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.

 

9/11 Eye Witness: I Watched A Few Of Them (Bombs) Explode!

page: 5
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Take whatever weight you want..
Still doesn't come close to the equivalent amount of explosives you same guys said it would take to bring down the towers..


Citation needed.

I'll wait.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Funny how not one of the other buildings that burnt and had incredible damage to them fell, i guess that is just another truster coincidence !!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Funny how not one of the other buildings that burnt and had incredible damage to them fell, i guess that is just another truster coincidence !!


Center of gravity. The lower a building is, the more stable it is.

Really simple.

Take a 2x4 1 foot long, and stand it on end. You may be able to stand it on end.

Now, take a 2x4, 12 feet long, and try to stand it on end. MUCH more difficult, right?

Things that are short, are much more stable.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Take whatever weight you want..
Still doesn't come close to the equivalent amount of explosives you same guys said it would take to bring down the towers..


I don't recall anyone saying a specific amount of explosives would be required to bring down a wtc tower. Can you direct me to someone saying this ?

As I said before, it depends where and the degree of subsequent fire.

But an initial impact of 2000 sticks of dynamite is not to be sneezed at. One stick would demolish your house.

And then we have 10,000 gallons of jet fuel which equates to a staggering 1422,000,000,000 joules of energy. Representing many more thousands and thousands of sticks of dynamite.

Why do I have this feeling that if we said impact and fuel equalled 100 megatons you would still be croaking not enough.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Funny how not one of the other buildings that burnt and had incredible damage to them fell, i guess that is just another truster coincidence !!


Center of gravity. The lower a building is, the more stable it is.

Really simple.

Take a 2x4 1 foot long, and stand it on end. You may be able to stand it on end.

Now, take a 2x4, 12 feet long, and try to stand it on end. MUCH more difficult, right?

Things that are short, are much more stable.



Then burn the top of it and see if it pulverizes the rest of the wood to the base without falling over.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by pshea38
 


Do you not see the hypocracy in exhorting everyone to " Doubt every single thing " and you then proceed to post this nonsense as fact " aluminium planes cannot penetrate thick steel girders, no matter how fast they are travelling. "

Pity kamikaze pilots didn't realise they would bounce off steel ships and please don't fire a soft lead bullet at a tin (steel) can because it will bounce right back at you.



no i do not see the hypocracy. the planes would have had to travel at multiple times the speed of sound to have had enough kinetic energy to penetrate the outer columns.
kamikaze pilots did for the most part bounce off the steel ships, whose thickness was nowhere near that of the twin tower outer columns. and what thickness steel can or tin can are you talking about. i am sure(though i have never fired a gun) that the lead bullet will not penetrate cans beyond a certain minimal thickness.
can you explain why a plane can leave its silhouette through thick steel columns(twin towers) but not through concrete walls(pentagon)?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Can you point me to a single member of FDNY who believes there were bombs in the WTC?

I'll wait.




Self delusion is a powerful mechanism, especially if one thinks their own government may be responsible for large scale terrorism. Your friends in the FDNY that were there that day may have initially believed that bombs were in the building, but after they came to realize the implications of that possibility, they quickly blocked it out of their mind.

On the day of the incident, if you asked them, they would have plainly agreed that bombs were present, as we can see by the video.

But later, after reflecting on the implications, they have all convinced themselves that such bombs must not have existed.

The people of Germany deluded themselves into thinking a lone nut burned down the Reichstag.

Of course, we know with total certainty that our government engaged in sanctioned terrorism with the USS Liberty incident and the Golf of Tonkin.

The idea that the government blew up these towers to start another couple of wars is more reasonable than thinking 19 idiots with box cutters destroyed 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes.




The government is not your friend.



edit on 28-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by pshea38
 



aluminium planes can not penetrate thick steel girders, no matter how fast they are travelling.


Do you have even an educated guess , as to how thick the steel was at the points of impact ? In addition , the perimeter of the towers were not constructed of "steel girders" . The perimeter was constructed of box-columns , and at the points of impact , those columns were not as thick as you have assumed . Care to guess how thick the steel was at those points ?


i said girders instead of columns. my guess is 1 to 1.5 inches.

-thought experiment(as i read somewhere)

imagine a stationary plane in mid-air.
now imagine one of the towers being picked up and swung at 500mph(imposssible speed for plane to reach flying so low btw) and brought to collide with the stationary plane.
what do you think would happen? i think i can guess.
remember the physics are equivalent, irrelevent of whether the plane or the building is stationary.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



The idea that they blew up these towers to start another couple of wars is more reasonable than thinking 19 idiots with box cutters destroyed 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes.


Idiots? When were they declared idiots?

But I guess its easier to believe that secret government gnomes knowingly but secretly wired two of the largest buildings on Earth and then timed there intiation exactly with the collision of two planes.

Yeah, thats much more rational.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



The idea that they blew up these towers to start another couple of wars is more reasonable than thinking 19 idiots with box cutters destroyed 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes.


Idiots? When were they declared idiots?

But I guess its easier to believe that secret government gnomes knowingly but secretly wired two of the largest buildings on Earth and then timed there intiation exactly with the collision of two planes.

Yeah, thats much more rational.


Why would it be easier to believe government did it?

I face scorn, ridicule, rejection, and hostility for believing our own government attacked us.


edit on 28-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by pshea38
aluminium planes can not penetrate thick steel girders, no matter how fast they are travelling.


Really? How can water and sand cut steel? Water and sand are just loose particles.

How do avalanches work?

Maybe this guy is wrong?


How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center

T. Wierzbicki, and X. Teng
Department of Ocean Engineering, Impact & Crashworthiness Laboratory,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Room 5-218 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA

I left the contact information for you, so that if you want, you may contact them.



water and sand can cut steel by being concentrated into extremely high velocity, ultra thin streams.
what do you mean by asking me how avalanches work?
i dont think i will be contacting these guys but i will look them up and see what they have to say.
if you are talking to them, ask them the question i asked above. why will a plane leave its silhouette through thick steel columns(twin towers) and not through concrete walls(pentagon)?

one more thing. why do you think that the popular tv show Mythbusters, on their website, say that they will not entertain requests regarding any 9/11 myths. i think i can guess why..



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1




Wonderful. Now, lets look at the testimonies that they gave to the FDNY Task Force.

They can be found here.
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Nowhere in any of the sworn testimonies does anyone actually say that they believe bombs were in the building. I challenge you to find some.



Originally posted by mnemeth1
Self delusion is a powerful mechanism, especially if one thinks their own government may be responsible for large scale terrorism.


Yeah. So, all the members of FDNY are suffering from delusion? Not hardly. Let me give you a little insight as to how quick the members of the fire service are to rasing concerns.

For instance, our radios. They were crap. Half the department couldn't talk to the other half, and were prone to not working at all.

Feel free to google "FDNY radio problems" and see what I mean. It's not a secret that FDNY firefighters will raise a stink if something is going to get firefighters killed, or has caused firefighters' deaths.

Now, how many of FDNY members are part of the "Truth" movement.

Not. One.
But, using your logic, we're all suffering from delusions.




Originally posted by mnemeth1
Your friends in the FDNY that were there that day may have initially believed that bombs were in the building, but after they came to realize the implications of that possibility, they quickly blocked it out of their mind.


Can anyone name that logical fallacy?

It's called a False Dichotomy. You have only given one extreme possibility. When in fact, there are plenty of others. Like, maybe they don't believe there were bombs because they came to the conclusion that if it were bombs, there would have been a MUCH louder boom, and it would have been recorded on HUNDREDS of devices. Or maybe they were......Using a similie? Or how about hyperbole?

Yeah, that COULDN'T be it.



Originally posted by mnemeth1

On the day of the incident, if you asked them, they would have plainly agreed that bombs were present, as we can see by the video.


Yepo, we can clearly see that you do not understand similies or hyperbole.


Originally posted by mnemeth1

But later, after reflecting on the implications, they have all convinced themselves that such bombs must not have existed.


Yeah, all 1200 or so firefighters that were there, all have convinced themselves there were not bombs....




Originally posted by mnemeth1

The people of Germany deluded themselves into thinking a lone nut burned down the Reichstag.

Of course, we know with total certainty that our government engaged in sanctioned terrorism with the USS Liberty incident and the Golf of Tonkin.


Ok. Off topic, and not even worth discussing.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
The idea that the government blew up these towers to start another couple of wars is more reasonable than thinking 19 idiots with box cutters destroyed 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes.


Right. So you're saying that 19 people would not hijack 4 planes? Use Occum's razor to figure that one out.

Which one is more simple.

Hijack planes
Crash planes.

Or

Hijack planes
plan explosives
fake radar
fake ATC recordings
Fake phone calls from planes
etc. etc. etc.



Originally posted by mnemeth1
The government is not your friend.


It pays my bills every month, so it's cool.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Actually there are quite a few firefighters that don't believe the government's lies.

firefightersfor911truth.org...

Further, I addressed why the sworn testimony differs from the interviews collected shortly after the events took place.

Further, the recorded testimony may be hand picked to provide the information the State wants, rather than a real cross section of fighter fighters views on the event.




edit on 28-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
water and sand can cut steel by being concentrated into extremely high velocity, ultra thin streams.


Momentum is the word you're looking for.


Originally posted by pshea38
what do you mean by asking me how avalanches work?


Nevermind.


Originally posted by pshea38
i dont think i will be contacting these guys but i will look them up and see what they have to say.


You won't like it.


Originally posted by pshea38
if you are talking to them, ask them the question i asked above. why will a plane leave its silhouette through thick steel columns(twin towers) and not through concrete walls(pentagon)?


You're over-estimating the strength of the steel in the outer columns. They are not as thick as you think they are.

Also, the Pentagon was a reinforced concrete and limestone building. It was designed to withstand a bomb blast.


Originally posted by pshea38
one more thing. why do you think that the popular tv show Mythbusters, on their website, say that they will not entertain requests regarding any 9/11 myths. i think i can guess why..


Because it is too political. Not to mention but some people find 9/11 conspiracy theories offensive.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


So if i throw sand faster than those buildings fall it will cause tremendous damage,, more than pressure will ?? Secondly, what momentum ??

Yeah cause mountains and buildings have so much in common.

No we like it , it is them that won't, and you.

You are underestimating the strength of the buildings, unlike the designers.
I would love to see you tell them how strong the building is.
Perhaps it could withstand said bomb blast, so they used a cruise missile instead.

Poor people , these are the ones who are full of fear, people like yourself.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Actually there are quite a few firefighters that don't believe the government's lies.

firefightersfor911truth.org...


Not one of them are from FDNY, and not one of them were there on 9/11.



Originally posted by mnemeth1
Further, I addressed why the sworn testimony differs from the interviews collected shortly after the events took place.


Yeah, and you ignored every one of my responses.


Originally posted by mnemeth1

Further, the recorded testimony may be hand picked to provide the information the State wants, rather than a real cross section of fighter fighters views on the event.



No, not at all. Every firefighter who responded that day was interviewed. Their EXACT words are found in those transcripts.

Maybe it's because they don't agree with your conclusions that you handwave them away?

Eric Lawyer quotemined NFPA921.

Here is a good debunking of that exact video.

forums.randi.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


The opening statement on the website is from an FDNY fire fighter.

Further:

patriotsquestion911.com...


Chief Frank Cruthers – WTC survivor. Chief of Department, FDNY. Incident commander on 9/11.
Statement recorded by FDNY 10/31/01: "And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."

Deputy Chief Raymond Downey – WTC victim. Commanding Officer of the Special Operations Command (SOC), FDNY. 39-year veteran. Most heavily decorated firefighter in FDNY history.
[Chief Downey said to Capt. Al Fuentes, head of the Marine Division, FDNY] 'Al, tell the guys to watch out for secondary devices.' Downey still thinks there might be bombs in there ..."

Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory – WTC survivor. Bureau of Communications, FDNY
Statement recorded by FDNY 10/3/01: "I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 [South Tower] came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.


etc... etc.. etc..

The list goes on forever.

Of course, "no one" saw anything that looked like a bomb going off


What they "believe" happened now is entirely irrelevant to what they reported and saw occur during the events of the WTC collapse. They may believe that bombs did not take down the buildings, but that was not their initial impressions at the time the events took place.

They "learned" to believe that it must not have been bombs simply because they were told to believe that from everyone around them and the media.



edit on 28-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/1/11 by masqua because: Added 'ex' tags for external content



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 

Originally posted by pshea38
water and sand can cut steel by being concentrated into extremely high velocity, ultra thin streams.



Momentum is the word you're looking for

pressure is force per unit area. you can be quite sure that the pressure exerted by the plane on the building is far less than pressure exerted on the steel by the HIGH PRESSURE streams of sand/water. so momentum is not the word i am looking for.

Originally posted by pshea38
what do you mean by asking me how avalanches work?



Nevermind.

what does an avalanche do when it encounters a steel shipping container for instance. are you implying that it penetrates the steel. i don't think so. i don't know why you mention avalanches.

.Originally posted by pshea38
if you are talking to them, ask them the question i asked above. why will a plane leave its silhouette through thick steel columns(twin towers) and not through concrete walls(pentagon)?



You're over-estimating the strength of the steel in the outer columns. They are not as thick as you think they are.

Also, the Pentagon was a reinforced concrete and limestone building. It was designed to withstand a bomb blast.

you are under-estimating the strength of steel in the outer columns. remember that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a passenger plane.

so what happened the wings of the plane that 'crashed' into the pentagon. a reporter present at the incident claimed that the wings folded into the main body of the plane 'like an accordian' and then disappeared into the building. do you believe this?

Originally posted by pshea38
one more thing. why do you think that the popular tv show Mythbusters, on their website, say that they will not entertain requests regarding any 9/11 myths. i think i can guess why..



Because it is too political. Not to mention but some people find 9/11 conspiracy theories offensive

more likely they have been instructed to steer clear. They have the opportunity to silence all the conspiracy theorists and put alot of issues to rest, so why not use it. i think they are well aware that the notion itself is ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Not one of them are from FDNY, and not one of them were there on 9/11


Yes, and neither were the NIST investigators but you believe them huh?

NIST did just what we are doing, investigated using videos and pictures.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by FDNY343
 


The opening statement on the website is from an FDNY fire fighter.

Further:

patriotsquestion911.com...


That does not say what you claim. Maybe you can find it? I certainly didn't.

I see lots of people who were family members.



Originally posted by mnemeth1
Chief Frank Cruthers – WTC survivor. Chief of Department, FDNY. Incident commander on 9/11.
Statement recorded by FDNY 10/31/01: "And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there SEEMEDto be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."


I have hilited the most important word.


Originally posted by mnemeth1

Deputy Chief Raymond Downey – WTC victim. Commanding Officer of the Special Operations Command (SOC), FDNY. 39-year veteran. Most heavily decorated firefighter in FDNY history.
[Chief Downey said to Capt. Al Fuentes, head of the Marine Division, FDNY] 'Al, tell the guys to watch out for secondary devices.' Downey still thinks there might be bombs in there ..."


How is it possible that you can say "Downey still thinks there might be bombs in there" when the man is DEAD?

I googled "Al, tell the guys to watch out for secondary devices." and all that came back are forums. Do you know where this comes from?



Originally posted by mnemeth1
Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory – WTC survivor. Bureau of Communications, FDNY
Statement recorded by FDNY 10/3/01: I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time,but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 [South Tower] came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

etc... etc.. etc..


I've hilited the important parts. Later on in the interview, he says this.

[quote=Stephen Gregory]I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.


Now, here is the link. Feel free to read the rest.
graphics8.nytimes.com...

I can do this for every account you have. EVERY account.


Originally posted by mnemeth1

The list goes on forever.


And I can show where it's quotemined or taken out of context.


Originally posted by mnemeth1

Of course, "no one" saw anything that looked like a bomb going off



Well......


Originally posted by mnemeth1
What they "believe" happened now is entirely irrelevant to what they reported and saw occur during the events of the WTC collapse. They may believe that bombs did not take down the buildings, but that was not their initial impressions at the time the events took place.

They "learned" to believe that it must not have been bombs simply because they were told to believe that from everyone around them and the media


Wow, again with the logical fallacies.

Assuming the conclusion.

BTW, using your logic, we can discount anything Willie Rodriguez has said since 2002.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join