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.

 

Trying to clearify some myths

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Like the title says im gonna attempt with my thoughts to help people clearify some things that maybe you haevnt thought of. Im not sayin im better than anyone at all, just trying to open the discussion. So here goes:
First of all, im from MA and from the first time I witnessed 9/11 I have had questions no one has answered.And still havent answered.

The reason I believe that there are tons of video of the WTC Attacks and not the Pentagon is pretty simple. first the WTC: You have all kinds of views of WTC attacks due to the number of people in NY either visting with cameras which tons of people do everyday and the WTC is a frequented place for visitors, residents, it is one of the most populated states, the number of newspapers and news stations in the immediate 1 mile radius of the attacks, the fact that anything happened at NY is obviously going to make national news which means news stations from all over are gonna converge on the state, and the time of day. Obviously if the attacks were done in lets say 2pm there would be even more footage. The fact that one plane had already hit the North Tower already meant everyone witha camera in NY was gonna focus it on that point. SO, now when the 2nd plane hits the South Tower, you now have all kinds of views.
Now the Pentagon explination. Lets remember what the Pentagon is. It is the Icon of the US Military. There are all kinds of importnat people that work there. I have been to the Pentagon and all the halls inside (atleast that the public is allowed to see) all look the damn same. This was done to make it really difficult to find your way out if under attack from the ground I was told. Either way its an important figure of the military. I applaud the US Gov. for not making all the available video clips open to public record. Do you really want ANYONE to know where all the angles of the Pentagons security cameras are? Do you really want anyone to know the video quality of those security cameras, thus making it easier to by pass, in the case of an attack?That sounds like a national security nightmare! now the pentagon is in washigton with sooooo many sites to see, not too many poeple visit the Pentagon and are armed with cameras which could also answer why many views aren't available. They also may show info that only people involved with the attacks would know, so it would make prosecuting them easier (not an uncommon practice).
I question ALL KINDS of misleading information regarding 9/11 but not those points listed above. Here is what I question:
*No object on earth can fall at 200mph, every object would reach its terminal velocity before it reached 200mph (FACT). You could drop the Great Wall of China from any height you choose and it will never reach 200mph. All 3 buildings on WTC fell at over 200mph (or 10seconds or less).HOW?
*You can drop a 20lbs bowling ball, tennis ball and penny from the top of the WTC which was 1,350Ft and neither one would fall at the speed of gravity. If you were to record those balls fall and play the fottage of the towers falling the towers would beat them to the ground.




posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
*Only 3 buildings in the history of steel buildings has ever succum to fire damage. All owned by the same Company, in the same state, on the same plot of land,all fell on the same dayHOW?
*Jet fuel is Kerosene based. (FACT)-Propane burns at higher temperature. Kersone burns at around 1,700*F, so how come I can cook on a grill outside with propane and my gas doesnt melt my grates I cook my burgers on?
*TWA Flight 800 was a commerical aircraft, flying over the Atlantic Ocean and with 3/4 fuel with it slammed into the Atlantic Ocean. 85%-91% of the aircraft was recovered and re-assembled. But the plane that hit the pentagon decintegrated?
*Pro Golfer Payne Stewart in 1999 was in a small plane with about 6 people and all lost conscienceness and when attempts by the FAA to reach his aircraft were failed, they immediately flew 2 F-16"s to fly up assess the situation and ensure it did not harm the american people, it went down in a field in SD. But on 9/11 with 4 planes hijacked we had nothing?

I have about 700 more questions no one has answered!



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hockeyplayer12
 


For the last time, the steel did not have to melt. It only had to weaken.
Nobody ever proved anything by ignoring facts.

Also, the transponders in the planes were turned off. It's damn near impossible to find a plane once the transponder has been shut off.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Unkle Greggo]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
For the last time, the steel did not have to melt. It only had to weaken.
Nobody ever proved anything by ignoring facts.


Take a piece of steel and light a fire under it. Does it lose enough strength to collapse, bend, warp, whatever?

BTW, NIST tried this with replicas of the actual office fires at WTC. They used twice the amount of loading on the members and twice the amount of heat energy and twice the amount of time. Guess what. They only got the trusses to deform 2 inches and not the 50 some they desired and needed to prove their theory correct.


Also, the transponders in the planes were turned off. It's damn near impossible to find a plane once the transponder has been shut off.


How did they track the planes on 9/11 then?


At 8:41, in American's operations center, a colleague told Marquis that the air traffic controllers declared Flight 11 a hijacking and "think he's [American 11] headed toward Kennedy [airport in New York City].They're moving everybody out of the way. They seem to have him on a primary radar. They seem to think that he is descending."37



At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed." This was later determined to have been Flight 77.



On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns.


www.9-11commission.gov...



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Take a piece of steel and light a fire under it. Does it lose enough strength to collapse, bend, warp, whatever?


It depends on the load it's supporting. Steel loses 90% of its strength at 1100C. It loses 50% of its strength below 700C.


Originally posted by Griff

BTW, NIST tried this with replicas of the actual office fires at WTC. They used twice the amount of loading on the members and twice the amount of heat energy and twice the amount of time. Guess what. They only got the trusses to deform 2 inches and not the 50 some they desired and needed to prove their theory correct.


Because they tested trusses with full, undamaged fireproofing. Without this fireproofing the steel can't stand up to such extreme temperatures.


Originally posted by Griff

Also, the transponders in the planes were turned off. It's damn near impossible to find a plane once the transponder has been shut off.


How did they track the planes on 9/11 then?


Radar. But without transponders, all you see is a screen full of dots, one dot for every radar return. Unlike the situation with Payne Stewart, where they were easily able to follow the plane using the radar + transponder.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Objects fall as fast as gravity makes them and the bigger the mass the less the air slows it down!

A feather reaches a few feet a second or less, and elephant reaches a big speed. Both would fall a the same acceleration in a vacuum until they hit something.

The SCUD missiles in Desert Storm came down faster than MACH 1, over 800 mph and only had gravity bringing them down.

The massive WTC has negligible effect from air. The mass is the key, but all object on earth fall with the same acceleration, 32 feet per second squared. Each object reaches it's own terminal velocity, the WTC was too massive to reach terminal velocity in 700-1300 feet.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Anyone who knows anything can look at the video of the towers falling and see them exploding with tremendous force and an energy output that is multiples of whatever stored kenetic energy could have been stored in the building.
What I saw as a "Live feed" when the second tower was hit was fake and made ahead of time, to be played as live.
The plane came from a different direction and turned at the opposite angle and level from what can be seen today, from private citizen's cameras.
The named hijackers were decoys and I know that directly from a friend who knew Attah, and his friends.
I am suspicious of anyone who attacks me.
This is just what I know.
I have no reason to make things up.
I have no war to promote.
Look at who profited from 9-11 to see why it happened.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hockeyplayer12
 

Payne Stewart plane was intercepted after 80 minutes, 9/11 was over in how many minutes? Time zones, read the report, have you?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
It depends on the load it's supporting. Steel loses 90% of its strength at 1100C. It loses 50% of its strength below 700C.


Below 700C?


Because they tested trusses with full, undamaged fireproofing. Without this fireproofing the steel can't stand up to such extreme temperatures.


I've heard the tests included non-fireproofed steel as well. Not confirmed yet.

I found this interesting:


As part of its progress report, NIST has included an interim report that documents the procedures and practices used to provide the passive fire protection (fireproofing) for the floor system of the WTC towers. Nothing in the interim report—based on a review of factual data in documents obtained by NIST—should be taken to imply that the floor trusses played a critical role in the collapse of the WTC towers. The fireproofing issue is a key component of the ongoing NIST investigation.


www.nist.gov...

I thought that the trusses pulling in the columns were THE critical role in the collapse of the WTC towers?

[edit on 4/10/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hockeyplayer12
*TWA Flight 800 was a commerical aircraft, flying over the Atlantic Ocean and with 3/4 fuel with it slammed into the Atlantic Ocean. 85%-91% of the aircraft was recovered and re-assembled. But the plane that hit the pentagon decintegrated?

I have about 700 more questions no one has answered!

It looks like you are just posting the 9/11 truth failed ideas list.

Flight 800 had to be studied to figure out what happened. All the planes on 9/11 were flown on purpose into buildings, there is no reason to figure out what happen to the planes to find out why, it was terrorists who did it. Flight 800 had to be studied piece by piece to rule out bombs, missiles, and find the cause; why the fuel tank blew up.

Flight 93 was in pieces just like 800 and most were buried in the ground in PA, just like a high speed impact of an aircraft. All the planes on 9/11 did not have to be studied to figure out why they crashed, it was a crime. We only assemble crashed planes to figure out why the crashed for sure. Terrorist did 9/11, you do not have to waste time putting the plane back together to figure out 9/11.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hockeyplayer12
*You can drop a 20lbs bowling ball, tennis ball and penny from the top of the WTC which was 1,350Ft and neither one would fall at the speed of gravity. If you were to record those balls fall and play the fottage of the towers falling the towers would beat them to the ground.

Have you gone to your local high school physics teacher? They can explain this.

Look up physics stuff on line to get some good stuff on mass, terminal velocity and acceleration due to gravity. Free fall times for different objects are different in air, but the same in a vacuum, and mass has a lot to do with the times in air.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hockeyplayer12
*No object on earth can fall at 200mph, every object would reach its terminal velocity before it reached 200mph (FACT). You could drop the Great Wall of China from any height you choose and it will never reach 200mph. All 3 buildings on WTC fell at over 200mph (or 10seconds or less).HOW?
Where did you find the no object can fall at 200 mph? I have been over 700 mph straight down. Did you make up this question and the 200 mph stuff?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nicepants
It depends on the load it's supporting. Steel loses 90% of its strength at 1100C. It loses 50% of its strength below 700C.


Below 700C?


650C to be precise.


Originally posted by Griff

Because they tested trusses with full, undamaged fireproofing. Without this fireproofing the steel can't stand up to such extreme temperatures.


I've heard the tests included non-fireproofed steel as well. Not confirmed yet.


No, they had no reason to test non-fireproofed steel. They did the experiment to determine if the undamaged fireproofing was adequate.


Originally posted by Griff

I thought that the trusses pulling in the columns were THE critical role in the collapse of the WTC towers?

[edit on 4/10/2008 by Griff]


The statement you quoted was written prior to NIST completing their fire testing on floor assemblies.

Floor trusses sagged, pulling in the exterior columns. This is shown in photographs and explained in detail in NIST's final report.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
Floor trusses sagged, pulling in the exterior columns. This is shown in photographs and explained in detail in NIST's final report.


What of the core columns? What of the complete collapse? Are those also detailed in the NIST report?

Edit: Since I don't agree with some of NIST's conclusions, could you site something other than the NIST report to back up these claims? It's like trying to prove God's existence by quoting the bible.

[edit on 4/10/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
650C to be precise.


Can you show where the WTC steel reached this temperature? Can you also show what the FOS was for the steel? If over 2, then even loosing 50% of strength would do nothing.

Also, you forgot to mention what happens to the strength of steel once it returns to below these threshold points. What happens again? It regains it's strength. Like what would happen once a fire moves to another area and the steel cools down a bit (if it ever got to those temperatures to begin with).


No, they had no reason to test non-fireproofed steel. They did the experiment to determine if the undamaged fireproofing was adequate.


Their hypothesis is that the fireproofing had a major role in the collapse. But, it wasn't important for them to find out for sure? Does that sound scientific?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Anyone who knows anything can look at the video of the towers falling and see them exploding with tremendous force and an energy output that is multiples of whatever stored kenetic energy could have been stored in the building.
What I saw as a "Live feed" when the second tower was hit was fake and made ahead of time, to be played as live.


So all the major TV networks are in on it now too?


Originally posted by jmdewey60
The named hijackers were decoys and I know that directly from a friend who knew Attah, and his friends.


You know from a friend who knew Attah?[sic] (A hijacker's name you can't even spell correctly?)
Who is your friend? Proof that he knew Atta?
Where is Atta now?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nicepants
650C to be precise.


Can you show where the WTC steel reached this temperature? Can you also show what the FOS was for the steel? If over 2, then even loosing 50% of strength would do nothing.


The point you may have missed is that heat weakens steel. The hotter the fire, the weaker the steel becomes. The 650C number is a hypothetical example. You can look at the NIST report to see the estimated temperatures of different areas of the fire-affected floors.

The photographs showing inward bowing of the exterior columns show that the floor spans were sagging and therefore pulling in on those columns.


Originally posted by GriffAlso, you forgot to mention what happens to the strength of steel once it returns to below these threshold points. What happens again? It regains it's strength. Like what would happen once a fire moves to another area and the steel cools down a bit (if it ever got to those temperatures to begin with).


If it were able to cool down to pre-fire temperatures, it would regain its rigidity, but if the heat caused it to deflect, the deflection would remain.


Originally posted by Griff

No, they had no reason to test non-fireproofed steel. They did the experiment to determine if the undamaged fireproofing was adequate.


Their hypothesis is that the fireproofing had a major role in the collapse. But, it wasn't important for them to find out for sure? Does that sound scientific?


They tested a fireproofed floor span to ensure that the applied fireproofing would have been adequate had it been undamaged. They determined that to be the case. In the WTC towers, however, the fireproofing was affected by the high speed impacts of Boeing 757s.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nicepants
Floor trusses sagged, pulling in the exterior columns. This is shown in photographs and explained in detail in NIST's final report.


What of the core columns? What of the complete collapse? Are those also detailed in the NIST report?

Edit: Since I don't agree with some of NIST's conclusions, could you site something other than the NIST report to back up these claims? It's like trying to prove God's existence by quoting the bible.

[edit on 4/10/2008 by Griff]



The core columns could not support the building alone. Once the exterior columns buckled, the floor spans lost the majority of their vertical support and collapse ensued.

The NIST report is the most comprehensive report on the subject. It was authored and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, engineers, professors, and by professional engineering associations. If you believe that their report is invalid, then I suggest you start another thread explaining why, in detail, your opinion on the matter should be accepted over the scientific conclusions of the experts who authored the report.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
You can look at the NIST report to see the estimated temperatures of different areas of the fire-affected floors.


Notice the word estimated in your sentence? Now, try and find me real proof. Like you guys keep asking of us.


The photographs showing inward bowing of the exterior columns show that the floor spans were sagging and therefore pulling in on those columns.


Please show me how (mathmatically) columns that were designed to hold up under hurricane winds would be pulled in by the sagging floors that they were also designed to hold and had been holding for 3 decades. Thanks.



If it were able to cool down to pre-fire temperatures, it would regain its rigidity, but if the heat caused it to deflect, the deflection would remain.


Depends on if it goes beyond it's elasticity. Can you tell me the difference between elastic and plastic failure?



They tested a fireproofed floor span to ensure that the applied fireproofing would have been adequate had it been undamaged. They determined that to be the case. In the WTC towers, however, the fireproofing was affected by the high speed impacts of Boeing 757s.


Why test would have, could have? Why not test what actually was?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
If you believe that their report is invalid, then I suggest you start another thread explaining why, in detail, your opinion on the matter should be accepted over the scientific conclusions of the experts who authored the report.


It has already been done here. Try the search button.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join