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: 15
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by prizim
I can't say for sure if any part of 9/11 was an inside job, but this link is absolute proof to the cause of the towers collapse:

www.tms.org...



the title of the paper: "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"

you do know speculation is not proof, right?
eager's speculation is only proof that he can dazzle the uninitiated.

from eager:



.....when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising......

Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse


there was nowhere near 90, 000 L gallons (litre gallons!?).


Towers, Flight 11 and Flight 175 were respectively carrying only approximately 36% and 31% of full fuel capacity. The NIST reports offer varying estimates of the amount of jet fuel that was on the airplanes. One passage states that on impact Flight 11 “likely contained about 10,000 gallons of Jet A fuel (66,700 pounds)” 4. Another passage states that Flight 175 contained “about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb)”5. However, these relatively qualitative descriptions are contradicted by NIST in more detailed quantitative information described below.


above quote taken from this paper

so, obviously, when mr. eager wrote this ANCIENT paper, he presumed there was WAY, WAY more jet fuel than there actually was. the NIST claims what was left of the 10, 000 gallons after the initial fireballs consumed at least 20% was burned off in the first ten minutes, and some escaped by flowing down elevator shafts and stairwells, which makes sense.

so, eager's paper is unscientific from the get go and should be ignored as obsolete in the shadow of the better mousetrap, the NIST report.




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If the fulcrum is the core, then Valhall's thoughts are correct.

If you're not a troll, and admit that the fulcrum was the wall, then she's wrong.



Whatever happened to this?:



Thank you for not answering the question, and ending speculation.

The rest of your post is nothing but a big, obvious dodge.

Pathetic.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


No, it wasn't a dodge at all.


Let me review so we can make this clear.


You said:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If the fulcrum is the core, then Valhall's thoughts are correct.

If you're not a troll, and admit that the fulcrum was the wall, then she's wrong.


Implying that the "fulcrum," rather than adhering to the standard physical definition of a fulcrum as a center point around which something is rotating, is somehow the far wall of the building. To illustrate that you don't know what in the hell you're talking about, I included this earlier quote from you that contradicts yourself now:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yup, only there was no fulcrum. The far side wall acted as a hinge for a few degrees, until it exceeded its capacity to hold up load, then it collapsed down.

The fulcrum is a feature of the Valhal's delusional belief that there was tilting/tension, etc.




Then you denied denying that the tilt caused asymmetrical initial loading conditions for the collapse, saying:


I said the impact damage is assymetrical damage.


But again, your own earlier posts prove you wrong:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
I shouldn't have to explain how that tilt created asymmetrical loading


it woud be hilarious to see you try to show that, cuz you'd then have to treat the upper portion as a rigid block too, that was incapable of being destroyed from the bottom up.



Should I go over it again?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Everyone has an understanding what is described by a teeter totter fulcrum. Same thing for a hinge.


If everyone has an understanding of both "fulcrum" and "hinge", why oh why do want so badly to use "hinge"? Is it because to the "layman" who doesn't know might mistake that as a door "hinge"?

BTW. It's more layman to use the word fulcrum when it specifically has a meaning that people can look up. Not a word that describes something all together different...i.e. bending vs. door hinge.

My belief is that you so desperately want to use the word "hinge" so that the "layman" out there will be confused and think "door hinge".

Just my opinion though.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


No, it wasn't a dodge at all.



Yes, it is.

I've repeatedly asked you a very simple question: where was the fulcrum? The core or the wall?

You haven't answered.

Dodge away some more, and show your true colors.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the title of the paper: "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"

you do know speculation is not proof, right?


That is true...but then again, speculation based on known scientific principles and recorded events is still more credible that speculation based on anti-establishment personal agendas and innuendo.


so, obviously, when mr. eager wrote this ANCIENT paper, he presumed there was WAY, WAY more jet fuel than there actually was. the NIST claims what was left of the 10, 000 gallons after the initial fireballs consumed at least 20% was burned off in the first ten minutes, and some escaped by flowing down elevator shafts and stairwells, which makes sense.


...to which I will ask...again...what difference does the exact amount of fuel the planes were carrying make any tangible difference? His report goes into detail how the fuel ignited the office contents, and he goes into detail how the fires were hot enough to deteriorate the structural integrity of the steel. THAT is the meat and potatoes of his report, and it's obvious from your deflection over the exact amount of fuel that you are unable to contest it. It would be one thing if your point was that the planes weren't carrying enough fuel to start this chain reaction, but you're not even contesting *that*.

Bickering over exactly how much fuel it was that started the chain reaction of events simply for argument's sake is more of a sign of desperation, more than it is anything else. You might as well be arguing over the exact number of door knobs the buildings had.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
His report goes into detail how the fuel ignited the office contents, and he goes into detail how the fires were hot enough to deteriorate the structural integrity of the steel. THAT is the meat and potatoes of his report, and it's obvious from your deflection over the exact amount of fuel that you are unable to contest it. It would be one thing if your point was that the planes weren't carrying enough fuel to start this chain reaction, but you're not even contesting *that*.


One thing I'll contest from Eager.

He assumes that this fuel load was enough to heat the steel to loose it's integrity.

That is a pretty big assumption considering that NIST didn't find anything above 250C on most of the steel and only 2 pieces above 250C.

Hence why he makes the statesments below:


This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.


What was that about the meat of his report not depending on the fuel load of 90,000 L again?

He states right there that because of this fuel rich fire, the temperature was greater than a normal office fire.

So, yes, his whole premise does indeed rely on this amount of fuel to be present since his whole premise relies on the amount of heat being given off from a fuel-rich fire.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


joey says:

I know exactly where the fulcrum was. It was on the far side ext wall.


there was no fulcrum. a fulcrum is a the point around which a LEVER rotates. this implies that something is pushing down on one side of a continuous horizontal (initially) "plank", and that there is a stationary, unmovable point which allows for leverage at the other end of the "plank".

there was no plank, and no lever.

however, i will substitute pivot point for fulcrum, and hopefully we can all do the same.

the pivot point would not be a distinct physical feature, like a particular column location, but rather a "floating point" centre of rotation which would shift as the "cap" encountered varying degrees of resistance from the undamaged portions it impacted.

this teeter totter is not attached at the center, and can roll off to one side. it is like a board over a can, homemade teeter totter for one person (one foot on either side of the fulcrum). the can rolls back and forth underneath, the pivot point moves.


what's your point? do you want it to be the core or the perimeter?
it is at the point around which rotation occurs, and so is clearly not at the edge, but more towards the centre of rotation, not NECESSARILY the core acting as a solid point around which rotation occurs. why?
because, once something is disconnected, the pivot point is the centre of gravity, plus or minus any angular momentum. you don't need something a physical feature to act as a fulcrum once rotation is initiated.

simply having one side fail faster than the other will cause the falling piece to rotate.

it's not a teeter totter, or a door hinge. it is a freefloating body in rotation, as one edge goes inside the footprint, while the other kicks over outside the footprint . any leverage type action would LIFT one side of the building, while the other side descended.

what is the "core" of disagreement, here? why are we talking about the fulcrum, tension/compression issue?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


eager can't even amend his page to correct his "L gallons", yet you continue to defend his report.
eager's report is trash, period. you went from "irrefutable" to "close enough".
it's been refuted. deal with it. it's built on false assumptions, and i doubt eager himself agrees with it, anymore.
not to mention, it is but a drop of water off any good conspiracy duck's back. the evidence for inside job is OVERWHELMING, from science to politics to war mongering. it was a modern day reichstag fire, period. argue with someone else about you're bellybutton gazing endless staircase of denial and misdirection reality.

and, bye, good ole dave. welcome to the "not worth my time" ignore list. you're like the third or fourth person to grace it's hallowed halls in my entire 6 year membership.
congrats.

i won't be reading your response.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

One thing I'll contest from Eager.

He assumes that this fuel load was enough to heat the steel to loose it's integrity.

That is a pretty big assumption considering that NIST didn't find anything above 250C on most of the steel and only 2 pieces above 250C.


Would you mind terribly posting where you got that from? From the way I'm reading the NIST reports, they show a high temperatire of approx 1,000C on floor 94 of WTC 1, fifteen minutes after the impact (NSTAR 1, fig 6-36, page 127), which directly confirms Eagar's assessment that high temperatures instigated the thermal expansion of the steel.


So, yes, his whole premise does indeed rely on this amount of fuel to be present since his whole premise relies on the amount of heat being given off from a fuel-rich fire.


Just to settle this issue once and for all, I looked up just how much the planes (specifically, flight AA11) was carrying: approx 33,000 L (8600+ gallons), of which around 3/4 was spilled inside the building.

Fuel being carried by the flights of 9/11

It's certainly not 90,000 L I admit but it's still more than enough to initiate the chain reaction that Eagar documents. If it was only carrying ten gallons you would certainly have had a point, but arguing over whether it had 33,000 L, or 90,000L, is largely insignificant, since either were enough to have had the exact same effect.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
eager can't even amend his page to correct his "L gallons", yet you continue to defend his report.


That typo would nto have come from Eagar. That typo would have come from whoever the editor was that set the article for publication.


it's been refuted. deal with it. it's built on false assumptions, and i doubt eager himself agrees with it, anymore.
not to mention, it is but a drop of water off any good conspiracy duck's back. the evidence for inside job is OVERWHELMING, from science to politics to war mongering.


There is no tangible evidence for INSIDE JOB whatsoever. NONE. All you have is innuendo, quotes deliberately taken out of context, and five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" games, coming almost entirely from those damned fool conspiracy web sites. The only reason anyone would ever take such blatant nonsense seriously is if they *wanted* it to be true.


and, bye, good ole dave. welcome to the "not worth my time" ignore list. you're like the third or fourth person to grace it's hallowed halls in my entire 6 year membership.
congrats.

i won't be reading your response.


Believe me when I say, I won't miss you. All you've done is single handedly prove the saying "it's fallacy, not the truth, that need fear critique" is correct. I can live with that.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Would you mind terribly posting where you got that from? From the way I'm reading the NIST reports, they show a high temperatire of approx 1,000C on floor 94 of WTC 1, fifteen minutes after the impact (NSTAR 1, fig 6-36, page 127), which directly confirms Eagar's assessment that high temperatures instigated the thermal expansion of the steel.


The actual physical data and not their assumptions.


BTW, there's a huge difference between the temperature of the steel and the temperature of the fire. I'm talking steel temperatures not fire temperatures.



It's certainly not 90,000 L I admit but it's still more than enough to initiate the chain reaction that Eagar documents. If it was only carrying ten gallons you would certainly have had a point, but arguing over whether it had 33,000 L, or 90,000L, is largely insignificant, since either were enough to have had the exact same effect.


Please point out your calculations that show 33,000 L was enough to do the exact same effect as 90,000 L.

But, you missed the point entirely.

Eager states that since the smoke from the fires was black, it had to be fuel rich. Nist states that the fuel burned off rather quickly.

How can Eager have his fuel rich fire if the fuel burned off quickly?

Also, notice that this fuel rich fire is needed for Eager's theory.

So which is it? Was the fire fuel rich, or was it an office fire started by jet fuel that burned off quickly? Because if it's the latter, Eager can not have his fuel rich fire.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I've repeatedly asked you a very simple question: where was the fulcrum? The core or the wall?

You haven't answered.


I have answered, but you ignore my answer because it's safer for you to post this question over and over than venture out or admit you've contradicted yourself outright twice on this very subject.



Again:



You said:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If the fulcrum is the core, then Valhall's thoughts are correct.

If you're not a troll, and admit that the fulcrum was the wall, then she's wrong.


Yet you earlier posted:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yup, only there was no fulcrum. The far side wall acted as a hinge for a few degrees, until it exceeded its capacity to hold up load, then it collapsed down.

The fulcrum is a feature of the Valhal's delusional belief that there was tilting/tension, etc.



You have demonstrated that you are totally ignorant of what you're talking about. Saying there is no fulcrum when there is a tilting motion is, literally, completely ignorant. I don't think you've actually learned physics since 2 pages ago, either.


You are trolling. You change your arguments on a whim and act like nothing happened because you don't know what in the hell you're talking about to begin with.

Go take a physics course and come back and ask me the same question.


Or better yet, let us see the overwhelming evidence that the fulcrum was the far wall of the building.



Are you still denying that the tilt would create asymmetric loading conditions, too? Is tilting still a symmetrical event in your brilliant eyes? Or is your official word now that you were just talking about impact damages, even though I've shown that to be a lie, too?


[edit on 24-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
there was no fulcrum. a fulcrum is a the point around which a LEVER rotates. this implies that something is pushing down on one side of a continuous horizontal (initially) "plank", and that there is a stationary, unmovable point which allows for leverage at the other end of the "plank".


The horizontal component of WTC2's leaning was increasing over time. And gravity was the force that would have been "pushing" down on the unsupported horizontal component (ie the whole horizontal component) of the tilt.


the pivot point would not be a distinct physical feature, like a particular column location, but rather a "floating point" centre of rotation which would shift as the "cap" encountered varying degrees of resistance from the undamaged portions it impacted.


Right. Really every single member or set of members that were bending locally would have had their own fulcrum, from the core columns to each of the four corner columns, along whatever plane the bending is occurring on. But the most "resistance" to the bending should have been coming from the core structure if it was the strongest part of the structure.



what is the "core" of disagreement, here? why are we talking about the fulcrum, tension/compression issue?



"Joey" says nothing was in tension during the tilt.


Valhall has explained to him before at length that during the lean, the face of the building leaning forward is in compression while the far side of the building is in tension.


"Joey" also contends that the tilt represents a symmetrical loading condition for "pancake theory" to start with.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by billybob
the title of the paper: "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"

you do know speculation is not proof, right?


That is true...but then again, speculation based on known scientific principles and recorded events is still more credible that speculation based on anti-establishment personal agendas and innuendo.


It's your personal opinion that we're all here to carry out "anti-establishment personal agendas and innuendo."

If your theory is that trying to remove crooks from office is anti-establishment, so be it. But trying to keep them there makes you a traitor to the country, and guilty of treason. Basically an accessory to their own cover-up efforts. That is, if you really think we should just keep crooks in office, and extremely corrupt political arms in power. Is that what you're saying?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's your personal opinion that we're all here to carry out "anti-establishment personal agendas and innuendo."


No, actually, the only way the conspiracy theorists would ever give these conspiracies any credibility is if they had a hard core streak of anti-establishment paranoia to begin with. This is becuase paranoia is the main engine behind all this runaway circular logic being churned out. Let's face it, crackpot stories like, "lasers from outer space" and "hologram airplanes" aren't exactly based on any objective review of the facts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- if the conspiracy theorists would ever hold their own claims of conspiracy up to the same high level of critical analysis that they do the Commission report's explanation, they would be conspiracy theorists, for very long.


If your theory is that trying to remove crooks from office is anti-establishment, so be it. But trying to keep them there makes you a traitor to the country, and guilty of treason. Basically an accessory to their own cover-up efforts. That is, if you really think we should just keep crooks in office, and extremely corrupt political arms in power. Is that what you're saying?


STRAW MAN: a fallacy in which a person's actual position is ignored and is substituted with an distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. Sound familiar...?

In case you haven't noticed...and it's apparentl that you haven't...if you're openly admitting your goal is to "remove crooks from office" then you are likewise admitting your objective is NOT to find out the truth behind the 9/11 attack. Your goal is to pin the 9/11 attack onto the "crooks in office" by any means necessary in order to "get rid of the crooks", regardless of who actually committed it. Thus, your claims of conspiracy are of limited credibility becuase we know full well you're not piecing the facts together to create an explanation. You're trying to force the facts to conform with the explanation you already have.

FYI Bush is no longer president; Obama is. Is Obama the next crook you want removed?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, actually, the only way the conspiracy theorists would ever give these conspiracies any credibility is if they had a hard core streak of anti-establishment paranoia to begin with.


I don't understand why it's impossible for you to even consider that your leaders could have cooperated in these attacks. It wasn't paranoia that changed my mind, because I was sold that it was Arabs on the day of 9/11, and continued to think that for 2 or 3 years.



STRAW MAN: a fallacy in which a person's actual position is ignored and is substituted with an distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. Sound familiar...?


Of course it sounds familiar, I see it here every day. But you are STILL insinuating that it isn't even POSSIBLE for our leaders to have been involved with this, which is BULLOCKS. There is no reason at all for you to plug your ears and not even THINK that these guys may have known more than they put on, or even had a helping hand in it, considering it helped THEIR agendas of wanting war in the Middle East.



FYI Bush is no longer president; Obama is. Is Obama the next crook you want removed?


If you want my honest opinion, they both deserve to be in a prison, and so do most other politicians we've seen so much of in the past few years. But that is also irrelevant to the topic. If you think I play into the right-vs.-left bs, you're mistaken. I don't think you have ever come across a level-headed person in your life. You can't seem to comprehend that your leaders could ever do such a thing, and you can't think outside of this being some kind of partisan thing. They have you like a well-trained dog.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So, bsbray11, Obama and cabinet are "in on it also"???
And:
Clinton and cabinet had to be "in on it also right???

Seriously.....?




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


You sure are good at reading things that aren't there. But so much trouble reading the words that ARE there.


Find where I said Obama had anything to do with 9/11. Go ahead, show me. Unless you think the only people that go to prison are the ones who had something to do with 9/11.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


i think they're in on it. there is a global conspiracy, and "they", those in power, are ALL in on it. they HAVE to be. not planning and execution, but complicity and cooperation.
obama is bushes cousin, for narf's sake. the bushes have been in the secret service and corridors of power for a hundred years. you think there is no network of "old boys" that run things?
well, happy matrix dwelling, then. i'm off to new jerusalem to fight with the last dregs of humanity against the machines that keep you enslaved in an illusory reality.




top topics



 
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join