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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Have you gone through any firefighter accounts from WTC7? At all? Have you ever even looked into the actual events at WYC7? I can tell the answer is no.

Was WTC7 burning before the collapses? Nope. Then why would the firefighters need the water for it? The pipes and water supplies were damaged or destroyed during the collapses. hence, no more water. Oh and some more info: guess what happened to all the fire trucks around WTC 1 and 2? Its kinda hard to put water onto a fire when your rig is smashed, buried, and burned under wreckage. Oh and lets not forget the side facing the collapses are what were burning. Multiple floors on the side were engulfed, and some managed to come to the other side of WTC7.





Small fires? heh try HUGE fires.

But I can see you are still fresh off the Loose Change Vol. 1 video. So this is going to be fun watching you regurgitate everything word for word as if its God's truth.




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by twitchy
 


First off, the only pulling done in or around the WTC were the firefighters from 7. Check the records and accounts. They all said the same thing, they were PULLED from WTC7.

The only demolition related pulling done at WTC, was 5 and 6 I believe WITH CABLES and no explosives. Yeah and the guys "pulling" them even said they were going to "pull" 5 and 6 during clean up. So no, pull it is not about blowing it up.

And why the hell would LS admit on TV he "blew up" his own building?
And another thing which I'll bet you cant even answer coherently, how did they manage to rig up the WTC7 in a few hours, while its burning, leaning, and completely unsafe to be around? LS was referring to the Firefighting effort being pulled. You do know that "pull" is also firefighter lingo? It means to pull out the firefighters or pull the firefighting effort. Maybe you can answer this, since when do firefighters do commercial demolitions of highrises? And if you can also please point to me in LS's quote, WHO made the decision to pull? I love this one.


For the same reason Rummy said a missile hit the pentagon. Freudian slip. The mind while stressed is likely to say the truth of the matter than what you deceitfully wanted to say.
Kinda like puttin your foot in your mouth. Something you should have noticed by now.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek




Small fires? heh try HUGE fires.

But I can see you are still fresh off the Loose Change Vol. 1 video. So this is going to be fun watching you regurgitate everything word for word as if its God's truth.


My monitor must be bad because I have never even seen any volumes of loose change and yet...I still cannot see these huge fires in your provided pictures.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim’s family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the “collapse initiation” proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.
In addition, NIST’s own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.
“NIST’S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls “collapse initiation” — the loss of several floors’ vertical support,” writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. “In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building’s collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.
In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST’s investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.
Quintiere said NIST’s conclusions were “questionable”, that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

rinf.com...


In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

911review.org...


I assumed that the troofer was talking about the stupid statement of it "falling through the path of most resistance", since this is the most common of the many stupid statements that twoofs make in their regards to this, and the twoof was vague.


How about showing just a little respect to your opponent, instead of ridiculing by calling him troofer the correct spelling is *Truthers* so, please lets leave the insult talk out of this discussing.


Twoofer Griff finds nothing wrong with thermal expansion.

This thread is not about Twoofer Griff furthmore, we are not interested in member’s opinion that is not base on facts, or sciences.

Twoof has been debunked by a professional SE, who also happens to be a twoof.

Now who are these twoof (truthers) that have been debunked?
The above links I gave demonstrate the lack of evidences and the failures of “NIST PSUIDO SCIENCES” that has been proven by creditable science to be false.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Demolition is the only thing that will explain the demise of the WTC.
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

world911truth.org...
If you are really interesting in getting at the truth, educated yourself to other probability since NIST reports fail to stand up to real science much less give us any real answers.
Scientists have approach NIST and have written letters demanding NIST to make corrections in their science, to no avail NIST has ignore most of the written request and refuses to make any changes and is willing to stand by their proven scientific mistakes, than to tell the truth.


The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11
Our government must correct all of the errors in their multiple studies of the collapse of these buildings. To do that, scientific integrity must be restored!
The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11
Crockett Grabbe
President Barack Obama's inaugural promise that "We will restore science to it rightful place..." sounds like good news. In our article "Science in the Bush: When Politics Replaces Physics," published on the web in September of 2007 [1], Lenny Charles and I pointed out how scientific integrity had been placed well behind politics in analysis, not only in areas such as climate change and public health issues, but also particularly in analysis of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.
** We described in some detail in the article how the physics in the NIST Committee analysis of what happened in the World Trade Center collapses is wrong. A paragraph of it was quoted from our article by noted columnist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in his September 11, 2007 editorial "9/11: 6 years later" [2]:**
Physicists have raised unanswered questions about the official explanation's neglect of the known laws of physics. Recently, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: "Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous volumes of study."
These scientific principles are a fatal flaw for the NIST Committee's explanations for the building collapses, as expounded in my Journal of 911 Studies Letter on January 29, 2008.

www.ae911truth.org...
Anyone who wishes to stand by the official NIST report dose not want to know the truth and is supporting BAD sciences that has been proven incorrect.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

That's according to Bazant.


Yes. And he knows better than you do. So do the members of CTBUH, and every SE that has published a paper in the ASCE Journal, etc. Get over it.


you are putting a lot of words in his mouth.


No, I'm quoting him. YOU are the one putting words in his mouth.


I think you're just mad that a licensed, professional structural engineer is a "twoofer," and that he knows more than you about buildings.


Not at all. You have to put words in his mouth and twist what he says to fit the ct mindset. Like when he says that he disagrees with NIST's initiation, but makes no mention that the collapse couldn't progress. Spin away...


So you pretend you are looking solely at the facts but simultaneously admit you are really only looking at your perception of an "expert" consensus.


TBH, not just the expert consensus, but at the utter inability of CTerz to make any headway. As in zero....


So that it really IS a logical fallacy to side with a majority simply because it is a majority.


Really? So if 99.999% of SE's, here and overseas, agree with NIST, Bazant, CTBUH, Zhou, etc..... you give equal weight to an architect with nothing in his c.v. indicating experience, who accumulates a list of guys with nothing in THEIR c.v. that indicates any experience, a theologian, a software engineer, a fired waterboy, etc? Really? It's not just the maajority, it's the weight that their c.v. carries. Only someone with an ingrained distrust of authority could take it this far. Which is why this is a CT, right?


So you think of this like a game.


No, I used to take this very seriously. After a while, i came disillusioned with the whole effort.

At any rate, I no longer care to try and educate the TM anymore. In my experience, they cannot be taught. That's fine with me.

Nowadays, it is sufficent to point out that they will never get any traction until they convince gys like Bazant, Zhou, NIST, CTBUH, etc.

Disagree with my opinions if you like. I don't care.

But you cannot disagree with the fact that the TM will never gain any traction in the real world until you do. You might re-inforce each other 'til the cows come home, but the real world doesn't care what you guys think.

Good luck with that....

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Wow! What a stunning case you have made. People with more education and experience should be considered more credible than those without. Hmmmm....so why is it that anyone should care about anything you have posted now that you explained that you are a self taught physicist?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
so why is it that anyone should care about anything you have posted now that you explained that you are a self taught physicist?


WHat in the world are you babbling about?

You make zero sense.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You just rambled on and on and on about how learned men are worth listening to and not guys who have zero under their belt right????

That no one should consider any info coming from anyone less than, correct?

And your education and experience in any of these matters is....?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Have you gone through any firefighter accounts from WTC7? At all?
...Small fires? heh try HUGE fires.

Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.
You're not hard to debate, often enough, you debunk your own material. On one thread you are throwing your magic rust theory around to explain the steel getting super hot, then on another thread you are saying the steel didn't get that hot. Telling us the debris pile wasn't insulating the fires, and that fire fighter accounts were saying what exactly?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
For the same reason Rummy said a missile hit the pentagon. Freudian slip. The mind while stressed is likely to say the truth of the matter than what you deceitfully wanted to say.
Kinda like puttin your foot in your mouth. Something you should have noticed by now.


Except it doesn't really matter what word Rummy might have used once. Because a large airplane hit the Pentagon. Not a missile. 3-5 people say they saw a missile, 200+ saw a plane. A crushed airplane and dead bodies were found. Hundreds worked on the clean up. You can phone them and tell them they're all lying. Phone the dead passengers families and inform them while you're at.

They'll be impressed by your great investigating skills.

Prime pushers of this absurd theory, Craig Ranke and his Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) acting as if they're independent Truther investigators have been outed as a corporation making a buck off this. Manipulatiing evidence and witnesses is the game. A lot of suckers out there in Truther land.

Check out the sordid details here


911review.com...


Mike



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Isn't Nat Geo just another arm of News Corp? So what is shown on Monday will affect the pocketbook of Murdoch? Information you can trust at its finest.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yes. And he knows better than you do.


Not according to what I am reading, and I notice you aren't making any effort to defend the parts of his work I was talking specifically about. Dr. Greening is an even more obvious idiot, so it's not like there isn't a precedent here for JREF'er "scientists."



you are putting a lot of words in his mouth.


No, I'm quoting him. YOU are the one putting words in his mouth.


Um, nope. He's a "truther."


You have to put words in his mouth and twist what he says to fit the ct mindset. Like when he says that he disagrees with NIST's initiation, but makes no mention that the collapse couldn't progress. Spin away...


He actually believed there were large charges of some kind set within the core structure on at least 3 separate floors, the mechanical floors and the base of the towers. But don't take my word for it, look up his posts yourself. Not that it matters what his opinion is anyway if you are debating facts and data.


TBH, not just the expert consensus, but at the utter inability of CTerz to make any headway. As in zero....


Several non-profit organizations with the support of hundreds of engineers, pilots, etc., all coming together and forming on their own to simply request a more serious investigation, is a little more than nothing. Plus the peer-reviewed papers which have yet to be debunked, but simply open up more questions, and some mainstream media coverage. As well as 30-50% of New Yorkers believing there should be a re-investigation into 9/11, etc. I guess in your world, we would have all figured it out immediately after it happened and had everyone hung by dusk, and the crooks would have just turned themselves over. Right?


Really? So if 99.999% of SE's, here and overseas, agree with NIST


You're a pro at just making things up, aren't you?



So you think of this like a game.


No, I used to take this very seriously. After a while, i came disillusioned with the whole effort.


I think you should just stop posting before you resort to insulting someone in every single one of your posts and without presenting any evidence of anything of importance.




You could have opted to talk about the problems I raised with Bazant's work.

Instead you derailed to talk more about Griff and appeal to various non-specific authorities with no references whatsoever.

This issue of not being able to focus on facts is why you are taken in by Bazant to begin with.


You either don't know what a logical fallacy is, or you don't understand why it is important to avoid them in an argument. Maybe this is why you are always so frustrated at why you can't seem to make a point to someone. You aren't making any. All you want to do is throw dirt and call names. Go back to JREF please.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 




Was WTC7 burning before the collapses? Nope. Then why would the firefighters need the water for it? The pipes and water supplies were damaged or destroyed during the collapses. hence, no more water.


DUH This is not a shot in the foot, slap on the head, this is a need for a small vacation. Do you see where your spin has taken you?
You have personally debunked all your bunk on this subject.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by GenRadek
Have you gone through any firefighter accounts from WTC7? At all?
...Small fires? heh try HUGE fires.

Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.


You must be referring to this transmission....




Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."


That was a radio transmission made by FDNY Chief Orio J Palmer as he climbed one of the stairwells of WTC2. The part that ruins your theory is the mention that he was on the 78th floor....the very bottom of the impact area. The majority of the aircraft hit above that floor.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You have two awesome presentations previously.
They are a little bit to get into because of the small print.
I do so hope anyone on the fence takes the time to read your post . they are way informative.
Good stuff I didn't know.
Thanks for taking the time.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by GenRadek
Have you gone through any firefighter accounts from WTC7? At all?
...Small fires? heh try HUGE fires.

Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.


You must be referring to this transmission....




Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."


That was a radio transmission made by FDNY Chief Orio J Palmer as he climbed one of the stairwells of WTC2. The part that ruins your theory is the mention that he was on the 78th floor....the very bottom of the impact area. The majority of the aircraft hit above that floor.


Swampy time to reboot. We are on SEVEN not TWo no floor mentioned, Get some coffee and get back to us .



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Thank you Donny 4 million, the debunkers on here will not touch it, because they know it punches holes in the NIST OS fairytales, and it proves NIST has been lying. The only thing you will see is the OS believers (who think they can debunk) throw out nothing but insults and ridicule to shut me up. Not going to happen.

Kevin Ryan, is a leading expert on the NIST cover-up. He and other scientist have uncovered a mountain of mistakes and made up sciences that does not stand up to normal physics. The only thing I have ever seen done to debunk Kevin Ryan work was to have his name slander by the OS believers, nothing more.


Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took place.
After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."
It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

911review.org...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


They will be soon be shouting or the sheeple are going to pay the price.
Wake up sheeple!!!

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by GenRadek
Have you gone through any firefighter accounts from WTC7? At all?
...Small fires? heh try HUGE fires.

Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.


Why do you suppose that is exactly? Maybe not you but how about these so called "debunkers." I have read a lot of excuses for things but I have not yet seen the reason why so much testimony was refused. I would love to hear about that from Joey or Throatyogurt or whoever else it is that they call themselves when giving themselves stars for their lame posts.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join