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.

 

A question for believers or 'OSers'....

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bobennenwevun
 


The perps included OEM, FDNY, NYPD, FEMA, Gullianni's office, the US government, the USAF, the US Navy and the CIA among others.

Google Project Hammer, Operation Code Angel, Operation Brownstone and The Black Eagle Trust.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Yes we have no bananas, today.






This is the correct size of the steel where the aircraft hit.





posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by dilly1
 





WTC "supposedly" had no internal structure failure


Says who?

Certainly not Frank DeMartini, who called down to his office after climbing the North Tower to the impact area and telling them he thought the building was in danger of at least a partial collapse.



You mean this FD




*****"Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." *******



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jhn7537
 





Jet fuel cant melt steel, it can weaken it, but it cant melt it,


Oh really?

www.arl.psu.edu...(7_11_07)_MOD1.pdf


Upwards of 1500 degrees Celsius (2732 degrees Farenheit) in the combustion chamber. Carbon steel will melt between 2600 to 2800.


Are you stating that the fires in the WTC got that hot due to the jet fuel in those planes? Cause I dont believe the fires got that hot and im pretty sure the WTC wasnt a combustion chamber.....



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


At the point of impact it was around 1/4 - 3/8 in. thick.

It was the shape of the columns I was highlighting. A 35 degree swept-back wing would strike the protruding edges of the column first, much like striking a couple of steel kinves.

They didn't run into a quarter inch of steel sideways, they ran into 13 inch wide, laterally reinforced steel knives.
edit on 15-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Kinda like its unbelievable that you keep spamming this type of crap




Funny you only focus on the kamikaze part and ignore my main point which I will repeat for the 100th time: explain how 116ton jet holding 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete(10,000psi) and mild steel.


And ignore reality.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 




US carrier(or auxiliary ships)


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGod
Woah now. Can't we all calm down, have some tea together, and discuss what we think instead of just waving each other off as "Truther" or Believer", and laying on the insults?

No? Okay then.

On to the bringing down of the buildings and their symmetric collapse. Now, a disclaimer here; I'm not a construction worker, nor am I an engineer. I have some demolition experience and training from my time in the military (Sapper course), but that's just demoing things like small buildings, bunkers, and bridges.

Now, I can say that of course the plane didn't "pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete", it took something like an hour after impact for the towers to fall if I remember correctly. What that tells me is that the initial impact carried enough force from impact and explosion to damage the support structure. This damage would put stress on the remainder of the support structure that would increase steadily as the damage increased from the continued pressure put on it. Eventually (maybe in about an hour...) the stress on the undamaged areas would be too great, causing them to be damaged as well. Once your support structure is gone...well...

Now, I would think that a catastrophic failure is something the engineers would think of. After all, no one wants to build the tower that falls over sideways and crushes six smaller buildings and 240 people, do they?Maybe, and this is just coming from theory since I've done no actual research on the subject, but maybe the buildings were designed to fail in that manner if they had to fail. Straight down rather than to the side.
edit on 8/15/2011 by RedGod because: I'm bad at numbers.




You seem like a nice chap but your beyond wrong and didn't learn jack in the military. If you did you wouldn't have written that bunk post of yours.


First, buildings are not designed to fail or designed in case of failure drop a certain way. That type of thinking NEVER happens.

Second there is no way an "aluminum framed anything" can shock anything made from STEEL and(or) CONCRETE. That's why objects that don't move that are fixed are made from steel and concrete(much heavier) and objects that move (ground/air) are made out of aluminum or lighter composites.


A car engine use to be made from steel or iron, now they are made from aluminum . But if those engines didn't have cooling system the aluminum would melt down completely.


Just giving you an idea that anything aluminum cannot trump anything steel fixed into the dam ground.

Your way of thinking is way off and you need to understand physics instead just creating your own physics which seems is the norm for debunkers.


No shock wave. Throw that idea out the window.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by dilly1
 


Kinda like its unbelievable that you keep spamming this type of crap




Funny you only focus on the kamikaze part and ignore my main point which I will repeat for the 100th time: explain how 116ton jet holding 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete(10,000psi) and mild steel.


And ignore reality.




So I take it,, YOU and "ShaunHatfield" don't know jack about construction and are experts only on WWII. Lol


Seriously you both know nothing about physics.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


No, you claimed that jet fuel cannot melt steel. Pure and simple. And you are WRONG. I am not suggesting that the steel at the WTC melted. It did not have to, it only had to soften to the point where it lost its integrity.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Yes, him. The man who climbed up to the impact area in the North Tower of the WTC on Sept 11, 2001, observed the damage that had occured, and then notified his office that he believed the Tower was in danger of collapse...and subsequently died when he was proven right and the Tower collapsed.

You can post that January 2001 interview all you want....it just shows he was tragically wrong in his belief about the Towers.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jhn7537
 


No, you claimed that jet fuel cannot melt steel. Pure and simple. And you are WRONG. I am not suggesting that the steel at the WTC melted. It did not have to, it only had to soften to the point where it lost its integrity.


This cadaver is dragged out again? Can't you let it rest in peace?

A steel structure would become a giant heat sink, and even if you're correct, the "weakened" steel would have "sagged" into the non-weakened steel which was already holding up the "weakened" steel above it.

Just doesn't figger. Must be another explanation.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jhn7537
 


No, you claimed that jet fuel cannot melt steel. Pure and simple. And you are WRONG. I am not suggesting that the steel at the WTC melted. It did not have to, it only had to soften to the point where it lost its integrity.


Then how would you explain the pools of molten metal that were found under buildings 1, 2 and 7? Kinda strange right?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I guess what I am refering to as far as the OS goes is that groups of Al Queada muslim extremists hijacked some planes and flew them into numerous buildings withouth the knowledge, assistance or direction of the US government. I guess it also means that the WTC collapsed due to the pancake theory.


To which I will respond, Islamic fundamentalists HAVE promoted terrorism in the past. Islamic fundamentalists HAVE hijacked aircraft in the past. Islamic fundamentalists HAVE committed suicide attacks in the past. Islamic fundamentalists HAVE murdered innocent civilians in senseless attacks in the past. Plus, Islamic Fundamentalists HAVE shown they're not "illiterate goatherders that live in caves" but innovative and imaginative fanatics that even figured out how to set off IEDs with cell phones. I cannot for the live of me understand why the conspiracy proponents continue to insist that the Islamic fundamentalists couldn't eventually figure out a way to do these all at once, and instead conjure up all sorts of exotic and absurdly complex secret conspiracies that have never been seen in all of recorded human history.

Listening to all these explanations of secret gov't agents, Jewish world orders, the Illuminati, the Masons, secret controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, whatever, it's as if the only ones in the entire world completely innocent of the attack is Bin Laden and Al Qaida. You tell me why these conspiracy proponents are suffering from a credibility problem.



When it comes to the Pentagon one would expect to see a lot of body parts among the incredibly small amount of debris on the lawn. I would also like to know why Rumsfeld was personally picking it up. Also if a plane were to hit, you would expect to at least see some wings/engines etc as the main body of the plane would have plunged into the building, we did not see this. I see it to be far easier to bribe whoever said they saw the plane to alter their story, although that's another thing.


Now this is exactly what I've been saying all along- there's a gigantic amount of information that's freely available to explain how the events of 9/11 unfolded. It's just that you don't know anything about it because you're going to those damned fool conspiracy websites for all your information, and their goal is to stir up abject paranoia for their own financial gain. Engine parts, landing gear, and fuselage pieces were found in the wreckage but they're certainly not going to be honest about telling you any of that. They're almost certainly the ones who told you that lie about no fuselage or engine parts being found to begin with.

This article on abovetopsecret can fill in what they don't want to tell you better than I can:

Yes, a plane really did hit the Pentagon


I don't see the explosions as irrelevant though, just because the floor in which the plane impacted was detonated first (hypothetically) doesn't mean that the ones in the basement do not mean anything, they deserve an explanation.


...and we're back to the fake editing of the damned fool conspiracy websites again. This whole "explosions in the basement" bit came from William Rodriguez, and he ALSO said that fireballs from the impact and the burning fuel came down the central elevator shaft with such incredible force that it pushed the elevator down into the basement and severely burned the occupants (who he subsequently rescued). If the force from an explosion is powerful enough to push an elevator down an elevator shaft like a bullet down a barrel. there's certainly going to be some form of concussion when that force reaches the bottom.

What does it say to you when these damned fool websites are carefully picking and choosing what they want to tell you and what they're withholding from you, even when it's all coming from the exact same person?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1

You seem like a nice chap but your beyond wrong and didn't learn jack in the military. If you did you wouldn't have written that bunk post of yours.


First, buildings are not designed to fail or designed in case of failure drop a certain way. That type of thinking NEVER happens.

Second there is no way an "aluminum framed anything" can shock anything made from STEEL and(or) CONCRETE. That's why objects that don't move that are fixed are made from steel and concrete(much heavier) and objects that move (ground/air) are made out of aluminum or lighter composites.


A car engine use to be made from steel or iron, now they are made from aluminum . But if those engines didn't have cooling system the aluminum would melt down completely.


Just giving you an idea that anything aluminum cannot trump anything steel fixed into the dam ground.

Your way of thinking is way off and you need to understand physics instead just creating your own physics which seems is the norm for debunkers.


No shock wave. Throw that idea out the window.




Yeah, I don't actually make a habit of debating the 9/11 stuff, so forgive me if I'm not up to speed on every theory there is that's been kicked around and beaten to death. I just had an idea and figured I'd voice it. No need to get super defensive and insulting. (Though I didn't learn jack in the military....about sky scrapers).

I do know, however, that they used to make armor out of aluminum, back before going to the ceramics. Yeah, it's not the strongest metal, but it's not exactly aluminum foil either. Saying that the plane impacting it and blasting a fireball through the building wouldn't make the first bit of difference to the supports reminds me of people saying the Titanic couldn't be sunk. A good theory on paper, but sometimes unexpected things can happen that weren't accounted for during the original planning.

That said, I don't put a ton of faith in my own theory, because as I said I'm no engineer. What I do, however, is keep an open mind to the possibility. I don't know exactly what happened, and neither does anyone else. But there's no reason to go shutting down your mind to anything other than that one version of events that you want to be true.

Namaste, Brother.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGod
 


The "jets" didn't even slow down when they impacted the much more massive building. Even down to the wingtips, and all the way to the tail, it didn't slow down as it glided into the building.

If you were watcing it at a movie theater, you'd know it was just a video illusion, but when it's on TV its real?

It took me years to accept it too, so I understand how hard it is to wrap your head around, but the media are part and parcel to the whole operation. They're the most essential part, as can be seen now ten years later, with people still believing in impossible things, just because Wolf Blitzer said so.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Despite all of the crap we have been told by every government official you maintain there is no Official Story ??

Should you not be asking then why there ISN'T one ??


Would you mind terribly giving me an example of what "every government official" told us about how the towers fell. The FEMA report contradicts the NIST report and the Purdue report contradicts both of them. They were studies held independent from each other so they came up with results that are independent of each other. It's possible they're all incorrect and the towers fell from some as yet unknown reason. That certainly doesn't give the conspiracy mongers any license to make up their own paranoid drivel to fill in the void.

Also, would you mind terribly pointing out just what in the 9/11 report is an actual lie? I keep asking this question over and over and I don't think one out of a thousand of you actually ever read the thing...and no, the commission report doesn't go into how the buildings collapsed one way or the other.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Do you even know how many different metals were present in the Towers? And ended up in the bottom of the debris with the fires that were being fed fresh air through what was left of the subway tunnels?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by bobennenwevun
 


The perps included OEM, FDNY, NYPD, FEMA, Gullianni's office, the US government, the USAF, the US Navy and the CIA among others.

Google Project Hammer, Operation Code Angel, Operation Brownstone and The Black Eagle Trust.


So how many people are in on this supposedly "secret" conspiracy? 100,000 people? 200,000 people? To involve the NYPD means there'd have been 20,000 people "in on the conspiracy" right there.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


So you are saying it was a hologram??

Please tell me you dont really believe that......



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join