Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Somebody called me a "Truther" for the first time.

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no comparison between "explosive squibs" and what actually occurred.

You forgot to add "according to someone's theories and opinions" to the end of your claim.


According to _BoneZ's_ theories and opinions but no evidence whatsoever, "explosive squibs" magically happened to all three WTC Towers.




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by iamcpc
Which one of these two buildings was hit by a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane and then set on fire and which one wasn't?

That's irrelevant. The towers were designed to withstand impacts of jetliners traveling at 600mph, and survive the resulting fires, just like every other steel-structured highrise has survived fire all throughout history.



reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I thought the whole 9/11 conspiracy theroy had to do with the fact that the MIT, the government, national geographic, popular mechanics, and scientific american said that the twin towers collapsed because they were hit by a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane (stripping away heating insulation from steel load bearing support columns) and then set on fire (heating load bearing support columns to fire temperatures and causing them to lose strength and the ability to hold up the top floors of the buliding)theorist say that the twin towers collapsed because they were prepped for demolition (one of the biggest demolition jobs ever) without anyone knowing they were prepped for demolition prior to the planes hitting them and then demolished.

After explaining what the twin tower conspiracy is then wouldn't that make the fact that the buildings were hit by 110-150 ton airplanes and set on fire very relevant?

(questions will most likey be ignored or be irrelevant)

What really gets me is that people blindly chose one side or another and then either igore contracticting evidence or say that it's irrelevant. Several times on here I've simply asked questions in my attempts to research the truth and people either ignore my question, or say that my question is irrelevant.

I also spoke w/ my uncle who confirmed previous reports. My uncle has been a demolition contractor for many years. Basically the twin towers are like an ultra mega super hard and long demolition project. It would take hundreds of people months and months and months and months of working on empty twin towers to demolish them. He said secretly doing a demolition project of that magnintude without hundreds, if not thousands, of people knowing the twin towers were being prepped for demolition is about as possible as hiding a fully grown elephand behind a single blade of grass.

bonez I agree 100% that the collapse looks like a controlled demolition. but it looks like a dog and it feels like a duck and it sounds like a duck. I say why the hell does that dog sound and feel like a duck. You say there is nothing suspicious about the dog sounding and feeling like a duck.

The evidence guns and suspicious unanswerable questions fire in both directions. How can ANYONE thorougly research this topic and not doubt both sides of the coin???? Yet anyone gives examples of how the evidence guns and suspicious unaswerable questions fire in both directions and no one listens!

If you think the squibs "are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated" then why were there no seismic records from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University that indicate a demolition grade explosion prior to the debri from the collapsing building hitting the ground? Why do the seismic records indicate that there were not demolition grade explosions before, during, or after the collapse of the twin towers?

How did a demolition team sucessfully prep one of the largest demolition projects in the world and then cover up everything without anyone knowing?

According to David Biggs, a structural engineer at ryan-biggs Associates the puffs of smoke from the side of the building can happen from a collapse.

Were the puffs of smoke (squibbs) caused from high powered demolition explosions or the collapse?

[edit on 7-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


" Please give us the source for your claims."

That's never gonna happen , how many of us have asked him to produce such , and how many times has he failed to deliver by simply ignoring each and every request ?

I think anyone who possessed any such evidence would have produced it years ago instead of just claiming that it exists .

Nothing like some good ol' evidence to prove your claims , why not show your hand ?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



You didn't say what doesn't make sense. Explain.


After the offer what doesn't make sense, you simply move on? I understand when someone actually offers you to start a thread or make claims you move on.

Gotcha!

okbmd, you and other consistantly keep requesting others to support their claims and when someone does, its ignored.

Funny how that happens....



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas
 



You didn't say what doesn't make sense. Explain.


After the offer what doesn't make sense, you simply move on?


You mean I don't get the time to read through "your" threads and figure out what actually doesn't make sense to you?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


The problem is that the federal government (FEMA and NIST) had the only access to structural documentation and physical evidence out of the organizations you mention, and they never verified their hypothesis. So at best it's still just a theory. They have no proof of what happened either.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I say we're "freedom fighters"!


The label "truther" is definitely used in a pejorative manner but I like how we have embraced it thereby neutralizing the adversity.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by iamcpc
 


The problem is that the federal government (FEMA and NIST) had the only access to structural documentation and physical evidence out of the organizations you mention, and they never verified their hypothesis. So at best it's still just a theory. They have no proof of what happened either.


More people than just FEMA and NIST have access to Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University seismograph readings. They published a paper on the subject. Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist, Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director and Mary Tobin, senior science writer all are people who are not associated with FEMA and NIST who had access to the seismographs before anyone else.

A quote from associate director Arthur Lerner-Lam of the Earth Observatory at Columbia University when being interviewed by Popular Mechanics.

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,"

www.popularmechanics.com...

This quote is after the team had thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the data and published several reports on it.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Show me security video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, and I'll shut my trap.

Why is it not our right to see it? Or maybe one doesn't exist.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sticky
 


Here you go!


Just kidding that's fake.

However my point is that they had the chance and now it's too late. We already have proof that there is no way the plane hit that building so if they release a video of a plane hitting the building NOW we know for a fact that it has been faked.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
woudl be powerful enough to have caused very noticible flashes. Even in conspiracy world it's a given that physics have to apply to them, too.

And yet we have numerous first responders that saw those very flashes in the lower levels of both towers as they were collapsing up above. The first responders also reported "popping and exploding sounds" associated with the flashes. What could possibly indicate controlled demolition more than that?

Wake up and do the research. The evidence is there. Stop denying it.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No "explosive squibs" have the characteristics of that seen at the WTC Towers.

Again, you should have said "in your opinion". As I've said numerous times, there are videos of controlled demolitions with "squibs" that are identical to the WTC's. I have those videos, they will be shown in my documentary. Please do some real research before making claims that will come back to bite you in the ass when my documentary is presented.



Originally posted by jthomas
No positive evidence of explosives at the WTC site have ever been demonstrated.

I think you mean to say "no physical evidence". We've already been over the definitions and the 3 types of evidence. Explosives are corroborated by audio, video, and witness testimony. That's two of the three types of evidence needed to prove explosives.



Originally posted by jthomas
The subject of "explosive demolition" of the WTC towers is dead.

Again, you continue to say "in your opinion". Not only is explosive demolition not dead, it remains one of the cruxes of the truth movement and even more so after the presentation of my documentary.



Originally posted by jthomas
Please give us the source for your claims.

That would be a NIST report. I've posted the link numerous times and directly to you. If you want the link, you can go find it. I'm tired of posting it and you ignoring it.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
bonez I agree 100% that the collapse looks like a controlled demolition.

You're not getting the whole picture. If you think that the truth movement believes that the buildings were brought down with explosives just because it looks that way, then you have a long way to go as far as research is concerned.

I've already previously shown you pre-collapse explosions and you can even hear them in that video I posted. Those pre-collapse explosions are corroborated by first responders in the Oral Histories.

Numerous first responders also saw low-level flashes in the lower levels of both towers while they were collapsing above. The flashes were reported to have "popping or exploding sounds" associated with them. What could possibly sound more like controlled demolition than that?



Originally posted by iamcpc
According to David Biggs, a structural engineer at ryan-biggs Associates the puffs of smoke from the side of the building can happen from a collapse.

So some structural engineer says that the ejections can happen from collapse, and that makes it so?





I've seen just about every building collapse that I can find on the net and not a single collapse exhibits these ejections in any other building collapse besides controlled demolitions.

Then, the way the floor trusses were designed, there's no possible way for the plunger effect to even happen to cause "air" ejections anyway. I'll take the word of 1200 architects and engineers at AE911T than a handful of AE's that support the official theory.



Originally posted by iamcpc
Were the puffs of smoke (squibbs) caused from high powered demolition explosions or the collapse?

From high-powered explosives. Witnesses heard the detonation sequences. And the way the floors were constructed would make it virtually impossible for any kind of imaginary compression.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


You mean I don't get the time to read through "your" threads and figure out what actually doesn't make sense to you?


Well sheesh my bad, I had no idea that you were indeed looking!

Please by all means do!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Congratulations on being recognized as a "truther"
Check this site out.
It doesn't even have a name, just a "truth symbol" chinese character for the header.
This is the best NWO site exposing the Illuminati on the internet run by AHM
rikijo.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by flightsuit
 

"I've certainly seen the word used before, but it felt odd to have somebody hurl it at me as a pejorative."

Of course it's a pejorative. And as for those not subscribing to the theory that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/NWO were behind the 9/11 attacks being "deniers", on the contrary, the self-styled truthers are the deniers, deniers and perverters of historical reality, and by proxy Al Qaeda apologists.

"there's no talking to people when they're in denial. They haven't seen any of the research we've seen, they're not privy to the facts we're aware of"

This isn't correct. The theories have been all over the internet for years. Everyone is au fait with them. They will never be anything other than an internet craze because the idea of W., Cheney & Rumsfeld devising a plan to fire a missile into the pentagon, and not only crash planes into the WTC but to actually collapse the buildings by sending secret operatives in to rig them with explosives is insane. It's not of this earth.

As a cultural phenomenon, 9/11 truth is interesting, and also bizarre. It's a pseudo religion, a cult, a conspiracy theory that's got out of hand.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
No "explosive squibs" have the characteristics of that seen at the WTC Towers.


Again, you should have said "in your opinion".


It's fact.


As I've said numerous times, there are videos of controlled demolitions with "squibs" that are identical to the WTC's.


How many squibs per demolition in your videos?
How many squibs in the videos of WTC 1 and 2?


I have those videos, they will be shown in my documentary. Please do some real research before making claims that will come back to bite you in the ass when my documentary is presented.


No need to wait. If you have such videos, present them here. No one can do research on non-existent videos, wouldn't you agree?

Present your videos here.


Originally posted by jthomas
The subject of "explosive demolition" of the WTC towers is dead.


Again, you continue to say "in your opinion". Not only is explosive demolition not dead, it remains one of the cruxes of the truth movement and even more so after the presentation of my documentary.


Indeed. That is just one reason why the 9/11 Truth Movement has failed to get a new investigation.


Originally posted by jthomas
Please give us the source for your claims.


That would be a NIST report. I've posted the link numerous times and directly to you. If you want the link, you can go find it. I'm tired of posting it and you ignoring it.


OK, then if you refuse to support your claims once again, we'll do some simple back-of-the-envelope calculations so you can explain what happened to the evidence.

Here is a lovely silhouette of the towers Note the sunlight through WTC 1 illustrating how much of the structure was air. In fact 88% of the volume of each tower was plain, simple air:




How much air? Well we know that each floor had volume of 10,996 cubic meters (m3) of air space, or 388,320 cubic feet (ft3).

Looking at tables for the weight of air at various temperatures, www.engineeringtoolbox.com... ,

we find that air at 70 degrees F. weighs 7.492 x 10-2 (.07492) lbs per cubic foot.

So, with this data we calculate that each floor had .07492 x 388,320 = 29,093 lbs per air per floor.

Using the number of undamaged floors below the impact points of each tower (the points at which the collapses began), we have approximately 79 floors for WTC 2 and 92 for WTC 1. This gives us the total weight of the air in the undamaged portions of each tower:

x 79 floors = 2,298,342 lbs of air in WTC 2
x 92 floors = 2,676,556 lbs of air in WTC 1

= 1,149 tons of air in WTC 2.
= 1,338 tons of air in WTC 1.

Each of the towers were enclosed rectangular tubes with sealed windows and controlled environments. The air pressure on the outside of the towers was the same as on the inside of the towers otherwise doors would be pushed out or in if there were more than minimal pressure differentials between the outside and inside. So, when the towers collapsed where did all this air go and how?

Do we want to implicitly assume, as _BoneZ_ and Truthers do, that all this massive volume and tonnage of air is meaningless? Of course not. We know that there were minimal outlets for the air to escape to the outside. We know that the air would be forced out wherever there were openings, broken or damaged windows, for instance.

We know that massive volume and tonnage of air had only 14+ seconds to escape the towers in the collapses. Where did it go? How?

We do know from the very videos of the collapses and damage reports that dust and air were sucked in behind the collapsing towers to replace the air displaced by disappearing towers (and air):



(How many squibs do you see, _BoneZ_?)

In fact, the force of this "downblast" of air and dust, similar to "collapse clouds" of volcanic ash, reached speeds of 120 mph. We know that the surge of dust and air spread out for blocks around each tower when they collapsed.


"The man-made collapse columns of 2001 crashed to Earth at 120 miles per hour, then surged out radially at approximately the same speed. This is also the approximate velocity at which the Herculaneum Basilica and the buildings clustered around the Roman boathouses were struck by the Vesuvian surge cloud of A.D. 79. Square inch by square inch the forces exerted were the same. At 120 miles per hour, air, made more massive by dust, is equivalent to (or greater than) a gust of sea-level air at 160 miles per hour. This is equivalent to being struck point-blank by an F3 or greater tornado, or by a category 5 hurricane."

- Ghosts of Vesuvius: A New Look at the Last Days of Pompeii, How Towers Fall, and Other Strange Connections, Charles R. Pellegrino, P.418


So, _BoneZ_, you won't be needing to work on your "documentary" anymore.

The 9/11 Truther myth that the air in the towers was meaningless only points to their lack of knowledge about the subject matter and unwillingness to deal with "inconvenient" evidence. So much for their "search for the truth."



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


IF I might there are a few things to discuss about the air hypothesis that you have brought forth:

Looking at tables for the weight of air at various temperatures, www.engineeringtoolbox.com... ,
we find that air at 70 degrees F. weighs 7.492 x 10-2 (.07492) lbs per cubic foot.

So, with this data we calculate that each floor had .07492 x 388,320 = 29,093 lbs per air per floor.

Using the number of undamaged floors below the impact points of each tower (the points at which the collapses began), we have approximately 79 floors for WTC 2 and 92 for WTC 1. This gives us the total weight of the air in the undamaged portions of each tower:

x 79 floors = 2,298,342 lbs of air in WTC 2
x 92 floors = 2,676,556 lbs of air in WTC 1

= 1,149 tons of air in WTC 2.
= 1,338 tons of air in WTC 1.

Each of the towers were enclosed rectangular tubes with sealed windows and controlled environments. The air pressure on the outside of the towers was the same as on the inside of the towers otherwise doors would be pushed out or in if there were more than minimal pressure differentials between the outside and inside. So, when the towers collapsed where did all this air go and how?


First off the above calculations are not that simple. First being what happened to the FIRES heating the AIR? Your calculations state the above are for 70F!!

Not 800-1500F.

Next we know that heated air EXPANDS thus becoming less dense. So the weights are greatly off course as well.

The structures are broken, not sealed enviornments whatsoever after the impacts of the Aircraft.

The steel is being heated in numerous areas causing CONDUCTION of heat and transport of the heat, to other areas, thus heating these areas of the building, not being fuels by direct fires.

The figures above are for best conditions for the entire WTC complex on its best day!

Not 911.


Here we have the question: The OS relies upon fires so much for their hyposthesis to work, now how could you forget that fires were involved in the WTC during the "attacks" and caused the failure.

Now why doesn't your DATA include this again?

Hmm now how many times has the OS left out DATA AGAIN?

All the time.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas
 


IF I might there are a few things to discuss about the air hypothesis that you have brought forth:

First off the above calculations are not that simple. First being what happened to the FIRES heating the AIR? Your calculations state the above are for 70F!!

Not 800-1500F.


Yes, I am talking about the ambient temperatures on a nice sunny day in September in the undamaged portions of the towers below the fires and impact point.

You might want to read what I wrote more carefully.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


If you read your own post you say this in regard to those calculations:


So, when the towers collapsed where did all this air go and how?


Now again, the what happened to the fires?

Your going to ask questions about the COLLAPSE yet use calculations for sunny day inside the towers???



Yes, I am talking about the ambient temperatures on a nice sunny day in September in the undamaged portions of the towers below the fires and impact point.
You might want to read what I wrote more carefully.

I read just fine.

Again, it wasn't a sunny day inside, it was hell.

How anyone could forget that is beyond me.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by theability]

[edit on 9-5-2010 by theability]





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


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