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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor
reply to post by iamcpc
 



NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

plah plah plah

yesss.


Isn't that a point I just made? That there were large sections of the building that fell faster than the collapse? Did you not notice the pictures that I posted? This is just someone showing large chunks of the building falling faster than the collapse? Those chunks of the building hit the ground faster than the building collapsed.





okay. whatever you say. go on, believe.


if by believe you mean search for hours and hours and hours for a source that said that the WTC collapse defied newtons laws of phyics then yes I believe. I believe I am unable to find a reliable source or an expert source that confirms the speed of the collapse violated a law of physics.



no i don't, but it doesn't make much difference does it?


When saying that the lower floors offered little to no resistance to the collapse then you should know how much force is needed to slow the fall of 16-30 floors of steel and concrete by one second. If the building collapsed even one second slower than free fall speed then you have an idea about how much resistance was offered to the collapse by undamaged portion of the building.

Person A: Pigs can fly!

Person B: Pigs can't fly. (insert source indicating pigs can't fly). Pigs don't have wings. Do you even know what pigs use to fly?

Person A: no i don't, but it doesn't make much difference does it?

I don't know and I don't care.... If you really don't know and you really don't care then why even bother posting on these forums?

I don't know and I do care. That's why I want to find out if the information that is being spoon fed to me is accurate or not. Someone tells me the collapse defied the laws of physics I go into research mode. Who said it? When did they say it? Where is it published? I want to read it for myself!

At least 20 people have made that claim to me. I'm desperate to find out where it all started. Not one person cited a source.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor

call me mr. troll


Wouldn't think of it. Truthers are mostly too uneducated to be trolls.


if you get angered, don't blame me, but yourself



Never angered my friend. Merely amused by truthers.

They are a funny and illogical group.

Lurkers are the target audience. Anyone sane, that is honestly doing research, will look up what I posted. With a little self schooling, they will find that I'm right in my beliefs.

The insane and mentally challenged will not be influenced by facts and engineering papers, but will reject with a handwave. They are of no concern to me. They will just provide more opportunities to bring up facts that show, again to the sane and rational only, that truther beliefs are, well.................. insane and irrational.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


I think I'll take you up on the round earth challenge


but only if you'll go up to a 1000$



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor

Originally posted by iamcpc

I hope you didn't also ignore me when I presented the evidence that suggested that the law of conservation of momentum was not broken by the collapse of the wtc towers.



no way my fiend, how could i forgot you when you require so much attention?

forgive me for i too hastily took the challenge - propably no laws of physics were broken there. i lose. what i meant was that the speed was just too close to free wall considering the floors between the damaged part and the ground zero.

i haven't yet looked your 'evidence', i am so poor with the evidence ain't i? but yeah, i admitted: i lost. congrats, howzah it feels to be a winner?



Even if you believe that no laws of physics were broken it does not change the fact that someone is throwing mud into a clear pond preventing people from finding the truth. Deliberatly misdirecting people. And the mud is coming from all parties involved. Now getting to the bottom of the pond for the trush involves chipping away at concrete because the mud is so thick. It makes someone like me, who has no clue what caused the collapse of the WTC towers, have a VERY VERY difficult job even determining what theories are possible and which ones are impossible.

So yay I have helped remove (or weaken) one spoonfull of mud from one persons pond. Yet a vast majority of people decide on what theory to believe based on a buch of mud and very little crystal clear evidence. I know people have helped me to see the waters more clearly.

Removing one spoonfull of mud does not even come close to answering the question:

What caused the collapse of the WTC towers?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by iamcpc
 


I think I'll take you up on the round earth challenge


but only if you'll go up to a 1000$


I only accept FACTS and PROOF. I'll even make it 2000 dollars! I know that it's so easy to debunk and refute anything you even try to throw at me!



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 30_seconds

As long as you believe that ANY of the WTC complex was brought down by explosives, then you must believe that ALL of it was.

Why? Because there wasn't time to properly plant explosives after the planes crashed into the buildings. It takes weeks, and must have been done before-hand. And this means that somebody with complete access to those buildings knew that 911 was going to happen far in advance of the event.


I can't believe no one has replied or mentioned 30_seconds post, especially the OP! I mean I agree, I have went back and forth on this whole thing many times as both sides are at times just too hard to believe. But the underlying fact for why I can't fully state these "Truthers" are totally wrong, is building 7. Again, if only just one building was demolished, than we have a serious problem. If anyone can point me to "evidence" of a building of that size (wtc7) being able to be rigged in less than two hours (while it was on fire mind you) and demolished perfectly into its own foot print than I would feel much better, but I don't think anyone can. What do you say to this?

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
What do you say to this?

Thanks.


What if the OP is wrong about 7 being demolished?

That would remove the conflict, right?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
What do you say to this?

Thanks.


What if the OP is wrong about 7 being demolished?

That would remove the conflict, right?


Ummm? How? My point is if it was, than how could it have been rigged in less than two hours while it was on fire, without any firefighters or policemen seeing it being done? Does that seem plausible to you? If not, than how can you stand where you do?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I think all of the comments about "wiring a building" are for nefarious purposes since the technology has been around for years to use remote demolitions instead of wiring. The Firemen on scene stated that the building was going to be brought down, my question is how did they know that if it was not planned by some official person or agency then? They had to know and they had to bring it down.

There seems to be a lot of focus on the most used photo of the one side of WTC 7 that was not heavily damaged used for argumentive reasons. But the other side was very damaged beyond saving and the photos do exist.



Above, WTC 7 heavy damage.



Above is the documented and factual damage to WTC 7. It needed to come down and sustained heavy damage unlike many theorys saying it didn't. Those theorys are simply to promote theorys that cannot be proven and are incorrect.

Based on this damage it wouldn't take nor require "wiring" of anything to bring it down like many myth-informed cosnpriacy souls would love for you to think. As I have stated earlier, it only would take a few well placed remote detonated devices to bring it down. The argument of it "taking days to wire up" is again, incorrect and used to promote nonfactual theorys.



[edit on 6/10/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Geemor
 



It is like global warming; choose who to believe. Has fire EVER caused a building with those kinds of frames to fall? I suppose, since most admit the heat did not burn (COULD NOT, per engineers) hot enough to melt the beams, that is a huge indicator right there. ALSO, lets suppose it was hot enough; did ALL the beams melt away at the SAME TIME allowing for FREE FALL and SMOOTH FALLING motion/speed? If the section where the plain hit had been damaged; "Clunk, clunk, clunk" as weight piles onto weight. If you break a rib, will your entire body come down smoothly (all bones break at same time)? NO. Fire cannot cause that, and cannot burn and take out ALL BEAMS at the CORRECT POINTS to allow for free-fall speed. It was a controlled demolition. TS is delusional.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Yeah...so it fell at free-fall speed, smoothly, instead of one floor on top of the other. All the beams happened to "Go" at the same time and "melt" at the same time when fire could not melt that (not per metal workers, architects, engineers, etc). REGARDLESS, even if I say, "Sure, fire started it", the motion is NOT EXPLAINED by that. All beams would NOT GO AT THE SAME TIME. This is really too easy to point out your false logic.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX


It is like global warming; choose who to believe.



You forgot to add "ignore those who disagree."

To believe any theory, such as your signature would suggest that you support the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, means that you have to chose to only believe those that present evidence that support your theory and ignore all those who refute your theory or support an alternate theory. How do you do that? How do you ignore the people that have presented evidence to refute your theory? How do you ignore the people who support alternate theories?

I wish I could. This whole 9/11 disaster would be so much easier for me and I would not have to spend over 20 hours a week researching all the stuff that people have flat out made up about what happened on that day.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX
reply to post by thedman
 



Yeah...so it fell at free-fall speed, smoothly, instead of one floor on top of the other. All the beams happened to "Go" at the same time and "melt" at the same time when fire could not melt that (not per metal workers, architects, engineers, etc). REGARDLESS, even if I say, "Sure, fire started it", the motion is NOT EXPLAINED by that. All beams would NOT GO AT THE SAME TIME. This is really too easy to point out your false logic.


Do you have sources for your information or did you make it all up?

I have searched for hours. I have not found one expert source that said the buildings collapsed at free fall speed.

I cited some of them here on this very thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So please done one of the following:

A. Stop making things up and making people research made up fairy tales instead of looking for the truth.

B. Leave your 100% un-expert opinion out of this.

C. CITE YOUR SOURCE

I would STRONGLY prefer C so that you could help me with my research.


[edit on 10-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Ok, thanks for the pics, but what you said doesn't qualify as anything that makes me feel better. By the time they knew 7 was too damaged to keep up, how did they plan and execute the demo in the time frame before it fell? Your saying all they had to do was run up in there and throw in a couple of remote charges? Hmmm.... I'll think about it but I suggest you do the same. Remember the Official Story is that there was no demo, so than what? Your going to say they had to say that to protect us from what? lol, I don't know about you but that doesn't fit in with my critical thinking and logic.

Thanks anyway, maybe one day we will have a better investigation.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Read my posts, I've watched the vids, I've spoken to military demolition experts, architects (personally known to me, and seen interviews), and know enough Physics to be able to see something and explain cause/effect. OR, at a minimum, understand what did NOT happen. Fire did not trigger the buildings to fall that smoothly, or to fall at all. Then, to "Fall on it's own footprint" would definitely not be the result of an "out of control" fall.

I have friends at the CIA (from earlier in my life), friends in the military, people who worked next to former Presidents; they all say I am correct. Controlled demolition. Who gains also? Like global warming; MANY say Earth has had more C02, LOTS MORE, and they don't mention chemicals in water from factories, chemicals in foods, pesticides, etc. They want, "Taxes paid to us." So they push the fear mongering. 911 was a tool to create their police grid, and surveillance, the oil, although not ran by my inside sources, seems to be an inside job as well. There is wayyyyyyy too much evidence pointing to fore-knowledge of 911 by our government, Israel, Silverstein himself, etc. The people I spoke with told me to keep it simple, as disinfo types will bring up all other things. See the first paragraph, cannot refute that. Good try to the TS, to others to mislead, but the most basic facts, are facts.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc


You forgot to add "ignore those who disagree."

To believe any theory, such as your signature would suggest that you support the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, means that you have to chose to only believe those that present evidence that support your theory and ignore all those who refute your theory or support an alternate theory. How do you do that? How do you ignore the people that have presented evidence to refute your theory? How do you ignore the people who support alternate theories?

I wish I could. This whole 9/11 disaster would be so much easier for me and I would not have to spend over 20 hours a week researching all the stuff that people have flat out made up about what happened on that day.


since your spending so much time debunking 9/11 could you maybe quickly help me with the few points I mentioned? I agree many people who say 911 is a inside job are crazy but only because their prolly scared out of their minds of the implecations that could mean, I just have my doubts so can you answer any of them?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 



Cite your "sources", or try google for fire taking down those types of buildings. You have obviously never read a Physics book, yet alone been recognized for academic success. "Source, source, source?" Name your sources. It is too easy to sit the fence, and pic things that are no relevance. Disprove what I wrote, look up Newtons Laws, find somebody not tied to criminals involved who will argue science. If you are doing research, you would look it up, and not take it so personally. Disinfo type=you. Here you go; cite Al Gore for global warming debate, he must be right huh?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
"Based on this damage it wouldn't take nor require "wiring" of anything to bring it down like many myth-informed cosnpriacy souls would love for you to think. As I have stated earlier, it only would take a few well placed remote detonated devices to bring it down."

Oh really? Only a FEW well placed remote detonated devices to bring down a huge 47 story steel framed building? Then can you please answer why Demo Companies spend weeks, even months and millions of dollars setting up smaller buildings for demolition? The way you explain it, one would think Building 7 was constructed from a house of cards.

Instead of confusing others with your insincerity and shenanigans, you have succeeded in confusing yourself. And if you're going to take pot shots at "myth-informed cosnpriacy souls", you should at least learn how to spell the word conspiracy, instead of butchering it beyond recognition.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Based on this damage it wouldn't take nor require "wiring" of anything to bring it down like many myth-informed cosnpriacy souls would love for you to think. As I have stated earlier, it only would take a few well placed remote detonated devices to bring it down."

Oh really? Only a FEW well placed remote detonated devices to bring down a huge 47 story steel framed building? Then can you please answer why Demo Companies spend weeks, even months and millions of dollars setting up smaller buildings for demolition? The way you explain it, one would think Building 7 was constructed from a house of cards.

Instead of confusing others with your insincerity and shenanigans, you have succeeded in confusing yourself. And if you're going to take pot shots at "myth-informed cosnpriacy souls", you should at least learn how to spell the word conspiracy, instead of butchering it beyond recognition.


Yeah, and of course, a "Few well placed explosives" made all points between floors for a controlled demolition go out at the same time, so the building fell smoothly. Their attempts fail on building 7 also, as fire, and a "few well placed explosives" CANNOT create smooth free-fall and make buildings fall on their own "Footprints" as demolitions experts point out. Oh, "Source, source." Here is one; GIVE ME A SOURCE OF A FIRE ON ONE FLOOR OR CORNER OR ONE FLOOR MAKING AN ENTIRE BUILDING FALL AS WTC DID. Also, "A FEW WELL PLACED EXPLOSIVES" making a building fall as WTC 7 did. They cannot argue with this, and they know, not on facts, or science. I specialize in Physics, yet they ask me "Source." Ask an engineer, "Source" then let him dig through his 10 years of work to find the specific page, chapter, and edition to get that to you. Pathetic.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Read my posts, I've watched the vids, I've spoken to military demolition experts, architects (personally known to me, and seen interviews), and know enough Physics to be able to see something and explain cause/effect. OR, at a minimum, understand what did NOT happen. Fire did not trigger the buildings to fall that smoothly, or to fall at all. Then, to "Fall on it's own footprint" would definitely not be the result of an "out of control" fall.

I have friends at the CIA (from earlier in my life), friends in the military, people who worked next to former Presidents; they all say I am correct. Controlled demolition.


I don't dispute the fact that there are experts and evidence that support the many different demolition theories. Having said that your theories are supported by experts and strong evidence I will then say that there are also experts and strong evidence (i will be happy to cite) that either refutes the many different demolition theories or supports alternate demolition theories.


It sounds like you have a lot of good sources. Care to cite them for me? It would help me with my research. I really am interested in the source that said that the towers collapsed at free fall speed. I want to know what they say about the pictures showing debri, falling at free fall speed, faster than the building is collapsing. If you know enough about phyics then you know that you can't fall faster than free fall speed. You saw the pictures i cited in my sources right? The one CLEARLY showing free falling debri falling FASTER than the collapse of the building presenting very very strong evidence that suggests that the buildings fell SLOWER than free fall speed?????? Did you also notice the expert sources I cited all confirming that the buildings fell slower than free fall speed?

I've searched and searched and searched and people have consistently said the buildings collapsed at free fall speed. I say I've found a lot of evidence and expert testimony that suggests they didn't. Do you have a source?

Then, much like you, they don't cite their source for that tidbit of info.

so either stop making things up (hindering people from finding the truth), leave your 100% un-expert opinion out of this (hindering people from finding the truth, or cite your source and help all the people that have come here for evidence, information, and the truth find it! I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to find the expert source (or even better yet sources) that said the WTC towers fell at free fall speed. I could stop wasting so much of my life researching this damn thing and finally know they were demolished!




There is wayyyyyyy too much evidence pointing to fore-knowledge of 911 by our government, Israel, Silverstein himself, etc.


I have found a lot of evidence that supports that theory also. I have not researched it well enough yet to confirm or refine the theory as to who all knew it was going to happen prior. Yet admitting people knew it was going to happen before it happened does not indicate the buildings were demolished.

I am still trying to answer the question:

What caused the collapse of the WTC towers?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join