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.

 

AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by defcon5

Well lets see, I worked on 757 and 767’s, you aren’t going to pound anything into my head, as unlike most Truthers, I have personal experience with the subject matter. Despite this fact, let me ask you, does pounding away in said manner work for organizations like the Jehovah Witnesses, or does it make people shut them out, and give them a bad reputation, because they are an annoyance?


If some one were arguing the damage to the airplane this would be relevant. I don't see anyone doing that, so it's not.

He said he was going to pound info into my brain, thus making it relevant in the fact that he is not.



Do you see what you just said?

So, hypothetically speaking, if the U.S. government told the citizens something that was untrue and the citizens believed it, but there was evidence to the contrary that emerged, no one should be discussing it unless the government decides to come clean on the issue?


What I am saying is that is the only thing that is going to change peoples minds, not that there is anything to disclose.




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Well, if it's okay with you (and even if it's not), some of us are going to continue to discuss the errant nature of the official report.

So, with that said, I'm not sure where your vitriol is coming from. Maybe you should just avoid the threads if your only issue is that people continue to discuss the discrepancies without having the government fess up to their errors.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Actually, I was discussing how silly this is to bring up at such a convention.

You know a convention…
The ACTUAL topic of the thread.

Not the side argument about what brought the building down, which is actually off topic.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
He said he was going to pound info into my brain, thus making it relevant in the fact that he is not.


I never said anything about airplanes though, did I? It's not relevant, except that you just felt the urge to toot your own horn I guess. Val is an engineer too, and it's also my major; what is the relevance? Are you getting around at suggesting you're smarter than we are because you've worked on planes, so you don't need an actual argument?


Not only did I never mention airplanes, but I keep referring to a classic example of a massive amount of people in denial and using no logic at all, but you apparently don't want to talk about that or tell me how any of your arguments are any better than theirs were.

Compare engineers, etc. who have never even read the NIST report, etc. to everyone who has eyes and can watch the sky on a daily basis. You really think there is scientific strength in numbers and mass consensus, as opposed to logic and reasoning? If that's what you're trying to say, there's no doubt you would have been a geocentrist, purely by the statistics of how many people embraced that garbage on similar fallacious reasoning.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Valhall
 


Actually, I was discussing how silly this is to bring up at such a convention.

You know a convention…
The ACTUAL topic of the thread.

Not the side argument about what brought the building down, which is actually off topic.


Why would it be silly when the convention itself accepted it as a topic? Don't you think the organizers of an architectural convention have the intelligence to figure out whether this should be a presented topic? Further to that, since convention schedules and topics are published to potential attendees weeks to months in advance, don't you think if it were deemed crap by the attendees they just wouldn't attend?

I would think if it were as offensive an offering as a topic of discussion as you seem to think it is, that maybe there was an all-out boycott of the convention by said potential attendees?

Did that happen? (It may have. I'm seriously asking.)

[edit on 5-19-2009 by Valhall]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Ok, how about the University “Engineer” who wrote the paper where he had to message the fuel load to the minimum so that it fit his theory? When in reality, most RON aircraft are ballast fueled, and have a max fuel load? Just a single example that come to mind.

How about these guys using blocks or boxes to simulate the collapse, when in reality it would fall more like a house of cards if you suddenly pulled out all the cards from a middle level?

There are so many holes in the Truther stance that they cannot even decide on what they think happened, only that its not what the official version is.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I don’t know, did they?
I guess I’ll happily leave you all to your argument now, since its all good then.
I was simply stating that I think its silly to bring it up at such a convention, especially seeing footage from truthers crashing other conventions and having to be forcibly removed.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Ok, how about the University “Engineer” who wrote the paper where he had to message the fuel load to the minimum so that it fit his theory? When in reality, most RON aircraft are ballast fueled, and have a max fuel load? Just a single example that come to mind.


What about NIST changing Flight 175's impact angle into WTC2 so that it could maximize the amount of damage it did to the core structure of that building in their simulation? There's you another example.


There are so many holes in the Truther stance that they cannot even decide on what they think happened


Who would have thought that people would have different opinions? Wow, you're right. We must all be completely wrong unless we all believe the exact same thing.

That guy you referenced earlier, I didn't write his paper. Don't associate me with him. I don't even consider myself a "truther," but I've lost all hope for people such as yourself being able to get that right. You think you've already heard it all, so you don't even discriminate who's saying what anymore. Your brain is already turned off. Not a single thing you have posted so far stands to technical scrutiny.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
... they cannot even decide on what they think happened, only that its not what the official version is.


But here is the deal that you seem to be missing...proving "only that its not what the official version is" is all any average citizen is obliged to do. Not a single one of us is obliged to come up with the ultimate answer....because we didn't get paid millions of dollars by the taxpayers, nor did we get mandated to find the truth by the American people, nor do we have the data that has been withheld from us. In fact, we're the ones who footed the bill and expected the delivery and was given a basket of crap.

The delivery of the truth didn't happen. We were robbed. Our only obligation is to speak out against false information produced at the expense of the trusting taxpayers and to demand the issue be addressed once more - in earnest this time.

So how is that request offensive?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

I was not trying to stand up to “technical scrutiny” as I gave up on this topic long ago. Mainly, because you cannot change someone’s religion via force, and that is what this is at this point. Also, as has happened again right here, you cannot give an descending opinion in a Truther thread, such as you can in other threads, without coming under instant and continuous wolf-pack attacks. I was simply making a comment on how I felt about this being brought up at an Architecture Convention, and that should have been the end of it. You are the one trying to drag me into a technical debate, which I have no wish to get into.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Ok, you win…
I am going to go watch my movie now.
I am sorry I even posted to the thread, my bad.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I was not trying to stand up to “technical scrutiny” as I gave up on this topic long ago.


Then why are you here wasting so much time? In all this time we have wasted, you could have easily posted something substantial. Even if it doesn't shut us up, and you won't engage in discussion about it, it's still no worse than what you're doing now.

Beat me to it.
Enjoy your movie.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by bsbray11
 

I was not trying to stand up to “technical scrutiny” as I gave up on this topic long ago. Mainly, because you cannot change someone’s religion via force, and that is what this is at this point. Also, as has happened again right here, you cannot give an descending opinion in a Truther thread, such as you can in other threads, without coming under instant and continuous wolf-pack attacks. I was simply making a comment on how I felt about this being brought up at an Architecture Convention, and that should have been the end of it. You are the one trying to drag me into a technical debate, which I have no wish to get into.


You have a lot of posts here, and based on your posts you seem to be a pretty intelligent person.

With that said, I cant help but wonder why you say you 'gave up on this subject long ago"? If you are an American, ESPECIALLY if you are an American, this subject should never be forgotton, so if you are from the US, what is the deal?

Also, why do you discredit the AE convention so much? Surely, if you've seen the video of the convention in full, you cant possibly tell us that you don't believe the findings of their research. As I said before, I am not even versed the slightest in this stuff, but even I can see the truth in what they have discovered.

I'd just hate to see someone take a position like you have simply because you think no one wants to listen, or for whatever reason you may have.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Floors have nothing to do with any of this.

WMD calculates the weight of the entire upper block. Guess what was holding it up? The perimeter and core columns, NOT the floors.


Exactly.

Some people are still under the misconception that floors collapsed on floors, this obviously didn't happen and WTC 2 tilt is the most obvious evidence of this. In fact the tilt of WTC 2 is the most obvious evidence that the buildings didn't collapse as NIST claimed with both of their hypothesis.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CityIndian

Originally posted by bsbray11
Floors have nothing to do with any of this.

WMD calculates the weight of the entire upper block. Guess what was holding it up? The perimeter and core columns, NOT the floors.


Exactly.

Some people are still under the misconception that floors collapsed on floors, this obviously didn't happen and WTC 2 tilt is the most obvious evidence of this. In fact the tilt of WTC 2 is the most obvious evidence that the buildings didn't collapse as NIST claimed with both of their hypothesis.



I have NEVER said floors collapsed on floors LOOK at the video of the collapse of both towers upper section above impact zone drop as one for 2-3 seconds on both towers.
The floor below that could not take the load then the rest is history.
Also look at impact area on south tower were the plane hit?
What direction did the area above impact start to topple?



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The floor below that could not take the load then the rest is history.


All of that weight didn't fall solely upon the trusses below, it impacted columns, especially within the core structure. The dynamic loading you are suggesting would NOT have happened.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The floor below that could not take the load then the rest is history.


All of that weight didn't fall solely upon the trusses below, it impacted columns, especially within the core structure. The dynamic loading you are suggesting would NOT have happened.


Well, and to add to that, in order for this big "block" to initiate the fall SOMETHING HAD TO HAPPEN TO THE CORE COLUMNS.

As I have said for how many years now???? if anyone (including NIST) would give a plausible explanation based on sound physics what happened to the core columns, I'd be all ears. But everyone wants to ignore them and not talk about them. They don't even want to address them. It is because the core column structure is a mighty sticky wicket.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sorry but when I say floors I mean the whole block of upper floors, not individual floors.

Again look at WTC2, it's proves your hypothesis wrong.

A block of anything that is tilting, and not sitting true on top of another block of anything, is not going to suddenly gain the energy to drop straight down crushing the block beneath it in the symmetrical manner we see. There's this thing called angular momentum. Once the top started to tilt it should have continued it's path. There was NOTHING that would cause the undamaged lower structure to fail. How could it not hold the weight of the top as it had always done?

But again look at WTC 2, you can see the top is NOT crushing the lower undamaged building. You see it tilt and then drop, as the bottom undamaged structure fell from under it faster than the top was tilting, at close to free-fall speed. In other word the bottom undamaged solid structure all of a sudden could not hold it's own weight, and not only that it offered no resistance to the top. How is that possible?

If it was simply that the top dropping on lower undamaged floors the collapse would have been slowed more and more, as floors stack up and create ever more resistance. Yet we see NO resistance at all as the whole building fell to it's basement at a steady speed, and by the time it's halfway done the top is gone into dust, making it again impossible to crush anything.

I suggest you look really hard at the WTC2 collapse with an open mind.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


You forget that the core columns were segments that were bolted together. In fact during the investigation, some core beams were bent, while many showed failures at the connections. The bolts holding each column to the other sheered or snapped apart in the collapse. This is what happened to the core. The bolts can only take so much lateral forces and sheering forces before they give. Also, the floor trusses on each end showed sheering as well. This is more indicative of catastrophic structural failure than "explosives" or "therm*tes" being used. The forces of the collapse were enough to sheer the bolts apart, and by destroying the connections, what is going to hold the parts together? There was virtually zero evidence of any blast damage done anywhere on the pieces. It would have been very obvious to any ground zero workers.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
There was virtually zero evidence of any blast damage done anywhere on the pieces. It would have been very obvious to any ground zero workers.

You can't possibly say that without inspecting each of the thousands upon thousands of pieces of steel in all 3 buildings of the WTC. That stuff was scooped up so fast there was no way to inspect each piece. Furthermore, nobody was looking for blast damage and add on top of that, everything was covered in dust and other debris to further hide the blast damage that nobody was looking for. You're just making assumptions right now based on zero facts.

One thing is for certain, you can make up all the assumptions you like to continuously explain away the obvious, but so far, not a single person has conclusively countered my arguments.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join