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: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


The number of anticipated attendees and the fact that 9/11 Truth was there. I don't see an issue with that statement.


I didn't say there was an issue with it. But this was not "anticipated" as the way the headline is structured. "Comes Face To Face"... not "Will"


Why didn't you just say you don't know how many people visited the booth? That would have saved you so much time. AE Truth I'm sure does not know an exact number who saw the booth.


I agree that they don't know. But they stated that the spoke to "hundreds."



Could it have been 25,000? Sure. Could it have been 50? Sure. The point is, if there was nothing amiss with the collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7 AETruth WOULD NOT EXIST! Don't you get it?


No, the point is there are conspiracy theorist that pop up during EVERY major event. Moon Landing, JFK, Space Shuttle Columbia, etc. Some people in this world need the reason to match the tragedy.



I'm not a full fledged member of AETruth.


There is hope for you yet Swing!


Who knows how many saw the booth and then began to research the facts on their own at home.


I guess we will tell what effect if any Gage had by the increase in his numbers.


Now ask yourself, those that 50 that signed a petition or 9 on the sign up sheet, why do you think they signed up? Free food and drink? Don't think so...


No, the question is. If their evidence is so rock solid...how come a week after the event...only 9 people have signed up?




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Oops, you are right about going to the top floors.

However in the South Tower elevators 6,17,50 went from the basements to at least the impact zone, and the machinery atop elevator 49 extended to the impact area giving yet another way for the jet fuel to flow.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


The most well documented damage was in WTC1's basement and lobby, it was the one that had only 2 cars and the testimony I just posted from Lt Walsh is very explicit in the fact that the lower-level elevators were blown out and not the elevators that serviced the higher floors. Still no evidence of a fireball either. You corrected yourself about the number of elevators but you still haven't recognized any of those other facts.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


The number of anticipated attendees and the fact that 9/11 Truth was there. I don't see an issue with that statement.





I didn't say there was an issue with it. But this was not "anticipated" as the way the headline is structured. "Comes Face To Face"... not "Will"


I agree. But I suggest it was for 'dramatic' effect I suppose. Its a headline for event wouldn't you agree?


Why didn't you just say you don't know how many people visited the booth? That would have saved you so much time. AE Truth I'm sure does not know an exact number who saw the booth.


I agree that they don't know. But they stated that the spoke to "hundreds."



Could it have been 25,000? Sure. Could it have been 50? Sure. The point is, if there was nothing amiss with the collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7 AETruth WOULD NOT EXIST! Don't you get it?




No, the point is there are conspiracy theorist that pop up during EVERY major event. Moon Landing, JFK, Space Shuttle Columbia, etc. Some people in this world need the reason to match the tragedy.


Oh I wholeheartedly agree. However, in this case, when you have millions of people worldwide accepting the event as a conspiracy fact, you can't lump it into moon landing conspiracies. If 9/11 truth had only a handful of people, you would have a point. But when engineering professionals from an array of backgrounds, past and present politicians, Phd's and Dr's, Intel insiders, etc..many found at patriotsquestion911.com then there is a legitimate basis to call it a conspiracy fact.


I'm not a full fledged member of AETruth.



There is hope for you yet Swing!


Sorry. I'm an associate member and not an architect.



Who knows how many saw the booth and then began to research the facts on their own at home.




I guess we will tell what effect if any Gage had by the increase in his numbers.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It all depends on the individual.


Now ask yourself, those that 50 that signed a petition or 9 on the sign up sheet, why do you think they signed up? Free food and drink? Don't think so...



No, the question is. If their evidence is so rock solid...how come a week after the event...only 9 people have signed up?


Which brings us back to the original point....we have no idea how many people saw all of the evidence and agreed with it.

Again, the evidence is rock solid or else AETruth would not exist.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 

You said: "Again, the evidence is rock solid or else AETruth would not exist."

AEtruth can exist with or without evidence. It can exist on gut feelings. It can exist because some people need to believe that there are conspiracies in the world because they feel that someone must be controlling things because they surely aren't.
The evidence I have seen is not rock solid. It is speculative, at best. The facts are often misrepresented. The technical details are wanting. The rationale and reasoning behind the conspiracies are hand waved away.
As I have seen it, the foundation of this entire thing rests on "We saw something outside of our experience envelope and we don't understand it, so there must be a conspiracy." Add on to that those that are easily led, those with a hidden agenda, those that want the limelight and can't get it any other way, those that are curious, and those that actually believe and you have someguys-for-911-truth organizations.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 

You said: "Again, the evidence is rock solid or else AETruth would not exist."
AEtruth can exist with or without evidence. It can exist on gut feelings. It can exist because some people need to believe that there are conspiracies in the world because they feel that someone must be controlling things because they surely aren't. The evidence I have seen is not rock solid. It is speculative, at best. The facts are often misrepresented. The technical details are wanting. The rationale and reasoning behind the conspiracies are hand waved away.As I have seen it, the foundation of this entire thing rests on "We saw something outside of our experience envelope and we don't understand it, so there must be a conspiracy." Add on to that those that are easily led, those with a hidden agenda, those that want the limelight and can't get it any other way, those that are curious, and those that actually believe and you have someguys-for-911-truth organizations.


I agree it could exist by gut feeling or emotional needs, but it doesn't.

Here is what members saw:
As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.(no peer review rebuttal forthcoming)
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples! Hard evidence!
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

With regards to 7:
11. I will add: high temperature corrosive attack on steel flange. Steel evaporated....as reported by FEMA. See above. I emailed NIST on this and they posted my email. I received absolutely no reply and this piece of evidence was ignored.

12. The fact that when NIST outsources the study, they limited the study to floors 8 and above when traditional CD's can be done using floors 1-7. See CDI.

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed.

This isn't a gut feeling or a need to have control behind random events.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


You can keep spinning your fairy tale however you like. But the ignition of fuel is NOT explosive. You should Google and watch the (more than one) episode that "Mythbusters" did on the subject. And even if the ignition of fuel has a somewhat minor explosive effect (it does in my opinion), then the devastation of the lobby, the basement levels and the parking garage don't come close to being explained by fair-tale jet fuel travelling down an elevator shaft before igniting/exploding which just is not possible not matter how you try.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


"As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)"
......WTC7 was hit by pieces of the tower. The "classic controlled demolition" characteristics that you speak of only apply to buildings that have been demolished by controlled demolition. 1, 2, and 7 are much larger and of a completely different construction that buildings that you wish to compare them to.

"1. Rapid onset of “collapse” "
.....less rapid than you believe.
"2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse"
.....structural failures in a building that size would probably make noise
"3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration"
......the collapse was asymetrical as I saw it and gravity showed you what the path of least resistance was.
"4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint"
.....It didn't land in it's own footprint and it damaged other buildings on tah way down.
"5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds"
......Pulverized plaster is hardly a pyroclastic cloud
"6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses"
......Is this the metal that had been heated by underground fires for weeks?
"7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.(no peer review rebuttal forthcoming)"
......Jones has nothing
"8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples! Hard evidence!"
......Evidence of fires.
"9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional."
......Everyone has an opinion. Other professionals say 'no demolition'
"10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY"
......They knew it was unstable and got out of the way before it collapsed. This is not proof of controlled demolition.


With regards to 7:
"11. I will add: high temperature corrosive attack on steel flange. Steel evaporated....as reported by FEMA. See above. I emailed NIST on this and they posted my email. I received absolutely no reply and this piece of evidence was ignored."
....They apparently wanted to ignore this point. Maybe they have no real explanation. I doubt that the steel "evaporated." Maybe corroded or eroded but not evaporated.

"12. The fact that when NIST outsources the study, they limited the study to floors 8 and above when traditional CD's can be done using floors 1-7. See CDI."
.....Did NIST ever explain why they limited the study?

"And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations"
....Metal expansion that sheared connecting bolts would not necessarily have slow onset with large visible deformations.
"2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)"
.....Depends on the collapse mechanism.
"3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel"
.....Steel has only to expand and shear bolts and connecting elements.
"4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed."
......Those high rise buildings were not constructed as these were.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Ever seen what happens when fuel atomizes during an aircraft accident?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Ever seen the planes actually impact the towers?

There is no mystery what happened. There were fireballs, which were deflagrations, not explosions. They detonated at lower speeds, creating a strong enough pressure to blow out some windows but not much else. That was at the impact site, not ~1000 feet below.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Ever seen what happens when fuel atomizes during an aircraft accident?


Fuel does not become atomized in an accident. By what process would that happen?

Fuel is atomized by forcing it under pressure through a small jet. How did the fuel get pressurized, and what orifice was it forced through to become atomized?

But having said that even if the fuel did become 'atomized' what difference would it make? Fuel, as already mentioned, does not have the blast wave associated with an explosion.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


Actually, FAE bombs are very effective.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 
"1. Rapid onset of “collapse” ".....less rapid than you believe."
I'm very aware of the Penthouse. Can you show me a rapid collapse from fire of a steel framed skyscraper that has a collapse as fast as WTC 7?
"2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse"
..structural failures in a building that size would probably make noise"

"3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration"
..the collapse was asymetrical as I saw it and gravity showed you what the path of least resistance was."
Your apparently watching a different video. Which direction did WTC 7 fall and what buildings did it hit? Or did it fall straight down?

"4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint"
.....It didn't land in it's own footprint and it damaged other buildings on tah way down."
Don't ignore "mostly" in the statement. Can you show the damage to those other buildings was from WTC 7 and not from WTC 1 and 2's collapse?
"5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds"......Pulverized plaster is hardly a pyroclastic cloud"

We agree it wasn't from a volcanic eruption, it just looked like one for several blocks...lots of energy.

"6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses"......Is this the metal that had been heated by underground fires for weeks?"
Underground fires or office fires can melt steel? Your ignoring the science behind the fact.

"7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.(no peer review rebuttal forthcoming)"......Jones has nothing"
There has been no peer-reviewed rebuttal published in a scientific journal. Until one is forth coming, the science stands.

"8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples! Hard evidence!"......Evidence of fires. "

You ignore the science again. Normal office fires are not hot enough to melt steel,let alone turn steel into swiss cheese and then be ignored by NIST. That's why it was the greatest mystery of all according to NYTimes.

"9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional."
..Everyone has an opinion. Other professionals say 'no demolition'"

Please source public comments about WTC 7 from other Controlled Demolition Companies to help further my knowledge base. TYVM.

"10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY"
..They knew it was unstable and got out of the way before it collapsed. This is not proof of controlled demolition."
Agreed. However,announcement of collapse by multiple press agencies before collapse suggests a canned story. Suspicious to say the least considering the circumstances.

With regards to 7:
"11. I will add: high temperature corrosive attack on steel flange. Steel evaporated....as reported by FEMA. See above. I emailed NIST on this and they posted my email. I received absolutely no reply and this piece of evidence was ignored."
They apparently wanted to ignore this point. Maybe they have no real explanation. I doubt that the steel "evaporated." Maybe corroded or eroded but not evaporated.

Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
Source: New York Times, November 29, 2001THE SITE
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ

Structural/Fire Engineering/Physics has answers but it doesn't fit the OS.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by CityIndian
 


Actually, FAE bombs are very effective.


Yes very effective on soft targets such as vehicles, aircraft etc. What's your point?


For vapor cloud explosion there is a minimum ratio of fuel vapor to air below which ignition will not occur. Alternately, there is also a maximum ratio of fuel vapor to air, at which ignition will not occur. These limits are termed the lower and upper explosive limits. For gasoline vapor, the explosive range is from 1.3 to 6.0% vapor to air, and for methane this range is 5 to 15%. Many parameters contribute to the potential damage from a vapor cloud explosion, including the mass and type of material released, the strength of ignition source, the nature of the release event (e.g., turbulent jet release), and turbulence induced in the cloud (e.g., from ambient obstructions).

www.fas.org...

What was the fuel to air ratio? If there was too much air ignition would not have occurred. The ratio has to be right to create a fuel vapor explosion, not just simply pouring fuel down a shaft and expecting it to explode.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


The point was that your blanket statement is not correct.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine

What blanket statement?

Do you mean the facts I presented about how fuel reacts, and the fact that it could not have become 'atomized' and thus cause an explosion, like you all are trying to claim?

Any comment on the link about how fuel and air has to be a certain ratio to even ignite atomized fuel?

I'm just trying to point out to you that what you are trying to claim happened is just not very probable, and is not the easiest explanation. In fact it's one gigantic stretch. Maybe you don't know enough about fuels, or physics, to understand the garbage you are parroting. I'm sure, just like all the other de-bunkers, you didn't come up with this silly hypothesis yourself...



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I`m a strong believer in pure facts enforced by fail safe formula`s. Debunkers main tool of discrediting their prey via character defamation (Cybil Edwards anyone?) sit`s top end of the scale, whilst the lower reaches favours the likes of grammerical errors and such, like a Lawyer in full flight as a lengthy court case draws it`s conclusion, if he can make the defendant utter a wrong word he`s as good as guilty........

Now to all you debunkers, without the normal `But the scientific research that is beyond this formula is flawed because Bob the milkman said so` nor `You do know the guy that made this video is a Pedo right?`Sidestepping scenarios. Debunk the raw facts this simulation offers (and please no simulations don`t mean nothing wild card approaches, as i`ve heard that you can teach yourself to fly airliners using simulators!!!).

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


I am not claiming anything other than your statement from a previous post was incorrect.

"But having said that even if the fuel did become 'atomized' what difference would it make? Fuel, as already mentioned, does not have the blast wave associated with an explosion."

Your meaning of "does not have the blast wave associated with an explosion" is not clear but I guessed that you meant "shock wave on ignition." that is not always true and I pointed out FAE explosives. You asked how it could be pressurized and atomize. The impact pressurizes it and the jets are formed as the fuel tanks fail.
On the videos, it looked more like a deflagration but the physics of the impact, fuel dispersion, and igntion are complex. Pressure waves could have travelled through air ducts and elevator shafts either from the fuel ignition or just compression of structure from the impact.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


"1. Can you show me a rapid collapse from fire of a steel framed skyscraper that has a collapse as fast as WTC 7?
....Can you show me a building built the same way as WTC 7 and that burned for hours?

"3. Symmetrical “collapse” – You're apparently watching a different video. Which direction did WTC 7 fall and what buildings did it hit? Or did it fall straight down?"
........You are confusing symmetry with direction. One side began collapsing before the other, hence asymmetric colllapse. Part of it fell on top of the rest of it which shows that part fell first and was followed by the rest. Asymmetric collapse.


"6. Underground fires or office fires can melt steel? Your ignoring the science behind the fact."
.........The only way to keep things hot for weeks is by adding heat continuously. Molten steel would solidify fairly quickly no matter how it was melted unless heat were added. Underground fires can get exceptionally hot. There were large amounts of wood, plastic, and paper in the rubble which could have provided the heat.

"7. There has been no peer-reviewed rebuttal published in a scientific journal. Until one is forth coming, the science stands."
........Rebuttals are not peer reviewed. In this case there is no science to stand. This "science" is laying down and unconscious. It only convinces web browser scientists of its veracity and rigor because their understanding of it is superficial.

"8. You ignore the science again. Normal office fires are not hot enough to melt steel,let alone turn steel into swiss cheese and then be ignored by NIST. That's why it was the greatest mystery of all according to NYTimes."
....This was not a normal office fire. It was an underground fire insulated by concrete rubble that burned for weeks. Slow burning, insulated fires can get very hot.

"9. Please source public comments about WTC 7 from other Controlled Demolition Companies to help further my knowledge base. TYVM."
..........I think it was Loizeaux from Controlled Demolition who made the comments.

With regards to 7:

11. ...........They apparently wanted to ignore this point. Maybe they have no real explanation. I doubt that the steel "evaporated." Maybe corroded or eroded but not evaporated.
"Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
Source: New York Times, November 29, 2001THE SITE
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ
Structural/Fire Engineering/Physics has answers but it doesn't fit the OS."

.......Evaporation of steel takes very high temperatures. I haven't bothered to look up vapor pressure curves but if Dr. Barnett said "evaporated" and you back him, who am I to quibble.
Note also that there may be two distinct events. Eroded/evaporated steel may have occurred after the collapse and not caused the collapse..which the engineers stated "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said."






[edit on 5/15/2009 by pteridine]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Simulations do not offer "raw facts;" they offer calculations based on a model.

Model assumptions will dictate how accurately the simulations describe the events. These are difficult to assess for validity because there is no knowledge of the interior damage on the floors struck by the aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join