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.

 

Problem with 911 conspiracy may be because most don't care?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So I guess we finally have an answer! You sincerely believe yourself to either be smarter than everyone else in the world, or they are lying about what they know.

Incredible.





posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So I guess we finally have an answer! You sincerely believe yourself to either be smarter than everyone else in the world, or they are lying about what they know.

Incredible.



So let's see you come up with a link for something as simple as the weight of a floor assembly.

Let's see you build a self supporting model that can completely collapse besides some house of cards nonsense.

And how is it that you think it is EVERYBODY. You just need to change the subject from physics to an Ego Game. The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about anybody's ego or any nation.

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of buildings designed before 1969. Like the only 3 skyscrapers that have ever collapsed did it on the same day in the same place and one was not hit by an airliner. It is just incredible that anybody buys that story at all. The power of indoctrination.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So I guess we finally have an answer! You sincerely believe yourself to either be smarter than everyone else in the world, or they are lying about what they know.

Incredible.



So let's see you come up with a link for something as simple as the weight of a floor assembly.


The weight of the floors were laregely irrelevent. It's the amount of weight each floor could hold up is what the central issue is.

I don't know but I've been told by one of the conspiracy people here...no, I don't know where he got it from...that each floor was strong enough to hold up four times its own weight. Go ahead and say it could hold up six times its own weight, for arguments sake. The planes hit at the ninety somethingth floor, and with a 110 story building that necessarily means that at the initial point of collapse, that floor was being hit with at least TEN times its own weight...and that's just static weight. I'm not a physicist but I know the momentum from a moving mass will hit a stationary mass with even more weight than that. Thus, it's absurd to expect a floor that can hold four to six times its own weight will be able to hold up ten-twenty times its own weight. The next floor down would therefore be hit with even MORE weight (the initial section of falling building plus the floor that just started falling after being hit), and so on all the way down the building.

Your beef isn't how much each floor weighs or even how much weight each floor can hold. Your beef is whether the fires can cause that first floor to collapse, because once it began collapsing, the design of the building dictated that it was going to fall the way we all saw it fall.

Thus, another reason why there's a problem with the 9/11 conspiracy- you're required to calculate out all sorts of intricate mathematics to find the hidden evidence of your supposed conspiracy...and you don't want to do it while we don't want to listen to it.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Your beef isn't how much each floor weighs or even how much weight each floor can hold. Your beef is whether the fires can cause that first floor to collapse, because once it began collapsing, the design of the building dictated that it was going to fall the way we all saw it fall.

Thus, another reason why there's a problem with the 9/11 conspiracy- you're required to calculate out all sorts of intricate mathematics to find the hidden evidence of your supposed conspiracy...and you don't want to do it while we don't want to listen to it.


And when the top floors collapsed onto the "intact" floors below, they should have met with quite a lot of resistance before those lower floors also collapsed..
But they didn't.!!
The lower 90 floors did not slow down the collapse much at all..
That's a problem Dave..



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
And when the top floors collapsed onto the "intact" floors below, they should have met with quite a lot of resistance before those lower floors also collapsed..
But they didn't.!!
The lower 90 floors did not slow down the collapse much at all..
That's a problem Dave..



Why is that? No floor contributed to the support of any other floor. They were all of the exact same structure- a flat concrete donut held in air between the inner core columns and the external perimeter. Whatever would defeat one floor would be able to defeat every other floor.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Why is that? No floor contributed to the support of any other floor. They were all of the exact same structure- a flat concrete donut held in air between the inner core columns and the external perimeter. Whatever would defeat one floor would be able to defeat every other floor.


Probably, but it would impede the collapse atleast a little as each floor gave way..
Even if only for a quarter of a second..
That didn't happen!!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So let's see you come up with a link for something as simple as the weight of a floor assembly.


Why? You obviously believe that there is some magic distribution number whereupon the collapse as seen by millions on 9/11 was not possible. So what is that magic number? You give me that number first. The ratio where 9/11 is not possible. You MUST have it. Otherwise you couldn't say the things you do.


Let's see you build a self supporting model that can completely collapse besides some house of cards nonsense.

Don't know a building model that can't collapse - except one - and thats called a solid.


And how is it that you think it is EVERYBODY. You just need to change the subject from physics to an Ego Game. The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about anybody's ego or any nation.


You are the one claiming to be smarter than everyone else on earth - either that or they are all lying. Thats your EGO at work.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
It's not that people don't care, but it's that we simply can't do anything feasible about it.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The weight of the floors were laregely irrelevent. It's the amount of weight each floor could hold up is what the central issue is.


Didn't the designers have to decide on the maximum load? Didn't that affect the design of the floor? How thick to make the rebar? How close the trusses had to be?

So isn't it absurd that the information isn't readily available and often encountered regardless of how important or unimportant some people think it is? It whether the building was 110 stories or 109 stories important to the collapse? But we see that information all of the time.

Oh yeah, they wouldn't have collapsed if they were 109 stories.

The NCSTAR1 report tells us the tons of luggage in the airliners. We needed to know that too didn't we?

psik
edit on 3-1-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So let's see you come up with a link for something as simple as the weight of a floor assembly.


Why? You obviously believe that there is some magic distribution number whereupon the collapse as seen by millions on 9/11 was not possible. So what is that magic number? You give me that number first. The ratio where 9/11 is not possible. You MUST have it. Otherwise you couldn't say the things you do.


No I think a total collapse was IMPOSSIBLE for any skyscraper. They need to PROVE an airliner could do that. So leaving out any simple information on the construction of the towers is absurd. I think all of the people that believe airliners could do what we see in those videos are IDIOTS. That required far too much energy. But we don't even get the layout of the horizontal beams in the core. Was the layout the same on every level? Only two elevator shafts ran the entire length of the buildings and other shafts were different lengths so there could have been horizontal beams in some places on some levels where they could not be on others because they would interfere with elevator shaft. So that would affect the total amount of steel on that level.

So why don't we have such simple information and yet be expected to believe that an UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF STEEL on the 81st level of the south tower which HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH to support 29 stories for 29 years could suddenly give completely away in less than one hour of fire after an airliner impact when some say the fuselage missed the core?

So DUMMIES that can believe don't need information. Well that is their problem.

Let's see one of them build a self supporting model that can be collapsed by the top 15% of its own mass and not any idiotic house of cards crap.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

An interesting test might be done with dominos.

Everyone has seen those videos that show one domino initiating a collapse of ten million dominos layed out in an elaborate pattern. Based on that, one could say that it is obvious that if even one floor of the WTC collapsed, all the floors would collapse in a chain reaction. But of course the dominos, unlike the floors of the WTC are not connected to anything. They are just free standing.

My test would be to take a block that weighed the equivalent of 25 dominos and collapse that onto one domino lined up with 84 other dominos and see if all 85 dominos collapsed. But here's the interesting part. With scissors or an Xacto knife, one would cut out tiny pieces of double sided tape and stick them onto one end of each domino and then stick each of them to a table or counter-top with the tape, so that there would be the sticky force of the tape holding each domino upright.

This is not a precisely calibrated test, but it is close enough to simulate the sort of situation presented by the WTC, a building that debunkers often assert was very flimsy.

I personally believe that the heavy block would not knock down all the dominos. If I weren't so "tin cup in the street" poor, I would put money on it.


edit on 3-1-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I agree it boggles my mind that so many accept what is offered without question. Griff a long time poster here complained that the technical drawings were never made available in order to test the veracity of computer models. So once again the critical information to test is for the "experts" only.

Also the thing that always bothered me was the symetry of all 3 collapses. I cannot buy that sorry. All the beams give way at the same time???



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by xsheep
The truth of 9/11 is just to big and ugly to be look at by Mr and Mrs average cornflake
because it would blow their tiny little minds away.

normal re-action when speaking with someone about it >>>

" don't tell me, cos it hurts me head "


The real "truth" of the matter is that Mr and Mrs Cornflake are way too busy dealing the reality of 9/11 and a thousand other problems and don't have time to listen to every conspiracy theory about every major event in the last 100 years.

.......................................................................................................................
Hooper wrote

The real "truth" of the matter is that Mr and Mrs Cornflake are way too busy dealing the reality of 9/11 and a thousand other problems
and don't have time to listen to every conspiracy theory about every major event in the last 100 years.
...........................................................................................................................





Hooper...do you have to use that worn out 9/11 conspiracy label.. again... and again... and again ...and again....and again..... why not go get yourself an aspirin instead ...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
oh well, it has been 10 years now. It is either you believe in it or not believe in it at this point. There is no point of arguing as everything that needed to be said has been said and all have been discussed.

The likely thing is that 10 years from now, in year 2021, even I probably would not even care either. (assuming life goes on) Even now in 2011, I have moved on.....

In 2021, what would you guys think??



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Probably, but it would impede the collapse atleast a little as each floor gave way..
Even if only for a quarter of a second..
That didn't happen!!


Said who, exactly? You forget that as the structural failure made its way down the building, the collapsing section became increasingly heavier due to the weight of all the previously failed floors being added to it. This means each intact floor in turn became that much less able to resist the force slamming down on it, so if anything, the collapse would have become faster. I suppose mathematicially you can prove a trailer truck can be slowed down by a sheet of paper, but it certainly won't be not enough to make any practical difference.

Did it ever occur to you that the problem isn't that "most don't care." The problem is that to find evidence of some sinister hidden conspiracy you need to resort to calculating tensile strengh, weight to mass rations and other hard core physics that for most people, go in one ear and out the other. The question therefore is, is this genuinely doing research or is it grasping at straws in desperation?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The weight of the floors were laregely irrelevent. It's the amount of weight each floor could hold up is what the central issue is.


Didn't the designers have to decide on the maximum load? Didn't that affect the design of the floor? How thick to make the rebar? How close the trusses had to be?

So isn't it absurd that the information isn't readily available and often encountered regardless of how important or unimportant some people think it is? It whether the building was 110 stories or 109 stories important to the collapse? But we see that information all of the time.


I never said the information wasn't available. The problem is that it's so esoteric that you'll need to look it up. Yes, YOU need to look it up, since I really don't care enough to get into that microscopic level of examination. Not even you can deny that most people want to know who was responsible for the attack and how they got away with it, not how close the trusses had to be or how thick the rebar was. If THIS is what you demand "people should care about" then you might as well pack it in now.

The fact of the matter is, however you slice and dice the numbers it's a fact of physics that a support rated to resist X amount of weight will fail if subjected to X+1 amount of weight. The "straw that broke the camel's back" principle necessarily needs to apply to your conspiracy theories just as it applies to everyone else. I was quoted by one of your fellow conspiracy theorists here that the floor could support 4X its own weight, and it was hit with at least 10X its own weight. If you can prove any of this to be incorrect, please do so.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Why should people care about 9/11 when they enjoy getting it up the anal cavity? In fact, they're even asking for more, since once wasn't enough. As for the dirtbag debunkers who work for this site, I hope the pay and the pat on the back is worth it for you. It's lowlife scum like you that will be the first to be thrown to the fire when the SHTF.


The pay is GREAT! and I am officially in charge of the fire.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



... STEEL on the 81st level of the south tower which HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH to support 29 stories ...


How many more times do you have to be told this , until you stop spamming these threads with this nonsense ?

The steel on the 81st level DID NOT support the 82nd level , the 83rd level , nor any other level . What part of that do you not understand ?

The core columns and the perimeter columns supported each level independently of every other level . Why do you persist in this utter nonsense ?

This has been explained to you , numerous times .



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



No I think a total collapse was IMPOSSIBLE for any skyscraper.

Ergo, construction details are meaningless.

They need to PROVE an airliner could do that.

If you haven't picked this up by now I really don't know if you ever will, but the airliner did not do "that". The impact, explosion and fire from the airliner started a process which ultimately resulted in the full collapse of the strucutres.

So leaving out any simple information on the construction of the towers is absurd.

And since you have already determined, with absolute certainity that it was IMPOSSIBLE while fulling admitting that you do not have those details, it is equally absurd to provide them.

I think all of the people that believe airliners could do what we see in those videos are IDIOTS.

There's that ego at work again. Everyone else bbut you is an idiot.

That required far too much energy.

Care to put some numbers to that?

But we don't even get the layout of the horizontal beams in the core. Was the layout the same on every level? Only two elevator shafts ran the entire length of the buildings and other shafts were different lengths so there could have been horizontal beams in some places on some levels where they could not be on others because they would interfere with elevator shaft. So that would affect the total amount of steel on that level.

What do you care? Remember - you have already determined that it was impossible!

So why don't we have such simple information and yet be expected to believe that an UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF STEEL on the 81st level of the south tower which HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH to support 29 stories for 29 years could suddenly give completely away in less than one hour of fire after an airliner impact when some say the fuselage missed the core?

Wow, you really don't get it do you? The 81st floor was not the foundation for all the floors above it. The structure of that floor simply had to include structral elements of sufficient strenght to transfer the load to its ultimate resting place, the foundation anchored to the earth.

So DUMMIES that can believe don't need information. Well that is their problem.

You have clearly stated, without the benefit of information, that it was impossible. Therefore....

Let's see one of them build a self supporting model that can be collapsed by the top 15% of its own mass and not any idiotic house of cards crap.

In other words, you don't want to see anything that proves you are wrong. I get it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join