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.

 

What if a new investigation reveals the same as the first?

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

I personally think Jones is a government agent who is causing conflict within a group who believe strongly in something. It would not be the first time the CIA or FBI or any other government acronym infiltrated a movement.


Talk about wild conspiracies with no basis of facts to support it.

You've done nothing but contradict yourself and preach your twisted logic and state them as the end-all-be-all to the conversation. But really, it doesn't take a genius to browse pages of this thread and see the statements you make are totally ridiculous. Especially your assertions that go something like:




PS- I have also attempted contact with MR Jones and he will not return my emails regarding chain of evidence for the dust and if he is willing to share a sample to be tested.Nothing but silence but I am sure you will say that is because there is no need to since it is truth...see, I can read your mind it is so easy.


Actually, no, I never said that, and I would like you to see the evidence for yourself too. but i am sure you will say that since Dr. Jones didn't reply to you, he's automatically lying (since, that is inherently what you said) Over and over you prove you have a very skewed and flat-out wrong interpretation of logical implication. And it doesn't take a scientist to understand logical implication as i've said over and over.



[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman

actually, no, we're not overlooking that fact because Stratesec (Securacom) was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, one of whose principals for the company is none other than Marvin P. Bush, George W. Bush's younger brother.


Not true. Marvin Bush left that company some time before the 9/11 attack. Besides, unless you're saying Marvin Bush went around and planted the explosives himself, it would necessary mean to do it he'd need the support of all the managerial layers in between him and the guys manning the security desk.

Is that what you're saying?


As far as occupants noticing anything fishy going on, look up Scott Forbes, who worked for the Fiduciary Trust, a tenant of the South Tower's 90, 94-97th floors. He noticed suspicious activities in the days and weeks leading to 9/11.


Yes, I know. He also said the workmen he saw weren't particularly hiding anything they we're doing. He also said they were only working in a few sections of one single building. What behavior did they display that would certify them as NOT being actual workmen?


Lack of proof doesn't prove anything Just because you didn't look for/find the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there, nor that it didn't happen. You didn't prove anything


Umm I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was making the statement that in no time in history has controlled demolitions ever been planted in an occupied building without anyone noticing what they were doing. Is the statement true or not true?



And thanks for ignoring my replies to your post. Looks like YOU are the one "refusing to look at information" and making me "show over and over" the assertions you make are illogical.


I wasn't ignoring them. I just didn't see them.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Not true. Marvin Bush left that company some time before the 9/11 attack. Besides, unless you're saying Marvin Bush went around and planted the explosives himself, it would necessary mean to do it he'd need the support of all the managerial layers in between him and the guys manning the security desk.

Is that what you're saying?



Yes, I'm not stating it as fact as you or esdad71 would, but i'm saying that it does warrant further investigation.



Yes, I know. He also said the workmen he saw weren't particularly hiding anything they we're doing. He also said they were only working in a few sections of one single building. What behavior did they display that would certify them as NOT being actual workmen?


Again, your logic is totally skewed, just like esdad71's. He worked in one of the two buildings, in a company which occupied the 90, 94-97 floors. Why you seem to believe that he would be able to see the rest of the 95 floors in his building, as well as the 110 floors in the building he didn't even work in, is beyond me. And, you're saying that even if the workmen were planting explosives, they would automatically exhibit suspicious behavior? In fact, it's pretty safe to assume the opposite. Again, like i said before, your logic is TOTALLY twisted.

And again, I'm not stating it as fact, I'm merely saying that it warrants further investigation. However, the fact that your logical reasoning methods are in fact illogical is absolute fact and verifiable through the laws of logic.



Umm I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was making the statement that in no time in history has controlled demolitions ever been planted in an occupied building without anyone noticing what they were doing. Is the statement true or not true?


Again, if in 1900 I said, "No time in history have humans ever been able to achieve flight", does that mean it could never happen????? No, it doesn't, because in 1903, the Wright brothers achieved flight with their glider. And even then, who's to say that some unknown guy didn't already achieve flight before the Wright brothers did??? Yet another example of how your logic is totally skewed.


110 stories fell to the ground in 10 seconds? 110stories/10sec = 11 stories per second!!!!
110stories/15sec = 7.3333 stories per second!!!
110stories/20sec = 5.5 stories persecond!!!! Even if it was a little over 10 seconds far from free fall speed, it still fell too fast to be anything other than controlled demolitions!

The "official" story is that the building "pancaked". Even in the best case, 110 stories pancaked in 20 seconds (which is not the case, it's actually more like 10-15 seconds, but LETS JUST SAY, for the sake of argument), we're supposed to believe that EACH story 'pancaked' onto itself in 0.18181818 seconds? What happened to the lower floors that weren't damaged by fires at all? Just another anomaly that warrants further investigation

With your illogical reasoning and all, I'd like to know how you explain to yourself and others how a building fell at a rate of 1 floor per less than 2 tenths of a second (< .2 sec) and not be a controlled demolition. I assume it'll be very entertaining.


[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]

[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Remember, this is a group that seriously (not kidding) entertains the notion of space beam weapons, nuclear explosions, mini-nuclear explosive devices, sonic vibrations, thermate, thermite, "nano-thermite", thermetic ceiling tiles, Doppler sound machines, holographic projectors, and other modalities as yet discovered, either brought down the towers, or played a part in their destruction.

Let's get one thing absolutely clear: other than thermite/nano-thermite being found in a laboratory by a seasoned and qualified physicist and being verified by other scientists in other countries (which nobody has proven otherwise), the 9/11 truth movement does not support nukes, space beams, holographs, etc.

Those who would say such things have done zero research into the claims of the 9/11 truth movement and are ignorant to the facts.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
soph⋅ist⋅ry
  /ˈsɒfəstri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sof-uh-stree] Show IPA
Use sophistry in a Sentence
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

fal⋅la⋅cious
  /fəˈleɪʃəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuh-ley-shuhs] Show IPA
Use fallacious in a Sentence
–adjective
1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.
2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.
3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Let's get one thing absolutely clear: other than thermite/nano-thermite being found in a laboratory by a seasoned and qualified physicist and being verified by other scientists in other countries (which nobody has proven otherwise), the 9/11 truth movement does not support nukes, space beams, holographs, etc.

Those who would say such things have done zero research into the claims of the 9/11 truth movement and are ignorant to the facts.

BoneZ. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face! That description includes quite a few of the posters on this forum. For example, SPreston believes in some sort of crazy super corrosive autoigniting dust which will preferentially destroy certain car components while leaving organic materials, watches, statues etc intact.

Is this ignorance, or is he a genuine member of the truth movement? Where do we draw the line at ignorance? I have come across people who believe everything from 'sneaky weakening' theories where thermite is used just to make certain bits of the building slightly more brittle, and the rest was 'natural'. To people who believe the impacts were fake, there were explosives at impact, thermite over the next hour to weaken them, then high explosives to start collapse, and then high explosives on every floor to destroy them.

As you have decided to set a line of ignorance, I need help from you to decide what passes it exactly. Does the belief in high explosives pass this line considering Steven Jones has been analysing dust samples for some time now and has found no evidence of high explosive residue? etc etc.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


If you are going to group BoneZ into a group of people he never associated himself with in the first place, i'll go ahead and do the same with you. If you look at this thread, people like you, GoodOlDave, esdad71 add nothing of logical nor scientific value to the conversation and flat out attack people for what they believe, or statements they make, AND EVEN STATEMENTS THEY DIDN'T MAKE. Furthermore, when they make valid arguments that you cannot explain with your pseudoscience BULL$HIT, you maliciously attack them AND CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME. All of a sudden, it's not about explaining HOW IN THE HELL IN 1 SECOND, MORE THAN 5 FLOORS OF THE TOWERS VANISH INTO THIN AIR. 1 SECOND!!! Instead, it becomes about assassinating their character (of which you know very little; in either case, I can see how easy it was for the government to brainwash you seeing as you guys probably never graduated high school, and i'm only making this assumption due to the flat-out ILLOGICAL ASSERTIONS you guys are known to make.) And then, you have the nerve to act like something like a thermite reaction should be grouped in a list full of things like particle beams and holographs? Thermite is real, check some MASS MEDIA TV SHOWS (the same MASS MEDIA that you worship) such as MythBusters where they even use it on the show to cut through an engine block!! If you want to make this about attacking people, lets get it on, otherwise STFU and take your pseudoscienctific, illogical assertions elsewhere.

If you or anyone here is confused as to what BoneZ advocates, you might want to try to go to the link provided in his signature:
www.ae911truth.org...

If you or anyone here is interested in the dearth of evidence (including this thread) that ATS is actually a COINTEL program, you might want to try and visit this link, and google it as well:
www.scam.com...




[edit on 17-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
If you are going to group BoneZ into a group of people he never associated himself with in the first place, i'll go ahead and do the same with you.

Pretty sure I asked him where he draws the line in determining people who genuinely support 911 truth. Still, it's obvious you wanted an excuse to rant so as far as I am concerned go right ahead



If you or anyone here is confused as to what BoneZ advocates, you might want to try to go to the link provided in his signature:

This paper says absolutely nothing about the cause of collapse other than "not fire". That is not a hypothesis, which is what I am looking for.

As for the claims that ATS is a disinformation operation, I lump this sort of illogical thinking in with the rest of the crazy claims like nukes and space beams.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Does the belief in high explosives pass this line considering Steven Jones has been analysing dust samples for some time now and has found no evidence of high explosive residue?

High-powered explosives were used to bring the towers down as evidenced by the plumes:





And also evidenced by first responder testimony, survivor and by-stander testimony, and by videos like "9/11 Eyewitness". Conventional explosives were used to bring the towers down whether thermite was found or not. In my opinion, the thermite would have been used to make the towers appear to start collapsing from fire and then conventional explosives took over from there. Either way, there's no doubt conventional explosives were used given all available evidence.




[edit on 17-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
High-powered explosives were used to bring the towers down as evidenced by the plumes:
... my opinion, the thermite would have been used to make the towers appear to start collapsing from fire and then conventional explosives took over from there.


Excellent! We have a start of a theory and the start of a line you can draw to determine who does not genuinely support 911 truth.

Would you say that claims of nano-thermite being used in place of high-explosives mean you don't support 911 truth, or would this fall inside the line?

I think you can see what i'm asking for here. You clearly believe that some people don't support 911 truth genuinely, and there has to be a line there where people on one side are genuine, and on the other side are not.

What is that line? Where do you draw it?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


It is clear who is making illogical assertions and who is not. I've proven over and over with the laws of logical reasoning who is being illogical.

Yet again, I'll post this for the hundredth time since none of you can seem to answer it with anything other than attacks and ridicule:


110 stories fell to the ground in 10 seconds? 110stories/10sec = 11 stories per second!!!!
110stories/15sec = 7.3333 stories per second!!!
110stories/20sec = 5.5 stories persecond!!!! Even if it was a little over 10 seconds far from free fall speed, it still fell too fast to be anything other than controlled demolitions!

The "official" story is that the building "pancaked". Even in the best case, 110 stories pancaked in 20 seconds (which is not the case, it's actually more like 10-15 seconds, but LETS JUST SAY, for the sake of argument), we're supposed to believe that EACH story 'pancaked' onto itself in 0.18181818 seconds? What happened to the lower floors that weren't damaged by fires at all? SEEMS AWFULLY SUSPICIOUS FOR A STEEL STRUCTURE WHICH WAS UNDER 10-15% OF ITS TOTAL LOAD-BEARING CAPACITY.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Yet again, I'll post this for the hundredth time since none of you can seem to answer it with anything other than attacks and ridicule:

All you had to do was ask nicely



110 stories fell to the ground in 10 seconds? 110stories/10sec = 11 stories per second!!!!
110stories/15sec = 7.3333 stories per second!!!
110stories/20sec = 5.5 stories persecond!!!! Even if it was a little over 10 seconds far from free fall speed, it still fell too fast to be anything other than controlled demolitions!

Your analysis isn't correct for two reasons.

Firstly, the buildings did not descend at a consistent speed, more they accelerated constantly at 3/4g and 2/3g respectively. This means that closer to the end of the collapse, the number of storeys per second would increase drastically, to well over your numbers. For example, 5 seconds into the collapse, at 3/4g, the collapse front (if such a thing can be said to exist) would be moving at 36.8m/s, or 10 storeys per second. The collapse undoubtedly lasted longer than 5 seconds and therefore if the acceleration remained consistent (we can't measure it) then it would have exceeded your speeds.

Now, the second point is the more important one, the speed of collapse. Why would you think that this is 'too fast' for non controlled demolitions? The only thing quick about a controlled demolition is the column severing, but this is actually done by a physical mechanism. The explosives are there to shoot a jet of copper through the column. So what difference would it make if this column were impacted by a much higher mass, at a lower speed? The energy transferred would be even greater in that case, and there's no reason it would not sever quickly.

Perhaps I don't understand your point fully, what exactly is it about the collapse which limits its speed? The more speed the collapsing debris has, the more kinetic energy?

It's also worthy to note that the towers were at close to 50% load capacity, not 10-15%. 10-15% is less than the self weight of the structure. Gregory Urich / NIST for figures.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman

Yes, I'm not stating it as fact as you or esdad71 would, but i'm saying that it does warrant further investigation.


All right then, would you mind telling me how you ARE stating it? Your saying "Marvin Bush was in charge of the security at the WTC" is simply dropping innuendo for the accusation that "Marvin Bush blew into town and managed to get the otherwise consciencious security at the WTC to conspire to plant explosives in the WTC and kill thousands of innocent people", without actually coming out and saying it. It obvious you can't come out and actually say it becuase not only does coming out and actually saying it expose its absurdity, it opens you up for a blizzard of libel lawsuits becuase you don't have a microbe of proof to back it up. You know that and so do I.

Thus, the reason why I eschew innuendo dropping. If you're going to say something, please come out and say it.


And, you're saying that even if the workmen were planting explosives, they would automatically exhibit suspicious behavior? In fact, it's pretty safe to assume the opposite. Again, like i said before, your logic is TOTALLY twisted.


Yes they would, specifically becuase for them to plant any explosives it would necessarily mean they'd have to be doing things contrary to what they were sent there to do I..E electricians wouldn't need to go poking around in the elevator shafts. The NYPA doesn't all just go home on the weekend, you know. Any work being done necessarily means that they'd have their own people on site to make sure these contractors don't f**k anything up. You know, like every OTHER building management in the world does?

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but Forbes specifically said everyone in the building was informed ahead of time that these technicians would be coming, which was the whole reason why he was there- to power his servers down, and then bring them back up. In what criminal activity in the past have the criminals ever actually invited every witness within earshot to come in and look at what they were doing?


And again, I'm not stating it as fact, I'm merely saying that it warrants further investigation. However, the fact that your logical reasoning methods are in fact illogical is absolute fact and verifiable through the laws of logic.


Then this should cause a thoroughly mind blowing conundrum in logic for you- I AGREE that something like that ought to be looked into, if only to document what was going on. I likewise agree that we should have as many investigations as we need, to fully put these issue to rest. However, knowing what the requirements would be to wire not one but TWO gigantic buildings such as the WTC for CDs it's extremely unlikely this was the reason why they were in the building.

If they were in ALL the buildings on EVERY floor, with whole convoys of one ton trucks rolling in and out like the Berlin airlift, with their own security guards posted on every floor telling everyone to stay away, then you would have had a point.



Again, if in 1900 I said, "No time in history have humans ever been able to achieve flight", does that mean it could never happen?????


So you just contradicted yourself, then. If your main point here is that just becuase something hasn't happened in the past we can't say it wouldn't EVER happen...which is what I think you're trying to say...then you're going to have to likewise admit we can't say fires WON'T EVER bring down steel buildings simply becuase it hasn't yet (though personally, I believe it did). You can't have it both ways.

This contradiction in reasoning was the whole point I wanted to make to begin with. Thank you for allowing me to expound on it.



The "official" story is that the building "pancaked". Even in the best case, 110 stories pancaked in 20 seconds (which is not the case, it's actually more like 10-15 seconds, but LETS JUST SAY, for the sake of argument),


Well in that context, for "the sake of argument" then yes, if it should normally have taken 20 seconds for the WTC to fall then 10 seconds would be suspiciously too fast. HOWEVER, if I say "for the sake of argument" it should have taken FIFTY seconds to have fallen, then your 20 seconds would have likewise been suspiciously too fast. So, your "sake of argument" still doesn't really help you at all.

What we need, for us to know how fast "too fast" is, we would first need to know how fast the structure *should* have fallen. Is someone throwing a baseball 200mph fast? Is a car's top speed of 15 mph too slow? You're nto goign to know unless you first know how fast someone can throw a baseball, or how fast a car can go.

Thus, I ask you, how fast *should* the towers have fallen, or to be more precise, why *shouldn't* the towers have fallen in the speed at which they did, given they damage from the plane impact, the fires, and the unique design of the structures that no other building in the world did (except for each other)?


With your illogical reasoning and all, I'd like to know how you explain to yourself and others how a building fell at a rate of 1 floor per less than 2 tenths of a second (< .2 sec) and not be a controlled demolition. I assume it'll be very entertaining.


I don't know how you find my reasoning illogical, but to me, it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that the length of time it would take for the building to fall would necessarily depend on how much resistance each floor would be able to put up before collapsing in turn. If there was 100% resistance, then the structure wouldn't have collapsed at all, while 0% resistance would be essentially free fall speed. Since it DID fall at near free fall speed, we therefore need to know why each floor offered so little resistance.

Please, explain to me why this reasoning is illogical, and therefore, not worth pursuing.



[edit on 17-7-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I have no reply to this as all you did was make illogical assertions that are not based on any laws of physics/scientific method/engineering/architecture. Until you can do this, your words mean nothing. On top of that, I don't know where in the hell you get the figures "2/3g, 3/4g" from. Anything standing still on the ground, ranging from a person to a steel structure (even a steel structure that has lost some structural integrity) experiences 1g at all times. For you to say that the building experience 2/3rd or 3/4 the force of gravity is ludicrous and synonymous with saying, the laws of physics didn't apply in the few seconds that it took the WTC towers to "collapse". If in fact the buildings were experiencing "2/3, 3/4" the force of gravity that day while "collapsing", it would actually fall slower than it actually did due to the decreased force of gravity. The more you approach 0g, the closer you come to experiencing 'weightlessness'. Idiot, If you want to misinform people, you'd better make sure you get your facts straight.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Would you say that claims of nano-thermite being used in place of high-explosives mean you don't support 911 truth, or would this fall inside the line?

The few people who say that thermite/thermate only brought the towers down don't understand what thermite really is and also do not understand how controlled demolitions work. That does not mean they don't support 9/11 truth or that they're not genuine. It just means they're unknowledgeable about the topics they're commenting about.

All of the professional 9/11 research websites reflect what 9/11 truth is about. The few people who believe in holograms or nukes, etc. are espousing their own theories that don't necessarily reflect the 9/11 truth movement.

In otherwords, you won't see any professional 9/11 truth research organization or website supporting such outrageous things such as holograms.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Anything standing still on the ground, ranging from a person to a steel structure (even a steel structure that has lost some structural integrity) experiences 1g at all times.

Yes, they exert a force of their mass * g on the ground, which exerts an identical force upwards, leading to a total acceleration of 0.


For you to say that the building experience 2/3rd or 3/4 the force of gravity is ludicrous and synonymous with saying, the laws of physics didn't apply in the few seconds that it took the WTC towers to "collapse". If you want to misinform people, you'd better make sure you get your facts straight.

No, it simply means that they were exerting a force of mg on the structures below them, which were resisting with forces of 1/3g and 1/4g respectively [edit - this should be better phrased, they were exerting a force of 1/3mg upwards, where m is the mass of the upper section. I have explained this poorly], leading to an acceleration of 2/3 or 3/4g, 6.5m/s/s and 7.4m/s/s respectively.

These figures come from observations of the actual rate of descent, from the PhysOrg forum. I don't have the link to hand but it should be easily searchable.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by exponent]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
OK, so let there be a new investigation. I am not afraid of a new investigation, I am concerned with a lot of money spent and resources wasted to come to the same conclusion in this day and age since the government is now a trillion dollars in debt.

If there was a new investigation, and after millions are spent, all the witnesses testify. All the evidence is presented. Bush testifies, Cheney testifies, Clinton and Gore testify.
DHS is broken into pieces and the CIA has it's doors closed. what will happen if the same results came back from a left wing jury, will the case then be closed?

Would those who did not believe the OS concede or would they demand ANOTHER investigation?


The problem with the money statement is simply this, that you are assuming that the government will be spending the money to do the investigation thus using our money. That should NOT be the case if there is a TRUE investigation. The government and all of the associated agencies MUST be removed from the investigation. They should be there only to provide the evidence as requested.

Now, I definitely do NOT want a left wing jury. You see, you are trying to make this a divided argument again. A left vs. right fiasco instead of a concerned American public wanting to know if indeed certain factions within their government either allowed or pulled off the events leading up to and taking place that day.

To answer your question. If a completely independant investigation was allowed, and ALL (ALL ALL ALL) of the evidence was made available then of course we would have no choice but to agree with the conclusions.

But you see, I don't see that happening simply for the fact that the buildings fell the way they did. I know, you will say that is a weak reason for not believing the OS. Believe me, I have MANY more reasons to not believe that BS, oh, I mean OS. Many many more. The way they fell is just one of them and kind of an important one.

Especially WTC7 and the miraculous new theory of thermal expansion severing all support at once and allowing the building to come straight down instead of collapsing in sections like fires normally (and I mean virtually every single time as normally) do.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Hey, I have a great idea!

Next time there is a grisly crime in your neck of the woods, run down to the crime scene before the CSI turns up and tidy up.

Vacuum, dust, polish, scrub. Make it impossible for them to find any clues.

Then tell the CSI exactly what you would like them to believe happened, then walk away. It doesn't matter if your story has no basis in any science, logic, or common sense.

If they try to question you, shout very loudly about how they are a bad person for questioning you.
If they continue to question you, bring in a bunch of friends to shout very loudly about how they are a bad person.

Why not? Worked for 911.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
To answer your question. If a completely independant investigation was allowed, and ALL (ALL ALL ALL) of the evidence was made available then of course we would have no choice but to agree with the conclusions.

Could you make a list of evidence you know exists, but is not currently available? As I said to Bonez, I really want specifics more than generalisations like 'the blueprints'.


But you see, I don't see that happening simply for the fact that the buildings fell the way they did. I know, you will say that is a weak reason for not believing the OS. Believe me, I have MANY more reasons to not believe that BS, oh, I mean OS. Many many more. The way they fell is just one of them and kind of an important one.

I am more than happy to discuss these with you and perhaps give the 'official explanation' for anything which seems unexplained, for example you seem to be uninformed about the following:


Especially WTC7 and the miraculous new theory of thermal expansion severing all support at once and allowing the building to come straight down instead of collapsing in sections like fires normally (and I mean virtually every single time as normally) do.

Thermal expansion is not a new theory or phenomena, just it has never been the cause of a building collapse like this before. It did not sever all support at once, it in fact caused a section of WTC7 to collapse, exactly as you have stated. The difference is that this collapse was significant enough to progress into a global collapse. I am as usual more than happy to explain it in as much detail as I can.


Originally posted by Badgered1
Why not? Worked for 911.

Who told people what to believe and what evidence is there that the crime scenes were 'scrubbed'?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Firstly, the buildings did not descend at a consistent speed, more they accelerated constantly at 3/4g and 2/3g respectively. This means that closer to the end of the collapse, the number of storeys per second would increase drastically, to well over your numbers. For example, 5 seconds into the collapse, at 3/4g, the collapse front (if such a thing can be said to exist) would be moving at 36.8m/s, or 10 storeys per second. The collapse undoubtedly lasted longer than 5 seconds and therefore if the acceleration remained consistent (we can't measure it) then it would have exceeded your speeds.



This would be true if the mass above was still solid. It wasn't. It was pulverized. So, what everyone supporting the OS is saying is that this pulverized material maintained and GAINED momentum to also pulverize the undamaged floors below. Okay, I see now. Thanks for opening my eyes finally! *dripping heavily with sarcasm*

[edit on 17-7-2009 by dariousg]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join