reply to post by esdad71
Sure thing.
Sometimes even basic chemistry and a little common sense can go a long way. If those that claim to have "extensively studied" 9/11 and are convinced
it was an "inside job", I wonder how they could miss this basic info?
New video of all three towers , page 14
privacy
reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 08:22 PM by Revolution-2012
reply to post by esdad71
That's very nice and not convincing at all.
The buildings didn't budge when the plane hit, fracuturing some main rebar but not enough to bring the entire buildings down. Period.
Two.
Any building in construction in New York has extremely high standards to begin with. Posted above, a 3.5 earthquake is not enough to bring down metal and cement columns. Period.
Three.
Osama Bin Laden was a trained CIA Tactician.
Do your research. You can call yourself not ignorant, I just call you arrogant.
[edit on 9-1-2009 by Revolution-2012]
That's very nice and not convincing at all.
The buildings didn't budge when the plane hit, fracuturing some main rebar but not enough to bring the entire buildings down. Period.
Two.
Any building in construction in New York has extremely high standards to begin with. Posted above, a 3.5 earthquake is not enough to bring down metal and cement columns. Period.
Three.
Osama Bin Laden was a trained CIA Tactician.
Do your research. You can call yourself not ignorant, I just call you arrogant.
[edit on 9-1-2009 by Revolution-2012]
reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 08:49 PM by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
There is NO evidence for demolition, BS. None. No residue of explosives. None. No pile of hacksaw blades. None. The only evidence we have is what was witnessed and recorded. Logically, until other evidence is brought forward, we have the evidence for the cause. The existing evidence doesn't require repeal of any physical or chemical laws. It shows nothing that might not have happened as explained. Nothing. We don't need to invoke any secret weapon. We don't need to invoke a conspiracy so complex, tortuous, unrealistic, and without reason to explain terror attacks.
It is apparent that #1 and #2 fell due to the aircraft strikes. It was not possible to arrange for the impacts on #7 that destroyed a large part of one face and tore a chunk out of a corner. Were the fires set? No evidence, just speculation. Exactly like your speculation without evidence.
There is NO evidence for demolition, BS. None. No residue of explosives. None. No pile of hacksaw blades. None. The only evidence we have is what was witnessed and recorded. Logically, until other evidence is brought forward, we have the evidence for the cause. The existing evidence doesn't require repeal of any physical or chemical laws. It shows nothing that might not have happened as explained. Nothing. We don't need to invoke any secret weapon. We don't need to invoke a conspiracy so complex, tortuous, unrealistic, and without reason to explain terror attacks.
It is apparent that #1 and #2 fell due to the aircraft strikes. It was not possible to arrange for the impacts on #7 that destroyed a large part of one face and tore a chunk out of a corner. Were the fires set? No evidence, just speculation. Exactly like your speculation without evidence.
reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 08:54 PM by pteridine
reply to post by Revolution-2012
Osama was a well trained tactician and his attacks brought down the buildings. The CIA trained him better than they knew.
The buildings had more than enough energy to crush concrete and drywall during the fall. Explosives were not needed or witnessed nor did they leave any physical evidence.
Earthquake damage was not an issue.
Osama was a well trained tactician and his attacks brought down the buildings. The CIA trained him better than they knew.
The buildings had more than enough energy to crush concrete and drywall during the fall. Explosives were not needed or witnessed nor did they leave any physical evidence.
Earthquake damage was not an issue.
reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 09:08 PM by GenRadek
reply to post by Revolution-2012
I would suggest you go and read the eyewitness accounts of those that survived the impacts inside the WTCs. You will get an idea of just how bad the Towers were struck. The whole damn thing twisted and swayed like a drunken sailor and people thought it was going to tip over in the tower. And enough reports of just how much damage was done as well. Pipes bursting, hearing the steel beams twisting and snapping. not very pretty.
I would suggest you go and read the eyewitness accounts of those that survived the impacts inside the WTCs. You will get an idea of just how bad the Towers were struck. The whole damn thing twisted and swayed like a drunken sailor and people thought it was going to tip over in the tower. And enough reports of just how much damage was done as well. Pipes bursting, hearing the steel beams twisting and snapping. not very pretty.
reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 09:58 PM by esdad71
reply to post by Revolution-2012
Look up the name Brian Clark, a survivor on 9/11 who was above the floor it hit. This is what he said in a Nova special
You can find this story from many others. Have you ever been to the top of the WTC? They were designed for the wind and sway so please do not state tall buildings are stable unless you were up 90 stories on a windy day.
Osama is not a trained CIA operative. A claim like that is arrogant ignorance to take your jab a step further. Do some research? You're kidding me, right? Do you know who OBL is? His roots? How he got to where he was, a second tier handler of terrorists? It makes me laugh to think some of you actually believe some of the stuff you write.
for the last time, Prisonplanet is a CIA disinfo site.
Look up the name Brian Clark, a survivor on 9/11 who was above the floor it hit. This is what he said in a Nova special
I continued on to the west side near my office. I was fairly near the windows talking with two or three people, including especially Bobby Coll. I was looking him in the eye having a conversation with him when at apparently 9:03—I didn't check my watch—the second plane hit the south side of our building at approximately the 78th, 79th, and 80th floors. Our room fell apart at that moment, a complete destruction without an explosion—very strange things. The lights went out, but we were near the window so there was daylight. Again, there was this sort of thump, this explosion without fire and flame, a very strange sensation.
“I just felt in my heart, Oh my gosh, we are going over.”
There was a twist, if you like, to the building when it got hit, and therefore the plane's hitting explained some things to me later, like why the ceiling fell apart. The ceiling tiles and some of the brackets and so on fell; some air conditioning ducts, speakers, cables, and things like that that were in the ceiling fell. I seem to have a sense that some of the floor tiles even buckled a bit or were moved. Some of the walls, I recall vaguely, were actually torn in a jagged direction rather than up and down. Again perhaps explained by the torque, some of the door frames popped out of the wall and partially fell or fully fell.
For seven to 10 seconds there was this enormous sway in the building. It was one way, and I just felt in my heart, Oh my gosh, we are going over. That's what it felt like. Now, on windy days prior to that there was a little bit of a sway to the building. You got used to it; you didn't notice it. The window blinds would go clack clack as they swung. As I said, for a good seven to ten seconds I thought it was over—horrible feeling—but then the building righted itself. It didn't sway back and forth; it just went one way, it seemed, and then back, and we were stable again.
You can find this story from many others. Have you ever been to the top of the WTC? They were designed for the wind and sway so please do not state tall buildings are stable unless you were up 90 stories on a windy day.
Osama is not a trained CIA operative. A claim like that is arrogant ignorance to take your jab a step further. Do some research? You're kidding me, right? Do you know who OBL is? His roots? How he got to where he was, a second tier handler of terrorists? It makes me laugh to think some of you actually believe some of the stuff you write.
for the last time, Prisonplanet is a CIA disinfo site.
reply posted on 10-1-2009 @ 09:10 PM by pteridine
reply to post by Nonchalant
It was the floors coming down from within that peeled the outside. It was much slower than freefall.
It was the floors coming down from within that peeled the outside. It was much slower than freefall.
reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 11:22 AM by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
You asked: "Compared to what? It was only seconds off. That's still really damned fast for a building that size, and you could see it was really moving the whole time. How exactly do you know how long a collapse like that is supposed to take, even given your own opinion of how they came down?"
Compared to free-fall, of course. "Only seconds off" is hardly the way to compare times unless you have a basis to compare to. You know this. Four seconds extra on an eight second theoretical time is an increase of 50%. Some say 15 seconds was the fall time; almost double. Yes, it was fast but was it too fast? Perhaps a leisurely catastrophic collapse of ten to fifteen minutes is what people expected. In fact, there is nothing to compare it with.
Given that there is no evidence for any conspiracy, no rationale, and really no way for the proposed actions to be carried out, I would say that what you saw was a collapse "like that." My guess would be 12 to 15 seconds not counting the core. The interior core lasted longer but that collapse time wasn't considered. Apparently, the grand conspiracy didn't need to take out the core when they collapsed the exterior.
You asked: "Compared to what? It was only seconds off. That's still really damned fast for a building that size, and you could see it was really moving the whole time. How exactly do you know how long a collapse like that is supposed to take, even given your own opinion of how they came down?"
Compared to free-fall, of course. "Only seconds off" is hardly the way to compare times unless you have a basis to compare to. You know this. Four seconds extra on an eight second theoretical time is an increase of 50%. Some say 15 seconds was the fall time; almost double. Yes, it was fast but was it too fast? Perhaps a leisurely catastrophic collapse of ten to fifteen minutes is what people expected. In fact, there is nothing to compare it with.
Given that there is no evidence for any conspiracy, no rationale, and really no way for the proposed actions to be carried out, I would say that what you saw was a collapse "like that." My guess would be 12 to 15 seconds not counting the core. The interior core lasted longer but that collapse time wasn't considered. Apparently, the grand conspiracy didn't need to take out the core when they collapsed the exterior.
reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 02:57 PM by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
You said:"But if you want my opinion, you are still wrong, and only a few seconds is NOT much time. Do you want to qualify what you said as also just being your opinion?"
In this case, a few seconds is 50 to 100% more than theoretical. I know you understand the concept.
In case it escaped your notice, this entire site is about opinions. My opinion is based on what was seen, recorded and witnessed. With a complete lack of evidence for any other causes, we must examine what we have and see if there are any events that cannot be explained by the evidence at hand. I think that all events are consistent with two airplanes doing the damage and we do not have to invoke anything else. I considered other theories and find them lacking. The proposers have no knowledge of high energy compounds and what would be required to place and ignite such devices.
Your opinion is based on feelings that something is wrong because the towers didn't collapse in the leisurely fashion that you expected they should. I understand that you are applying an experience, real or video, that says they should take a while to fall. When I asked you for evidence of conspiracy, you said you didn't have any, other than something didn't seem right. You postulated no mechanism. You provided no rationale for such a conspiracy.
You are free to invoke what you will as to the cause of collapse.
You said:"But if you want my opinion, you are still wrong, and only a few seconds is NOT much time. Do you want to qualify what you said as also just being your opinion?"
In this case, a few seconds is 50 to 100% more than theoretical. I know you understand the concept.
In case it escaped your notice, this entire site is about opinions. My opinion is based on what was seen, recorded and witnessed. With a complete lack of evidence for any other causes, we must examine what we have and see if there are any events that cannot be explained by the evidence at hand. I think that all events are consistent with two airplanes doing the damage and we do not have to invoke anything else. I considered other theories and find them lacking. The proposers have no knowledge of high energy compounds and what would be required to place and ignite such devices.
Your opinion is based on feelings that something is wrong because the towers didn't collapse in the leisurely fashion that you expected they should. I understand that you are applying an experience, real or video, that says they should take a while to fall. When I asked you for evidence of conspiracy, you said you didn't have any, other than something didn't seem right. You postulated no mechanism. You provided no rationale for such a conspiracy.
You are free to invoke what you will as to the cause of collapse.
reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 07:03 PM by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
You said: “You still have things like melted columns in WTC7 before it collapsed, melting below its normal melting point because sulfur was somehow added to the steel in such a way as to allow a eutectic reaction. The sulfur (not usually found in steel, obviously, and anomalous in itself) actually lowered the steel's melting point by a few hundred degrees.”
Remember that the building was severely damaged and the steel would have lost half its strength at the temperatures of the fires. Melting was not necessary for failure nor was failure caused by melting, per se. That said, what was the source of the sulfur? We need a good bit of sulfur. The interior of the building was lined with plasterboard. Plasterboard is calcium sulfate. Sulfates in the presence of reducing agents, such as burning paper and diesel fuel, can be reduced to sulfides at the temperatures reached in the fires. No one can be certain of the source or whether the corrosion occurred during the fire or while the wreckage smoldered for months. Given that, can you suspect thermate? You can, but the metallurgical evidence argues against it. This is the 2002 presentation by the WPI team on the metallurgy.
www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps
You said: “That, for one, is completely unexplained, anomalous, and highly suspicious for that reason, because of how coincidental it is, and because it caused the column to fail before the building collapsed.”
You are correct, you would expect the column to fail before the collapse. Was the recovered column recovered long after the collapse? Do you think failure could have been the cause of the collapse? Were the planes hitting the building anomalies?
You said: “WTC7 dropped at free-fall. “
It may have, as best that it can be measured. So what?
Your claim: “Falling at free-fall is direct evidence of additional devices or mechanisms bringing that building down aside from its own KE, which was not used.”
What if the mechanism was the result of circumstance? What if it was unplanned by conspirators? Check your list of logical fallacies.
You said: “When you talk about your opinion, I'm not sure what your opinion even is. I'm not sure that you even know what your opinion really is.”
You are either trying to bait me or are dense beyond all belief. I hope it is the former, for your sake.
You said: “I guess you have to be to be a big man and come on the internet and argue with strangers, right?”
Aren’t you doing the same thing? Tell your kundalini to relax and use your brain.
[edit on 1/11/2009 by pteridine]
You said: “You still have things like melted columns in WTC7 before it collapsed, melting below its normal melting point because sulfur was somehow added to the steel in such a way as to allow a eutectic reaction. The sulfur (not usually found in steel, obviously, and anomalous in itself) actually lowered the steel's melting point by a few hundred degrees.”
Remember that the building was severely damaged and the steel would have lost half its strength at the temperatures of the fires. Melting was not necessary for failure nor was failure caused by melting, per se. That said, what was the source of the sulfur? We need a good bit of sulfur. The interior of the building was lined with plasterboard. Plasterboard is calcium sulfate. Sulfates in the presence of reducing agents, such as burning paper and diesel fuel, can be reduced to sulfides at the temperatures reached in the fires. No one can be certain of the source or whether the corrosion occurred during the fire or while the wreckage smoldered for months. Given that, can you suspect thermate? You can, but the metallurgical evidence argues against it. This is the 2002 presentation by the WPI team on the metallurgy.
www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps
You said: “That, for one, is completely unexplained, anomalous, and highly suspicious for that reason, because of how coincidental it is, and because it caused the column to fail before the building collapsed.”
You are correct, you would expect the column to fail before the collapse. Was the recovered column recovered long after the collapse? Do you think failure could have been the cause of the collapse? Were the planes hitting the building anomalies?
You said: “WTC7 dropped at free-fall. “
It may have, as best that it can be measured. So what?
Your claim: “Falling at free-fall is direct evidence of additional devices or mechanisms bringing that building down aside from its own KE, which was not used.”
What if the mechanism was the result of circumstance? What if it was unplanned by conspirators? Check your list of logical fallacies.
You said: “When you talk about your opinion, I'm not sure what your opinion even is. I'm not sure that you even know what your opinion really is.”
You are either trying to bait me or are dense beyond all belief. I hope it is the former, for your sake.
You said: “I guess you have to be to be a big man and come on the internet and argue with strangers, right?”
Aren’t you doing the same thing? Tell your kundalini to relax and use your brain.
[edit on 1/11/2009 by pteridine]
reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 09:20 PM by hackbart
Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by hackbart
Looks like a window blowing out, due to over pressure, to me.
This would happen as the building collapsed and the internal volume of the building decreases.
Lmao, seriously try to find another hobby. Analysing videos is definitely not your field of expertise.
[edit on 11-1-2009 by hackbart]
An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags
Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Can anyone recommend any good non kindle books on Philosophy and Metaphysics
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 minutes ago
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 minutes ago
Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 47 minutes ago
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 47 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 33 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 33 flags
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 29 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 29 flags
Book of Thoth. Secret Societies. truth seekers This is a good read!
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 12 hours ago, 19 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 12 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 13 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 13 hours ago, 19 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 16 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 16 flags
The One Party System replaces the Two Party system in the U.S.
Above Politics, Posted 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Above Politics, Posted 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 136 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 136 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 13 hours ago, 77 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 13 hours ago, 77 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 75 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 75 replies
Mystery of the Masonic "hunnerts o' times" language of Orphan Annie
Secret Societies, Posted 6 hours ago, 51 replies
Secret Societies, Posted 6 hours ago, 51 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.258 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.258 seconds
