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.
What is a 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorist"?
page: 5share:
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We don't have data on the length of horizontal steel on each level in the core. We don't have the weight of steel on each level of the core. And all of these pictures of the aftermath do not explain how the event could occur. How could the mass above the impact on the north tower force down the intact mass below the impact.
That is the question.
No, actually, the question is, how these alternative scenarios of controlled demolitions (or thermite or lasers from otuer space or whatever) sufficiently explains how the towers collapsed while satisfying all these "weight of the steel on each level of the core" objections you keep bringing up. If nobody knows the length of horizontal steel, weight of the concrete, mass above the impact, and all that then how can anyone realistically submit *any* scenario?
I'll tell you how- noone cares about finding the exact weight of each floor, or the exact composition of the steel the trusses were made, or any of that. All anyone cares about is a) how the plane impact caused the initial structural failure and b) how that initial structural failure turned into a cascading chain of structural failure. If your questions, objections, observations, or whatever don't assist in answering one or the other, then it's an immaterial question.
So why are you talking to me about explosives when I never said anything about them?
...and I will ask again...you're arguing so passionately against the NIST, FEMA, and Purdue models so it's clear that you're passionately arguing FOR some other scenario or another. What is your other scenario, and how does it satisfy all these weird objections you're scrounging up? I presume you're not attempting to claim that *nothing* caused the towers to collapse.
It's patently obvious that the collapse of the towers in the way that they did was a physical possibility, meaning that there is a rational explanation that conforms to the laws of physics that is able to explain it. All you've managed to do so far is show that nobody really knows what it is yet and everyone on both sides of the discussion really just guessing. I don't wallow in these conspiracy stories so I can live with that answer. Can you?
reply to post by GoodOlDave
WTC designers are on record saying the towers were built to withstand airline impacts, and even though it was only designed to withstand 707's and not 757's the tower did not collapse upon impact so this proves that the tower did withstand a 757 impact (both towers, same result).
The alternative theory that people are so passionately arguing for is controlled demolition.
WTC designers are on record saying the towers were built to withstand airline impacts, and even though it was only designed to withstand 707's and not 757's the tower did not collapse upon impact so this proves that the tower did withstand a 757 impact (both towers, same result).
The alternative theory that people are so passionately arguing for is controlled demolition.
Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave
WTC designers are on record saying the towers were built to withstand airline impacts, and even though it was only designed to withstand 707's and not 757's the tower did not collapse upon impact so this proves that the tower did withstand a 757 impact (both towers, same result).
The diffrerent explanations put forth on how the towers collapsed are mixed. The NIST and FEMA reports conclude it wasn't the plane impacts, but the fired instigated by the fuel causing temperatures to rise above the steel's abiltity to withstand and still keep its structural integrity. The Purdue university report disagrees as their model suggests that the architects overlooked the effect of incompressable fluids like the fuel would have on the structure while travelling at speed. NIST fire expert James Quintiere believes the structure never had sufficient fireproofing to even resist the fires to begin with. Incidentally, the WTC designers are likewise on record as supporting the findings of the NIST report.
The fact of the matter is, there are two questions to be answered- what caused the initial structural failure, and how did the initial structural failure lead to a cascading chain of structural failure. Controlled demolitions are entirely unsatisfying in explaining these questions, particularly as all the objections the conspiracy proponents submit against the myriad reports apply equally to their own theories.
Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave
WTC designers are on record saying the towers were built to withstand airline impacts, and even though it was only designed to withstand 707's and not 757's the tower did not collapse upon impact so this proves that the tower did withstand a 757 impact (both towers, same result).
The alternative theory that people are so passionately arguing for is controlled demolition.
SO!
That does not constitute PROOF that they were not wrong!
But since skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up and they had to figure out how to distribute the steel to do that the Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum must be invoked to understand if a collapse could happen.
So where are all of the physicists demanding accurate steel and concrete distribution data?
Gravitational collapse of self supporting structure:
www.youtube.com...
psik
There is no guessing when science proves that WTC came down by uses of demolition.
Those in this thread that state there is no evidence to this claim are deliberately misinforming you.
The fact is no other theory to what happened to the three WTC can stand up to scrutiny and science “except demolition.”
Anyone watching all the video’s taken on 911 of the WTC coming down can clearly see these buildings are showing all the characteristic of demolition and not just buildings falling down. We all watched in horror as we all saw huge chunks of steel beams( weighing tons) hurling over five hundred feet in every direction from WTC 1&2 this is not the not classic case of a buildings just falling down.
There are those in here who reject all conspiracy theories to 911. This is no different than George Bush making a public statement that we will not listen to conspiracy theories about 911; you are either for us or against us.
Meaning the OS is all true and do not question it, if you do then consider yourself a terrorist because you are against us.
Now I don’t know what country some of you live in, but I am an American born citizen and I believe in questioning my government.
Apparently the Bush and Obama administration have demonstrated that they do not want the voters asking questions about 911. One certainly has to wonder why, and why all the secrecy about all the 911 events.
Those in this thread that state there is no evidence to this claim are deliberately misinforming you.
The fact is no other theory to what happened to the three WTC can stand up to scrutiny and science “except demolition.”
Anyone watching all the video’s taken on 911 of the WTC coming down can clearly see these buildings are showing all the characteristic of demolition and not just buildings falling down. We all watched in horror as we all saw huge chunks of steel beams( weighing tons) hurling over five hundred feet in every direction from WTC 1&2 this is not the not classic case of a buildings just falling down.
There are those in here who reject all conspiracy theories to 911. This is no different than George Bush making a public statement that we will not listen to conspiracy theories about 911; you are either for us or against us.
Meaning the OS is all true and do not question it, if you do then consider yourself a terrorist because you are against us.
Now I don’t know what country some of you live in, but I am an American born citizen and I believe in questioning my government.
Apparently the Bush and Obama administration have demonstrated that they do not want the voters asking questions about 911. One certainly has to wonder why, and why all the secrecy about all the 911 events.
edit on 16-7-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by impressme
There is no guessing when science proves that WTC came down by uses of demolition.
Science and scientists are two different things. Science is an abstraction and never proves anything.
When the SCIENTISTS are going to get their heads out of their asses is a whole 'nuther story.
If the scientists PROVE that airliners could not possibly have destroyed the towers then all they will do is PROVE that they should have figured it out in a few months. The Potential Energy cannot be accurately computed without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. The effect of the Conservation of Momentum on a straight down gravitational collapse could not be analyzed without that same information. So how do the SCIENTISTS explain not needing, wanting and DEMANDING that information for TEN YEARS? And then not talking about it year after year all of that time?
The CN Tower in Toronto shows how the support mass needs to be distributed in a very tall vertical structure.
www.youtube.com...
psik
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Sorry to tell you, but science has proved airplanes did not knock down the WTC, perhaps if you do some real research from a credible website and try to stay away from 911 Myths that only supports the lies of the OS.
www.ae911truth.org...
Science has proved demolition and your questions supporting the OS have been answered. Try reading some of these technical journals before you start assuming that demolition is not impossible.
If the scientists PROVE that airliners could not possibly have destroyed the towers then all they will do is PROVE that they should have figured it out in a few months. The Potential Energy cannot be accurately computed without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. The effect of the Conservation of Momentum on a straight down gravitational collapse could not be analyzed without that same information. So how do the SCIENTISTS explain not needing, wanting and DEMANDING that information for TEN YEARS? And then not talking about it year after year all of that time?
Sorry to tell you, but science has proved airplanes did not knock down the WTC, perhaps if you do some real research from a credible website and try to stay away from 911 Myths that only supports the lies of the OS.
www.ae911truth.org...
Science has proved demolition and your questions supporting the OS have been answered. Try reading some of these technical journals before you start assuming that demolition is not impossible.
edit on 17-7-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by psikeyhackr
If the scientists PROVE that airliners could not possibly have destroyed the towers then all they will do is PROVE that they should have figured it out in a few months. The Potential Energy cannot be accurately computed without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. The effect of the Conservation of Momentum on a straight down gravitational collapse could not be analyzed without that same information. So how do the SCIENTISTS explain not needing, wanting and DEMANDING that information for TEN YEARS? And then not talking about it year after year all of that time?
Sorry to tell you, but science has proved airplanes did not knock down the WTC, perhaps if you do some real research from a credible website and try to stay away from 911 Myths that only supports the lies of the OS.
www.ae911truth.org...
Science has proved demolition and your questions supporting the OS have been answered. Try reading some of these technical journals before you start assuming that demolition is not impossible.
Science NEVER PROVES ANYTHING.
Scientists can prove things.
Why don't you go out and FIND SCIENCE and see if you can get it to talk to you.
psik
edit on 17-7-2011 by psikeyhackr because: sp err
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by psikeyhackr
If the scientists PROVE that airliners could not possibly have destroyed the towers then all they will do is PROVE that they should have figured it out in a few months. The Potential Energy cannot be accurately computed without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. The effect of the Conservation of Momentum on a straight down gravitational collapse could not be analyzed without that same information. So how do the SCIENTISTS explain not needing, wanting and DEMANDING that information for TEN YEARS? And then not talking about it year after year all of that time?
Sorry to tell you, but science has proved airplanes did not knock down the WTC, perhaps if you do some real research from a credible website and try to stay away from 911 Myths that only supports the lies of the OS.
www.ae911truth.org...
Science has proved demolition and your questions supporting the OS have been answered. Try reading some of these technical journals before you start assuming that demolition is not impossible.
I never say KNOCKED DOWN. I said DESTROYED.
What did I say to support the OS?
psik
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave
WTC designers are on record saying the towers were built to withstand airline impacts, and even though it was only designed to withstand 707's and not 757's the tower did not collapse upon impact so this proves that the tower did withstand a 757 impact (both towers, same result).
The alternative theory that people are so passionately arguing for is controlled demolition.
SO!
That does not constitute PROOF that they were not wrong!
But since skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up and they had to figure out how to distribute the steel to do that the Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum must be invoked to understand if a collapse could happen.
All right, we both know you're just spouting impressive sounding words without knowing what they actually mean, and if an actual physicist came by and started discussing "mathematical variations on how myriad materials impact the conservation of momentum" you wouldn't have a clue. I've seen so many other people here using this stunt to give themselves false credibility and I know I'll be seeing it again, so you're wasting your time if you think this stunt will work on me. This really doesn't matter though because despite your protests and debates, the indisputable fact remains that the towers did in fact collapse, ergo, the question ISN'T how the building didn't collapse. The question is how the building DID collapse.
Is there some particular scenarion you're trying to present with all this "conservation of momentum" bit? I know I've asked this before and you haven't answered it.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave
WTC designers are on record saying the towers were built to withstand airline impacts, and even though it was only designed to withstand 707's and not 757's the tower did not collapse upon impact so this proves that the tower did withstand a 757 impact (both towers, same result).
The alternative theory that people are so passionately arguing for is controlled demolition.
SO!
That does not constitute PROOF that they were not wrong!
But since skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up and they had to figure out how to distribute the steel to do that the Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum must be invoked to understand if a collapse could happen.
All right, we both know you're just spouting impressive sounding words without knowing what they actually mean, and if an actual physicist came by and started discussing "mathematical variations on how myriad materials impact the conservation of momentum" you wouldn't have a clue. I've seen so many other people here using this stunt to give themselves false credibility and I know I'll be seeing it again, so you're wasting your time if you think this stunt will work on me. This really doesn't matter though because despite your protests and debates, the indisputable fact remains that the towers did in fact collapse, ergo, the question ISN'T how the building didn't collapse. The question is how the building DID collapse.
Is there some particular scenarion you're trying to present with all this "conservation of momentum" bit? I know I've asked this before and you haven't answered it.
Where is this hypothetical physicist demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers?
Idiots think mathematics is more important than physics. You have to have correct data to plug into the equations even if you know enough to select the right equations.
So physicists have spent TEN YEARS making themselves look stupid by not wanting to know the amount of steel on every level. Or do you just expect to intimidate people with the words "physicist" and "mathematics".
The equation for conservation of momentum is:
m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3
The supposed collapse of the north tower would have to be analyzed as a series of collisions so how can it be done without knowing the mass at every level? Tell us oh wise physicist.
Here is my Python program:
the911forum.freeforums.org...
It can't be truly accurate without correct data but I get a time of around 12 seconds with no supports to be broken. So how could either tower come down in less than 18 seconds with supports that had to be broken?
psik
edit on 18-7-2011 by psikeyhackr because: sp err
reply to post by psikeyhackr
So how is it that you have already reached your conclusions?
It can't be truly accurate without correct data....
So how is it that you have already reached your conclusions?
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
It can't be truly accurate without correct data....
So how is it that you have already reached your conclusions?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for any skyscraper to be collapsed straight down in less than double freefall time from the top due to the top 15% being dropped on the rest.
Try finding the distributions of steel and concrete on any skyscraper.
Why hasn't anyone built a physical model that can do this straight down collapse yet?
The supports must be strong enough to hold the static load. Crushing any such supports will require energy. The only source is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. It must lose energy and therefore slow down to crush the supports. The supports down a skyscraper must get stronger and therefore heavier. So the conservation of momentum and the energy loss due to destroying supports mitigate against complete collapse.
This 22 degree tilting of the top of the south tower is an entirely different issue. It is really funny that physicists haven't been screaming about that.
It is so obvious that airliners could not do that someday 9/11 will have to be a global joke.
That so called debate between Chris Moron and Retard Gage is just a waste of people's time. Gage is supposedly an architect but does not talk about how the steel has to be distributed in all skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up. But makes a big deal about the controlled demolition issue so he makes it all emotional. Chris Mohr talks about material coming down at 100 mph but doesn't mention the conservation of momentum and the mass of steel and concrete that has to be in the 350 feet it takes gravity to accelerate something to 100 mph.
psik
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Then why do you need more data? You've already determined its impossible so that's the end of that, no more info required.
One or the other.
Either your conclusion is faulty due to a lack of info - or - your conclusion is correct and no further data is required.
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for any skyscraper to be collapsed straight down in less than double freefall time from the top due to the top 15% being dropped on the rest.
Then why do you need more data? You've already determined its impossible so that's the end of that, no more info required.
One or the other.
Either your conclusion is faulty due to a lack of info - or - your conclusion is correct and no further data is required.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for any skyscraper to be collapsed straight down in less than double freefall time from the top due to the top 15% being dropped on the rest.
Then why do you need more data? You've already determined its impossible so that's the end of that, no more info required.
One or the other.
Either your conclusion is faulty due to a lack of info - or - your conclusion is correct and no further data is required.
I don't need more data.
It is PROVING things to all of the people that insist on believing airliners could do it.
How can they claim to be scientific without the data? That is why it is the 9/11 RELIGION.
psik
reply to post by psikeyhackr
You don't need anymore data? Than why do you keep asking for some fantastical distribtuion numbers over and over and over and over again? Are you saying that your claim that it is impossible is not scientific? Just kind of a hunch?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for any skyscraper to be collapsed straight down in less than double freefall time from the top due to the top 15% being dropped on the rest.
I don't need more data. It is PROVING things to all of the people that insist on believing airliners could do it.
How can they claim to be scientific without the data?
You don't need anymore data? Than why do you keep asking for some fantastical distribtuion numbers over and over and over and over again? Are you saying that your claim that it is impossible is not scientific? Just kind of a hunch?
These diagrams are perfect! I am a bank messenger in Manhattan, my office is at 101 Barclay Street. I have to walk past ground zero everyday. The post
office is directly next to ground zero, in the wall facing ground zero the post office wall has these small square inclaves. They cleaned the wall
beautifully, but they did not clean the inclaves, they are caked with soot...every single one of them. So, I scraped samples of this into a container
and when I get the money together I am going to have it analyzed myself. I am interested in what the results have to say, since this building is the
closest building still standing that was in that area.
Originally posted by NeoAlef2012
These diagrams are perfect! I am a bank messenger in Manhattan, my office is at 101 Barclay Street. I have to walk past ground zero everyday. The post office is directly next to ground zero, in the wall facing ground zero the post office wall has these small square inclaves. They cleaned the wall beautifully, but they did not clean the inclaves, they are caked with soot...every single one of them. So, I scraped samples of this into a container and when I get the money together I am going to have it analyzed myself. I am interested in what the results have to say, since this building is the closest building still standing that was in that area.
Hate to break this to you guy, but the entire city of New York is "caked with soot", so the samples you're going to analyze is almost certainly going to be from forty years of automobile emissions, exhaust from building generators, that scent that wafts up from the subway vents, etc. The residue from the buildings' collapse were a fine powder that could be swept up, not a caked on soot that needs to be scraped off.
You do bring up a VERY good point, though, Dr. Jones claims he found thermite in his own examples, but he admits himself that he didn't collect them himself, but rather, someone else send them to him. Was his sample something somebody scraped off of a structure that would therefore contain contaminants? If someone took a screwdriver and "scraped off caked soot" off some I beam it's going to contain a heck of a lot more stuff than just WTC debris.
The definition of a "conspiracy theorist" would therefore be "someone who doesn't care how horribly sloppy their research is just as long as the end results still support the conspiracy theories that they themselves want to believe", isn't it?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We don't have data on the length of horizontal steel on each level in the core. We don't have the weight of steel on each level of the core. And all of these pictures of the aftermath do not explain how the event could occur. How could the mass above the impact on the north tower force down the intact mass below the impact.
That is the question.
No, actually, the question is, how these alternative scenarios of controlled demolitions (or thermite or lasers from otuer space or whatever) sufficiently explains how the towers collapsed while satisfying all these "weight of the steel on each level of the core" objections you keep bringing up. If nobody knows the length of horizontal steel, weight of the concrete, mass above the impact, and all that then how can anyone realistically submit *any* scenario?
The airliner and fire scenario would have to weaken the steel in the impact zone in less than ONE HOUR for the south tower and less then TWO HOURS for the north tower. So not knowing the amount of steel in the vicinity is pretty ridiculous no matter what. Ryan Mackey has a "white paper" where he attacks David Ray Griffith saying that the specific heat of steel is 50% higher than that of copper. He is using that to imply that steel is a "bad" conductor because it is not as good a conductor as copper and that the conduction of the steel is irrelevant. But that very number means it is 50% more difficult to heat steel than copper but he doesn't point that out. So we have these distorted physics debates that simply help the ignorant believe what they prefer. The amount of steel still matters.
So for that information to not be demanded by everyone is ridiculous. It is the ridiculousness of the Official Story that breeds all of the other scenarios. A magical collapse with no supports takes 12 seconds in a computer simulation and that is without really accurate distribution of mass data. So the airliner/fire explanation should have been shot down by our engineering schools within a matter of months.
So the fact that it wasn't says curious things about this society. We are about to reach the TEN YEARS of incompetent physics mark. So after TEN YEARS the fact that the "science geeks" did not resolve this simple issue may be more important than what happened on 9/11 itself. The "scientists" have revealed themselves to be full of # and totally lacking in integrity.
psik
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So for that information to not be demanded by everyone is ridiculous. It is the ridiculousness of the Official Story that breeds all of the other scenarios. A magical collapse with no supports takes 12 seconds in a computer simulation and that is without really accurate distribution of mass data. So the airliner/fire explanation should have been shot down by our engineering schools within a matter of months.
So what are you saying, that all our engineering schools and students are "all in on the coverup" because they're not agreeing with what you're seeing?