Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

page: 20
306
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Surely if one believed that a mass murder had been carried out by the government one would want to do a bit more about it than have an argument on the internet?


Surely if one believed that a mass murder had been carried out by the government one would expect a lot of people to be talking about it on the internet?

The fallacy comes into play when you insinuate that this is all that people are doing.




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
The location of the Twin Towers in the lower part of Manhattan BEDROCK is about 100 ft or 30 meters deep.
The Twin Towers were called David and Nelson after the Rockefeller brothers, after all the towers were their idea eh?

Here is a charming quote from David Rockefeller:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

What does the mind conjure up upon hearing the name Rockefeller? We should not forget the conversation that transpired between Russo and a particular Rockefeller in reference to an event that was soon to come to pass. It surely came and with a boom, boom, boom!

The bankers! Is there anything they don't control?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I just had to add something about the "spray on insulation." This NONSENSE that the airplane somehow blew the insulation off and that explains the Government theory...

NUMBER ONE: Such a blast would have stripped the windows, and paint off everything in the room. Seemed like a few windows were left.

NUBER TWO: The insulation on steel beams is to keep fires from spreading to OTHER ROOMS -- not to protect the steel itself.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Surely if one believed that a mass murder had been carried out by the government one would expect a lot of people to be talking about it on the internet?

The fallacy comes into play when you insinuate that this is all that people are doing.


Weird. Because when one turns off the computer the "Truth Movement" pretty much disappears.

I see a lot of people writing an awful lot here and doing very little. You yourself have admitted that you would never attempt any real world campaign wrt 9/11 Truth. This is a common stance. And the major reason why the "movement" lacks, well, movement.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Tricks, nine years ago in a group of fifteen people I said
I thought the buildings were CD and not OS, fifteen people would walk off.

Today, I suggest the same thing to a group of fifteen
people, and one walks away, and the other fourteen
have various levels of awareness from disbelief to agreement.

Any questions?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Weird. Because when one turns off the computer the "Truth Movement" pretty much disappears.


I'm sorry to hear that you don't get out much.



Let's see what you're missing by staying at home all day....

Marches.

Los Angeles, California:



Brussels, 2007:



Ottawa, Canada:



Portland, Oregon:



Santa Monica, California:



Chicago, Illinois:



Virginia, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, Maryland:



New York City:




I could go on.... and on....


Conferences.

United States (one of hundreds across the country thus far):



Amsterdam:



Japan:



Again, I can go on... and on....


Television appearances.

Niels Harrit on Denmark's largest TV Channel, TV2:



Reuters, 7 years after 9/11 citizens demanding new investigation:



Cincinnati Public Access TV:



Omni TV AE911 Interview:



NYCCAN TV ad campaign:




And I could go on and on with these too....

Radio appearances also...

That's okay, though. I know this is falling on deaf ears and that you post here for all the wrong reasons to begin with. You're going to trash talk anything I post. Even though you'll keep repeating the same nonsense for the next 50 years maybe someone else will learn something.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787

Tricks, nine years ago in a group of fifteen people I said
I thought the buildings were CD and not OS, fifteen people would walk off.

Today, I suggest the same thing to a group of fifteen
people, and one walks away, and the other fourteen
have various levels of awareness from disbelief to agreement.

Any questions?


How the hell is that any proof that the claims that the government was involved is true?...

You people seem to think that just because some people believe something, it must be true...

EVERY CLAIM, from "freefall", to "control demolition", use of thermite, and then "nano-thermite", the use of beam weapons, etc, have been shown several times to be false, but at the end people will believe whatever the heck they want... There are millions of people who still think Elvis is alive, and there have been reports of people seem him all over the world despite the fact that we know he is dead, and he was buried and we know where he is buried. But still millions of people just want to believe he is alive and they don't care about any evidence that says the contrary. The same thing is happening with this claim that the "government was behind 911"...

There are many conspiracy theories which have been proven to be true, but adding false conspiracies with no proof whatsoever does not help "the search for truth"... Instead it obscures the real conspiracies that exist, and that there is evidence, and proof of.

The claims that the "WTC were CD by the government" sorry to say is nothing but a false claim, and just believing in it is not going to make it true...

You get people like BSbray who has posted the same claims in the past, and EVERY ONE OF HIS CLAIMS has been proven wrong... Then he waits several months, and once again presents the same claims and theories, which have been proven in the past to be wrong, but he seems to be hoping that people have forgotten the truth and the evidence that debunks his claims hence why he keeps re-posting the same claims, and false theories he has posted in the past...

These "1,200+ architects, which again I haven't seen any list of them, are also basing their claims on the "nano-thermite paper" which i showed is false. they also make the claims of "pyroclastic clouds", and sorry to say that neither controlled demolition, nor collapsed buildings create pyroclastic clouds... Pyroclastic clouds are, and i quote...


A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current[1]) is a common and devastating result of certain explosive volcanic eruptions.
...
There are several scenarios which can produce a pyroclastic flow:

* Fountain collapse of an eruption column from a Plinian eruption (e.g., Mount Vesuvius's destruction of Pompeii, see Pliny the Younger). In such an eruption, the material ejected from the vent heats the surrounding air and the turbulent mixture rises, through convection, for many kilometres. If the erupted jet is unable to heat the surrounding air sufficiently, convection currents will not be strong enough to carry the plume upwards and it falls, flowing down the flanks of the volcano.
* Frothing at the mouth of the vent during degassing of the erupted lava at the mouth. This can lead to the production of a rock called ignimbrite. This occurred during the eruption of Novarupta in 1912 which produced the largest flows to be generated during recorded history.
* Gravitational collapse of a lava dome or spine, with subsequent avalanches and flow down a steep slope e.g., Montserrat's Soufrière Hills volcano.
* Fountain collapse of an eruption column associated with a vulcanian eruption e.g., Montserrat's Soufrière Hills volcano has generated many pyroclastic flows and surges.
* The directional blast (or jet) when part of a volcano explodes or collapses (e.g. the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens) As distance from the volcano increases, this rapidly transforms into a gravity-driven current.

en.wikipedia.org...

The ONLY people that claim the collapse of the WTC caused Pyroclastic clouds/flow are those who believe the WTC was collapsed by controlled demolition, but they ARE WRONG...

They use the "pyroclastic cloud" claim to try to mystify their claims...

Just do a search on google of pyroclastic clouds and you will see what I mean.

NO REAL SCIENTIST, NOT EVEN REAL ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS would claim that the collapse of the WTC caused "pyroclastic clouds"...


edit on 16-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
How the hell is that any proof that the claims that the government was involved is true?...


Where the hell did he say that's what he was trying to prove with that statement?

It's obvious to me he was responding to a post "Trick" made.



You get people like BSbray who has posted the same claims in the past, and EVERY ONE OF HIS CLAIMS has been proven wrong...


This coming from someone who just spent an entire post ranting on something I didn't even post to begin with.

Face it, you have much more emotion and angst wrapped up in this than you do reasoning.


Would you like to discuss some of the things I've said in the past that have been "proven wrong"?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

This coming from someone who just spent an entire post ranting on something I didn't even post to begin with.

Face it, you have much more emotion and angst wrapped up in this than you do reasoning.


the only one basing their claims on "emotions" and "feelings" are people like you...



Originally posted by bsbray11
Would you like to discuss some of the things I've said in the past that have been "proven wrong"?


already did AGAIN BSbray... But of course, and like ALWAYS you will try to "deny, deny, deny"...

Go ahead cover your hears and start yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear you"... that's all you do when people demonstrate your claims are WRONG...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by bsbray11
This coming from someone who just spent an entire post ranting on something I didn't even post to begin with.

Face it, you have much more emotion and angst wrapped up in this than you do reasoning.


the only one basing their claims on "emotions" and "feelings" are people like you...


Nice one. No comment on your misplaced ranting vitriol on something I didn't even post I see. What a shocker.




Originally posted by bsbray11
Would you like to discuss some of the things I've said in the past that have been "proven wrong"?


already did AGAIN BSbray... But of course, and like ALWAYS you will try to "deny, deny, deny"...

Go ahead cover your hears and start yelling "I can't hear you, I can't hear you"... that's all you do when people demonstrate your claims are WRONG...


So what claim of mine did you just prove wrong again?

All I had to do was ask you if you wanted to talk about what you proved wrong, and already you're copping out.


You want to start with FEMA, appendix C? That's the one that's been going around most lately it seems.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Nice one. No comment on your misplaced ranting vitriol on something I didn't even post I see. What a shocker.


Woohooo, once again the illogical response from BSbray...




Originally posted by bsbray11
So what claim of mine did you just prove wrong again?

All I had to do was ask you if you wanted to talk about what you proved wrong, and already you're copping out.


You want to start with FEMA, appendix C? That's the one that's been going around most lately it seems.


From your claims of "freefall", to the claims of "thermite' WHICH YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE, and EVERYTIME they have been DEBUNKED.... Yet you keep posting the same BS, over, and over, and over...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just because the FEMA story is not 100% correct DOESN'T MEAN THE GOVERNMENT WAS BEHIND IT...

I explained it like three times already, the website of the "supposed 1,200+ architects, which there is no evidence of since there is no list ANYWHERE of these supposed architects, use the claim of "nanothermite" as part of their claims that it was an inside job. But the "nanothermite" supposed research was nothing more than ANOTHER SCAM...

Bentham Science Publishers allows ANYONE to post ANY claims as long as they pay $800 U.S.D.... The Editor in Chief WHO HAS EXPERIENCE IN NANOPARTICLES/NANOMATERIALS quit because that bogus nanothermite paper, alongside MANY OTHER BOGUS PAPERS have been accepted and published by Bentham science Publishers just to make more money...

Your claims of "nano-thermite", your claims of "pyroclastic clouds", and"freefall" have ALL been proven to be wrong... But like you ALWAYS do, keep claiming none of that is true and instead and like always you will claim that you have proven your point...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds



In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: www.911myths.com...

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.
....
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, thats 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. Thats over a quarter kiloton. Were talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and weve only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We havent added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, thats another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and weve got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.
...

www.debunking911.com...

And the truth will set you free...




edit on 16-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


you were ranting and raving about a post i wrote, and started talking about pyroplastic clouds.


pyroplastic clouds of dust, ash are produced, not only by volcanoes, but are defined as extremely hot clouds of dust and ash. The description given by numerous persons caught in the clouds.

Plus the dust clouds at the collapse were about five times the volume of the buildings. That resulted in the sheetrock, concrete and other materials being dustified, pulverized, atomized by intense heat.
thus the pyro cloud.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by bsbray11
Nice one. No comment on your misplaced ranting vitriol on something I didn't even post I see. What a shocker.


Woohooo, once again the illogical response from BSbray...


So what exactly is illogical about pointing out your massive rant on something I never even posted on the previous thread page?

You do know what the word illogical means, right?




Originally posted by bsbray11
So what claim of mine did you just prove wrong again? ...


From your claims of "freefall"


You mean WTC7? Even NIST agrees that building accelerated at free-fall while it was still visible above neighboring buildings. Everyone is apparently in agreement except for you and anyone else who is still severely misinformed.


to the claims of "thermite' WHICH YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE, and EVERYTIME they have been DEBUNKED....


Can you give me a specific example please? Of something that I posted?



Just because the FEMA story is not 100% correct DOESN'T MEAN THE GOVERNMENT WAS BEHIND IT...


Shows how much you know. When I mention FEMA appendix C I'm not talking about them not getting something "100% correct." Have you even ever read FEMA appendix C?


I explained it like three times already, the website of the "supposed 1,200+ architects, which there is no evidence of since there is no list ANYWHERE of these supposed architects,


Wow, apparently you don't know how to use an internet browser or click links either.

www2.ae911truth.org...

And before your next claim that they're making all the names up, no, they require you to submit your degree for verification before you sign as an architect or engineer. Otherwise you just sign the general petition which already has many, many more signatures.


use the claim of "nanothermite" as part of their claims that it was an inside job. But the "nanothermite" supposed research was nothing more than ANOTHER SCAM...


A scam, right.



Bentham Science Publishers allows ANYONE to post ANY claims as long as they pay $800 U.S.D....


Sorry but not quite.


The Editor in Chief WHO HAS EXPERIENCE IN NANOPARTICLES/NANOMATERIALS quit because that bogus nanothermite paper, alongside MANY OTHER BOGUS PAPERS have been accepted and published by Bentham science Publishers just to make more money...


Even if this were true, it doesn't debunk the paper itself. You've had plenty of time to mount a massive disinformation campaign against the journal itself, though, haven't you? I guess if I were in your situation and were so desperate that's probably the best I could do too.


Your claims of "nano-thermite", your claims of "pyroclastic clouds", and"freefall" have ALL been proven to be wrong... But like you ALWAYS do, keep claiming none of that is true and instead and like always you will claim that you have proven your point...


Again... examples?


You're just making stuff up, flinging poop on the wall and seeing what sticks.

I never mentioned pyroclastic clouds anywhere and WTC7 did free-fall. The only person who isn't aware of that here is apparently you. Not like it makes any difference, as I really doubt you understand the significance of it in the first place.

edit on 16-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Let me tell you this. First, I have read your posts. I think you may benefit from a little constructive criticism.

Definition of FANATIC
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion
— fanatic noun
— fa·nat·i·cal·lyfə-ˈna-ti-k(ə-)lē adverb
— fa·nat·i·cal·ness-kəl-nəs noun

A fanatic will use multiple means of expression!!!

A fanatic needs emphasis to convey emotion.

A fanatic will never abandon a thread.
[font=Courier New]A fanatic will always have long, drawn out responses.

edit on 16-9-2010 by Stewie because: Edit for guidance on fanatical respones.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
...
No, a true free-fall means NO energy is lost, not "little." Though this would be theoretically impossible to achieve 100%, WTC7 fell within a ridiculously close margin of error of this acceleration. We are not talking about a free-fall acceleration that includes drag. We are talking about 9.82 m/s^2, within some small margin of error, which is gravitational acceleration in a vacuum. You do understand that 9.82 m/s^2 is absolute free-fall in a vacuum, don't you? Look it up if you have to.


BSbray not talking about "freefall...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I can't answer for him but I can tell you what I want to know. Do you have any idea what is required to achieve a free-fall acceleration? It basically means there was absolutely NOTHING under the collapsing section to slow it down -- NO support -- at ALL, from the structure that was supposedly still in the process of "collapsing."


Again, BSbray not talking about freefall in page 18...

Phew, let's continuing to see what else BSbray HAS NOT written about...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Was the free-fall acceleration confirmed for the given period of time or not?

Does free-fall acceleration imply the kinetic energy of the object is being conserved or not? I really hope I'm not taking your understanding of gravitational kinetic energy for granted.


AGAIN BSbray not writting about "freefall"....
Are you sure BSbray is not a parrot?...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by bsbray11
...
No, a true free-fall means NO energy is lost, not "little." Though this would be theoretically impossible to achieve 100%, WTC7 fell within a ridiculously close margin of error of this acceleration. We are not talking about a free-fall acceleration that includes drag. We are talking about 9.82 m/s^2, within some small margin of error, which is gravitational acceleration in a vacuum. You do understand that 9.82 m/s^2 is absolute free-fall in a vacuum, don't you? Look it up if you have to.


BSbray not talking about "freefall...


lmao, I didn't deny it, I said WTC7 did free-fall.

Did you know the government has also admitted this by now?

Apparently not.

Yes, NIST has already been forced to admit WTC7 did in fact accelerate at free-fall.

Here's an old ATS thread talking about it, with a video: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Like I said, I doubt you understand the implication of this though, and you need some basic physics knowledge to understand what I was talking about in my quote above.

Keep at it, you're doing great.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Since you already proved you have trouble following links when you claimed AE911 never showed their list of architects and engineers, I guess I should re-post the video of NIST admitting WTC7's free-fall.





Still waiting to see where I said anything about pyroclastic flows and support for all of that other erroneous garbage you posted.

edit on 16-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
306
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join