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: 17
91
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 





Nowhere in the previous post is there 'an attempt to show that it was the US Government'


In that particular post no, however, I could point out a few hundred posts in which it IS done.




So you prefer 'political whitewash' otherwise known as lying.


No, I merely point out reality.

Would you prefer to try Bill Clinton for his negligence in regards to letting us take out Osama in the late 90s because he did not want to risk injuring/killing members of other governments that we consider "allies"?

Good intentions at the time...in hindsight, stupid mistake.

Would you prefer to try George H.W. Bush and the Congress he had during his last term, when he signed the order putting 17 air defense alert sites out of business and the Congress approved it? All because the Cold War had "ended" and everybody wanted to chop the Defense budget and create the "Peace Dividend"?

Good intentions at the time...in hindsight, stupid mistake.

Would you prefer to put 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick on trial for the decision that kept a "wall" between federal agencies so they couldnt share information? Did not want to start down the road to the 50s-60s when the FBI, CIA and a few agencies went a wee bit overboard in performance of their duties...

Again, good intentions at the time....in hindsight, moronic mistake.

I could keep going...pointing out all the decisions made with the best of intentions that basically rolled out a red carpet for someone like Osama to attack us.

So, when do you want to start the trials? Should only take thirty or so years to get through them all. Thirty years that would paralyze our government. Wont change anything about what happened that day and in the end, most of the charges would end up being dropped due to a lack of malice involved with government officials performing their duties.




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Here is why I don't put too much weight with the military exercises and that's because so called "war-games" are going on all of the time. It isn't uncommon for "war-games" to go on all year around in some fashion or another, even to where they redistribute resources.

The fact that there were military exercises that redistributed aircraft and other resources far away from the theatre in question, could just as easily be a coincidence. This kind of thing happens all of the time and the fact that it happened during the attack, says nothing at all, other than the timing was lucky.

Now, this doesn't mean that the military exercises were not for the purpose of moving resources away from where they would be needed, only that it isn't proof of such a thing.

That's just my two cents on the issue of the military attacks being carried out.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


So what!

Perfect physics only happens in physics books and frictionless bodies moving in a vacuum.

My point was that the mass needs to be known to even vaguely understood what should happen and looking at images would not supply that information.

psik



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Here is why I don't put too much weight with the military exercises and that's because so called "war-games" are going on all of the time. It isn't uncommon for "war-games" to go on all year around in some fashion or another, even to where they redistribute resources.

The fact that there were military exercises that redistributed aircraft and other resources far away from the theatre in question, could just as easily be a coincidence. This kind of thing happens all of the time and the fact that it happened during the attack, says nothing at all, other than the timing was lucky.

Now, this doesn't mean that the military exercises were not for the purpose of moving resources away from where they would be needed, only that it isn't proof of such a thing.


Trying to figure out reality is rarely as simple as true and false.

If true is 100% and false is 0% then there are 99 possibilities if you ignore the fractions. That is why I said IF WE KNEW THE NUMBER OF EXERCISES EACH DAY FOR THE PREVIOUS TEN YEARS. That would give us a baseline to try to judge the PROBABILITY but it still would not be PROOF.

But if there had never been that many exercises going on the same day in the previous 10 years then it would be stretching credulity that it was coincidence that the hijackers just happened to do it on 9/11. But it still would not be PROOF.

I consider the physics to be more important. But it is certainly curious how many physicists don't ask for accurate steel distribution information. Aren't scientists supposed to be CURIOUS? LOL

psik



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
Norman Mineta testifies to 'stand down' order given by Dick Cheney.


This was in confirmation of the stand down order for all commercial and civil air traffic, which Mineta admits later on in the interview.

You're not attempting to take Mineta's quote out of context to make it sound like a military stand down, here, are you? You would be lying through your teeth if you were. You know that and so do I.


uh... Why would a naval officer be informing Cheney of the distance of the aircraft from Washington, every ten miles, as it approached, and urgently asking him 'Does the order still stand?'...Mineta had no idea what the order actually was...The only logical answer is that the Naval Officer was asking if the military 'stand down' order was still in effect... Your assumption that this was a reference to a commercial and civil air traffic stand down does not make sense..

[edit on 8-8-2010 by jambatrumpet]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


First, Thanks for your input and reply to this thread. With that out of the way, I don't see anything in that testimony to suggest that Cheney and the "young man" were referring to a stand-down order. They could have just as easily been talking about a shoot-down order, the theme of the question in the first place.

Shooting down a commmercial airliner with hundreds of people on board would boost the anxiety of the even the most heartless among us, which would explain the nerves emphasized in his testimony.


--airspoon


Why would the Naval Officer inform Cheney of the approaching plane's distance, every ten miles, and then allow the plane to crash into the Pentagon, if it were a 'shoot down' order?

They may have asked to confirm it, but they would not let the plane reach its target if it were a shoot down order, that would be disobeying the order.

The ONLY logical explanation for asking Cheney if the 'Order still stands' over and over again, and informing him of the approaching plane's distance, is that he was trying to confirm if a 'Stand down' order was still in effect..



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
'The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop.'

-Wally Miller, Coroner at Shanksville crash site.

shoestring911.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


There could have been a number of reasons for it, with the first being the excuse given, that a fighter was not close enough. In the heat of the moment, nobody really knew how close the fighters were. If there really was a shoot-down order, it was only authorised within a certain radius of important possible targets. In fact, I would be surprised if the command structure wouldn't be informed of the progress made by the aircraft and an assurance that a shoot-down order was in effect.

Please remember that I'm not saying this happened in this way, only that it could have happened in this way, which means that it isn't proof of anything. If there is a plausible scenario pointing away from conspiracy by those within the government, then that constitutes doubt for that particular scenario and we should only focus on those instances in which there is no doubt because lord knows, there are plenty.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I agree with you anok...you see the antenna turn to dust...

How?? Who knows....but one clearly sees it happening on video shot by US TV channels on 9/11...

And the "discredit you tube " excuse is as weak as you could go ......its shot by CNN/CBS etc....the fact that its posted on you tube makes it NO LESS relevant.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


But that wasnt the antenna. That was a section of the core of the WTC. (AKA Spire) The steel core, which was covered in dust from the crushed drywall and sheetrock fell down causing the dust to shake off. There was no steel turning to dust. The first uneducated shmuck/s that spouted off this nonsense is/are living in a world of delusional ignorance. (No not this is NOT a reference to ANOK's or any ATS members' comments, I am making this VERY clear. The shmuck/s in question is the one/s on the truther site that stared this BS in the hope to sucker in the gullible and unaware folks.) Unfortunately, this idiocy is being repeated as God's truth, and unfortunately those that are truly looking for truth get suckered in by crap like this. And unknowingly, they regurgitate this garbage and let the crap continue to float around, polluting the internet with disinfo.

I thought that this nonsense was done away with years ago, but I guess those in the TM are still trying to make old junk stick to new folks, who have no clue what they are looking at. And the cycle of ignorance and willful lying continues.

The steel did not disintegrate. This is a lie blatantly started by TRUTHERS themselves. Those that propagate it are either doing so unknowingly, or as I have seen, willingly, without using any reason, logic, or critical thinking. However, this disintegrating steel nonsense is right up there with no planes, thermites, hushabooms, death rays, and cruise missiles and missile pods. All junk and lies.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by benoni
 

I thought that this nonsense was done away with years ago, but I guess those in the TM are still trying to make old junk stick to new folks, who have no clue what they are looking at. And the cycle of ignorance and willful lying continues.

The steel did not disintegrate. This is a lie blatantly started by TRUTHERS themselves. Those that propagate it are either doing so unknowingly, or as I have seen, willingly, without using any reason, logic, or critical thinking. However, this disintegrating steel nonsense is right up there with no planes, thermites, hushabooms, death rays, and cruise missiles and missile pods. All junk and lies.


So lets see you find and tell us the weight of a complete floor assembly? And the source.

Most people have spent years not being smart enough to figure out the obvious questions. I guess when people WANT TO BELIEVE SOMETHING they make a point og keeping thamselves ignorant in the necessary manner. And then want to ridicule people that are not as dumb as they are.

Why don't we have the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the tower?

psik



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
All you need to see is the film of WTC 7 falling at +/- free fall speed of gravity.
If you paid attention in Physics at school you will understand,
It really is that simple.

PEACE,
RK

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Rigel Kent]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

What does the weight of a floor assembly have to do with the instantaneous transformation of steel to a white powder?
Most people have spent years not being smart enough to figure out the obvious answers. So lets see you find and tell us the process by which steel is converted to a white powder? And the source.
"I guess when people WANT TO BELIEVE SOMETHING they make a point of keeping themselves ignorant in the necessary manner."



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

What does the weight of a floor assembly have to do with the instantaneous transformation of steel to a white powder?


I never said those things were related.

I have no explanation for whatever happened to the spire.

But long before the final destruction of the spire a plane hit the tower. The building had to deflect as a result. The mass of a couple of dozen floor assemblies had to move. The people claiming to know physics and trying to explain this entire event should have been demanding that information long ago.

It also applies to the quantity of steel that had to support those floor assemblies and therefore relates to the supposed collapse.

So why isn't it commonly available after NINE YEARS?

psik



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


OK, you were not responding to comments related to the claim that steel was converted to dust with absolutely no evidence or proposed mechanism. You were just posing a rhetorical question relating to the mass of a floor because you couldn't find such data online.
How this would help you, I don't know. The floors are not independent of the rest of the building and the movement of the building is a function of side load. This load was assymmetrical so that poses a more difficult problem yet.
You would also need to know the plastic deformation and shear strengths of the external structure, bolts that held the external column assemblies together, concrete floor and pan, steel trusses, and possibly inner core columns. You would have to know some of these at the aspect angles of impact. This is a difficult problem and may be too much for Python. There are some finite element engineering programs that could work this but the data to plug in may be hard to come by. None that I know of are ab initio, but my ab initio experience has been at the atomic scale using small numbers of processors [20-150] in parallel machines.
That said, I'm sure a reasonable estimate of mass can be made should you wish to continue. The column cross sections for the impacted floors are published as are the number of columns. The concrete thickness has been mentioned; 4" as I remember, and the truss assembly dimensions are known. The floor pans were corrugated steel and I thought that that was also available. The weight of the interiors is in question. You can probably assume some interior configuration and take the weight of the 5/8" drywall [ca. 90 pounds for a 4x8 sheet; these may have been 10 walls so guess about 120 pounds for every 4 lineal feet of wall] You can probably ignore the weight of the studs and doors. Filing cabinets and other office furniture you can estimate based on total area. The UPS batteries are a special case.
I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with if you do model this.

Edit to add: Similar structural details would be needed for the aircraft.


[edit on 8/10/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Antenna/core..whatever!!

One second its visible...

The next second its gone, replaced by puffs of smoke...

Please explain how being "covered in dust" makes the "core" disappear...as can be seen on the video??

It doesnt add up...

I cannot explain it away as you have....if its sooo cut and dried, you will have no problem explaining it...

thanks!!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
OK, you were not responding to comments related to the claim that steel was converted to dust with absolutely no evidence or proposed mechanism. You were just posing a rhetorical question relating to the mass of a floor because you couldn't find such data online.


It's not just me. And the entire NCSTAR1 report is online and I have downloaded it.

So how has any supposed SCIENTIFIC analysis been done without information that simple?

As for the spire turning into dust I have seen a lot of denial that it even happened and for any "claimed" explanations you probably have to check out Dr. Judy Wood. So that dust trail just leads into the weeds with a lot of useless blather resolving NOTHING.

So I think that is why some people bring it up. Let's continue the unresolvable blather for another 9 years so more people drop out of an issue going nowhere.

Whereas the mass of a floor assembly is something really simple that anyone can understand and the physics experts make themselves look like idiots for not brining it up long ago but claiming they can explain a "collapse". They don't know the mass of 84 identical components which some say were responsible for the supposed "collapse"? YEAH RIGHT!

By the way, the title of the thread is "what we know and what we DON'T".

How about what we should know?

psik

[edit on 10-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
They don't know the mass of 84 identical components which some say were responsible for the supposed "collapse"?


The components are not identical; columns have to support more at the bottom and are heavier. It is a stepped gradient and I believe that the areas where the planes struck were of constant structure.

Each floor had a configuration that could be modified by the tenant. This was not published except that it was noted that the UPS floor was strengthened to carry significant additional weight. The contents were not generally known so the masses were not generally known.

This data and much other data is not available. Not having it available does not imply a conspiracy. It is unlikely that a simple model will show anything of significance. There is data somewhere stating how far the building recoiled. Maybe that will help you.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by benoni
 


But that wasnt the antenna. That was a section of the core of the WTC. (AKA Spire) The steel core, which was covered in dust from the crushed drywall and sheetrock fell down causing the dust to shake off. There was no steel turning to dust. The first uneducated shmuck/s that spouted off this nonsense is/are living in a world of delusional ignorance. (No not this is NOT a reference to ANOK's or any ATS members' comments, I am making this VERY clear. The shmuck/s in question is the one/s on the truther site that stared this BS in the hope to sucker in the gullible and unaware folks.) Unfortunately, this idiocy is being repeated as God's truth, and unfortunately those that are truly looking for truth get suckered in by crap like this. And unknowingly, they regurgitate this garbage and let the crap continue to float around, polluting the internet with disinfo.

I thought that this nonsense was done away with years ago, but I guess those in the TM are still trying to make old junk stick to new folks, who have no clue what they are looking at. And the cycle of ignorance and willful lying continues.

The steel did not disintegrate. This is a lie blatantly started by TRUTHERS themselves. Those that propagate it are either doing so unknowingly, or as I have seen, willingly, without using any reason, logic, or critical thinking. However, this disintegrating steel nonsense is right up there with no planes, thermites, hushabooms, death rays, and cruise missiles and missile pods. All junk and lies.


Nice diversionary rant, I must say. Since you know so much, let me ask you, what happened to the structural core of the WTC Towers? What brought those massive steel and concrete structures down? I don't for a second believe that the cause could have been the localized kerosene, paper, wood, and plastic fires on the upper floors or the so-called "pancake" collapse scenario.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


I see that you, like many others, feel that you should be able to predict the behavior of these structures based on your experience watching disaster movies. The structural integrity depended on both the inner and outer columns. If one was missing the other was unsupported. The inner core had no lateral support and collapsed without the outer columns.



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join