It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
My comment: That's about 35,000 liters for 175 and about 37,000 liters for 11. That's a far cry from "a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors."


Don't forget to subtract the amount of fuel burned off in the fire ball that we all watched.

Even if only 20% was lost, that's 7,000 L lost.

Also, don't forget to subtract the fuel that went down the elevators and created the explosions down in the basement and lobby. Say another 10%?

That's another 3,500 L.

My very conservative estimates have now taken the fuel load to ~25,000 L.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Nutter]




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
This is my first post here. I have been watching the community for many months, now. I will now enter the debate. I haven’t read through the entire thread but I will do so in time. Please forgive me and let us begin.

It is beyond evident that the 9/11 attacks are a monumental event for US Foreign Policy, the world and history at large. This was a game-changing event that has sent reverberations through our lives and no doubt, the lives of our children and the children of generations to come. Think on this.

I see the 9/11 operation as a logic-problem that can easily be solved.

If we take the hypothesis that Al Qaeda planned, funded and executed the operation then on the outset, we have to admit they are a very sophisticated enemy. Now the question could be asked, are they really that sophisticated? Let’s look at their other operations in comparison: the original World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole bombing and the bombing of the US embassies in Africa. How sophisticated were those in comparison to the 9/11 operation? If this organization is so sophisticated, why haven’t they carried out more attacks? If they were sophisticated enough to surprise us once, they surely could of carried-out many more operations since the original water-shed event. (The whole pre-9/11 mindset and post-9/11 mindset is non-existent in the military and intelligence communities. You are always at war!) It has been said, “a commander can be forgiven for losing a battle but never for being surprised.” The government claims it was surprised on 9/11 but there is much evidence that this is blatantly false. If they were surprised, for that they can never be forgiven, for their actions preceding, God have mercy on them in the next life; for I feel eternal suffering would be too good for those people.

The evidence of an “inside job” is evident in the attacks themselves. The operation was too sophisticated to be carried-out without either state-sponsorship or state-complicity; either our own government or governments abroad. Never forget, spy-craft and treachery is still a well-performed art in our government and governments abroad. It is a two-way street of watchers, reporters and operatives.

It is my assumption, that the attacks were hired-out to Al Qaeda by The Secret Government which includes members from many First World nations. They no doubt had operational assistance from the Mossad and CIA, maybe Pakistani ISI and Saudi GID. The operation reeks of Ghost Land where operations that have no name, only code names; and people you never will see again in your lifetime. (Note the numerology of 9/11 and the code-word: two branches, a slash and a lollipop.) I say, hired-out, because as we know Al Qaeda was once a CIA asset (and perhaps creation). Whether they remain one is debatable as they have been made the boogey-man for US Foreign Policy…so you could say they are in that they are still useful to The Secret Government’s agenda.

To second, the evidence of an “inside job” is evident in the actions of The Secret Government and The Bush Administration after the attacks.

1. Launching of the plan to dominate the Middle East. IE. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soon Iran if they don’t buckle-under.
2. Failure of complete disclosure and investigation into the attacks. The 9/11 commission was underfunded, deceived and lacked any real authority. Why? Why is the government held to a different standard than the average citizen? Thinking about this will lead you to obvious conclusions.

Thirdly, what is most obvious evidence is the collapse of the towers. Why can’t the government answer what brought down the towers? As it is scientifically provable, those jets could not have knocked-down the towers where they would collapse and disintegrate at near free-fall speed and create a literal furnace in the rubble for the following weeks after the collapses. There is simply not enough energy to do this by the plane-strike(s), jet-fuel and fires.

I will leave it here.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Ainu Basque]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Your opinion of an open journal changes nothing in the science of Jone's paper.

Thanks for participating.



Again, you're welcome.

And again, you didn't read my statement.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Btw, I take it, Joey, that you were satisfied with what you saw in that video of the angular momentum of the upper block of WTC2's floors diminishing?


SInce you didn't do a decent analysis that I would consider over Greening's, I didn't bother with replying.


If not the frame extraction is always still an option but hopefully next time someone mentions it you won't be zealously trying to deny the fact that it's angular momentum was compromised when the vertical "collapse" began and all that mass didn't just lean over and break off.


Zealous? LOL....

It's a minor point. Let's recap:

1- some other poster asks why it didn't collapse assymetrically.... You answered him for me by arguing about the top's rotation. Thx for denying that disinfo for me.


2- when confronted about the roughly symmetrical collapse in the ares below, you implicitly agreed that it's normal too, by instead of giving a counter theory, started "just asking questions" about why didn't NIST model it. Thx again.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ainu Basque
It is beyond evident that the 9/11 attacks are a monumental event for US Foreign Policy, the world and history at large. This was a game-changing event that has sent reverberations through our lives and no doubt, the lives of our children and the children of generations to come. Think on this.


Spot on.

Unfortunately, the CT minded take their hatred for Bush/NWO/Bilderberg/insert whatevergroupcurrentlyinvogue and come to the conclusion FIRST that 9/11 was an inside job... and then cherry pick evidence and witness statements while ignoring the complete body of evidence that debunks their views.

Just WHY 9/11 CTerz don't take the rather obvious alternate path and say that Bush/NWO/Bilderberg/insertwhatevergroupinvogue took advantage of the situation to do their evil, is the mystery.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by NIcon
My comment: That's about 35,000 liters for 175 and about 37,000 liters for 11. That's a far cry from "a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors."


Don't forget to subtract the amount of fuel burned off in the fire ball that we all watched.

Even if only 20% was lost, that's 7,000 L lost.

Also, don't forget to subtract the fuel that went down the elevators and created the explosions down in the basement and lobby. Say another 10%?

That's another 3,500 L.

My very conservative estimates have now taken the fuel load to ~25,000 L.


Very well...
So...HOW MUCH IS THE MINIMUM FUEL to be dispersed, thrown into the building and lit up, creating numerous fires that go unfought, to make sense in the collapse of each building???

We are still talking thousands of Liters of jet fuel!!!
And of course all the other stuff that caught fire in the towers!!!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It's a minor point. Let's recap:

1- some other poster asks why it didn't collapse assymetrically.... You answered him for me by arguing about the top's rotation. Thx for denying that disinfo for me.


The upper block was just tilting. Things were definitely failing in the building, yes, as if its internal support had been completely compromised. Given that condition (which is odd in itself), that tilting behavior would be expected. But then I personally wouldn't expect what happens next, to have happened, at least in a system of just things falling around and breaking apart. Because entire floors started blowing out in all directions equally, at the same time, all the way down, in regular intervals of time, for as long as we could see it before it was obscured by the opaque cloud of pulverized building falling down from above it! This is the part of the collapse NIST didn't analyze. I would feel a lot better if someone would.


2- when confronted about the roughly symmetrical collapse in the ares below, you implicitly agreed that it's normal too, by instead of giving a counter theory, started "just asking questions" about why didn't NIST model it. Thx again.


It would be expected because the truss connections were independent in holding the columns in place throughout each floor, and had very different loads applied to them on different sides of the building, giving rise to asymmetrical conditions for such a "progressive collapse" to start with.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


The faults in Jones' paper have been pointed out many times. Bad science published in a vanity journal is bad science. Vanity journals are not peer reviewed in the sense that real primary journals are peer reviewed.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I'm still waiting to see the evidence that proves it was an 'outside' job . Is there proof ?, I don't know of any that has been submitted to any kind of international judical review . All just hearsay isn't it ? . The biggest factor against the 'outside' job theory is that it is perpetrated by the US government . Not exactly an oracle of truth , veracity and integrity , is it ?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Very well...
So...HOW MUCH IS THE MINIMUM FUEL to be dispersed, thrown into the building and lit up, creating numerous fires that go unfought, to make sense in the collapse of each building???

We are still talking thousands of Liters of jet fuel!!!
And of course all the other stuff that caught fire in the towers!!!


Obviously you missed the original point of refuting Thomas Eager? Or are we on to another subject now?

And yes, the fuel load would matter. fuel vs. time vs. heat distrubuted vs. amount of deflection vs. etc. etc.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
So...HOW MUCH IS THE MINIMUM FUEL to be dispersed, thrown into the building and lit up, creating numerous fires that go unfought, to make sense in the collapse of each building???


Actually, NIST said the jet fuel burned up after about 15 minutes in each building and the fire were predominantly office fires, burning off of what was in the offices and cubicles, after that. Read their report.

Unless you're agreeing with us that it's a crap report and another needs to be done.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


It would be expected because the truss connections were independent in holding the columns in place throughout each floor, and had very different loads applied to them on different sides of the building, giving rise to asymmetrical conditions for such a "progressive collapse" to start with.


Explain a little more what you're saying here.

How were the loads on the truss "very different" on different sides of the building.

What effect would that have?

Wouldn't the N and S be similar, just like the E and W side connections?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Joey Canoli]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
It comes down to this.

If Eager is correct, then NIST is incorrect. Pick your poney. Eager or NIST. You can't have both as far as their collapse mechanisms are concerned. They contradict each other in the most important way....the collapse initiation.



That is not entirely true. Both reports agree that the fuel was burned off relatively quickly, both reports agree that the fuel ignites the office contents and created large scale fires , both reports agree that the fires reached temperatures hot enough to weaken the structural integrity of the steel and cause irregular thermal expansion, and both reports agree that this weakening is what caused the initial structural failure and started the chain reaction of collapse we all saw. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their main area of disagreement is what, exactly, it was that failed (Eagar believes it was the horisontal brace connection to the perimeter girders, and NIST believes it was the buckling of the floors).

I subscribed to Eagar becuase it was likewise reported by NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the aircraft impact zones that the beams were glowing red from the fires and appeared as if they were about to collapse, and 1/2 hour, they did, which to me supports his scenario. The floors may indeed have buckled, as NIST says, but it seems to me the worst that Eagar can be criticized for seems to be that his analysis didn't go far enough- it was the buckling of the floors that led to the failure of the joints, rather than the other way around. Either way, there were still enough real world and easily documented factors occurring that offer a perfectly valid non-conspiracy explanation for the collapse as it is, without having to resort to introducing controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or other fantasia.

Am I incorrect in anything I said, here?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Am I incorrect in anything I said, here?


You don't find it contradictory that Eager thinks the supports failed while NIST thinks that the supports were able to pull the exterior columns in?

That's two totally different collapse initiations.

BTW, NIST had/has access to the structural documentation, Eager didn't/doesn't. So, why would you believe Eager over NIST?

Having the structural documents allows one to have a more presise evaluation by being able to know exactly what strength the supports would have without guesswork.

Again, I'll say.....

If Eager is correct, the supports would fail and cause a pancaking collapse.

If NIST is correct, the supports held and even had enough strength to pull the exterior columns inward.

Like I said before....they contradict each other.

And, since you take Eager over NIST, then you must assume that NIST didn't get everything correct. If NIST didn't get the collapse initiation correct, then you should be asking for a new investigation the same as we are since you doubt NIST.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Explain a little more what you're saying here.

How were the loads on the truss "very different" on different sides of the building.


Because of the tilt we were just talking about this.

Valhall has even posted several diagrams -- maybe even to you, now that I mention it -- illustrating the asymmetrical loading conditions that tilt created.

I shouldn't have to explain how that tilt created asymmetrical loading if you are such a genius that you've heard and know it all already, should I? You must already know. I do. Ok, here's a hint: compression vs. tension. Different sides of the building.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ainu Basque

The evidence of an “inside job” is evident in the attacks themselves. The operation was too sophisticated to be carried-out without either state-sponsorship or state-complicity; either our own government or governments abroad. Never forget, spy-craft and treachery is still a well-performed art in our government and governments abroad. It is a two-way street of watchers, reporters and operatives.


I see nothign particularly sophisticated in the idea that an aircraft could be intentionally flown into a target as a suicide attack, nor do I see anything particularly sophisticated in the idea that someone with a lot of money can purchase training to learn the basic operation procedures of a large passenger jet. The idea that fanatical religious zealots might get it in their heads that goign out and killing people will please god, is not only unsophisticated, it's been around for 5,000 years. The only thing that's sophisticated here is that someone was able to put all these ideas together, but seeing the ones who came up with the idea and pulled it off were for the most part college educated, intelligent people with a lot of money, it's not really THAT sophisticated.

Am I the only one here who remembers how the entire Muslim world went bananas simply becuase a newspaper in Denmark printed cartoons about Mohammed? Thinking out their actions rationally all the way through isn't exactly their forte.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The problem of whether the columns went inward or outward presents two totally contradictory collapse initiation mechanisms. I hope you realize that.

One is simple thermal expansion (which is typical and measured in inches or centimeters), while the other (which NIST claimed) is loss of integrity from even more extreme heating (which NIST was unable to verify, only postulate from their worst-case computer simulations) that causes the trusses to sag in the middle. And then this sagging is supposed to somehow exert a significant force pulling the outer columns inward.

My question for those who side with NIST over Eager is, what feature of the sagging trusses SPECIFICALLY gives rise to the force exerted on the perimeter? Is it the dead weight of the hanging truss? Or is the sagging itself from integrity loss supposed to have some kind of "rubber band"-type contraction to it? Because you KNOW that truss is not going to weigh more just because it's hot and sagging, so where is that extra force coming from? And even better yet why wouldn't the SEATS fail before columns were buckled? Have you guys seen how flimsy the connections to the perimeter were, compared even to the spandrel plates holding all the perimeter columns together in a mesh?


All in all, people read these theories but they don't really think about them imo. Which is the problem. They just assume experts must inherently be smarter than everyone else, when really they are no different than anyone else and are simply trying to uphold a status quo that was already presented to them, and trying to force that to work in whatever way they could. This was the best they could come up with. And look at all these extremely relevant questions to their theory that no one can answer. They didn't even try to reproduce this mechanism in a lab experimentally so there is absolutely no valid data to back it up and measure various forces.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by impressme
My question:

What creditable and undisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed?

I have yet to see any skeptics answer this question.




That's becuase despite your claim that you keep asking that question, I've never seen you ask it even once. Otherwise, I would have posted for you the report from MIT materials engineering professor Thomas Eagar, which I myself subscribe to. He goes into great detail and with easily verifiable and easy to understand details that backs his statements up.

MIT materials engineer's report on the WTC collapse

I consider this report to be undisputable becuase I've posted links to this report many times, and despite all the self styled experts on everything here, not one of you has ever been able to refute it. To a man, they always run away from it the same way vampires run from sunlight. Perhaps you can be the first.



The site you posted just backs up our story that steel doesn't melt at the temperatures in which the buildings burned. What your report states is that the buildings were designed incorrectly. The official story does not state anything about the buildings being built incorrectly, but it states that the buildings failed due to fire. Therefore; the site you posted just cancels out your own beliefs.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


One thing:

I am definately not arguing in NIST's favor. Just pointing out to Dave that there are flaws in Eager's theory when he stated that there were none, "irrefutable" is I think what he said.

As far as NIST, I'm right there with you bsbray11.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
You don't find it contradictory that Eager thinks the supports failed while NIST thinks that the supports were able to pull the exterior columns in?

That's two totally different collapse initiations.


...but they were both caused by the exact same chain of events- the aircraft impacts spilling burning fuel that set the office contents on fire, heating the support infrastructure to structural failure. Most importantly, they both conclude there were enough real world, easy to document events that explain how the structure fell *without* needing to resort to bringing in weird things like controlled demolitions, hologram airplanes, or whatever. If there are differences in opinion over exactly what component it was that failed first, I can live with that.


BTW, NIST had/has access to the structural documentation, Eager didn't/doesn't. So, why would you believe Eager over NIST?


As I said, NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact areas of the building reported seeing the supports columns were glowing red from the fires and appeared as if they were about to collapse. These would have been the perimeter columns, in the area where Eagar claims the initial structural failure was.


Again, I'll say.....

If Eager is correct, the supports would fail and cause a pancaking collapse.


...which brings me to my next question- just what are you using as a definition of a "pancake collapse"? TO me, it's when floor A falls, hitting floor B below it with enough force to cause its supports to fail, making the wreckage of both A and B fall together and hit floor C, causing ITS support to fail, and so on, in a chain reaction. This is literally what every person in the world saw happen when the towers collapsed, so by definition the towers did fall in a pancake collapse.

Why would this *not* be a pancake collapse?



And, since you take Eager over NIST, then you must assume that NIST didn't get everything correct. If NIST didn't get the collapse initiation correct, then you should be asking for a new investigation the same as we are since you doubt NIST.


You misunderstand me. I am not against further investigations. Have all the investigations you'd like. We pretty much know how the Titanic sank, but the continuing investigations of the wreck are still coming up with fastinating tidbits. My beef is with these phonies runnign those damned fool conspiracy web sites getting people all paranoid over shadows, and who will refuse to believe ANY investigation if it refutes what they want to believe.

If, for example, some future investigation *did* show there were controlled demolitions, who here thinks the "lasers from outer space" and "hologram planes" conspiracy people are ever going to accept it? Raise your hands.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join