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.

 

1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 18
99
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Also, you fail at Grammar. "Simple complete nonsense" is the correct way to state your sentence. Or perhaps "Simply complete nonsense". Thanks, good sir.


So you can't READ either.

This is what I wrote:

Simply completely nonsensical.


It is in the 12:28 AM post and there is not edit date.

paik




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I'll make it really simple for you then. The simplest way to look at it.

What redundant structure did the WTC have?

And I can read. It's not right. Too many ly parts.


[edit on 3-9-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


And I can read. It's not right. Too many ly parts.]


If you can read then how did you completeLY misquote me? LOL

psik



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I think there might have been a noticeable delay. I also think that they would risk some of them detonating in the seconds after as the initial damage settled, and possibly at some distance from the impact point.

You bring up a good point about explosives going off from impacts which I haven't looked for in any of the videos. Of coarse this whole explosive demolition theory becomes redundant very quickly in my opinion. There seems to be quite a lot of evidence proving explosives were used but I am certainly no expert here so I simply look at it all for what it is, claims that contradict the official story.

I have heard that some types of explosives can be literally thrown into a fire and not go off, they just slowly burn up. This doesn't seem to be unheard of anyway.
How about Thermite? I don't know if Thermite will blow up or simply burn nor do I know what kind of igniters need to be used.
I can, however, link a video that is fun to watch about Thermite reactions. It burns through this car's engine block pretty fast.


Google Video Link

Notice the nature of how Thermite reacts in this video. Its color and liquid form flowing like molten steel in a foundry. I do remember seeing something very similar to this in at least one of the videos of one tower before it collapsed. Could this be some evidence that you speak of? I still think it's redundant though.


Witnesses talk about the quiet before hand. And a look at the videos shows that there are no CD-type explosions in the immediate seconds before the fall.

Debating this point gets tricky I think. I have seen numerous video testimonials of credible witnesses claiming to have heard "explosive sounds" before and during collapses of all three towers. I have seen evidence of explosive jets shooting out of all three towers during collapse that appear to show evidence in favor of explosives. I have seen, read about and heard of claims of direct and indirect evidence in favor of explosives yet if this stuff is valid why are we still debating it here?

The point of a new and complete investigation is very clear to me. The manner in which all three buildings came down that Azp420 so nicely describes is more than enough reason for a new investigation. Even if the official story is true up to the point of collapse initiation a new investigation is needed. The physics involved in collapse initiation and catastrophic failure appear to be extremely rare and from this fact alone a new and complete investigation is needed, don't you think?

The implications of these events and the claims being made for and against the various theories are far to important to simply dismiss away. Because of the overwhelming amount of resistance for a clear, transparent and complete investigation on the worst criminal act committed in America is cause for alarm to put it mildly in my opinion, wouldn't you agree?

[edit on 9/3/2010 by Devino]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Thermite is not nano-thermite

Nano-thermite can have explosive properties depending on how it is manufactured and used.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



By all means post it. It seems to accelerate towards the end when nothing was left to hold it up, but the building seems pretty steady in the beginning.


I think I've posted this in this thread before but here it is. At 5:00 David Chandler explains the software in detail and how it works (its free to download).



reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



but I don't think a high level of accuracy is plausible.

It's not quite the same as the Pentagon hit either, since that's wider . The WTC pilots were dealing with three dimensions, as it were.


Sure, the Pentagon pilots had a wider target, but in my book 20 ft above the ground at 500mph for about a mile is a pretty high level of accuracy. If you can do that the extra challenge of lining up a narrower target shouldn't present too many difficulties.


Witnesses talk about the quiet before hand. And a look at the videos shows that there are no CD-type explosions in the immediate seconds before the fall.

Even Steve Jones says that the Thermite wouldn't work on its own, so where are those "traditional" explosives? There's no sign of them at all, in footage or physical evidence.


As Devino pointed out, there were reports of explosions before the collapse of all three buildings. If it was me, I'd save most of the loud ones for after collapse has initiated.

You say there is no sign of explosives, but I would like to draw your attention to what I said about one of the conditions for your theory to be true.

Originally posted by Azp420
- Compressed air to somehow progressively move down the towers and blow out windows and eject material at a faster rate than the pancaking floors are falling (and therefore unable to be responsible for compressing that air).

It is obviously not compressed air which is causing the puffs of dust and ejected material at the leading edge of the wave of destruction is it? How can you explain this without explosives?


That's a bit of a lazy argument. You're suggesting that it's possible, if you have enough cash, to access (completely secure) networks of utterly ruthless murderers. And then after they've done what you want you can easily threaten them with their lives? It sounds like a film to me. Far too many potential weaknesses.


An organization such as the CIA doesn't need to threaten peoples lives. You automatically know, that if they're paying you a lot of money to do a job and keep your mouth shut, you better not start causing trouble for them.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


The video failed to compensate for the lack of resistance. There was no upward force, because that requires the whole structure to fall together. He failed to add in the whole lack of upward force due to the falling inner structure. Only the outer structure could resist, and it was not made for that. And as seen, the outer structure did not fall completely. IE, the total force downward of the upper part only hit the inner structure. Not the total structure.

It is treating a whole when it is made of many pieces. A failure to understand the materiality of the given situation.

Like I stated. What redundancies did the WTC have?

reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I did not. You want to make a WTC argument about grammar be my guest.

And you did not answer my question. What redundancies did the WTC structure have.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I did not. You want to make a WTC argument about grammar be my guest.

And you did not answer my question. What redundancies did the WTC structure have.


YOU began the grammar crap with this:

Also, you fail at Grammar. "Simple complete nonsense" is the correct way to state your sentence. Or perhaps "Simply complete nonsense". Thanks, good sir.


And then YOU misquoted what I wrote because I actually wrote:

Simply completely nonsensical.


So now you want to imply that I'm the one with the problem when you started this BS.


238 columns around the outside are quite redundant.

psik



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Outer structure is part of the structure and each column is doing its job. it is not redundant. It is necessary. Each column was around the floor and supporting it.. Again. What was the redundancy of the WTC structure. Was there any?

Your grammar has to many lys.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



The video failed to compensate for the lack of resistance. There was no upward force, because that requires the whole structure to fall together. He failed to add in the whole lack of upward force due to the falling inner structure. Only the outer structure could resist, and it was not made for that. And as seen, the outer structure did not fall completely. IE, the total force downward of the upper part only hit the inner structure. Not the total structure.


I don't even know what you're going on about. Like I said earlier in the thread, when you start talking nonsense, I'm going to stop debating you.

You asked for a video showing how the accelerations were obtained, and how that was more scientific of your method of eyeballing it. You obviously can't find anything wrong with the method and are unable to supply any contradicting evidence.


Like I stated. What redundancies did the WTC have?


You mean like, how a 707 could fly into it and sever a bunch of columns and still have some factor of safety? It had many. You have shown that your understanding of how a structure works is comparable to your understanding of grammar and the English language.







[edit on 4-9-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


It's very sad you do not know. I'll dumb it down.

A pool ball falling onto another pool ball is not the same as a massive structure falling onto another part of the same structure.

Your video acts like the part that fell was a single mass that was solid. This is not the case.

It acts as if everything was held together as it collapsed. This was not the case.

It assumes the outer and inner structure repelled force to the outer and inner structure of the falling part. This was not the case.

Your inability to comprehend solidity and materiality begs to question your right to call me wrong.

The WTC had no redundancy structure. It is why is collapsed. There was an outer structure and an inner structure. The minimum assets for a non cantilever structure. Two poles and a block on top of them.

The plane broke the outer structure. Heat generated termite which melted the inner structure. No structure, no stand up.

Is that simple enough for you?


[edit on 4-9-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You asked for a video showing how the accelerations can be scientifically measured. Now you are going off on some tangent trying to tell us that the laws of physics can only be applied to solid objects.

Nice amount of personal attacks also thrown in as a replacement for real physics or other evidence.




Two poles and a block on top of them.


Except there were more than two. If there was no redundancy they would have come down as soon as the planes impacted.


Heat generated termite which melted the inner structure. No structure, no stand up.


This happens all the time does it? Or just three times on 9/11 and never again?

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


It happens where conditions allow it. Thermite occurs with the chemicals available.

You twisted it again. I did not say physics only apply to solid items. i said that solid item physics only applies to solid items. It would be like using the physics of jelly for Iron. not going to work. So do try not to twist what I say. It's pretty pathetic.

Also, it is not a tangent. The video makes many assumptions and is simply wrong. Oh yes it does most certainly show speed. But even they show that it was less than free fall. Again that's pretty close to constant speed. The gravity acceleration minus the upward force from impact. They claim this proves explosives. But that would only be true if the system had plasticity. The WTC did not, and so such assumptions are simply wrong.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Azp420
I think the idea was to make it look like planes and fires caused the collapses...





Either that, or planes and fires caused the collapse.

And I'd love to see a Truther theory on how the collapses could, with absolute precision, be made to start at the impact points. I imagine it'll involve super advanced technology, hundreds of 'insiders' and a tortuously contorted piece of logic that could benefit from a major slice of Occam's razor.


OK they had a half hour or so after the impacts to do their final programming. The charges had been placed long before, software written and tested, but there was time to make final adjustments to the software running the detonation program, perhaps as little as setting the parameter for the floor level where the plane went in.

Occam's firmly on my side.


Computer controlled flight with homing devices on the target floor... strangly,coincidentally, I think I remember discussion of the fact that there was space leased that could have served well for this purpose...

Occam is here as well.... no loss of elegance yet.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Nunny
 


Nunny, your problem is obvious...

This too is a freak incident... now please find two more like it... on the same day or not... your choice...

Now we "move on" to why YOUR CHOICE is POTENTIALLY a LAME analogy:

1- gasoline in an open burning puddle has access to more oxygen than a fire burning inside an enclosed building which 'moves on' as it runs out of air. SO ONE BURNS HOTTER.. (hello der)

2- we do not know the condition of the STEEL GIRDERS AND CONNECTORS EXPOSED TO THE OPEN AIR ENVIRONMENT proximal to SALT WATER. (SF BAY) vs. those protected and insulated INSIDE a CLIMATE-CONTROLLED office bldg.

3- RAGING, OPEN-AIR fire has a spalling effect upon concrete wherein the trapped moisture in it destroys it from within... (may or may not have been significant depending on whether the concrete was in compression as a structural element.

4- Did heating and expansion of girders play a part? if as many argue this was a factor in WTC then it may be as valid to consider this as a factor here..



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420


Sure, the Pentagon pilots had a wider target, but in my book 20 ft above the ground at 500mph for about a mile is a pretty high level of accuracy. If you can do that the extra challenge of lining up a narrower target shouldn't present too many difficulties.


It seems unlikely to me. And really, why bother with the planes at all? Why not just stick a big bomb in the building?



As Devino pointed out, there were reports of explosions before the collapse of all three buildings. If it was me, I'd save most of the loud ones for after collapse has initiated.


There are loud noises minutes before the collapses initiate. As the collapses begin there are none.

Look at CDs on the net. There are always a series of loud reports, the squibs happen then, and then the buildings come down. Neither WTC 1 or 2 looks anything like that.


You say there is no sign of explosives, but I would like to draw your attention to what I said about one of the conditions for your theory to be true.

Originally posted by Azp420
- Compressed air to somehow progressively move down the towers and blow out windows and eject material at a faster rate than the pancaking floors are falling (and therefore unable to be responsible for compressing that air).




It is obviously not compressed air which is causing the puffs of dust and ejected material at the leading edge of the wave of destruction is it? How can you explain this without explosives?


I think it is compressed air. I don't follow your argument about how it "can't be".

I know the "squibs" used to be the main plank of 9/11 Truth's argument for CD, but they don't look anything like the multiple squibs you see in a normal demo. They come later, they're larger. They look to me like ejected air.




An organization such as the CIA doesn't need to threaten peoples lives. You automatically know, that if they're paying you a lot of money to do a job and keep your mouth shut, you better not start causing trouble for them.



I'm sorry but you kind of prove my point by not engaging with what I wrote. You're basically saying, "yeah, but everyone knows they're total badasses." Well, yes, but they are still subject to the social economy of real life. If people will work for them for huge sums of money they will also betray them for the same. And I'm sure the CIA has a long reach and isn't big on scruples, but it can't just effortlessly kill anybody. Otherwise I imagine Kurt Sonnenfeld would be dead.

Essentially I don't see how you would keep a network of such assassins completely isolated and secure, or how you would limit access to them, or how you would recruit them. Do you hit a certain tier of government, or make America's 100 richest and they give you a red phone with a direct line to Murder Inc?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I think after all this technical discussion vs. donkey-like denial from the strained-cranium, "debunker" set...

maybe we go back to the idea that Towers have feelings too and they fainted from STAGE FRIGHT and EMBARRASMENT.

This is about as reasonable as the continual demands of "prove it! No evidence! neener-neener-neeeeeener! lalalalalalalalalalalalal !!! aint nobody hearin' nothin'

when the agent 'disrupteur' is presented and re-presented with information already 'in evidence'

Thier 'level of proof required' is a constantly moving target. It's like a confirmed atheist saying proof to me there is a God....

No proof is acceptable. their only purpose in life is to defend the establishment


these are the same types who are the cattle-car loaders from WWII nazi Germany



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Well they gave the president a nobel peace prize so what exactly is your point?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


LoL your response is fervant nationalism gone just the way they want it to. You're a good citizen. it couldn't be anyone other than those damn cavemen that want to take our freedom. We're so lucky our government is working so hard to ensure we maintain our freedom. LOL

oh and Al Gore and the IPCC got a nobel peace prize too. Kissinger got one too didn't he? As far as I'm concerned a nobel peace prize is worth nothing since they started giving them to these pigs.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Titan Uranus]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

I am trying to understand the argument made against what eyewitnesses claim to have seen and heard before and during collapse of these towers as controlled demolition or explosives. There were loud noises heard before collapse initiation as you have pointed out.

There are loud noises minutes before the collapses initiate.

Which is to be expected as you also point out.

Look at CDs on the net. There are always a series of loud reports...

I think there is some explanation that describes these sounds as unrelated to explosives but are 'normal steel stress sounds?' I don't know...maybe someone else could explain this better because I don't really understand it.

As for there not being any sounds of explosions heard during the collapse I think there is. This reminds me of the sound large firecracker rolls make, the big ones we used to light off during the 4th of July, 16,000 count roll.


Listen to how you can hear individual explosions up till the roll starts to all go off. This sound in real life is deafening. Personally I hear a similar sound emanating from the two towers during their collapse. The sound becomes so overwhelming you cannot hear individual explosions. Again this can be explained by coming from something other than explosives but it should not be denied, these sounds do exist. There are sounds of explosions heard before and during collapse as would be expected by a controlled demolition from explosives.

Your argument about the squibs seems to fall short yet I cannot debate this because I have nothing to compare with. Are there videos showing similar "squibs" in buildings that collapsed without the use explosives?



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join