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: 19
99
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiShyster
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


The absolute reverse is true. Truthers consistently ask for aspects of what they call the "OS" to be proved to a point of wild impossibility while setting the bar for what they will believe absurdly low.

Your nonsensical comments above are a case in point.



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


Fascists in Germany tended to be millenarian, paranoid, convinced of an imminent Manichean apocalypse, terrified of shadowy "elites" and anti-semitic.

Oddly enough that reminds me rather of the average Truther.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Look at CDs on the net. They're all similar. A series of sharp reports, the squibs, the collapse. Ironically Bonez has posted stills that show this, but a video is more illustrative.

Look at the towers. No sharp reports. Collapse initiated. A crashing, deep rumble, as you say building to a wave of sound. Squibs - I think caused by ejected air as the floors crashed together - occur during the fall.

They're quite different.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Look at the towers. No sharp reports. Collapse initiated. A crashing, deep rumble, as you say building to a wave of sound. Squibs - I think caused by ejected air as the floors crashed together - occur during the fall.


Problem is you are looking for the wrong things.

The point is the final outcome.

Where the 'explosives' are placed will make a huge difference as to how they sound. With a conventional demolition they're not too concerned about hiding the fact it's a controlled demolition. Do you think the 'perps' would be stupid enough to set up the whole event and then give it away by forgetting to mask the 'explosives' used for the demolitions that they wanted us to believe were from fire?

If the 'explosives' were on the inner core they would sound far different outside the buildings than the demolitions in the vids that have explosives set on the outer columns. Also an empty building with no windows will sound far different, as there is nothing to absorb the attack and transients of the explosive sounds.

Do you ever think of both sides when you speculate? Speculation is never fact and there is always another just as valid alternative. Now if you have any actual evidence that there were no 'explosives' used...What you think is irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Okay, so now it's a demolition because it doesn't sound like a demolition?

You're right, I can't prove to you beyond a doubt that it wasn't a CD. but I can't prove to you beyond a doubt that Guatemala exists. If you need everything in life presented to you as though it's a scientific law, beyond any kind of reproof, then anything is possible.

Likewise you can refuse to speculate if you like, but that won't get you anywhere near any answers. CD is a speculation (a highly unlikely one); natural collapse due to impact and fire is a speculation (a likely one). You'll never have a definitive answer.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK
 


Okay, so now it's a demolition because it doesn't sound like a demolition


No it's controlled demolition because the final outcome of the collapses were miraculously the same as a controlled demolition.

Particularly building 7 that miraculously mimicked the outcome of a controlled implosion exactly, all four outer wall sitting on top of the debris pile, i.e. the majority of the building landed in its own footprint.

Now if you think you can do that by setting a building on fire you are wasting your brain power on here, you should be out making billions, and putting all the other controlled demolition companies out of business. Did you not think of that, or do you really not have the confidence in your claim as you want us to believe?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



i said that solid item physics only applies to solid items.


You have obviously just made that up based on your assumptions as to how the universe works. Some of us are a bit more educated than that.

F=ma governs every mass in this universe. Seeing you attempt to argue otherwise is rather amusing.


It's pretty pathetic.


See above.


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.


Just so you know, there is a difference between speed and acceleration. Free fall is a value of acceleration and not speed. The video shows constant acceleration which means the speed was NOT constant...

Constant speed would mean there is zero acceleration, this is why it is such a smoking gun.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


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


The idea was to have a spectacular terror event that appears to have been done buy a bunch of guys in a cave who hate our freedoms. One bomb wouldn't have caused total collapse without taking out a lot more of Manhattan.

Just because they did it in a way that is more complex than the simplest possible alternative, this isn't proof for the OS nor does it negate all the evidence which contradicts the OS.


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


You should check out the court ordered video releases from NIST. Why would they edit out innocent sounds?


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


What is causing the compressed air? The pancaking floors? Please explain to me how the falling floors create a wave of high pressure which accelerates at a higher rate than the floors do.


I'm sorry but you kind of prove my point by not engaging with what I wrote.


I just don't think there's much more to engage in. I don't hold the opinion that an organization like the CIA has too much trouble in attaining human resources or with loyalty amongst the ranks. Theorizing about it doesn't prove or disprove anything.



[edit on 6-9-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
F=ma governs every mass in this universe. ...


Yes that's true for everything we're discussing here.

But relativistically, I think it's correct to say

P=mv and F=dP/dt

and m is the "relativistic mass" which can change with time, i.e. dm/dt is not always zero.

math.ucr.edu...

This formulation is also convenient because it can deal with objects that gain or lose mass non-relativistically, like rockets that lose mass as they spew out their fuel.

Or, falling portions of buildings that are gaining mass as they "pancake" through one floor after another. In that case, dm/dt is positive as the pile of pancaked floors grows, and one expects the gathering downward acceleration to experience a setback as overall momentum is conserved at the instant of pancaking, indeed a weighted average between the downward velocity of the falling mass and the stationary condition of the new floor to be added to the pile.

So even without energy loss from the need to break structure at each floor, the mass won't "free-fall" at quite gravitational acceleration because it has to slow down to get each added floor up to speed.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by oniongrass]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I would like to point out that I don't know what to think when it comes to the theory that explosives were used to bring down the 3 World Trade Center buildings. The reason for this is because I don't know enough about controlled demolition. I can read and I have read much about it and in the end my conclusion still stands. There needs to be a new and complete investigation done to help explain what happened that terrible day.


Look at CDs on the net. They're all similar. A series of sharp reports, the squibs, the collapse. Ironically Bonez has posted stills that show this, but a video is more illustrative.

I don't understand your point here (and who is Bonez?).
Are squibs evidence of explosives or are they not?
Can a collapsing building that doesn't use explosives, i.e. pancake theory, make squibs like what is seen in the collapse of all three WTC towers?
Is there evidence in favor of the controlled demolition theory?
  • -Eyewitnesses claiming to have heard explosions before collapses of all three towers.

  • -Recordings of these claimed explosive sounds before collapse of all three towers including actual commentary from some of the eyewitnesses.

  • -Eyewitnesses claiming to have seen molten steel from at least one tower before and after collapse.

  • -Video confirmation of molten steel from at least one tower before and after collapse.

  • -Eyewitnesses claiming to have heard explosions during collapse of all three towers.

  • -Video confirmation of explosive sounds during collapse of at least two towers.

  • -Video confirmation of explosive squibs seen in all three tower collapses.


It hasn't missed my attention that there might be some other explanation for this evidence that doesn't require explosives. What I am looking for is some validity in these other explanations. I have tried looking for demolitions of other buildings that don't use explosives yet still show squibs in the collapse sequence. I can't find anything yet, mostly I get videos of 9/11.

From this perspective I see what appears to be a lot of evidence in favor of explosives used in the collapse of all three WTC towers and I haven't even mentioned the physical evidence.
Was there thermite residue found in the dust from these towers?
How about the pulverization of just about everything that was once inside those towers; concrete, steel, sheet rock, people, computers, etc...
Or the cut beams and steel slag found in the debris?
How about the melted and even evaporated steel found in the debris?
Was there thermite residue found on some of these steel beams as well?

Even if it can be proven that all of this evidence was created by something other than explosives we still need to look at this whole thing much more closely. Just from the rates of acceleration measured in all three towers there is grounds for a complete investigation of the collapses of all three towers from initiation to completion. Why is it so important to hide all of this stuff, dismiss these allegations and destroy evidence? This further adds to the mystery and any investigation needs to look into the cleanup and destruction of this evidence as part of the investigation as to what happened to those three buildings.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


No it's controlled demolition because the final outcome of the collapses were miraculously the same as a controlled demolition.


So you disagree with Bonez?

His evidence about flashes, puffs of smoke, explosions etc isn't compelling to you?

Fair enough, it isn't to me either.

Look, you're free to believe what you like. The fact is that fire is perfectly capable of bringing own a building like this. Demolitions experts agree, and there are other, perfectly obvious, reasons why they don't use fire to demolish things.

Your continued statements about your own personal incredulity aren't getting you anywhere either. Do you think that if you insist on this website enough times that you remain to be convinced there will suddenly, magically be a new investigation? You need more than your own assumptions to progress this.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Yes. F=ma. The force of the whole upper structure with the acceleration of gravity exceeds the load capacity of the lower inner structure's load capacity. Without any redundant structures within those square shaped floors, the structure fails. So you see, I am not making it up. Force down is greater than resistant force up. This excess is higher than the object oriented design to carry people, not mountains.

There's really nothing more to it but that. In order for you to have any case, you have to prove that the inner structure alone could support the whole part that fell.

Failure to prove otherwise means that this whole conspiracy has been pretty pointless for 9 years going now.

But hey, the masses always need something to hate or fear. God forbid a logical world.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

This is nonsense, it's a matter of the rate of fall. He doesn't have to "prove" that the building would not have fallen at all once pancaking started.

Some of the deceleration (or acceleration slower than gravity) is from the conservation of momentum argument I made earlier, even if there is no structural strength at all.

How can someone who is at best just getting comfortable with the difference between velocity and acceleration have so much assertiveness? Are you just trying to draw an insult so you can act hurt?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

The idea was to have a spectacular terror event that appears to have been done buy a bunch of guys in a cave who hate our freedoms. One bomb wouldn't have caused total collapse without taking out a lot more of Manhattan.


Why would they care about taking out more of Manhattan?

Anyway, I'm not sure that's true. Strategically placed bombs can pretty much take down a single building with some accuracy. You are, after all, claiming that this is what happened!




Just because they did it in a way that is more complex than the simplest possible alternative, this isn't proof for the OS nor does it negate all the evidence which contradicts the OS.


Obviously. But you are presumably familiar with the idea of addressing different pieces of a large subject individually?

And generally people do take the simplest approach to things. It's cheaper for a start.





You should check out the court ordered video releases from NIST. Why would they edit out innocent sounds?


I have listened to them. They don't look or sound like a CD to me. In demolitions one sees on youtube there are a series of sharp reports, then the puffs of air, then the building starts to fall. The WTC doesn't look like this.




What is causing the compressed air? The pancaking floors? Please explain to me how the falling floors create a wave of high pressure which accelerates at a higher rate than the floors do.


I don't understand what you're asking me, sorry. To me the "squibs" look like air being compressed outwards. Furthermore they don't happen at the time when squibs occur during a conventional demolition.


I just don't think there's much more to engage in. I don't hold the opinion that an organization like the CIA has too much trouble in attaining human resources or with loyalty amongst the ranks. Theorizing about it doesn't prove or disprove anything.


Well, actually the only way to prove or disprove something is pretty much to theorise about it. We're not in the realm of pure mathematics.

Truthers are allergic to speculation because the implications of their ideas often make hardly any sense. My observation is that people who would kill for money would also betray their employer for more money. And unless you think the entire CIA is psychotically murderous and totally without scruple it would be very difficult to ensure total loyalty on something like this.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



God forbid a logical world.


Try to stay really logical with us for a second.


Force down is greater than resistant force up.


Exactly. This points to controlled demo.

In a gravitational controlled demo the upper section always decelerates after dropping through the very weak initiation levels and impacting the stronger structure. This is because the resistant force up (what I have been calling the upwards reactional force) becomes greater than the force down, as one would expect without explosives.

Now that you agree that the mass of the top section is governed by F=ma could you please state to what you believe to be the upwards and downwards forces acting on the top section? We'll keep it simple and describe the forces at the moment the top section impacts the undamaged lower structure (after accelerating through the heavily damaged initiation zone).


There's really nothing more to it but that. In order for you to have any case, you have to prove that the inner structure alone could support the whole part that fell.


As Oniongrass said, we're not attempting to prove it shouldn't have fallen. We have huge problems with the behaviour of the collapse.


But hey, the masses always need something to hate or fear.


Don't worry, ours is the side of love and peace. You're getting there, just don't be afraid to confront it.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Why would they care about taking out more of Manhattan?


I don't know much about the NWO but from what I understand they conduct a lot of business around lower Manhattan. Just speculation though.



Anyway, I'm not sure that's true. Strategically placed bombs can pretty much take down a single building with some accuracy. You are, after all, claiming that this is what happened!


It's more difficult to sell that middle eastern terrorists have got around security and planted multiple bombs throughout both towers and 7. And what I said about a spectacular fear based event of multiple simultaneous hijackings of planes then flown into buildings.


And generally people do take the simplest approach to things. It's cheaper for a start.


Money is no problem for them. Terror acts are not about taking the simplest approach, they're about being spectacular and generating maximum public fear. Plenty of buildings have been bombed before without having to go to war over it.


I don't understand what you're asking me, sorry. To me the "squibs" look like air being compressed outwards. Furthermore they don't happen at the time when squibs occur during a conventional demolition.


Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I don't mean the individual "squib" type ejections. I mean the leading edge of the wave of ejections which accelerates uniformly down the building. The video in this post at 8:30 talks about what I mean.


Well, actually the only way to prove or disprove something is pretty much to theorise about it. We're not in the realm of pure mathematics.

I can see your point but I don't think it can prove anything. Both sides can only speculate as to their opinion. It is why I like to stick to what can actually be proved, either with physics and mathematics or some other evidence.


My observation is that people who would kill for money would also betray their employer for more money.


I really can't imagine anyone attempting to extort money from a powerful ex-employer at the risk of being tortured to death. There's no amount of money you could pay me in exchange for having to look over my shoulder for the rest of my life.


And unless you think the entire CIA is psychotically murderous and totally without scruple it would be very difficult to ensure total loyalty on something like this.


MK Ultra was pretty disgusting. I think most people research the type of organization they get into bed with.




[edit on 6-9-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   


You should check out the court ordered video releases from NIST. Why would they edit out innocent sounds?

I have listened to them. They don't look or sound like a CD to me. In demolitions one sees on youtube there are a series of sharp reports, then the puffs of air, then the building starts to fall. The WTC doesn't look like this.

I would agree to the point that the WTC towers 1 & 2 do not look like normal controlled demolitions. But I feel there could easily be a debate over whether sounds of explosions can be heard and puffs of air/smoke can be seen associated with these sounds.


To me the "squibs" look like air being compressed outwards. Furthermore they don't happen at the time when squibs occur during a conventional demolition.

You make this statement as though squibs have been seen occurring due to a compression of air that was not caused by explosives.
Is there any evidence of this?
I have tried to find some but failed.

Are you referring to something you have seen or are you repeating this claim because it sounds good?
The problem I have with this 'compressed air theory' is what do you use as a base for a comparison?

We all know that squibs have been seen in CD that use explosives which are said to have been caused by these explosives. The fact that squibs have been seen in all three WTC tower collapses is evidence in favor of controlled demolitions. However, this does not prove explosives were used, it's just evidence in favor of this theory.
So is there anything we can use to compare these two possible scenarios, explosive squibs and compression squibs, or are we simply claiming this because it sounds good?

I thought I would add a clip from the 911 Blog that _BoneZ_ linked to in his WTC Detonations Finally Revealed thread. (BTW I know who _BoneZ_ is now)



Can you not hear explosions starting at the 20 second mark?

[edit on 9/6/2010 by Devino]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


One wrong at 3am in the morning does not discount what I said. How can you assume that I am just getting used to that? twisting much? drawing straws much? Acceleration less than Gravity is not deceleration. it is acceleration less than gravity. Deceleration is a slow down from current speed over time. 3mph, 2mph, 1mph is deceleration. If your acceleration is still positive but not the speed of Gravity it is nor deceleration. I am sorry, but I am not going to call you out on it and discredit you like you did me. For it is once more 2 AM in the morning and I understand the decreased intelligence of us all.

reply to post by Azp420
 





Exactly. This points to controlled demo.




Exactly. This points to controlled demo.


No, it doesn't It means there is more force down than resistant force up. That can be anything from demos to structural failure. To assume demos is simply unscientific.

Demos would not be needed. The outer structure did not collapse at the same rate as the inner structure. This discredits demos, as with demos it all comes down. The outer structure remaining intact supports inner structural failure.



As Oniongrass said, we're not attempting to prove it shouldn't have fallen. We have huge problems with the behaviour of the collapse.


The behavior is that of structural failure. Inner structure fail, top part above collapses at weak spot. Outer structure falls down after. Demos would not do this. it would bring it down all together.



Don't worry, ours is the side of love and peace. You're getting there, just don't be afraid to confront it.

Love and peace is the surest way to hell and dictatorship. Love and peace has no correlation to a good or bad society. Love and peace are based on morals. Morals are based on flawed human thought. I do not believe in morals. But that is off topic.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So you disagree with Bonez?
His evidence about flashes, puffs of smoke, explosions etc isn't compelling to you?


LOL where do you come from? You have such a weird take on what people say.

Yes I also agree with Bonez evidence, how do you figure I don't?

But I was replying to your question, not what Bonez said. I am me what does it matter what someone else says? You need to quit thinking of 'truthers' as one organism, we are individuals with our own thoughts and experiences. I know it makes it easier to ignore and dismiss when you stereotype, its the oldest trick in the book.

Now do you want to actually address my reply to you, or is it too difficult for you to comprehend? It looked, to me, like a controlled demolition because the outcome was what a controlled demolition is supposed to achieve. Now you can dismiss, flashes and squibs and all the rest but you cannot deny what I'm saying. If all four walls end up on top of the debris (WTC7) then the building landed in its own footprint, fact, that is why none of you de-bunkers has addressed this point directly. You want to waffle on about not seeing or hearing explosives, it doesn't matter when there is only one way to achieve the final outcome.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Force down is greater than resistant force up.


Actually no it's not.

Newtons 3rd law, when objects collide the forces on each object is the same, equal in both directions. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

What causes damage is MASS, the greater mass in a collision receives the least deceleration on contact, the lower mass decelerates more which causes the it to receive the most damage.

Velocity increases mass, but it also increases the forces on both objects, so the forces are still always equal.

There was no extra mass on the top section to cause it to create more damage to the bottom than to itself.

An example,

You're driving down the road and a fly hits your windshield, it splatters.
Now if you were parked and that fly hit your windshield at the same speed would the car windshield break, or would the fly still go splat?

[edit on 9/7/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by oniongrass
 


One wrong at 3am in the morning does not discount what I said. How can you assume that I am just getting used to that? twisting much? drawing straws much? Acceleration less than Gravity is not deceleration. it is acceleration less than gravity. Deceleration is a slow down from current speed over time. 3mph, 2mph, 1mph is deceleration. If your acceleration is still positive but not the speed of Gravity it is nor deceleration. I am sorry, but I am not going to call you out on it and discredit you like you did me. For it is once more 2 AM in the morning and I understand the decreased intelligence of us all.
...

There's nothing for you to call out. That's the difference.

Get Kleppner and Kolenkow or another good text on mechanics. Read it, do some of the exercises. Then come back and contribute to this thread.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Gorman91
Force down is greater than resistant force up.


Actually no it's not.

Newtons 3rd law, when objects collide the forces on each object is the same, equal in both directions. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

What causes damage is MASS, the greater mass in a collision receives the least deceleration on contact, the lower mass decelerates more which causes the it to receive the most damage.

Velocity increases mass, but it also increases the forces on both objects, so the forces are still always equal.

There was no extra mass on the top section to cause it to create more damage to the bottom than to itself.

An example,

You're driving down the road and a fly hits your windshield, it splatters.
Now if you were parked and that fly hit your windshield at the same speed would the car windshield break, or would the fly still go splat?

[edit on 9/7/2010 by ANOK]

You're generally right but I would modify this.

Mass times velocity is called momentum. Momentum (added up over everything) is conserved in collisions and all other times. So if something with a lot of momentum runs into something else, it's likely to transfer some of its momentum to that other thing.

What causes damage is energy. Energy is also conserved, but it can "vanish" by being converted to heat, or even in causing chemical reactions. Energy can "appear" because of chemical reactions. Explosions are chemical reactions that release heat. If a lot of heat is released, it probably means a lot of damage was done breaking stuff, bending metal, etc. The movement energy or "kinetic energy" of a moving mass is (1/2) m v^2 where m is mass and v is the magnitude of velocity. So in this sense, mass is involved in how damaging a collision is, because kinetic energy is proportional to mass.

A third thing that's conserved is mass. But mass by itself doesn't cause damage, because it can be stationary. My house is very heavy, but it's not moving or running into anything, so it's not causing damage.

(Under conditions where relativity becomes significant, there can be some transfer between mass and energy, so the total quantity E + m c^2 is conserved rather than E and m separately, and m here is the "relativistic mass" that can change with speed. But that doesn't matter here.)


[edit on 7-9-2010 by oniongrass]



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join