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.

 

Who defends the 911 comission/Nist report

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
All doctors in a healthcare field get a basic education, then they specialize at least it works that way here. With the many factors involved you would want a wide field of expertise. Herrit is a chemist for example.
edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Correct, a basic education. But once again, let's expand on that. Would you trust a heart surgeon to diagnose a brain tumor? Would you trust a foot doctor to diagnose pancreatic cancer in you? What about a dentist giving a rectal exam? Why not? They all have a "basic" education. I sure as hell wouldnt want a dentist, a foot doctor, and a urologist trying to diagnose brain cancer. Would you?

That is what A&E911 is. A motley collection of people with different backgrounds, that when looked at closely, have no real relevance to understanding the complexities behind the engineering feats of the WTCs, and their collapses. A home interior designer is not going to get you anywhere in trying to understand the design complexity of the WTC Towers. A mining engineer is going to have what "specialty" to bring to the WTC debate? How to tunnel under the towers? What specialty does a THEOLOGAN have in commenting on the designs and complexity of the WTC, and the collapses? Or an engineer who uses BOXES to simulate a building that has a tube-in-tube design with light steel trusses being used as floors? You think they are all valid? Also, how do we know that the makers of AE911 didnt use a few tricks when asking people to sign up or join? Its happened before.




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Yes those wicked ae911 guys and their hidden agenda



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by okbmd
 
The BBC reporting building 7 coming down before it did proves my point.
The reporter in New York and the guy back in London BOTH reported building seven collapsing at least 20 minutes before it came down.
That`s no accident......it was fed to them.
Why some people don`t see anything strange in that is beyond me.

You are quite right in that it was fed to them. They were in fact reporting off a telegram from Reuters who claimed that the WTC7 building had collapsed. Hell, watch the clip and you can even see the reporter open up with "Reports are very sketchy", which would suggest she didn't have many facts to go on.

ETA: Mind you, it had been known most of the afternoon that WTC7 would collapse at some point, so someone along the line thought it had and reported it as such.
edit on 8-1-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Yes , as well as the intell agencies .

By a group of hardcore muslim extremists , who succeeded in hijacking commercial airliners and using them as weapons of mass destruction .

Hmmm , fancy that ... nothing like getting caught with your pants down ...


How did Muslim extremists manage to set up the buildings for controlled demolition?

No plane hit WTC 7 and it landed in it's own footprint, as evidence by the photograph of all four outer walls sitting ON TOP of the rest of the demolished building, an impossibility from a natural collapse.

If the government was duped it wasn't by Muslim extremists.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by ANOK
 



There is only one way all four outer walls can end up ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building.


No , this fallacy has been proven wrong to you in these threads more than once . You only persist in repeating this mantra due to a biased perception of reality .


NO it has not been proved wrong, please show me how?

Can you not see the outer walls in this pic?



Don't lie now. How else could the outer walls end up ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building?

Where IS your debunking?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Really ? Someone should relay this to those entities who have sat on them for years .


What 'entities'?


What is the purpose of disarmament , if that is the case ?


Disarmament of who?


Or , were you referring to the terrorists who acquired airplanes and used them as WMD ? In that case then , yes , you are correct . They used them immediately .




If a terrorist group was able to get hold of a WMD it would be stupid to hold on to it. The longer they hold on to it the more chance they'll get caught with it and not be able to use it. They would have no reason to wait. It would have been in their best interest to use them immediately.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Yes those wicked ae911 guys and their hidden agenda


Yeah, gee, "Give me money to spread the word about 9/11"!

Hidden agendas? Well for starters, what do you call it when they post a string of lies, misconceptions, innuendos, and such on the first page? And rather than changing the false parts, they leave them up, even when shown to be false. I dont get it. Whats their agenda?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
double post!! woops!
edit on 1/8/2011 by GenRadek because: Its a conspiracy I tell ya!



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Correct, a basic education.

That is what A&E911 is. A motley collection of people with different backgrounds, that when looked at closely, have no real relevance to understanding the complexities behind the engineering feats of the WTCs, and their collapses. A home interior designer is not going to get you anywhere in trying to understand the design complexity of the WTC Towers. A mining engineer is going to have what "specialty" to bring to the WTC debate? How to tunnel under the towers?


We have this pretense of complexity in a world filled with computers.

We don't tell everyone that the computers are all von Neumann machines. Understand that and lots of other stuff falls into place.

The skyscrapers have mass that must be held up against gravity. A mining engineer is going to know that the deeper he goes the more weight he has to support. The farther down a skyscraper you go the more weight has to be supported. The mining engineer doesn't have the wind load problems but the idea that the mining engineer doesn't understand that is TOTALLY ABSURD. You think knowledge fits into boxes with labels when actually different aspects of physics blend into each other and the labels are merely a communications convenience.

Grade school kids should laugh at the United States for expecting them to believe airliners could TOTALLY DESTROY buildings that BIG that FAST without specifying the distributions of steel and concrete.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

Some people just try to talk other people into being stupid.

The problem is it works too all often but it has never been tried on something this big and obvious on so many people. In a way it is a psychologically interesting experiment. Are psychologists and psychiatrists that cannot comprehend Newtonian physics INSANE?

psik



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Spam much ?

The blueprints for the North Tower have been available online for years now . If you were really interested in the distribution of concrete and steel , you would have found this by now .

For the record , I even offered to help you calculate this . You simply scoffed at me .

The information is available , so stop pretending that it isn't . Stop waiting for someone else to do the math for you , it's not that complicated .



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Can you not see the outer walls in this pic?


Yes , I see portions of the facade , but ONLY portions .

WTC 7 was roughly 610 feet tall , 330 feet long , and 143 feet wide . So , let's see ... that would mean that there was roughly 577,060 square feet of surface area representing the facade , or outer walls .

To be fair , WTC 7 was configured in a trapezoidal shape so , I will allow for a moderate deduction in this calculation .

This still would leave us looking at roughly 500,000 square feet of outer walls .

Now , are you going to tell me that you see a half-million square feet of wall structure on top of that pile ?

No , you do not . Therefore , your claim that all four wall structures landed on top of the pile is false .

SOME of the wall structure landed on top of the pile , not ALL of it .

Your assertion that it fell into it's own footprint is also negated by the fact that the Verizon building , as well as Fiterman Hall , incurred substantial damage from the collapse of WTC 7 .
edit on 9-1-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


sure dave, take the craziest truther out there, someone who is probably a plant, and someone that NO ONE on this board supports. There is not a single credible person here who thinks mini nukes or directed energy weapons were used. I understand that these underhanded tactics may make your uphill fight feel easier, but if anything it just takes away from your credibility.

Your tactics are getting very old and obvious.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


You are giving him too much credit. I dont think he is some kind of agent. He just feels better telling himself that truthers are just people who believe in spacebeam weapons.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


It is funny because the NIST report yelled "controlled demolitions" when it said #7 fell at free fall speed. Did no one see that?
Go read the report and you will see there mistake in admitting that building 7 fell at a free fall speed and thats only possible if you use demolitions or if um... like the bottom of the building just disappeared.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Yes , I see portions of the facade , but ONLY portions.


If the collapse was natural there would be NO outer walls on top of the debris pile.

BTW those are pretty huge 'portions'. What they are is the upper sections that you see tilt inwards towards the end of the collapse sequence (what some claim is the building leaning west).


WTC 7 was roughly 610 feet tall , 330 feet long , and 143 feet wide . So , let's see ... that would mean that there was roughly 577,060 square feet of surface area representing the facade , or outer walls .


Regardless it is impossible for the outer walls to end up on top of the debris pile as that would mean the walls defied physics. As we have already BOTH concluded implosion demolition is the most difficult to achieve yet now you want me to believe that it's possible from a natural collapse. Again the debunkers contradict themselves.


To be fair , WTC 7 was configured in a trapezoidal shape so , I will allow for a moderate deduction in this calculation .


What has the shape of the building have to do with it? Since when did a buildings shape allow it to defy physics?


This still would leave us looking at roughly 500,000 square feet of outer walls .


Huh? Where did you pull that wild guess from?


Now , are you going to tell me that you see a half-million square feet of wall structure on top of that pile ?

No , you do not . Therefore , your claim that all four wall structures landed on top of the pile is false .

SOME of the wall structure landed on top of the pile , not ALL of it .


OH dear once again there should have been NONE of it ON TOP of the collapsed building. That is not possible unless the collapse was an implosion demolition, other wise the walls would be on the BOTTOM of the rest of the collapsed building.


Your assertion that it fell into it's own footprint is also negated by the fact that the Verizon building , as well as Fiterman Hall , incurred substantial damage from the collapse of WTC 7 .


Oh dear no it doesn't. The MAJORITY of the building landed in it's own footprint evidence by all four wall being on top of the debris pile. NO, I repeat NO implosion demolition is perfect. In the real world those other buildings would have been covered to protect them.

Also no other building as tall as WTC 7 has ever been implosion demolished, so there is nothing to compare with for how much the debris would spread outside of its footprint. But guaranteed a building that tall is going to spread some of its debris outside its footprint. But to have a building mimic an implosion demolition from fire and asymmetrical damage is impossible. For all the outer walls, any amount of, to be ON TOP of the rest of the building takes a collapse sequence that is just not possible unless it's controlled.
edit on 1/9/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



so there is nothing to compare with for how much the debris would spread outside of its footprint.


Exactly . So why do you persist with your incredulous argument ? You admit no other 47 - storey building has ever been imploded , thereby excluding the possibility that you have ever witnessed what the debris field of such an implosion should look like , while at the same time you argue about what the debris field should NOT look like .


Do you not see the fallacy within such an argument ?

What should the debris field look like after the implosion of a 47 - storey building ? Seeing that you admit that you have nothing to show in the way of comparison , why would anyone believe that you should know what the debris field should look like ?

What should the debris field of an imploded 47-storey building NOT look like ? How do you know what it should NOT look like , while not even knowing what it SHOULD look like ? Therefore , you can not legitimately say WTC7 looks like what the implosion of a 47-storey building would look like , because you honestly don't know what it should have looked like . You have nothing to prove your argument , as you admit .


If the collapse was natural there would be NO outer walls on top of the debris pile.


You have no way of knowing this , as I have just shown .

I'll say it again , your argument holds no merit . As I have now proven . Again


Where IS your debunking?


The above is just one of many ways that your claim has been "debunked" .
edit on 9-1-2011 by okbmd because: eta



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
What should the debris field look like after the implosion of a 47 - storey building ? Seeing that you admit that you have nothing to show in the way of comparison , why would anyone believe that you should know what the debris field should look like ?


There is no fallacy in my argument. It's not about knowing what the debris field should look like.

You have yet to address the actual physics I presented that proves the outer walls can not be on top of the debris pile in an uncontrolled collapse.

The whole point of controlled implosion demolition is to land the majority of the building in its footprint. This is done by forcing the outer walls to fall inwards by dropping the middle of the building first. Unless that is done the outer walls will fall to the path of least resistance, outwards as the rest of the building falls behind and over them.


Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

WTC shows all the characteristics needed, the 'penthouse kink', the one wall we see in that vid falling west into the center of the building.

There is no other way that can happen. If you know a way you should contact Demolition.Inc for a job.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



There is no fallacy in my argument. It's not about knowing what the debris field should look like.

You not only do not know what they should look like, you have not proven that you know what they did look like. You have continually presented one photo among 1000's of the mess at ground zero and stated that this is the total consist of the debris.


You have yet to address the actual physics I presented that proves the outer walls can not be on top of the debris pile in an uncontrolled collapse.

Because you have yet to present any evidence that this was the case.


The whole point of controlled implosion demolition is to land the majority of the building in its footprint.

No its not. The whole idea of "controlled demolition" is to be in control of the collapse. Specifically the time. Footprint is simply an option based on conditions.


This is done by forcing the outer walls to fall inwards by dropping the middle of the building first. Unless that is done the outer walls will fall to the path of least resistance, outwards as the rest of the building falls behind and over them.

In that particluar case it is done by removing internal structural members. In the case of the WTC that would have been the core columns. Which were still standing after the external walls had hit the ground. Its so funny, one person looks at the photos and videos of the walls and structures falling out and away from the building and cries "explosives - controlled demolition" and then you claim because it came straight down - controlled demolition.


Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Its not "skill", its called engineering. And after almost a decade not one truther has been able to present an engineering drawing showing where and how much explosives would be needed to reproduce what was witnessed by millions on 9/11.


Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

No blasters follow the engineers directions. See above.


WTC shows all the characteristics needed, the 'penthouse kink', the one wall we see in that vid falling west into the center of the building.

No it doesn't. Its as simple as that.


There is no other way that can happen.

Really? Prove it.


If you know a way you should contact Demolition.Inc for a job.

Will do, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they are well aware of the hundreds of different ways a building can collapse without the aid of explosives.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join