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: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Even IF a few distinguished persons of stature saw "UFOs"....your point is way off the discussion of 9/11, sorry.


NO it is not off discussion. You tried to use a point of an astronuat seeing UFOs as a way to make a person look like they are less truthful.



[edit on 24-1-2010 by REMISNE]


He was implying that we should believe Him and Swampy.

Not take the word of the 6th man to walk on the moon.




posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by A-E-I-Owned-You
oooook? Even engineers make mistakes. Who is to say the real conspiracy isnt that the government is trying to cover the engineering firms ass who placed a bolt in the wrong spot letting fuel and fire through a firewall? We can all make shots in the dark.

As to why it isnt public knowledge, that is anyones guess. But just because we arent told doesnt mean anything. No matter what they tell you, most of the people here wouldnt believe it anyways!

By the way, I am not sure if you are implying that my personal beliefs have something to do with my opinion or what, but I am not of any religion...


I was not trying to make any implications about anybody's religion or lack thereof. I was just saying the only thing that REALLY matters in this incident is the Physics and that is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous after EIGHT YEARS.

I have heard people trying to imply that there was something wrong with the buildings before because for them that was easier to believe than however massive a conspiracy they consider to have been necessary to pull this off.

But we are talking about buildings that stood for 28 years. MASS is still MASS regardless of any engineering flaws. Looked at as 15 story sections the twin towers had SEVEN 15 story sections each. Since every section had to support the combined weights of all sections above then they had to get stronger further down which meant MORE STEEL which meant MORE MASS. Any engineering flaw that could let those buildings come down that fast would not have let them stand for 28 years. In fact it would probably have caused a collapse during construction.

So this entire business is now a stinking pile of DRECK at the feet of all of the Engineering Schools in the country. Why haven't they been demanding to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? Schools that train engineers to design skyscrapers must explain certain things to the students. Conservation of Momentum is one of the simpler things they would get in physics classes. How did Purdue make a simulation of the north tower plane impact and yet the core columns don't move in unison from the sway the the impact had to produce?

www.youtube.com...

So how could the top 15 stories crush the rest that had to get stronger and heavier all of the way down and ACCELERATE in the process? That is the IMPOSSIBLE PHYSICS that the schools should have been screaming about for years. But apparently David Chandler, a high school physics teacher, is the only one with the guts.

www.youtube.com...

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century but more than 10,000 times worse.

A nice lesson in Psychohistory too. How does the media explain being too dumb to ask about the distribution of steel in skyscrapers for EIGHT YEARS?

psik



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

What this thread was supposed to achieve and didnt




The reason why I asked for very short and extremely simple posts is because the #1 Method to obscure truth is by a technique I call information-overwhelm which means to post so much and so many angles that the brain goes on confused-and-uncertain mode and everything becomes relativistic.

Truth is simple enough and can usually be told in one sentence whereas the cover-up of truth requires several paragraphs, links, pictures, videos and references and derailment into personal attacks and bickering.

For example, "Was the information in the airplanes Blackbox released to the Public?"

YES

or

NO

Thats how simple the answer to that one is.

I am no smarter from this thread because the rules outlined in the OP were not adhered to, despite good efforts by some.

If anyone wishes to make a REAL CONTRIBUTION to the PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR-THREAD then post RELEVANT data in ONE- AND TWO-LINERS that are easily understandable for even the most DENSE.



[edit on 10-2-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

I'll give this a try:

The investigation was compromised. It was compromised early through the destruction of possible evidence before any experts could examine it and also through unorganized leadership at the dumps where they took all the debris which resulted in the unauthorized removal of possible evidence. And then they ended their search for no apparent reason a year early and with plenty of money left over.

The 911 commission was resisted heavily by the Administration, but after it was formed it was shown that many people offered false testimony.

The NIST report tried to model the collapses based on flimsy evidence, while using questionable methods and an illogical selective process and completely ignored half of the collapse sequence.

Does this prove an inside job? No, it does not. But it also does not exonerate anyone, either. So I will keep looking, simple as that.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


NIcon...destruction of what possible evidence, specifically??

See, SkyFloating (and I) don't wish to acept such blanket staements, when unsubstantiated.

"SF", notwithstanding what "NI" wrote....seems to me there was ample evidence that survived. I think "NI" claims are from 'conspiracy'-minded sites. Just my guess, on that.

Simpler point....four hijackings, and four crashes. Therefore, mechanical reasons for the airplane crashes aren't under consideration, and need not be investigated. The focus was obvious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A more prosaic possible example came to mind: Let's imagine a petrol tanker that is hijacked (or stolen) and used as a "guided missile"-type suicide bomb on a target.

Given that it is understood that it was suicide mission, by a devoted religious extremist...is the investigation going to examine the truck's wreckage to look for brake failure, or steering problems???

[edit on 10 February 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

For example, "Was the information in the airplanes Blackbox released to the Public?"

YES

or

NO

Thats how simple the answer to that one is.


What good are simple answers to irrelevant questions?

Does it help us understand whether or not a NORMAL AIRLINE weighing less than 200 tons can destroy a skyscraper weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than 2 hours?

If the answer to that question is NO then many other questions become irrelevant..

The distributions of steel and concrete are relevant because skyscrapers must hold themselves up and the designers must decide upon and document that for the building to be constructed. So isn't it RELEVANT that so many experts aren't making an issue of that after EIGHT YEARS?

If ALL OF THE EXPERTS should have concluded that a normal airliner could not possibly have done that within SIX MONTHS of 9/11 then we are in a very peculiar position now.

psik



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Well, Weedwacker, I can't tell you specifically what is missing as I don't think anyone has ever taken a complete inventory of the building to figure out exactly what is missing or in what condition it all ended up. I could tell you specifically what it was, if the possible evidence was still with us.

But to be concise like SkyFloating wanted here is the problems with the evidence gathering that makes me think that it was compromised. And, yep, there are links, too, so I hope SkyFloating will forgive me for that.

1)Destruction of possible evidence.
"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues"
www.house.gov...
My Comment: Exactly what was lost? Was this intentional?

2) Unorganized leadership.
"All members of the Minneapolis ERT described the management at both Ground Zero and Fresh Kills as chaotic and unorganized. They said there was no real chain of command at either site, and no one knew who was in charge."
www.justice.gov...
My Comment: What exactly took place while all this chaos was taking place?

3) Unauthorized removal of possible evidence.
"Finally, many FBI employees took rubble as souvenirs from Fresh Kills, and a wide disparity of opinion existed as to whether it was appropriate to do so."
www.justice.gov...
My Comment: With the chaos mentioned in #2 and evidence of people taking souvenirs, is it possible other more important things were taken, too?

4) Discovery of possible evidence 5 years later.
"More than 200 pieces of human remains have been found at the World Trade Center site since the discovery of bones by workers clearing rubble from manholes sparked a new search a week ago, an official said on Thursday."
www.alertnet.org...
My Comment: The human remains were found and reported, but what else was found? What is still out there?

5) Overlooking of relevant debris.
"Dr. Charles Hirsch believed there were still remains mixed in with the debris."
gothamist.com...
My Comment: Same as #4, what is still out there?

6) Aborted operation.
"FEMA had dedicated $125 million to sift through the debris but the program ended "one year ahead of schedule and $58 million under budget."
gothamist.com...
My Comment: Why? Why? Why?

Are all these completely innocent mistakes? Could be. But why should I trust them if they made so many mistakes?

Edit for grammar, spelling, omissions, etc.

Edited again to add: I'd like to point out that none of these are taken from 'conspiracy'-minded sites.

[edit on 10-2-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 10-2-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
For example, "Was the information in the airplanes Blackbox released to the Public?


Or how about, "Was the structural documentation for the 3 totally-collapsed skyscrapers released to the public (so civil engineers could study and investigate the collapses)?"

To which the answer is "No."


Or, "Do we have clear explanations for the uncounted explosions that occurred all morning until the collapse of WTC7 in the evening, that are known to have injured and killed people and were reported by at least scores of witnesses?"

The very simple and clear answer again is "No." So many years later and still the best anyone can do is guess at what kept exploding and injuring people throughout the buildings.



How about an energy analysis that demonstrates how WTC7 could fold into the ground at a rate (free-fall) that indicated there was actually nothing at all below the falling mass to impede it, even though it was supposedly simultaneously using the same energy to catastrophically destroy itself?

Another "no."



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
World Trade Center Building #7.





Obvious lie is obvious.

WTC7 alone proves that the OS is BS.

It was a controlled demolition.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


I thought so too, but apparently not everyone can watch all four corners of the roof line of a massive building start dropping straight down simultaneously and put "2 and 2" together.




Speaking of things which still have not been explained, WTC1 did the exact same thing, and WTC2's only difference was its top floors actually leaned outwards about 10 degrees before it also started sinking straight down while exploding in all directions.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



I thought so too, but apparently not everyone can watch all four corners of the roof line of a massive building start dropping straight down simultaneously and put "2 and 2" together.
Speaking of things which still have not been explained, WTC1 did the exact same thing, and WTC2's only difference was its top floors actually leaned outwards about 10 degrees before it also started sinking straight down while exploding in all directions.


Or maybe some people realize that gravity works the same way without regard to how it is engaged.

Somebody falls over because they are stinking drunk, fainting from heat stroke or suffering cardiac arrest, they all look the same.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Or maybe some people realize that gravity works the same way without regard to how it is engaged.


This statement alone already demonstrates you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.


Somebody falls over because they are stinking drunk, fainting from heat stroke or suffering cardiac arrest, they all look the same.


And then the icing on the cake.


Free-fall acceleration is a special case in physics, when an object is falling and there is nothing underneath it to slow it down. If there is ANYTHING underneath it to provide resistance, it will NOT accelerate at that rate. When I have to explain something so basic to people I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm actually educated enough to work a free-body diagram (ever heard of such a thing?), or in other words I have actually had physics 101 and actually paid attention. You should consider taking it some time, like before the next time you start spouting off about how gravity always works the same and all drunk people look the same when they fall down...



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Or maybe some people realize that gravity works the same way without regard to how it is engaged.


Actually that statement is true.

But the people that design skyscrapers know this and that is why they have to figure out how much steel to put under the weight they must support.

This is why BELIEVING that a skyscraper can come down at even 50% of freefall acceleration without demanding to know the distribution of steel in said skyscraper is totally absurd. A lot os architects and engineers have spent EIGHT YEARS making fools of themselves.

How do we explain Newtonian physics to high school kids for the next 1000 years?

psik



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What I think is funny is that people are still trying to make this silly argument since about free-fall acceleration, yet we really don't have definitive, universal measurements for the event.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


First of all we can't see the entire collapse to begin with, only the uppermost part of the building falling before it's obscured by neighboring buildings. But what little of it we can see, even NIST agrees 3 seconds of that time is pure free-fall. While the building is simultaneously "collapsing" on itself using its own weight. Obviously both of those statements cannot be true. Yet even NIST agrees the building DID free-fall. So the statement that is NOT true is that the building was collapsing on itself using its own weight. It was not collapsing itself using its own weight. Something else compromised the structure and allowed it to simply drop to the ground unimpeded.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How do we explain Newtonian physics to high school kids for the next 1000 years?


Why should we have to?

Seriously.

One would assume someone wouldn't get into an argument about something they don't understand in the first place, but on the internet there are no real standards except the forum rules so..



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.


From NIST.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I was talking about WTC7.

Damn man, I'm sorry I even said anything to you. Just forget it. There is no point.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Please go on (and ignore who I am and my posting history for a moment) and explain about WTC 7.

Constant claims of "cd" and "free-fall speeds"...

OK...true that in other videos that show actual 'cd' the rate of falling is quite similar --- except some buildings 'fall' slightly faster, or slower, than others.

Depenmds on design and rigging, I would suppose??

Whatever --- WTC 7 does seem to collapse inward upon itself, to a great degree...BUT wouldn't a building that was largely cantilever in design, that had sustained a severe, large damaging blow from tons of falling debris, and had also been subjected to uncontrolled fires for the better part of a day tend to be weakened mostly internally, and thus the weight above of that weakened area would (assisted by gravity) tend to pull down, and pull inwards the exterior walls??? ( via the connecting horizontal floor trusses and beams ).

(we cannot see, from merely watching those videos, what is happening to the structural members inside, deep inside).

It is well-known, I thought, that rigging a building for 'cd' takes weeks or months of prep work. How was this accomplished at WTC 7?

Why, IF it had been 'prepped', did 'they' wait so long?

Finally, please answer why the videos of WTC 7, what there are, show no telltale signs of 'cd', as seen in so many other valid 'cd' videos. That is, the sequential firing of 'squibs'...seconds before the initiation of the 'falling'....and NO sounds either?? No "boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom" in rapid succession.


~~~I mention all of this because you've been shown to be quite the studier of such things. AND, my limited knowledge of actual 'cd' rigging and techniques comes from Science Channel shows, and whatnot....

...but even in a real 'cd' they only blow up certain key points in the structure, to destroy structural integrity, and let gravity do the rest.

Isn't that a bit like what happened at the WTC? Except, the key components weren't 'blown up' with pre-set explosives....they failed in a cascade manner, from collateral damage and excessive heating.~~~


PS --- how about all that snow, recently, in our region?? Wow!

A volunteer FD building's roof collapsed, in Falls Church, VA just from the added weight of all that snow. A Smithsonian Intitution Annex building in Maryland, too...and a large private airplane hangar at Dulles Internationl Airport.....Wow!


[edit on 12 February 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT wouldn't a building that was largely cantilever in design, that had sustained a severe, large damaging blow from tons of falling debris, and had also been subjected to uncontrolled fires for the better part of a day tend to be weakened mostly internally


Short answer, no.

Long answer, no, all of those things do not necessitate what you are saying. And for WTC7 specifically I have not seen fires that would do any worse to that building than fires have ever done to any other steel skyscrapers, and there have been some pretty damned bad ones. Also the debris that hit it caused superficial damage and even NIST's report on WTC7 concludes the damage it would have received from debris would have been insignificant as far as global collapse goes.


(we cannot see, from merely watching those videos, what is happening to the structural members inside, deep inside).


Either way we already know they failed, and they would have to fail before the rest of the structure could come down. They were definitely compromised no matter what the theory is on HOW they were compromised.

All you need to know is that the weight of the falling building wasn't doing work, ie it wasn't crushing the building below. The building below was already completely compromised before it started falling. How do we know the falling weight wasn't crushing the building below? Because that requires physical WORK to be done, what we call "resistance," though "work" is a physics term so we can even define this technically. How do we know work wasn't being done by the falling mass? Because it accelerated at free-fall. That BY DEFINITION means it was doing no work, or else it would have lost kinetic energy. Work requires energy. Free-falling means all kinetic energy is being conserved.


It is well-known, I thought, that rigging a building for 'cd' takes weeks or months of prep work. How was this accomplished at WTC 7?


That's a very good question but I'm not the person for you to ask. If you think this would be impossible to do then I'd like to see your reasoning on that, because I have no problem believing most people are not watching what comes in and out of a building anyway, even in broad daylight. Similarly no one is standing over a maintenance guy's shoulder as he's doing work. It would most likely require security clearance from people associated with the building, but beyond that I don't know how exactly they did it but I have no reason to believe they wouldn't be able to.


Why, IF it had been 'prepped', did 'they' wait so long?


Another question for somebody else, not me. It wasn't my decision.


Finally, please answer why the videos of WTC 7, what there are, show no telltale signs of 'cd'


Free-fall alone is proof of controlled demolition in the case of WTC7. There is no other way to make a building free-fall into itself as if nothing is under it. The other "signs" you are looking for are signs of conventional CDs using conventional explosives, etc., and I have no reason to believe they packed ANY of these buildings with TNT or C4.

Did you know unexploded bombs were removed from the Murrah Federal Building? That were obviously pre-planted. But they were military bombs, and FEMA and the DoD and other sources reported this that day. The point is, commercial demolition companies use conventional explosives like TNT or C4 or some other high explosive and it takes a lot of them. The military can just bring in specially-designed bombs and we already have a history of these types of bombs being removed from buildings involved in "terrorist" attacks (again, the Murrah Building).

Also think of the single bomb in 1993 that completely destroyed the parking garage underground. No cutter charge could do that, yet it only took one bomb.


and NO sounds either?? No "boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom" in rapid succession.


There were plenty of explosions from WTC7 that evening, even from the base of the building as the "collapse" began, as testified to by NYPD officer Craig Bartmer if you look him up. Though a "boom boom boom boom boom" in rapid succession implies blowing every floor individually with high explosives which may not have been necessary to accomplish by the time the building came down. Not because of fires but because of all of the explosions happening earlier throughout the day, and they could have even used incendiaries as well, which are dead silent from outside of a building.


AND, my limited knowledge of actual 'cd' rigging and techniques comes from Science Channel shows, and whatnot....


And my knowledge of demolitions is not extensive either but I know you at least have a choice in what you bring into a building and a choice in where you put it and when you detonate it. And manipulating just those 3 things alone can offer a HUGE range of possibilities, some better than others at masking the process as it happens in real time around a very loud and distracted disaster area.



PS --- how about all that snow, recently, in our region?? Wow!

A volunteer FD building's roof collapsed, in Falls Church, VA just from the added weight of all that snow. A Smithsonian Intitution Annex building in Maryland, too...and a large private airplane hangar at Dulles Internationl Airport.....Wow!


Yeah, I didn't really mind it at first but now it's starting to get old after a week straight of frozen roads. I haven't seen any buildings collapse from it yet though, fortunately. I feel bad for the volunteers, though. I've known a lot of volunteer firefighters and it seems like it's always uphill for those guys, but they still do what they do anyway and I really respect them for that.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by bsbray11]




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join