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.

 

challenge to the gifted

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Has anyone who is interested in 911 as a conspiracy topic and who has also remained neutral thus far actually attempted to duplicate the alleged crashes on a scaled down version in the shop/garage? For me and other simpletons such as myself this crude type of experiment might just be persuasive enough to tip the balance one way or the other. Can anyone here marshall the various resources to try this; does anyone care enough to try, or are you all satisfied enough in just theorizing? Imagine the outcome of some publicized results if the scaled down versions of the trade center towers could not be brought down in the same fashion as it was alleged to've happened after multiple scientific attempts; what might happen? Has anyone done this, and if not, why?




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by plainmike
... attempted to duplicate the alleged crashes on a scaled down version in the shop/garage?


Even awarding a point or two for creativity, and not wanting to really belittle the OP too much, the sheer idiocy of this idea is staggering. It must be a "disinformation" campaign that the Troothers are always claiming to occur to reduce their intellectual footprint (not that they don't do that on their own).

Trying to model a 500,000 ton building and the associated stresses and weight-bearing capabilities in a "shop/garage" and then trying to seriously model the dynamic events of 9/11 is the apex of silliness.

Sorry. This one goes into the "You won't believe what they thought of next!" category.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


You had to put him down didn't you trebor?

A simple 'No. It would not work.' was not sufficient?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by plainmike
or are you all satisfied enough in just theorizing?

Those who take the time to do some real, in-depth research would find out that no steel-structured high-rise has ever completely and globally collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after. That is not theorizing, that is a fact.

The plumes or jets of dust/debris seen as both towers were collapsing:



have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. Debunkers will try to theorize or explain away the plumes due to their lack of research, understanding of physics, or just plain denial disorder. But it is a fact that these plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions no matter how much debunkers want to theorize or explain them away.

Further researching the towers' collapse being linked to controlled demolition, one must be researched in just about every piece of information available that deals with 9/11. Once one is thoroughly researched, then one can put the puzzle pieces together to form the big picture.

Now, the buildings fell like controlled demolitions and had plumes like controlled demolitions. Is there any more evidence? There sure is. Wtiness testimony. Numerous civilians and first responders have been documented as hearing the "boom, boom, boom" detonations as both towers were collapsing. Those "boom" detonations would have been where the plumes come in. But there's more.

There is also numerous testimony from many first responders on-scene that heard and saw more damning aspects of controlled demolition. From the First Responder Oral Histories:


Richard Banaciski, 9110253

It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions...


Karin Deshore, 9110192

Somewhere around the middle of the (north tower), there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.


Stephen Gregory, 9110008

I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.


Now watch the following video and read the above again:
video.google.com...

See all the flashes going up, down and around the whole building in the video above? Just like as described above by first responders on-scene describing the collapses of the towers.

Now a few more quotes:


Gregg Brady, 9110184

I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now.


Frank Campagna, 9110224

You see 3 explosions and then the whole thing (north tower) coming
down.


Craig Carlsen, 9110505

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.


The above quotes can be corroborated by the documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness" and this link is Part 1. Parts 2 and 3 are there as well. The video is shot from 2 miles away from the WTC so you won't hear the steel beams breaking or crashing through each other. Only the unadulterated sounds of the explosives being detonated.

The video corroborates the first responders testimony above to 3 loud explosions in the north tower before collapse (there were actually more, but 3 loud one's are evident). And from Craig Carlsen above who said there were 10 explosions in the south tower before collapse. "9/11 Eyewitness" picked up 9 of the explosions, I believe, and they even point them out to you so you don't miss them.

The above is just a handful of the hundreds of testimonies given by firefighters, police, EMT and other first responders on-scene. Their testimony is identical to known controlled demolitions and/or corroborated by video recorded of that day.

Then we look at WTC7:



For WTC7 to fall like it did above, every single support column had to have been severed at exactly the same time. That is what is done in controlled demolitions when they want a building to come straight down. For anyone to say that one of the buildings above collapsed from fire while the other one collapsed from explosives, they are uneducated, unresearched, or are trying to hide/cover up something. Since demo companies don't use fire to bring buildings down like above, then it is a fact that buildings have only ever fallen like that due to controlled demolition only. Not to mention the fact that no steel-structured highrise has ever completely collapsed due to fire anyway.

Then there's the apparent fact that thermite, an incendiary, was found in the WTC dust. No debunker has gotten a dust sample and had it tested in a lab, so anything they say like "paint chips" is theory only.

So as you can see, there are plenty of facts just at the WTC alone and it seems like the debunkers are the one's that are only theorizing or making up every excuse in the book to explain away the evidence either because of their lack of education, comprehension of physics, or just plain denial disorder.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ,

Hey man, I just wanted to commend you for your detailed analysis and very well put together posts. I have referred to many of your posts recently when relaying this information to my family and friends, and guess what it has made a positive impact!


Keep up the good work and don't relent because the information your posting has and will continue to enlighten people!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
and not wanting to really belittle the OP too much

How about not at all because it's against forum rules? I don't understand why you people who believe the official version of 9/11 can't be civil or post anything intelligent or mature. This is ridiculous.



Originally posted by trebor451
It must be a "disinformation" campaign that the Troothers are always claiming to occur to reduce their intellectual footprint

We don't need a "disinformation campaign". We've got facts on our side. I dare you to try to debunk my post above. Not one single person has been able to debunk that post since I've been posting it in different threads.

If you do try to debunk it, make sure it's with facts only and not theory or your opinion, or there's really no point in trying.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


Thanks for the comments. I am actually working on a video/movie that will show conclusively that the WTC was brought down in a controlled demolition. Look for that in the coming weeks (I hope).



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by trebor451
 


You had to put him down didn't you trebor?

A simple 'No. It would not work.' was not sufficient?



Yep. When something as asinine as this comes along, it is clear that the OP has absolutely no intention of taking this stuff seriously.

The fact that you defend it displays that you don't take this stuff seriously, either.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
reply to post by trebor451
 


You had to put him down didn't you trebor?

A simple 'No. It would not work.' was not sufficient?



posted by trebor451
Yep. When something as asinine as this comes along, it is clear that the OP has absolutely no intention of taking this stuff seriously.

The fact that you defend it displays that you don't take this stuff seriously, either.


Defend it? Me? I stated it would not work didn't I?

Is your reading comprehension in disarray?

I simply questioned your knee-jerk need to flame somebody seeking an experiment by neutral persons.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

We don't need a "disinformation campaign". We've got facts on our side. I dare you to try to debunk my post above. Not one single person has been able to debunk that post since I've been posting it in different threads.

If you do try to debunk it, make sure it's with facts only and not theory or your opinion, or there's really no point in trying.


I don't need to "debunk" your post. You debunk it yourself by simply posting it.

You are confusing people not "debunking" your BS with people not caring a whit about some foolish compilation of wacked-out interpretations of what a a 1,000+ foot tall building looks like when it collapses.

I know you'll crow from the rooftops that since I *don't* "debunk" it that you are correct, which is fine with me. The Sunshine rule is in effect here. I *want* you to put this out, in every forum and place you can find. The School of Public Humiliation is in session and you are in the front row.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
I don't need to "debunk" your post. You debunk it yourself by simply posting it.

That's what I thought. You have no facts to counter my facts.



Originally posted by trebor451
You are confusing people not "debunking" your BS with people not caring a whit

Yeah, I know. Not caring a whit, but yet you care enough to come here to this forum day after day to post meaningless nonsense and to attack others because you don't want to believe the conspiracy. Check out the definition of denial disorder in my signature and maybe talk to someone about it?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Yeah, I know. Not caring a whit, but yet you care enough to come here to this forum day after day...


The entertainment value watching you guys come up with new and improved theories is worth the time spent here - priceless.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
The entertainment value watching you guys come up with new and improved theories is worth the time spent here - priceless.

I recall posting facts in my post above, not theories. Facts that you could not debunk, I might add. Seems that the only thing that's priceless is seeing you and those like you squirm about and make fools of yourselves instead of acting like intelligent, mature adults and discussing the topic in a civil manner.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I recall posting facts in my post above, not theories.


Facts? What facts!? Plumes or jets are indeed "facts" of the event, but when you arbitrarily claim they are evidence of controlled demolition is NOT A FACT - it is your skewed and obscene interpretation of things.

Cherry picking and quote mining with literal-translation of witness statements is NOT FACT. It is your skewed and obscene interpretation of their words. When someone said "It sounded like a freight train!" I'm sure you'll claim a freight train went rumbling through the location.

When you talk about thermite, you say "there's the apparent fact...". Well? Is it a fact or not? Is it "apparent" or real? There was no "thermite". The Jones paper and other pieces of useless drivel are nothing more than soemone's active imagination - not peer reviewed, not accepted by the professional communities involved, nothing but wacked-out conspiracy theorists getting off on their fantasies.

Besides that, by simply mentioning "thermite" shows you have no idea what it is even used for or how it COULD have been used. It is simply your skewed and obscene interpretation and fantasy of how it would be used.

So, I don't need to "debunk" any of your stuff. It is a self-debunking conspiracy theory. Anyone with half a clue will look at that and see it for what it is - a sick mind getting off on coming up with some fake and make-believe "evidence" of something that is too big for his mind to get around.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by plainmike
 

I think several hundred engineers and architects, some with Phds
in their field have enough cumulative knowledge in the area.

Architects and Engineers for 911 truth

So for now I will take their evidence and the overwhelmingly obvious
evidence of the firefighters, policemen, and port authority members
that have totally disqualified the official story.

I find it amazing that arm chair joe six packs will come on here
and say that the 700+ engineers and architects do not know what
they are talking about.

I have seen overconfidence and blind self interest before, but in the
face of 700+ experts in their field does boggle the mind.

I challenge you to take a block of steel and melt it to liquid form
with kerosene.

Get back to me when you have accomplished that feat that defies
the laws of physics.





[edit on 8-7-2009 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Facts? What facts!? Plumes or jets are indeed "facts" of the event, but when you arbitrarily claim they are evidence of controlled demolition is NOT A FACT - it is your skewed and obscene interpretation of things.

Look at the 2 apartment towers from implosionworld.com at the top-left corner in this image:



See those plumes? Now, if you would take time out of your busy armchair-debunking schedule to do some actual research on controlled demolitions, you'd know that those plumes are seen in most controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that you will never find those plumes in any other building collapse besides controlled demolitions. So again, no skewing, no theorizing, all fact based on simple research.

Your denial makes you say such things because you don't want to entertain the idea of a conspiracy. That's all well and good, but don't call us liars and that we're skewing things when: 1.) you've shown no evidence to the contrary; and 2.) you won't take the time to research whether anything is truly factual or not. That makes you a hypocrite, amongst other things.



Originally posted by trebor451
Cherry picking and quote mining with literal-translation of witness statements is NOT FACT. It is your skewed and obscene interpretation of their words.

Sorry, but who are you to decide what should be taken literally and what should not be? I posted a link to a 9/11 documentary that backs up some of the explosive sounds the first responders heard. That would make their testimony factual based on video evidence. So that would mean there's no room for interpretation there.

Then I posted a video of a controlled demolition where you can see flashes going up, down and around the building with popping/exploding sounds to demonstrate what the numerous first responders reported seeing at the WTC. So that means there's also no room for interpretation on that point either.

The WTC fell like controlled demolitions, had plumes like controlled demolitions, had flashes from the explosives being detonated just like controlled demolitions. If it walks like a dog and barks like a dog, it's gotta be a dog. If the buildings fell like controlled demolitions, had every characteristic of a controlled demoltion like plumes and flashes and booms, then it's gotta be controlled demolition.



Originally posted by trebor451
There was no "thermite".

Says some anonymous armchair debunker who hasn't done a single test in a lab to prove conclusively one way or the other whether there really is thermite in the WTC dust or not. Therefore, it would be your theory or opinion that there was no thermite.

You really should step back and take a look at your posts. You make yourself look so foolish with every letter you type. All the while not posting a single source to try to bring some of your facts to the table.

Who do you think people are going to believe when they read these threads? Mine as I quote professionals, post links to sources and back everything I say up? Or yours as you post no links, call people childish names and spew biased, unprovable theories from your keyboard?

People will believe posts like mine that are well thought-out, well-presented and have links to sources and information that they can verify and research if need-be. They will look at posts like yours and think things I'm not allowed to type because of the forum rules. But needless to say, you posts aren't well thought-out, not well-presented, lack any type of sources for verification, and your posts contain too many childish attacks and name-calling. Maybe it's time for a new hobby as you FAIL at this one.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



"Now watch the following video and read the above again:
video.google.com... "


Ever wondered why the various videos of collapse of the twin towers didnt show these flashes? Ever wondered why the various videos of the collapse of the twin towers never picked up the same kind of audio you heard in that video you linked?

Ever wondered that?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Richard Banaciski, 9110253

Karin Deshore, 9110192

Stephen Gregory, 9110008

Gregg Brady, 9110184

Frank Campagna, 9110224

Craig Carlsen, 9110505



How many of these people believe 9/11 was an Inside Job? You know as well as I do it's ZERO. Thats why the truth movement fails to contact these people. (Then again, its not below the truth movement to say these people were paid off.)

That being said, why are you using the quotes of people who don't agree with you?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




Are you frightened about releasing this film? I mean....the perpetrators of 9/11 are blood thirsty psychopaths. Alex Jones told me so.

They might not like you releasing this film, a film which could change the World, if you have the goods to prove once and for all that those building came down by controlled demolition. (less the standard bang bang bang noises and flashes of light, 1st time in history)



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Not 1 demolition expert in the World believes those are plumes caused from explosives.

Let me repeat that.

NOT 1 DEMOLITION EXPERT IN THE WORLD BELIEVES THOSE ARE PLUMES CAUSED FROM EXPLOSIVES.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join