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.

 

My sudden change of heart

page: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fires. Ever!


None of it was just fire alone.




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.
edit on 11/21/2010 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by demonseed

#3 Fire does not cause buildings to collapse!

.....

Im not going to barrage you with explanations or theories, but contrary to conspiracy belief, this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.


Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fires. Ever!



Originally posted by demonseed

1) Towers 1 and 2 fell due to the impact. The weight of the above floors would easily cause the floors below to give way. If this was a stone structure like a pyramid then sure, it would not collapse this way. But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above, having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim and is easily understandable. I never fully believed this was a controlled demolition(poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition) but my earlier beliefs of WTC 7 caused me to investigate this further. However, looking at it now Towers 1 and 2 fell exactly as they should have.


What?? Are you really saying that the bottom floor (or any other floor) only holds enough weight to hold the floor above it? Then WTF holds up the rest of the floors above it?


You say it is easily understandable. I say you are gullible.

The fact is that the lower floors held up the above floors just fine before the collapse. The weight of the building didn't increase, so why were the lower floors suddenly incapable of holding up the same weight?

I think you need to either do some more research, or stop researching altogether


Or maybe you are pretending to support the OS so you can make it look bad from the inside-out. In which case, thumbs up!

edit on 20/11/10 by GobbledokTChipeater because: ?


I think this is the biggest fallacy proposed by truthers.

It is not 1/3rd of a building falling on 2/3rds of the building. It is 1/3rd of the building(which is 30 some stories) falling on ONE floor. There are weight bearing loads in place, but they are not sufficient enough to instanteously hold up 30+ floors falling down. As each floor collapses that is even more weight and mass causing the building to fall faster and faster and faster.

You can see lots of evidence of this video:
www.youtube.com...

You can see the building actually losing its weight and giving way. Remember, its not like the 30 stories are going to just bounce off and sit tightly in place. The amount of weight falling onto the tower is HUGE, there is no way that one floor and some load-bearing beams are going to hold up against that.

As each floor gives way, more weight is added to the ball as the crumbling masses goes further and further down into the buildings structure. There is no structure made by man today that could hold up against that much weight coming down.

Imagine a 500 ton bowling ball landing on top of a sky scraper. There is no physical way the sky scraper would hold up against that ball.





edit on 20-11-2010 by demonseed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 




However, i recently had a change of heart. At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.

Hi "demonseed" (Is it just me or do 90% of the people who come on ATS and fiercely challenge the 9/11 "truthers" have a username or avatar with satan, the devil, 666, or something like that?) I'm not American, so my perspective isn't skewed, all I care about is the truth. It's clear to any sane person who has done their homework which "story" holds more weight. I'd give it 100 years max before it becomes accepted scientific fact that 9/11 was an inside job. The evidence is there. In fact I tried to make a similar bet with a good friend yesterday - I said if it becomes accepted scientific fact within the next 50 years he would owe me just $100 AU, but if not, I would owe him $100. He refused to accept the bet on those terms, he wanted an extremely shorter time period, he obviously felt 50 years would be enough time for the truth to come out.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 


Your friend sounds like a sensible fellow..
I would say 20 years before accepted..Longer to be proven.
I think the majority now believe JFK was not as the OS states. Look how long that has been but still no real proof..



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
None of it was just fire alone.

WTC 7 was just fire alone. This is what NIST had to say about the structural damage to WTC 7 from WTC 1's collapse:


"While debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."


In other words, the damage sustained to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 was structurally insignificant. The NIST report says that office fires alone caused the complete collapse of WTC 7. A first and only time in history.


And while we're at it, by NIST's own calculations, the structural damage to the towers was minimal as well, blaming mostly heat and fires on their complete collapse also.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 



The fact is that the lower floors held up the above floors just fine before the collapse. The weight of the building didn't increase, so why were the lower floors suddenly incapable of holding up the same weight?

I think you need to either do some more research, or stop researching altogether


Actually , instead of ridiculing someone else in such an egotistical manner , it is You , who needs to do "some more research" .

If you knew anything at all about the design and construction of the towers , which apparently you don't , you would know that not one single floor in those towers supported the weight of all the floors above it . PERIOD . This would sound totally absurd and bizzare , if you stopped to think about it . How would you explain , say , floor number 5 , supporting the combined weight of 105 floors above it ? Do you see how ridiculous this sounds ?

I'll say it one more time . NONE of the floors supported ANY of the floors above them . None of the floors supported any weight other than the weight of themselves , plus the weight of the office loads on that particular floor . Floor number 5 did not support the weight of floor number 6 . Floor number 6 did not support the weight of floor number 7 . Floor number 7 did not support the weight of floor numbers 8-110 .

The floors did not support the columns . The columns , supported the floors . However , the columns did not set on top of each floor , and each floor did not set on top of the columns . The floors were attached to the SIDES of the core columns and perimeter columns .

I have explained this several times but , in case you missed it , I will be glad to direct you to a thread where I have detailed it .

Point is , don't scoff at someone , while you yourself , do not have your facts in order .



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
reply to post by demonseed
 




However, i recently had a change of heart. At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.

Hi "demonseed" (Is it just me or do 90% of the people who come on ATS and fiercely challenge the 9/11 "truthers" have a username or avatar with satan, the devil, 666, or something like that?) I'm not American, so my perspective isn't skewed, all I care about is the truth. It's clear to any sane person who has done their homework which "story" holds more weight. I'd give it 100 years max before it becomes accepted scientific fact that 9/11 was an inside job. The evidence is there. In fact I tried to make a similar bet with a good friend yesterday - I said if it becomes accepted scientific fact within the next 50 years he would owe me just $100 AU, but if not, I would owe him $100. He refused to accept the bet on those terms, he wanted an extremely shorter time period, he obviously felt 50 years would be enough time for the truth to come out.


Demon seed is an awesome movie:

en.wikipedia.org...

Ironically enough, i noticed the opposite.

Most of the people supporting truthers have something more rebellious such as "666, anarchy, satan" etc.

Either way, its about the message, not the messenger.
edit on 20-11-2010 by demonseed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



In other words, the damage sustained to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 was structurally insignificant. The NIST report says that office fires alone caused the complete collapse of WTC 7. A first and only time in history.


And while we're at it, by NIST's own calculations, the structural damage to the towers was minimal as well, blaming mostly heat and fires on their complete collapse also.


Oh , POO POO BoneZ . I have grown weary watching how you deride NIST in any number of threads as being a farce , and yet you turn around and prop them up on your truther pedestal in other threads , when it suits your fancy . Anyone who has participated in these 9/11 threads for any length of time , can see that you are guilty of this . That's what is known as Cherry Picking .

IF , that is what NIST says , which I don't know if it's true as I have not read it but , IF that's what it says then I disagree with it and find it absolutely ABSURD to claim that HUNDREDS of tons of steel slamming into 7 would be "insignificant" .

This is ludicrous to the point that it sounds like something the TM would fabricate . I may have to break down and read NIST , just to see if some of these claims are even in there . I don't know but , if so then I find that absurd .



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 



(Is it just me or do 90% of the people who come on ATS and fiercely challenge the 9/11 "truthers" have a username or avatar with satan, the devil, 666, or something like that?)


No , it's just you . And just another cheap shot at attempting to discredit your opposition through something that is totally irrelevant and immature .



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


demonseed,

I would never think of telling you that you are wrong, for that is your opinion. but, I can't imagine what could of caused you to make such a drastic change of opinion??

what i will do though is maybe give you some insight into your facts and logic.


you tried to compare the towers and bldg. 7 collapses to the 1906 san fransisco fire??? you have to be aware that the "fire" burned for 3 days, and ALL of the structures were constructed of WOOD!!


you stated that buildings in "manhattan are designed to collapse inward" NO building has ever been designed TO collapse! when you see any structure collaspe in an inward free fall it is because of a contolled demolition, performed by an expert.

now, if you had done your homework, you would of discovered that when the trade centers were built, the engineers were having trouble with how they would take those towers down when they had reached their life cycle. All the engineers agreed that a controlled demolition would NOT bring those towers down, so they had the basements dug deeper than normal, and, they made plans that a NUCLEAR charge would have to be used to bring then down. this demolition plan is in the original building plans.

you also stated that there was nothing "eerie" about the collapse?? did you not see the molten steel running down the sides of the towers? what about the traces of thermite that have been found in the debris?? or, perhaps the fact that temperatures in the debris pile at ground zero were over 750o ai some spots for over 4 weeks??

and your reasoning for not believing that 9-11 was an inside job....it would have to involve too many people, and someone would of come forward by now. really? Does the kennedy assasination ring any bells?? what about the USS Liberty?? or the tuskagee airmen??

as much as i respect your opinion, i truly have to suspect your motivation for the presentation of this thread, most of your post is assumptions with no basis in fact.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by demonseed
 


demonseed,

I would never think of telling you that you are wrong, for that is your opinion. but, I can't imagine what could of caused you to make such a drastic change of opinion??

what i will do though is maybe give you some insight into your facts and logic.


you tried to compare the towers and bldg. 7 collapses to the 1906 san fransisco fire??? you have to be aware that the "fire" burned for 3 days, and ALL of the structures were constructed of WOOD!!


you stated that buildings in "manhattan are designed to collapse inward" NO building has ever been designed TO collapse! when you see any structure collaspe in an inward free fall it is because of a contolled demolition, performed by an expert.

now, if you had done your homework, you would of discovered that when the trade centers were built, the engineers were having trouble with how they would take those towers down when they had reached their life cycle. All the engineers agreed that a controlled demolition would NOT bring those towers down, so they had the basements dug deeper than normal, and, they made plans that a NUCLEAR charge would have to be used to bring then down. this demolition plan is in the original building plans.

you also stated that there was nothing "eerie" about the collapse?? did you not see the molten steel running down the sides of the towers? what about the traces of thermite that have been found in the debris?? or, perhaps the fact that temperatures in the debris pile at ground zero were over 750o ai some spots for over 4 weeks??

and your reasoning for not believing that 9-11 was an inside job....it would have to involve too many people, and someone would of come forward by now. really? Does the kennedy assasination ring any bells?? what about the USS Liberty?? or the tuskagee airmen??

as much as i respect your opinion, i truly have to suspect your motivation for the presentation of this thread, most of your post is assumptions with no basis in fact.


As much as i respect your opinion, your fellow truther peers will call you a disinformation government paid agent.

Why? Because you are proposing a nuclear device was used to bring down the towers.

All i can say is... i havent heard that one before.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 



when the trade centers were built, the engineers were having trouble with how they would take those towers down when they had reached their life cycle. All the engineers agreed that a controlled demolition would NOT bring those towers down, so they had the basements dug deeper than normal, and, they made plans that a NUCLEAR charge would have to be used to bring then down. this demolition plan is in the original building plans.


I'm sure that I am not the only one who would like to see you post credible verification of this . Please enlighten us , and try not to rely solely upon statements made by the Russian or some truther site .



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


So you are suggesting the US couldn't neutralize passenger Jets? The US uses more money on defense than all nations combined in the world, and it couldn't neutralize passenger Jets?



I'm not that naive.

Interesting perspective non-the-less.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


Right except if you look at the video You clearly dont see floors pancaking one atop of the other, but EXPLODING floor by floor. And the building comes down at nearly freefall speed too in 10 sec. If one floor had to be taken out by the other, then it would have taken longer to come down, because energy gets used up to take out the floors. And the central column wasnt standing either.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Loosely on topic, hopefully.

I very, very rarely weigh in on the 9-1-1 threads. The reason being is that it seems very obvious in my opinion that the entire 'conspiracy' here would more likely be the aftermath of anti-US sentiment that the event caused.

In other words, making people disbelieve the official story and the actual events is where the diabolical part comes into play. A very sophisticated conspiracy to encourage chaos and confusion amongst the US populace by using disinformation tactics to imply the US government was involved.

Has that view even been discussed in these forums?

The question is sincere, as damaged US credibility has certainly resulted. Which should raise flags when viewed in retrospect-----if one were to consider the US was actually attacked by external enemies.

Anyway, just pondering.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
Loosely on topic, hopefully.

I very, very rarely weigh in on the 9-1-1 threads. The reason being is that it seems very obvious in my opinion that the entire 'conspiracy' here would more likely be the aftermath of anti-US sentiment that the event caused.

In other words, making people disbelieve the official story and the actual events is where the diabolical part comes into play. A very sophisticated conspiracy to encourage chaos and confusion amongst the US populace by using disinformation tactics to imply the US government was involved.

Has that view even been discussed in these forums?

The question is sincere, as damaged US credibility has certainly resulted. Which should raise flags when viewed in retrospect-----if one were to consider the US was actually attacked by external enemies.

Anyway, just pondering.



I would say that our enemy has it easy. They dont even need spies, we have them right here!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
"IF , that is what NIST says , which I don't know if it's true as I have not read it but , IF that's what it says then I disagree with it and find it absolutely ABSURD to claim that HUNDREDS of tons of steel slamming into 7 would be "insignificant"."

How exactly do you know that "hundreds of tons of steel" slammed into WTC 7? Did you get that information from the NIST report you have admitted to not reading?


Below is a link to the NIST report and a summary on the WTC Building 7 collapse. Guess what? No mention of how many tons of steel slammed into WTC 7. Maybe this information is contained within the body of the NIST report. Since you're so sure of how much steel slammed into WTC 7, maybe you can read the report and see if your buddies at NIST were able to verify the information you provided. We'll be anxiously awaiting what you have to report.

www.nist.gov...

"The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety study found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

NIST also states:

"While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event,"

Actually, the total collapse of a tall steel framed building due to fires is beyond rare, since it has never happened before. Obviously, NIST not only plays around with computer models to suit a criminal agenda, they play around with words also. What a bunch of morons!

And by the way, check out the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Website

wtc.nist.gov...

"The NIST web site or page you are trying to reach is down because of system maintenance. Please check back later. Thank You."

Maybe we should return the favor and do an analysis as to why their website has collapsed.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Clark Savage Jr.
 



In other words, making people disbelieve the official story and the actual events is where the diabolical part comes into play. A very sophisticated conspiracy to encourage chaos and confusion amongst the US populace by using disinformation tactics to imply the US government was involved.


You hit the nail on the head , in my opinion . It's actually brilliant , if you think about it . Attack America , then convince the American people that their gov was involved . Get Americans fighting amongst themselves while cursing their government . Get foreign dignitaries to also claim 'inside-job' , create anti-American sentiment globally , and kick a dog while it's down .

It amazes me how many on this board cheered when Iran's President made his little speech . Now , that makes him one of the 'good-guys' , all of a sudden .

I am literally perplexed at the number of anti-American posts that are authored by Americans .



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
IF , that is what NIST says , which I don't know if it's true as I have not read it but , IF that's what it says then I disagree with it and find it absolutely ABSURD to claim that HUNDREDS of tons of steel slamming into 7 would be "insignificant" .

This is ludicrous to the point that it sounds like something the TM would fabricate .

What's more ludicrous is your baseless accusation. The truth movement wouldn't be very truthful if it just fabricated things, now would it?

Fire Engineering .com Even quotes NIST as saying what I just posted. About the 7th paragraph from the bottom.

And as I've stated numerous times, NIST says at the beginning of their report that it can't be used as evidence in a court of law. NIST used guesses and theories to make up their report. None of it can be taken as factual. So yes you, and everyone else should disagree with their report. Just like 1300+ Architects and Engineers disagree with their report as well.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join