Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 68
272
<< 65  66  67    69  70 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Please refer to the Delft collapse aftermath again and repeat that line.


You have yet to make a point concerning that video.


This isn't necessarily about whether the collapse or not, the point is moot because natural collapses can obviously be complete. This is about whether the observed collapse time is achievable in an iterated pancake collapse model.


All this time I have been asking you how the collapse would arrest, I have said nothing about collapse time. We have been talking about the WTC specifically, and how that specific collapse would arrest, which you claim would happen.

Are you revoking that claim? Do you agree that you can not think of any way how the collapse would arrest once it was initiated?




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





You have yet to make a point concerning that video.


If you had watched the video you would know what my point was, but I will enlighten you: Most of the floor mass was left hanging from the columns afterwards.

Collapse INTERFACE.





All this time I have been asking you how the collapse would arrest, I have said nothing about collapse time. We have been talking about the WTC specifically, and how that specific collapse would arrest, which you claim would happen.

Are you revoking that claim? Do you agree that you can not think of any way how the collapse would arrest once it was initiated?


Have you not been reading?

What is the point if you are reading a penny romance novel and commenting on the moon landing while we are talking?

My objection to the pancake model was always that it cannot be made to collapse in the observed time, my objection to the crush down model is that it cannot be made to collapse completely.

Stop conflating the models, they have nothing to do with one another.

In all likelihood, a pancaking floor system will NOT collapse to completion given sufficient iterations (i.e. each iteration reduces the likelihood of the next iteration occurring), but completion itself is not at the root of the problem with pancakes.

Stop thinking like a bull in a china shop, there are subtle points here that need to be clearly distinguished.
edit on 6-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
If you had watched the video you would know what my point was, but I will enlighten you: Most of the floor mass was left hanging from the columns afterwards.

Collapse INTERFACE.

So your new theory is that the floors did not really fail, but got a little damaged and just somewhat hanged. May I remind you that there was a full floor failure. That means that there is nothing there to hang on. This mass is not connected to anything. (I already pointed that out to you)


Have you not been reading?

What is the point if you are reading a penny romance novel and commenting on the moon landing while we are talking?

My objection to the pancake model was always that it cannot be made to collapse in the observed time, my objection to the crush down model is that it cannot be made to collapse completely.

Stop conflating the models, they have nothing to do with one another.

In all likelihood, a pancaking floor system will NOT collapse to completion given sufficient iterations (i.e. each iteration reduces the likelihood of the next iteration occurring), but completion itself is not at the root of the problem with pancakes.

Stop thinking like a bull in a china shop, there are subtle points here that need to be clearly distinguished.


I am not talking about models, I am not using terms like "pancake", or "crushdown", I even explained you why in detail. I have been asking just one simple question which you kept avoiding for the last 3 pages or so: how would the collapse arrest. You made that claim.

And now you pretend as if that was not at all the issue at hand. You are lying. You are disingenuous. I repeated that question in about every post. The reason you are lying is because you can not answer that question, and it kind of destroys your delusion.

Now lets use a something called logic, I know, not your favorite discipline. Nobody is able to give a good reason why the collapse would arrest, including you nor any other truther or engineer. That means that in all likelihood, total collapse is imminent once a full floor failed. Since even we can figure that out, we must assume that the conspirators, who had highly trained experts at their disposal, also figured that out. So if they also figured that out, why on earth would they used explosives? That would only risk exposure. It is really the most illogical, most silly thing to assume.

Now you can continue to expose your ignorance about how you do not understand how the building could collapse that fast, but is that really relevant given you can not explain how the collapse would arrest? Could it be possible that you do not have the proper education and may just not be that familiar with the involved physics in order to make that kind of assessment? The answer is of course yes. You have absolutely no clue about the involved physics, and you rely on some silly conspiracy websites or Yourtube videos.

Anyway, since you will never admit that you are unable to explain how the collapse would arrest, I will end this conversation here. I had some laughs, and had another first hand look at what a conviction can do to the integrity of a human being. (also see my sig). You have been lying and twisting just in order to avoid admitting that your conviction doesn't have much basis in reality. You have literally made dozens of logical fallacies along the way. If that is what you call truth, then you are an excellent truther.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Amazing.

It has been explained to you over and over again why the collapse would arrest.

Your post sounds like nothing but an appeal to people to believe what you do. You offer no real science to explain why the collapse wouldn't arrest, you just want people to think that is what would happen.

If you ignore the physics, like equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, then you can claim anything can happen. If I ignore those laws of physics then I could claim a meteor could hit the Earth in Kansas, and keep on going until in comes up through the floor of a Chinese steel company.


Yes that is the extent of your logic PLB. The poster who claimed to be an electrical engineer, what happened to that claim btw? We're not stupid here on ATS PLB, lies are caught out pretty fast as you must have realised.
It's amazing what you give away about yourself by what and how you reply.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Amazing.

It has been explained to you over and over again why the collapse would arrest.


Sure man, why don't you give a short summery of Darkwings explanation then. That will be fun.


Your post sounds like nothing but an appeal to people to believe what you do. You offer no real science to explain why the collapse wouldn't arrest, you just want people to think that is what would happen.

If you ignore the physics, like equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, then you can claim anything can happen. If I ignore those laws of physics then I could claim a meteor could hit the Earth in Kansas, and keep on going until in comes up through the floor of a Chinese steel company.


Yes that is the extent of your logic PLB. The poster who claimed to be an electrical engineer, what happened to that claim btw? We're not stupid here on ATS PLB, lies are caught out pretty fast as you must have realised.
It's amazing what you give away about yourself by what and how you reply.


My post was not about me, it was about the inability of Darkwing to explain the claim on which he bases his believes. I have explained it enough times to you. You ignore it, remember.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





My post was not about me, it was about the inability of Darkwing to explain the claim on which he bases his believes. I have explained it enough times to you. You ignore it, remember.


You asked me to explain what happens in every natural collapse happens and then basically refused to believe that there exists such a thing as elastic collisions exist or that they are mediated by the electromagnetic force.

If that is what you think "failing to explain" means (i.e. failing to make you understand the nature of reality), then yes, I have failed to explain.




If you ignore the physics, like equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, then you can claim anything can happen. If I ignore those laws of physics then I could claim a meteor could hit the Earth in Kansas, and keep on going until in comes up through the floor of a Chinese steel company.


Yeah, you might as well claim that because you don't understand quantum physics that all of its prediction are invalid.

You are a very confused individual.
edit on 7-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You asked me to explain what happens in every natural collapse happens and then basically refused to believe that there exists such a thing as elastic collisions exist or that they are mediated by the electromagnetic force.

If that is what you think "failing to explain" means (i.e. failing to make you understand the nature of reality), then yes, I have failed to explain.


No, I asked you to explain how the collapse would arrest. Over:



Then explain which floor would eventually arrest the collapse. How is this possible when there is the mass of at least 12 unsupported floors above it? How can a single floor support the mass of 12 floors?


and over:



Which floor is going to arrest this mass? How come this floor is capable of holding this mass? Explain this.


and over:



So at some moment in time, all the mass of the at lest 12 floors must be resting, without moving, on a floor that was able to stop it. Which floor is capable of doing that? How come this floor is capable of holding the mass of at least 12 floors?


and over:



Once the collapse arrested, which floor is holding the mass that is arrested? How is this floor capable of holding this mass without failing?


and over:



You think the majority of mass falling not down (the direction gravity is pulling it), but falling to the side? What force is causing this to happen? How is this a reasonable assumption to make?


and over:



I am not asking why a force pushed out the mass. I am asking which force was responsible for it. Or in other words, how was the mass pushed out


and over:



how is the majority of the mass pushed outside.


and over:



Explain how the majority of the mass is pushed aside. I am not asking how some mass is pushed aside, I am asking how the majority of the mass is pushed aside.


and over:



You are claiming the majority of the mass is ejected. Explain how. Your cup falling on a desk is a complete failure.


and over:



Now back to the question. You are claiming the majority of the mass is ejected. Explain how.


and over:



What matters is how the majority of the mass did not ended up on the floor, or in other words, how it ended up outside the perimeter of the floor. Explain that.



You explanations so far: elastic collisions, the electromagnetic force, some mass remains hanging on the columns.

You can as well say it arrested because of origami. That has about as much explanatory power as your explanations.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




You can as well say it arrested because of origami. That has about as much explanatory power as your explanations.


A theory is not an explanation PLB.

Do you not grasp this?




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


It seems to me that you are the one having trouble making that distinction, as those were your answers to my request for an explanation. But I am glad you now realize that you have no explained a thing.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




It seems to me that you are the one having trouble making that distinction, as those were your answers to my request for an explanation. But I am glad you now realize that you have no explained a thing.


The point Feynman is making is that here is no need to explain how it works to people who do not have the conceptual framework, the desire, or the ability I daresay, to understand it.

The fact that it DOES work in repeatable experiment is sufficient from a scientific point of view.
edit on 8-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Small issue here is that I do have the required conceptional framework. The problem here is that you just don't come with an explanation. It looks like your latest excuse is that the reason you do not come with an explanation is because I would not understand it. Right... Coming from someone who brings up the electromagnetic force in a context where is has no meaning at all, then for some completely unknown reason starts to compare it to the normal force, concluding they are not the same, and then telling me, who never brought up either subjects, that I am the one mixing these two up. Can you understand you come across as a very crazy person? But it is also somewhat amusing to see how completely illogical and weird someones line of reasoning can be. As for showing repeatable experiments, you must have somewhere forgot to post those. Experiments that relate the the WTC collapse that is, dropping cups don't count.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


If I come across as a crazy person at least I will come across as a crazy person who knows what a paragraph is.

Seriously, who is gonna read that wall of text you posted.

Anyhow, I am not the one who is denying reality for lack of an explanation here, you are. I understand why natural iterative collapses always happen this way, I 'm sorry if you don't. If you don't like my explanation involving frictions and the second law of thermodynamics you are welcome to explain it in a different way.

But you are most certainly not welcome to invent a new set of facts to satisfy your half-baked ideas.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Sorry, I sometimes forget that truthers have a hard time reading more than one sentence without spaces in between. (although you also seem to have a hard time reading when I do put them in between, so it does not matter that much). Again you seem to imply you explained something by saying "my explanation". I already asked Anok to summarize your explanation. Of course we will never see that happen.
edit on 8-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01


So what you are saying is that a falling box is NOT what happened, but a falling box is what needed to happen to get your pancake to happen...



Nope.

The sane and ratrional look at videos of the collapse and see air being squeezed out rapidly from between the falling/failing floor that provides the only resistance the the descending rubble. The sane and rational see this as the collapse front. The sane and rational see the air being pushed between the ext columns after the windows are gone.

Therefore, the sane and rational also realize that any of the delusional claims of mass being lost over the side must also address the problem of how to get all this mass through the window gaps, which were what, 3' wide?

The sane and rational realize that it is a delusional claim to proclaim that floors were blown to pieces small enough to fit through the window gaps.

And that little tickle you feel in your head is the last of your sane and rational part of your brain being destroyed by cognitive dissonance. when you repeat the delusion of mass being ejected.....



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Nope.

The sane and ratrional look at videos of the collapse and see air being squeezed out rapidly from between the falling/failing floor that provides the only resistance the the descending rubble. The sane and rational see this as the collapse front. The sane and rational see the air being pushed between the ext columns after the windows are gone.

Therefore, the sane and rational also realize that any of the delusional claims of mass being lost over the side must also address the problem of how to get all this mass through the window gaps, which were what, 3' wide?

The sane and rational realize that it is a delusional claim to proclaim that floors were blown to pieces small enough to fit through the window gaps.

And that little tickle you feel in your head is the last of your sane and rational part of your brain being destroyed by cognitive dissonance. when you repeat the delusion of mass being ejected.....


The sane and rational person does an experiment and does not engage in empty rationalization.

I love the idea that the collapse has now moved all the way down to the ejections, the focused plumes of dust. That is several tens of stories ahead of the main front, aside from the problem of creating focused jets from a collapse mechanism this just completely messes up the pancake theory, because if that were to be the case the collapse WOULD be going faster than gravity could provide.

Explain all you like, make up bed time stories to tell yourself. How the great America would never do something like this to itself. Does it make you feel better?

I hope it does.

The rest of us will confine our beliefs to what can be demonstrated in experiment.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


-- "Between September 2000 and June of 2001, The FAA scrambled fighter jets to intercept 67 aircraft. Interceptions usually occur within 10 minutes of a sign of trouble such as losing radio contact and transponder signal, or flying off course. On September 11th four commercial airliners were off course and out of communication, yet according to the official story not one of them was intercepted. "


As an FAA employee who was actually working that day I can tell you that fighters were scrambled. The problem on 9/11 was that the hijackers turned off the transponders and radar contact was lost. Only a few voice contacts were made, but the tapes clearly indicated voice change in the cockpits. They decended below Class A airspace to be able to fly low enough to visually spot the targets. If we could not see them, then we could not direct the fighters. If an aircraft goes NORDO, they normally remain at altitude. If contact is not regained, then fighters can be dispatched, but the bases from which they are launched may be hundreds of miles away. It can take 30 minutes to put pilots in the cockpit of a F-16 and get it airborne, on course to intercept. Prior to 9/11, interceptions were very rare. Usually only international or suspected drug runners. I really doubt 67.

You can say anything you want. Proving it is more difficult. This whole notion is BS.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Thanks for the summary got a lot out of it. Ill check out the whole video when I get a chance. Never really thought about it until now but, it doesn't seem like anyone had anything remotely close to proof that Bin laden was connected. This has really raised a lot of questions in my head.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Beebse
 


As an FAA employee who was actually working that day I can tell you that fighters were scrambled. The problem on 9/11 was that the hijackers turned off the transponders and radar contact was lost. Only a few voice contacts were made, but the tapes clearly indicated voice change in the cockpits. They decended below Class A airspace to be able to fly low enough to visually spot the targets. If we could not see them, then we could not direct the fighters. If an aircraft goes NORDO, they normally remain at altitude. If contact is not regained, then fighters can be dispatched, but the bases from which they are launched may be hundreds of miles away. It can take 30 minutes to put pilots in the cockpit of a F-16 and get it airborne, on course to intercept. Prior to 9/11, interceptions were very rare. Usually only international or suspected drug runners. I really doubt 67.
I see, what do you think about the Shanksville crash site? I've always suspected that our military shot it down, because members of the military hint at that pretty strongly.

You say fighters jets were scrambled, but weren't the nearby bases running drills, some of which were hundreds of miles away? Or do those only apply for a few jets, not all of them?


You can say anything you want. Proving it is more difficult. This whole notion is BS.
I just summarized the movie, I never said those hundreds of assertions were 100% factual.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by rob4braves
 


Thanks for the summary got a lot out of it. Ill check out the whole video when I get a chance. Never really thought about it until now but, it doesn't seem like anyone had anything remotely close to proof that Bin laden was connected. This has really raised a lot of questions in my head.
Yeah I believe Bin Laden was in on it, the government used him as a scapegoat. I think this because the CIA trained and funded the organization that eventually evolved into Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden was one of the most prominent members.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Yes and I maintain Bush Jr. and or his handler...........puppet master arranged it in order to manipulate the American People into a costly war.



But most humans never learn..

They exalt the liars and troll those that try to bring the truth to light.

Than years later they say, oh but I knew that.............forgetting they were compliant and swallowed the lies just like everyone else did.

Until the next lying leader comes around with another "plan of action" and they fall right into line.

And it's just not Americans anymore as this corporate dictatorship has now stretched out it's tentacles world wide.

Will we unite in time, will we be able to fight back................because the biggest fear card that "they" whomever they are used on us was 9/11.

Have we learned our lesson yet that hate and fear are our biggest dangers and to always asks when presented with a choice to war............who profits?





I've added a few videos because the lot of you don't seem to really read serious books, nor investigate or research.

Yes 9/11 was a inside job and the majority of American People fell for it hook, line and sinker.

We never seem to learn....................The people should have demanded that Bush and his administration been thrown out and tried for war crimes.

Bush Jr. remember got us into one of the biggest messes and he even admits what a jerk he is.

"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."

George Bush Senior speaking in an interview with Sarah McClendon in December 1992

Again, what will be the next 9/11 and will Americans again fall for it?


edit on 17-11-2011 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
272
<< 65  66  67    69  70 >>

log in

join