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.

 

National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

page: 23
15
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
No - all it takes is one column to fail

Pointing out that there were fires on multiple floors in WTC 7

So again what is causing all the smoke to pour out of south face?

You made statement that there were not any massive fires - have shown
you extensive fires on multiple floors. With no water the sprinklers
were inoperative - fires had free range

Again all it takes is failure of one part to start collapse


Am I the only one here still waiting for someone to point out exactly which one column failed? Am I the only one still wating to see massive fires?
These "OS" punks are so arrogant with there condescention and yet each and everyone on ATS has run in the face of a good question or pretty much any questions about the "logic" they just tried to use. They go to some other thread and bully people around for a while and come back a few pages later when they see an opening to insult someone.

I really think we need to call them on it. From now on when one of them gets cornered, there should be no other response but a rephrasing of the question or pointing out that they still have an answer to provide before anything else they have to say matters.




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


No.....


not by a long shot.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Am I the only one here still waiting for someone to point out exactly which one column failed? Am I the only one still wating to see massive fires?


Column 79

see:
STRUCTURE Magazine, November 2007

"Single Point of Failure"

Ramon Gisanz (Structural Engineer)
Willa Ng (Civil Engineer)


www.structuremag.org...



WTC 7 fires and collapse here:


www.debunk911myths.org...



M



[edit on 16-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I am pretty sure we are all waiting for the movie.

See, what you failed to catch was that there are reports that claim all kinds of things that provide no evidence.

Take a video of the building falling and point out this single point of failure for us.

There is something you should probably see for yourself since you seem to be having trouble putting together what you see with what you read. Do not worry, me too but not in the same way. I try to put them together but it is not happening.

Thanks in advance, that should really clear things up for us!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I posted these on another thread, but I figured I put them here as well.
As I said, I haven't seen the show but I wanted to know if they by chance had mentioned the explosion of WTC 6 at all. Most people don't even know about WTC 7, let alone WTC 6...



Just a couple of seconds after the second impact, there was a massive explosion at WTC 6. This explosion took place long before either of the Twin Towers had collapsed, and left about an eighty foot deep hole in the earth.



I'm guessing NIST or Fema's BPAT or Popular Mechanics haven't done any mathematical calculations for this one, but it's pretty clear it wasn't caused by any structural damage from the collapsing towers. Maybe it's fire related and caused by one of the beams getting hot?


Edit:
Oh yeah, Dman... this is what we're supposed to believe caused the eventual symmetrical and universal collapse of WTC in 6.5 seconds?





One Column to rule them all, that's pretty ridiculous. Consider this quote regarding the WTC construction from Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964...
"Live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs... One could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction.”


[edit on 17-9-2009 by twitchy]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E. is a partner at Gilsanz Murray Steficek,
a structural engineering and building envelope consulting firm.
Ramon has 25 years of structural experience in a wide range of
projects types and sizes as well as being involved in the cleanup at
ground zero, the selection of WTC steel remnants for analysis, the
ASCE-FEMA WTC report, and the ensuing NIST report. He can
be reached at ramon.gilsanz@gmsllp.com

Acknowledgements

National Institute of Standards and Technology
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Structural Engineers Association of New York


you need to use something besides appeals to authority.
there are over 700 architects and engineers at AE911 who disagree with this whitewash from the perps.
this ramon dude was there at the cover-up, er clean-up, helped ignore the relevent steel that gave away the demo, and then helped write up the collapse from one column fairy tale.
his analysis reads exactly like the NIST report, and the NIST report is fatally flawed by admitting freefall, but not describing how that could possibly happen without an external energy sink.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 



...you need to use something besides appeals to authority.


Could you explain that a little better? I'm confused, because a little later you said that because there are over 700 architects and engineers who disagree with NIST, you tend to believe them instead? Is that your point?

How is that different from "appealing to authority"??

And, isn't an "authority" (expert) someone you actually WANT to get opinions from???


There's an old joke, and this is not intended as disrespect to the medical profession....but here goes:

"What do you call the person who graduates at the bottom of his Medical School class?" Answer -- "Doctor".

Point is, just having the degree behind a person's name isn't enough, in some cases. This goes for BOTH sides of the argument, of course. A person't credentials and ability to properly evaluate and comment on a subject he/she is 'expert' in should be weighed in context of relative work, and peer review and respect (or lack of).



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


the point is not that i am appealing to the authority of AE911, i'm just saying it cancels out this appeal to authority on behalf of the OCT.
obviously, the actual truth of the matter is the real authority. having gnosis of the truth is my only authority.

911 was an inside job, and the NIST is covering up, just like the warren commission did, just like the 911 commission did, and just like you are trying to do.

freefall through a building is impossible by gravity's energy alone. NIST admits freefall, NIST inadvertently admits demolition. oops, NIST. bad cover-up attempt! (although, admittedly, it is impossible to cover up this blatant demo of wtc7)



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you need to use something besides appeals to authority.
there are over 700 architects and engineers at AE911 who disagree with this whitewash from the perps.
this ramon dude was there at the cover-up, er clean-up, helped ignore the relevent steel that gave away the demo, and then helped write up the collapse from one column fairy tale.
his analysis reads exactly like the NIST report, and the NIST report is fatally flawed by admitting freefall, but not describing how that could possibly happen without an external energy sink.


I think you need to get something straight. 99.9% of architects and engineers reject the demolition theory.

There are 141,000 members of the Association of Civil Engineers alone. Not even 0.1% had problems with the NIST and FEMA studies showing how the WTC buildings collapsed due to plane impacts, fires, loss of structural integrity.

A few of those attaching their names to Engineers for Truth complained how they were railroaded into signing by Richard Gage who gave them deceptive paperwork which only said there are outstanding questions that still need investigation.

This has been the most discussed and examined issue in the history of structural and civil engineering, and other related professions. Most or them have looked at the reports or discussed them. Many who bother looking at the Truther claims are appalled by the attempts to distort the truth and have made their feelings clear in papers and on Internet forums. They’re not as visible because they don’t form associations, do the Truther lecture circuit, set up websites selling videos and T-shirts

To put it bluntly, professionals, the vast majority unconnected with govt, say the controlled demolition theories are bunk.


M

[edit on 17-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


complete hearsay. did you personally interview 141, 000 engineers?
was one of your survey questions, "have you discussed this with other engineers?"
i doubt more than a small percentage actually looked at the report, and among those, even the one's who disagree might not say anything, due to the overwhelming nature of the idea that there is a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and engineer society into a police state.
silence does not equal agreement. you assume too much.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
complete hearsay. did you personally interview 141, 000 engineers?
was one of your survey questions, "have you discussed this with other engineers?"
i doubt more than a small percentage actually looked at the report, and among those, even the one's who disagree might not say anything, due to the overwhelming nature of the idea that there is a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and engineer society into a police state.
silence does not equal agreement. you assume too much.


You've been suckered by a bunch of con artists cashing in on their credentials. These same kind of attention seekers or outright sleazes prey on the gullible with bogus alternative medicine, UFO evidence, new energy breakthroughs, etc. They're all trying to sell a bill of goods. And there are always buyers.

Snake oil salesmen take many shapes.

Self-respecting real professional can spot them in a minute. Their science doesn't stand up. But there is always a small devoted market for conspiracy theories and other willful delusions.

Mike



[edit on 17-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
A few of those attaching their names to Engineers for Truth complained how they were railroaded into signing by Richard Gage who gave them deceptive paperwork which only said there are outstanding questions that still need investigation.



Let me see if I get this straight. These engineers agreed to put their names on something that said that there are still outstanding questions that need to be investigated but not the 9/11 truth web page they ended up on.

Interesting; what do you suppose, in the deaths of 3000 Americans, would qualify and an outstanding question that needs to be investigated but nothing we need to really be concerned with?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
what do you suppose, in the deaths of 3000 Americans, would qualify and an outstanding question that needs to be investigated but nothing we need to really be concerned with?


I've posted my views a dozen times. They routinely get dismissed probably without full reading or comprehension.

There is obvious multi-level covering up of some prior knowledge of 9/11. We already know about the silencing of involvement of Pakistan's ISI, members of the Saudi monarchy, participants in Turkey, Jordan, and elsewhere. We know how communication was strangled between intelligence services with the weight of responsibility on the FBI.
There are serious outstanding matters that need to be dealt with.

Where they fit in to admin corruption and self-serving, compliance to lobbyist and foreign power interests, culpability of officials, etc – are regularly being dealt with - mostly in print.

Many are getting the impression the narrow emphasis on details of the plane crashes and building collapses has become a convenient deflection from the pressing issues of criminal intent and gross negligence at the highest level.

When this all washes out there should also be an investigation of the people who are willfully spreading this disinformation. Is it just ignorance, attention seeking, low-level greed - or something else?

M



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


i'm pretty sure you're talking about NIST and the MSM, here.

*BUZZER*

nice try. please play again.

this constant talk of fictional websites and charlatans that convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. the truth is, i knew it at 12:00 noon september 11th when i woke up and turned the TV on. some of us were actually paying attention in school. that's why we got 90 to 100 percent in our physics courses.
and it "us" that "you" have to worry about the most, because your crappy tactics don't work on someone who can see for him/herself.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
this constant talk of fictional websites and charlatans that convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. the truth is, i knew it at 12:00 noon september 11th when i woke up and turned the TV on. some of us were actually paying attention in school. that's why we got 90 to 100 percent in our physics courses.

and it "us" that "you" have to worry about the most, because your crappy tactics don't work on someone who can see for him/herself.


Those fictional sites are as real as the one you are on now. And they are full of charlatans.

I'm glad you got good marks in Physics. So did I. So did the people who went over all the information and forensic evidence. They weren't immediatley sure what happened.

But you were.

The firemen other people on the scene got a different impression of what happened, as well. The buiding were hit by planes. Uncontrolled fires and critical structural beams weakend to the point they couldn't hold their loads caused collapses. Steel weakens with increased heat. We learned that in physics.

I can only speak as someone who has looked at a lot of information from many diverging sources. Those websites claiming controlled demolition and everything under the sun are bunk.

But obviously nothing will convince you otherwise. So let's leave it at that.

M



[edit on 17-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


M brother, come on and elaborate on this straw man.
You know some content not just hearsay.
Pick two non government professionals for discussion purposes.
And let's talk! Other wise retract this as no content.

This is the part of your quote I am referring to----

" Many who bother looking at the Truther claims are appalled by the attempts to distort the truth and have made their feelings clear in papers and on Internet forums. They’re not as visible because they don’t form associations, do the Truther lecture circuit, set up websites selling videos and T-shirts

To put it bluntly, professionals, the vast majority unconnected with govt, say the controlled demolition theories are bunk.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


I saw it did you? The debunk mob squad's mouth's hit the ground.
In free fall just like the twins and 7.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
To put it bluntly, professionals, the vast majority unconnected with govt, say the controlled demolition theories are bunk.


Since this is basically your entire argument ever, are you going to get around to backing it up with some kind of scientific statistics at least?



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
To put it bluntly, professionals, the vast majority unconnected with govt, say the controlled demolition theories are bunk.


Since this is basically your entire argument ever, are you going to get around to backing it up with some kind of scientific statistics at least?


You know what, I really don't care what you or anyone thinks any more. I have tried to provide what I recall, connect to links, tell what information is available and where to start looking.

Truthers just dig into their magic bag of tricks and dismiss a thousand page document saying it's part of the OS, apply some grade school notion of physics, then defer to opportunist fruitcake profs as more credible than less vocal experts in their fields, and on and on.

None of this is about the crimes and abuses of privilege that were associated with 9/11. Despite all the platitudes and lip-service given to Holy Truth, none of you really give a damn about anything beyond the hope of gaining some deferred status or much needed self-respect by thinking you have access to some special knowledge.

You’ll all be in your 70s, linking back to ancient websites and Youtubes with diagrams and little arrows pointing to explosions. The bad guys will have the last laugh. They will get away with murder, as the outraged indignant cultists chanting about their reinvestigation they never get together, spend their declining years reanalyzing the same videos of collapses and debating the results of debris tests.

Much more could be said. It all falls on deaf ears.

M



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I am so accustomed to your ranting, I was able to skip it without worrying about missing your stats, because I know you didn't post any when I finished the first sentence of your post.

How can you go around constantly talking about a "vast majority" when you can't even establish that it even exists? I'm sure you're aware that polls of the general public do not lend credence to what you are asserting whenever you say 99% of engineers are in agreement, etc., which I have seen you post before. Pretty much you are just making things up, and want to whine about it when I call you out on it.

If you are going to use a logical fallacy as an argument, you might as well have the stats to at least back up your fallacy, or else you are just lying (or making things up, same difference). And before you respond, in case you haven't noticed, I'm ignoring your opinionated rants. I know where you stand, I know your posting style, I just don't see the logic in your posts and neither do you apparently.


I really, really, really don't care when you back away from a reasoned debate and get up on your soap box, because you're just copping out to resort to cheap shots and I know it all too well. If you don't have the stats, just stop making up numbers. Do you have the stats? No. Then stop making up numbers. And get a new argument, that doesn't consist of "you're outnumbered therefore you're wrong." There is a massive hole in that reasoning that everybody else seems to understand except you. There is controversy here, not expert agreement.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by bsbray11]




top topics



 
15
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join