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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 22
34
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
What about a banana? Passion fruit? What about a pointed stick?


Nice attempt at humor. Nice fail though.

Originally posted by Yankee451
What would you do if you saw a few guys with box cutters who were going to kill you and the other passengers as far as you knew?


Logical fallacy noted. By the time the people in the cabin realized what was going on, the pilots were already dead.

Secondly, pre-911, most hijackers wanted something in return. Freedom for someone, political motivation, etc.

Post-9/11, they wouldn't have made it off the plane safely. The underwear bomber is a perfect example.



Originally posted by Yankee451
Would you go take it like a sheep like all the military leathernecks did on 77 or would you brave the box cutters and go all let's roll on they asses like the civilians on 93?


Pre-9/11? Don't know honestly. I would like to think that someone would step up.

Post-9/11? The same thing that the passengers of Flt. 93 did. Same thing that the passengers on the plane that Underwear boy tried to bomb.




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


You have a dizzying intellect...did I see you use the underwear bomber as a perfect example of something other than a false flag psy-op?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
It was destiny then, is that the story? Because I find it easier to believe this Bazant et al guy lied (sounds islamofascist!) than I can believe the laws of nature were suspended.


Please feel free to write to Bazant and tell him the conclusions that he has, that have been accepted by MANY journals WORLDWIDE, and peer-reviewed for accuracy, are all wrong.

My bet, is you won't do any such thing.

At least not anything with math, or calculations, or any kind of science whatsoever.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Nice shot...I see some chunks, sure enough. But mostly I see tiny chunks of what used to be a massive building surrounded by pulverized concrete.


You can tell the chemical makeup of building debris just by looking at it!?!?!?! How COOL!! Who need mass spectrometers and chemical analysis when we've got YOU!! WOOT!! You could make a FORTUNE!!

BTW, what about the approximate 45,000 pieces of drywall? Could that be a source for dust? Oh, right, it sure can.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Man, who needs a nuclear bomb when you've got a Boeing.


Or multiple hundreds of tons of building contents exerting an amazing amount of force. Plus gravity.



Originally posted by Yankee451
That concrete had already been holding all those hundreds of tons for decades.


Well, except fr the fact that the concrete (generally speaking) was mearly a walking surface. The steel of the structure was the load bearing structure. Not the concrete.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Folks, anyone out there with any sense? Look at his picture...good grief...do any of you know how hard concrete is to break up?


Not so hard if you have the right tools. Like say, a multi-ton steel beam? Or a jackhammer.


Originally posted by Yankee451
There was a school demolished near here a couple years ago...asbestos, sound familiar?...anyway, it was concrete and it took MANY WEEKS with HEAVY machinery to break that thing up...you know, machinery MEANT to break up concrete...big wrecking balls, big chippers. This was a two story structure we're talking about.


Which was most likely structural concrete (heavyweight concrete) and steel reinforcements. Also, most likely the ENTIRE structure was built of that, where unlike the towers were only a very small portion.


Originally posted by Yankee451
The idea that the building would collapse to dust like that is impossible.


It wasn't completly dust, as I have already shown with just one simple picture. That took all of 2 minutes to find.

Nice strawman though.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Even if the upper floors were damaged by a plane (they weren't), the floors below the damage had already been holding up the weight above them,


No, the FLOORS below held NOTHING but the contents of that floor. Not a floor above it, not a support column, nothing.


Originally posted by Yankee451
so there was no added strain on them except the weight of the plane, for which the buildings were over engineered to handle. The jet fuel was burnt off on impact in the fireball leaving people and office furniture to burn and melt steel. Also impossible. There must be a better explanation.


Again with the strawman arguments? Seriously? The steel didn't need to melt.

Since you keep claiming that the floors were over-engineered, please show the max dead load for a typical WTC floor assembly.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


You have a dizzying intellect...did I see you use the underwear bomber as a perfect example of something other than a false flag psy-op?


And this is where you post your evience of such.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
This pretty much proves that there were bombs planted inside the World Trade Center towers, I mean, can it be anymore obvious? The force of this Earthquake was 9.1, or something like that, and that has to be like 1,0000000000x more powerful than a plane crash. It is so obvious that it wasn't planes that brought down the towers.

It was terrorists... the real terrorists...



...you know who I am talking about.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Another nice jig there FDNY343. Aside from being a firefighting eye-witness, you're a good dancer too.

I have provided plenty of comment to the vaunted studies of the alleged experts. As you may have guessed, I'm not very impressed with anyone's credentials, only what they have to say.

Facts can be checked by laypeople you know...no expertise necessary. I don't doubt the math of the experts is correct, but it's how they tweak their models that matters, isn't it? Care to comment on the my details of the MIT report for example? You haven't even read it, yet you hold it up on a pedestal as proof that the wings can cut steel (IT ISN'T).

You have had plenty of time to comment on the arguments I have provided, all backed up by evidence. Our conversations spread over several threads, so I invite the readers to peruse them and make up their own minds as to who's got a straw leg.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


If necessary, but I'd like to see you back up anything you've been saying for the last couple weeks. I've answered your questions handily, but all you do is scurry away to another thread.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Davian
This pretty much proves that there were bombs planted inside the World Trade Center towers, I mean, can it be anymore obvious? The force of this Earthquake was 9.1, or something like that, and that has to be like 1,0000000000x more powerful than a plane crash. It is so obvious that it wasn't planes that brought down the towers.

It was terrorists... the real terrorists...


Huh? The force of the earthquake was spread over the entire building, not focused on a single point.
The buildings in Japan are SPECIFICALLY designed to act the way they did.

But, you are correct. It wasn't planes that brought the towers down. It was a combination of plane impact damage, fire, and no water, plus alot of gravity.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Davian
This pretty much proves that there were bombs planted inside the World Trade Center towers, I mean, can it be anymore obvious? The force of this Earthquake was 9.1, or something like that, and that has to be like 1,0000000000x more powerful than a plane crash. It is so obvious that it wasn't planes that brought down the towers.

It was terrorists... the real terrorists...



...you know who I am talking about.


You do know that Japan designed their buildings to be tossed around without collapsing, right? Also, WTC didn't get shaken from the bottom up. It had a downward force from above taking it down.

Completely non-comparable events.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Another nice jig there FDNY343. Aside from being a firefighting eye-witness, you're a good dancer too.

I have provided plenty of comment to the vaunted studies of the alleged experts. As you may have guessed, I'm not very impressed with anyone's credentials, only what they have to say.

Facts can be checked by laypeople you know...no expertise necessary. I don't doubt the math of the experts is correct, but it's how they tweak their models that matters, isn't it? Care to comment on the my details of the MIT report for example? You haven't even read it, yet you hold it up on a pedestal as proof that the wings can cut steel (IT ISN'T).

You have had plenty of time to comment on the arguments I have provided, all backed up by evidence. Our conversations spread over several threads, so I invite the readers to peruse them and make up their own minds as to who's got a straw leg.


Your entire conclusions are based on an arguement from personal ignorance. I can't help you with that.

Secondly, I can't dance. Two left feet and they both thing they are right.

Yes, facts can be checked by laypeople. But if you don't understand the math, or apply it incorrectly, you will come out with different numbers. But, you're welcome to check his math and show what he got wrong. You can even email him with the correct answers to the math, and he will update his paper as needed. If, you are correct. If not, he will likely ignore you.

Feel free.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Yankee doodle dandy What TOTAL and UTTER BS lets look at all the things you have WRONG!!!!


Originally posted by Yankee451

Nice shot...I see some chunks, sure enough. But mostly I see tiny chunks of what used to be a massive building surrounded by pulverized concrete. Man, who needs a nuclear bomb when you've got a Boeing.

That concrete had already been holding all those hundreds of tons for decades.

Folks, anyone out there with any sense? Look at his picture...good grief...do any of you know how hard concrete is to break up? There was a school demolished near here a couple years ago...asbestos, sound familiar?...anyway, it was concrete and it took MANY WEEKS with HEAVY machinery to break that thing up...you know, machinery MEANT to break up concrete...big wrecking balls, big chippers. This was a two story structure we're talking about.

The idea that the building would collapse to dust like that is impossible. Even if the upper floors were damaged by a plane (they weren't), the floors below the damage had already been holding up the weight above them, so there was no added strain on them except the weight of the plane, for which the buildings were over engineered to handle. The jet fuel was burnt off on impact in the fireball leaving people and office furniture to burn and melt steel. Also impossible. There must be a better explanation.



The building had a Tube in Tube steel frame with glazing and aluminium cladding panels the CONCRETE ON THE FLOORS was between 4-6" thick poured onto steel decking this concrete was only to form the floors the loads on it were its own weight (dead load) the people working on that floor (live load) and furniture etc (imposed load).

THE FLOORS TOOK NO WEIGHT FROM ABOVE!!! Because this was how they attached to the wall of the building!!!!




Yes those little lengths of angle iron!!!!!!

Just to confirm what I said!!!


load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns


The concrete floors lay on the steel decking which was on the trusses! the wind loads were transmitted across the tusses on a windy day, the loads the FLOOR took during there lifetime were NOTHING like what happened on the DAY anyone can see that.

I take it most people EVEN WITH NO CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE WELL APART FROM YOURSELF would have an idea that all concrete is NOT THE SAME!!!

The CONCRETE in your school was NOT 4-6" thick with a little A142 mesh through it, that was a structural application, concrete is a mix of sand,water,cement and aggregate that aggregate can be depending on the use it will be put to anything from polystyrene beads, to fuel ash, to pebbles, to ball bearing even cut up engine cyliner heads depending if you want the concrete to be lightweight or for a nuclear power station!

The strength can vary from 15/20n crushing strength to 90+n crushing strength , it can have next to no reinforement or it can be like this.



The BS YOU posted above just shows YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE what you are talking about!

DID you somehow get inside to see the damge NO so your assumptions are just typical truther BS.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Davian
This pretty much proves that there were bombs planted inside the World Trade Center towers, I mean, can it be anymore obvious? The force of this Earthquake was 9.1, or something like that, and that has to be like 1,0000000000x more powerful than a plane crash. It is so obvious that it wasn't planes that brought down the towers.

It was terrorists... the real terrorists...

...you know who I am talking about.


WOW another construction expert so how much experience on site do you have do you KNOW what a tension ,shear,shock,wind,dead,live,imposed,oblique load are did you get inside to see what damage had been done,have you read up on the data of the cardington fire tests! re temperatures that can be reached in only a few mins in a normal office type fire.

Or seeing as you seem to be an expert would YOU like to explain why countries ALL OVER THE WORLD change building codes and regulations for tall buildings!!! after 9/11

Or is it to much for you to understand the since Japan gets small shocks EVERY DAY that buildings would have to be built to take that into account!

Will say this again the internet has to many armchair experts WHO WITH NO PRACTICLE EXPERIENCE SEEM TO BE CONSTRUCTION EXPERTS and a lot of them the only thing they will ever build is a BURGER!
edit on 17-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


I am giving you the chance to correct my personal ignorance. Chance after chance.

After a couple weeks of sparring, your latest claim is that you were standing right below tower two when the jet hit. You claim you saw the jet with your own two eyes and that you were surrounded by thousands of people who saw it too. Your words...big words...huge words.

If you are telling the truth, why wait until now to bring that up? If you aren't telling the truth, do you think it is in good taste to say such a thing?

You claim you saw plane parts, but you won't say where you saw them or what parts you saw.

When pressed about the video evidence which shows the whole plane disappearing into the building without shedding any parts, you disappear too.

If you witnessed this, why did you wait until now to say it? Why all your blathering about physics and KE and all that, why not come out first with your outrage that someone who wasn't there (I), would dare contradict what someone who was there (you) saw with your own two eyes?

If it was true, I would think you'd lead with that information.

Hooper claimed his sister witnessed it too...he also came to that claim after taking a beating with the facts over several days of conversation, but he backed down when pressed. I assume he has no sister since he hasn't tried to correct the record...but why make any claim you can't prove? Especially one like that?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Many Japanese buildings were designed with earthquakes in mind. However the wtc didnt experience a earthquake, it was hit by a fuel ladden plane , big difference/ big difference. even the empire building sways some in a normal day, but that would go in a second if hit with a plane



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Davian
 


how does that prove anything? two different situations, and would you go into those japanese buildings after they shook? i bet they get torn down.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 





What would you do if you saw a few guys with box cutters who were going to kill you and the other passengers as far as you knew? Would you go take it like a sheep like all the military leathernecks did on 77 or would you brave the box cutters and go all let's roll on they asses like the civilians on 93?


Prior to 9/11, those of us in the military were trained to do exactly that during a hijack...sit there and do absolutely nothing to draw attention to yourself. Unless you wanted to end up like Robert Stetham. The passengers on Flight 93 had the....luxury (wrong word but) of knowing the likely outcome of their flight. The passengers on the other three flights did not.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Yes, I know the story; it is straight out of Hollywood:

Boeings rock and buildings do not.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Straight out of Hollywood? LOL. People like you ALWAYS make me laugh. So completely and totally ignorant of history and how people will react in bad situations.

Even before I got home that night and had a chance to listen to the news, I had figured that Flight 93 had crashed for one of two reasons...either the pilots (the UNITED pilots) had put it into the dirt or that there had been a fight on board. History, not Hollywood, is FILLED with examples of men and women that step up and take action. People like you are an insult to their memory.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
I am giving you the chance to correct my personal ignorance. Chance after chance.


Well, I will have to sit down and actually address the post in question.



Originally posted by Yankee451
After a couple weeks of sparring, your latest claim is that you were standing right below tower two when the jet hit. You claim you saw the jet with your own two eyes and that you were surrounded by thousands of people who saw it too. Your words...big words...huge words.


As per our conversation, I will eat crow, and say that 1,000's was an overstatement. It was more than 250 people.



Originally posted by Yankee451
If you are telling the truth, why wait until now to bring that up? If you aren't telling the truth, do you think it is in good taste to say such a thing?


Because it matters not when discussing things that I have discussed. Time-temperature curves, fire progression rates, fuel loads, internal temperatures, etc.

This is the first time that I felt that it would be appropriate to bring it up.


Originally posted by Yankee451
You claim you saw plane parts, but you won't say where you saw them or what parts you saw.


Because it's off topic for this thread, just as I have said here, and in our U2U conversations.



Originally posted by Yankee451
When pressed about the video evidence which shows the whole plane disappearing into the building without shedding any parts, you disappear too.


I don't recall this, but that could be because of the green beer.

I will adress it now.

Some of the plane parts in fact did not enter the building. Some entered, and exited in another direction. The fact that you cannot see this on grainy, 14th generation YouTube is due to distance, and resolution. It also doesn't show some of the body parts being strewn all about the streets either, but yet, there were plenty.



Originally posted by Yankee451
If you witnessed this, why did you wait until now to say it? Why all your blathering about physics and KE and all that, why not come out first with your outrage that someone who wasn't there (I), would dare contradict what someone who was there (you) saw with your own two eyes?

If it was true, I would think you'd lead with that information.


Because, as I said earlier, it matters not that I was there when it is something like fire temperatures, and weakening of steel.

Planes impacting the towers would be an appropriate time to bring it up.



Originally posted by Yankee451
Hooper claimed his sister witnessed it too...he also came to that claim after taking a beating with the facts over several days of conversation, but he backed down when pressed. I assume he has no sister since he hasn't tried to correct the record...but why make any claim you can't prove? Especially one like that?


No, it's not that I can't prove it, it's because I won't. Most (with a few exceptions) of my statements stand on their own merit. I do not need to prove I was there to show that fire will burn hotter than 500 deg. F as Jim Fetzer et al. have claimed.

Sorry, I value my privacy, just as most other posters do.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Off topic? We're talking about 911 right? The buildings in Japan survived a mega earthquake, but two Boeings can wipe out a whole World Trade Center complex, isn't that the topic? How can that happen?

If you're claiming you witnessed what the videos captured, you sure do have to prove it or withdraw your claim...why would you say something like that on a thread and then try to make it a private conversation?

Why would Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark all have fraudulent images of something you witnessed first hand? Who is correct? Their images are all taken from the same location...their perspective of the towers match, yet they are still shown as bona fide images. They can't all be real.

You do realize that you'll be one of the very few eye witnesses who saw a plane who are not military\media\government related, don't you? This is a gigantic claim you've made and I would like some proof, because if you're telling the truth, I and an enormous amount of people on the web will need to correct some things.

Show me the pieces falling off from the Evan Fairbanks video. Is this what you saw?

www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join