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: 31
34
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I don't think I understand what you mean. How is my post contradicting an entire report about how a collapse initiation happened? I was just showing how WTC 2's damage made sense to me with regards to the gash. The plane came in at an angle and that allows a different distribution of energy. With the first plane, I don't really know what to say either way, since I'm not an expert on planes hitting buildings. I couldn't tell you whether it was normal looking or not, and there is no way in heck that you can say so either.

What annoys me is how certain you are even though you have no experimental evidence, no math, and not even a general use of physics to explain everything, since every time you apply the word physics, you ignore a number of factors and then claim you have the whole picture. You claim that the missile damaged the corner of the building and then scraped along the side of the building to reach the center of where the plane hit, only to explode right there. First off, missiles have mass, and unless the government has finally invented invisibility cloaks, I think that at least one person might have seen it coming from somewhere. Second, the damage is not consistent (from what I can tell) with a missile scraping across it. The corner damage appeared to have happened when the explosion shook up the building.




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I don't think I understand what you mean. How is my post contradicting an entire report about how a collapse initiation happened? I was just showing how WTC 2's damage made sense to me with regards to the gash. The plane came in at an angle and that allows a different distribution of energy.


We're talking about the damage to WTC1.



What annoys me is how certain you are even though you have no experimental evidence, no math, and not even a general use of physics to explain everything,


What annoys me is your inability to discuss the facts at hand. Why would I need physics to explain anything to you? You can't even decide which tower we're talking about.



You claim that the missile damaged the corner of the building and then scraped along the side of the building to reach the center of where the plane hit, only to explode right there.


It is further annoying to need to keep explaining myself. I have offered a better explanation than the plane causing the damage. You still owe the class a cogent explanation as to HOW THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY A JET STRIKING STRAIGHT AND CENTER.




First off, missiles have mass, and unless the government has finally invented invisibility cloaks, I think that at least one person might have seen it coming from somewhere.


I have provided plenty of evidence of fraudulent video, lots of links and even my own work. You ignore all of that evidence; why? Can you at least be honest enough to admit you only believe a jet struck because it was on the TeeVee?

Here's just one of many witnesses who described a missile:

vodpod.com...




The corner damage appeared to have happened when the explosion shook up the building.


Stop this BS and show me on the NIST damage report how that corner was damaged when their own report shows no damage there, and no damage to the North side at all. Will someone please admit this? Anyone with any courage out there?




edit on 27-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I see, so an FDNY Made Man is all you have to lean on? Interesting how these guys actually built the thing, and they disagree:


Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

algoxy.com...

Again for the readers, here is a great site with a lot of good information about the Concrete cores:

algoxy.com...

This is a report from 2001 from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations:


It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

www.ncsea.com...


The Gallon Environment Letter is a twice-monthly electronic environmental policy bulletin sent to about 16,000 email addresses in Canada and around the world. Readers include senior executives, politicians, academics, government officials, labour and environmental groups.

www.cialgroup.com...


At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

Blythe

And finally, once again, Oxford University published this is 1992


Modern Skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center, New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core, a reinforced concrete tower, contains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts. From this core the concrete and steel composite floors span on to a steel perimeter structures: a lightweight aluminum and glass curtain wall encloses the building.


The significance of the Oxford paper is that it was published well before 911, when no one had any reason to hide the Concrete core. After 911 is when the hoax about no concrete in the core came out.

I find it easier to believe an FDNY Wise Guy would publish a lie than I can believe Oxford University got it wrong 19 years ago.
edit on 27-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Whyhi
 


Each tower was designed to withstand an impact from two commercial planes, yet it only took one to bring each one down. Now there was either a serious design flaw or....

WTC7 was the first steel structure building in the world to collapse due to fire. Again either a very serious design flaw or......



Both points are incorrect and were refuted years ago, on this very forum. Search is your friend.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
WTC 7 had no reason to fall...save for insurance reasons and whatever records were contained. It was planned...and WTC 7 is the smoking gun...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


He said it SOUNDED like a missile. No one on the ground saw a missile. This guy even said it could have been a jet. Guess what a jetliner is? A jet!

So how is it that there isn't a single witness that could physically see with their own two eyes that there was a missile. Why is it that EVERY FREAKIN TRUTHER ARGUMENT uses the words "it sounded like"?!

Keep deluding yourself, buddy. There were plenty of eyewitness accounts from the location (not through the TV, like you assumed I was meaning) that saw a jetliner or some kind of plane, which would vary depending on their position and light exposure. To ignore EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM yet listen to that guy who says it "sounded like a missile"? I don't understand how your brain works, man.

Also, again, the plane didn't hit quite dead center. Sure, it hit perpendicular (and now I am on the same page. I do apologize about not knowing which tower you were talking about), but it was not level with the ground. It was tilted. That means that since parts of the floors would have the trusses and the concrete, those parts would offer a 'bit' more resistance, wouldn't you imagine? I mean, I haven't fully analyzed the picture, but it would not surprise me if the floors were where the least damage to the exterior was.


Stop this BS and show me on the NIST damage report how that corner was damaged when their own report shows no damage there, and no damage to the North side at all. Will someone please admit this? Anyone with any courage out there?


Like I said, I actually haven't read the NIST report. That kind of time is the time I feel like I don't have to waste between my job, my schooling, and my attempts to get a girlfriend. Yes, according to the picture you have there, NIST did not include damage to the North side. I would imagine that perhaps they were focusing on the damage caused just by the structural impact of the plane. I'm not certain on that point though. Don't go crazy.


edit on 27-3-2011 by Varemia because: added a quote and extra paragraph



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


This thread is a good example of how conspiracy arguments are worthless. Notice how the argument has taken on 31 pages of responses and counter responses and how the conversation has gone from this:


...i guess the engineering of the japanese skyscrapers are more advanced...
(said tongue-in-cheek)

to this:

… First off, missiles have mass, and unless the government has finally invented invisibility cloaks, I think that at least one person might have seen it coming from somewhere.


That’s right. We’ve gone from the buildings had to be as well designed as Japanese buildings are, therefore it’s a conspiracy that two planes brought down three buildings, to entertaining missiles being the real culprit. This is taken as serious discussion. Never mind two planes, three buildings is a total straw man. Never mind there is absolutely no evidence of missiles being involved.

These arguments are, literally, the exact same arguments from years and years ago. Repeating arguments is the final stage of any unfounded conspiracy. Why? Well, as a conspiracy is challenged by doubters, the conspiracy must inflate to account for previously unknown variables that can’t reasonably be explained. Thus, the conspiracy inflates. This thread is a perfect example. We started at one point, and now we are discussing all manner of crackpot (just my opinion) assertions.

Instead of missiles, beam weapons, mini nukes, nano thermite, etc…..why don’t we just agree that the buildings were designed differently, that the two events have absolutely nothing in common and that the original assertion is not true. Notice, I didn’t say the underlying conspiracy wasn’t true, just this assertion?

Why? The answer is in my signature.
edit on 27-3-2011 by SlightlyAbovePar because: Formatting



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Honest question, are you serious, or simpily trying to keep the thread going?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
WTC 7 had no reason to fall...save for insurance reasons and whatever records were contained. It was planned...and WTC 7 is the smoking gun...


Do you seriously believe that anyone would murder the best part of 3000 people for an insurance payout ?

Can you not think of a simpler and less obtrusive way of destroying records than blowing up a building and distributing papers over half Manhattan ?

The idea that WTC 7 is a smoking gun is nonsense. It was only by chance that it was hit by falling debris from WTC 1 and set on fire, That could not have been planned. So, what was the plan ? just to blow it up anyway ?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
 

What annoys me is how certain you are even though you have no experimental evidence, no math, and not even a general use of physics to explain everything, since every time you apply the word physics, you ignore a number of factors and then claim you have the whole picture.


QFE.

Could not have said it better.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MemoryShock
WTC 7 had no reason to fall...save for insurance reasons and whatever records were contained. It was planned...and WTC 7 is the smoking gun...


Do you seriously believe that anyone would murder the best part of 3000 people for an insurance payout ?

Can you not think of a simpler and less obtrusive way of destroying records than blowing up a building and distributing papers over half Manhattan ?


They started a few wars over this, murdering many hundreds of thousands of people. Their motivations were much more than an insurance payout.

They needed to kill the SEC and ONI investigations into the massive fraud in the government, military and international finance.

They needed to demolish the WTC which was a white elephant no one wanted to rent, and because of environmental issues, no one wanted to pay to repair.

They needed to steal a bunch of gold bullion for the wet workers.

They needed to pay off and disappear a bunch of Made Men in the FDNY, NYPD, OEM, Guilliani's office, etc.

They needed a pretext for long planned wars.

These are the same guys who have been running roughshod on the world ever since.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Who are "they" ? What I keep getting from truthers is that 9/11 was set up at the highest level to justify war in the Middle East and repression of freedoms at home.Oh, but at the same time, it was also planned to make Larry Silverstein a few bucks.

Do truthers not see the incongruity of mixing wide strategic aims with an old-fashioned insurance scam. All the perps lives were on the line here so why risk everything to help Larry out ?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 




This thread is a good example of how conspiracy arguments are worthless.


What this thread is is a good example of how far OSers will use obfuscation and hypocrisy to avoid direct confrontation.



Instead of missiles, beam weapons, mini nukes, nano thermite, etc…..why don’t we just agree that the buildings were designed differently, that the two events have absolutely nothing in common and that the original assertion is not true. Notice, I didn’t say the underlying conspiracy wasn’t true, just this assertion? Why? The answer is in my signature.


The only people I see bringing up imaginary weapons like beam weapons and mini nukes are the OSers who don't want do discuss the real evidence. Why? The answer is in my signature.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451


You seem like a reasonable, nice guy (?). I'd like to discuss your views but, first, please allow me to explain that I am taking issue with your opinions - not you personally. If you catch me using the term "you", I mean the royal you, not the you, you.


They started a few wars over this, murdering many hundreds of thousands of people. Their motivations were much more than an insurance payout.


Who is "they" and what were their motivations?



They needed to kill the SEC and ONI investigations into the massive fraud in the government, military and international finance.


Why?


They needed to demolish the WTC which was a white elephant no one wanted to rent, and because of environmental issues, no one wanted to pay to repair.


Sources for your assertions?


They needed to steal a bunch of gold bullion for the wet workers.


Why?


They needed to pay off and disappear a bunch of Made Men in the FDNY, NYPD, OEM, Guilliani's office, etc.


This is very, very offensive. I don't say 'offensive' as a technique to try to squash your opinion. I say 'offensive' because your flat-out asserting that FDNY members were 'in on it' and complicit in the murder of many of their friends and over 2,500 civilians. For money. What firefighter do you know that joined the service to get rich? Your assertion also means some who weren't 'in on it' know about those who were/are and haven't come forward, which means they are complicit as well.

Do you have any sourcing for these very serious allegations? Have you considered what the casualties are? Meaning, if you really believe this to be true, how do you account for all of the surrounding conspiracy accompanying the conspiracy that actually committed the crime?


They needed a pretext for long planned wars.


Sourcing? Is this a fact, or an opinion? To what end? Why would 'they' want long, protracted wars? For what end?


These are the same guys who have been running roughshod on the world ever since.


Who are 'they'?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


What I get from OSers are constant attempts at obfuscation.

How many times should I post this stuff? If you read the thread you'd see exactly why I come to the conclusions I have.

All I see you OSers do is ignore direct confrontation, resort to ridicule, and when pressed, you disappear. Never an honest answer.

The reason you never answer my questions is because you can't.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Read the thread.

The story stays the same.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


You posted a link to this guy :-

vodpod.com...

who said he heard, but did not see, a missile or a jet but definitely not a prop plane.

So he is not really a witness to a missile at all. But you say there are plenty more missile witnesses; have you got links please ?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia


I wrote he was a witness who described a missile. Was I wrong? Why did you need to add more than what I wrote?

He is also just one of many. But you know that.

Like I've said before, just once I'd like to see one of you weak OSers answer a couple of the dozen questions I've laid on you.

All you gus do is post tripe in an obvious effort to put as much fluff on the thread as possible so the readers will miss the important posts. You can't prove a lie...the more you try, the more you help my case.




edit on 27-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

The only people I see bringing up imaginary weapons like beam weapons and mini nukes are the OSers who don't want do discuss the real evidence. Why? The answer is in my signature.


Deflection & ad hominen attack. Lets skip past the next three pages of personal insults establishing how I am a 'paid dis-info agent', yadda, yadda and get back to this:


why don’t we just agree that the buildings were designed differently, that the two events have absolutely nothing in common and that the original assertion is not true.

edit on 27-3-2011 by SlightlyAbovePar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Alfie1
 

How many times should I post this stuff? If you read the thread you'd see exactly why I come to the conclusions I have.


Oh I have. I've read threads like this for years and years. I do see why you've come to your conclusions. I am also trying to help you realize how insane these theories are.


All I see you OSers do is ignore direct confrontation, resort to ridicule, and when pressed, you disappear. Never an honest answer.


It's not about confrontation, ridicule or disappearing. In my experience, it's typically CT'ers (truthers in particular) who get personally hostile, very quickly. Proof? Look at what your first response to me & my first response to you. I, personally, don't disappear. I do offer my opinion and counter-arguments. If you don't agree, no reason to limitlessly argue. Honestly, after years of this stuff, I firmly believe the arguing is the point. If it's not, why even respond to me? Why waste your time with an "OS'er"? To answer that same question in reverse: I'm not answering for your sake. I'm responding to those who may be new here; providing an alternate view.


The reason you never answer my questions is because you can't.


Actually, we can & are. You may reject those explanations, as is your prerogative. However, your rejection of the provided answers does not mean they don't exist.




top topics



 
34
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join