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.

 

911 diversionary tactics

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

Due to the Facts: three steel framed buildings collapsed on 911, and 911 only. Well so far its not happeend again, nor will it.


Well I'm almost positive that steel framed buildings have collapsed before. I'm assuming that you meant to say collapsed from fire when i respond. If you didn't mean to say that three steel framed building collapsed from fire on 9/11 and on 9/11 only then feel free to correct me.

What about the kader toy factory fire. A steel framed building which collapsed only from fire.

Building One collapsed completely at approximately
5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward
the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings
Two and Three before the fire brigade could
effectively defend them. Building Two reportedly
collapsed at 5:30 p.m. and Building Three at 6:05
p.m.

What about:

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

What about:

The Wolftrap Farm Theater and Pavilion fire in Fairfax County Virginia in 1988 suffered a total loss in the stage, props, dressing rooms and storage area. The pre-construction recommendation for a fire sprinkler system had not been heeded. When the facility was rebuilt, it was totally sprinkled.

What about:

The McCormick Place exhibition hall fire in Chicago, Illinois in 1967 was a public assembly occupancy built with fire protected steel construction and no sprinkler system. “Fortunately the fire started in the early morning hours; the possibility of life loss would have been staggering had the fire occurred during the day”.1 This fast burning, high rate of heat production fire caused complete collapse of the building.

What about:

Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986.4 These fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed (see Figure 1). The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections.

What about:

On May 21, 1987, Sao Paulo had one of the biggest fires in Brazil, which precipitated a substantial partial collapse of the central core of the tall CESP Building 2.5 This was a 21-story office building, headquarters of the Sao Paulo Power Company (CESP), after whom the building was named. Buildings 1 and 2 of this office complex were both of reinforced concrete framing, with ribbed slab floors. These two buildings had several unique internal features and contents. Both buildings still retained their original wood forms used for pouring the concrete floor slabs, which were never removed. Low-height plywood partition walls were also used in the interiors. Approximately two hours after the beginning of the fire in CESP 2, its structural core area throughout the full building height collapsed. This collapse was attributed to the thermal expansion of the horizontal concrete T-beam frames under the elevated fire temperatures, which led to the fracture of the vertical framing elements and their connections in the middle of the building, and the consequent progressive loss of gravity load-carrying capacity

What about:

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.


Keep in mind that none of these buildings were hit by 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplanes. Feel free to research them yourself instead of being spoon fed misinformation and blindly accepting other's claims as truth.

Where was your source that claimed 'three steel framed buildings collapsed from fire on 911, and 911 only'?

I ask because I want to write them a letter or e-mail ask ask them about all of the steel framed buildings that have collapsed from fire.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
And we have the prrof of 911 diversonary tactics once again!


You made mention that Barry Jennings is dead in a not too well veiled attempt at dropping innuendo, and it has since been shown Barry Jennings was middle aged, overweight and almost certainly at risk for a heart attack. It's likwise been shown that hordes of additional people are wallowing in these conspiracy stories much more critically than Jennings ever has (I.E. Dylan Avery, Steven Jones) and they're all very much alive.

Drummer has it right. The only one delving in 9/11 diversionary tactics here that I can see is you.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

For that matter, two 100+ story skyscrapers had never been hit with jets flying at full speed, then burned for an hour either. And the third 50+ story building had never before had its front face ripped off by flying chunks of flaming debris. Indeed, it was a day of firsts.


Thats always my favorite place to start the 911 debate. The NIST report says that is irrelevant to what happened to the building. It really puts most debunkers between a rock and a hard place as the NIST report is the backbone of their information arsenal, so they must admit that either the NIST report is incorrect or their story is.

You really sound like an tool when you say "I agree with everything in the NIST report except I think there was massive structural damage to building 7, damage which they said was not relevant to the collapse." Therefore most people wont say it, they will use a diversionary tactic instead (sic).



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Hey now, the McCormick building didn't collapse, it was the roof, there were not any spectacular "pancaking" floors blowing out in sequence...now THAT would be something...show a steel framed building that collapsed anything like BOTH world trade centers...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You really sound like an tool when


Likewise, you sound like a tool when using "an" instead of an "a" when prefacing a word starting with a consonant. I love when the irony presents itself instantly.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

For that matter, two 100+ story skyscrapers had never been hit with jets flying at full speed, then burned for an hour either. And the third 50+ story building had never before had its front face ripped off by flying chunks of flaming debris. Indeed, it was a day of firsts.


Thats always my favorite place to start the 911 debate. The NIST report says that is irrelevant to what happened to the building. It really puts most debunkers between a rock and a hard place as the NIST report is the backbone of their information arsenal, so they must admit that either the NIST report is incorrect or their story is.

You really sound like an tool when you say "I agree with everything in the NIST report except I think there was massive structural damage to building 7, damage which they said was not relevant to the collapse." Therefore most people wont say it, they will use a diversionary tactic instead (sic).


WTC tower 7 is the anomoly because of the thick wall of smoke coming out of the side of the building it's either very difficult or impossible to see how much damage was or was not done to the building. Also I felt like there were 2983483298756432987659874326 cameras on WTC tower 1 and tower 2 but almost all of them went to record other stuff and ignore the huge smoking skyscraper?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Hey now, the McCormick building didn't collapse, it was the roof, there were not any spectacular "pancaking" floors blowing out in sequence...now THAT would be something...show a steel framed building that collapsed anything like BOTH world trade centers...


I'm not going to ask for a source. I'm just going to assume that you're right. What about the other buildings that I listed? Are those not examples of steel framed buildings that have collapsed from fire?

Also to show a steel framed building that collaped like a building that was theoretically (I say theoretically here because of the NPT people who might read this but I personally believe that planes hit the twin towers) hit with 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplanes, set on fire, and theoretically demolished with explosives and/or thermite would require a lot exact scale copies of the WTC towers be made so we can
-smash planes into one
-demolish one with thermite
-demolish one with explosives
-demolish one with thermite and explosives
-smash planes into one and then demolish it with explosives
-smash planes into one and demolish it with thermite
-shoot one with missles
-smash one with an airplane full of thermite and explosives
-and then finally smash planes into one and demolish it with both thermite and explosives.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by theability

Due to the Facts: three steel framed buildings collapsed on 911, and 911 only. Well so far its not happeend again, nor will it.


For that matter, two 100+ story skyscrapers had never been hit with jets flying at full speed, then burned for an hour either. And the third 50+ story building had never before had its front face ripped off by flying chunks of flaming debris. Indeed, it was a day of firsts.

The big problem here is the belief you express that the laws of physics were broken on 911. I guess you never really applied critical thinking skills to the claim that the laws of physics ever could be broken. Apparently your reasoning skills haven't been in tip top shape since you've been making this argument.


" flying chunks of flaming debris"

Link please because the engines didn't hit WT7 and nothing from WT1/2 was on fire and hit WT7 and lets forget all about WT6 being between WT1/2 and WT7 and it didn't fall down.

Yes indeed it was a day of first if we are going to take into account every varable including the wind speed, direction and air presure but the facts are planes have crashed into buildings before and skyscrapers have been of fire many times before and building have fell on top of others before and these didn't fall down.

Yes lets stick to physics and not personal attack like.

"Apparently your reasoning skills haven't been in tip top shape since you've been making this argument. "

To make things simple lets agree all the fule had been burnt off after 210 seconds and the building had been weakened by 10% on the seventy second floor shell we because the crash only took out 1% of of the outer columns and the inner core was built like a brick you know what and i'll even thow in all the fire protection had been striped from the suport beams on the celling due to the explosion.

Now we are left with a fire and several floors are only at 90% strength and we have one huge fire buring and the flames are being fanned because all the windows have been broken.

Would you like to lead on from here and tell us just how the buildings fell over and why the first building to be hit was the second one to fall and just as a faviour would you also cover the side blasts as seen on TV and the eye witness reports about bombs going off in the building not only from the general public but also TV crews and firemen and in return i'll forget the buildings had just been brought and the double insurance on the buildings.

.............................................



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jprophet420

You really sound like an tool when


Likewise, you sound like a tool when using "an" instead of an "a" when prefacing a word starting with a consonant. I love when the irony presents itself instantly.


Do you really believe a typo makes someone sound like a tool? I'll give you and everyone reading the thread time to differentiate between the significance of a poster on the internet making typo's, and the government using logical fallacies as propaganda to explain terrorist attacks.

Irony indeed.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability

There was only a hand full of individuals that spoke out about WTC 7 and being trapped by explosions, now one is dead



You see, I read this, and I think

- only a handful of individuals. That's not many. Especially given the hundreds who don't concur with them who were also there

- one is dead. Why aren't they all dead? Surely statistically speaking one of them is pretty likely to die in seven years?



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

What theory am I unable to support? What have I said that is incorrect or "hard to fathom"?

After all not citing what you are posting about when you can quote it in a few seconds is rather ignorant.



I thought it would be obvious.

In the first post you claim that just because debunkers have been able to refute, one by one, 9/11 Truthers' claims, it doesn't make the "OS" true. I was merely pointing out that it's hardly a cause for celebration. Essentially you seem to be saying that everything the Truth Movement has come up with may have been shown to be false, but still the "OS" isn't true.

This strikes me as rather sad, if that's your measure of success. Especially since the "OS" is in many facets a straw man that the Truth movement themselves invented, a standard to which you like to hold "debunkers" even if they don't themselves ascribe to it.

You unwittingly showed that this is indeed what you do in your subsequent posts. In these you implied that you expect me to fully support your notion of the "OS" if I am seen to disagree with various standard Truther myths. I pointed out that one doesn't have to sign up to a lot of crackpot theories about CD and Pentagon missiles to think that 9/11 may have been subject to a cover up, or that Bush might be a bit of a dick.

I apologise for the remarks about your style and syntax. But there are a couple of posts here that are genuinely hard to disentangle.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Do you really believe a typo makes someone sound like a tool?


Essentially yes, but only during a insulting statement such as yours. But wait! There's other reasons such as this:


You really sound like an tool when you say "I agree with everything in the NIST report except I think there was massive structural damage to building 7, damage which they said was not relevant to the collapse."


That is, making up things and claiming I said them. That is the trademark of dishonest, diversionary tactics: the topic of this thread. You are only fulfilling the stereotype. Good job.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


This is sort of the point I'm making, albeit perhaps more gently. Jprophet seems to think that if you don't subscribe to a basket of Truth Movement narratives about phantom planes and controlled demolition, then you must be able to defend every word of the NIST report. This is nonsense.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


This is sort of the point I'm making, albeit perhaps more gently. Jprophet seems to think that if you don't subscribe to a basket of Truth Movement narratives about phantom planes and controlled demolition, then you must be able to defend every word of the NIST report. This is nonsense.


Definitely so. But the 911 conspiracy movement employs so many fallacies and dirty tricks that once you're caught is the trap you have little choice but to emulate the same fallacies and dirty tricks. Without clear, tangible evidence to support the case it can only be propped up by such nonsense.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster

To make things simple lets agree all the fule had been burnt off after 210 seconds and the building had been weakened by 10% on the seventy second floor shell we because the crash only took out 1% of of the outer columns and the inner core was built like a brick you know what and i'll even thow in all the fire protection had been striped from the suport beams on the celling due to the explosion.

Now we are left with a fire and several floors are only at 90% strength and we have one huge fire buring and the flames are being fanned because all the windows have been broken.

Would you like to lead on from here and tell us just how the buildings fell over and why the first building to be hit was the second one to fall and just as a faviour would you also cover the side blasts as seen on TV and the eye witness reports about bombs going off in the building not only from the general public but also TV crews and firemen and in return i'll forget the buildings had just been brought and the double insurance on the buildings.




libuster old buddy old pal. I'm gonna need your sources for these statements:

1.all the fule had been burnt off after 210 seconds
2. the building had been weakened by 10% on the seventy second floor
3. the crash only took out 1% of of the outer columns


The team of experts at MIT:
John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

SOURCE: web.mit.edu...

"The core columns are much stronger than the exterior ones."

"It is assumed that by the time the core structure is reached the impacting debris of the aircraft will have been slowed by exterior columns and floors and would also have been broken down even further so that the loading
induced on the core columns was distributed rather than concentrated. Under those conditions, the most probably failure mode would not be shear, as was the case with the exterior columns, but rather bending and, or membrane types of failure."

"According to our best estimate, the core columns absorbed 1025MJ core E = , which is 52% of the total kinetic energy introduced by the aircraft. The total number of destroyed core columns is a ratio of the total energy available - core energy core E to the amount of energy required to fail a single core column. Depending which case considered in Table 2 will be valid, the number of destroyed core columns in South Tower will vary between minimum of 7 and maximum of 20."

"the predicted number of damaged core columns in the North Tower will vary between 4 and 12."

"The energy to be dissipated by the core structure is the difference between the total energy introduced into the Towers kinetic E and the energies lost on damaging the exterior columns, floors, and the aircraft itself."

"4.4 Core columns Inside each tower there were 44 large, concrete reinforced, steel columns"

This was after 50 pages of physics equasions, information, explination, and graphs to determine how much energy each part of the plan had, where the energy was absorbed, how it was absorbed, before anything had even reached the CORE columns.

Now best case scenario the north tower lost almost half one 1 walls of it's perimiter colums and 4-12 CORE columns. That building is severly damaged. Any building that has lost 9 to 27% of it's CORE colums and 12.5% of it's perimiter colums (assuming there are 4 walls of perimiter columns and I cited a source that said the WTC towers were 63 meters wide you have lost one half of one forth of your perimiter colums or 12.5%)

Now the south tower was hit by a faster moving plane. It lost 7 to 20 CORE columns in addition to the perimiter columns. It lost between 15.9 and 45% of it's CORE columns.

Yet, according to that report, almost half of the energy from the planes destroyed the floor structure which is even more damage i'm not even going to mention.

This is just the impact damage.

Then they go on to say:

"Our analysis does not deny these heat-induced contributions to the
collapse, rather we fully agree that the fire effects played a large role in the deferred damage."

and this gem:

"Yet, we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help."

They believe that losing 15-45% of your CORE colums, a bunch of perimiter colums, and having half of the energy from the crash crushing floor structure was enough to cause the collapse 'with very little outside help'. (I believe they meant help from things like fire, thermite or explosives)





[edit on 28-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

That is, making up things and claiming I said them. That is the trademark of dishonest, diversionary tactics: the topic of this thread. You are only fulfilling the stereotype. Good job.


I did not accuse you of anything at all;

en.wikipedia.org...

I assumed you would understand words have more than one meaning. You write on a 10th grade level or higher (very high actually) so I assumed you weren't just playing semantics games with me.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   


In the first post you claim that just because debunkers have been able to refute, one by one, 9/11 Truthers' claims, it doesn't make the "OS" true. I was merely pointing out that it's hardly a cause for celebration. Essentially you seem to be saying that everything the Truth Movement has come up with may have been shown to be false, but still the "OS" isn't true.


I did not say that. You were unable to quote me saying that which is why you did not post it in the first place, and did not use the quote function on the boards.



This strikes me as rather sad, if that's your measure of success. Especially since the "OS" is in many facets a straw man that the Truth movement themselves invented, a standard to which you like to hold "debunkers" even if they don't themselves ascribe to it.


What you said I stated was incorrect so the fact that it "makes you sad" is irrelevant, other than for entertainment purposes.



You unwittingly showed that this is indeed what you do in your subsequent posts. In these you implied that you expect me to fully support your notion of the "OS" if I am seen to disagree with various standard Truther myths. I pointed out that one doesn't have to sign up to a lot of crackpot theories about CD and Pentagon missiles to think that 9/11 may have been subject to a cover up, or that Bush might be a bit of a dick.


Unwittingly indeed.

I don't imply anything, I simply draw the line. You can stand on either side, or straddle it, but you can't do 2 of those 3 things and be taken seriously.

I stand undecided, and I catch a lot of flack from both sides for doing that. "Truthers" don't give me a star and flag for just being a "truther" like other "truthers" do. Debunkers don't give me a star for debunking. I have to earn every single point. What I did in this thread was took a statement found on a .gov website, and pointed out that it used heavy fallacy and was "propaganda". The claim that it is propaganda is up for debate, the claim that the conclusion is based on fallacy is certainly not.



[edit on 28-5-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

That is, making up things and claiming I said them. That is the trademark of dishonest, diversionary tactics: the topic of this thread. You are only fulfilling the stereotype. Good job.


I did not accuse you of anything at all;



I never said you accused me of anything, I said you made things up and claimed I said them. Not that it matters though. It looks like the endless whirlwind of 911 debate has begun spinning. No need to moor ourselves to such a petty squabble. Carry on with the "pull its" and "free fall" stuff.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You made mention that Barry Jennings is dead in a not too well veiled attempt at dropping innuendo, and it has since been shown Barry Jennings was middle aged, overweight and almost certainly at risk for a heart attack.




Your refer to this man with such little respect.....



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Your refer to this man with such little respect.....



Not at all. Anyone who lived through that had my respect. I reserve my disgust and disrespect for that punk con artist Dylan Avery, who distorts everything he touches up to and including Jennings for his own selfish agenda. When WTC 1 fell wreckage fell on WTC 7 so of course the remaining people inside would hear and feel explosions, I have no concerns about that. What I loathe about that punk Avery is that he's likewise perverting this into looking like they were actual explosives.

Someone ought to explain to Avery is that there's no such thing as quiet explosives. If bombs went off in WTC 7 all of Manhatten would have heard it.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join