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.

 

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

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Anyone is welcome to refute me with evidence.

You've already been refuted:




If you can't find those isolated ejections in any other building collapse besides controlled demolitions, you will continue to remain refuted.



Originally posted by jthomas
What is observed is consistent with air being forced out of broken windows below the collapse front.

Yet we have no other videos to compare these ejections to except from controlled demolitions. So therefore, you're stating your opinion only and will continue to remain refuted.



Originally posted by jthomas
There are only a few randomly placed "ejections".

Firstly, they're not "random". Most are down the center of the building where the core is. Secondly, look at the image from Implosion World. Yep, only 4 per building there. There were many more on both towers and from all four sides.

So your "there were only a few" is also debunked. You're completely refuted. There's nothing else for you to type.


We're done here. That's the end of this discussion.




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Anyone is welcome to refute me with evidence. What is observed is consistent with air being forced out of broken windows below the collapse front.


Firefighters who made it to the impact area made it very clear there were only pockets of fires and they made it clear they could knock out those fires. There is a famous photo taken of a woman standing in the impact area She is wearing white dress slacks, no burns on her, her clothes are still clean, where is this ragging fire?


"My story was never mentioned in the final report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear" [PDF download]
[color=gold]-Firefighter Louie Cacchioli
"When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ... I saw low-level flashes ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down ... You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."
- [color=gold]NYFD Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
- [color=gold]NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera

"It was as if as if they had detonated ... as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom "
- [color=gold]NYFD Captain Dennis Tardio

"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
- [color=gold]NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli

“There was just an explosion in the south tower. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
- [color=gold]NYFD Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"It almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"
- [color=gold]NYFD Firefighter Thomas Turilli

"Heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down"
- [color=gold]NYFD Firefighter Craig Carlson

"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . We originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down"
- [color=gold]NYFD Firefighter Edward Cachia

"Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... With each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building"
- [color=gold]NYFD Captain Karin Deshore

"A debate began to rage because . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade"
- [color=gold]NYFD Firefighter Christopher Feny


9:48 a.m.
[color=gold]Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."
[color=gold]Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair [color=gold]74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."
[color=gold]Ladder 15: "Yeah Ten-Four, I saw that on 68. Alright, we're on 71 we're coming up behind you."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four. Six more to go."
[color=gold]Ladder 15: "Let me know when you see more fire."
Battalion Seven Chief: "I found a marshall on 75."
911lies.org...



It is not consistent with "demolition squibs."


You are entitle to your opinions, but they are not the facts.


- There are only a few randomly placed "ejections".
- The appearance, increase in flow, and long duration are completely the opposite of "explosive squibs."


These are your opinions, how about backing up your claims with some credible sources.

I have posted sources of very credible professionals who will disagree with you.
These people are trained to fight fires you are not; these people were in the WTC on 911 you were not.
These professionals saw and heard “flashes” going all the way around the WTC and explosions, are you going to say they hated their jobs and wanted to be fired and made up these lies, so they could throw away their careers?

The WTC were blown to pieces. We are in here to deny ignorance not to promote it.

Offices fires did not bring down all the WTC, and we know that is a proven fact.


[edit on 10-5-2010 by impressme]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
Anyone is welcome to refute me with evidence.

You've already been refuted:


No, sorry, I refuted you easily. It's purely the result of overpressure from the collapse front which you have not been able to refute.

Remember, you cannot tell us how that massive amount of air you forgot about got out of the towers.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas
 


Anyone is welcome to refute me with evidence. What is observed is consistent with air being forced out of broken windows below the collapse front.


Firefighters who made it to the impact area made it very clear there were only pockets of fires and they made it clear they could knock out those fires.


Frankly, I find it unbelievable that you would bring up that myth yet again.

ETA: This was discussed here, the final act of Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth discrediting itself forever:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 10-5-2010 by jthomas]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No, sorry, I refuted you easily. It's purely the result of overpressure from the collapse front which you have not been able to refute.


I refuted your theory on the last page and you ignored it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




- The ejections from the towers are not just air but dust and small debris, which is what makes them appear visible and white or light brown in photos and video.

- There is nothing airtight to compress the air into a pressure front in the first place. The falling debris was as air-tight as swiss cheese, and even solid debris was flying out by the tons. So you can imagine how easily air was flowing through the same space, decompressing the building and causing an upwards "sucking" pressure front that survivors have even testified to.

- Even if there was an airtight front pushing air like a piston and forming a pressure front, which as I've said is impossible and so your whole explanation is impossible, but even if this was possible, the compressed air would have to get from the vertical shafts inside the core structure and make a 90 degree angle turn to blow through intact office space, still carrying all the dust and debris with them so far ahead of the rest of the collapse, and then still manage to blow out windows, taking the dust and debris and all. Why does the pressure front exit the shafts on these particular floors in the first place, and not others? How does the dust and debris manage to stay with it? How does the pressure front then move through intact office space to get to the windows, and why one particular direction and not a thermodynamic decompression in all directions like a sphere instead? All these questions regarding the physics that your theory cannot answer.


Considering these and the fact that the theory has no supporting evidence to begin with, only conjectures and more baseless theories to prop it, a more reasonable man than yourself could easily come to the conclusion that your explanation has been sufficiently refuted.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Claims of "explosive squibs" and the "impossibility" of air, dust, and debris being forced out of broken windows remain completely without foundation. As we've seen throughout these threads, no one has been able to demonstrate any evidence of explosives. No explosive residue found anywhere at Ground Zero; no chemical traces in any of the many chemical tests of the dust; no molten steel; and no ejections with any characteristics of "explosive squibs."

New claims, speculations, and "instant theories" seen above by one poster in attempts to "explain" that a massive volume of air just leisurely wafted it's way around until it went out of a now suddenly "porous" building, completly contrary to physics, evidence, and reports from survivors reveals the lack of research done by Truthers.

People who use subways world-wide can tell you how easily it is to feel the increase in the velocity of air increase in approaching subways as they speed through stations without stopping. In the semi-closed environment of subways, the air has to be pushed somewhere. In the purposely closed environments of tall buildings, where windows are sealed and not meant to be open, where revolving doors or double-door entrances are purposely installed to keep the inside isolated from the outside, air cannot escape as easily and overpressure situations as in the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, will cause a great velocity of air where it can move.

The hand-waving we see by those who wish to summarily dismiss dealing with evidence that contradicts their erroneous beliefs is really a shame. These very people should, instead, be calculating the consequences, effects, and magnitude of that evidence presented them. Not knowing what one does not know will not get a new investigation from those who do.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Anyone is welcome to refute me with evidence. What is observed is consistent with air being forced out of broken windows below the collapse front.

Firefighters who made it to the impact area made it very clear there were only pockets of fires and they made it clear they could knock out those fires.

Frankly, I find it unbelievable that you would bring up that myth, yet again.


I think it’s funny that you can not debunk any of my claims, yet you call them Myth.
How can this be a myth when credible professional were there at the WTC on 911 and went on written record to give their statements? That is not a myth that is a proven fact.


ETA: This was discussed here, the final act of Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth discrediting itself forever:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


A&E never discredited itself, that is your opinion. Had they, you would have gladly presented the evidences?

Frankly every subject about 911 has been discus on ATS, so what is your point?


Claims of "explosive squibs" and the "impossibility" of air, dust, and debris being forced out of broken windows remain completely without foundation.


This was discussed here, the final act, the debunkers failed again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


As we've seen throughout these threads, no one has been able to demonstrate any evidence of explosives. No explosive residue found anywhere at Ground Zero; no chemical traces in any of the many chemical tests of the dust; no molten steel; and no ejections with any characteristics of "explosive squibs."


Your statements are untrue, you have been shown “credible evidences” by others and me on ATS, yet you continue to ignore ever-single piece of evidences that has been given to you. Don’t you think everyone would be on your side, if the OS was true? In fact, we would not even question it, because the Truth stands on it own.


New claims, speculations, and "instant theories" seen above by one poster in attempts to "explain" that a massive volume of air just leisurely wafted it's way around until it went out of a now suddenly "porous" building, completly contrary to physics, evidence, and reports from survivors reveals the lack of research done by Truthers.


I showed you in my post in the above, that your logic is simply ridiculous, yet you would not even comment on it.


What do you have to say about the credible eyewitness who saw flashes go around the WTC and heard the explosions that I presented to you, are they all lairs too?


The hand-waving we see by those who wish to summarily dismiss dealing with evidence that contradicts their erroneous beliefs is really a shame.


Talk about pot calling kettle, I love it!



These very people should, instead, be calculating the consequences, effects, and magnitude of that evidence presented them. Not knowing what one does not know will not get a new investigation from those who do.


People who defend the OS religiously should be the one’s “calculating the consequences, effects, and magnitude of that evidence presented to them.”



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


When I refute your theory, you just go on a rant.

Read the post above yours. Refute it.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas
 


Anyone is welcome to refute me with evidence. What is observed is consistent with air being forced out of broken windows below the collapse front.

Firefighters who made it to the impact area made it very clear there were only pockets of fires and they made it clear they could knock out those fires.

Frankly, I find it unbelievable that you would bring up that myth, yet again.


I think it’s funny that you can not debunk any of my claims, yet you call them Myth.


I do not think it's funny at all to misrepresent dead NYFD firemen and hurt their families. You started right off with one of the earliest, nastiest, and debunked claims, the same myth that ae911truth.org used in a fund-raising video to which I linked.

Until and unless you retract that unethical claim, expect to be ignored.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I can't refute that those puffs look like demolition squibs.


David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers said that the WTC collapse did not need an explosion to begin.

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."



www.popularmechanics.com...

how can someone decide either way when there is expert testimony on both sides of the field? How can bonez ignore experts who say that WTC was not demolished? How can sceptics ignore the experts who say that WTC was demolished?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

how can someone decide either way when there is expert testimony on both sides of the field? How can bonez ignore experts who say that WTC was not demolished? How can sceptics ignore the experts who say that WTC was demolished?


It is rather straightforward. It is what the sum total on that which the evidence converges. There is no real dispute on that evidence of what happened on 9/11, how, and why. There are simply unsupported claims by conspiracy theorists, none of which have shown to have validity by those who make the claims.

No matter what one believes, the NIST and ASCE investigations represent the conclusions based on the evidence. The evidence, methodology, and conclusions are open to the world's structural engineers, physicist, chemists, architects, and forensic scientists to dissect, affirm, correct, or refute.

As such, the burden of proof remains on those who contest the reports to so demonstrate with factual evidence to support their claims. There is no way those people can evade that responsibility.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The WTC were blown to pieces. We are in here to deny ignorance not to promote it.

How can you claim they were blown to pieces when there are experts and evidence that would indicate that they were not blown to pieces? It's ignorant to ingore experts who say that they were not demolished just well as ignorant to ignore experts who say that they were demolished.

Thomas eager an engineer professor at MIT.
(expert)

In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

Source:
scientific American


senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
(another expert)

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

Source:
popular mechanics

Explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of mining and technology

The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "


Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University


Offices fires did not bring down all the WTC, and we know that is a proven fact.

How can you claim that office fires did not bring down all the WTC when there are experts that say that they did?

Also isn't the OS that office fires AND getting hit with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane the reason why they collapsed?

If it is a proven fact that office fires did not bring down the WTC then why do Scientific American, MIT, The Discovery Channel, Popular Mechanics, as well of dozens of experts (dr keith steffen cambrige university news.bbc.co.uk...) say that it's a proven fact that the office fires did bring down the WTC?

Why were there no seismic records of any explosions?
How did people manage to pull of the largest demolition project ever without anyone knowing?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Still waiting for any willing "debunker" to show how their opinions are based on more evidence than my own.

Come on, you have FEMA, NIST, and the Kean Commission report at your disposal. Show me what proves how those buildings came down. What am I trying to refute here? Looks a lot like nothing.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Still waiting for any willing "debunker" to show how their opinions are based on more evidence than my own.

Come on, you have FEMA, NIST, and the Kean Commission report at your disposal. Show me what proves how those buildings came down. What am I trying to refute here? Looks a lot like nothing.


The only thing that can be done to prove to you (or anyone else for that matter) what really caused the collapse of the WTC is for you (or anyone else for that matter) to go in a time machine and spend a few months thoroughly inspecting all of the WTC buildings with the final inspection ending a few minutes before the second plane hit the WTC towers. In addition you would have to be in a protective bubble inside of the burning floors after the planes hit looking at the exact point of failure.

That's something that will never happen.

(insert 29 experts who say the wtc collapse was not caused by controlled demolition)

(insert 29 experts who say the wtc collapse was caused by controlled demolition)

Your viewpoint after reading 29 experts both for and against the CD theories (assuming that you've done your research):

It's your theory that the WTC towers collapsed due to controlled demolition.

My viewpoint after reading 29 experts both for and against the CD theories:

How on earth can somone pick one side or the other with so much conflicting information? You must have the uncany ability to ignore the other half of the story.

Why are so many experts conflicted about this? How did the largest demolition job ever get completed without thousands of people knowing? How many more studies and investigations must take place for there to be less conflicting expert opinions? Why didn't the explosions show up on the seismographs?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
The only thing that can be done to prove to you (or anyone else for that matter) what really caused the collapse of the WTC is for you (or anyone else for that matter) to go in a time machine and spend a few months thoroughly inspecting all of the WTC buildings with the final inspection ending a few minutes before the second plane hit the WTC towers. In addition you would have to be in a protective bubble inside of the burning floors after the planes hit looking at the exact point of failure.

That's something that will never happen.


So in light of not being able to do this, how did you reach a conclusion about what did or didn't happen that day?

Or are you just playing the agnostic role?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by iamcpc
The only thing that can be done to prove to you (or anyone else for that matter) what really caused the collapse of the WTC is for you (or anyone else for that matter) to go in a time machine and spend a few months thoroughly inspecting all of the WTC buildings with the final inspection ending a few minutes before the second plane hit the WTC towers. In addition you would have to be in a protective bubble inside of the burning floors after the planes hit looking at the exact point of failure.

That's something that will never happen.


So in light of not being able to do this, how did you reach a conclusion about what did or didn't happen that day?

Or are you just playing the agnostic role?



I reached the conclusion that so many people blindly believe things without researching them or are convinced irreversably of things based on a youtube video.

I want to make sure I have all the answers, unlike 80% of the people on this forum, before i go spouting claims that the WTC towers were demolished. My research has let me to questions which I have not been able to find an answers for which is why I came to this forum. To get help in my research.

1. How was the worlds largest demolition project (something that would have taken hundreds of people months and months and months to accomplish) completed without anyone knowing?

(source about number of people and timeframe was the Discovery channel and also my uncle who is a demolition contractor)

2. Why did no explosions show up on either of the seismographs in the area of the WTC towers to indicate demolition even though people heard "explosions"?

(source popular mechanics and implosionworld.com)

3. If the WTC towers were not demolished then why are there so many experts who say that it was (why did it look so similar to a controlled demolition)?

4. How can somone like you be convinced they were demolished when there are so many experts and evidence that indicate they were not demolished?

(
The only conclusion that I can reach about what happened, after hours and hours and hours and hours (even days and days) of researching both sides of the coin is this:

No matter what anyone says or does or how many sudies are done on the 9/11 attacks people are going to believe whatever they want unless they look at the facts and evidence. The people who, with an open mind, are able to look at all the experts, facts, and evidence will wonder why the hell so many people disagree on what caused the buildings to collapse.

I see the evidence guns firing both ways and it seems like a deadlock. Then I get to questions that no one can answer. I can't find the truthers evidence to refute or answer the questions i've come to and I came to this forum to beg truthers to help me on my research to that I may have all of the answers and come to a truely informed decision. I just feel horrible that so many people don't want all the answers and just make up their mind.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
1. How was the worlds largest demolition project (something that would have taken hundreds of people months and months and months to accomplish) completed without anyone knowing?

(source about number of people and timeframe was the Discovery channel and also my uncle who is a demolition contractor)


If asked why so many people, and so much time, the answer you get is because it would have taken so many tons of explosives, that would have to be planted in so many places, right? According to NIST, they say they could have fallen with no explosives.

So if you have not yet reached a conclusion as to how exactly these buildings were brought down, which I haven't either, then you can't say how much additional help it would have actually taken, or what could have provided it.


2. Why did no explosions show up on either of the seismographs in the area of the WTC towers to indicate demolition even though people heard "explosions"?


I disagree with the conclusion that there was no evidence in the seismograph records. FEMA even shows 3 significant seismic spikes that they label "further collapse" (and I can post the link for you), after both towers had already fallen, but WTC7 had not yet fallen. And "coinciding" (yeah, right) with this, are testimonies such as from professional journalists who said they were hearing explosions near WTC7 about every 15 minutes, also after both towers had already fallen. So here is a definite correlation and they ignore it. They also don't give any specific details on how they were able to specifically determine there weren't any explosives in the seismograph readings. All you get, even from LDEO, is their word, with no technical explanation or proof.


(source popular mechanics and implosionworld.com)


And you are welcome to try to find their specific reasoning/proof for why explosives have been eliminated from the seismic readings too.


3. If the WTC towers were not demolished then why are there so many experts who say that it was (why did it look so similar to a controlled demolition)?


You have to be realistic here. Not even crayon is as sharp as the next. Someone is wrong, there are no two ways about that.


4. How can somone like you be convinced they were demolished when there are so many experts and evidence that indicate they were not demolished?


I only consider evidence, not others' opinions, expert or not, opinion is different from data and from science. I have yet to see evidence that they weren't demolished. Including evidence for NIST's hypothesis, because they never actually tested it despite it being a completely new failure mechanism that had never previously been considered for this kind of steel structure.


I see the evidence guns firing both ways and it seems like a deadlock. Then I get to questions that no one can answer. I can't find the truthers evidence to refute or answer the questions i've come to and I came to this forum to beg truthers to help me on my research to that I may have all of the answers and come to a truely informed decision.


I have lots of questions that no one can answer too. So then I just say, what an awful investigation, and I know some things I'd definitely like to see in a lot more depth from the next one, and with a lot more oversight.

Most of the time I don't even give an explanation, on purpose, because I don't know, but that isn't good enough for some people so you expect me to just make stuff up. Do you want me to make stuff up because you want to believe anything, or do you want me to make stuff up because you just want something to argue about, and you figure you have a better chance of "winning" the argument if you force me to just guess things wildly?


Some things you're going to have to get used to not knowing. Because things are so compartmentalized even for "normal" intelligence and military operations, I really doubt there is any way we're ever going to know the full story in our lifetimes. We could get a good idea though.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I only consider evidence, not others' opinions, expert or not, opinion is different from data and from science. I have yet to see evidence that they weren't demolished. Including evidence for NIST's hypothesis, because they never actually tested it despite it being a completely new failure mechanism that had never previously been considered for this kind of steel structure.

You said ( I would love to have that source!) said that FEMA showed 3 spikes after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. What did it say about BEFORE wtc 1 and 2 collapsed? What seismographs were they using? What expert seismograph reader documented further collapse?

If asked why so many people, and so much time, the answer you get is because it would have taken so many tons of explosives, that would have to be planted in so many places, right? According to NIST, they say they could have fallen with no explosives.

According to NIST if ytou hit the WTC with a 150 ton plane which strips away fire insulation from load bearing support columns and then set it on fire the steel reaches normal office fire temeratures and loses strength.

I know that it's true that when steel gets hot it gets weak. How else did we make steel armor and weapons in the middle ages? I also know this is true because i saw a steel beam on the discovery channel lose strength and fail from being heated by a fire. That science does not prove they were not demolished but it proves that it's possible that an office fire can weaken uninsulated steel enough to cause it to fail.

I need to know how! I need to know how the worlds largest demolition project was completed, and covered up, without anyone knowing! My uncle (a demolition contractor) said that the prepping of 3 WTC towers, covering it up, and demolition of them (in the middle of New York City) without anyone knowing prior to their collapse is about as likely as hiding a fully grown elephant behind a blade of grass.

It's not Science but I will never be convinced unless someone explains how they were prepped for demolition.

Also if you're investigating the demolition theories then I don't think you can logically use FEMA or NIST as a source when they both reported that the twin towers were both hit with a 150 ton plane which strips away fire insulation from load bearing support columns and then set it on fire causing the uninsulated steel to reach normal office fire temeratures and loses strength which causes load shifting and eventually collapse.


I imagine a trial. Prosecution vs whoever is accused of demolishing the WTC towers (defendant). The trial rages back and forth with expert testimony and witnessess and evidence. Eventually the defendant's lawyer stands up and says ok now we are at a deadlock so in order to prove my defendant guilty you have to explain how they got the building prepped for demolition without anyone knowing. The prosecution stands there. If the defendant did it they have no idea how or when.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
You said ( I would love to have that source!) said that FEMA showed 3 spikes after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. What did it say about BEFORE wtc 1 and 2 collapsed? What seismographs were they using? What expert seismograph reader documented further collapse?




There were none before the collapses of the Twin Towers except those that were associated with the plane impacts.

LDEO, Palisades, NY. Others had seismographs even closer to the WTC, but their data was never released for public scrutiny.

They offered absolutely no additional information whatsoever in their report about the "further collapses."


According to NIST if ytou hit the WTC with a 150 ton plane which strips away fire insulation from load bearing support columns and then set it on fire the steel reaches normal office fire temeratures and loses strength.


Are you trying to imply that I dispute the planes and fires? Because I'm not. Those are given, for either case.

The fireproofing coming off is a different issue. There were 4 kinds of fireproofing in that building. NIST focused on one of them: the spray-on fireproofing. And they tested their hypothesis by shooting the fireproofing with a shot gun and seeing how much fell off. Imagine if a "truther" had performed that test, how people would be foaming at the mouth unable to contain their eagerness to mock the methodology. And they concluded at the end that they were only guessing anyway and this was just another hypothesis.


I know that it's true that when steel gets hot it gets weak. How else did we make steel armor and weapons in the middle ages? I also know this is true because i saw a steel beam on the discovery channel lose strength and fail from being heated by a fire. That science does not prove they were not demolished but it proves that it's possible that an office fire can weaken uninsulated steel enough to cause it to fail.


You have your science on that pretty off. Steel does lose strength with temperature but no experts are seriously proposing that the building failed because the columns lost strength. The theory is that the trusses sagged and deflected the perimeter columns, initiating failure. That is NIST's final working hypothesis. They ran extensive computer simulations to see what fires could have done, and kept raising the parameters, and still were not seeing the amount of heat it would require to sufficiently heat so many thick columns to a high enough temperature to cause them to fail from losing strength. Any skyscraper is legally obligated to be very redundant, and that much steel takes a lot of heat energy to get to the 700C or so you'd need just to lose 50% of its integrity. Again, NIST, Cardington, and others show you that this is not what happened and is not a viable collapse theory.


I need to know how! I need to know how the worlds largest demolition project was completed, and covered up, without anyone knowing! My uncle (a demolition contractor) said that the prepping of 3 WTC towers, covering it up, and demolition of them (in the middle of New York City) without anyone knowing prior to their collapse is about as likely as hiding a fully grown elephant behind a blade of grass.


You still haven't shown what actually brought the buildings down. So you can't say how much would have to be done or how obvious it would have been.

There were at least 2 undetonated bombs removed from the Murrah Federal Building after OKC, and at least one of those was attached to a gas pipeline inside the building. These bombs were planted in the federal building but had failed to detonate. The Army, DoD, FEMA, and civilians all documented this. As far as a dry-run for 9/11, they didn't make that mistake twice, even though FBI agents did report they suspected a vehicle bomb had been detonated in the underground parking garage to coincidence with the plane impacts that morning on live TV.


It's not Science but I will never be convinced unless someone explains how they were prepped for demolition.


That's basically saying you don't believe in things that you don't totally understand. Do you know how your TV works? If you don't, would you be convinced that it doesn't actually work at all?


Also if you're investigating the demolition theories then I don't think you can logically use FEMA or NIST as a source when they both reported that the twin towers were both hit with a 150 ton plane which strips away fire insulation from load bearing support columns and then set it on fire causing the uninsulated steel to reach normal office fire temeratures and loses strength which causes load shifting and eventually collapse.


Actually you can use opponents' own arguments and data against them, and this has been an accepted part of debate ever since it's been around.


I imagine a trial. Prosecution vs whoever is accused of demolishing the WTC towers (defendant).


This will never happen until a very large body of evidence has been turned over, and it may still not be possible even then. There was an unprecedented amount of destruction that day for trying to go back and re-piece who was where and doing what leading up to all of this. All of the WTC's security logs and surveillance cameras were destroyed.


Eventually the defendant's lawyer stands up and says ok now we are at a deadlock so in order to prove my defendant guilty you have to explain how they got the building prepped for demolition without anyone knowing. The prosecution stands there. If the defendant did it they have no idea how or when.


Right, which is why we are not at the point where we formally indict people for physically doing this.

It's still not impossible to get bombs/explosives into public buildings. I just gave you an example with OKC. Let's don't forget that this was documented by several sources, government and civilian, to have happened, and was reported on lives news that day. Someone also got a massive bomb into the WTC in 1993 pretty damned easily. I also have a thread about how construction workers welded some 200 steel plates to the inner structure of another Manhattan skyscraper during nights, and hardly anyone knew it was even going on. This was done because there was a construction fault and the skyscraper was actually susceptible to wind loading without the addition of these plates, so they wanted to add them without drawing much attention to themselves. Yet they did it legally and in "broad daylight," so to speak, just doing it at night was their only strategy.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by iamcpc
I only consider evidence, not others' opinions, expert or not, opinion is different from data and from science. I have yet to see evidence that they weren't demolished. Including evidence for NIST's hypothesis, because they never actually tested it despite it being a completely new failure mechanism that had never previously been considered for this kind of steel structure.


You said ( I would love to have that source!) said that FEMA showed 3 spikes after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. What did it say about BEFORE wtc 1 and 2 collapsed? What seismographs were they using? What expert seismograph reader documented further collapse?


What we learned in a few threads is that neither bsbray11 nor _BoneZ_ have been able to support their claims of "explosive demolition." Neither one has dealt with how the massive volume of air could get out of the towers in the short collapse times of WTC 1 and 2 without a tremendous amount of pressure.

With easy back-of-the-envelope calculations using known dimensions and the weight of air at different temperatures, I showed that both of them were suddenly faced with a reality they had not considered as the logical reason for the high-velocity ejections of air, dust, and debris they mistakenly claimed were "explosive squibs."

Of course, they were not explosive squibs by any stretch of the imagination. We already know the ejections have none of the real characteristics of "explosive squibs". Nor have they been able to demonstrate a single piece of evidence of explosives. These Truthers make the same fallacious claims that they always have: "they look like explosive demolitions therefore they are."

They have not calculated the magnitude of the air pressure as the air was quickly been forced out of whatever openings were available. The very videos they claim show "squibs" actually show dust and debris-laden air being forced out at tremendous velocities.

One can hope that they finally concede that there is no evidence of "squibs", explosive demolition, or molten steel, all shown to be baseless claims.


[edit on 11-5-2010 by jthomas]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join