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.

 

Demonization of the Truther's Movement by the Lapdog News Media

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
You shouldn't be so scared of your own claims, HothSnake.

Once again: you should have been able to point to the statements that "two relatively small Jet fuel fires" caused the collapses of the towers and the towers were "concrete reinforced structures."

Please give us the direct source - including person, documents, and page numbers - of those who stated what you claim they said.

Should be easy for you - it's YOUR claim.

Chicken?




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Should be easy for you - it's YOUR claim.

Chicken?


You're a hypocrite, because you keep ignoring my posts asking you to offer evidence for your claims, which are the government's claims.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


It's simple tomboy, even for you to understand... The Twin Towers were an ingenius tube within a tube design, with 47 giant core collumns connected to 240 support collumns by steel trusses, which were first bolted and then welded into position, each of these were filled with concrete for reinforcement, thus each floor represented an acre of concrete alone, not counting the massive amount of steel.

A plane hitting the steel mesh design of the Twin Towers, would be likened to that of a pencil being pushed through a screen door. It may poke a hole in the screen, but the integrity of the whole screen is by no means threatened. The design of the buldings was for resiliency, thus they could sway back and forth in the wind (built to withstand hurricane force winds). The design was such that you could remove several of the supports, and still the integrity of the structure would still be supported by the tube-like design and steel mesh screen, plus the 47 giant steel core collumns, welded to 240 supports, and filled with concrete.

Again, I'll ask you a question... If you don't answer, then I'll assume that you can't answer it, thus you have given up and concede that the truthers are correct in questioning the official story.

How did two airplanes flying into the Twin Towers and the subsuquent jet fuel-based fires, cause global catastrophic failure, accross the entire steel, concrete structures of both Towers, nearly simultaneously, on the same day in the same place within minutes of the collission of the planes? These are the facts: These two steel, concrete reinforced structures imploded, while falling at free fall rate of speed, dissappearing into a dust pile within their own basements, just like you would expect to see in a controlled demolition, and certainly not what you'd expect to see otherwise (show me the precidence?).

Professional demolitionists (experts) saw the fall of Building 7 and were shocked when they were told the hilarious OS that it came down due to some small fires that raged for a few hours.

Again, can you answer my question, or do you admit that you don't know what you're talking about, and thus you resort to ad hom logical fallacy ploys in order to pose weak straw man arguments? Remember coward, I asked you a question at the beginning of this thread, and you have been running and hiding from it ever since. In the mean time, I'm not going to fall for your non answer of my question by asking me off-topic, and meaningless questions. Just answer my damn question, if you can?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by jthomas
 


It's simple tomboy, even for you to understand... The Twin Towers were an ingenius tube within a tube design, with 47 giant core collumns connected to 240 support collumns by steel trusses, which were first bolted and then welded into position, each of these were filled with concrete for reinforcement, thus each floor represented an acre of concrete alone, not counting the massive amount of steel.


The floors were concrete. That does not make a building a "concrete reinforced" building. In any case, I understand the construction of the towers better than you.


A plane hitting the steel mesh design of the Twin Towers, would be likened to that of a pencil being pushed through a screen door. It may poke a hole in the screen, but the integrity of the whole screen is by no means threatened. The design of the buldings was for resiliency, thus they could sway back and forth in the wind (built to withstand hurricane force winds). The design was such that you could remove several of the supports, and still the integrity of the structure would still be supported by the tube-like design and steel mesh screen, plus the 47 giant steel core collumns, welded to 240 supports, and filled with concrete.


Show me the source for your claim that the "core columns were filled with concrete."


Again, I'll ask you a question... If you don't answer, then I'll assume that you can't answer it, thus you have given up and concede that the truthers are correct in questioning the official story.


There is no "official story." Sorry. But you demonstrate quite easily that you have no knowledge about the construction of the towers nor why anyone on this earth would believe 9/11 "Truthers" when they NEVER get any facts correct.



How did two airplanes flying into the Twin Towers and the subsuquent jet fuel-based fires, cause global catastrophic failure, accross the entire steel, concrete structures of both Towers, nearly simultaneously, on the same day in the same place within minutes of the collission of the planes? These are the facts: These two steel, concrete reinforced structures imploded, while falling at free fall rate of speed, dissappearing into a dust pile within their own basements, just like you would expect to see in a controlled demolition, and certainly not what you'd expect to see otherwise (show me the precidence?).


It's interesting that you repeated almost verbatim the same nonsense all Truthers repeat endlessly. Now let's test your claims.

1. Show me your source for the claim that the WTC towers are "concrete reinforced structures."

2. Show me your source for the claim that WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell at "free fall rates of speed" when it took around 14 seconds for each of those towers too collapse.

3. Show me any "controlled demolition" that started at the top and worked down.


Professional demolitionists (experts) saw the fall of Building 7 and were shocked when they were told the hilarious OS that it came down due to some small fires that raged for a few hours.


No. a) It took 14 seconds from beginning to end for WTC 7 to collapse. b) Professional demolition experts were not surprised at any of the collapses.


Again, can you answer my question, or do you admit that you don't know what you're talking about, and thus you resort to ad hom logical fallacy ploys in order to pose weak straw man arguments?


That statement is a good example of what is known as the "arrogance of ignorance." You have just stated claims that have been debunked for years and you expect ANYONE to take you seriously?


Remember coward, I asked you a question at the beginning of this thread, and you have been running and hiding from it ever since.


I easily showed you were just as wrong then as you are now.

Now, get busy and provide us the sources for your claims above.

This should be fun.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Video Link

Question: If the 9-11 Commission and NIST report are correct, and the building fell at a rapid pace (nearly the speed of gravity) because the bolts, rivets, trusses and steel frame work were weakened by the fire, then how could the concrete be pulverized and ejected at very highspeed, since the force to do so would be greater than the force needed to sheer the weakened steel, bolts, and rivets?




Show me the source for your claim that the "core columns were filled with concrete."





The core –a combined steel and concrete structure–[28][29] of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.[30] The floors consisted of 4 inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4-inch (100 mm) thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.[31]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Structural design
"The structural engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson worked to implement Yamasaki's design, developing the tube-frame structural system used in the twin towers. The Port Authority's Engineering Department served as foundation engineers, Joseph R. Loring & Associates as electrical engineers, and Jaros, Baum & Bolles as mechanical engineers. Tishman Realty & Construction Company was the general contractor on the World Trade Center project. Guy F. Tozzoli, director of the World Trade Department at the Port Authority, and Rino M. Monti, the Port Authority's Chief Engineer, oversaw the project.[25] As an interstate agency, the Port Authority was not subject to local laws and regulations of the City of New York including building codes. Nonetheless, the structural engineers of the World Trade Center ended up following draft versions of the new 1968 building codes.[26]


The World Trade Center in March 2001The tube-frame design, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads as had traditionally been done. The World Trade Center towers utilized high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.[26] The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[27] Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.[26]

The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core –a combined steel and concrete structure–[28][29] of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.[30] The floors consisted of 4 inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4-inch (100 mm) thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.[31]

Hat trusses (or "outrigger truss") located from the 107th floor to the top of the buildings were designed to support a tall communication antenna on top of each building.[31] Only 1 WTC (north tower) actually had an antenna fitted; it was added in 1978.[32] The truss system consisted of six trusses along the long axis of the core and four along the short"



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


As you can see, I understand much more than you.





There is no "official story." Sorry. But you demonstrate quite easily that you have no knowledge about the construction of the towers nor why anyone on this earth would believe 9/11 "Truthers" when they NEVER get any facts correct.


As can be clearly seen by the above facts, I have every reason in the world to call you an idiot, thus when I do it, it is not ad hom, but merely stating a fact.



2. Show me your source for the claim that WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell at "free fall rates of speed" when it took around 14 seconds for each of those towers too collapse.


Actually, 8 seconds would be freefall within a vaccuum, but the Towers didn't exist in a vacuum, did they? So 14 seconds is remarkably little amount of time for two 110 story steel concrete structures to be pulverized to dust, and dissappear into their on basement, without any help from somekind of explosives, don't you think?



3. Show me any "controlled demolition" that started at the top and worked down.


Ah geeze!
Again you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. A controlled demolition actually starts at the bottom, then from the top. First you blow out the basement, then you start cracking it from top to bottom, which is exactly what we saw on that day. Infact, you can see white plumes of smoke billowing from the basement, just before the top started to collapse and implode at great velocity, while concrete and steel were being pulverized within seconds at a far greater force than could've been generated by a spontaneous collapse that was initiated by a few weekened trusses and bolts at the very top of the structure.



No. a) It took 14 seconds from beginning to end for WTC 7 to collapse. b) Professional demolition experts were not surprised at any of the collapses.


Video Source



That statement is a good example of what is known as the "arrogance of ignorance." You have just stated claims that have been debunked for years and you expect ANYONE to take you seriously?


Debunked? Hardly... Calling people names, character assassination, threats against livlihood: these are all common strong-arm tactics used by a government propaganda establishment to silence the debate before it ever begins and to cover up the damaging evidence against the official propaganda.

This thread began with the basic premise that the propanda matrix employed by the government was attempting to silence any debate on the events of 9-11, by assassinated the character and threatening the livelihoods of those that have come out against the OS BS. You and the other debunkers that have posted here have proven my point quite exceptionally. You are a glowing example of the pathetic strong-arm tactics employed by the MSM and the government in trying to silence the debate before it begins. Just like the government, you refuse to debate by attempting to slander those with differing opinions, rather than reviewing their evidence.



TextI easily showed you were just as wrong then as you are now.

Now, get busy and provide us the sources for your claims above.

This should be fun.


That was an attempt at humor, right?
The only thing that you have shown is your ignorance, and your inhereted cheap debating tricks, both of which I have exposed.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
9-11 Mysteries Video Source

This video proves by any shadow of a doubt that those Towers and Building 7 were not brought down by two airliners and a burnt out Kerosine fire on the upper floors.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by jthomas
 


Again, can you answer my question, or do you admit that you don't know what you're talking about, and thus you resort to ad hom logical fallacy ploys in order to pose weak straw man arguments? Remember coward, I asked you a question at the beginning of this thread, and you have been running and hiding from it ever since. In the mean time, I'm not going to fall for your non answer of my question by asking me off-topic, and meaningless questions. Just answer my damn question, if you can?



You are asking far too much from jthomas. You are not being fair and playing by jthomas rules. He is doing the best he can. Off-topic and meaningless questions is all jthomas knows.

Give him a break.

Poor jthomas is now fleeing from the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY as fast as his little legs can carry him, and if you will just be patient and give him time; then jthomas will flee from the disintegrating 9-11 WTC OFFICIAL STORY also. Give him time, and perhaps some day in the far future, jthomas will actually post in a thread on-topic, most likely in a Flight 93 thread, if the 9-11 Flight 93 OFFICIAL STORY can hang on that long.

Thank you jthomas for clearing that up.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.





[edit on 8/12/09 by SPreston]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


You're right... After all, the poor guy doesn't know what he's doing, so I guess that we shouldn't blame him too much for drinking the government Koolaid so that he can be one of the cool kids. Maybe I should take it a little easier on him. He's just a product of his environment.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Clearly, if one reviews the video evidence of the collapse of both Towers one and two, you can see a demolition collapse wave that seems to increase in speed as it goes along. The average total collapse time was an average of just over 9 seconds, almost as freefall within a vacuum. How in the hell is that possible? A pancake collapse is estimated to take over a minute in a half for the 110 story towers to pancake one on top of the other, each resisting more and more, thus slowing things down, but never speeding things up. A dominoe effect, as described by NIST, is also highly improbable, and would take far longer than 9 to 14 seconds. What we do see is giant steel beams and concrete being pulverized and ejected several feet with great force, plus the simultaneous failure of hundreds of trusses and collumns. The Fema and NIST reports are simply ridiculous, when placed under any critical scrutiny of any kind.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

posted by HothSnake
reply to post by SPreston
 


You're right... After all, the poor guy doesn't know what he's doing, so I guess that we shouldn't blame him too much for drinking the government Koolaid so that he can be one of the cool kids. Maybe I should take it a little easier on him. He's just a product of his environment.



You are so right HothSnake. Show sympathy and kindness to these drinkers of the government kool-aid, and perhaps they will survive when the mixture becomes too strong. Unfortunately jthomas too often fails to look before he leaps.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
He seems to have ran away for good? What? No argument, no evidence at all? I agree that it's very hard to argue with your own eyeballs.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

posted by HothSnake
He seems to have ran away for good? What? No argument, no evidence at all? I agree that it's very hard to argue with your own eyeballs.


Ummmm, evidence? Why would jthomas bother with evidence? jthomas is more into bluff and denial. And it is very easy to argue with one's eyeballs, if that person never opens his eyes.

And that is the primary duties of the Lapdog News Media. Never open their eyes and look at the evidence (especially their own newscasts from the morning of 9-11-2001) and attack any person who dares question the government 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY, demonizing and ridiculing them, even if they are WTC victims' family members, or survivors, or surviving 1st responders.

Heck, a good journalist could probably earn a Pulitzer just with a good documentary based on the early 9-11 newscasts, which he/she likely has easy access to, and a combining with the 503 1st responder accounts and their 19,000 pages of testimony, which the 9-11 Whitewash Commission refused to hear or review, because most of them described multiple explosions and evidence of demolition.

As you know, jthomas has to answer to a higher power (the government god) and sometimes his spontaneous pronouncements get him in a bit of trouble.

But fear not, jthomas will be back soon with new orders and new kneejerk decisions as his precious 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY collapses around his ears.

Thank you jthomas for clearing that up.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.




Official US Government Pentagon Building Performance Report
Official Report Hosted by NIST
Produced by:
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Structural Engineering Institute (SEI)

3.3 SECURITY CAMERA PHOTOGRAPHS
A Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the
building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photographs (figures 3.3 through 3.7), taken approximately one second apart, show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon.Two photographs
(figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the
fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the
ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.




source


Part of the official 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY which jthomas denies.

And one of the 2002 'leaked' video still frames (which jthomas also denies) mis-dated by 32 hours and declaring plane in the corner.




[edit on 8/13/09 by SPreston]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by jthomas
 


Video Link

Question: If the 9-11 Commission and NIST report are correct, and the building fell at a rapid pace (nearly the speed of gravity) because the bolts, rivets, trusses and steel frame work were weakened by the fire, then how could the concrete be pulverized and ejected at very highspeed, since the force to do so would be greater than the force needed to sheer the weakened steel, bolts, and rivets?


You neither quoted nor represented what NIST actually stated.

Try again.



Show me the source for your claim that the "core columns were filled with concrete."





The core –a combined steel and concrete structure–[28][29] of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.[30] The floors consisted of 4 inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4-inch (100 mm) thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.[31]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I've already showed you that concrete floors is not remotely related to your claim that "core columns were filled with concrete."

No wonder you are so confused - you can't get any facts straight.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake

Structural design


Yup, no concrete-filled cores.

Keep trying....



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   


The core –a combined steel and concrete structure


This is not referring to the concrete slab floors bud, but to a combined steel and concrete core, i.e., the core, not just the floors was constructed of concrete and steel. Nice try at dodging obvious evidence here, but I guess that Wikepedia got it all wrong, right?

Everyone knows what the NIST report says, so I really don't need to quote it. It was a weak government attempt at explaining the impossible: sagging trusses, dislodged supports, etc. don't explain or answer my questions above.

I was hoping that you could, but since you clearly can't, then I'll just assume that you don't know what you're talking about, you have no evidence to back your ad homs, and you're grasping for straws.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by jthomas
 




2. Show me your source for the claim that WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell at "free fall rates of speed" when it took around 14 seconds for each of those towers too collapse.


Actually, 8 seconds would be freefall within a vaccuum, but the Towers didn't exist in a vacuum, did they? So 14 seconds is remarkably little amount of time for two 110 story steel concrete structures to be pulverized to dust, and dissappear into their on basement, without any help from somekind of explosives, don't you think?


Really? So now you have stretched your claim of "free fall rates of speed" to be 14 seconds for WTC 1 and 2.

Let's see how that computes. In order for a structure to fall at a "free fall rate" of 14 seconds, how tall would that structure have to be?

Answer: 3,136 feet tall.

So you've gone from 1,368 feet for the two towers and added another 1,768 feet to WTC 1 and 2. Just like that!


Gosh. 9/11 Truther math at work!

I think that's enough education for you to absorb in one day, HothSnake.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake



The core –a combined steel and concrete structure


This is not referring to the concrete slab floors bud, but to a combined steel and concrete core, i.e., the core, not just the floors was constructed of concrete and steel. Nice try at dodging obvious evidence here, but I guess that Wikepedia got it all wrong, right?


No, they got it right. You got it wrong and misrepresented them as you do everything else.


Everyone knows what the NIST report says, so I really don't need to quote it.


Actually, every 9/11 Truther has misquoted the NIST report. Just like you.


It was a weak government attempt at explaining the impossible: sagging trusses, dislodged supports, etc. don't explain or answer my questions above.


It was an investigation by a majority of non-government, private sector people recognized as highly-qualified experts in the fields of structural engineering, physics, architecture, chemistry and forensic science who signed their names to the report. The evidence, methodology, and conclusions are fully open to the world's experts in all fields to be questioned, affirmed, corrected, or rebutted.

Too bad that nobody accepts your claims and misrepresentations, isn't it?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Keep trying, SPreston.

Maybe you'll convince someone that your claim that AA77 "flew over and away from the Pentagon" doesn't have to have any evidence.




new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join