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: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Looks like they were able to in WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. You do know that most, if not all of the explosives required to bring the towers down would have been in the cores. The core was not visible to the occupants and therefore cancels your logic.


Incorrect. The cores woulnd't have been visible to the TENANTS. They definitely would be visible to the engineers, inspectors, custodians, etc whose job it was to maintain the building, check for corrosion, water damage, metal fatigue, etc etc etc.


Even with your logic, it still doesn't explain away the plumes that have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.


The plumes were clouds of air and dust being pushed out of the building like a bellows as the structure was collapsing. Skyscrapers have their own circulatory air conditioning system, so when the towers collapsed the air necessarily had to go somewhere.

I actually got THAT from the Dutch guy who believes WTC 7 was brought down by CD, that everyone is quoting.


Your logic doesn't explain away the explosions heard in "9/11 Eyewitness" that are also corroborated by first responders. Your logic doesn't explain away the first responders' testimony to seeing flashes and explosions going up, down and around the towers in the lower levels and middle levels, mimicking what we normally see in controlled demolitions.


Likewise untrue. Controlled demolitions are TIMED IN SEQUENCE, specifically to knock out all the supporting structure in one fell swoop. The explosions heard during 9/11 were RANDOM, going off in no perceivable order. It's the whole reason I can definitively say these weren't controlled demos.

We know there were flammable objects in the buildings (emergency fuel tanks for the backup generators, electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc) that would necessarily go BOOM when on fire, and we know there were fires in the towers. These explosions almost certainly had to be these flammable objects going BOOM in random order, as the fires reached them in turn.


Your logic also doesn't explain away the survivors and by-standers that heard the "boom, boom, boom" detonations as both towers were being brought down.


A rather odd statement. The entire buildings were not only going BOOM BOOM BOOM as they were falling, the wreckage was going BOOM BOOM BOOM as it hit the ground and/or nearby buildings. Are you trying to say the buildings should have fallen silently?




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   


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'?


So could we please have some of the steel beams - the ones that we were all told failed due to heat from kerosene - to analyze?
Please?
Can we? Just a few...
No? Why not?
Oh, I see. They were hauled away and sold.
We'll just 'believe' that they all failed. then. Because that's what we were told. And they were reportedly examined by scientists too. Not just any scientists, either. A very select group. Hand picked. Peerless, apparently.

Sorry to doubt. My mistake.
Born with a questioning mind, that's all.
Probably still a bit wet behind the ears.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
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.



First of all, the acceleration of the building standing on the ground has the "total acceleration of 0" does not mean they are experiencing 0g. It's two totally different things. They are still experiencing 1g with an acceleration of 0. Remember that, 1g.



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.


Now this, is why i think you're an bumbling misinforming idiot. My question had nothing to do with what the acceleration for the building actually was. That's totally irrelevant to me as we can all watch the video of the "collapses" and come up with those numbers easily without the help of a fake scientist such as yourself. We merely need to use time intervals with the video to determine velocities to determine acceleration. Why you are using g to answer my question, beats the hell out of me. You're saying 2/3 or 3/4 the force of 1g was the reason it brought the buildings down, as well as all the floors beneath the impact zone that WERE NOT DAMAGED BY FIRE?? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? You've done nothing to answer my question of what did cause this building to fall to the ground at that speed, all you did was provide further confusion to anyone reading this thread. Therefore I'll ask my question for the FIFTH time:


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 CAUSED THE FLOORS that weren't damaged by fires at all to fall at those speeds? STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION. You not being able to answer it further illustrates the need for an ACTUAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATION.

sci.tech-archive.net...


[edit on 17-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]

[edit on 17-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]

[edit on 17-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

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


By definition, "professional" mean that they're doing it for money, and in that context *EVERY* 9/11 truth research organization is a professional organization. I have yet to see any conspiracy web site that didn't have a section selling books, CD, t-shirts, baseball caps, sweatshirts, decals, posters, or some other rubbish. It's the whole reason they're operating these conspiracy web sites to begin with.

Come, ye truthers, and give Dylan Avery your money



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


GoodOlDave, it's nice to see you're still hanging around while ignoring my posts that were directed at you, your credibility, and your illogical reasoning. Don't forget, the posts you made yesterday might have been made yesterday, but they're still here for the world to see today. And the world thinks you're an idiot, minus the rest of you misinforming fascist thought police.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
This would be true if the mass above was still solid. It wasn't. It was pulverized.

"pulverized" is not a state of matter. It is the mass that is the most important, and breaking up concrete does not reduce its mass.


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*

Yes, it gained momentum through the accretion of mass and acceleration due to gravity. If you drop anything it gains momentum, the only difference is that the WTC towers resisted the collapse with about 1/4 to 1/3rd the force applied.


Originally posted by Badgered1
So could we please have some of the steel beams - the ones that we were all told failed due to heat from kerosene - to analyze?
Please?
Can we? Just a few...

Sure, they didn't fail from kerosene fire though. NIST has 236 pieces of steel from the towers. It's true that the majority was destroyed, and some of it very quickly, but my question to you was what evidence was there that it was intentionally "scrubbed" rather than done through negligence?


Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
First of all, the acceleration of the building standing on the ground has the "total acceleration of 0" does not mean they are experiencing 0g. It's two totally different things. They are still experiencing 1g with an acceleration of 0. Remember that, 1g.

Yes, exactly right.


Now this, is why i think you're an bumbling misinforming idiot. My question had nothing to do with what the acceleration for the building actually was. That's totally irrelevant to me as we can all watch the video of the "collapses" and come up with those numbers easily without the help of a fake scientist such as yourself. We merely need to use time intervals with the video to determine velocities to determine acceleration.

Perhaps I misunderstood your question, if so I apologise.


You're saying 2/3 or 3/4 the force of 1g was the reason it brought the buildings down, as well as all the floors beneath the impact zone that WERE NOT DAMAGED BY FIRE?? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

No i'm saying that that is the force remaining after the amount the building resisted collapse has been removed.


What CAUSED THE FLOORS that weren't damaged by fires at all to fall at those speeds? STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION. You not being able to answer it further illustrates the need for an ACTUAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATION.

I want to be extra careful with my answer here, I think that you are asking how, after the collapse started, it progressed downwards.

The simple answer is that the amount of force exerted by the upper section of either tower falling even a single floor massively exceeds the load carrying capacity of the next floor down. In reality of course the tops of both towers rotated, resulting in most columns being misaligned and the floors being the primary structural element. The floors were very thin, 4" of concrete, and designed to handle only local live loads, with very little dead load.

What caused the floors below to fall at those speeds? Momentum, caused by the upper section being accelerated due to gravity, and converting potential energy into kinetic energy.

Now, if you are asking what started the collapses, please post and let me know, but the answer to that in depth is in the NIST report.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
First of all, the acceleration of the building standing on the ground has the "total acceleration of 0" does not mean they are experiencing 0g. It's two totally different things. They are still experiencing 1g with an acceleration of 0. Remember that, 1g.


Yes, exactly right.


Is it just me or is it that every time someone asks a valid question that you cannot prove with your pseudo-science, you rip the question to shreds and stray from the direction of the original question so as to confuse and dilute the substance within the actual question?


Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Now this, is why i think you're an bumbling misinforming idiot. My question had nothing to do with what the acceleration for the building actually was. That's totally irrelevant to me as we can all watch the video of the "collapses" and come up with those numbers easily without the help of a fake scientist such as yourself. We merely need to use time intervals with the video to determine velocities to determine acceleration.


Perhaps I misunderstood your question, if so I apologise.



Make a conscious effort against straying from the substance in the question, you do this every time there is a valid question/oddity and quite frankly, it's annoying and immature.



Originally posted by exponent


Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
You're saying 2/3 or 3/4 the force of 1g was the reason it brought the buildings down, as well as all the floors beneath the impact zone that WERE NOT DAMAGED BY FIRE?? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?


No i'm saying that that is the force remaining after the amount the building resisted collapse has been removed.



Please, you're more than welcome to post your calculations on how you came up with this magical number. Otherwise, don't bother to post it as fact And even if the magical number wasn't imagined, it STILL has no relevance to my question. Which was again:


Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
What CAUSED THE FLOORS that weren't damaged by fires at all to fall at those speeds? STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION. You not being able to answer it further illustrates the need for an ACTUAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATION.


To be continued in next post:



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I want to be extra careful with my answer here, I think that you are asking how, after the collapse started, it progressed downwards.

The simple answer is that the amount of force exerted by the upper section of either tower falling even a single floor massively exceeds the load carrying capacity of the next floor down. In reality of course the tops of both towers rotated, resulting in most columns being misaligned and the floors being the primary structural element. The floors were very thin, 4" of concrete, and designed to handle only local live loads, with very little dead load.

What caused the floors below to fall at those speeds? Momentum, caused by the upper section being accelerated due to gravity, and converting potential energy into kinetic energy.

Now, if you are asking what started the collapses, please post and let me know, but the answer to that in depth is in the NIST report.


Let me just point out the statements you make which you would have us believe is fact but of which none you have made any attempt to prove:

1. The simple answer is that the amount of force exerted by the upper section of either tower falling even a single floor massively exceeds the load carrying capacity of the next floor down
Massively exceeds? How stupid can you really be? I mean COME ON. I state that the standing structure uses 10-15% of the total load bearing capacity. You rebutted that with your assumption (with no proof that it's actually true, shows all the signs of being completely false) that the building uses "50%" of it's load bearing capacity. If that really were the case, that would mean the structure would be able to support a little less than A WHOLE 'NOTHER WTC TOWER on top of it! Even with your bogus 50% claim! For the building to fall (at near free fall speeds mind you) after all this time (30years+) because an upper section floor that lost integrity due to fire is just flat out implausible. Not to mention that skyscrapers are built with extreme redundancy, a concept that is not made up like your statements but have an actual basis and foundation in PHYSICS and SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. For you to say they'd build a 110 story skyscraper using 50% of its load bearing capacity is an outrageous lie.

2. In reality of course the tops of both towers rotated, resulting in most columns being misaligned and the floors being the primary structural element
Any research or scientific evidence to back any of these wild claims up?

3. designed to handle only local live loads, with very little dead load.
I would like to see your degree in architecture for you to make a wild claim such as this, with the obviously tiny mental faculties you possess.

Don't point me to the very NIST report that we know to be bogus, as evidence. Since the NIST report ignores the laws of physics as much as you do. The very NIST report that has us demanding a real investigation.

To date, you still haven't answered my question.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Likewise untrue. Controlled demolitions are TIMED IN SEQUENCE, specifically to knock out all the supporting structure in one fell swoop. The explosions heard during 9/11 were RANDOM, going off in no perceivable order. It's the whole reason I can definitively say these weren't controlled demos.

You're right, its not like there were bombs in the basement first and then explosions higher up in the building getting lower as it came down.
Its not like I saw all that happen live on the internet in real time on msnbc.com
its not like you can look it up on news archives and see it for yourself.
Its not like you can google it.
its not like you can youtube it.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Is it just me or is it that every time someone asks a valid question that you cannot prove with your pseudo-science, you rip the question to shreds and stray from the direction of the original question so as to confuse and dilute the substance within the actual question?

It's just you, I make the best effort I can to answer any question put to me, but often these questions are unclear.


Please, you're more than welcome to post your calculations on how you came up with this magical number.

No calculation needed, it is the observed value determined by a panel of truthers and non truthers from the PhysOrg forums.


Massively exceeds? How stupid can you really be? I mean COME ON. I state that the standing structure uses 10-15% of the total load bearing capacity. You rebutted that with your assumption (with no proof that it's actually true, shows all the signs of being completely false) that the building uses "50%" of it's load bearing capacity.

NIST calculated the demand to capacity ratios of the core columns in the WTC before impact, and found values ranging from between 30% to 60%. Given these values, 40-45% would be more accurate than the 50% I said before. I believe the combined required factors of the NY building code came to between 2-2.5x, and 30-50% would satisfy this.


[edit - fixed image, i hope]

There is not a huge amount of information on the total weight of the structures as occupied, and so don't expect these to be completely accurate, but it certainly was nowhere near 10-15% and I would challenge you to support these figures.


For the building to fall (at near free fall speeds mind you) after all this time (30years+) because an upper section floor that lost integrity due to fire is just flat out implausible.

Implausible, perhaps. Impossible, no. As soon as the upper section starts moving it gains a gigantic amount of kinetic energy, far more than its static dead load. You can work out a simple 1d model easily enough, but Bazant and others have already done this, the paper was submitted, reviewed, corrected, reviewed, and eventually published in a very reputable journal. It calculates the forces involved in collapse, the time taken, the amount of air forced out of the structure etc.


Not to mention that skyscrapers are built with extreme redundancy, a concept that is not made up like your statements but have an actual basis and foundation in PHYSICS and SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. For you to say they'd build a 110 story skyscraper using 50% of its load bearing capacity is an outrageous lie.

There was redundancy in the WTC, but it was provided by hat truss connections, and a moment frame exterior design. Neither of these would help to prevent the collapse we saw, because it occured via a mechanism that was not envisioned. Design in future will take account of this, and so no building should ever fail again like the WTC towers did.


2. In reality of course the tops of both towers rotated, resulting in most columns being misaligned and the floors being the primary structural element
Any research or scientific evidence to back any of these wild claims up?

A basic knowledge of geometry should do. Please show me how two squares, one inclined in two axes, can impact each other axially.


3. designed to handle only local live loads, with very little dead load.
I would like to see your degree in architecture for you to make a wild claim such as this, with the obviously tiny mental faculties you possess.

Insulting people is against the rules here, and given that you were unable to understand a simple acceleration term means I should insult you back. Luckily I don't really care what you think of me, I don't need a degree in architecture to know what loads the floor was designed to handle, because it is completely obvious. They were attached by means of angle clips to interior and perimeter columns, and literally only supported the local floor loads. I challenge you to prove me wrong.


Don't point me to the very NIST report that we know to be bogus, as evidence. Since the NIST report ignores the laws of physics as much as you do. The very NIST report that has us demanding a real investigation.

The NIST report ignores no laws of physics, you are clearly just trying to deny any evidence which could prove you wrong.

I challenge you to find an official citation of 10-15% standard load, or of the floors in the WTC supporting more than the local floor load.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by exponent]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
GoodOlDave, it's nice to see you're still hanging around while ignoring my posts that were directed at you, your credibility, and your illogical reasoning. Don't forget, the posts you made yesterday might have been made yesterday, but they're still here for the world to see today. And the world thinks you're an idiot, minus the rest of you misinforming fascist thought police.


...which makes you a liar, since I only counted ONE post from you directed to me, and I did answer it.

Oh, and by all means, go ahead and call me an idiot, if such things make you feel better about yourself, as I don't particularly care what you think of me personally. All I care about is whether you can show anything I'm posting here is incorrect, and we both know your making snide comments of limited substance like my being "misinforming fascist thought police" is simply a smokescreen to conceal the painful fact that you can't.

So in the end, I'm an idiot and your conspiracy stories are rubbish. I can live with that.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You're right, its not like there were bombs in the basement first and then explosions higher up in the building getting lower as it came down.
Its not like I saw all that happen live on the internet in real time on msnbc.com
its not like you can look it up on news archives and see it for yourself.
Its not like you can google it.
its not like you can youtube it.


No, you DIDN'T see this happen this way in real time, nor can you can youtube it or even google it to see it happen this way. Every video in existence specifically shows the initial structural failure was at the point of impact of the aircraft, which then cascaded down sequentually floor by floor. This is how the towers collapsed according to every piece of evidence available and this cannot be refuted.

Work this fact into your conspiracy stories as you see fit.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


There you go again showing the very NIST report, that we claim is incomplete and misleading, as evidence.





No calculation needed, it is the observed value determined by a panel of truthers and non truthers from the PhysOrg forums.


Are you implying that since they are a "panel of truthers and non-truthers" and thus, we should believe what you say? Example #2398 of your illogical thought patterns.

My impersonation of you: "Guess what guys, the panel of truthers and non truthers just told me yesterday it was a airbus a320 that hit the pentagon. Its fact, cuz the panel said so themself."



NIST calculated the demand to capacity ratios of the core columns in the WTC before impact, and found values ranging from between 30% to 60%. Given these values, 40-45% would be more accurate than the 50% I said before. I believe the combined required factors of the NY building code came to between 2-2.5x, and 30-50% would satisfy this.



There is not a huge amount of information on the total weight of the structures as occupied, and so don't expect these to be completely accurate, but it certainly was nowhere near 10-15% and I would challenge you to support these figures.


Haha, that image you linked clearly states in the caption MAXIMUM demand-to-capacity ratio for axial force which means in this case, absolutely nothing. I don't know what your boss told u but, MAXIMUM DEMAND-TO-CAPACITY is NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTUAL DEMAND-TO-CAPACITY RATIO. Its absolutely backed through engineering and science that even if the demand-to-capacity ratio did hit their safe 'maximums' the building would not have failed the way they did. Which is why we keep saying, open a new and unbiased investigation and if you don't agree with it, i guess you should sit there and be happy by yourself and not meddle with our complaints about the lies that are the NIST and 9/11 Commission report. I mean, seriously, why can't you just be happy? There are no signs of a new investigation happening, so why do you take it upon yourself to attack my private investigation? Are you just a psychopath that likes to deny people their right to think freely? (see fascism)

If you're going to refute my questions or my beliefs, do it with proven facts and science, not with absurd/illogical statements, bias, attacks (see chicanery) and if you can't do that, just shut up, log my ip, and put me on your watchlist; because you're only making yourself look more irreasonable and.......... dumb.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jprophet420

You're right, its not like there were bombs in the basement first and then explosions higher up in the building getting lower as it came down.
Its not like I saw all that happen live on the internet in real time on msnbc.com
its not like you can look it up on news archives and see it for yourself.
Its not like you can google it.
its not like you can youtube it.


No, you DIDN'T see this happen this way in real time, nor can you can youtube it or even google it to see it happen this way. Every video in existence specifically shows the initial structural failure was at the point of impact of the aircraft, which then cascaded down sequentually floor by floor. This is how the towers collapsed according to every piece of evidence available and this cannot be refuted.

Work this fact into your conspiracy stories as you see fit.


What conspiracy stories? Link me to one I have posted. You're going to tell me what I said and be inaccurate about it and then tell me what I saw? Yeah.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So in the end, I'm an idiot and your conspiracy stories are rubbish. I can live with that.



Not fully true. You being an idiot who makes wild illogical assumptions is well-documented throughout this thread, it is there for everyone to see. And yes, you may think my conspiracy stories are rubbish, if by rubbish you mean, backed by cold hard facts and laws of physics.

The thing that bothers me is whether you're really a psychopathic idiot? Or if this is your job?

Done with you now. You haven't brought one shred of good critical and logical arguments to support whatever belief you have and I'm getting tired of addressing you and your little game. I already shot you down once, don't make me have to kick you while ur down.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Looks like you guys aren't going to respond with any logical relevant statements regarding any of the issues we bring up so...

For me the question is now:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please join, all of you, i'm sure you'd have some interesting, to say the least, things to add to the topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
If this be the conclusion of the thread, then it is fairly obvious that we need another investigation.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
They definitely would be visible to the engineers, inspectors, custodians, etc whose job it was to maintain the building, check for corrosion, water damage, metal fatigue, etc etc etc.

I'm pretty sure custodians didn't crawl around in the elevator shafts cleaning the cables. I'm also pretty sure that there weren't inspectors and engineers crawling around in the core and elevator shafts every day. And since the core was mostly what needed to be destroyed to bring the towers down, the work could've been done in the weeks leading up to 9/11, just as some survivors have testified to.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The plumes were clouds of air and dust being pushed out of the building like a bellows as the structure was collapsing.

Make sure you say "in my opinion the plumes were clouds of air" because you have zero proof of a building ever collapsing and showing plumes. However, we do have abundant proof that plumes are shown during most every controlled demolition:




And then there's the witness testimony to the flashes and explosions going off, and the way the buildings fell, all suggesting controlled demolition on top of the plumes that already suggest controlled demolition. All you're attempting to do is theorize on what the plumes might possibly be with zero proof to back up your theories. I've proven plumes are shown in controlled demolitions. Please show proof that plumes are seen in building collapses that are not controlled demolitions. If you cannot provide proof, you will have to concede.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The explosions heard during 9/11 were RANDOM, going off in no perceivable order. It's the whole reason I can definitively say these weren't controlled demos.

Please forgive the perps for not setting the explosives off in a timed order to make it look more like a controlled demolition than what it did. You do realize that whoever is in control of the explosives can detonate them at any time in any sequence? If you were the perp, you know damn well you would want the buildings to sound and fall as little like a CD as possible. Just because they detonated it in a random order, doesn't make all the evidence go away or mean that it wasn't CD. Again, that's logic from your denial talking and not letting you see the bigger picture.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
These explosions almost certainly had to be these flammable objects going BOOM in random order, as the fires reached them in turn.

Yeah, the fires were up top. The fires up top didn't cause flashes to go up, down and around the building at the lower and middle levels (40-60 floors below) while the building was collapsing up top. The fires up top didn't destroy the lobby, destroy the basement levels, destroy the parking garage, and seriously injure or kill people in the basement levels. Sorry, but your denial still makes you say things that can't be backed up with fact. You're going against the available evidence to support your fantasy.




Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The entire buildings were not only going BOOM BOOM BOOM as they were falling, the wreckage was going BOOM BOOM BOOM as it hit the ground and/or nearby buildings.

Yeah, too bad your failed logic doesn't apply to "9/11 Eyewitness" because that video was recorded from 2 miles away and you won't hear the building crashing through itself or crashing on the ground at that distance. You can only hear the explosions and detonations which are corroborated by first responder testimony, I might add.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
There you go again showing the very NIST report, that we claim is incomplete and misleading, as evidence.

Yes, because it is a report by experts, with more information about the building than anyone else. Unless you have some evidence you're wrong I could just dismiss all conspiracy theories with the same method.

Can you name a single "complete" alternate theory? Becuase if so then they're all incomplete and therefore all inadmissible apparently.


Are you implying that since they are a "panel of truthers and non-truthers" and thus, we should believe what you say? Example #2398 of your illogical thought patterns.

No, I'm saying very explicitly that since they are a panel of truthers and non-truthers, there's no real obvious bias in the figures, and they represent reality. They're not my figures, I haven't personally measured them.


Haha, that image you linked clearly states in the caption MAXIMUM demand-to-capacity ratio for axial force which means in this case, absolutely nothing. I don't know what your boss told u but, MAXIMUM DEMAND-TO-CAPACITY is NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTUAL DEMAND-TO-CAPACITY RATIO. Its absolutely backed through engineering and science that even if the demand-to-capacity ratio did hit their safe 'maximums' the building would not have failed the way they did.

No it isn't. I took this from the NIST report which I happen to have read, clearly you have not. These are the maximum as occupied loads, so this is the lowest demand to capacity we should see.

I see you have completely failed to provide any proof whatsoever of any of your claims in this post.


Which is why we keep saying, open a new and unbiased investigation and if you don't agree with it, i guess you should sit there and be happy by yourself and not meddle with our complaints about the lies that are the NIST and 9/11 Commission report. I mean, seriously, why can't you just be happy? There are no signs of a new investigation happening, so why do you take it upon yourself to attack my private investigation? Are you just a psychopath that likes to deny people their right to think freely?

What exactly am I attacking here? You called me an idiot for actually knowing the facts about the building, and are now calling me a fascist for trying to correct you on those facts.

I issued 2 challenges at the end of my last post, you have failed 2 out of 2.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by exponent]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
There you go again showing the very NIST report, that we claim is incomplete and misleading, as evidence.

Yes, because it is a report by experts, with more information about the building than anyone else. Unless you have some evidence you're wrong I could just dismiss all conspiracy theories with the same method.


"experts with MORE information about the building..." and...WHAT do THEY have that NO one else does?

it would be nice if NIST had some 'FACTUAL' evidence to back up their HYPOTHESIS.....which 'SOMEHOW' YOU keep pushing as FACT



Can you name a single "complete" alternate theory? Becuase if so then they're all incomplete and therefore all inadmissible apparently.


ummm...don't look behind YOU, ...but there is NOTHING to back YOU , or the NIST *HYPOTHESIS* up

NO steel showed ANY temp that would lead to the 'compromise of the steel, NO floors collapsed from the HEAT or FIRE present, there IS NO, "top crushing block", that 'PUSH the towers down, as the HYPOTHESIS, says there are




top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join