Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 34
118
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
You are obviously having a problem understanding airr pressure.Its called explosive decompression it happens when a space with air has it forced out by oh i don't know maybe a floor above it falling down.Where do you think the air went did it magically disappear? Now i figured out why people believe this explosives garbage.


Actually pancake theory is garbage, which is what you're assuming when you say this.


Having worked demolitions i can assure you no one rigs explosive charges to launch pieces of the building it would be counter productive to the collapse.


Just because you've "worked demolitions" doesn't mean you know what technology is available to the military/intelligence communities.




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 
So,he's back to being "mistaken." again? that's a long way to go from being "confused." so,I guess next time this comes up he and the first responders will once more be confused during "the heat of the moment."What of those other firefighters who talked about secondary devices in their after action reports and have stuck to that? Oh,wait let me guess they don't know what they are talking about and are to be consider to be "conspiracy mongers." and "opportunists."



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 
So,he's back to being "mistaken." again? that's a long way to go from being "confused." so,I guess next time this comes up he and the first responders will once more be confused during "the heat of the moment."What of those other firefighters who talked about secondary devices in their after action reports and have stuck to that? Oh,wait let me guess they don't know what they are talking about and are to be consider to be "conspiracy mongers." and "opportunists."


Its getting to be quite amusing to watch you keep beating your gums on this. You keep trying to assign some sort of malicious intent to both the FDNY and me in regards to what Chief Turi had to say both on the day of 9/11 and in his after action reports. Get over the blame game.

As for the other first responders, names please? So I can read their reports as well. Be warned though, they should be first responders who actually saw secondary devices....not "well I heard from a guy who heard from a guy in Tower 1" reports.

Not sure why you put quotes around conspiracy monger and opportunists though. Pretty sure I have yet to use those words here, in regards to the first responders that day.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I refer you to my earlier post. If you are so sure of yourself, you are going to have to travel. Like another poster alluded to...I'm not posting personal identifcation information here. One, it would be stupid, and two, it would be a violation of military regs for me to post names of officers in an online forum.


And still on the apology kick.... When you come forward with HALF of the apologies you owe posters on ATS for your words against them, maybe I will think about it.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by impressme
 


I refer you to my earlier post. If you are so sure of yourself, you are going to have to travel. Like another poster alluded to...I'm not posting personal identifcation information here. One, it would be stupid, and two, it would be a violation of military regs for me to post names of officers in an online forum.


OS pushers sure do seem to say a lot of things they either have to retract or clarify. Why is that?


LOL, now im being called a war criminal. You know what, I will give you the address of the JAG office at my unit. Go ahead, bring charges against me.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


And another of the rabble is heard from.

Yep, I clarified that statement after a few u2u's on here warning me that there seem to be some people around here that have tried to do some data mining on people.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I find many professional debunkers also don't like to read through all of the replies sometimes. I suppose these aren't the "professional" ones then. They do get up my nose those people, why dont they go and set up a different place called "Debunk top secret" or something!


[edit on 12-12-2009 by C-DNA]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I dont know what this pancake theory is really dont care.What i do know is when buildings colapse the force of rubble from floors above forces air to escape at thousand of feet per sec.This is why when planning a drop you have to make sure you planned for that escaping air or you will get people killed when a steel beam lands on there house!



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


And another of the rabble is heard from.

Yep, I clarified that statement after a few u2u's on here warning me that there seem to be some people around here that have tried to do some data mining on people.


You did not clarify, you backed away from it. There is a difference. It is quite clear from the number of people accusing you of being purposely misleading that you have an issue with honesty but when it comes to things like this, we can all just read. If you clarified, there would have been a clarification but instead there was just an about face.

What is this excuse? You were a big man until someone U2Ud you to tell you someone might be doing data mining on you?

That is about the saddest excuse I have ever heard. If you were man enough to offer it up to begin with, you would think an internet savy soldier like yourself would have already thought that publishing your info might just mean someone else can get it.

Here we have this book that goes around giving out a list of everyone's name, phone number, and address. Maybe it is just something we do here but they go out about once a year. Anyone can open them up and find me. If I were to publish that info here....then someone could maych my ATS screen name and avatar to that info. OH NO!



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Established to be a pillar of scientific accuracy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has prostituted itself in the case of its role in helping the dark elements of the U.S. Government to cover their tracks of culpability in the 9/11 tragedy.
Compiled by Sterling D. Allan,

Just look at this wtc7 free fall, explains it all by this high school physics
teacher.

"In the case of WTC 7 [...], for 100 feet of free fall to take place, they had to completely remove 8 floors of structural support, uniformly across the entire width of the building, simultaneously, to within a fraction of a second. This cannot happen naturally. It is a clear smoking gun for controlled demolition. ...Conclusion: On the first round, NIST falsified measurements in order to deny free-fall. It then turned around and admitted free-fall but denied its significance. ...Free-fall requires that explosives had to be used. Planting explosives in WTC7 would require time and high-level access to this very secure building well before 9/11. Whoever rigged WTC7 was clearly complicit in the entire 9/11 operation. Given that NIST knows what they are doing, we can be justified in calling their methodology 'fraudulent'. Fraudulent behavior in this context constitutes participation in a criminal cover-up." -- David Chandler, high school Physics teacher, at the 2009 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology.
www.patriotsaints.com...





Just read this.
www.fourwinds10.com...




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
I dont know what this pancake theory is really dont care.What i do know is when buildings colapse the force of rubble from floors above forces air to escape at thousand of feet per sec.


You shouldn't even mention a number unless you can prove it, and 1000's of feet per second is way too high. 1000's of feet per second is what high explosives detonate at and you just said yourself that you don't think even high explosives could launch this steel so far.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So are you still saying all the steel that was launched out of the towers was just leaning over?


This is the 2nd time I ask because, I know you will just come back and say the same BS in the future as if there is nothing wrong with it.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by marker

Just look at this wtc7 free fall, explains it all by this high school physics
teacher.


Except none of the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed, just another lie!

Just by watching the pictures of the buildings coming down you can clearly see the debris falling from the buildings is falling faster than the buildings!



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Nope, WTC7 did come down at free-fall.

Even NIST has admitted it now.

The only person lying is you.


I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even know what WTC7 is.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by dereks
 


Nope, WTC7 did come down at free-fall.

Even NIST has admitted it now.


No they have not, just another lie from you - care to post the exact time that it took WTC7 to collapse? No, I did not think you could!

"The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. "


So NIST did not claim it fell at freefall speed, so why did you lie about it?

[edit on 12-12-2009 by dereks]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
...
So NIST did not claim it fell at freefall speed, so why did you lie about it?



Apparently you can't read.

2nd line for posterity.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Apparently you can't read.


Typical truther telling lies, you pick out a small part of the total collapse, whilst ignoring that the time the building took from the start to the finish was not at free fall speed - you are not interested in the truth, just your lies!



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Why should there have been freefall speed for ANY amount of time at all? Are you promoting the idea that there was eventually resistance but for some reason you cannot explain there was NOT for a period of time?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
Apparently you can't read.


Typical truther telling lies, you pick out a small part of the total collapse, whilst ignoring that the time the building took from the start to the finish was not at free fall speed - you are not interested in the truth, just your lies!


Do you even understand why you are trying to debunk free-fall in the first place, yes or no?

What do you think is significant, if anything, about a building free-falling for ANY period of time to begin with? Any ideas? Ever had physics? No? Didn't think so.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So are you still saying all the steel that was launched out of the towers was just leaning over?


This is the 2nd time I ask because, I know you will just come back and say the same BS in the future as if there is nothing wrong with it.


I guarantee we'll hear that engineers claimed the Titanic was "virtually unsinkable" too.

Or are you willing to admit that you were mistaken Swampfox?

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Nutter]






top topics



 
118
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution