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.

 

Film: How the Towers Fell: Blueprint for Truth

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
no your side hates, the truth. my side loves, reality. i still see no evidence to dispell the "official story". just name calling. you don't help your case very well.




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 

To understand your posts, math, physics, and logic could help. Gage presents pre-digested 9/11 false information, no skills required to believe his ideas. Gage is not a structural engineer, he is just a 9/11 truth web site guy, who rakes in contributions and does a road show.

With only 0.00087 percent of all engineers of the world in the 9/11 truth movement, we are hopefully safe from falling into another dark ages, where ignorance is rewarded and false information is required. (Math is required for figuring out this percentage. Tutorial follows. Take all the engineers in the world. Add up all the engineers in 9/11 truth. Then use some of that math stuff you should have learned in high school. Then you can check my number. Please feel free to correct my number! But if you are in 9/11 truth, this is one truth you want to skip. I wonder, was it .0087 or 00087, no one in 9/11 truth has bothered to break out the math and do the work)

Is it cheating to have a degree in engineering and a masters in engineering, making it trivial to see Gage's false information?

[edit on 23-4-2008 by beachnut] Got math? 9/11 truth publishes their list of members. Count those engineers. I think my class of 789, out numbers the real engineers with degrees in 9/11 truth; ?
engineers only.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
With only 0.00087 percent of all engineers of the world in the 9/11 truth movement, we are hopefully safe from falling into another dark ages, where ignorance is rewarded and false information is required.

We would only accept ignorance if we left the above quoted statement unchallenged.

Please, for the sake of your claim, provide the data that proves only 0.00087 percent of all engineers in the world belong to the truth movement.

I need to see your census polling and the manner in which you surveyed EVERY engineer in the world. I'd also like to know the dates that you conducted your survey, as that will affect the population of engineers which has since decayed (death, leaving the profession, etc...) and grown (graduates).

Inventing numbers to support a statement is ignorant.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


i still see no evidence to dispell the "official story


..............................

Now i know you gotta be kidding.
like I said ..... ITS INSANE.

I cant see where anyone would want to go along with this Elite Agenda.

you actually TRUST THEM ??.....really?

the boosh ,chainy . Faux news,and all the rest??
if so then,
DOUBLE WOW.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   


To me this picture speaks louder than words.Notice how the top of this tower is leaning.Why didn't the top of this tower follow the path of least resistance and topple over?Lets face it,physics didn't exist on 9/11/01.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
if you had the same structure with the same damage that didn't collapse, then you would have a point.


I have shown many times that thier have been other steel buidlings with longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and did not collapse.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
if you had the same structure with the same damage that didn't collapse, then you would have a point.


I have shown many times that thier have been other steel buidlings with longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and did not collapse.


you have never shown buildings that were built the same way and had the same structural damage as WTC1&2, until then, there is no comparison to justify your claims.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt


To me this picture speaks louder than words.Notice how the top of this tower is leaning.Why didn't the top of this tower follow the path of least resistance and topple over?Lets face it,physics didn't exist on 9/11/01.


then give us your explanation of what is happening in that picture. your argument above does nothing to offer a thesis as to what happened in your scenario of "physics".

your understanding of physics is what does not exist. once a single side gave (the tilt) the whole footprint collapsed and the entire structure above it fell. the path of least resistance is straight down once the whole floor (and surrounding floors) collapses. in order for it to fall to the side there would only be damage to one side (which we know is not the case here) and a signifigant sliver would have to be cut out on that side, much like chopping down a tree. none of that is the case here.

notice how you left out the preceeding picture i showed that justifies the building collapsing in this manner, which i will post again below. what "physics" do you suggest that disprove this sag couldnt have cause a collapse? notice also, the concrete beams already collapsing on the right side of this picture.



WHERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IN THIS VIDEO AT 1:22? simple as that, here is the video, NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION HAPPENS.






[edit on 24-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


www.truememes.com...
How about your understanding of physics. Have you read this source yet? It explains how your sagging floors do not justify onset of collapse, let alone global collapse.

"Also, the load-bearing strength of the columns was vertically continuous over many "floors" for any region of the building. The columns in the core structure were specially fabricated to be multiple stories in height and were joined together by welded connections. Dense cross-bracing interconnected the core columns and created a monolithic entity that was structurally independent of the office floor attachment locations, which were on the outer perimeter of the core structure."

and

"We are also told that the buildings would collapse without the floor trusses, that the floor trusses were connected by only two bolts, that the perimeter walls were comparable to sheets of cardboard and that the columns were like free-standing wobbly sticks. The perimeter and core column structures were, in fact, highly robust and independent structures unto themselves, each fully capable of standing on its own. And the biggest lie of all? We are told that total destruction was inevitable."

"10) The upper part of the South Tower begins to tip at the beginning of its destruction. Instead of continuing this rotation as would be expected from a rigid structure according to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the rotation stops as it begins to disintegrate before falling into the structure below. Without this unexplained disintegration, this upper block of floors would have toppled to the side and crashed to the ground as an intact structure."

Can you explain the unexplained disintegration with your understanding of physics that allowed this to happen?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 





"10) The upper part of the South Tower begins to tip at the beginning of its destruction. Instead of continuing this rotation as would be expected from a rigid structure according to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the rotation stops as it begins to disintegrate before falling into the structure below. Without this unexplained disintegration, this upper block of floors would have toppled to the side and crashed to the ground as an intact structure."
Thank you PplVSNWO,this quote is what I am getting at.What caused the top section to turn to dust?It should have topple over and hit the ground INTACT!

I may not be a physics expert or understand engineering like Griff or other intelligent members here.But I do share there belief that something more happened that fateful morning that the government isn't telling us.To many questions and not enough answers.(that make sense anyhow)



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
you have never shown buildings that were built the same way and had the same structural damage as WTC1&2,


As stated i have shown steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and MORE structural damage then the WTC buildings.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.


END OF DEBATE.



[edit on 24-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 

well said sir.
fastfingersfunk seems to have a pretty poor grasp of the
physics that he claims to know so well.

his explanations are very weak and contain so much double speak.
like
" once a single side gave (the tilt) the whole footprint collapsed "
Huh?
once the single side gives to the tilt, then it would be commited to that tilt,
it would already be too late for core adjustments.

and to say it pancaked is laughable at best..
the rubble showed no signs of the pancake .
pancaking does not pulverize to dust.





[edit on 24-4-2008 by Maya432]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 
Exactly,this is a pancake collapse.



see the difference?





[edit on 24-4-2008 by crowpruitt]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
nothing provides evidence of a demolition above and nothing disproves that it would collapse any other way than it did. sorry, keep trying though.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by crowpruitt
 


showing a picture of a 5 story parking garage vs the WTC as any kind of resemblence is laughable. no matter how WTC1&2 fell, demolition or not, it would look like that, it's not a five story parking garage. give me a break. lmao.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
there is video above of the building falling, show proof of a demolition to cause it's collapse.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 




no matter how WTC1&2 fell, demolition or not, it would look like that,
Really?Would a pancake collapse cause this?

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)

And thats just a couple examples found by engineering experts here.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Gage is not a structural engineer, he is just a 9/11 truth web site guy


Gage is an architect. I assumed all of us here are 9/11 truth web site guys - or are you a 9/11 untruth web site guy?

Ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority smack of desperation - especially in a forum which encourages independent thinking and looking beyond "what we are lead to believe".

I too would be interested to see the surveys you used to arrive at your "scientific" conclusion that 0.00087 percent of all engineers of the world accept the official 9/11 story.
Last September's Zogby poll reported 67% of Americans fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7. What percentage, if any, were structural engineers was not disclosed.

There are some interesting statistical anomalies with regard to engineers supporting the official theory. Although there are about 1.5 million engineers in the US, the same four engineers who "investigated" the Oklahoma City Murray building bombing turn up six years later as the ASCE team investigating the WTC collapses. One of them (Corley) is also involved in the Weidlinger study on behalf of Silverstein (which arrives at a different theory about the cause of the collapses!). Two of them work on the Pentagon Building Report. Another 6 engineers who work on the FEMA report then become part of the NIST team. It appears there aren't as many engineers willing to put their names to the official story as beachnut supposes.



[edit on 24-4-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by beachnut
Gage is not a structural engineer, he is just a 9/11 truth web site guy

Gage is an architect. I assumed all of us here are 9/11 truth web site guys - or are you a 9/11 untruth web site guy?

I too would be interested to see the surveys you used to arrive at your "scientific" conclusion that 0.00087 percent of all engineers of the world accept the official 9/11 story.

It appears there aren't as many engineers willing to put their names to the official story as beachnut supposes.

It is ironic that UBL's group is debunking 9/11 truth. Looks like 9/11 truth needs to fill in UBL on the hearsay and false information that he was not involved. He laughs at 9/11 truth's fantasy and false stories. At least someone can tell the truth and he is proud to standup. In the 90s he said he would kill Americans when and where he could. Did you miss that? Even Dan Rather got that one right.

I was not attacking Gage. Gage is not an engineer (fact). Gage messed up all the information about 9/11, makes up stories about 9/11, and failed to get much more than the date correct. He is spreading false information to make money. I think it is fine if he wants to make up stories to fool others and blame his fellow Americans for something done by terrorist. If he chooses to mislead the gullible, he is free to do it. It is called capitalism. He is making money off of hearsay. Cool. It is a job and the people he fools think he is doing great. How can I attack someone who is smart enough to keep a straight face and sell this ridiculous story he made up with hearsay. He is a master at his craft. Who was it, PT Barnum? "There's a sucker born every minute"

It looks like I am correct there are only 0.00087 of all the world's engineers in the 9/11 truth movement. Cool. You question my numbers! Do your own. Got math?

Take the worlds engineers, the total. Take the total 9/11 truth engineers. Find the percentage! Good luck.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
It looks like I am correct there are only 0.00087 of all the world's engineers in the 9/11 truth movement. Cool. You question my numbers! Do your own. Got math? Take the worlds engineers, the total. Take the total 9/11 truth engineers. Find the percentage! Good luck.
Please do not waste server space in this thread by claiming false numbers.

You can not support your claim that 0.00087 percent of the world's engineers dispute the official story.

For the sake of your own credibility, it might be wise to discontinue typing those fairytale figures.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join