardless of which side of the 911 coin you represent, it is still the same country, and there are patriots on both sides of the debate, being for one side or the other does not make you any more or less American. Believeing blindly is probably the most dangerous point to take because it holds no accountability.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 





Believeing blindly is probably the most dangerous point to take because it holds no accountability.


We saw clearly what happened on that day, and based on the visual evidence, as well as a multitude of other evidence that has been documented here, we have come to our conclusions in the truth movement. Blind, we are not.

The time for waiting and seeing passed a long time ago. It has been six years since some 2000 individuals disappeared from this planet. It is high time that we act. If not now, when will justice be served?



The good part is that we still have a country and reguardless of which side of the 911 coin you represent, it is still the same country, and there are patriots on both sides of the debate, being for one side or the other does not make you any more or less American.


A country that murders its own citizens? For what? Money and power? There are useful idiots being led about by their propagandized noses on one side, and the truth on the other. There is no such thing as a magic gray land, where you can safely pretend that you are above it all. Eventually, you have to make a stand.

These holes that you speak of on the truth movement side are imagined. As you have stated yourself, the central tenets of the truth movement still stand strong and have never been truly debunked. Just a lot of psuedo scientists and government-paid psycho terrorists, trying to confuse and propagandize the issue as much as possible.

There are sinister forces that control this world, and they have had America in their grasp for a long time (since the sham known as the American Revolution.) We were never truly free, and, as in Roman times, we must pay our dues to our masters. You may mock this as "conspiracy theory" (useful idiots and government hacks often due) but the long chain of historical evidence is undeniable: Give Me Liberty

On this, the sixth anniversary of this heinous crime against humanity, let us remember 9-11 troughout our history:

COINCIDENCE: THE FOLLOWING EVENTS ALL OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 11
1609 - Explorer Henry Hudson sailed into New York harbor and discovered Manhattan Island and the Hudson River

1776 - A Peace Conference was held between British General Howe and three representatives of the Continental Congress (Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Edward Rutledge). The conference failed and the American war for independence continued for seven years.


1786 - The Convention of Annapolis opened with the aim of revising the articles of the confederation.

1789 - Alexander Hamilton was appointed by U.S. President George Washington to be the first secretary of the treasury.


1842 - 1,400 Mexican troops captured San Antonio, TX. The Mexicans retreated with prisoners.

1941 - U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave orders to attack any German or Italian vessels found in U.S. defensive waters. The U.S. had not officially entered World War II at this time.

1941 - Charles A. Lindbergh brought on charges of anti-Semitism with a speech in which he blamed "the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration" for trying to draw the United States into World War II.

1941 - In Arlington, VA, the groundbreaking ceremony for the Pentagon took place

1965 - The 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) arrived in South Vietnam and was stationed at An Khe.

1973 - Chilean President Salvador Allende died in a violent coup. Police said he committed suicide. The coup was widely believed to have been linked to the CIA.


1990 - U.S. President Bush vowed "Saddam Hussein will fail" while addressing Congress on the Persian Gulf crisis.


1991 - Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev announced that thousands of troops would be drawn out of Cuba.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
1998 - U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began a tour of Europe and the Middle East to gather support for a stand against Iraq.

And let's not forget the conspicuous timing of the release of "Semptember Dawn," a new movie that documents the first so-called act of "religious terrorism" that occured on September 11th in this country.

There are just too many strange coincidences surrounding this event. 9-11 adding up to 11, the trade centers looking like an 11, etc.

Believe it or not, this is the nature of black ops or black propaganda... We are like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed #.


"Black ops, or the black art known as counter intelligence, have been a tool of governments against its people for hundreds of years. Americans weren't brought into the intelligence community fold until WWII, when the elite Yale fraternity Skull and Bones (a training ground for the offspring of the eastern-aristocratic illegal-drug- running families) started the OSS and CIA (the Bush family goes way back in Skulls and the CIA) under the supervision of British Intelligence.

Black ops are easy enough to detect. larger-than-life staged events are immediately followed, and sometimes preceeded, with the personal profiles and pictures of the supposed perpetrators, with all of the details filled in at amazing speed, and no deviation or confusion by the outlets reporting it in lock-step comformity. Media outlets are supplied with talking points and the public is bombarded with "the facts of the case" before they have time to think about the strange coincidences.

For instance, a complete personal profile of Lee Harvey Oswald was printed in overseas news papers before he was ever arrested or considered a suspect here in the U.S.."external source




[edit on 11-9-2007 by HothSnake1]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
My point is how can a government that is so good at planning that they orchestrated and helped in bringing down the WTC and then covering it all up, fail in Iraq so completely.

Face it as far as politics go Iraq is a Huge failure to Bush and his power base.

Believing the governement is secure enough to pull this off and hide it so completely is bweyond me. Especially when they get caught for alot of things.

I do believe they took advantage of the attacks, and falsefied evidence to go after Iraq. And they will try and use Iraq to get control of Iran.



[edit on 11-9-2007 by Torlough]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Torlough
My point is how can a government that is so good at planning that they orchestrated and helped in bringing down the WTC and then covering it all up, fail in Iraq so completely.

Face it as far as politics go Iraq is a Huge failure to Bush and his power base.



It is a huge perceived failure within the proganda media, but monetary wise (government contracters making a killing, literally) and power wise it is a huge success. The bumbling nature of our government is all pretense. It is easier to get away with grand larceny and murder if you pretend to be a complete retard. But, let's face it, no one is that inept. Con artists use this tactic all of the time with their marks. Pretend like you can't speak English all that well or that you're an idiot, and your mark will be lured into lowering his defenses, thinking that you're nothing more than a simpleton and that you could never fool me. Also, it makes it much easier to prolong the conflict, thus maximizing profits (war is a racket) and for the politicians to go to the people and beg for more money. "We are failing due to lack of funds." Meanwhile, Bush and his buddies are raking it in.

Just be accused of tax evasion and see how inefficient and inept our government is.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by HothSnake1]

[edit on 11-9-2007 by HothSnake1]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   


There is plenty of scientists who believe its impossible for planes to take those buildings down. Here is one: Journal of 911 studies with Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01 (pdf). source from another thread



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I'd say at the very least that the U.S government knew 911 was going to happen but I'm not yet convinced that they orchestrated it, although my mind is open to the possibility. One thing that bothers me though, the U.S invaded Iraq on the basis of there being W.M.D, the government must have known that if they found no W.M.D then their main reason for invading was gone, leaving them looking like complete smeg heads. With that it would seem logical that a government capable of orchestrating 911 would have planted W.M.D in Iraq without breaking a sweat, I mean, how easy would it have been? Very easy is the answer. So why didn't they?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join