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.

 

Data About 9/11 I'd really like to see...

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Well, after doing some searching, didn't take long for me to get a feeling for why this notion of them still being alive still floats around on the Internet. Despite fliying in the face of logic and reason. And, I think it has been thoroughly explained, in various threads already, here at ATS.

So, based on what I looked up, in researching this (and looking at both sides) ---

I believe it to be disengenuous for people to constantly repeat what is known to be false. Product of mistaken identity.

AS TO possible false IDs? That isn't something I've looked into at great depth, just was what I thought I had read once somewhere (and quite possibly was from a so-called "truther" argument, at one time. Ironic.)

Still, this canard about the BBC report (erroneous, as it turned out) continues to be used by the "TM", but they conveniently omit the full facts.


Hijackers still alive?

This claim is based on a report by the BBC on September 23, 2001. The BBC has since reported about the 19 hijackers, and has issued corrections to this story.


www.debunk911myths.org...

Note, please, the date.

Seems in a rush to "scoop", someone at the venrable old BBC fouled it up. Achieving accuracy, that soon afterwards, is always difficult even in fairly simple events --- and 9/11 was definitely not simple.

Furthermore, to destroy this false story:


Hijackers

During the initial confusion surrounding the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC published the names and identities of what they believed to be some of the hijackers. Some of the people named were later discovered to be alive, a fact that was seized upon by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as proof that the hijackings were faked. The BBC explained that the initial confusion may have arisen because the names they reported back in 2001 were common Arabic and Islamic names.


en.wikipedia.org...

Really, this "They Are Still Alive" stuff is very, very oldnews, long retracted and clarified.

BUT, still in use, today, by those clouding the facts with irrelevance....




[edit on 4 April 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Hijackers

During the initial confusion surrounding the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC published the names and identities of what they believed to be some of the hijackers. Some of the people named were later discovered to be alive, a fact that was seized upon by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as proof that the hijackings were faked. The BBC explained that the initial confusion may have arisen because the names they reported back in 2001 were common Arabic and Islamic names.

Thanks for more verification from your "reliable and verifiable" website debunk911myths.org. We all know how reputable and impartial a site that calls itself "debunk911myths" must be. Show me where the BBC retracted ANY part of that article.

Tell me, were the photos, passports, nationalities, dates of birth and other personal information also common to Arabs? Do you deny that not one, but TWO pilots for Saudi Airlines walked into US embassies, demanding to know why THEY (not just their names) were accused of being the 9/11 hijackers?


'Suicide hijacker' is an airline pilot alive and well in Jeddah - 9/17/01

A man named by the US Department of Justice as a suicide hijacker of American Airlines flight 11, ­the first airliner to smash into the World Trade Centre, ­is very much alive and living in Jeddah. Abdulrahman al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking ­ as well as being dead ­and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

news.independent.co.uk...

Do you deny that FBI director Robert Mueller claimed that some of the hijackers' identities were in doubt, even though the FBI never revised or updated the list? (the FBI later said there was "no hard evidence" to indict Osama bin Laden.)


Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

...Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco...

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Sorry, but your "common Arabic name" explanation is ludicrous.


[edit on 4/5/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Show me where the BBC retracted ANY part of that article.


Okey dokey.



Steve Herrmann | 11:33 UK time, Friday, 27 October 2006

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.


From the horse's mouth. (The BBC themselves).

I doubt you will get a full mea culpa type of "retraction" from the venerable BBC. They have the stiff-upper-lip reputation to uphold.

In a rather typical British way, they sorta acknowledged (without fully admitting to, and apologizing for) the mistake.


BUT, as I have already said, in an earlier post, I will repeat: These facts never seem to get mentioned, when a "conspiracy" believer doesn't want them to.....it is inconvenient for their "story". AND, in typical fashion, anything that can be taken even slightly out of context, WILL be taken out of context, and used (spun) in any manner needed, in order to "support" the ongoing "conspiracy theories"...no matter how tenuous.

Truly is fascinating thing to observe.....



[edit on 5 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Other data I'd like to see:


-- The original full structural documentation to all 3 skyscrapers that collapsed that day, released into public domain, and verified and authenticated by the original structural engineers and an independent forensic expert team. So that non-government structural engineers can analyze them and compare them to the federal reports, something no one has yet been able to do.

-- What was causing each of the many explosions reported by scores of witnesses in Manhattan that day. This alone should have had its own in-depth and very serious investigation.

-- Kinetic/potential energy conservation/loss data for WTC7 as it free-fall accelerates while supposedly crushing all of its own massive steel columns and beams. That's right, free-falling as it does this, I want to see an energy calculation for what would otherwise automatically be considered extremely impossible. Not the actual acceleration curve measured, and just forcing the energy calculations to fit around that, but the acceleration curve for a building that is simultaneously performing all of the work that would actually be necessary for so much destruction. This is something else you'd think NIST would have already thought of and explained in great depth since it makes absolutely no sense, but no, instead they just ignore and down-play the issue and naturally a legion of numbskulls who don't understand this and probably have never had a physics course in their lives assume everything is okay and has been answered already. Welcome to America I guess.


-- I too would like to see all the Pentagon tapes released, and the ones from the nearby hotels that were confiscated, with the entire camera assemblies being dismounted as if there were never a camera there to begin with.


I could think of lots more but those are enough to fight for, if we are going to make any effort to get a legitimate answer to them at all.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





-- What was causing each of the many explosions reported by scores of witnesses in Manhattan that day. This alone should have had its own in-depth and very serious investigation.


And...


-- I too would like to see all the Pentagon tapes released, and the ones from the nearby hotels that were confiscated, with the entire camera assemblies being dismounted as if there were never a camera there to begin with.


....kinda go together, wouldn't you think?

This just occurs to me: WHY have we not heard a hue and cry for all of the security camera tapes that must have existed in NYC as well??

Lots of hotels, convenience stores, jewelry stores, etc, etc.

See, this is the kind of thing that "conspiracists" thrive on, when they focus on the Pentagon. Because, someone, somewhen planted the idea that, just because it is the Pentagon, it'd have all this so-heavily-monitored-with-thousands-of-security-cameras requirement!

WHY?

Main points of entry, such as parking lot gates, and building entrances. Sure, cameras there. No need for real-time, full-speed video taping, since the point was to look AFTER THE FACT, in case of a security breach or incident, involving maybe one (or more) individual(s), and/or perhaps a ground vehicle.

A frame every second or two is sufficient, in those instances. AND, that is what was available, and in use!

Secondly, as in NYC, WHY would any cameras from a convenience store, hotel, jewelry store, etc, etc, be looking at anything OTHER than the own store's/hotel's important bits, such as, again...entrances, and places that involve the handling of valuables?

When will people understand that ANYTHING that filmed ANY events, either at Pentagon, or in NYC, has already been released?

It is a falacy to think otherwise, because it is based purely on speculation, fueled by innate paranoia.

As to the "work" of a falling/collapsing building?

Hate to be repetitive, but even in actual controlled demolitions, same thing happens. Not EVERY connection is blasted away -- only the ones that are most critical, and load-bearing. Else, it's overkill, and waste of money/resources.

Strategically placed charges, gravity, momentum and the mass of the falling sturcture destroys that which cannot bear the loads. Weakest point in ANY structure is going to be where individual structural components connect together. Designs vary, of course, but still...when an assembly is designed to resist, and have majority of strength, in only one direction, then any failry insignificant forces acting in a manner obliquely to that design strength will overwhelm connection points, and failures ensue.

Same with collapsing buildings, after significant damage allowed progressive collapsing to initiate.

I just don't see why a person with an alleged understanding of physics fails to grasp this concept....



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bsbray11
 





-- What was causing each of the many explosions reported by scores of witnesses in Manhattan that day. This alone should have had its own in-depth and very serious investigation.


And...


-- I too would like to see all the Pentagon tapes released, and the ones from the nearby hotels that were confiscated, with the entire camera assemblies being dismounted as if there were never a camera there to begin with.


....kinda go together, wouldn't you think?


No, why should they? One "explosion" (at the Pentagon) is automatically ascribed to a jetliner impact (for better or worse), the issue there is simply being able to SEE the jetliner actually impact!!! Just release the tapes!

The other, not just one explosion but many different explosions in different buildings at different times, the most notable of which coincided with the first plane impact and even FBI agents were telling MSM that day that they suspected another vehicle bomb had gone off in the underground parking garage to coincide with the impact. This is a completely different investigation and should be taken very seriously and studied in a lot of detail by independent forensic experts, and with subpoenas and expensive lawyers.



This just occurs to me: WHY have we not heard a hue and cry for all of the security camera tapes that must have existed in NYC as well??


All the ones in the towers were destroyed. They had that covered from the beginning. No security tapes from inside any of the 3 buildings, no documentation for construction permits, none of that. Normally the construction permits would even be stored somewhere else, a government facility, but since these buildings basically WERE government facilities on property owned jointly by NY and NJ and overseen by a special committee, they housed their own documentation. The explosions happened inside the buildings so other cameras would not have seen much.

Although the explosion that blew out the lobby of WTC1, may be caught on video somewhere. I would be very interested to see someone track that down as well.




Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hate to be repetitive, but even in actual controlled demolitions, same thing happens. Not EVERY connection is blasted away -- only the ones that are most critical, and load-bearing. Else, it's overkill, and waste of money/resources.


I don't know about repetitive, but how about completely irrelevant to anything I ever posted and completely off-topic?
Unless you are addressing this to something someone else said that I missed, then I apologize and they can respond to you. Otherwise you might as well have gone off on a rant about who DB Cooper really was because I already know you don't have to blow every last thing to hell.

If straightforward, direct logic and reasoning were a gun, I swear a lot of people posting here couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Ok people - take it from a Brit:

The BBC is no longer a reliable source.

Every single thing they've done on 9/11 has been a hit piece. Their desperate, risible attempts to account for reporting the "collapse" of building seven, their inability to keep their facts straight about the hijackers... it's all pitiful.

Back in the day, they did have some independence. The Panorama documentary on the 25th anniversary of the JFK hit was superb, and a real eye-opener for me at the time. That programme would never be made now.

Occasionally something good sneaks through. I hear good things about a documentary about Operation Gladio that was made back in 1992... but, it's a funny thing, the producer apparently died in US custody... he was entering the US, was taken aside into the back of Customs and Immigration, and never seen again.

So, no, the BBC is no longer a source to be relied upon - or at least, its retractions may well be dubious.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Unless you are addressing this to something someone else said that I missed, then I apologize and they can respond to you.


Sorry, it was unclear in my post, because I didn't directly 'quote' the relevant portion---but it was included in your post about what you'd like to see, the one just above a few clicks....

It was about so-called "free-fall acceleration". And, the 'work' required to destroy, whilst falling...if you recall.

So, perhaps that will make my post seem a little more topical?

Again, I see no problem understanding how massive, massive forces can easily overwhelm the structure below, once the collapse initiates. Given that many of the vectors are in directions that aren't designed in, in original plans, to withstand.

And, week points are always going to be where various components and sub-assemblies actually connect. Nuts, bolts, connector plates, etc.

If this is in error, then it would be nice to see solid, verifiable and undeniable proof.

Otherwise, THAT is what makes sense to me, and explains what we saw --- once the buildings had suffered extreme damage, (to various load-bearing supports and sections) and the remaining undamaged parts exceeded their design limits, they succumbed to gravity.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Show me where the BBC retracted ANY part of that article.


Okey dokey.


Steve Herrmann | 11:33 UK time, Friday, 27 October 2006

..In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

You call THAT a retraction?


Tell me when THIS part ever gets retracted:


He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

Tell me when THESE articles are retracted:


Waleed Al-Shehri (Flight 11)

"A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi national Waleed Al-Shehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Al-Shehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline." On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.

"His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack." - Daily Trust, 24th September 2001.

"He was reported to have been in Hollywood, Florida, for a month earlier this year but his father, Ahmed, said that Waleed was alive and well and living in Morocco." - Telegraph, 23 September 2001.

Abdulrahman al-Omari (Flight 11]

'Suicide hijacker' is an airline pilot alive and well in Jeddah

A man named by the US Department of Justice as a suicide hijacker of American Airlines flight 11, ­the first airliner to smash into the World Trade Centre, ­is very much alive and living in Jeddah. Abdulrahman al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking ­ as well as being dead ­and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation. -- UK Independent, 9/17/01

Ahmed Al-Nami (Flight 93)

"I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked." He had never lost his passport and found it "very worrying" that his identity appeared to have been "stolen" and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his "possible residence" was Delray Beach in Florida." - Telegraph, 23rd September 2001

Salem Al-Hazmi (Flight 77)

"Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon." - Telegraph, 23rd September 2001.

Khalid Al-Mihdhar (Flight 77)

"Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.

"..... there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar may also be alive." - BBC, 23rd September 2001



[edit on 4/5/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Otherwise, THAT is what makes sense to me, and explains what we saw --- once the buildings had suffered extreme damage, (to various load-bearing supports and sections) and the remaining undamaged parts exceeded their design limits, they succumbed to gravity.

If this is in error, then it would be nice to see solid, verifiable and undeniable proof.

What, photos aren't enough proof for you?

Is that why when I posted photos of an undamaged WTC 7 with a few minor fires, you walked away and continued to repeat your "extreme damage" claims on other threads?



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Why did you not post the photos that show the LARGE extent of damage? The HUGE swath of destruction inflicted by pieces of the North Tower that impacted 7...

Those photos are out there....if you search.

BUT, not posting anything that conflicts with a closely-held belief is usually not done by the "truth movement". Rather, better to keep any inconvenient facts out of the discussion, eh?

Still....it was a 47-story building. Surrounded by other buildings, and views of the lower floors were not extensively photographed.

Consider these facts:


As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building. The bottom portion of the building's south face was damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.
...

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.


en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia is available for anyone to edit, so they say.

IF the Wiki facts are incorrect, then by all means IF there were verifiable new facts, the case could be made to modify the entries. YET, it continues as is.

See...actual scholars don't post hearsay, opinions, nor do they omit facts. Wiki is laughed at by some, but it has stood the test of time, so far.




[edit on 5 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, it was unclear in my post, because I didn't directly 'quote' the relevant portion---but it was included in your post about what you'd like to see, the one just above a few clicks....

It was about so-called "free-fall acceleration". And, the 'work' required to destroy, whilst falling...if you recall.

So, perhaps that will make my post seem a little more topical?


No, not at all. Work is a technical term from physics and free-fall acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 so it has a technical definition as well. I'm talking physics, not how many explosives it would or wouldn't take, so it's still completely irrelevant and what I said about broad sides of barns still fits.


Again, I see no problem understanding how massive, massive forces can easily overwhelm the structure below


What are these "massive, massive forces"? The weight of the building? So the dead weight of the building, is the "massive, massive" force that accelerates itself to the ground at free-fall?


You see no problem, fine, I don't really give a damn. I still said I would like to see data, that you have not provided, and that it doesn't seem like you even understand. If you do, feel free to crunch the numbers yourself and show me how it can work out.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Other data I'd like to see:

-- The original full structural documentation to all 3 skyscrapers that collapsed that day, released into public domain, and verified and authenticated by the original structural engineers and an independent forensic expert team. So that non-government structural engineers can analyze them and compare them to the federal reports, something no one has yet been able to do.


The majority of the NIST investigators were non-government, independent experts.


-- What was causing each of the many explosions reported by scores of witnesses in Manhattan that day. This alone should have had its own in-depth and very serious investigation.


No explosives were ever found. No "explosives" hypothesis was needed to explain the collapses.


-- Kinetic/potential energy conservation/loss data for WTC7 as it free-fall accelerates while supposedly crushing all of its own massive steel columns and beams.... This is something else you'd think NIST would have already thought of and explained in great depth since it makes absolutely no sense, but no, instead they just ignore and down-play the issue and naturally a legion of numbskulls who don't understand this and probably have never had a physics course in their lives assume everything is okay and has been answered already. Welcome to America I guess.


That is your assertion, but why should we accept it? Present some legitimate, peer-reviewed papers convincing us that such analysis is needed and that NIST could not explain the collapse of WTC 7 without it.


-- I too would like to see all the Pentagon tapes released, and the ones from the nearby hotels that were confiscated, with the entire camera assemblies being dismounted as if there were never a camera there to begin with.


First, it is irrelevant and a red herring. NO videos have ever been needed to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon by all of the massive evidence, physical and eyewitness, that converges on the inescapable conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Second, any video confiscated from a private source, like a hotel, remains the property of that source and cannot be released by the government.

Third, we do have this: flight77.info...


I could think of lots more but those are enough to fight for, if we are going to make any effort to get a legitimate answer to them at all.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I see nothing that actually refutes or invalidates the existing evidence and investigations.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Ahhh, I see. So this steel-framed building collapsed neatly on it's footprint for the first time in history (which would've required every structural support column to have failed within milliseconds of each other):



And this one didn't:


Damn, I guess we just can't build 'em like the Chinese.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Go figure you would try to convince me that none of my questions deserve answers.
Who are you again?

I wasn't asking you, you know; I already know you can't answer any of them.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, not at all. Work is a technical term from physics and free-fall acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 so it has a technical definition as well. I'm talking physics, not how many explosives it would or wouldn't take, so it's still completely irrelevant and what I said about broad sides of barns still fits.


WORK = change in Kinetic Energy
WORK = force x distance

KINETIC ENERGY = 1/2 x mass x velocity^2


What are these "massive, massive forces"? The weight of the building? So the dead weight of the building, is the "massive, massive" force that accelerates itself to the ground at free-fall?


POTENTIAL ENERGY = mass x g x height. (g=acceleration of gravity = 10 meters / sec^2.

The potential energy is what it took to raise the twin towers to their height. PE is stored in the building. When the collapse began, the PE of the top section was converted to kinetic energy. The KE was a dynamic load on the first floor and its connections that it hit, far surpassing the static load each floor's floor connections were designed to hold. So each floor that collapsed was converting PE to KE.

Do the math. Show us that the forces are not massive.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Go figure you would try to convince me that none of my questions deserve answers.


"Deserve" is not very meaningful when you are trying to convince someone to get a new investigation that there are valid reasons for your questions.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Thanks for stating the obvious. You have a good handle on Google.

Trace the posts back to what I was originally asking. I asked to see specific data relevant to WTC7.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
"Deserve" is not very meaningful when you are trying to convince someone to get a new investigation that there are valid reasons for your questions.


Fortunately I will never have to convince you, before we get a new investigation. You are not an authority.


And no, not all the experts already agree with you. Hundreds of them from every major field of science and engineering, and other fields to boot. Just give it time.

Maybe in the mean time you can go learn what a logical fallacy is! You have been using them relentlessly for years! Come on, go Google the NIST report and try to find their evidence so you can actually prove something for once.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Maybe should show the DAMAGED SIDE of the building

Here is video of south face of WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Video 1-8 show south face

rest are fires breaking out in north face

Funny thing - cant really see building for all the smole from fires on multiple floots!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join