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.

 

The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

page: 10
91
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RainCloud
 


Pardon me?


What is it you think I have "given" and to whom did I give "it"?




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Actually the towers didn't fall into their own footprint but the debris was symmetrically ejected in every direction.

The towers could not have been imploded into their own footprints as they were too tall and thin, there is not enough 'footprint' to fit all that debris. That is why they were not conventional demolitions like WTC 7.

WTC did land it's footprint which is fact as you can see the outer walls sitting on top of the debris pile, which is a physical impossibility unless the collapse was controlled by dropping the middle of the building ahead of the sides. Typical controlled demolition.


science.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Actually the towers didn't fall into their own footprint but the debris was symmetrically ejected in every direction.


Symmetrically, huh? Glad that's cleared up. But then again you obviously have access to a detailed report that catalogues of the path and trajectory of every piece of the building during its collapse and I don't so I guess we will have to take your word for that.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mark-in-dallas
reply to post by pteridine
 


I'm not going to bother arguinig with you any further. It's clear that you aren't willing to braoaden your horizons, and believe 100% that you are right, or are at least regurgitating the misinformation you were fed or told to feed others. Why bother?

So exactly which government disinformation agency do you work for?


Your response is one of resignation. You have no arguments of your own because you depend on the websites of somebody-for-truth. A common tactic is to accuse others of your own shortcomings. You idea of horizon broadening is to accept, without question, anything that fits your predetermined conclusions.

Do you understand how thermite works? What was the source of the heat that lasted for weeks if not fires?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I was responding to the first idiotic post

The case of pouring water on a burning building from another is called
"Surround and Drown" - it means that fire in the original building is
now beyond control and building has been abandoned to its fate.

Water is used to prevent extension to adjacent buildings vis radiant heat and flying embers

Talked to Philadelphia FF who were at Meridian Plaza fire (1990) - there used master streams aka deck guns or in common parlance 'water cannon" from roof of adjacent building

What actually put out the fire were sprinklers on 30th floor - witness my point about first due units charging the sprinkler systems

Now remind me about that "no steel frame building collapsed from fire"

Are you forgetting something about airplanes being crashed into the building?

Or how about a 110 story building falling on it, slashing open the south south side and destroying the water mains supplying the sprinklers?

Thank yopu proving my last point about idiots lapping up any stupid conspiracy fantasy......



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



Actually the towers didn't fall into their own footprint but the debris was symmetrically ejected in every direction.


Symmetrically, huh? Glad that's cleared up. But then again you obviously have access to a detailed report that catalogues of the path and trajectory of every piece of the building during its collapse and I don't so I guess we will have to take your word for that.


The towers collapse symmetrically, there was no one side of the towers ejecting more debris than any other. You don't need a report to see that, just watch the collapses.





Looks symmetrically spread to me.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Danbones
 


FEMA - Preliminary Report
NIST - Final Report.

Do I really need to explain why they are different?


6 out of ten 911 commisioners claim 911 investigation is a fraud

heh heh you can try if you want to
but because the final report is based on a mathematical model that they won't release to the public you wont get very far.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Why would a super thermite stop burning after it had ignited?


Let me take a shot at this one.

Because giant skyscrapers fell directly on the reaction as it was going on?

Not saying I know, but the physics seem possible.

Didn't take long for the usual 'defenders of the faith' to chime in with this and other weak rebuttals for the OS.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by etcorngods


I have spent 25 years working on a daily basis with ET/UFO presence.


OK. They (ET/UFO presence) say 'God' does things like 911?



Miracles and the impossible are what God does best -- and evidence of such are all around us.


Do you consider 911 a 'Miracle'?


[edit on 2-8-2010 by etcorngods]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

I was responding to the first idiotic post



I love this part of ATS!

end sarcasm



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Don't tell me about it. You need to let Mark in Dallas know. I'm sure he'll be happy to concede his error.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RainCloud
reply to post by hooper
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Look at what they made you give.

It hurts deep inside doesnt it ?




[edit on 2-8-2010 by RainCloud]


Is this a gay thing?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



BUILDINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO SUSTAIN AND ARREST A PORTION OF THEMSELVES UNDER ACCELERATION!!!!!


True, they are not specifically designed for this purpose. As I stated in my post just above yours though, in any properly designed building, the only way for a significant portion of it to accelerate (uniformly & constantly) through the remaining lower structure, is for something to happen to the lower structure so that it provides a smaller upwards reactional force on the accelerating portion than it did when it was stationary.

Why will no OS believers debate me on this simple point? IMO it's the biggest smoking gun of 9/11.

To put it another way, if a mass is dropped on a properly designed, undamaged, multi-story structure (and the structure is designed to be able to support the mass at rest), there is no way the mass should be able to accelerate through the structure. The structure should provide some sort of deceleration to the mass (doesn't have to be very large).



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Now remind me about that "no steel frame building collapsed from fire"


No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire damage.


Are you forgetting something about airplanes being crashed into the building?

Or how about a 110 story building falling on it, slashing open the south south side and destroying the water mains supplying the sprinklers?

Thank yopu proving my last point about idiots lapping up any stupid conspiracy fantasy......


Pretty much the attitude of the general public and why the majority will always believe the OS.

Omg you stupid conspiracy lunatics, planes crashed into buildings!!!! What do you idiots expect???? Case closed!....

And that is about as far into the matter that they will investigate for themselves, putting all their trust into their highly trustworthy politicians, because the government would never lie to us, as they lap up the OS.

Airplanes did indeed crash into the towers, but this did not cause much damage beyond the initiation zone. The top section should not have been able to accelerate uniformly and constantly through undamaged structure.

The structural damage to WTC7 as a result of debris from the towers was fairly minimal, far less than most of the other WTC buildings which did not collapse. It most certainly should not have come down in a perfectly symmetrical, almost free fall, into its own footprint. It is also not the first building where the sprinklers have failed.





[edit on 3-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by etcorngods


I have spent 25 years working on a daily basis with ET/UFO presence.


OK. They (ET/UFO presence) say 'God' does things like 911?



Miracles and the impossible are what God does best -- and evidence of such are all around us.


Do you consider 911 a 'Miracle'?




Yes, GOD does everything -- as well as things like 911. Take for instance the ATS thread on the Sunspots.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

At the same time as the Haiti earthquake, a Sunspot appeared in the shape of the Haitian island group. Soon after that, another sunspot appeared in the shape of another island group in the pacific -- that island had an earthquake.

Then, at the time of the Olympics, a giant Sunspot grouping appeared in the shape of the Olympic emblem.

A miracle is anything that can't be explained by natural causes. Certainly 911 and all its mysteries fit that definition.

Most crop circles are miracles. The ET Corn Gods translations are miracles.

The biggest miracle of "911" is the fact that so many otherwise rational people believe either of the stories -- the OS OR the Controlled Demolition versions.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by etcorngods]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   


reply to post by hooper
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Is this a gay thing?


Look at what they made you give.
It hurts deep inside doesnt it ?



Yep, its a manly thing, try saying it to airspoon, you might see him cry

If you dont understand it, then its fine. Its when you understood it, it hurts.

-------------------------------------



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by pteridine

Why would a super thermite stop burning after it had ignited?


Let me take a shot at this one.

Because giant skyscrapers fell directly on the reaction as it was going on?

Not saying I know, but the physics seem possible.

Didn't take long for the usual 'defenders of the faith' to chime in with this and other weak rebuttals for the OS.


You are shooting in the wrong direction. If you read the thread, the comments were about Jones' paper claiming to prove thermite was present as a paint-on super nano-thermite demolition material. The paper is full of errors and the theory is ludicrous because if such material did exist, it wouldn't have enough energy to warm the steel by more than a few degrees. Jones found paint.

As you may have noticed [or not] this is not a weak rebuttal for the OS, as you suggest, but it is a strong argument against the idea of a paint-on nano-thermite. Don't feel bad that you have been suckered by the Professor. Many of his minions follow blindly and dogmatically chant the Jones mantra without question. If you desperately need a conspiracy, don't limit yourself the physical non-evidence. There is nothing there, only guesswork and innuendo by the technically challenged.

The conspiracy was the coverup of political infighting and turf wars , at the political appointee/ director levels that allowed all of this to happen. No plan, no false flag, just high level, good-ol'-boy incompetence and egomania. The truthers usually miss this part while checking serial numbers on the planes seats and describing holographic missile developments while the guilty appreciate the misdirection.

You have a chance to think for yourself. Reload and try again.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 





Airplanes did indeed crash into the towers, but this did not cause much damage beyond the initiation zone. The top section should not have been able to accelerate uniformly and constantly through undamaged structure.

The structural damage to WTC7 as a result of debris from the towers was fairly minimal, far less than most of the other WTC buildings which did not collapse. It most certainly should not have come down in a perfectly symmetrical, almost free fall, into its own footprint. It is also not the first building where the sprinklers have failed.



Damage beyond initiation zone?

The impact zones covered 6 floors - Is that enough damage for you?

The aircraft impacts not only caused severe structural damage - destroying supports coumns - remember exterior wall panels were part of the building support system. Set multiple floors on fire, destroyed sprinkler/standpipe systems and blasted fire proofing off steelwork exposing it to fire.

Is that enough damage for you ?

Top section accelerated through damaged section?

Where did you get that from? Make it up?

As for WTC 7 - beams were fireprrofed unfortunately someone forgot to
extend the fireproofing to the corners. Heat caused beam to dislodge from the junction initiating collapse

Fireproofing was designed for 2 hours, enough time to evacuate and for
fire department to begin extinguishment. Sprinklers are designed to hold the fire in check until FD gets there. At WTC 7 sprinklers were knocked
out by collapse of towers. No sprinklers and building left to burn for 7 hours with no firefighting.

Reason buildings don't collapse from fire is that sprinklers hold the fire in check and FD arrives to put it out - both were absent at WTC 7



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by hooper
Why will no OS believers debate me on this simple point? IMO it's the biggest smoking gun of 9/11.

To put it another way, if a mass is dropped on a properly designed, undamaged, multi-story structure (and the structure is designed to be able to support the mass at rest), there is no way the mass should be able to accelerate through the structure. The structure should provide some sort of deceleration to the mass (doesn't have to be very large).


That is the absurdity of the entire situation.

Debating Newtonian physics in the nation that put men on the Moon 41 years after the Moon landing.

It makes about as much sense as debating 2 + 3 = 5.

psik



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 





Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn't say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.


www.weeklystandard.com...




But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission.


Chicago Sun Times....you'll have to visit your local library or pay to access their online archives.




Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.


msnbc.msn.com...




On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the protocol merely aims to entice corporations to build a new pipeline; no corporation has has agreed to do so. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan.


www.davekopel.org...

Im sorry....what were you saying about MY credibility?




top topics



 
91
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join