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.

 

Has 9/11 truth had its day ?

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why did it do that? Hmm maybe because the top section kinda telescoped into the tower below? You can see the top part telescope down onto the bottom section. In fact you can even see the exterior columns in other videos close up, where they all bend INWARD prior to the main collapse. Once they bend in a certain distance, the columns fail, and the building begins its plunge down. We then see the top go down, and we also see the exterior columns on the bottom section push out as the top goes in. There is your reason why the top goes down before the bottom goes. This was obvious (to me at least) since that faithful day and it hasnt changed since, even with all the frantic handwaving and shouts of "no no no no!" of the TM sites and videos and pictures.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sarcastic? Sorry, aren't those the claims of the truth movement? Please, with all your infinite wisdom. You are the one claiming it to be a controlled demolition. Please, explain which one. (or simply add another flavor of the week)



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
To answer the question of this thread, I don't think it's "had it's day" but rather people have grown tired of hearing the same theorys from both side. Along with the obvious fact that no one in power of any type is making major .way with any investigation efforts. There is also the lack of any "whistle blowers" if the conspiracy was as vast as many claim.

I think that Americans have become weary of our government based upon the action(s)/inaction(s) on that day and certain events leading up to 911.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


In your poll I voted that the government lied about 9/11, but I still think that the ideas that the "Truth" movement espouses are nonsense.

Your poll is worthless because it was ridiculously openly worded, was on a conspiracy site, and ascribes to the senseless notion that anyone who thinks the government might have whitewashed any aspect of their response to 9/11 is automatically a "Truther". And anyone who disagrees with the Truth Movement is a blind "OS Supporter". When you see the world in such black and white terms I'm not surprised you have such difficulties seeing the nuances in 9/11 evidence.

Any luck working out who Sybel Edmunds is yet?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Your poll is worthless because it was ridiculously openly worded, was on a conspiracy site, and ascribes to the senseless notion that anyone who thinks the government might have whitewashed any aspect of their response to 9/11 is automatically a "Truther". And anyone who disagrees with the Truth Movement is a blind "OS Supporter". When you see the world in such black and white terms I'm not surprised you have such difficulties seeing the nuances in 9/11 evidence.


If my poll was so worthless, why did you waste your time to vote in it?

Second, you don’t know what I think. Unless you feel you are a clairvoyant.

Your Constance ridicule and insults of Truthers in just about every post you make, only steers ATS readers away from you and destroys what little credibility you have left. Frankly, I could careless what you think, about Truthers. It certainly appears that you have some kind of agenda.

You do not know who I am and what I know, you do not know how I see the world.

Let's keep this thread on topic here, the topic is not about me.



[edit on 8-7-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why did it do that? Hmm maybe because the top section kinda telescoped into the tower below?


But that doesn't explain it, how did it 'telescope' into the tower?

That doesn't make sense, look at the video, the top section collapses into itself before the bottom even starts to collapse, so the question is how did the top do any crushing if it was already crushing itself?

Your argument is the top stayed as a solid block crushing everything below it right? How did it do that when it's obvious the crushing, or collapse, started WITH the top section before it even started on the bottom section?


You can see the top part telescope down onto the bottom section. In fact you can even see the exterior columns in other videos close up, where they all bend INWARD prior to the main collapse.


Evidence? So columns bent inwards prior to collapse, and what pray do you think cause that?


Once they bend in a certain distance, the columns fail, and the building begins its plunge down.


And what caused the columns to bend? What caused the bending of a few columns in the top of the building to take away all the resistance of the columns below the impact point and fires?


We then see the top go down, and we also see the exterior columns on the bottom section push out as the top goes in. There is your reason why the top goes down before the bottom goes. This was obvious (to me at least) since that faithful day and it hasnt changed since, even with all the frantic handwaving and shouts of "no no no no!" of the TM sites and videos and pictures.


So you're saying that top section disappeared inside the bottom section, then caused it to globally symmetrically collapse through the path of most resistance? Hilarious.

You still have not explained how the resistance was removed.

Where are your sources?

Look at this pic again very carefully...



Do you see the top columns bowing out in this pic? Is the top section sitting inside the bottom section? Where did all the material go that the top section displaced when it fell inside the building? And how the hell did it fit, did something squeeze it from all sides and force it down, you know like trying to push a square peg into a hole that is exactly the same size and full of material.

You guys get worse in your desperate attempts to support the OS.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sarcastic? Sorry, aren't those the claims of the truth movement? Please, with all your infinite wisdom. You are the one claiming it to be a controlled demolition. Please, explain which one. (or simply add another flavor of the week)


No they're not, they are claims of individuals, there is no 'truther movement' manifesto. And so what if they were? Are people not allowed to speculate?

I'm not making any claim as to how it was done, only that the OS is wrong. Please stick to the point instead of trying to change the subject to avoid addressing my points, and please don't stereotype people and make assumptions based on those stereotypes.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What do you mean how? Are you at all remotely familiar with the structural design of the WTC Towers? At all? Because in nearly all of your posts about how you think it should have collapsed, I can tell you do not have the slightest clue.

There was NO massive skeleton of steel I-beams which held the tower up. There was no massive skeleton frame of I-beams supporting interior walls, exterior walls and the floors. The floors were held up on each end by trusses that connected to the interior and exterior columns via a "seat" in which the top end of the truss connected to the seat which atatched to the exterior and interior columns. The exterior columns were all column trees interconnected like a web vertically.

When we saw the exterior columns bending inward, THAT was the direct result of the floor trusses sagging and pulling in the exterior columns. I'm sorry but explosives do not cause beams to go into the building after detonation. Did you forget the fact that the exterior beams also helped hold the Tower up? Gee if I would think that if an entire side of the building was getting pulled in, that would mean THAT entire section was no longer capable of holding the structure up. Didnt you see it sag into the building upon initiation of collapse? I didnt hear any explosions, see any explosions, or anything even REMOTELY resembling demo charges going off. Hell even in this video you can see the exterior columns bending INTO the tower itself:

Now point to me at any point in this video of "powerful detonations" occurring prior to collapse. That is how a demolition works. First you see and hear the explosions, THEN you see the building come down. I want you to show me where exactly are the detonations taking place prior to the movement of the building. I know youre smart ANOK, and you can handle something as easy as this.

More on the sagging of the trusses here, and the bending INWARD of the exterior columns:
Bending inward of columns, and floor truss sag

More on how the Towers collapsed:
Collapse

And ANOK, again I would really reccomend that you familiarize yourself with the way the WTC Towers were built, and use some critical thinking in how the design itself helped the collapse occur as it did. Its not that hard.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Also in your little picture, I see nothing "blowing out" via explosive force. For that to occur you would need tons upon tons of high explosives packed around every single column to get that kind of energy........
OR
The reason why the columns are "blowing out" that way, is not because they are getting "blown away" by explosions, but rather, the force of the collapsing top section impacting the lower sections, causing the floors inside to collapse down, leaving the exterior columns freestanding for a few moments and then falling over in one piece, as if it was a banana peel. In fact that is what the tower ends up doing, peeling open as the top plunges through the bottom section, causing massive failure of the entire structure. Once the top section started moving, a few floor truss connections and seats are not going to stop thousands of tons of building moving down. Didnt you notice how many of the exterior columns ended up laid down as if you peeled apart the exterior and placed them down directly across from the base?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Oh dear that whole truss rod bending hypothesis is bull.

A simple question, if the floor trusses were hot enough to bend and sag then how did they have the strength to pull in the outer columns? Wouldn't they just bend and sag more? How could they pull both sides equally?

It's all lies Joey and you are spreading them. There were solid beams not only flimsy trusses...

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 7/8/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Also in your little picture, I see nothing "blowing out" via explosive force. For that to occur you would need tons upon tons of high explosives packed around every single column to get that kind of energy........


So it would take tons of high explosives wrapped around every single column to do that, yet you then go on to claim it was the force of the collapse that did it?

Amazing...



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm not making any claim as to how it was done, only that the OS is wrong. Please stick to the point instead of trying to change the subject to avoid addressing my points, and please don't stereotype people and make assumptions based on those stereotypes.


What's the deal here? Are you going to bark all day or are you going to bite? What caused the lateral ejections of the materials seen in the videos of the collapses?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


What's the deal here? Are you going to bark all day or are you going to bite? What caused the lateral ejections of the materials seen in the videos of the collapses?


My opinion is demolition, what’s your's?




[edit on 8-7-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Typical Terrorist M.O.:

Fly jets in to the buildings to get an Emergency Crew response, then set off the real fireworks, the secondary explosives to cause mass destruction.

www.globalincidentmap.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And your incredulity trumps the work of thousands of engineers, fire investigators, architects, demolitions professionals?


I love this gem though:


It's all lies Joey and you are spreading them. There were solid beams not only flimsy trusses...




Ok, then if these are "solid beams" then I'll eat my hat:



Oh the biggies here:




Here is a picture before the floor trusses were put in. Now I want you to tell me what those little tabs are sticking out from the exterior columns:


I love your source though. The way they show you only the pictures of the CORE SUBFLOORS, and nothing else higher! They only show you the base levels!
Your very source has DUPED YOU, and you took it hook, line and sinker! They show you pictures of the 1st floor and sub levels of the WTC during construction, and somehow they try to make you believe that this is actually how ALL the floors were built and there were no trusses supporting the floors. ATTENTION! Heads up! You've been duped! Lied to! LIED! By whom? A full out "Truther" website. They should really change that slogan at the bottom of the page from "THE AMERICAN MEDIA HAS TAKEN YOU FOR A FOOL." to "911RESEARCH HAS MADE YOU A FOOL."

ANOK, sorry mate, but you have been lied to, by the very ones that claim they are for truth. I will not judge you if you made a mistake, as its very easy to suckered in by a slick snakeoil salesman. Since you have, its not your fault. However, what you put forward about the trusses is a lie. YOU didnt lie, but the source you are using did. So do not say that I am calling you a liar. I am saying that the "truther" website where you dug up that "gem" is the liar and they are still lying to you.

By the way, in order to correct your mistake, watch this documentary video made back in '83 about the construction of the WTC. Part 2 is a little more interesting, and be sure to pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to the part that comes up at 1:53 in the video. What is that they are pulling up?

Remember, at 1:53 I want you to pause and tell me exactly what that is they are pulling up. Oh also at 4:39 as well.

Pay attention ANOK and learn about something that the TM site tried to lie to you about. And they did lie to you. The floors were held up by FLOOR TRUSSES. 911research LIED to YOU. And those are the facts.


So it would take tons of high explosives wrapped around every single column to do that, yet you then go on to claim it was the force of the collapse that did it?

Amazing...

Yes tons. And how the hell would ANYONE manage to do that without a soul noticing, or being set off in the fires or impact? You cannot hide tons of explosives packed around the exterior columns. Do you know how much a ton is? If you cannot even begin to understand or realize the scales we are talking about here, then how the heck are you suppose to even go onto more complex topics? Do you even know the power of just one TON of high power explosives? On detonations, it would have blown out windows all over Lower Manhattan, and knocked quite a few people down on their butts at the moment of the shockwave hitting them down first. But did that happen at all? ANOK, look into the problems of that idea.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

There is nothing flimsy in those photos; perhaps your eyes want to believe they are flimsy.
The fact is, the architects of the WTC made it very clear that they designed the WTC to be over built.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


So when are you going to explain how sagging trusses can pull in more massive outer columns?

Or how the top managed to squeeze it's way into the bottom?

Your argument would be better if they were solid beams lol.

Again you fail to address what's important. Regardless of whether they were trusses or not your hypothesis is still not logical. If the floor trusses failed how did they cause the massive central structure and the outer mesh columns to also fail? According to your argument the trusses were the weak point, but you are also trying to claim the the trusses were strong enough, even after being weakened by fire, to pull down the whole building when they failed. Illogical.

And again with your illogical explosives point, who says conventional explosive were used? But regardless that is not the argument, the argument is 'can a building globally collapse from the failure of a few floor trusses?' If the answer is no then what is left? You not understanding how it could have been done with 'explosives' does not make your argument logical. You all keep doing this, dodging the argument with lots of irrelevant buts...

[edit on 7/8/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
WE don't know how it happened.....



What we do know , with absolute certainty, is it did not happen as described by the US Government....

Even more than half of the 9/11 Commission conceed the official excuse is wrong....not to mention the...

. 1200 + architects and engineers

. 250 + pilots and aviation professionals

. 220 + Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement and Government Officials

. 400 Professors

as well as..

. 300 + Survivors and Family Members who all disagree with the 9/11 Commission and its so-called findings


You see, folk on here who support the Official Fairytale have only the 9/11 Commissions Fairytale findings to back up their claims....

Who would you rather believe.....their "word" or the word of some serious academics who are willing to speak out iagainst the BS conclusions made and then repeated on this site???


Above we have radek waving his arms around, lecturing all and sundry on trusses and beams blah blah, explaining that Anok doesnt know what he's talking about...

Yet Paul Stevenson Oles, M.AFAIA, Fellow, American Institute of Architects. For his work in architectural illustration, Paul Stevenson Oles received an AIA Institute Honor in 1983, and was elevated to Fellowship in the Institute in 1989, when it described him as “the dean of architectural illustrators in America.” In 1984 he co-founded the American Society of Architectural Perspectivists (now ASAI). Loeb Fellow Harvard University. Author of Architectural Illustration (1978 ) and Drawing the Future (1988).

Impressive credentials??

He said "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts, it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is fully merited."

Or howzabout Daniel B. Barnum, B.Arch, FAIA, Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Over forty years experience in the practice of architecture. Experience covers all aspects of planning, design, construction technology and project management for a wide range of commercial, institutional, religious and residential projects. His projects have been widely published and have received design awards from AIA. Member and former Vice President of AIA Houston and Founder and Chair of the Houston AIA Residential Architecture Committee, Chair of the Urban Design Committee, and Director for Urban Issues.

Impressive credentials??

He said " have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them."

Or perhaps David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988).

Impressive credentials??

He said "I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.

So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.

When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.

Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.

What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.

But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation."


So, we have International Leaders in the field of Architecture and Structural Design saying, without qualification,that the OS is total crap...

You cannot defend the indefensible.....no matter how dismissive or sarcastic or nasty or intelligent you come across as being....none of your arguments hold ANY water...


That being the case, it then begs the question WHY do you try to defend the indefensible ????


I Know...





posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Leaving aside the fact that Richard Gage isn't an academic institution, I was asking for a specific quote, not a blanket assertion. Can you give me one?


Which specific quote were you asking for?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
WE don't know how it happened.....


Okay, thanks.

Maybe come back when you've got some idea?




top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join