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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The top of WTC2 that was tilting, though, did not continue rotating outwards, as I said, it hesitated and then just sank straight down into the enormous dust/debris cloud that was WTC2 "collapsing."


Huh?

It continued rotating as it fell. It's easily seen on videos.

To deny this is an example of your denialism about the facts of 9/11.




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
What evidence would you accept as proof that the attacks of 9/11 were committed by individuals within the U.S. states government?


That you would ask such a question only indicates that you don't understand the nature of evidence or the scientific method. NO one goes around trying to prove a conclusion that one wants, except, of course, 9/11 "Truthers," moon-landing deniers, Creationists, and Holocaust Deniers.

You may as well ask, "What evidence would you accept that gravity is not true?"

It just shows why 9/11 "Truthers" haven't moved one inch toward their "goal" in 8 whole years of hand-flapping.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
The top of WTC2 that was tilting, though, did not continue rotating outwards, as I said, it hesitated and then just sank straight down into the enormous dust/debris cloud that was WTC2 "collapsing."


Huh?

It continued rotating as it fell. It's easily seen on videos.

To deny this is an example of your denialism about the facts of 9/11.


It is also denying that the vertical component of the collapse quickly overtook the horizontal component of the motion of the top of WTC 2. But, as we've seen in "Truthers" denialism, they'll do anything to try to "prove" their desired conclusions. "Truthers" have spent 8 years trying without success and they're still puzzled why.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
"Truthers" have spent 8 years trying without success and they're still puzzled why.



Yeah.

That's why I pointed out what would make me re-examine my views on the NIST report.

But they just don't live in reality. They run around internet boards, re-inforcing their denialism and their delusions, getting more and more disconnected from reality, and wonder why the only attention they ever get is from the History Channel's debunking shows.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jthomas
"Truthers" have spent 8 years trying without success and they're still puzzled why.



Yeah.

That's why I pointed out what would make me re-examine my views on the NIST report.

But they just don't live in reality. They run around internet boards, re-inforcing their denialism and their delusions, getting more and more disconnected from reality, and wonder why the only attention they ever get is from the History Channel's debunking shows.


This pretty much covers it:

The Final Word on the Crackpot Conspiracist Mindset



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
The top of WTC2 that was tilting, though, did not continue rotating outwards, as I said, it hesitated and then just sank straight down into the enormous dust/debris cloud that was WTC2 "collapsing."


Huh?

It continued rotating as it fell. It's easily seen on videos.

To deny this is an example of your denialism about the facts of 9/11.


So where did it land?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Yet you keep ignoring me when I say that he ignores the core structure that held 60% of the load. It has now been refuted.


I sincerely doubt that, becuase you don't specify what the "load" supposedly is that it held 60% of. His analysis shows that it wasn't the failure of the core structure that caused the collapse, it was the failure of the horizontal braces beneath the floors, which held 100% of the load of the floors becuase there were no vertical support columns holding the horizontal braces up anywhere between the interior core and the outside wall. Once one brace failed, it caused the floor to fall, hitting the floor below it with a force too strong to resist, and a chain reaction of cascading failure occurred.

I do thank you for at least trying to address this, but your criticisms completely miss the mark. As strong and well built as a football linebacker is, all it takes is one tiny bone called the kneecap to break to cause the whole guy, armor and all, to fall down. Who the flip cares how strong his helmet was.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Just for the record, I asked what are "L gallons", as written by your genius engineer. Nice try at attempting to put words in my mouth and thank you very much for the degrading pat on the back by observing that I am not "stupid".


No, for the record, you asked whether this "was liters or gallons becuase it cannot be both". Would you like me to post your own words back to you?


So according to your statement, conserving fuel and saving money was not a big factor for airlines back in 2001? Gee, I didn't know airline companies were in the business of throwing away money and fuel back in 2001? Please tell me another fairy tale mommy.


Why exactly is it a fairy tale for aircraft fuel tanks to ever be filled to capacity? The plane doesn't just fly to its destination and get parked in a hanger for the rest of the week. Another flight number is immediately assigned to it and gets a new bunch of passengers leaving that airport and going somewhere else. The need for refuelling would necessarily depend on what else the plane was going to be used for, the rest of the day.

If you happen to have a source that lists the exact amount of fuel the aircraft was carrying at the time of impact, then by all means, share it with me. Otherwise, your making claims of impropriety when there are blatantly obvious gaps in familiarity of the subject gives your claims little credibility.


This statement is coming from an individual who just called me anal retentive, disingenuous and childish. According to your own words, what do these insults say about your credibility?


It says that I am trying to concentrate on the specific facts being presented, rather than attempting to build up my ego at the expense of others. Calling Thomas Eagar a moron simply becuase you do not agree with him IS being childish, no matter how you else you care to see it. The guy is a professor of engineering of MIT, so despite whatever faults you imagine him to have, being a moron certainly ain't one of them. I myself don't agree with Dr. Judy Wood and her "lasers from outer space" claim, but I know full well she's still not a moron.



By the way, any particular reason why you ignored and failed to respond to my statement about a portion of the fuel burning outside of the building during the massive fire ball eruption and not making it into the building.


Yes, becuase it didn't make any difference whatsoever. It is undeniable that fuel did in fact get dumped into the WTC towers and it's undeniable that entire floors' worth of furniture, appliance, etc were set on fire all at once as a result. This process is the backbone of his report, so arguing over the exact amount of fuel that dissipated outside the building is a red herring argument.

By the way, any particular reason why YOU ignored the material concerning how uneven heating would cause irregular thermal expansion that led to structural failure, or any of the real points of his report? I'm trying to find out why Thomas Eagar's report is supposedly incorrect, not argue over fringe nonsense like whether airplane fuel tanks are measured in liters or gallons.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Irregular strectching and contraction of steel causes symmetrical collapse? How so?


It's called, "thermal expansion", when heat causes a material to change volume. The fires were irregular, meaning that one side of the steel would be exposed to the fires while another side was not, so the differences in temperatures and thermal expansion caused the steel to warp and buckle, which in turn caused structural failure.

I have seen no explanation at all why the towers shouldn't have done anythign but fall straight down. That's what gravity makes things do, after all.


But, if you or especially I have a report out there with obvious typos, you know damn well that you would be all over it. Don't lie to us Dave.


No, actually, I wouldn't be all over it. I know full well that the tyos would be coming from the editors who published the thing, not the original authors who wrote it. More than once I've written letters to our local newspapers that were published, and the editors changed my words around to make it sound ghastly.



So, who do you believe? Eager or NIST?


You overlook the fact that there is NO end-all explanation as to why the towers collapsed becuase there are too many factors we will never know I.E. the extent of the damege from the plane impact, the dispersion of the fires, etc) so all that everyone can do is make an informed estimate. FEMA made theirs, NIST made theirs, and MIT made theirs. You should know that Purdue university made one as well (I.E. the fluids on the aircraft made it behave like a lead bullet, rather than an empty beer can).


You guys complain that the TM doesn't have a unified theroy, but find it irrefutable when the OS has multiple collapse theories?


My beef isn't that you have alternative theories. My beef is that your theories are designed to support an ulterior political agenda, rather than from a critical review of the facts. It's one thing to dislike Bush, but jeez, accusing him of being behind some grand international conspiracy is giving him way, way, WAY too much credit. The guy doesn't even have the intelligence to pick his own nose.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


My beef isn't that you have alternative theories. My beef is that your theories are designed to support an ulterior political agenda, rather than from a critical review of the facts. It's one thing to dislike Bush, but jeez, accusing him of being behind some grand international conspiracy is giving him way, way, WAY too much credit. The guy doesn't even have the intelligence to pick his own nose.



So what if my theories where just part of my quest in seeking out the Truth ?

Bush, was not in command of NORAD. Dick was. As far as the Bush Admin goes, What was the joke at the beginning of his term ? He doesn't need to be smart just surround himself with a bunch of smart people ? Bush was the politician Dick never could be.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


My beef isn't that you have alternative theories. My beef is that your theories are designed to support an ulterior political agenda, rather than from a critical review of the facts. It's one thing to dislike Bush, but jeez, accusing him of being behind some grand international conspiracy is giving him way, way, WAY too much credit. The guy doesn't even have the intelligence to pick his own nose.



So what if my theories where just part of my quest in seeking out the Truth ?

Bush, was not in command of NORAD. Dick was. As far as the Bush Admin goes, What was the joke at the beginning of his term ? He doesn't need to be smart just surround himself with a bunch of smart people ? Bush was the politician Dick never could be.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]


I'm sorry - are you saying the Commander in Chief was not the CIC? Are you being sarcastic or do you mean that literally? Because literally, Bush was in command of NORAD, no one else.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


official document. pre 9-11 signed by government officials that describe the attack in great detail. plus documents describing the government's involvement and reasons for doing so.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


My beef isn't that you have alternative theories. My beef is that your theories are designed to support an ulterior political agenda, rather than from a critical review of the facts. It's one thing to dislike Bush, but jeez, accusing him of being behind some grand international conspiracy is giving him way, way, WAY too much credit. The guy doesn't even have the intelligence to pick his own nose.



So what if my theories where just part of my quest in seeking out the Truth ?

Bush, was not in command of NORAD. Dick was. As far as the Bush Admin goes, What was the joke at the beginning of his term ? He doesn't need to be smart just surround himself with a bunch of smart people ? Bush was the politician Dick never could be.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]


I'm sorry - are you saying the Commander in Chief was not the CIC? Are you being sarcastic or do you mean that literally? Because literally, Bush was in command of NORAD, no one else.


Both somewhat, and If we were to say what you said, Then why did he continue to read ? Serious lack of urgency, considering almost 30 minutes came to pass, after hearing of the second plane


edition.cnn.com...

[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
The top of WTC2 that was tilting, though, did not continue rotating outwards, as I said, it hesitated and then just sank straight down into the enormous dust/debris cloud that was WTC2 "collapsing."


Huh?

It continued rotating as it fell. It's easily seen on videos.

To deny this is an example of your denialism about the facts of 9/11.


Yes, which is why I said it hesitated, not stopped.

And then it sank right down into the debris/dust cloud, which obscured it. It most definitely did not tilt outwards and break off, if that's what you're trying to imply.

I have seen it hundreds, if not thousands of times, paying excruciating attention to pixelated detail.



Your threshold for your knee-jerk reaction of accusing others of "denialism" is so weak that it doesn't even mean anything anymore when you say it. Not to mention I have seen other arguments you've made totally destroyed by Valhall, a professional engineer, and I've seen what lows you will stoop to in scrambling to make it appear as though you're right instead of just admitting a single simple mistake. Which is why I don't really take any of your opinions seriously anymore, because neither do you. You come here for a "fight" (
) and for an endorphin rush.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

So where did it land?


In any of the videos I've seen, the top rotates outside the "footprint", then disappears into the dust cloud.

Logic says that it landed outside the footprint, then was covered up by other debris as it rained down.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yes, which is why I said it hesitated, not stopped.

And then it sank right down into the debris/dust cloud, which obscured it. It most definitely did not tilt outwards and break off, if that's what you're trying to imply.


Honestly, I have no idea why you believe it hesitated. I'd like to see the youtube you're repeating here.

But you're also contradicting yourself, I think.

A)You say it hesitated, not stopped

B) then you say it most definitely didn't tilt and break off. Granted, "breaking off" is an assumption, since I am only assuming that it would since I agree that it can't be seen behind the dust.

At any rate, the damage and fire resulted in an asymmetric collapse in the area above it - the area that it would affect.

Logic would say that the conditions on the 80th floor wouldn't necessarily affect what happens on the 40th.

The question has therefore been answered. Assymetric damage did indeed cause assymetric collapse - in the area (above it) that it would affect.

What happens below during a progressive collapse wouldn't necessarily be affected by the damage above it.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


I can defend it quite easily. How long did it take between the impacts of the aircraft and the collapse of the towers? There wasn't enough time to get enough aircraft there to effect a rescue. One of the towers had a huge antennae array on top that would have interfered with a helicopter rescue. When the towers were first constructed there was a helipad on the top of one of them for a Pan Am shuttle helicopter (CH-46 type) to take people to JFK airport. This service was suspended due to the unpredictability of air currents around the towers. Now you add huge fires in both towers and the resulting updrafts to the mix.

The down draft from the helos could cause the collapse of the towers. We have the advantage of 20-20 hindsight now and know that the towers did collapse.

Another thing is the only feasible way to pick somebody from the towers would be a long hoist pick-up. Nobody in those towers were trained in helicopter rescues. Do you know that you have to ground the hoist cable before you touch it? If you don't you can be electricuted. Do you know the proper way to put on a horse collar sling? Do you know how to signal a pilot that you are ready to hoist?

At the time, the collapse of the towers was inconcievable. The thought was to put out the fires and then rescue the people on the upper floors. To take nothing away from the firemen who lost their lives that day, if there was a thought of collapse, they probably wouldn't have been sent into the towers. What they saw were fires on about ten floors of each tower, they thought that they had a good chance of being able to put out those fires before they spread through the upper levels.

Only in Hollywood will the things you are talking about work. This wasn't a movie. If you want to reference the hotel in Puerto Rico that had the helicopter rescue several years ago, they never told you that three people fell to their deaths because they dislodged themselves from the rescue hoist.

By the way the thing hanging below the helo in my avitar is me.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by JIMC5499]


IMO this is a total crap out.
In my day as a vet or average American we would have given our country men and women an alternative to jumping to their deaths. In a day and age of the most ADVANCED technology ever, I find your comments weak.
No, more than weak. Worthless.
The conditions are not the matter. There was NO ONE THERE if the conditions were WONDERFUL or would change to WONDERFUL.
No fregin CHOPPERS in the AIR waiting for favorible conditions.
Save JUST one. All else is a pant load.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Honestly, I have no idea why you believe it hesitated. I'd like to see the youtube you're repeating here.


Any WTC2 collapse video does it. The top part of WTC2's instantaneous angular momentums have already been measured. I think NIST even did their own measurement of sorts, detailing how many degrees tilt were covered in so many seconds before the vertical collapse began, which had obvious effects on that momentum.


But you're also contradicting yourself, I think.

A)You say it hesitated, not stopped

B) then you say it most definitely didn't tilt and break off. Granted, "breaking off" is an assumption, since I am only assuming that it would since I agree that it can't be seen behind the dust.


Then I'm not making a definite contradiction if the only thing being contradicted is an assumption you've made.



The question has therefore been answered. Assymetric damage did indeed cause assymetric collapse - in the area (above it) that it would affect.


Nice. Answer a question by ignoring the critical part of it and focusing on an exception.



What happens below during a progressive collapse wouldn't necessarily be affected by the damage above it.


Too bad the same conditions have to be met for symmetry to have prevailed, and too bad symmetry is still a property of ordered systems, not systems of chaos. Why didn't NIST or anybody else try to model the global collapse if this thing is so ordered and naturally symmetrical? I thought they said it was too complex and chaotic to model?


*Snip*

Mod Note: Removed Off Topic Snide Remark – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/17/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

So where did it land?


In any of the videos I've seen, the top rotates outside the "footprint", then disappears into the dust cloud.

Logic says that it landed outside the footprint, then was covered up by other debris as it rained down.


If you don't mind me saying so ---your reply is self evidence that your logic also disappears into the dust and is covered for no one to see or question.
The friggin Buildings all three, fell at a free fall speed. There is only one way this happens on planet earth. They are demolished by people. Nothing from your played out bag of tricks can ever change this.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Any WTC2 collapse video does it.


I don't see it. Can you provide ANY clue for me to see what you're seeing?


Then I'm not making a definite contradiction if the only thing being contradicted is an assumption you've made.


No. The contradiction isn't whether or not it broke off. The contradiction in your statement lies in A) it didn't stop rotating. B) it didn't definitely tilt.

IOW, you definitely are in contradiction.


Nice. Answer a question by ignoring the critical part of it and focusing on an exception.


You have a problem with that statement? If so, then explain why you think conditions on the 80th floor affects the progressive collapse on the 40th.


Too bad the same conditions have to be met for symmetry to have prevailed, and too bad symmetry is still a property of ordered systems, not systems of chaos. Why didn't NIST or anybody else try to model the global collapse if this thing is so ordered and naturally symmetrical? I thought they said it was too complex and chaotic to model?


This is ridonkulous.

You're assuming an absolutely perfect, ordered symmetry to the collapse debris. Make the claim out loud, and for all to see, that those conditions existed first.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join