It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 9
7
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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?

I'm not going to freaking extract every single frame and number them, and assign them degree values, so you can see this for yourself, but I will post this video below and tell you to watch the corner of the upper block of building:

It's obvious that the significant tilting occurs before the building begins dropping vertically. It's there in that video for all to see, all it takes is to watch the corner of the upper block, as I said. I will not offer any further "clues."

If you want to debunk me, extract the frames yourself, measure the angles of the corner over time. Angle vs. frame #, over time -- the curve will show you that the angular momentum drops when the vertical collapse begins. You will find exactly what I am telling you. I am even telling you exactly how you can do it, if you want to waste your own time. But I don't figure that you will, since you are an internet troll.

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.

I never said it didn't tilt. Seriously, comments like this make me question why I am even talking to you in the first place.

At least exponent and many others here have sense enough to get both my and their own arguments straight before they start sputtering away at the keyboard.

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.

I would only be repeating myself again. See the quote you are responding to, or better yet, see below.

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.

I'm not saying "absolutely perfect." There is no such thing.

But even FEMA agrees with my general premise:

An equal spread in all directions. Not to the ounce out of thousands of tons, Joey, thank you, but close enough for even FEMA to see it. Now I will repeat myself for the 3rd time to state that symmetry is NOT a characteristic of chaotic systems and thus NIST should have been able to make some sense of the pattern and give us a global collapse model based on what it implies. But instead they claimed the global collapse was too chaotic to analyze.

*Snip*

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

[edit on 11/17/2009 by semperfortis]

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 08:13 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Now I will repeat myself for the 3rd time to state that symmetry is NOT a characteristic of chaotic systems

Sure it is.

Only a assymetrical system will result in assymetry.Like if it includes crash damage. This is seen to be true by all.

The building below the crash zones was sufficently symmetrical to result in a roughly symmetrical results.

Rough symmetry of the debris field and a chaotic fall are not exclusive. Just like Pegelow being a skilled SE AND being nuts, the 2 are not exclusive.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Now I will repeat myself for the 3rd time to state that symmetry is NOT a characteristic of chaotic systems

Sure it is.

Only a[n] assymetrical system will result in assymetry. Like if it includes crash damage. This is seen to be true by all.

Not sure which building you're referring to, but if it's WTC 7, its structure wasn't symetrical. But more importantly, the only way that it could have collapsed in the way it did was with explosives. A high school physics teacher, who is part of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth group, made this point abundantly clear in the following critique and independent analysis of WTC 7's collapse here:

WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by snusfanatic
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.

So a signed and delivered confession by the criminals.

Do you think this is a realistic piece of evidence that criminals typically produce?

Remember, not the 'government' but individuals within the government.

Your evidence suggests it would be official government policy to attack itself and I do not think that is the case. Hence the reliance upon 'individuals' within the government.

Thank you for at least answering the OP.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Now if you could answer the OP, that would be wonderful! Thanks!

You should read my response on the last page.

Thanks. So you would accept a peer reviewed paper submitted to a journal that called into question NIST's official report. As long as you consider that journal respectable. You are suggesting then that Bentham Open is not respectable. With that logic, you essentially trash in one sweeping hand the entire body of work at Bentham and the numerous endorsements that can be read here: www.bentham.org...
Or perhaps is your political views getting in the way of the science at Bentham?

1. Unfortunately you do not apply the same standards to alternative theories regarding the attacks of 9/11. You claim in your reason you do not accept alternative theories because of the political views surrounding those theories.

Founded in 1901, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

NIST itself is a political organization whose administration is staffed by political appointees. But that is ok with your double standard?

Not only that, one would think, if NIST's evaluation of the WTC collapses were legitimate without scientific rebuttal and owners and current construction of steel framed sky scrappers would be implementing the recommendations provided by NIST immediately to prevent another disaster based upon fire! Can you show that this has been the case?

Have states been enforcing the codes and recommendations from their 'report' as per NIST's recommendations?

But sadly....according to Azarang “Ozzie” Mirkhah of Fire Chief Magazine

...the construction industry and the design professionals representing them oppose incorporating the NIST recommendations into the body of the building codes. This stance was quite evident in a recent model code development committee meeting, where their board showed the least amount of interest in adopting the recommendations, saying that the cost of implementation was too prohibitive....In support, the board cited the historical safety records of high-rise buildings and the fact that the majority of fire losses and firefighter fatalities occurred in other types of occupancies and structures.

This leads me to believe the NIST report is a farce and the collapse was due to something other than fire and gravity.

NIST ruled out the use of explosives because "...the noise associated with such an explosion would have been ten times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert...". There you have it--government funded science at its best. NIST also claimed that no loud noise was heard by witnesses. I guess they did not have access to the oral histories from the New York Fire Department made public after suit by the New York Times, the source for the quote by NIST that there were no witness reports of loud noises.

After all, fire has never before 9/11 or after 9/11 caused a steel framed high rise structure to collapse complete through the path of greatest resistance which is one reason besides cost why the code development committee oppose NIST's recommendations!!

Perhaps Joe, it is your political views that keep you from opposing the official story.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by SirPatrickHenry

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.

No, Dick Cheney was NOT in command of NORAD during 9/11. It was Air Force General Ralph Eberhart. The guy manning the NORAD control room at the time was a naval officer from Canada (forgot his name).

This "Cheney was in charge of NORAD" bit is nothing but complete rubbish being put by those damned fool conspiracy web sites that are deliberately trying to get people all paranoid over shadows, with this Dick Cheney innuendo being a perfect case in point. It's blatantly self evident this is where you're getting all your information from, so you've just single handedly proved everything I've been saying about those web sites from day one.

Thank you.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Who do you believe Joey? Eager or NIST?

NIST.

I believe Eager gets several things wrong.

1-Columns bowed inward, not outward.

2- there wasn't 90,00L of fuel per plane.

3-in the scenario you reference, he gives no sequence about how "the floors above them (the outer box columns that he incorrectly states bowed out) also fell.

1) Please explain your statement. The passage you're referring to is "As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall." This entirely refers to the point of initial structural failure, where the planes had hit. If the joints connecting the horizontal floor braces to the perimeter columns had indeed given way, then the columns would have indeed fallen outward becuase there were no longer any joints connecting them to anything that would pull them inward. Technically, they would have been pushed outward.

2) I actually am curious to know how much fuel the planes were carrying at the time of impact, since I don't recall anyone being able to say, but seriously, when opponents of this scenario have to resort to bickering over such incredibly microscopic details such as the precise amount of fuel the planes were carrying at the time, it's a sign of desperation, more than it is anything else. We all saw the fire ball. We know it was carring lots of fuel. We know it ignited fires throughout the building. We know the steel was being degraded by the fires. How does it refute anything that Eagar states?

3) That's because he can't give a precise sequence. Noone can. That's why there are a number of different explanations (MIT, NIST, FEMA, Perdue, etc) trying explain the same outcome.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
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.

What are you saying here Donny?
Are you thinking that it was part of the "evil conspiracy" to let those people die?
It was on purpose that nothing else was done to try and help them?
Is this what you are thinking?
They had the firemen also go into their deaths on purpose?

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Sure thing.

Dave, Eager is wrong.

All right, fine. Please explain to me why Eagar is wrong. I already pointed out how the statement you previously objected to is actaully a valid remark.

I'm not arguing that it's impossible that he's wrong, I'm curious to know exactly what he said that makes his report wrong so that I'm not quoting him anymore. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't have any ulterior political agenda to push out any particular claim over any other.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by joequinn
But all of this is merely for the sake of argument. I have been convinced, ever since I saw the South Tower fall in controlled demolition fashion on 9-11, that the Bush fascist junta did cause 9-11. But we will never know the truth about 9-11, any more than we will ever know the truth about the JFK assassination or about UFOs.

I was about to ask whether, as a 9/11 conspiracy theory proponent, you subscribe to any *other* conspiracies, as it's my suspicion that the people already into anti-establishment conspiracy theories before 9/11 are the main proponents of these conspiracies popping up after 9/11. This is becuase they're the ones who'd naturally be browsing through those damned fool conspiracy web sites to begin with.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Please respond to the OP and keep the litter in the trash. Thank you.

I did, actually, but in typical truther fashion Impressive et al., completely ignores it just Like he ignores everything that contradicts what he wants to hear. He simply does not want to believe his conspiracy stories can't be true. Here it is again:

MIT materials engineering professor's report on the wtc collapse

I consider this to be irrefutable because despite all the times I posted it, not one person has been able to refute it. So please, tell me why his report is wrong.

I guess you didn't notice the date. 2001.
I would not call this an in depth long term analysis. It was written before the clean up was complete. BA
Not one mention of BUILDING SEVEN. NOT ONE.
Propaganda for ignorant, nut job. weak minded sheeple.

I went back to see where is was questioned in a court of law.
Nope no cross-examination by anybody

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Donny 4 million]

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:29 PM

Have you ever heard of The Strawman Illusion? Since that is really set up, what is stopping them from wanting to keep it in place? I think you should watch this video before you just assume there is "no conspiracy"...

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by agentofchaos

Have you ever heard of The Strawman Illusion? Since that is really set up, what is stopping them from wanting to keep it in place? I think you should watch this video before you just assume there is "no conspiracy"...

Honestly, he might as well change his name to The Strawman.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by scott3x

Not sure which building you're referring to,

The towers.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Thanks. So you would accept a peer reviewed paper submitted to a journal that called into question NIST's official report.

You're welcome.

Now go back and read what else I said about the journal article.

Hasn't happened.

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:44 PM

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

1) Please explain your statement. The passage you're referring to is "As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall."

But that didn't happen. Video clearly shows that. Although his hypothetical scenario can be true, it wasn't.

If the joints connecting the horizontal floor braces to the perimeter columns had indeed given way, then the columns would have indeed fallen outward becuase there were no longer any joints connecting them to anything that would pull them inward. Technically, they would have been pushed outward.

Technically, they could have gone either way.

Basically, what he's proposing is a pancake initiation. Didn't happen.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Joey Canoli]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:34 AM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

What's interesting to note between what you guys are arguing about, is that both hypothetical scenarios were covered by FEMA in their preliminary report. Even though the movements themselves are obviously contradictory to one another, FEMA suggested both of them and it was NIST that finally picked one exclusively (thus contradicting Eager, on that and other points... ie fuel amounts).

Here are the contradictory mechanisms shown right next to each other in FEMA's report:

They couldn't find evidence to rule either of them out or prove either of them, yet they asserted it must have been one or the other anyway. Ironic considering the motions and mechanisms do totally contradict each other. If you read the WTC1 and 2 section of their report, you'll see they were completely speculating based on conditions they were assuming within the towers, thus their inability to pick one scenario over the other (and obviously at least some of the assumptions they were making proved to be baseless). They also used the word "probably" a lot.

Just makes one wonder what they were basing either of their theories on in the first place.

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? 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.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by bsbray11]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:02 AM

Dave,

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.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:23 AM
Here's from NIST about the outward bowing (NCSTAR 1-6D pg 39):

"Outward expansion of the floors was not included in the global models. Floor analyses showed that the floors initially pushed exterior column (sic) outward by a few inches. However, significant outward bowing was not observed and several inches of outward deflection of exterior columns would not affect the global stability of the towers."

My comment: Isn't it convenient for their global model to leave this out? With the weight from above, wouldn't any outward bowing make it more difficult for the sagging floors to pull in the columns? Why leave out a finding their models predicted? Or, on the other hand, if it was predicted and could not be verified, how accurate are the models in the first place?

Here's from NIST about the amount of fuel at impact (NCSTAR 1-2B Chap 1 thru 8 pg 84)

"Both United Airlines and American Airlines provided estimates for the quantity and distribution of fuel for UAL flight 175 and AA flight 11 at the time of impact. United Airlines estimated that flight 175 contained approximately 62,000 lb or 9,118 gal of fuel at impact with the 'fuel evenly distributed between both main tanks.' American Airlines estimated that flight 11 contained 66,081 lb or 9,717 gal of fuel at impact and 'the fuel was evenly distributed between left and right wing tanks of the aircraft.'"

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."

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

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

Thanks for participating.

new topics

top topics

7