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: 16
91
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Huh did you watch the video?

You need new glasses or a new monitor.





Are you still going to deny it turned to dust?

[edit on 8/7/2010 by ANOK]




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Why would metal be "dustified" by small nukes? One would expect melted metal from heat or vaporized metal which would burn in air and a shockwave that would flatten more than the WTC buildings. You've been reading the Russian's posts, haven't you. Deep underground nukes, stealthy directional shockwaves, big conspiracies, white straightjackets in the Kiev asylum, and dustified frontal lobes.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yes, because I live in the real world. There was dust, I just haven't taken the giagantic leap into the surreal and declared that they turned to dust.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
9/11 was not carried out by the government! The government was negligent and did have a little bit of knowledge, but they had nothing to do with it. If they carried our after every intel we would be strutting all around the world with our military.

I do believe that there had to be someone on the inside though. I don't think 19 hi-jackers could have done such great damage without their own intel.

I am not saying the government, it could have been someone within the air force, military, or just a smart civilian. Elements within the government could have known but did not react because they wanted war.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Equinox99]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Just out of curiosity, what could someone on the inside have told them that was of any real use or wasn't generally available?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


A deck pan, some re-bar, a truss section and some concrete. You really do think it makes a difference, huh? Its a strawman, just like your program. Your trying to make bank on the collapse time yet the NIST even says that they do not have a precise time of the collapse.

Its going nowhere. You build parlor trick models, claim that there is no way for you to figure out how much concrete ways, claim that the weight of the floors has some significance, and yet you go to extraordinary ends to (snake program) to "prove" something is wrong that all reasonable persons, including the NIST claims is, overall, an estimate.


So YOU can decide that information is unimportant because you can't find it.

But the point is not the you can't find it the point is that it is NOT OUT THERE. The NIST admits that the south tower moved 12 inches horizontally 130 feet below where the plane hit due to the impact. I haven't seen anyone else calculate it but that means the level where the plane hit moved FIFTEEN INCHES. So it is only reasonable to assume that 130 feet above the impact it moved 12 inches also. So that means 21 floor assemblies moved 1 foot or more in less than 2 seconds due to the impact. Just based on the dimensions and the density of the concrete I have computed that the floor slab alone weighed 600 tons. But that is another number I don't see mentioned on the net.

So 21 times 600 tons is 12,600 tons. Moving that a foot in two seconds is 20 mph. And that is just the concrete not the steel but of course that still does not include all of the mass in the core and the perimeter columns. But you OTC Believers can just dismiss all of that as unimportant.

If an airliner could actually destroy a building that big in less than 2 hours then it could easily be explained in 200 pages with the relevant information. But the NIST gave us a 10,000 page snow job filled with BS and trivia. And lots of dummies want to believe it.

Yeah, just call it a STRAWMAN and that resolves the issue. I think idiots use that term a lot so they can dismiss anything they can't explain for whatever reason. But they believe it makes them sound intelligent.

psik

PS - By the way, was that enough mathematics to suit you.



[edit on 7-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yes, because I live in the real world. There was dust, I just haven't taken the giagantic leap into the surreal and declared that they turned to dust.


LOL in the real world steel does not turn to dust in front of your eyes.

That is not just dust, it's what used to be steel. Does dust take on the shape of an object that collapsed? Do you think all the steel was covered feet thick in dust.

Watch the video very carefully, you can see the steel turn into a white dust and dissipate. That is not natural however you try to deny it.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What process do you know of that can turn steel into dust? A grinder will do the trick but there didn't seem to be enough time to grind all the steel during the fall. You also said "white dust" which is tougher yet.
Is it possible that, during collapse, the thousands of tons of drywall and concrete that were breaking apart is what you saw?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


[quoite]9/11 was not carried out by the government! The government was negligent and did have a little bit of knowledge, but they had nothing to do with it. If they carried our after every intel we would be strutting all around the world with our military.

May I ask how you "know" this? In fact, that is the very theme of this thread, that we don't know too much about that day at all... None of us. Really, your stated theory as to what happened contains the same amount of conjecture as anyone else's theory. Your putting forth your theory as fact, like you are privy to some kind of information that the rest of have yet to hear or see. Please keep in mind that most of what we are told about that day, we are basically asked to just trust that it is true.

I'm not saying that the government did have anything to do with, only that we don't know either way and that in of itself is very troubling. The fact that we don't know what happened is scary and disastrous at best.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
I'm not saying that the government did have anything to do with, only that we don't know either way and that in of itself is very troubling. The fact that we don't know what happened is scary and disastrous at best.


Yeah this is where things start getting really hairy.

If you come to the conclusion that airliners could not bring the towers down just for reasons involving physics it then becomes difficult to not conclude there had to be some government involvement.

I think plenty of people are so opposed to coming to that conclusion that they prefer to throw the physics out of the window.

Of course the laws of physics do not care about the government, or Islam, or Christianity, or the entire human race. They just are and are immutable.

psik

[edit on 7-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If you come to the conclusion that airliners could not bring the towers down just for reasons involving physics it then becomes difficult to not conclude there had to be some government involvement.


Of course government involvement is likely, just from the simple fact that "the government" includes a MASSIVE number of people, and when you include intelligence and military personnel with close ties to the Middle East, aiding the ISI which in turn aids the Taliban, etc., there are too many conflicts of interest to not suspect as much.

The problem is all in the logic, or lack of it. Government involvement does not mean every single person in the government knew every single factual detail. But "slower" people want to jump to this idea first as if it would make more sense somehow, for 10,000's of mundane government employees to be intricately involved. Really it's just a straw man argument, but again I'm not sure people are intelligent enough to even understand what that means, or why a "straw man" is considered a logical fallacy. Because it is perpetuated endlessly on these forums.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK
 


What process do you know of that can turn steel into dust?


Because you think it can't be done you ignore what you can see?

I have no idea what would cause it either, but I can see what it does quite clearly.

What do you mean what 'I' saw, are you saying you don't see the same thing? Your explanation of dry wall doesn't work, it would not take on the shape of the object that supposedly just collapsed, any drywall would go with it not stick around staying the same shape. It's not a road runner cartoon.

Just another OSer denial.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yeah, you got that right. Denied. Why? Because its almost delusional. The structures were covered in dust and when they collapsed the dust shook off. Shouldn't have to be explaining something like this to an adult. I think you are getting real life and CGI confused.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Youtube video "evidence" is always interesting. We have two possible explanations for the video clip. One explanation is that a portion of the outer structure remained standing for a few seconds before it collapsed. It was covered in dust and shed that dust as it collapsed. The other explanation is that it wasn't covered in dust because there wasn't much dust around and somehow, through an unknown, instantaneous process, changed from metal into a white powder which magically disintegrated as we watched. What could the unknown process be? What iron compounds are white powders? How quickly can iron be converted into the white iron compounds?

Build your case on the solid foundation of an alternate reality and the irrefutable evidence of a youtube video clip.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If you come to the conclusion that airliners could not bring the towers down just for reasons involving physics it then becomes difficult to not conclude there had to be some government involvement.


Of course government involvement is likely, just from the simple fact that "the government" includes a MASSIVE number of people,

The problem is all in the logic, or lack of it. Government involvement does not mean every single person in the government knew every single factual detail. But "slower" people want to jump to this idea first as if it would make more sense somehow, for 10,000's of mundane government employees to be intricately involved. Really it's just a straw man argument, but again I'm not sure people are intelligent enough to even understand what that means, or why a "straw man" is considered a logical fallacy. Because it is perpetuated endlessly on these forums.


I don't like the term "strawman argument" but what you are saying sounds close to being one. Of course the word "some" in "some government involvement" could mean a lot of things.

How many military exercises were going on the very day hijackers took 4 planes?

A fighter pilot in the New England area participating in one of these exercises at 7 AM on 9/11/2001 wouldn't have to know anything about upcoming events. Yet his actions in the process of following orders might increase the chances of the planes reaching their targets.

But if we could find out how many military exercises involving aircraft interception were being done each day for the last 20 years that might provide some interesting information. Some sources say there were FIVE exercises occurring on 9/11.

whatreallyhappened.com...

Now if we could check the 10 years preceding 9/11 and there were NEVER MORE THAN THREE exercises on the same day then 9/11 would look pretty damn peculiar. I would consider that a pretty high indication of SOME government involvement without including the mailmen in southern California.

psik



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I suggest you research in depth those exercises, and their locations.

SOME of them were in the Northwest part of the USA, around Oregon/Washington State. At least one (forget which one, you can look it up) was in Alaska!!!

Hardly relevant, don't you think?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I suggest you research in depth those exercises, and their locations.

SOME of them were in the Northwest part of the USA, around Oregon/Washington State. At least one (forget which one, you can look it up) was in Alaska!!!

Hardly relevant, don't you think?


That depends on whether or not planes and men got redistributed to do the exercises.

That is another problem with 9/11. People doing superficial analyses and missing information. Sure, we have heard the total weight of the WTC lots of times. But how often do they talk about how the steel was distributed in the building?

But as long as people don't COMPREHEND the Newtonian physics talking about the government is a waste of time. Of course I only have your word about where the exercises took place but I DON'T CARE!!! I am not going to research it.

It should have been determined withing SIX MONTHS that airliners could not cause that much destruction.

So at this point the problem with our educational system is more important than who did it. But then our government has a lot of control of the educational system, does it not?

psik

[edit on 8-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well...gee, if you wanna talk about

Sure, we have heard the total weight of the WTC lots of times. But how often do they talk about how the steel was distributed in the building?
... it isn't hard to Google for photos as example.

I found this one, quite easily:

WTC Towers steel framework example.

Guess there are more, with further image searches??



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Guess there are more, with further image searches??


The plane that his the north tower was 141 tons. Do you think looking at images can tell us the tons of steel on each level within 5 stories of where the plane impacted?

This is the conservation of momentum equation:

m1*v1 + m2*v2 = (m1 +m2)*v3

Can looking at images provide the data on the masses to plug into that equation?

psik



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The simple two body collision that the equation applies to is an elastic collision. This was anything but a simple elastic collision.


[edit on 8/8/2010 by pteridine]



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join