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: 8
91
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Whiffer Nippets
 







Typical truther logic - make up garbage to support your conspiracy fantasy

Doesn't matter if logical or true - there are plenty of idiots who will lap it up...



thats very interesting...Thedman
So...how many steel framed buildings have you fought fires on that collapsed into there own footprints at the speed of gravity from a fire on an upper floor?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Danbones]




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 





So...how many steel framed buildings have you fought fires on that collapsed into there own footprints at the speed of gravity from a fire on an upper floor?


Well, since that didn't happen with the WTC....what is your point?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Great thread OP! S&F for ya!
You are right there is alot we don't know for sure about that day we pretty much have that list you just posted and for the rest we are expected to take the government's word for it and a white wash commission's word as well.Meanwhile,the 1st responders are being left to rot like lepers by the very same government makes you wonder why they seem so eager for them to die off...


Hmmm. Could it be becasue the first responders are first-hand witnesses to many facts that are contrary to the official story?
Wha? don't you know according to the OS supporters the 1st responders were mistaken about what they thought they saw that day? besides,what could they possibily have to add to the omission report? oh,I mean commission.

[edit on 093131p://5426 by mike dangerously]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
More divisioin...

More conflict...

Less power to all of 'us'!


I'm just stating the obvious folks.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 2weird2live2rare2die
 


In the military's defense, I did have a great time and wouldn't have traded all of my years in for anything. In fact, not only would I reccomend it to others, but I may just reccomend it to my own son. It's a great way to learn many skills and values and to get your wheels spinning for the tricky life ahead. Some of the experience I gained and the things I got to do could only have been imagined in day dreams without the military.

Do recruiters lie? Absolutely, but that doesn't make it a bad place to be, even with the current wars going on. Even if you don't agree with the wars, like me, there are still many rewards to reap, so while you may be a pawn for the elite, you do come away with "lots" gained.

As to the rest of your post, I agree 100 percent. I can't imagine the feeling of many parents brrying their children or even taken care of their 17-18 year old kids after missing both of their legs, arms or both. When we can't be reminded enough about the deaths of our heroes, we never, ever hear about the maimed. I believe the estimate is around 35,000.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by pteridine
 



So, what you seem to be saying is that fires, when provided fuel and air, should just go out rather than continue burning. This is new combustion
engineering and you are at the forefront.

What is your explanation for the underground heat?


I don't think GoldenFleece is saying the fires should have gone out. He is merely questioning how small, oxygen-starved, black smoke fires are transformed into 1500 degree underground fires that raged for months, especially considering how there should have been a lot more oxygen to feed the fires 80 stories up than underground.


The fires were not small by any means and fires have a way of growing. It is not reasonable to suggest that a fire's characteristics are unchanging.
Underground fires at the WTC had air available from the subway tunnels. The debris provided insulation and a refractory, of sorts, so heat dissipation was reduced and heat was reflected into the combusting mass.

Underground fires are the only explanation for long term, continual heat.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by airspoon
 

What we do know:
Terrorists struck at innocent American citizens.

What we don't know:
Where is Osama Bin Laden. Dead? Alive?

Nothing more to examine.


You got the first point right. Those who perpetrated 9-11 are indeed terrorists from the lowest foot soldiers to the highest levels of finance, planning, and implementation.

What matters is bringing the terrorists who did it to justice. Why are they still living in luxury and able to ROFL when they read posts like yours?

It doesn't matter where Bin Laden is or whether he's dead or alive.

There is much to examine.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Azp420
 


That's another one that is always good for a laugh. "Well if you see black smoke that means its oxygen starved" What a load of rubbish.


This was good for some lolz. If you look at the chemical reaction that takes place when a carbon based fuel is mixed with oxygen and ignited, you will see your mistake. The less oxygen that is available, the less complete the combustion is that takes place, and the more carbon is produced. The more carbon produced, the thicker and darker the smoke.

For everyone else, here's another what we know: (somewhat related to 9/11)

For any significant mass of a structure to accelerate constantly and uniformly through a remaining lower portion of the same structure, if the downwards gravitational force exerted on said mass is the only downwards force acting on the mass, then the lower portion of the structure during the period of acceleration must exert a smaller upwards reaction force on the mass than when the mass was being held stationary by the lower structure. This is a mechanical fact. Now ask yourself how this relates to 9/11.




[edit on 2-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


If you don’t know the ratio then you have no basis for asking any questions about the material that was not consumed. Why don’t you show us where you found the information about the material “going out” after being ignited and the ratio as well?
Again, you have failed to post any credible proof. The more you pretend to know what you are talking about, the more it makes sense that you refuse to give us your bio or supposedly published work!

I don’t expect an honest reply from you but rather a poorly thought out bunch of false information and insults. It would be shocking if you answered even one of my previous questions, which you have skirted around for so long! Maybe, just maybe you will surprise us all!

I know that every time you watch the WTC towers come down, as they did, you have to keep repeating the mantra “the planes really did it…” because the truth according to engineers, scientists, architects, even first responders is too much for you to accept.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

For any significant mass of a structure to accelerate constantly and uniformly through a remaining lower portion of the same structure, if the downwards gravitational force exerted on said mass is the only downwards force acting on the mass, then the lower portion of the structure during the period of acceleration must exert a smaller upwards reaction force on the mass than when the mass was being held stationary by the lower structure. This is a mechanical fact. Now ask yourself how this relates to 9/11.



Does that take into account thermite detonation chords being wrapped around this significant mass? Also, doesn't your explanation mean during normal downward acceleration? In other words, if someone intentially brought down a significant mass then your laws don't apply here correct?

Now I ask this. There is tons of evidence both circumstantial and visual that there was molten steel in that building. No less than 12 people saw molten steel. There is a video of molten steel running down the walls of the towers just before they fell.

Where did it come from?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Let's not forget they hauled all the metal off to get smelted or taken overseas.

Why do that? Oh yeah, Bush and Cheney liked to outsource jobs.

WTC Steel Removal



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by Danbones
 


Let's not forget they hauled all the metal off to get smelted or taken overseas.

Why do that? Oh yeah, Bush and Cheney liked to outsource jobs.

WTC Steel Removal



LETS NOT FORGET WHERE THE COMPUTERS/HDDS/ AND OTHER PC COMPONENTS WENT - **COUGH** BLACKWATER

CONTROLLED CLEAN UP OF 9/11 (list of contractors)

****TURN A BLIND EYE EVITA, TURN A BLIND EYE*****

[edit on 2-8-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean

Originally posted by Azp420

For any significant mass of a structure to accelerate constantly and uniformly through a remaining lower portion of the same structure, if the downwards gravitational force exerted on said mass is the only downwards force acting on the mass, then the lower portion of the structure during the period of acceleration must exert a smaller upwards reaction force on the mass than when the mass was being held stationary by the lower structure. This is a mechanical fact. Now ask yourself how this relates to 9/11.



Does that take into account thermite detonation chords being wrapped around this significant mass? Also, doesn't your explanation mean during normal downward acceleration? In other words, if someone intentially brought down a significant mass then your laws don't apply here correct?

Now I ask this. There is tons of evidence both circumstantial and visual that there was molten steel in that building. No less than 12 people saw molten steel. There is a video of molten steel running down the walls of the towers just before they fell.

Where did it come from?


I edited my post to put emphasis on the word "smaller" in-order to make my point more clear.

At one point in time a mass is at rest. A structure bellow is supporting it by exerting a certain upwards reactional force on it to balance out the downwards force of gravity acting on the mass. A short while later some sort of conditions then allow the mass to start accelerating (uniformly and constantly) through the structure which once held it up. The only way for this to happen (with the same assumption I made above of gravity being the only downwards force acting on the mass), is for the lower structure to now be exerting a lower upwards reactional force on the mass than it did when the mass was stationary (the gravitational force is now imbalanced and therefore accelerating the mass).

The million dollar question is, if a structure was easily capable of providing a sufficient upwards reaction force on a mass to hold it stationary, what has changed that it is then unable to apply even the same upwards reactional force to the mass that it did moments ago? In the spirit of keeping it simple and presenting only cold-hard facts, I will not speculate on what could have caused this, but feel free to play along at home.


As for the molten metal pouring from the buildings, OS believers will claim it is aluminum from the plane and explain is discolor as contamination from office supplies etc. The truth movement will claim it is indeed steel. As far as I am aware there isn't 100% proof for one or the other, although one definitely seems more likely than the other, especially when pondering over the question I raised above.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



With smoke trails trails that were visible from the space station with the naked eye.

Yep, small fires indeed.


Prove I am wrong. The smoke of your "small fires" could be seen from low earth orbit. Describing the fires that day as "small" is an outright lie.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Real models have to do physics.


And they do.

And they did on 9/11.

The whole world watched, there were no explosives, the building was damaged by the impact, explosion and fires casued by the crash of the plane.

Then they collapsed. Buildings are designed to carry their own dead weight, environmental loads (wind, snow, etc) and some live load depending on the purpose of the buildings.

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



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
I've always wondered something. If those buildings didn't fall how were they going to put them out? You have two of the world' tallest buildings on fire near the top. There was no way to put those fires out using conventional means.

So I started to wonder if bringing them down was the only choice that could be made.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Come Clean]


there are video recordings of firemen stating clearly that they can knock out the fires with hoses.

either from the outside or the inside.

what experience are you basing your opinion of 'theres no way to put the fires out by conventional means"?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Jones provides all the evidence. Look at figure 20 of the Jones Bentham paper.
The caption reads: "Photomicrographs of residues from red/gray chips ignited in the DSC. Notice the shiny-metallic spheres and also the translucent spheres."
This is often used as part of an argument for high temperatures in the DSC as many confuse "iron containing" with "iron" and claim the chips reached the melting point of iron.
Now for the problem with the "red-chips-are-paint-on-thermite" theory. In figure 20, the red chips are still there with the spheres attached. The red chips ignited and made the spheres but didn't burn completely. This behavior is not the behavior of any thermite, nano- or macro-. It may also explain why ten tons of unburned red chips are estimated, by Jones, to be in the dust.

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



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Real models have to do physics.


And they do.

And they did on 9/11.

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


ROFLMAO

It isn't a matter of being DESIGNED TO SUSTAIN AND ARREST. The fact that they have to be strong enough and massive enough to hold themselves up makes that result inevitable.

www.youtube.com...

I did not design that model to SUSTAIN AND ARREST. I made the paper loops as weak as I could but still strong enough support the static load.. The first time I dropped the load I didn't really KNOW what would happen but I was pretty damn sure. Energy is required to crush the paper loops and energy would be necessary to bend and dislocate the core columns of the WTC. Therefore the top of the north tower destroying everything below in less than 18 seconds is IMPOSSIBLE.

That was not a collapse. Something destroyed those columns from below. People claiming to know physics have spent almost NINE YEARS making fools of themselves by not even demanding to know the mass of steel on every level.

psik

[edit on 2-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


the beijing CCTV tower was built in 1992....

not after close scrutiny of 9/11.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I did not design that model to SUSTAIN AND ARREST. I made the paper loops as weak as I could but still strong enough support the static load.. The first time I dropped the load I didn't really KNOW what would happen but I was pretty damn sure. Energy is required to crush the paper loops and energy would be necessary to bend and dislocate the core columns of the WTC. Therefore the top of the north tower destroying everything below in less than 18 seconds is IMPOSSIBLE.

That was not a collapse. Something destroyed those columns from below. People claiming to know physics have spent almost NINE YEARS making fools of themselves by not even demanding to know the mass of steel on every level.



There is one who does the "IMPOSSIBLE" -- God, ET/UFO/ET. The 911 events were impossible for many reasons. It was an "Act of God".

It was not due to the OS or the Truth theories.

I have spent 25 years working on a daily basis with ET/UFO presence. I have discovered a hidden language in the English language and documented it with thousands of examples.

The words describing what happened on 911 (words like “implosion, collapse, etc.:”) decode to point to GOD/UFO/ET as the source. The date of the disaster decodes to the word "RELIGION" -- the most dangerous thing in the world.

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


[edit on 2-8-2010 by etcorngods]



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join