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.

 

Conspiracy Theories

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy

reply to post by ANOK
 


You're right, I can't answer that. I can make a hypothesis of what happened, but the hypothesis would be based off of the Popular Mechanics source (which I am now questioning because of that UFO issue.) Until I find a better source, the best thing I can say is "I don't know."


You'll find a lot of good links to engineering studies here, for any further reference: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

And Anok's question is answered here: www.911-strike.com...

and here: www.911myths.com...




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


ROFL,

Yep, check those sites to see what they say about the rest of the WTC evidence...
Massive craters, massive heat, wilting spires, massive spectrum of cancers - hiroshima effect, massive reduction in debris pile, BILLIONS of Tritium Units, 2 BILLION pounds of instant micronized building, and alot more.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

DrEd



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


So have you figured out just how big the explosive effect would have been to vaporize just 1,000 tons of steel yet?

Or will you continue to dodge this little fly-in-the-ointment?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


ROFL, 'fly in the ointment'? nah, more like 'scamming dirtball on the net'.

Again, it's not my calculations. They are your BS calcs, that don't include energy release per neutron x the number of neutrons released. Just some scam reference of 100% neutron effects. Complete BS calculation without the energy from neutrons. I've got my referenced proven facts. Still waiting for you to prove YOUR SUPPOSED 100% calculations.

DrEd



[edit on 11-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


That's fair, and it's the reason why I am still here. I was the typical debunker, but now after watching that video I am open to other possibilities.


Glad to hear it. You're the rare individual who has an open mind.

I guarantee the more you research, the more implausible the official story becomes.

The hard part is imagining that something like this is even possible in America. But evil knows no borders and transcends all politics. FDR's foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is no different than the PNAC neocons' "New Pearl Harbor" 60 years later.

Both are modern-day versions of Nazi Germany's Reichstag Fire and are based on the Hegelian problem/reaction/solution.

Eerily similar to the "Patriot Act" and "Military Commissions Act", Hitler's dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree "for the Protection of the People and the State," which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Good and correct post. Course there are many more false flags and deliberate murders resulting from the direct actions of this government. Also a good sign for anyone that has an open mind, but it often amazes me when someone is so gung ho because of what they have been told, rather than what they should be doing and checking on the facts themselves.

DrEd

[edit on 11-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 



You say that you stick to facts.

Well then it is a fact that even a pure fusion bomb will result in explosive effects.

You also say that it is a fact that steel vaporized as a result of the nuke.

So since you stick to facts, and you don't like my methods, tell me what the explosive effects will be.

If you can't, then you are just disseminating BS.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Wow, I've never posted the explosive effects? Let's try it one more time for lying dirtballs.

Massive craters, massive heat, wilting spires, massive spectrum of cancers - hiroshima effect, massive reduction in debris pile, BILLIONS of Tritium Units, 2 BILLION pounds of instant micronized building, and alot more. ALL OF WHICH ARE REFERENCED, DOCUMENTED AND HAVE YET TO BE DISPROVEN ON A SCIENTIFIC LEVEL IN MORE THAN 200 REFERENCE LINKS AND MORE THAN 10 ARTICLES, although the main 2 articles give the most of the evidence and the others only deal with some specifics noted in the main 2.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

DrEd



[edit on 12-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
Until I find a better source, the best thing I can say is "I don't know."


Thanx for admitting that, most of the de-bunkers do what seymour does, continually link to papers by Greening that make the same assumptions NIST did.

The major assumption it makes is that fires weakened the steel, this has been shown to be an impossibility over and over again using simple physics of thermal energy. Open air office fires simply do not have enough thermal energy to transfer enough heat directly to the steel to cause it to heat up to the point of failure.

It also fails to explain how the bottom, undamaged building, actually collapsed. It's obvious it wasn't the top section, it was under angular momentum, and all the math in the world will not explain what happened to that angular momentum and why the building fell from underneath it. It's a physical problem that can be assessed through simple observation. Greenings math is just designed to impress the ignorant, much like the NIST report.

Think about it, the lower part of the building was designed to hold up that top section, so why would it suddenly not be able to hold it up? On top of that it was tilting at an angle, angular momentum, which cannot be changed unless acted on by an external force. Greening doesn't explain what the external force was, truthers believe it was explosives of some kind.
On top of that the building fell symmetrically to it's basement, it's impossible for the top to initiate symmetrical collapse when it was not sitting square on all four corners. Physics dictates that the top should have continued its angular momentum.

But even before all that, NO ONE has explained how ALL the columns became detached to allow the top to tilt in the first place. To me this indicates a classic controlled demo mistake, explosives went off out of sequence allowing one side to drop before the other. Once that tilt was initiated it did what physics dictates, and angular momentum ensued.

Aircraft did not sever columns, another easily debunked hypothesis. Theory of colliding bodies explains this. In short, the object with the greater mass will always win in a collision. Think of the crash tests they do with cars, no matter how fast, or how many times, they drive that car at the crash barrier the car will always lose.

Just stay away from sites like 911myths, brush up on basic Newton physics and apply it to the situation.

Don't let seymour hijack your thread mate, and using pop mechanics is just a useless appeal to authority, we're not going to take it too seriously. It's really not that complicated, simple physics you learned in high school should tell you something is not right with what you're being told.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive?'

[edit on 2/12/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Thanx for admitting that, most of the de-bunkers do what seymour does, continually link to papers by Greening that make the same assumptions NIST did.



Funny, I can think of a guy, right here on ATS, who also happens to be a structural engineer, and also doesn't believe in the NIST report..... and yet, he says that some of Bazant's numbers are correct.

So your physics - which I might note have never been revealed by you, especially when it comes to providing any maths - are more accurate than them, eh?

Fine.

Then show, using your advanced knowledge of physics, and showing your maths, how Bazant is wrong in his explanation of why it didn't tip off the side.

Or, to keep the playing field level, just provide a link to the physics paper that contains the maths necessary to disprove Bazant.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
IOW, pretty much all the type of things cameronfox and his disinfo minions deny, argue or ignore.

its sickening really.



Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by MrRandomGuy
 

Except you probably don't deviate too much from the debunker norm, e.g:

Mind already made up; dismisses any evidence that doesn't fit pre-conceived notions; stereotypes anyone who knows something is very wrong with official 9/11 story and questions government "experts", fervently believes there's "no evidence", but only visits sites like Popular Mechanics, Screw Loose Change and Debunking 9/11 Myths.

Manufactures excuses and justifications for just about anything, no matter how ridiculous and implausible.

Crazy-ass scenarios like Larry "Pull It" Silverstein issuing FDNY commands while at home watching TV. Sure, why not?

Believing that a 700 degree F. aviation fuel fire can melt or weaken massive columns of structural steel? Of course.

Imagining that a building which suffered only minor damage can defy the laws of physics by collapsing on it's footprint at free-fall speeds? Without a doubt.

Dismissing numerous eyewitness accounts of "secondary explosions" and "secondary (explosive) devices" by police, firefighters, rescue workers, WTC employees and journalists?



Well, that one's harder, but I'm sure Popular Mechanics has an answer!


You haven't heard about Gulf of Tonkin, TWA 800 or Oklahoma City?

Gulf of Tonkin: total fiction, no attack by N. Vietnam, LBJ quoted on NSA archive records as saying, "those Navy boys were shooting at a bunch of flying fish!"

TWA 800: blamed on exploding 747 center fuel tank but no ignition source ever found and no 747 fuel tank problems before or since, hundreds of witnesses off East Coast watched a missile rise up from Atlantic and impact plane, high explosives chemicals found on rows of passenger seats, stained red, CIA "simulation" claims witnesses saw plane in steep climb after fuselage separation.

Oklahoma City: military explosives experts maintain diesel fuel/fertilizer bomb not powerful enough to cause extensive damage, every media organization reported two additional "highly sophisticated secondary devices" found in Edward P. Murrah federal building, every U.S. military and law enforcement organization in nation states "secondary devices removed from building" in their summary and incident reports.



[edit on 10-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy

Yes I am enjoying this site more than I thought I would. I am relieved to be in the presence of conspiracy theorists who deviate from the norm (norm being that they use ad hominem and who wildly make claims out of nowhere with little or no evidence.)



Lol



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrRandomGuy
 





With the secondary explosions exists a possible premeditated demolition (pull it.) The problem with this one though is that if the plane had hit where the explosives were "planted" then the resulting fire would have ignited all the explosives and the tower would have just come down. So if enough explosives were planted to knock the building down, we still have the problem of the airplane being the catalyst of the explosions and thus knocking the tower down prematurely.


Can you show the physics you used to come up with this statement? You based this on???

Have you previously setup demolition charges or is there a document that makes the statement that if one charge in a building is accidentally triggered it will set off the others?

Is there a document that states that there is no fail safe so that an accident on one charge doesn't set off the other charges?

Without the documents your statement is left unproven and thus nullifies the second statement. Your assertion that if the first is right the second is right is NOT right.

I don't see any problem with the scenario. The explosion occurred at precisely the same time as the MSMs "plane" arrived at the building. Wiring the likes of those buildings to go down must have been a chore and a half to do in those three buildings. How long was the security system down for in the WTC months before 911? I believe it was down for weeks and they were also doing other things that could have been used to load the building with explosives. Such a quick job would lead to some problems and those problems would be overlooked by pushing the fact that the NPT is false and other fabrications that overlook the obvious.

From the videos and the expert testimonies of various engineers, it is obvious that this was a controlled demolition. I mean even the magazines published pictures of the main columns being severed with thermite and cut clean through. there's even a video of a Controlled Demolition employee giving a description of how he does this and shows him wiring the column just the same way as the WTC was done. Coincidence? Some have said that they did that to move the steel. Unfortunately, these pictures were taken before the cleanup started.




Here's a link to some pics of the thermite/thermate sliced columns.
Should you wish others google has some with good links to proof of the use of thermite by professionals who use the stuff in their occupations and provide detailed evidence.


Thanks
Rgds



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


No, I cannot provide a source with that claim. Using logic the correct way is harder than I thought it would be.

That picture is pretty interesting though. Something isn't quite right about that. A very stretchy explanation would go along the lines of "well that's where the fuel melted the steel."

I have no friggen clue. It is pretty strange though.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrRandomGuy
 





No, I cannot provide a source with that claim. Using logic the correct way is harder than I thought it would be.

Since when is logic better than proof??? You wanted proof... I gave it to you and you discredit it with a statement that you now say is based on you using logic in the correct way?.? Is that what your saying????

so, I believe we can safely assume that they would have safeguards on their detonations to prevent them prematurely going off... Maybe someone has or can check on it if they know an expert. It would only be common sense and a most needed safety precaution.

Thank you for acknowledging your lack of material to back it up.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
A very stretchy explanation would go along the lines of "well that's where the fuel melted the steel."


Yes VERY stretchy....

Jet fuel does not have enough thermal energy to melt steel. Especially in an open air office fire. Jet fuel burns at a relatively cool temperature, think of diesel. To get it to even ignite it needs to be mixed with oxygen and compressed/atomised.

No steel was melted by the fires. In fact the fires could not even have got the steel hot enough to begin to fail. This is easy to prove for yourself at home, science in action, get some diesel and some steel and try to melt it, or get it to the point of malleability.

NIST wants us to believe the fires would have no effect on the steel until it could no longer hold up its own weight. IF, very big IF, the fires were hot enough to cause steel to fail it would not be a sudden and completely global event. Steel sags, bends etc, when it gets hot enough it doesn't just suddenly fail and it wouldn't ignore the resistance of cooler unaffected steel lower in the building.

But having said that the fires were too small, and too cool, to be able to heat up the amount of steel present in those buildings. Also the buildings collapsed symmetrically, which means all four corners fell at the same time and the same speed, and we're supposed to believe sporadic office fires and asymmetrical damage caused this? It doesn't make sense does it?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yeah, that's quite the "proof" you've got -- Popular Mechanics and their "senior researcher" Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of former DHS chief Michael Chertoff.




Wow! Small world for TPTB, isn't it?

I wonder if they still keep in touch?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join