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.

 

My beliefs have changed regarding 911

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
mike..mike...mike....

Relax mate...

...you shared your crazy opinion, an opinion mike, and, so full of holes was it, that i decided to counter with my "opinion"...

The fact that you look ridiculous is not my problem, its yours...

I think I offered something rather succinct to your thread....the fact that you didnt like hearing it is not my problem but yours...

When's your next thread due??

Cant wait....can you PM me when it up??




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I have to say that benoni has contributed to your thread and what he did, was point out some very important facts about your beliefs that shows how ridiculous supporting the OS lies makes one out to be. You brought this on yourself by opened the door to this topic by discussing your OS beliefs and supporting the OS fairytales.

Some of us have done years of research and the nonsense you are supporting has no credible sciences into support itself, nothing. In fact, all you are supporting is the government word, as if they never lie.
Yet, you distrust the government when it comes to WTC7, yeah that one they are lying about and all the rest of the OS is true, right?
You do not have any proof to how WTC 7 come down yet, you support demolition.
If you support demolition then you are admitting NIST is a fraud, so how can you support their pseudo science fraudulent nonsense explaining what happen to WTC 1&2.
If NIST lied in their report about WTC 7 don’t you think they lied about what really happened to WTC 1 & 2 as well?


[edit on 14-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by benoni
 


Got something to contribute to the thread in the form of a discussion about the topics ?

Or,

Did you just want to pass on your childish rhetoric cause what I have been able to learn about 911 no longer fits within your belief range?



Just curious here. Mind if I ask how much of it you learned from Sorcha Faal? AboveTopSecret...

I am simply trying to understand where you might be coming from with things you consider revelations.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
No, actually I did not. I saw someone using a tree and a plane to simply discuss -when a tall object is struck at speed - does it fall over, break, or implode. That has nothing to do with comparable structural integrity or scaling. It was simply about falling over or not. Almost anything could have fit there. Your thought experiment comparing how a hung of solid metal reacts compared to an automobile to demonstrate how scaling does not translate integrity was kind of different. Sorry.

Ah, I see why you objected. You have no problem with comparing a tree to a building, but quibble over the inexact nature of my scale model thought experiment on kinetic energy. You must be a truther.

So let me see if I have this right; you agree with kiwasabi that a tree should behave in the same way as a tall building as far as collisions go? Could you please explain to me how it's even possible that a 95% air structure will topple over or how a tree, which is 99.99% solid, could implode? I'm dying to hear this, enlighten me.


But that is the point. It was not a scale model analogy because a matchbox car is a visual representation but nothing bout the material, structure, design, or assembly is even remotely close. You are comparing a sheet of paper to an aircraft carrier and calling it a scale analogy of structure.

I'd be willing to bet that the mass of the matchbox scales down fairly accurately with the dimensions, which is all we need for kinetic energy(edit: see below, it is). There is nothing in the formula of kinetic energy which takes into account materials. All we care about is mass and velocity. Do you actually think it matters what sort of materials a matchbox car is made of in a 1.2 mph collision? It could be made of a soap bubble and it wouldn't matter, that's the whole freaking point!


I know. A matchbox car is not even remotely a scale representation of the mass and size of a real car. A scaled up matchbox car would be too heavy to ever get to 65MPH. It would be a giant, heavy as hell, single piece of metal with some plastic in the middle. I bet if you ram that into a wall at 65, there would still be no scratch on it. See why it just did not help to make the point you were making?

Okay, this is demonstrably wrong. Matchbox cars are hardly solid and have a distinct shell, which I concede is probably at least a factor of ten too thick, proportionally. I'll admit I didn't do the calculations until now, but here goes.

A Matchbox car is 1/43 scale, so for mass we need to cube that....which gives us a result of roughly 1/80,000 roughly. Lets take your average midsize car, which weighs around 3,500 lbs, do the math(3500/80000) and get a scale mass of 0.04 lbs, or about 0.7 ounces. So how much does a matchbox car weigh? About 35 grams, or 1.2 ounces. A bit high, but reasonable, certainly in the ball park.


The construction and materials are to scale???????????? What toy cars do you have? Can you link me because my nephew would go insane for . Thank you for highlighting the problem with your analogy right there. You think toy cars, when scaled up, become made out of thousands of moving and attached parts that are mostly plastic and alloys. I would like to know how you scale things that creates such an alternate reality.

Dude, stop trying insult my intelligence, and read for comprehension. I was saying if you scaled up a Matchbox car to full size, keeping everything in proportion(which means thicknesses and material as well as overall design), the impacts would be vastly different. Do you realize why I said "scale up a matchbox car to full size" instead of "get a real car"? Where the hell did I say "a toy car is made out of all real scaled down car parts and materials"? Pay attention, and stop reading into my responses what isn't there. I already went out of way to say the materials and construction is entirely different.


How about you just stop and I just stop. Unless you want to start a thread on it. I would really love to read all about these special toy cars you have.


Fine. You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. I've made plenty worse analogies than the Hotwheels car into a wall one, and agree its not worth spending any more energy on.

But I fear you ultimately missed the point, in any case. Reread and understand what I was saying about scaling up a matchbox car full size and crashing it. But start out small, with a standard 1/43 matchbox car and crash it at 1 mph into a wall. Nuttin happens to it, not a scratch. Then scale up to full size(to reiterate: not a real car, but a scaled up matchbox car), keeping the speed in proportion and crash it(in your mind), then do it at 10x, then 25x etc.. The crashes get more severe each time. That was the whole freaking idea behind my derail on scaling...and whether you realize it or not, that was kiwasabis point too, he was scaling down by using a tree and a toy airplane.


[edit on 14-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I see no comparison between matchbox cars and 9/11

Sorry.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
I see no comparison between matchbox cars and 9/11

Sorry.


Where was it stated that there was? It's a thought exercise on the futility of scaling for physics purposes(kinetic energy, material strengths and such). The analogy was made because someone, actually two people on this thread, thinks flying an rc plane flying into a tree is a good comparison for the WTC crashes.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Knew the source and that was sourced. Not trying to hide anything about where I get a story from that I think will interest others. While the "source" of that one IS sketchy, it still demonstrates a plausible storyline for real life.

I might not defend the source but I will defend the right to post and offer my opinion on it. (in accordance with the policys on ATS)



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Geemor
oh cheers, thank you letting us know! we al love to hear your opinion.

i don't posess any opinions what may have caused 3 buildings, - two of them designed to endure a plane collision - to collapse within few hours time, one of them wasn't even hit by plane. all we know that 3 buildings collapsed when they should've not. there are lot of reasons to assume that there were something fishy going on, but then there may be the possibilites of flaws in design.


I don't believe the Twin Towers were designed to endure a plane collision. Skyscrapers are designed to hold themselves up in a bit of a stiff wind.

I know about a type of ship that is designed to have airplanes land on them(aircraft carriers), but if you crash airplanes into them, they tend to lose their structural integrity, catch fire, explode and maybe sink.

I would bet those buildings weren't even designed to land a plane on, much less crash one into them.



According to the original designer of the sky scraper he states not even an airplane can take down a sky scraper. I guess anybody remember back in the 50's I believe that a bi-plane hit the empire state building? People were terrified that it would of caused the building to burn and fall because of the jet fuel. Well it sure as hell didn't do that major damage. I know an airliner is different from the bi-plane,but the fuel is the same.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Ah, I see why you objected. You have no problem with comparing a tree to a building, but quibble over the inexact nature of my scale model thought experiment on kinetic energy. You must be a truther.


Hey look. If you want to run around screaming about how you did not get it, that is all you. I am not going to sit here and go back and forth with you because you did not get it. If someone tried to use a tree to represent a scale model of the towers and exactly how they would react, then I am with ya. All I saw was someone using a tree to point out when tall things get hit, stuff happens. It did not even state exactly what would happen and say the towers should have acted that way. It was not a structural analogy. It was simply pointing out that tall things break, fall over, or maybe fancifully implode. If you wanted to compare hurling a matchbox car into a wall to throwing a solid chunk of metal and something and point out that when they collide, something might happen, you would have been able to pull it off to. Sorry you did not understand and took your analogy to a new level.


So let me see if I have this right; you agree with kiwasabi that a tree should behave in the same way as a tall building as far as collisions go?


No. You do not have that right. Not even a little.


Could you please explain to me how it's even possible that a 95% air structure will topple over or how a tree, which is 99.99% solid, could implode? I'm dying to hear this, enlighten me.


LMAO!!! I thought you at least understood it a little. I guess not. I would love to hear how a tree can implode as well. That sounds quite fascinating and impossible.


I'd be willing to bet that the mass of the matchbox scales down fairly accurately with the dimensions, which is all we need for kinetic energy(edit: see below, it is).


You would be wrong. It is not like you cannot find out what a matchbox car is made from, how it is put together, and what it weighs. No problem scaling that up to see if it even compares to a real car in structure. Not even close.


There is nothing in the formula of kinetic energy which takes into account materials. All we care about is mass and velocity.


LMAO! You are really cracking me up here. No need to account for materials but you care about mass eh? That is an interesting concept. Maybe you can explain to me how you calculate the mass of an unknown material?


Do you actually think it matters what sort of materials a matchbox car is made of in a 1.2 mph collision?


Scaling up a solid chunk of steel vs scaling up the same size chunk of solid Jello would be exactly the same then?


It could be made of a soap bubble and it wouldn't matter, that's the whole freaking point!


WOW! Really? How is that the point? I thought the point was that physics could not be scaled down? See, that point I get. Your point, not sure at all what it is supposed to have been.



Okay, this is demonstrably wrong. Matchbox cars are hardly solid and have a distinct shell, which I concede is probably at least a factor of ten too thick, proportionally. I'll admit I didn't do the calculations until now, but here goes.


They are not solid? How many different pieces of metal make up a matchbox car then? Not including the wheels. I guess they must have changed a great deal since my time so maybe you can help me out.


A Matchbox car is 1/43 scale, so for mass we need to cube that....which gives us a result of roughly 1/80,000 roughly. Lets take your average midsize car, which weighs around 3,500 lbs, do the math(3500/80000) and get a scale mass of 0.04 lbs, or about 0.7 ounces. So how much does a matchbox car weigh? About 35 grams, or 1.2 ounces. A bit high, but reasonable, certainly in the ball park.


All those gymnastics and the best you can do is have it still actually be way to heavy? LOL! I Believe that was what I said.


Dude, stop trying insult my intelligence, and read for comprehension. I was saying if you scaled up a Matchbox car to full size, keeping everything in proportion(which means thicknesses and material as well as overall design), the impacts would be vastly different.


Uh...huh? I said they would be vastly different and you are arguing with me about it.


Do you realize why I said "scale up a matchbox car to full size" instead of "get a real car"? Where the hell did I say "a toy car is made out of all real scaled down car parts and materials"?


Here -

Just look at it the other way around. Scaling up the toy car to a full size car, say 50x, and crashing it at 65 mph(okay 64 mph, ya got me there). Same type of collision the toy car experienced? Negative, even though the construction and materials are to scale. The premise is sound, your objections to the difference in construction and materials, notwithstanding.


You clearly said the the construction AND materials are to scale. If you simply meant that a large matchbox car has the same materials and construction of a small one, then you are agreeing with me and you can understand why I do not understand. If you are agreeing with what I said, then what is the problem?


Pay attention, and stop reading into my responses what isn't there. I already went out of way to say the materials and construction is entirely different.


I dunno. Seems like you need to pay attention. I said they are not even close. Here you are trying to tell me how different they are???? You said it was an apt analogy and here you are arguing with me about how it is not. NO kidding?


Fine. You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. I've made plenty worse analogies than the Hotwheels car into a wall one, and agree its not worth spending any more energy on.


You really wrote that? Seriously? After I asked you to either stop or take it somewhere less intrusive to this thread, you accuse me of arguing just to argue? I believe I already stated exactly what you are trying to argue in this post. That is confusing. Why argue with me to say the same thing I said? It contradicts your original premise and is obviously just arguing to argue.


But I fear you ultimately missed the point, in any case. Reread and understand what I was saying about scaling up a matchbox car full size and crashing it. But start out small, with a standard 1/43 matchbox car and crash it at 1 mph into a wall. Nuttin happens to it, not a scratch. Then scale up to full size(to reiterate: not a real car, but a scaled up matchbox car), keeping the speed in proportion and crash it(in your mind), then do it at 10x, then 25x etc.. The crashes get more severe each time. That was the whole freaking idea behind my derail on scaling...and whether you realize it or not, that was kiwasabis point too, he was scaling down by using a tree and a toy airplane.


No it was not because you are both trying to display completely different principals with your thought experiments. If someone else uses water to discuss fluid dynamics and you want to use a chunk of gold to discuss fluid dynamics, you do not get to be right because you saw someone else do it without understanding the difference. The physics principals in the analogy are what you need to understand. Not sure what yours was anymore. A small hunk of metal verses a big hunk of metal will do different things in scale collisions. Not sure what you are trying to prove at this point but you are all on your own now ok. Please post some more about how badly I want to argue. I promise to let you take it all by yourself.

Want to start a thread about the premise, I am all over it. You can make me look stupid all over it. Otherwise, just respond to this with some kind of empty insult and personal attack, ok?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Knew the source and that was sourced.


No it was not.


Not trying to hide anything about where I get a story from that I think will interest others.


I know. It was clear you did not realize what a pile of crap your source was to you until after you posted it. Then you decided it was still interesting. It is still not sourced and still from a known hoaxer.


While the "source" of that one IS sketchy, it still demonstrates a plausible storyline for real life.


No it does not. It presents a fabrication and presents itself as true. You will notice it was tossed in the HOAX bin, right? Do you think that it is in the HOAX bin because it is so plausible? The president does not write laws. Obama was not president in 2007. Nothing about that is plausible.


I might not defend the source but I will defend the right to post and offer my opinion on it. (in accordance with the policys on ATS)


I do not believe I said anything about your opinion. I simply addressed you posting pure crap on ATS as the truth and then presenting yourself as well researched and knowledgeable.

Besides, you need to think about this for a moment. You expressed an opinion on a law that Obama wrote up as president in 2007.

The president does not write laws.

Obama was not president in 2007.

So you will forgive me if after looking at your many many many many truther threads you started in the past along with you presenting false and really hard to even believe information as a fat and opining on it - I choose to doubt you somewhat.


[edit on 14-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Geemor
oh cheers, thank you letting us know! we al love to hear your opinion.

i don't posess any opinions what may have caused 3 buildings, - two of them designed to endure a plane collision - to collapse within few hours time, one of them wasn't even hit by plane. all we know that 3 buildings collapsed when they should've not. there are lot of reasons to assume that there were something fishy going on, but then there may be the possibilites of flaws in design.


I don't believe the Twin Towers were designed to endure a plane collision. Skyscrapers are designed to hold themselves up in a bit of a stiff wind.

I know about a type of ship that is designed to have airplanes land on them(aircraft carriers), but if you crash airplanes into them, they tend to lose their structural integrity, catch fire, explode and maybe sink.

I would bet those buildings weren't even designed to land a plane on, much less crash one into them.



According to the original designer of the sky scraper he states not even an airplane can take down a sky scraper. I guess anybody remember back in the 50's I believe that a bi-plane hit the empire state building? People were terrified that it would of caused the building to burn and fall because of the jet fuel. Well it sure as hell didn't do that major damage. I know an airliner is different from the bi-plane,but the fuel is the same.
Well, it happened in July of 1945.

It was not a biplane.

The plane was not a jet, so had no jet fuel on board (actually it was more volatile than jet fuel).

The plane crash killed 14 people and caused over a million dollars in damages (1945 dollars).

The structural integrity of the Empire State Building was not compromised....

BUT, we are talking about apples and oranges!

The Empire State building was built using different materials, methods and a completely different engineering scheme.

A world war two era medium bomber does not carry anywhere near the amount if fuel that a Boeing 767 carries.

Source:



[edit on 14-6-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
So a tree is quite similar to a WTC tower, but a matchbox car is not a relevant scale comparison to a car?

You guys crack me up.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So do you have anything that disputes what I've said yet?



Of course, I showed it to you in another thread just a few days ago. You then ran away, as expected.

It's self evident.

Truthers claim to have all the proof they need.

Nothing is happening though. For eight years.....

This means they, and you, don't.

The only way out of this conundrum is to claim that the whole world is in on it at some level, since there is zero support, even from other countries that had citizens killed, for truther delusions.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


This is a characteristic of the latest movements in "Truther" thought. You see it from time to time in posts here - the notion that although the TM has been proved correct beyond a shadow of doubt, nothing can now happen because "TPTB" have unfairly sidelined the argument through nefarious means.

Thus a TM adherent gets to think that they're simultaneously right about everything while remaining comfortable in the knowledge that nothing will actually have to be done. It's unsurprising that this sort of rationalisation is the ultimate destination, because it fits the TM from a practical, psychological and emotional point of view.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by mikelee
 


Some of us have done years of research and the nonsense you are supporting has no credible sciences into support itself, nothing.




This again is coming form the guy who DOES NOT believe that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are credible sources.


(As you explained here where the sources were cited):

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53


According to the original designer of the sky scraper he states not even an airplane can take down a sky scraper. I guess anybody remember back in the 50's I believe that a bi-plane hit the empire state building? People were terrified that it would of caused the building to burn and fall because of the jet fuel. Well it sure as hell didn't do that major damage. I know an airliner is different from the bi-plane,but the fuel is the same.



It was a b-25 bomber that hit the empire state building. It did not use jet engines. It had propellers.

history1900s.about.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

It has a maximum takeoff weight of 41 tons and an empty weight of 21 tons. It also had a maximum speed of 275 miles per hour.


A 20-40 ton 275 mile per hour aircraft is a LOT different than a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour aircraft.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
You say that building 7 was brought down, only after it incurred damage and for the safety of the public, right? How on earth was the building rigged in such a short time? Would it not have had to been rigged well before the actual day? If it was, then why not the other two buildings?

I'm not completely convinced that explosives brought the twin towers down but I think it is far more probable than than the aircraft "knocking" those buildings down. Now, here's the thing about the twin towers and possible demolitions. The demolitions used, didn't have to use the same technique as those used in normally controlled demolitions.

Take for instance a normally controlled demolition. They need to ensure that it is as safe as possible and complies with the various standards. They have to ensure the building falls with as little damage to its surroundings as possible.

With the twin towers, they didn't need to consider such things. They only needed to bring it down and in fact, they would need to make it look as if it destructed from the top down. Guess what? The nano-thermite would be perfect for such a task. Instead of the sequence going from bottom to top, as is normal in normally controlled demolitions, they would engineer the sequence to go from top to bottom. They would also use more nano-thermite as to obliterate the building, which would account for the visual aspect of what happened.

Why wouldn't they use the same technique for building 7? Because it wasn't hit with an aircraft and they planned for it to collapse much later in the day. For this reason, they would need to use normal techniques.

In sum, the demolition or alleged demolition of the twin towers, wouldn't have to use the same techniques as what we are used to, with controlled demolitions. They only had to bring the building down, not worry about the various safety aspects and surrounding property. This would account for why it appears different than what we are used to with controlled demolitions. The abundant use of nano-thermite would also account for what we saw and the way in which the building deconstructed. In fact, it accounts for just about everything, including the molten metal.

As far as building 7, if you believe that building 7 was brought down by explosives, then you would also have to believe that the building was rigged before hand. Think about that for a moment...

If the TPTB, whomever you believe them to be, only knew about the attacks before they happened, as opposed to participated in them, they wouldn't have gone through all of the trouble to rig the building with explosives in a clandestine manner, on the off-chance that a few cave-dwellers would be successful in their highly improbable mission to bring both towers down with a couple of aircraft.

If we can agree that building 7 came down due to explosives, whether in part or not, then we would have to agree that those explosives had to be planted in the building before hand, right? Do we agree on that?

This is no small task, to rig an inhabited building in the middle of NYC with explosives for a controlled demolition. That would be an awfully demanding and risky chance on the off-chance that the "terrorists" would be successful. Ask most engineers if before 9/11, they would have thought that those towers would have went down due to an aircraft collision and most would tell you, "no", especially seeing how they were built to withstand an aircraft collision.

It would seem that you aren't including the big picture or important variables into your conclusion. It would seem that you are only working the evidence to fit your desired result. I would hope that you re-evaluate the evidence and if it doesn't work with all evidence, than the only conclusion that you can legitimately come to, is that you can't conclude on what did or didn't happen. Your theory, just as the official theory, can't account for a lot of the evidence and frankly, doesn't seem to be well thought out.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


True, that...very true:


A 20-40 ton 275 mile per hour aircraft is a LOT different than a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour aircraft.


It also bears a repeat mention that the Empire State Building design and construction were/are entirely different than the WTC Towers.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
mike..mike...mike....

Relax mate...

...you shared your crazy opinion, an opinion mike, and, so full of holes was it, that i decided to counter with my "opinion"...

The fact that you look ridiculous is not my problem, its yours...

I think I offered something rather succinct to your thread....the fact that you didnt like hearing it is not my problem but yours...

When's your next thread due??

Cant wait....can you PM me when it up??


You believe that two skyscrapers were rigged to explode (this is based on the fact that the towers collapsed, despite the fact that it took about an hour for both towers to collapse www.911timeline.net... 8:46 AM-10:28 AM 9:02 AM-9:58 AM Source is there just in case someone needs it for some inexplicable reason ) when planes flew into both of them to justify wars, as if planes flying plane into the buildings wasn't enough of a justification already.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   


Sorry...if your talking to me, I dont follow what you are saying....

Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join