It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 for Dummies?

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Any paper written by AE's folks have had zero effect on other engineers in the field. If they are respected professionals, a rational person would expect and realize that they would get a reaction other than mocking and ridicule for their efforts. But that hasn't happened now, has it?

I'll ask for your own speculation as to why that is.....




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You are ignoring the fact that these organizations have been growing every year, to encompassing 100's of engineers, architects, pilots, etc. in the past few years. They weren't there in 2001, 2002, 2003. I remember when I first signed up on these forums you "debunkers" were asking for a single engineer's name that contradicted the "official story." Now you literally have 100s. So saying these guys' work has "had zero effect on other engineers in the field" is either a brain-fart on your part, or a blatant lie.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


So the reply from the FEMA enigineers was regarding #7

Get ready

The building was probably brought down by fires, althought there

is a LOW probably of that happening.


This is your respected engineers answer.



[edit on 27-12-2009 by Sean48]

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Sean48]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
but I would think underground fires not being able to happen, since fires need oxygen. I don't think theres alot underground under rubble, but I guess im just speculating. also those fires would have to hit a tempature in the high 2000's to melt steal.


You don't need to speculate. I highly recommend the book, "Aftermath" by Joel Meyerowitz. He was a photographer who documented the cleanup efforts of ground zero, and he also includes a first had accound of what the conditions were like there. Even he reports one of the major dangers workign there was from the effects of the underground fires.

I'm not a metallurgist, but it would seem to me that a fire burning for three months underground, in a concentrated area, would be like a blast furnace to any steel, or at least, is the most logical explanation from all the possible explanations put forth.


I with alot of the personal attacks I see I would just like to say I could only hope to god that osama did it all and the NWO doesn't exist and blah blah blah. But evidence seems to point in another direction. I can only make opinions based on my own experiences and the evidence put in front of me because I am in fact human. I want to see 9/11 theorys debunked and refuted, but the answers I get never seem to in fact refute it.


I really would like to know what this evidence is that you're referring to, as I've been looking into these 9/11 conspiracies for a long, LONG time, and I can say with 100% certainty that whatever it is, the people telling you this are deliberately leaving out some critical piece of information that, if you knew it, it would convince you of the exact opposite of what they're trying to tell you. I will give you all the examples of this that you'd like.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The information you say we are leaving out is often just speculation on your part that doesn't settle anything. Remember that the biggest "agenda" behind these conspiracy theories is re-investigation and release of all available evidence, subpoenas, etc.

For example, there were numerous explosions coming from all parts of those buildings.

Typical response? "Oh, it was electrical generators/exploding cleaner bottles/etc."

What evidence is any of that based on?

Nothing.

Yet it completely satisfies you, because you don't even want to THINK that they could have been caused by anything else.

Sorry Dave, but your baseless assertions don't satisfy people who want REAL answers.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

For example, there were numerous explosions coming from all parts of those buildings.

Typical response? "Oh, it was electrical generators/exploding cleaner bottles/etc."

What evidence is any of that based on?



No, it's reasoned out by rational people.

Any high explosive is so loud that they would be undeniable.

By process of elimination, high explosives are eliminated.

And then when the very same people that the TM quote - firefighters, for example - give statements that explosions are not unexpected, it is a lock that explosives weren't the source of these explosions.

Again, rational people realize this. Paranoid CTers don't.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You are ignoring the fact that these organizations have been growing every year, to encompassing 100's of engineers, architects, pilots, etc. in the past few years.



So what technical paper convinced you?

I have yet to see anything that hasn't been ridiculed.

Ross's paper was shown to have serious methodology errors. And his paper dealt with WTC 1 only, claiming that the collapse should have arrested. When corrected, 1 doesn't arrest. And when one applies his flawed methodology to WTC 2, his formula proves that it shouldn't have arrested.

Szamboti's paper is the worst I've ever seen. He takes Bazant's worse case model and applies it to reality, when Bazant never claimed it did. All Tony has accomplished is that the towers didn't have column to column contact at the collapse initiation, which any rational person would agree would be near impossible.

So what else is there that I've missed?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The information you say we are leaving out is often just speculation on your part that doesn't settle anything. Remember that the biggest "agenda" behind these conspiracy theories is re-investigation and release of all available evidence, subpoenas, etc.

For example, there were numerous explosions coming from all parts of those buildings.

Typical response? "Oh, it was electrical generators/exploding cleaner bottles/etc."

What evidence is any of that based on?


I'm basing it upon my own personal experience. A few years back, the electrical transformer in the building across the street from where I work overheated and it blew up like a bomb. I don't mean just a loud bang, I mean KABOOM! It rattled my own building and it set the building across the street on fire, so we had to evacuate ourselves. This was a few years immediately after 9/11, so when it happened, all my otherwise normal and rational coworkers suddenly became Chicken Littles thinking the sky was about to fall, running around yelling "WE'RE GOING TO DIE!" and "IT WAS A BOMB!". I've seen this with my own eyes.

So a) yes I DO know from first had experience that electrical transformers will blow up like a bomb when/if they overheat, and it is an irreutable fact that the WTC had electrical transformers throughout the structure, as well as c) yes I DO know from first had experience that all sorts of Chicken Littles thinking the sky is about to fall in will run around and yell IT WAS A BOMB when they hear an electrical transformer explode. What I'm seeing here is the exact same thing I saw then, it's just that it's in a different package.


Yet it completely satisfies you, because you don't even want to THINK that they could have been caused by anything else.


If you can explain to me how blowing up the restaurant in that building across the street and passing it off as an overheated transformer will benefit the secret world order hell bent on taking over the world, then I'll entertain the possibility that the explosions heard in the towers were something other than the rational, normal events we'd expect during a fire. Deal?

BTW what the heck is an "exploding cleaner bottle"?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave that was a response to the common claim that hearing an explosion during a fire means there was a bomb. Several of us have pointed out over the years that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of common articles found in a building that will "explode" in the presence of fire/heat. Things like cleaning chemcals, floor finishes, hell even cans of soda will explode when exposed to direct flame/.extreme heat...and each of them will sound like a bomb going off.

Of course truthers take it to the extreme and say that exploding Pledge knocked down the towers in their attempts at ridicule



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave that was a response to the common claim that hearing an explosion during a fire means there was a bomb. Several of us have pointed out over the years that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of common articles found in a building that will "explode" in the presence of fire/heat. Things like cleaning chemcals, floor finishes, hell even cans of soda will explode when exposed to direct flame/.extreme heat...and each of them will sound like a bomb going off.

Of course truthers take it to the extreme and say that exploding Pledge knocked down the towers in their attempts at ridicule



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
911=Coptic Christian holiday. Now we have a solar eclipse and a lunar eclipse within 15 days of each other starting New Years Evening 2009/2010. In Bethlehem Jesus will return but must be united with the return of Mohammed for 40 days.
Bethlehem, the birth place.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


You are ignoring the fact that these organizations have been growing every year, to encompassing 100's of engineers, architects, pilots, etc. in the past few years.


No one is ignoring it BsBray. Anyone that pays attention to the snake oil salesman that is Richard Gage, knows that his numbers do increase. He has traveled the world to collect these signatures. How many people have viewed his booth at the AIA conventions? He claims over 20,000 at one convention. Think of the thousands upon thousands that have heard his crap.

What about the Flat Earth Society. Do you know what their numbers have done over the past years?

The Moon Landing Hoaxers?

If their numbers increase, does that make them right?

A&E can increase their numbers...they have presented nothing. This is the same for the other fringe groups I have listed above.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally Posted by Sean48 Great premise for a thread. 911 to sum it up... WAS THE DAY OF COUNTLESS FIRSTS First time steel framed buildings fell from fire , THREE to be exact First time a huge 757 fit into a 16 foot hole (Pentagon), think of trying to fit a Cow into a Rabbit hole First time a Multi Trillion Dollar Military was Biotch Slapped by cavemen using 20 dollars worth of plastic knives First time the Law of Physics took a day off, Take two 47 floor buildings suspend them in the air , and take the bottem 16 floors off of 1 of them, then drop them both, on that day, they both reached the ground at the same time First time 4 Flight Recorders on a Land based crash "disappeared " when these things are titanium build to survive plane crashes Countless more, but I will hand it over for other posters to contribute in this fun thread


Believe it or not, it wasn't the airplanes and it wasn't a conspiracy it was an "Act of God"

[snip]

 


Removed link to personal blog

[edit on 16/1/10 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


CIA/Mossad Op

My bet



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
No one is ignoring it BsBray. Anyone that pays attention to the snake oil salesman that is Richard Gage, knows that his numbers do increase.


Yeah, it's all Richard Gage's fault that three separate organizations have all independently gained hundreds of professional members in the last few years. Nothing to do with their own thinking or judgments, because no one thinking on their own could come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job so therefore someone must have brainwashed them all, and that man was Richard Gage, right? I honestly believe you have an unhealthy obsession with this guy, but what difference does my opinion on that make.


What about the Flat Earth Society. Do you know what their numbers have done over the past years?


An interesting rhetorical question. I suppose you'll be sharing the answer with us in your next post?



If their numbers increase, does that make them right?


Hold on two seconds. Are you honestly telling me that the number of people who believe something has no relevance to whether or not it's true?

Hmmm. Is that REALLY what you're telling me? Does that mean that I will NEVER see you make an argument again based on an erroneously perceived number of engineers that agree with you? Or do the number of professional engineers who back certain ideas really do mean something?

Which is it? Either a lot of collective professional opinions mean something significant, or mean nothing significant. Both you and I should already know from numerous historical examples that the number of people that believe something has absolutely 0 to do with its validity. But the ONLY argument you guys seem to have going for you is your mantra that everyone is already in agreement (which you suggest but it is obviously wrong) and they all agree with you (also therefore wrong) and therefore you have the greatest chance of being right (logical fallacy).



A&E can increase their numbers...they have presented nothing. This is the same for the other fringe groups I have listed above.


You call them fringe groups but they are more relevant professionals together than you can list that are supporting NIST's theory or gravity-driven theories in general. I've already seen the list of papers too and the number of professionals they collectively represent is still smaller, not to mention none of you ever want to discuss what any given paper actually proves.
It does not follow that someone has to publish a paper saying they believe we need further investigation for their opinion to be justified, either.


But like I said... I am perfectly able and willing to admit that the number of people who believe something has absolutely no bearing on its objective validity. Millions of people have believed total garbage before that was enforced by authorities and experts (Sun revolves around Earth, etc.). Especially when the deception is intended. All the growing number of people supporting re-investigation and alternative theories indicates is that (a) a demonstrable and growing body of professionals have issues with government theories and (b) none of you "debunkers" can claim we "conspiracy theorists" haven't gone anywhere since 9/11. I didn't even doubt the official story myself until somewhere around 2003.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

You are absolutely right bsbray11.



Millions of people have believed total garbage before that was enforced by authorities and experts (Sun revolves around Earth, etc.). Especially when the deception is intended.


Yes!
Like JFK assassination, the Warren Report. No different than the 911 commission report.


Exposing Lies About the FED, the CIA, the Murder of JFK


www.thepeoplesvoice.org...



The Death Of John Kennedy

whatreallyhappened.com...

Like the Gulf of Tonkin:


Tonkin Gulf resolution, in U.S. history, Congressional resolution passed in 1964 that authorized military action in Southeast Asia. On Aug. 4, 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin were alleged to have attacked without provocation U.S. destroyers that were reporting intelligence information to South Vietnam. President Lyndon B. Johnson and his advisers decided upon immediate air attacks on North Vietnam in retaliation; he also asked Congress for a mandate for future military action. On Aug. 7, Congress passed a resolution drafted by the administration authorizing all necessary measures to repel attacks against U.S. forces and all steps necessary for the defense of U.S. allies in Southeast Asia.

Although there was disagreement in Congress over the precise meaning of the Tonkin Gulf resolution, Presidents Johnson and Richard M. Nixon used it to justify later military action in Southeast Asia. The measure was repealed by Congress in 1970. Retired Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, in a 1995 meeting with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, categorically denied that the North Vietnamese had attacked the U.S. destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964, and in 2001 it was revealed that President Johnson, in a taped conversation with McNamara several weeks after passage of the resolution, had expressed doubt that the attack ever occurred.


encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...


Like Pearl Harbor:


THE LIE OF THE CENTURY!


whatreallyhappened.com...



Pearl Harbor Attack No Surprise


www.ihr.org...

These are just a few Historic events, where it has now been proven that our government was involved into deceiving the American people and more than enough proof has been shown that our government was involved into covering up their malicious act.


Is that REALLY what you're telling me? Does that mean that I will NEVER see you make an argument again based on an erroneously perceived number of engineers that agree with you?


Right again,
we won’t because, there are none.


But the ONLY argument you guys seem to have going for you is your mantra that everyone is already in agreement (which you suggest but it is obviously wrong) and they all agree with you (also therefore wrong) and therefore you have the greatest chance of being right (logical fallacy).


Your right again,
I do not know where they get that nonsense from because, most people I talk to about 911 ALL believe the government is hiding something and that we were never told the truth. The fact is, most people do not know as much as most of us on ATS but, they are aware the government has not been forthcoming with any real information and failing to answer the most critical questions. Just the government and media’s avoidance, and silence on the 911 issues says it all.

People read, and more and more people are turning to the internet for their information and they are discovering that they have been lied to about 911, which only makes people curious to do some digging of their own to find some answers.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This is not about Conspiracy Theories, False Flags or Inside Jobs.

This is about Grade School Physics.

Let’s just face a few simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

www.youtube.com...

Our engineering schools should have been telling us this was IMPOSSIBLE within 6 months of 9/11 and now EIGHT YEARS later we don't have obvious information.

But that is the kind of job the engineering schools have done for us. After this much time they are accomplices after the fact.

psik


[edit on 20-1-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Eight Years???? You mean in the span of 8 years you have not been able to sit down and calculate the weight of the materials in one tower of the WTC???

Good lord, it didn't take that long to build it!! The plans are online, photos of the construction are online, none of this material was top secret. It was all pretty much standard material used in a unique design. Concrete, deckpans, rebar, truss sections - it really isn't that complicated. Hell, you could have built a mock up by now.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Maybe the reason the mosque planned to be built in London across from the 2012 Olympic stadium was haulted because there were explosives being built into the structure. huh?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
what i don't get about all these debunkers on this site supporting the OS. what are you guys afraid of? a new investigation? possibility of being wrong? possibility of not being able to handle the real truth? Afraid of hurting your inner belief that your government has possibly done a monstrous act?

bush has lied,

his administration has lied,

almost everything related to the OS has been deemed a lie.

the buildings fell at free-fall speed following the path of greatest resistance, not once, not twice, but three times.

What are these debunkers afraid of? really, whats your fear guys? WHY do you support the OS so much when there were flaws, huge flaws in the initial reports.

wouldnt that be enough to open a new investigation when the leaders of this country at that time were found to be half truths?

yet, we support them, because you guys think they are out for our own good. which is wrong, the founders of this country would be disgusted with you guys. they always wanted us to have small government, so corruption like post 9/11 wouldn't happen. think military industrial complex, think 2 illegal wars with false intelligence.

What are you afraid of?

wait, i can see their replies now. (i wouldn't want to support truthers with a new investigation because i wouldn't want them to have subpoena power)

Uh... how else, would we get a real investigation done without that subpoena power? hell the commission report was even refused subpoena power, and anything that would refute the OS, was left out of the report. not to mention they didn't even mention the molten iron found in the rubble of each collapsed building. FIRE DOES NOT DO THAT. show me where a fire MELTS steel, show me a fire where it obliterates steel re-enforced concrete. then and only then will i ever take you guys seriously.

all debunkers are the same on this site, except a select few who actually refute politely, and share their experience, and input.

oh the others, are just rude, obnoxious, detached, etc. i am not attacking anyone, its only what i have seen and read, and its quite sad really, because its the same ones, over and over, and over.

the majority of the USA thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

WAKE UP!


WAKE UP!


WAKE UP:


EDIT: added another video.

[edit on 1/20/2010 by ugie1028]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join