Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 35
118
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





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


Still? I never said that was how ALL of the steel got there in the first place. I pointed out that there were columns in excess of 500 feet tall that fell over. YOU assumed that meant "ALL" of the steel.

It is quite amazing how easily I can get you guys frothing at the mouth.

Pretty soon, nutter will once again post asking what engineer specifically said the Titanic was virturaly unsinkable, and again failing to realize that I didnt say an engineer was spouting off about it. (Edit: WHOOPS he did already)

Which brings us back to the widespread belief amongst members of the truth movement, that people (especially engineers, architects and builders) are infallible. They arent. But go ahead, keep believing that every word they said prior to 2001 was the gospel.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Pretty soon, nutter will once again post asking what engineer specifically said the Titanic was virturaly unsinkable, and again failing to realize that I didnt say an engineer was spouting off about it. (Edit: WHOOPS he did already)


I imagine showing you your own words will not change anything, but here goes the try.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yes, yes, yes, the WTC was designed to handle being hit by a plane...

And the Titanic was designed to be virtually unsinkable...




And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.




Last I knew, it was the Titanic that was designed by engineers, not the iceberg. but thanks for playing.


Tell me Swampfox. When you stated that the Titanic was "designed to be virtually unsinkable" did you mean the VP of the White Star, the press, or the designing engineers would have "designed the Titanic to be virtually unsinkable"?

I guess the third quote from you answers my question.

Therefore you have indeed inferred that the designing engineers designed the Titanic to be virtually unsinkable. I am only trying to clear up this misconception.

And if you continue to dodge it and deny it, then it only looks bad on you not me.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Let's not forget that the only reason we were even discussing 500 foot tall sections of anything is because he was trying to explain away the large pieces found 500 feet away. While careful not to use the exact words, anyone following the conversation can see it. Unless swampfox wants to now just admit that there were indeed multi-ton sections launched 500 feet away and not tilting over like a tree. It was a nice back-step but the conversation went on for pages before this point so I am just curious what point you were trying to make. Did they fall over like trees or were they launched? It does not have to be all. It really only has to be at least one. Was at least one of these 500 feet away, laterally? I am really just trying to keep this conversation honest.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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


Yes, as ther "troothers" claim that all 3 WTC buildings were laid with tonnes of explosives, and they also claim that these explosives went off whilst the buildings were collapsing, not before they collapsed!


What do you think is significant, if anything, about a building free-falling for ANY period of time to begin with?


you mean virtual free falling, as the building would have been slowed a little bit by the structure underneath it, but no one actually accurately measured any of the buildings time of collapse



Ever had physics?


Yes, unlike troothers who avoid physics, just like they avoid explaining how no one noticed all the man months of work, all the holes and the tonnes of explosives that must have gone into rigging the 3 buildings with explosives - now why do you avoid that question?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 




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.


You said you would give this information then you renege on your own statement.


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.


I owe you an apology????? would you care to demonstrate where I owe you an apology?

I will be waiting for your answer.


You know what, I will give you the address of the JAG office at my unit.




Pseudologia fantastica


en.wikipedia.org...

You want to be called a debunker. LOL


One thing is for sure I have never had to make up a lie against anyone in order to prove them wrong, that is a fact.

This tread is about posters who are rude and always post negative poste all the time.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by impressme]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by dragonridr
I dont know what this pancake theory is really dont care.What i do know is when buildings collapse 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.


Ive seen explosive decompression drive a piece of wood 3" in into a brick wall and drive a broom handle through several walls of an apartment building that was across the street (still not sure where the broom came from) . Its called explosive decompression because the forces involved are similar to explosives.Lets do science 101 here what causes a blast wave the rapid movement of air as it is expelled from the force of the blast.This is why you can use explosives to put out a fire for example. Please just take the time to study how a building is dropped and you'll realize that explosives were not used.

As a matter of fact you'll realize there is no way that explosives can be timed to match the collapse once the collapse occurs the explosives are all ready done, Once the building collapse starts if its natural or done with explosives there is no difference gravity is what brings down a building.To argue that explosives went off during the collapse of the building and threw Steel 500 ft is just stupid.If explosives threw the steel it would have been before the collapse and id say it would be rather obvious when you see parts of the building fly off before the collapse started.


PS i never said high explosives could not launch steel are you making stuff up? You wouldn't believe the crazy things Ive seen explosives do! Id be more than happy to discuss explosives if you would like.Heck if you have questions be happy to answer them I'm used to being asked about explosives i was an instructor at Fort Ruckers for 6 years and did another 5 years working for a demolitions company in Florida.Still occasionally do consultation work with other demolition companies if the price is right.


Oh and i really don't care about if the government did 911 etc what i do care about is people attributing things to explosives when obviously they were not.

[edit on 12/12/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I pointed out that there were columns in excess of 500 feet tall that fell over.


You mean pivoted/leaned the whole 500 feet laterally?


It is quite amazing how easily I can get you guys frothing at the mouth.


It's amazing how easy it is to appear to be "frothing at the mouth" to you.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
you mean virtual free falling, as the building would have been slowed a little bit by the structure underneath it, but no one actually accurately measured any of the buildings time of collapse


If you've had physics and understand it "unlike troothers" can you express why there would be a need to debunk a free-fall claim in terms of potential/kinetic energy, or what a building collapsing into itself at free-fall means in terms of energy?



Yes, unlike troothers who avoid physics, just like they avoid explaining how no one noticed all the man months of work, all the holes and the tonnes of explosives that must have gone into rigging the 3 buildings with explosives - now why do you avoid that question?


Because there's no reason to believe the buildings must have been rigged the way you say. You have a predisposition to assuming tons and tons of conventional explosives must have been used for some reason. What physics class did you learn that in?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Ive seen explosive decompression drive a piece of wood 3" in into a brick wall and drive a broom handle through several walls of an apartment building that was across the street (still not sure where the broom came from) .


Explosive decompression of what exactly?


To argue that explosives went off during the collapse of the building and threw Steel 500 ft is just stupid.If explosives threw the steel it would have been before the collapse and id say it would be rather obvious when you see parts of the building fly off before the collapse started.


If you watch the videos you'll see that WTC1's antenna, which was supported by the core structure, started sinking at the exact same time as the 4 walls/corners of the building, meaning it all fell at once. All it would take is the inner core structure to be compromised, and the perimeter columns would not be able to take the weight and would naturally start folding in on themselves like you see in the videos. From there on, you can't say "no more explosions/detonations/whatever are allowed." And that is when the actual "collapse" is obscured by debris flying out in all directions.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


And you think its unusual that the top of the building fell at the same time? even in demolitions you don't place explosives on the top floor remember the trick of demolitions is to exceed the structures capability to withstand gravity.How is this done you set explosives to stress key supports and let gravity do the rest.Now if a building was damaged by oh i don't know maybe a plane crashing into it supports would be damaged.Now in of itself may not have been enough to stress the steel beyond its load capacity,however add a fire and this would weaken the steel allowing gravity to win the battle.

As far as a fire wouldn't even have to be hot enough to melt steel. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C Now theres ways around this we can put steel in concrete but its very expensive and leads to weight problems . The other way fire coating this works well for a normal fire in a building but crash a plane into it and the fire proofing is gone. This starts a process called heat induction nasty thing to have happen in a steel frame building.

PS Why would people put fireproofing on steel if it cant possibly be hurt by fire did you ever ask yourself that question?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
And you think its unusual that the top of the building fell at the same time?


No, but the inner core structure supporting it was the most robust part of the structure and supposed it was the perimeter columns and trusses that failed first, at least according to NIST and FEMA.


As far as a fire wouldn't even have to be hot enough to melt steel. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C


There is no evidence of the steel being heated to those temperatures and not even NIST or FEMA suggested the buildings fell for that reason. Their theories revolved around expansion and contraction of the steel as it heats and cools, which causes extra stresses in the structure. Not that the columns lost their strength from being heated to such a high temperature.


PS Why would people put fireproofing on steel if it cant possibly be hurt by fire did you ever ask yourself that question?


Because it costs money?

A guy that actually works (worked?) for one of the engineering firms that makes the stuff posted here at one point, and said they knew that the fireproofing didn't do anything except slow the time it takes for the steel to heat up. Even without it, steel like what made up the columns of the WTC is not going to be elevated to extreme temperatures very easily just because there is so damned much of it and fire is not covering much of the surface area of them all. Historically even skyscraper fires without protected columns have done fine. You're barking up the wrong tree by all accounts if you think column "softening" was the reason the towers fell.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Typical. Taking statements out of context and stringing them together....and ignoring the larger picture.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Nutter
 


Let's not forget that the only reason we were even discussing 500 foot tall sections of anything is because he was trying to explain away the large pieces found 500 feet away. While careful not to use the exact words, anyone following the conversation can see it. Unless swampfox wants to now just admit that there were indeed multi-ton sections launched 500 feet away and not tilting over like a tree. It was a nice back-step but the conversation went on for pages before this point so I am just curious what point you were trying to make. Did they fall over like trees or were they launched? It does not have to be all. It really only has to be at least one. Was at least one of these 500 feet away, laterally? I am really just trying to keep this conversation honest.


Why is it always either, or with some folks on here?

Yes, some of the pieces landed 500 feet away. How did they get there? Well, there is evidence showing that yes, some of the tower columns did basically fall like trees when they gave away after most of the towers had already collapsed. Are their pieces that ended up that far away due to the transfer of potential to kinetic energy involved during the collapse? Possibly.

However, for those that argue it was controlled demolition that brought the buildings down, the fact that pieces of them ended up a distance away from the site pretty much demolishes the CD theory. No one who is setting up a CD is going to set it up so that it 1. Wastes energy blowing pieces of the building laterally and 2. Damages or destroys all of the surrounding buildings.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Why is it always either, or with some folks on here?


It doesn't. You were trying to disprove the notion that any were launched 500 feet. You are the one that set up the either/or paradigm by trying to deny one with the other.


Yes, some of the pieces landed 500 feet away. How did they get there? Well, there is evidence showing that yes, some of the tower columns did basically fall like trees when they gave away after most of the towers had already collapsed.


I call BS on that. Where is there any evidence that anything fell like a tree and landed 500 feet away? That does not even make any sense but if you can prove it, I will be happy to eat my words.


Are their pieces that ended up that far away due to the transfer of potential to kinetic energy involved during the collapse? Possibly.


Possilby? Then why try so hard to argue against it?


However, for those that argue it was controlled demolition that brought the buildings down, the fact that pieces of them ended up a distance away from the site pretty much demolishes the CD theory. No one who is setting up a CD is going to set it up so that it 1. Wastes energy blowing pieces of the building laterally and 2. Damages or destroys all of the surrounding buildings.



And you know how they rig a CD as well as pyrotechnic show to both bring down a building as well as make it look like an airplane caused it to basically implode how?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Nutter
 


Typical. Taking statements out of context and stringing them together....and ignoring the larger picture.


So again, you are denying that you stated:

1. The Titanic was designed to be virtually unsinkable.

2. The Titanic was designed by engineers.

So who else am I suppossed to think you ment designed the Titanic to be virtually unsinkable? The VP of White Star or the press?

Typical Anti-truther tactics. Caught being wrong but will still defend themselves tooth and nail and say they didn't mean what they ment.

BTW, Swampfox, I'm still waiting for the information you said you would supply. What's the name and address of your JAG officer?

Or will you deflect again?

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


My first post on the subject was to point out to Gen Radek about the columns falling as a possible reason why some of the wreckage ended up where it did. Then the dogpile started..




And you know how they rig a CD as well as pyrotechnic show to both bring down a building as well as make it look like an airplane caused it to basically implode how?


Because 1. Ive talked to several individuals who make their living bringing down structures and 2. I use common sense. Some of the pieces that ended up past the Winter Garden were part of the steel section of the outer wall. NOW not only do you have to explain how 110 stories were wired with no one seeing absolutely no evidence of the weeks of work it took...but now, you also have to explain how the "bad guys" managed to plant explosive charges on the sections of the outer wall that you cannot access from the interior of the building without literally ripping apart the offices inside. Again, with no one noticing.

In one fell swoop, you have only further complicated the idea of a controlled demolition bring down the towers.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


From the White Star Brochure on the Titanic and the Olympic....

"....and as far as it is possible to do so, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable..."

So, to take your quotes one at a time....

I said the Titanic was designed to be virtually unsinkable, as the White Star Line advertised. I did not say that William Perrie the designer of the Titanic had ever made that statement.

The second quote you tried to make your case on, was in regards to Mr DeMartini (an engineer) who is on record as saying the Towers would survive being hit by an airliner. He did make that statement, and as I pointed out, he was wrong. In addition, it was pointed out by another poster that Mr DeMartini had called down from the impact area that he felt there was an imminent danger of a partial collapse.

The third line you posted was the one about the Titanic being designed by an engineer and not an iceberg. Again, a truthful statement by me.

And yet, you are trying to string them together to say that I quoted an engineer as saying the Titanic was unsinkable. In other words, you are lying. If I was impressme, I would be jumping up and down and demanding an apology. Myself, I will consider the source (you) and go about my day.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So the answer is that no, you cannot prove any sections fell like a tree to land 500 feet away. Nice attempt at deflection but this is the point. If you want to discuss where explosives may have been planted, that is a separate issue altogether.

You claimed nothing was shot 500 feet and that it simply fell over that far because of its height. None of that is correct.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Nutter
 


From the White Star Brochure on the Titanic and the Olympic....

"....and as far as it is possible to do so, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable..."



Here is another nice attempt to deflect. The statement was about what the twin towers were designed to withstand.

You said basically 'big deal, the titanic was designed to not sink.'

The point put to you was that the idea of the towers being designed to stand up to plane impacts came from the actual DESIGNER.

You argued that the same could be said of the Titanic when in reality all that can be said about the Titanic is that the president of the line hyped it without any actual design knowledge whatsoever.

Please stop trying to confuse the subject because you cannot just admit once in a while you were wrong.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And yet, you are trying to string them together to say that I quoted an engineer as saying the Titanic was unsinkable. In other words, you are lying. If I was impressme, I would be jumping up and down and demanding an apology. Myself, I will consider the source (you) and go about my day.


The difference would be that I am man enough to own up to mistakes. If I was mistaken about what you were inferring. I appologize.

But, the fact that it took over 10 pages and more than a few days worth of poking and proding for you to even show me how I was being mistaken only shows your own stubborness and arrogance.

With that said. I still believe you were being untruthful when you implied that the engineers stated the Titanic was virtually unsinkable or implied that it was designed to be.

When the difference is clearly shown that in the towers case, we have 2 different engineering firms with 2 different analysis both saying that such an event was survivable. But, yet there is no indication that any engineer even stated, let alone studied and/or calculated anything about the Titanic and iceburgs or virtual unsinkability.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Nutter]






top topics



 
118
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join


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