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.

 

Which is the more reasonable sensiate premise?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Think about it! Implosion demolitions work by dropping the center of the building to cause the outer walls to fall inwards. You can't do that if the building is tall and skinny, the outer walls would have no room to fall into the footprint. WTC 7 was the tallest building to ever be imploded. It's common knowledge that tall skinny buildings can not be implosion demolished, but you obvioulsy can not except anything that puts the OS in question.


edit on 5/18/2011 by ANOK because: it's the new wave


I'll reply to the rest of your post when I have more time. But for now I have one question: what are the squibs? According to CTers they look exactly like the detonations from an implosion demolition. Why are they there?




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'll reply to the rest of your post when I have more time. But for now I have one question: what are the squibs? According to CTers they look exactly like the detonations from an implosion demolition. Why are they there?


Why are you changing the subject?

Nothing you can say about 'squibs' refutes any of my points. No matter what I think they might be it doesn't change the facts I pointed out. Just like not hearing any explosives doesn't make one iota of difference either, nor how the building was constructed, or how long it took to collapse, or whether Larry said 'pull it', or whether blasting caps were found. None of those points can make a building fall in its footprint from asymmetrical damage and fires.

You have to directly address the physics I present if you want to refute my claims.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You don't think the explosive forces of a couple of thousands of gallons of jet fuel could damage steel structures? You don't think any of those floor trusses suffered any damage?


I think the impact of the airliner did far more damage to the structural steel than the explosion of the fuel.

The steel of the south tower had to be thick enough to support another 29 stories.

The fuel had to be spread out and diffused in order to react with the oxygen in the air in order to explode. The less diffused it was the weaker the explosion would be. The more diffused it was the less intense a pressure wave would be produced.

The south tower explosion LOOKED IMPRESSIVE. It would do a lot to furniture and people and windows. But the columns on the right side of where the plane went into the south tower were still intact after the explosion even though it blew out all of the windows. The BELIEVERS have to convince themselves that sustained fires could heat the steel enough to weaken it.

psik



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Why are you changing the subject?


I'm not. If you care to look back at your last few posts you'll see that you explicitly claim that the towers were not implosion demolitions.

If what you claim is true then why do they exhibit the characteristics of an implosion demolition?


Nothing you can say about 'squibs' refutes any of my points. No matter what I think they might be it doesn't change the facts I pointed out. Just like not hearing any explosives doesn't make one iota of difference either, nor how the building was constructed, or how long it took to collapse, or whether Larry said 'pull it', or whether blasting caps were found. None of those points can make a building fall in its footprint from asymmetrical damage and fires.

You have to directly address the physics I present if you want to refute my claims.


Okay. But if I don't bother do they have to give you an investigation by default?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I'm not. If you care to look back at your last few posts you'll see that you explicitly claim that the towers were not implosion demolitions.

If what you claim is true then why do they exhibit the characteristics of an implosion demolition?


Hmmm yes I said they were not implosion demolitions, I did not say they were not controlled demolitions.

The towers did not show characteristics of an implosion demolition, quite the opposite. They exploded in a 360d arc around the footprints, this is one of the reasons the pancake collapse you argue for was not possible, because mass was being ejected, which means it was not available for crushing any floors.

You do understand the 'implosion demolition' is a specific type of controlled demolition right? One in which the inner structure is dropped first in order to create a space and vacuum for the outer walls to fall into, thus collapsing the building into its footprint, WTC 7. It is not possible to do that with tall skinny buildings, it wouldn't work. That is a known fact in the demolition industry and why tall buildings are not imploded, WTC 7 would have been the tallest ever at 47 stories, before that it was the 23 story J.L Hudson Department Store in Detroit.

If you stop for a minute and put all these facts together, instead of trying to dismiss everything you hear, you would see my point. You are obvioulsy confused about the argument we put forward, you should pay more attention than just looking for stuff to 'debunk'.



Okay. But if I don't bother do they have to give you an investigation by default?


Huh? Why is you not bothering to address the points of the discussion have anything to do with an investigation? That is just you avoiding the points I raise in favour of points you can easily dismiss. Sorry I'm not here to discus what you want to discus. If you don't want to address the points I raise then quit replying to me, and trying to drag me into an irrelevant argument.


edit on 5/23/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Cassius666 & ANOK my hat is off to both of you.
There is no point in having a dialog with ignorance.
You will never convince people who ignore the evidence and science that proves that our government are lying about 911.
My opinion is there is a COINTELPRO operation going on in this thread. There is evidence of discouragement of discussing the OP topic concerning Truthers, and I could be wrong, but I doubt it.


Originally posted by Cassius666

Truthers on the other hand have pretty much the premise that the laws of physic do not take a vacation ever. Science is the only truth. Therefore if they are presented with an impossible scenario and confronted with either questioning what they thought to know about their goverment its loyalities and the goverments perception of its own people or accepting that this one time fantastic events beating insurmountable odds unfolded, the choose the latter. Science does not lie, but somebody here must be lying.


Well said, science does not lie. I have addressed many of these issues to the very few of OS defenders the same one’s in here who have been here for a long time, many of their responses as we can see are offensive and ignorant.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by Cassius666
I see Truthers as people who are desperately in need of a narrative to explain events in a way that they find satisfying, for intellectual and emotional reasons. They have a need to feel "initiated" and superior. Furthermore, it's often the case that they need to construct an antagonist (The government, Zionists, NWO, TPTB) that is so implacably evil and powerful that attacking it in a meaningful way is impossible. Thus they contract out of having to actually do anything of substance.
Far from sensibly cleaving to laws of science or physics - the basic understanding of which is low amongst Truthers - they tend to fit every eventuality into a preconceived notion of an "inside job". I've encountered hardly anyone in the Truth Movement who has a genuine understanding of the physical factors involved. Instead they appeal to authorities which it's plain to anyone without bias are untrustworthy.


This is a fine example.
“They have a need to feel "initiated" and superior.” I disagree with this, because searching and exposing the truth is a job well done and the payoff is knowing the truth to most individuals, not some power trip to be superior than everyone else, that is hogwash at best. This was a chance to deliberately insult all people who provide science, and credible sources that prove the OS is a lie. To implicate that all Truthers believe that our government are, “Zionists, NWO, TPTB” and Truthers” cannot do anything of substance” is a canard.

The false accusation of Truthers lacking the basic understanding of science or physics is ludicrous, so what the poster is implying, that people who have spoken out against the OS that are professionals such as Engineers, Scientists, eyewitness such as Police officers, Firemen, Medical professionals,” are lacking any understanding of any science or physics.”
The fact is I have encounter the few people who defend the OS who lack any real understanding of the physical factors related to 911. I should know, I have debated many 911 issues with these people and have asked many questions of them and mostly never receive a civil answer and to only be ridiculed and insulted. In my opinion there seems to be a strong emotional commitment to many people who support the OS, to push the government word as we see demonstrated in here. Don’t get me wrong, there are Truthers who also harbor strong emotions and sometime do not see both side of the 911 story.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Cassius666
I have absolutely no idea what it is you're asking. 9/11 deniers and 9/11 truthers are the exact same group of people. Truthers are those who deny the validity of the commission report so they attempt to "seek out the *real* truth behind the 9/11 attack" which really means they want to push their own personal theories onto other people regardless of what the facts are.


“Truthers are those who deny the validity of the commission report.” Yes since the 911 Commissioners admitted to lying in their report. The fact is the 911 Commission Report is not truthful.
Personal theories? Sometimes, but not all the times, so are you calling science that proves the physics of the government version, like the NIST report lies? If so I have never seen anyone prove this.


Judy Woods and her "Lasers from outer space" claims and April Gallop and her "no plane hit the Pentagon" claims are sterling cases in point of the truther/denier mindset.


Where is your evidence that supports this opinion? Are you suggesting that all scientist, professionals and Military who speak out against the OS support your nonsense? You certainly paint with a wide brush on all Truthers.


In order to rationalize why they'e not getting anywhere with their conspiracy preaching the 9/11 denier/truthers/theorists/whatever always need to cling to the conspiracy dogma that everyone who dares to disagree with them must be goosestepping sheep who mindlessly swallows everythign the gov't tells them, so your question to us non truthers/deniers/theorists/whatever is as pointless as asking whether we'd want to be rich or be poked in the eye with a sharp stick. I'm willing to listen to the proposition that there was some form of conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack but I'n not willing to stick my head in the sand and pretend there aren't inconvenient facts out there that shows the claim is rubbish, as the truthers routinely do.


This is what the OP was trying to explain when it comes to people who support the OS and their mind set as we can see in this demonstration against the OP, nothing more needs to be said about people who support the OS and the denial and ignorance that has been displayed in here.

edit on 24-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Cassius666 & ANOK my hat is off to both of you.
There is no point in having a dialog with ignorance.
You will never convince people who ignore the evidence and science that proves that our government are lying about 911.
My opinion is there is a COINTELPRO operation going on in this thread. There is evidence of discouragement of discussing the OP topic concerning Truthers, and I could be wrong, but I doubt it.



This is what the OP was trying to explain when it comes to people who support the OS and their mind set as we can see in this demonstration against the OP, nothing more needs to be said about people who support the OS and the denial and ignorance that has been displayed in here.

edit on 24-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)


Exactly, as far as I am concerned and everybody else who does not believe in junk science, the Officialy conspiracy theory belongs on the same pile as the lasers from outer space theory. At least judy puts a bit more effort into her conspiracy theory, seen as it tries to take into account what has been captured on video XD . Its quite interesting to observe the 911 deniers, see how they are all convinced, feeling superior, safe in their knowledge that their conspiracy theory is somehow better than the conspiracy theory presented by Judy Woods. It bemuses me, although at the same time its a bit sad.

The 911 deniers who defend their conspiracy theory of Saudis who attacked our freedoms remind me of the bigfoot people, they hold up a picture describing what they see in their mind, while it is clear for any sane person that what they describe isnt what has been captured on video or pictures
. Of course these kind of people exist on both sides of the debate.

Truthers=Debunkers. We treat all conspiracy theories equal, no matter if they have been spouted on the mass media or posted on youtube, although I admit those which get less notieriety we tend to just ignore. Of course if it turns out that the hutchinson effect is real and that it can be weaponized or fuel and airplanes can explode buildings with an hour long delay Iam going to admit that I was wrong, however I am not holding my breath.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The steel of the south tower had to be thick enough to support another 29 stories.

No it didn't. You really need to do a little self education with regard to how structures actually work. And "work" is a very important word here.


The fuel had to be spread out and diffused in order to react with the oxygen in the air in order to explode. The less diffused it was the weaker the explosion would be. The more diffused it was the less intense a pressure wave would be produced.

Googe "fuel air bomb" once. Until recently one of the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the US arsenal were fuel-air bombs.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The steel of the south tower had to be thick enough to support another 29 stories.

No it didn't. You really need to do a little self education with regard to how structures actually work. And "work" is a very important word here.


ROFLMAO

Are you saying that something other than steel held up those 29 stories?

What was it?

The NIST says the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter supported 47% of the weight.

Are you saying they are wrong or lying? So didn't the steel have to be strong enough? Isn't the cross sectional area relevant to that? Isn't that about the thickness of the steel? Doesn't that affect the WEIGHT of the steel?

Work is Force times Distance. Are you trying to say something important?

psik



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
Googe "fuel air bomb" once. Until recently one of the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the US arsenal were fuel-air bombs.


Do fuel air bombs use KEROSENE?

Do fuel air bombs use the randomness of an airliner crash to distribute the explosive?

Don't fuel air bombs have some optimum point of detonation after which the explosion will get weaker.

www.youtube.com...

That explosion destroyed a mannequin. SO WHAT? I said it would destroy furniture and people and windows.

What would it do to a 1 inch thick piece of steel? It would temporarily heat up the surface.

psik



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The steel of the south tower had to be thick enough to support another 29 stories.

No it didn't. You really need to do a little self education with regard to how structures actually work. And "work" is a very important word here.


ROFLMAO

Are you saying that something other than steel held up those 29 stories?

What was it?



The NIST says the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter supported 47% of the weight.

Are you saying they are wrong or lying? So didn't the steel have to be strong enough? Isn't the cross sectional area relevant to that? Isn't that about the thickness of the steel? Doesn't that affect the WEIGHT of the steel?

Work is Force times Distance. Are you trying to say something important?

psik


No, I am saying you have no clue how buildings work. How structures work, why they stand up and what is required to keep them standing. You have no idea how structures direct force to foundations. You think everything should be shaped like a pyramid. You do realize that there is more than one definition for the word "work"? Also, one piece of steel can be stronger than another piece of steel without being heavier, this isn't 1750. We have made some improvements in metallurgy since the 18th century.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Do you? Are you an architect?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Okay. But I note you don't like talking about the squibs nearly as much as you did a few years ago.

Odd that...



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


not architect. Don't like to give out personal information.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, I am saying you have no clue how buildings work. How structures work, why they stand up and what is required to keep them standing. You have no idea how structures direct force to foundations. You think everything should be shaped like a pyramid. You do realize that there is more than one definition for the word "work"? Also, one piece of steel can be stronger than another piece of steel without being heavier, this isn't 1750. We have made some improvements in metallurgy since the 18th century.


I am so impressed.

You can accuse me of ignorance.


Where is you physical model that can collapse completely?

Here is mine.

www.youtube.com...

There is gravity, there is acceleration, there is kinetic energy, there is static and dynamic loading.

But after almost TEN YEARS we don't have an official source telling us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the WTC or the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the core.

We don't even have a layout of the horizontal beams that were in the core. And physicists and structural engineers are not demanding the information. Not Richard Gage or Steven Jones.

The 9/11 Decade is the epitome of European culture.

psik



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'll reply to the rest of your post when I have more time. But for now I have one question: what are the squibs? According to CTers they look exactly like the detonations from an implosion demolition. Why are they there?


Why are you changing the subject?

Nothing you can say about 'squibs' refutes any of my points. No matter what I think they might be it doesn't change the facts I pointed out. Just like not hearing any explosives doesn't make one iota of difference either,
It's strong evidence there were no explosives employed, along with other evidence.


nor how the building was constructed, or how long it took to collapse,
Goes to determining the manner of collapse.


or whether Larry said 'pull it',
Goes to whether Larry was in on it.


or whether blasting caps were found.
Goes to whether there were blasting caps present or not, which would be evidence of demo.


None of those points can make a building fall in its footprint from asymmetrical damage and fires.
Neither WTC 1, 2, or 7 fell "in their footprints". 7 fell across Barclay St. and hit Fiterman Hall. Just about any photo of the 1 and 2 collapses shows debris falling outside of the footprints.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I am so impressed.

Thank you.

You can accuse me of ignorance.

I don't think its an accusation.

Where is you physical model that can collapse completely?

WTC Towers 1 &2.

Here is mine.

And exactly what is that modelling? Broomsticks, washers and copy paper serve only as a model of broomsticks, washers and copy paper. Nothing more. Soon as you find a building constructed of those materials post a photo.

There is gravity, there is acceleration, there is kinetic energy, there is static and dynamic loading.

Yes, as expressed by broomsticks, washers and copy paper. Your average structure composed of playing cards is a better example of a building then that contraption.

But after almost TEN YEARS we don't have an official source telling us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the WTC or the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the core.

Read the NIST report, they went to a lot of trouble documenting the loads on each floor.

We don't even have a layout of the horizontal beams that were in the core.

Those are the floor beams in the core. Read the NIST report, there's a diagram in there.

And physicists and structural engineers are not demanding the information. Not Richard Gage or Steven Jones.

Even those two probably at least read the report.

The 9/11 Decade is the epitome of European culture.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
It's strong evidence there were no explosives employed, along with other evidence.


No it isn't. Physics proves there had to be an energy acting on the tower that is not being accounted for, regardless off whether you think there is no evidence for it. The post collapse pictures are evidence for explosives of some kind, as there is NO other way for the buildings to have collapsed the way they did.


Neither WTC 1, 2, or 7 fell "in their footprints". 7 fell across Barclay St. and hit Fiterman Hall. Just about any photo of the 1 and 2 collapses shows debris falling outside of the footprints.


Pay attention to the discussion., I'm getting tired of correcting you OSers every post.

WTC 1 and 2 did NOT fall into their footprints, the debris was ejected in 360d arc, this is one of the reason pancake collapse that OSers argue for was not possible, and NIST themselves rejected that hypothesis.

WTC 7 DID fall into its own footprint, evidenced by all four outer walls being on top of the debris pile. Some rubble being out of the footprint is normal, all four outer walls being on top of the collapsed building is not.

If you can't see the walls marked in red then you need new glasses. If you don't understand the significance of that you need to study controlled demolition, and the physics involved.




edit on 5/24/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK
 


Okay. But I note you don't like talking about the squibs nearly as much as you did a few years ago.

Odd that...


Why is that odd? I'll talk about squibs if you want me to, but I've got to the point in this discussion that I have learned new things, and I'm sorry but squibs are about as important as flying fish to me at this point.

Again, why do you want to discus squibs and not address the other points I am making? Because you can easily dismiss squibs, but you have no argument for my other points, that is blatantly obvious. I have no proof of what the squibs were, and neither do you, so lets just leave it at that and discuss what is really important and relevant, the physics of the actual collapses.

Do you want to discus the laws of motion and moment conservation in the collapses, because that I will be happy to do?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'll discuss moment conservation with you if you like. But since it's something you seem to have invented in your head it's going to be kind of one way.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join