Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mike Bellone's shocking claim on "Conspiracy Theory"

page: 12
38
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
a) the only reason there's "so much evidence" of conspiracies and coverup is becuase these damned fool conspiracy web sites are intentionally manufacturing it. The game of con artists coming along and saying, "everything you know is wrong and I'll tell you the truth if you give me money" is as old as the hills. It's simply wrapped in a new package now


The only thing that's being paid for here is an internet subscription.

I don't "manufacture," nor do other websites "manufacture" the evidence of numerous explosions, physics principles, etc.

We take pure information, witness testimonies, video clips, photographs, technical data, etc., and all we do is show you how it lines up by its own nature to suggest we were not told the full story about what happened that day. The sheer amount of evidence of explosions, vehicles exploding or just explosions in general in the basements of the towers when the impacts occurred, all of that stuff, stands on its own and all we do is SHOW you that it exists.

YOU then try to spin it a different way, very weakly, by claiming explosions were caused by bottles of cleaners bursting or fire extinguishers or electrical generators -- ALL total speculation with no supporting evidence.


So to recap, just as an example:


Evidence of explosions (explosives):

1) Numerous testimonies of hearing the blasts themselves, from all different times and places around the complex on 9/11.

2) A few video clips that even capture directly the sounds of these explosions, mostly low but powerful "rumbling" noises coming from underground according to witnesses.

3) Police records and testimony of vehicles being discovered with actual explosives in them.

4) MSM reports of "suspicious devices" being found that police/FBI were investigating.

5) A journalist reporting on MSM that he was told by an FBI official that they suspected a van or truck filled with explosives was detonated in the parking garage to coincide with the plane impacts.


Now you tell me what part about all that I'm making up. I could go on and on.

Not only am I NOT MAKING IT UP, this evidence also explicitly suggests explosives while there is still ZERO evidence of electrical transformers or fire extinguishers exploding, neither of which make sense when analyzed critically anyway. On the other hand, there are literally thousands of varieties of explosives and bombs and they have NOT been fully investigated. NIST did not look for residues of ANY types of explosives or incendiaries, nor has anyone else so far as I have seen.


The only people here that plug their ears and feed themselves lies about this stuff, are people like yourself. You tell yourself, oh, those explosions MUST have been caused by something else. (Why?) Or oh, these people talking about these explosions were confused/exaggerating/suffering from stress disorders (Why?). Why is because you are BIASED. You never considered these "conspiracy theories" (actually just the pure information I listed above) in a fair light. You ONLY try to debunk them with whatever you can muster.

That's how it's always been, and that's how its probably always going to be.



b) I'm not opposed to more investigations



c) I fully agree there are a lot more things that need to be looked at


Then really we are not in much practical disagreement, Dave.

You only refuse to see the evidence like what I mentioned before for what it is. I don't have to put my own spin on it, simply mentioning that it exists must be "spin" to you.




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


All demos are not bottom up. This is a lie or wrong.

Source?

Because so far as I know, all controlled demolitions do start from the bottom up.





Who says they could or did not? This is speculation based on nothing.


Its based on the fact that explosions can be and are used to destroy explosive devices in order to prevent them from going off.




So people heard explosions but they are just wrong about what might have been exploding so those explosions never happened especially since even though people witnessed them, not all camera mics picked it up clearly...but it happened. Huh? Where are the facts in any of this?

No what was said (again with the lack of reading comprehension) is that the explosives used in a controlled demolition have a very distinctive sound which was not reported or recorded. It was also pointed out that while some people heard "what sounded like an explosion" that was simply a large boom sound which again does not match the profile of the sound of a controlled demolition



They could not have been staggered? Why not? I keep hearing from debunkers that it is ok that for the first time in history, physics stepped out but it is not possible that the charges were staggered? More speculation, based on....?


Where did you get "staggered"? The point was that the squibs were random(and yet again with the lack of reading comprehension), as opposed to the tightly controlled and planned explosions inherent in a controlled demolition. A series of random explosions would not produce a similar effect.

Once again you have shown me that most "truthers" have little to no ability to engage in rational thought, you simply seem to respond to what you think is said, or wish had been said.



Originally posted by bsbray11


If you are really as factual and non-emotional as you put on, I would see you pitching in to the technical debates and not just here trash-talking "truthers" and stroking egos with Dave. Saying we are all emotional and don't know how to use logic, is an emotional statement itself, based solely on how you feel about "us."


No, its a rational analysis based on my observations of the behavior of "truthers" in this and other threads. I say most "truthers" don't know how to use logic because they demonstrate a lack of logic in their posts.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
ok nevermind, that was old and pointless. delete.

[edit on 12/29/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
No what was said (again with the lack of reading comprehension) is that the explosives used in a controlled demolition have a very distinctive sound which was not reported or recorded.


What a bunch of crap.

Can you please list which kinds of explosives are possible to use in demolitions (ie to destroy structure) and which are NOT possible to use in demolitions?

I will be really curious to see this. You are apparently an expert on explosives and demolitions I assume.



Once again you have shown me that most "truthers" have little to no ability to engage in rational thought


Until you prove that only explosives/bombs that sound a certain way can destroy a building, and how you are able to determine what they are 'supposed' to sound like, you aren't being rational yourself.

No one should have ever mentioned the word "rational" to you, as you use it in an emotional way yourself. Nothing you have just said was based on facts. If I'm wrong, post the facts. It's that simple. There are a lot of us here that are going to be waiting to see this.



No, its a rational analysis based on my observations of the behavior of "truthers" in this and other threads. I say most "truthers" don't know how to use logic because they demonstrate a lack of logic in their posts.


And again you just say this as if you stating it is what makes it factual. Independent verification or reasoning that is external to your own opinions is what validates something objectively.

Calling us all "truthers" in the first place demonstrates how rational you really are, as I and most others here do not call ourselves "truthers" and have never associated ourselves with that term. It is a form of intellectual discrimination you subscribe to, and I could go into some detail as to why this kind of pre-conceived discrimination is also not rational if you would like. Though I suspect you would rather just keep calling us names.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
Source?

Because so far as I know, all controlled demolitions do start from the bottom up.






I understand that was what you understood as the truth as far as you knew. That is why I am trying to help.


Its based on the fact that explosions can be and are used to destroy explosive devices in order to prevent them from going off.


That is not proof of anything. That is the suggestion that if it were a certain type of explosives, there would have been a certain result. How would they know what kinds of explosives were used if they claimed to not find any? That is why that is speculation.


No what was said (again with the lack of reading comprehension) is that the explosives used in a controlled demolition have a very distinctive sound which was not reported or recorded. It was also pointed out that while some people heard "what sounded like an explosion" that was simply a large boom sound which again does not match the profile of the sound of a controlled demolition.


...and who decided what these people actually heard? People report hearing explosions. They report hearing consecutive pops. Who decided they were wrong about what they heard and whether or not they even heard it? Again, SPECULATION AT BEST. Since youtube is full of witnesses talking about EXPLOSIONS, it is a little far fetched to just say it is a fact that they did not hear what they think they did. How do you know? Based on what?



Where did you get "staggered"? The point was that the squibs were random(and yet again with the lack of reading comprehension), as opposed to the tightly controlled and planned explosions inherent in a controlled demolition. A series of random explosions would not produce a similar effect.


LOL. What does stagger mean to you? That would mean that instead of tightly timed consecutive explosions, they would be randomly timed. Please do not knock my reading comprehension if your knowledge of the language is this poor.

So what you are saying is -

The laws of physics were suspended for the first time in history.
3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed due to fire for the first time in history.
Two very different explanations are supposed to cover the same thing happening three times for the first time in history.
The buildings we able to fall because they were so uniquely built that they were like no other buildings in the world
If it was a controlled demo, it would have had to look exactly like every other controlled demo in history.

Nothing factual there. That is just bad logic.


Once again you have shown me that most "truthers" have little to no ability to engage in rational thought, you simply seem to respond to what you think is said, or wish had been said.


Uh huh and when do you start refuting my post pointing out that your source is full of CRAP?




[edit on 12/29/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The only thing that's being paid for here is an internet subscription.


Are you attempting to claim that Loose Change is NOT selling their conspiracy movies (including the "bad" early versions) on DVD? Are you attempting to claim that David Griffin is NOT pushing a number of conspiracy books he wrote? Are you attempting to claim that Richard Gage is NOT travelling all over the place and holding $30 per ticket conferences? Are you attempting to claim these public 9/11 truther demonstrations are NOT a sea to shining sea of $14.95 "Investigate 9/11" T-shirts these web sites are hawking? Are you attempting to claim the whole idea of "cruise missiles at the Pentagon" claim did NOT come from some French guy peddling his conspriacy book to begin with?

I can see what the main motive is for these conspiracy web sites right away, even if you choose not to.


We take pure information, witness testimonies, video clips, photographs, technical data, etc., and all we do is show you how it lines up by its own nature to suggest we were not told the full story about what happened that day. The sheer amount of evidence of explosions, vehicles exploding or just explosions in general in the basements of the towers when the impacts occurred, all of that stuff, stands on its own and all we do is SHOW you that it exists.


Oh, rubbish. What these web sites do is take the "pure" information and they deliberately misrepresent it to make it sound like something else. I already told you elsewhere that there are many more perfectly reasonable non-conspiracy explanations that justify the explosions than there are conspriacy explanations, but the idea that the explosions were actually explosives is so seductive that they deliberately misrepresent everything in order to falsely enhance the claim.

For one thing, these damned fool web sites are the only ones on the face of the Earth who's making the claim that anyone is denying there were explosions to begin with. You do know that's the definition of "straw man argument", right?


YOU then try to spin it a different way, very weakly, by claiming explosions were caused by bottles of cleaners bursting or fire extinguishers or electrical generators -- ALL total speculation with no supporting evidence.


The only person spinning things dishonestly here is you, becuase I have never said the explosions were bottles of cleaners. I already told you I know they were (among other things) electrical transformers becuase I know from personal experience those things DO explode like bombs when they overheat. I say it was electricial transformers we heard exploding becuase there DEFINITELY were electrical transformers in the towers, electrical transformers DEFINITELY explode when/if they overheat, there DEFINITELY were fires burning within the buildings, and the electrical transformers DEFINITELY would have exploded sooner or later, the longer the fires burned.

Where is the spin in any of this? This is your accusation, not mine, so please point it out to me.



Now you tell me what part about all that I'm making up. I could go on and on.


Is isn't what you're making up. It's what you're deliberately leaving out. All those reports were of things that were coming out as the events of 9/11 were still unfolding and everyone was still confused as to what was going on. All sorts of unconfirmed reports, some turnign out to be true, some turnign our to be he-said-she-said rumor, were flying around and reporters were scrambling to report whatever they happened to hear. This is exactly where that "BBC reported the WTC 7 went down before it went down, so the BBC must be in on the conspiracy too" BS came from.


The only people here that plug their ears and feed themselves lies about this stuff, are people like yourself. You tell yourself, oh, those explosions MUST have been caused by something else. (Why?) Or oh, these people talking about these explosions were confused/exaggerating/suffering from stress disorders (Why?). Why is because you are BIASED.


Are you for real? The only ones with any bias here are you conspiracy people, becuase you have shown time and time again that credibility has nothing to do with the source and everything to do with whether it you supports these conspriacy stories of yours. A bunch of college kids making internet videos on their dorm room and a professor of religious philosophy pretending to be a physics engineer are treated as revered authorities, while a taxi driver simply reporting what he saw at the Pentagon just has to be some secret gov't agent spreading disinformation.

I can see the intellectually dishonest double standard of these conspiracy web sites right away, even if you choose not to.


Then really we are not in much practical disagreement, Dave.


I suspect that's not really the case, as the blind devotion of the truthers to their "secret gov't conspiracies" claims shows they will refuse to accept the result of any investigation that does not certify the existence of some conspiracy or another, regardless of the methodology of the investigation. If future investigations shows the 9/11 attack occured because of gross gov't incompetence in preventing it, do you honestly think the "controlled demolitions" people will ever accept that finding? If some future investigation showed it WAS controlled demolitions, do you think the "lasers from outer space" people or the "nukes in the basement" people will accept THAT finding?

You know the answer to that and so do I.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


I understand that was what you understood as the truth as far as you knew. That is why I am trying to help.

Thank you, I stand corrected.



That is not proof of anything. That is the suggestion that if it were a certain type of explosives, there would have been a certain result. How would they know what kinds of explosives were used if they claimed to not find any? That is why that is speculation.

What destroys the devices is the compressive shock wave, the same type of compressive shock wave that was created by the plane impacting and exploding. This would have destroyed and/or rendered useless any explosive devices in the general vicinity of said impact.




...and who decided what these people actually heard? People report hearing explosions. They report hearing consecutive pops. Who decided they were wrong about what they heard and whether or not they even heard it? Again, SPECULATION AT BEST. Since youtube is full of witnesses talking about EXPLOSIONS, it is a little far fetched to just say it is a fact that they did not hear what they think they did. How do you know? Based on what?

Because nothing even approaching the types of explosions which cause implosions were captured on any of the video of the event. Human recollection is highly imperfect, video is less so. Look at the two videos you provided, the explosions leading to the collapse were clearly visible, and the sound of the progressive charges were clearly heard. There was nothing similar in the case of the WTC.




LOL. What does stagger mean to you?

the three definitions which match the context you used it in would be


to arrange in a zigzag order or manner on either side of a center: The captain staggered the troops along the road.
8. to arrange otherwise than at the same time, esp. in a series of alternating or continually overlapping intervals: They planned to stagger lunch hours so that the cafeteria would not be rushed.
9. Aeronautics. to arrange (the wings of a biplane or the like) so that the entering edge of an upper wing is either in advance of or behind that of a corresponding lower wing.


None of which mean the same thing as random.



That would mean that instead of tightly timed consecutive explosions, they would be randomly timed. Please do not knock my reading comprehension if your knowledge of the language is this poor.

Actually it seems yours is poor. Staggered does not mean randomly. Furthermore, controlled demolition explosions are not "randomly timed" due to the nature of the objective. IE a controlled demolition.





So what you are saying is -

The laws of physics were suspended for the first time in history.

No, not even close to what Im saying. That's what you're saying.



3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed due to fire for the first time in history.

Is that really that strange given the event was the first time in history a fully laden 767 was crashed into a building at full speed which was then allowed to burn without any fire mitigation efforts? Or the fact that the towers utilized a design which placed much of its support on the outer columns? Or that the impact of the plane knocked off much of the beams fire insulation?





Two very different explanations are supposed to cover the same thing happening three times for the first time in history.

The buildings we able to fall because they were so uniquely built that they were like no other buildings in the world


Who said "like no other buildings in the world"? This is why people have such a dim view of truthers, you use hyperbole to the point of addiction. Other buildings which also use tube frame design are the sears tower, (willis tower now) and the John Hancock center. However neither of those buildings have had a 747 fly into them.




If it was a controlled demo, it would have had to look exactly like every other controlled demo in history.

There would need to be certain similarities yes. Not limited to but including a non random series of explosions designed to cause a progressive collapse. In the case of the WTC towers, the effect was achieved by the fire weakening the steel to approximately 10% of regular strength coupled with the shearing of enough outer support columns to create a failure, which the structure itself then turned into a progressive collapse. Neither factor alone would have done so, but both together did.



Nothing factual there. That is just bad logic.


No, your interpretation of what is being argued is flawed.



Uh huh and when do you start refuting my post pointing out that your source is full of CRAP?

Whats "full of crap" is your inaccurate hyperbole, inaccurate descriptions of the arguments being made, and strawman arguments in general.



[edit on 12/30/2009 by Doglord]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are you attempting to claim that Loose Change is NOT selling their conspiracy movies (including the "bad" early versions) on DVD?


What does that have to do with anything I post, Dave? Nothing.

I've never bought a single thing from those guys, and even if I did, it STILL wouldn't change a damned thing I am telling you. You are just distracting from issues that are relevant to 9/11 itself.

They 9/11 Commission report is selling their book, too. The government is profiting from people buying their garbage. You can also buy physical copies of NIST's report, CDs, etc.

And if you REALLY want to follow the money -- LOOK AT ALL THE MONEY THE MILITARY IS MAKING OFF OF THESE WARS THAT ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF 9/11.

That money totally overwhelms ANYTHING any of these other guys have made. We are talking trillions of dollars here, BIG money. War is BIG business.


I can see what the main motive is for these conspiracy web sites right away, even if you choose not to.


What you see is irrelevant.

I can see the motive for 9/11 being an inside job even if you choose not to. Even if you want to follow the money, the most money was by far made off of the attacks themselves by the military industrial complex in the ensuing "War on Terror."



Oh, rubbish. What these web sites do is take the "pure" information and they deliberately misrepresent it to make it sound like something else.


I just posted information that came from MSM sources and government, not your "damned fool conspiracy websites" that YOU participate in.

But you ignore that and just take another opportunity to rant about something irrelevant and pretend I am taking this stuff off of conspiracy websites when I obviously am not. Again, it came straight from the MSM and various government sources. We didn't make it up.


For one thing, these damned fool web sites are the only ones on the face of the Earth who's making the claim that anyone is denying there were explosions to begin with. You do know that's the definition of "straw man argument", right?


No, because you ARE denying the balance of evidence that suggests actual explosive devices or bombs well before anything like exploding cleaners or electrical generators, which have 0 evidence, 0 MSM reports, 0 witness testimonies.



The only person spinning things dishonestly here is you, becuase I have never said the explosions were bottles of cleaners. I already told you I know they were (among other things) electrical transformers becuase I know from personal experience those things DO explode like bombs when they overheat.


Then prove they overheated and exploded.

You say you KNOW they were transformers, that is a laugh. Electrical engineering is my major and I can't fathom a situation in those buildings in which shorts would develop that would cause overheating. If anything the circuits would be CUT and current flow would be ZERO. Have you ever heard of a circuit breaker? No?



Where is the spin in any of this?


The fact that you have absolutely no evidence that generators were exploding yet claim it as if it's a fact. That's beyond spin. It's just plain making things up that you would have no clue about, and for which there is no evidence.



If future investigations shows the 9/11 attack occured because of gross gov't incompetence in preventing it, do you honestly think the "controlled demolitions" people will ever accept that finding?


Nope, because it wasn't just incompetence when you are also blowing up buildings that require inside access, like WTC7, which was as plain a demolition as my hands are plainly in front of my face. It's not my fault that most people are totally uneducated when it comes to free-fall acceleration and conservation of energy.


If some future investigation showed it WAS controlled demolitions, do you think the "lasers from outer space" people or the "nukes in the basement" people will accept THAT finding?


Just like you will never accept that the buildings were demolished, no matter what evidence you are shown, and no matter how many times you are shown your own case is equally as absurd as space beams. You're just as wrong.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Doglord
 


Doglord when are you going to do the logical thing and post a list of all the explosives/bombs that will destroy the structure of a building, and the ones that won't?

Only when you have a complete list, and know what they all sound like, from all various parts of the building, can you tell me with certainty that we weren't hearing explosives or bombs going off, and that none of the witnesses that were there that day saying that's what they heard, actually heard them.


Are you going to do this or are you just going to post your EMOTIONAL FEELING that they weren't what people said?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Are they not just selling the t-shirts and stuff to raise money for funds to keep the websites running and the investigations ongoing ? Just because they are selling books etc it does'nt mean that they are full of lies ? So for example cos Muhammad Ali wrote an autobiography and SOLD it instead of giving it away free, it was all lies ? Flawed logic there i think G.O.D. !

[edit on 053131p://12America/Chicago30 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
Are they not just selling the t-shirts and stuff to raise money for funds to keep the websites running and the investigations ongoing ?


Really, a $9 a month website is hardly a reason why to fleece your customers

Investigations? oh, you mean all the time they spend on Google? yeah that's like worth $2 an hour for all of the 30 minutes they spend.


Just because they are selling books etc that they are full of lies ?


They are full of lies. They are not based on any real investigation and are written by people who do not EVEN possess the expertise nor education to be writing on topics they have no business writing about,.

Tell me , what does a Theologian have anything do with engineering and physics?


And if people were doing real investigations, they wouldn't be peddling their crap. These are papers written by independent researchers; not being sold to anyone; most of which can be found at the library for free:

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Hey mate i was only askin ? I aint in the states i'm trying to make sense of it from here in England ! I want to get to the bottom of all this just like all the people deeply affected by this in the States ! My sympathies go out to all of you regarding this terrible act ! I don't pretend to know all if any of the answers but if questions aren't asked then nothing will get resolved ?

[edit on 063131p://12America/Chicago30 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


It's funny seeing you post this list around like it means something, when you don't even know what in the hell all of those papers even say.

Why don't you make a thread about them and post them for us to actually read through and see what exactly they conclude and how they are able to conclude it?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Hey mate i was only askin ? I aint in the states i'm trying to make sense of it from here in England ! I want to get to the bottom of all this just like all the people deeply affected by this in the States ! My sympathies go out to all of you regarding this terrible act ! I don't pretend to know all if any of the answers but if questions aren't asked then nothing will get resolved ?

[edit on 063131p://12America/Chicago30 by ProRipp]


No worries on that. MOst of your answers can be found if you stay away from 911 truth websites. READ the new articles from that day; not the spin of those artciles by 911 sites, where they take things out of context.

Read the 911 Commission Report
Read the NIST report
Read "The Looming Tower"
Read the Pentagon Performance report.

A lot of your questions are answered, you just to dig through the lies presented by the 911 "truth" movement.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


We talk about NIST plenty here.

We talk about the 9/11 Commission Report plenty here.


Thomas Kean led the 9/11 Commission Report and he even admits himself today that his committee was set up for failure. The Bush White House stalled and stalled an investigation, Cheney claimed there was no need for an investigation, and finally they set up the Kean Commission and now Kean himself is saying they were set up to fail. The White House was totally uncooperative with releasing information and the report didn't go into technical details about the WTC collapses or even mention WTC7 at all.


As far as NIST's report, I have been asking someone to post what they proved and how they proved it for years but not a single person has manned up to the challenge. Because it's just a bunch of rhetoric, nothing is cut and dry in that damned report, and none of you guys posting about it even understand what it says. All you have to do is show me how they prove their hypothesis. They didn't. And they were the only investigating body with access to the physical evidence and structural docs (besides FEMA, which just handed their investigation over to NIST anyway). End of discussion. Put up their evidence or shut up about it already. It's been 8 years and you can't even tell us what your own sources prove.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Doglord when are you going to do the logical thing and post a list of all the explosives/bombs that will destroy the structure of a building, and the ones that won't?


Well logically, any form of explosive can damage and/or destroy a building in great enough quantities. Simple firecrackers, if there were enough of them could damage and/or destroy a building depending on the type pf building, amount of internal space, amount of explosive material and velocity of detonation. The question isn't "can explosives destroy a building"




Only when you have a complete list, and know what they all sound like, from all various parts of the building, can you tell me with certainty that we weren't hearing explosives or bombs going off, and that none of the witnesses that were there that day saying that's what they heard, actually heard them.

First of all No. You and the other "truthers" are the ones making the contention that explosives were used, despite all evidence to the contrary. Logically, it is not my responsibility to prove that there were no explosives, it is your to show some form of evidence, any form of evidence that they were. The fact that you don't even understand the structure of a logical argument speaks volumes.
That being said, In order to cause a progressive collapse, explosives need to be precisely placed and detonated in order to achieve the desired effect. The sequence of detonation produces a distinctive pattern of sound. (and to once again make the point that "truthers" such as yourself have no ability to comprehend what you read) This pattern of sound is not as you seem to think the difference between a "boom" and a "bang" it is the pattern of explosions which was not recorded by any of the multitude of cameras or audio devices in place at the time of either of the twin towers collapse or by those recording the WTC 7 collapse. Your statement itself is illogical and ignorant because it shows you completely misunderstood the point I was making. I don't need to "list the sounds of all various types of explosives" because the argument I was making (which you obviously did not understand) wasn't "whether a particular type of explosive was used" but whether a sequence of explosions capable of causing the effect seen was ever observed"



Are you going to do this or are you just going to post your EMOTIONAL FEELING that they weren't what people said?


Considering that you are incapable of even understanding an argument that was being made, even when explained in simple language, or the nature of how a logical argument is structured, I am not at all surprised that you are unable to determine the difference between a logical and emotional point.

If you really care about the "9/11 truth" movement, I suggest that the best thing you could do for it would be to avoid any further 9/11 debates. Because you, more than any other poster I have seen, live up to every stereotype of "truthers" as irrational, unintelligent, illogical and ignorant. In other words, you are the type of person that gives an already fringe movement an even worse name.



[edit on 12/30/2009 by Doglord]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
You and the other "truthers" are the ones making the contention that explosives were used, despite all evidence to the contrary.


As far as I can see, you are still not giving me ANY evidence to the contrary.

You can't even give me a list of all the different types of explosives and what they are supposed to sound like from different places within the building. Which is why you claiming they didn't sound right is total trash, an emotional FEELING.


Logically, it is not my responsibility to prove that there were no explosives, it is your to show some form of evidence, any form of evidence that they were. The fact that you don't even understand the structure of a logical argument speaks volumes.


I have already mentioned evidence favoring their existence.

1) Many, many reports of explosions. Remember this so I won't have to keep repeating it please.

2) Reports of NO electrical generators or anything else exploding except bombs or explosives. Terms used in specific accounts/reports/video clips: "suspicious device," van/truck found full of explosives, "secondary device," "bomb," etc.


Even FBI officials telling journalists SPECIFICALLY that they believed a vehicle had been exploded in the parking garage to coincidence with the impacts.

Let's review the corroborating evidence for that alone:

1) Again, plenty of witness testimonies to basement explosions, subway cars filling with smoke, etc.

2) Elevators servicing lower-level floors and the basement levels blown out of their hinges, but NOT elevators servicing upper-level floors, as noted in the very clear and specific testimony of NYPD Lt. William Walsh.

3) Testimony of basement levels filling with smoke (ie Mike Pecoraro).

4) Seismic signals of the plane impacts being off from the actual impact times recorded by other sources, including live media coverage for WTC2, by several seconds, even after adjusting for delays.

ALL of that is evidence of something exploding in the basement, and guess what is suggested infinitely more than electrical generators, fire extinguishers, and bottles of janitors' cleaners? Bombs/explosives/secondary devices. Please also remember this so I will not have to keep repeating it.



That being said, In order to cause a progressive collapse, explosives need to be precisely placed and detonated in order to achieve the desired effect. The sequence of detonation produces a distinctive pattern of sound. (and to once again make the point that "truthers" such as yourself have no ability to comprehend what you read) This pattern of sound is not as you seem to think the difference between a "boom" and a "bang" it is the pattern of explosions which was not recorded by any of the multitude of cameras or audio devices in place at the time of either of the twin towers collapse or by those recording the WTC 7 collapse.


You think NO explosives were used. So what logical reason can you have for telling me they couldn't just put 2 or 3 bombs in the core structure in different places, including the basement, and then quietly eat through all the other relevant connections with incendiaries? None. Because, again, you think the exact same thing happened with no explosives. So theoretically I could believe there was only 1 stick of dynamite to break the camel's back, so to speak, and you have absolutely no room telling me there would "have" to be more when you obviously don't actually believe that yourself. You're a hypocrite.


the argument I was making (which you obviously did not understand) wasn't "whether a particular type of explosive was used" but whether a sequence of explosions capable of causing the effect seen was ever observed"


And yet you still can't produce a list of every possible type of explosive/bomb and the sounds they would make. You have no idea what kind of technology could have possibly been used or what noises or lack of noise would issue from them. So if you can't do that, then you can't make a freaking argument that they weren't heard, because you don't know. What were you saying about the difference between facts/logic and emotions/feelings? Take your own advice. I don't believe for one second you can listen to a recording of a "boom" and tell what in the hell it was or where it was coming from.


you, more than any other poster I have seen, live up to every stereotype of "truthers" as irrational, unintelligent, illogical and ignorant.


This is just more emotional whining trash from you because you can't support your arguments with logic and you know it.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


What I find interesting is the dearth of professional literature attempting to analyse the process of progressive collapse of tall buildings published prior to 9/11 2001.

Progressive collapse of steel framed skyscrapers didn't exist prior to that date as a real world phenomenon (except by means of controlled demolition) - nor has it since.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis
reply to post by RipCurl
 


What I find interesting is the dearth of professional literature attempting to analyse the process of progressive collapse of tall buildings published prior to 9/11 2001.

Progressive collapse of steel framed skyscrapers didn't exist prior to that date as a real world phenomenon (except by means of controlled demolition) - nor has it since.


Which is why 911 regarding the WTC was planned the way it was.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord

Thank you, I stand corrected.


Which would be the whole point but for some reason, you want to continue to defend faulty information. I thought you had said you were open minded and looked at all kinds of sources and yet when I show you how one source is faulty from the get go....you defend it?


What destroys the devices is the compressive shock wave, the same type of compressive shock wave that was created by the plane impacting and exploding. This would have destroyed and/or rendered useless any explosive devices in the general vicinity of said impact.


Does the word "speculation" read differently or mean something else where you are? In order to know whether or not this would happen, you would need to know what kind of explosives were used, how they were rigged, etc.. They are all not the same. You do not know any of that. That site does not know any of that. Point 2 - no facts, just speculation on what should happen to some things under some circumstances. FAIL.




Because nothing even approaching the types of explosions which cause implosions were captured on any of the video of the event.


Just a helpful hint but video has nothing to do with what people HEAR. If you want to change topics, add a 5th BS point to that list from the site.


Human recollection is highly imperfect, video is less so. Look at the two videos you provided, the explosions leading to the collapse were clearly visible, and the sound of the progressive charges were clearly heard. There was nothing similar in the case of the WTC.


You mean the buildings that were not demo'd from the bottom up as your source claims all demos MUST BE DONE? They claim that people did not hear the right types of explosions. I am refuting your source, not your new path on things. Who on the site has the authority to determine what all explosions must sound like and who that was there that day would be qualified. Can you answer that? If not, this is more speculation and with your added argument about what people saw, that is also deflection. Still no facts though.

As far as what was recorded.....LOL. Get your best camera, go blow some stuff up and tape it. Come back and tell me just how accurately that cameras audio equipment recorded the sound of an explosion. There is a reason that scenes take time to dress when proper audio is to be recorded and news cameras running through the street are not equipped with the sound recording devices necessary to actually capture explosions, especially within distance of the percussion wave.

Point 3 - still no facts. 1 lie, 2 opinions.


None of which mean the same thing as random.


You are too cute. The timing of them was staggered. The difference between it being staggered and random would be decision making. Do you know why they stagger the timing of things (re-read those definitions, it is in there) they stagger timing to make things APPEAR RANDOM. The only way for you to know the real actual difference is if you were on the inside. So pick either word you like, when does it put any truth into your BS source?



Actually it seems yours is poor. Staggered does not mean randomly. Furthermore, controlled demolition explosions are not "randomly timed" due to the nature of the objective. IE a controlled demolition.


You really are having a hard time. Staggered timing means that they were not orderly or appearing in controlled fashion.

Furthermore, we already went over this. Yes, in a controlled demo, they are in a controlled order - usually. What was usual on 9/11? The tilting building adjusting itself? Two planes vanishing? Tell me all about how 9/11 was supposed to look.



No, not even close to what Im saying. That's what you're saying.


Actually it is what the OS says, not me.



Is that really that strange given the event was the first time in history a fully laden 767 was crashed into a building at full speed which was then allowed to burn without any fire mitigation efforts?


I am sorry, which one crashed into 7 full of fuel again?


Or the fact that the towers utilized a design which placed much of its support on the outer columns? Or that the impact of the plane knocked off much of the beams fire insulation?


Outer columns? Where did you get that?


Wow, you know I just do not have the energy to sit here and pick this apart line by line AGAIN. I pointed out your source is full of one lie and 3 opinions just to start. Even after acknowledging the first one was wrong, you defend it.

Listen, you apparently think you know more thane me. Cool. You told us where you learned. Now if I can spend 2 minutes on youtube and point out the first fact on the page is WRONG...then I guess I am one up on your source. Defend their opinions all you like. I only had to get this far to realize that you have no idea how the buildings were supported, how many actually got hit by a plane full of fuel, and why sentences completely devoid of facts are usually not good places to start. Enjoy your ignorance for a while longer. You really really really to like it.






top topics



 
38
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join