It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by hooper

Hooper, or Hannibal, or whatever your name is, perhaps you need to start a thread to prove your case.

Many of us have done just that, and speaking for those who have taken the time, they have provided good arguments for their reasoning. I don't see that from the OSers.

Your link, presumably to the NIST paper which I've dismantled several times, gives me a "403 forbidden" error. It's the same error I get when I try to apply reason to the OS.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by dilly1

There is no need for insults. I am not a clown man and you should know that by my responses. They are clear and thought out and not simply YOUR to website...YOUR to website picture...or, as someone else stated, retarded.

I could care less about your bio but to set it straight I studied structural and mechanical engineering in college but I did start in high school in 10th grade with CAD on an Apple IIe for drafting to show you how long I have been involved with this and all the breakthroughs since. This is not a pissing contest. Telling me you are a general contractor in UAE does not make you an expert either nor does it explain what you do or are responsible for. For all we know you are doing the bathroom tile and not hanging out with the foremen and the plans. So please, relax and stop with the insults and I will stop the assumptions. Cool?

I understand the design and construction of the WTC from the ground up. Read a book and get educated. Not to hard, but from your descriptions I think you do not understand the uniqueness of the design and even the why. Fire away and ask me a question about it. Not working a high-rise site personally also does not mean I do not know how it works. I have family and friends in the industry as a few relatives owned a glass business and we did condos up to 30 stories or so. I was on scaffolding when I was 6 10-12 stories up and learned safety. Again, stop assuming and I will also.

I also explained (based on research) how long it would take for a building of the magnitude of the WTC complex. Ask a CDI expert and they will tell you the same thing(google it). Also, there were floors on the WTC that you simply could not access based on sensitive information that's processed there so how would you access those floors. If you are in the construction industry you should know that some places are shielded and would conflict with RF signalling(remote CDI theory) and have higher security and do not just let anyone walk around/fix things/etc. Security was also increased after 93. There are always exceptions as you know from working in that field but you also know the rules are different for existing structure and new construction as far as access to particular parts of those buildings.

However, based on being in the industry, do you really think that for over a year no one would notice people applying explosives. No janitor would find it? The 10 dollar rent a cop being nosy? The busy body in the office. The office manager who is snooping around. You should know exactly who those people are and you probably cannot stand them.

Aluminum or steel...hello???? Audi makes some nice ass cars with aluminum. You know that airplanes are not made from aluminum foil, right? Ever do any welding/fabrication and learn how to put different metals together and make them tougher. I have built aluminum motorcycle frames that are stronger than steel. Again, are you sure you know anything about construction.

There are also no voodoo physics as you state. The reason for NIST is to make sure it would not happen again but again I am sure you know that, right? I think it a miracle that two jets flying over 500 mph hit and neither collapsed. Honestly. They swayed for over 10 minutes after impact. Physics is very important and as I explained earlier in this thread you have to recalculate each time the mass hits each floor. Are you denying this?

The center core was standing after collapse so your theory does not fit there either. As far as this statement

I know what I am talking about. You don't ,,thinking your expertise: born across a bridge, high school level in structural engineering and a job with fabrication is sufficient. Lol

you simply show me that you are a classic narcissist and probably could not get along with anyone in America so you went to the UAE. Let me know if you need help with flights i can help you out with some of my contacts in that region and maybe get you home with less than 3 connecting flights.

I was stating I was born in NY which is why this is passionate for me, which in no way dictates intelligence unless you are suggesting anyone from NY is a dolt. Second, guessing at my education was incorrect and last, my job in fabrication taught me about another field than can be familiar with and learn a quite a few skills.

Now, where is the evidence of the demolition you state happened. In one post, list your entire theory of how it was planned, carried out and covered up. Also, try to do it in more than 30 words and a few web links...I got your clown right here waiting.....

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by hooper
No, sorry, but I cannot agree. The whole argument is based on the idea that ALL the exterior walls are on top of the pile - how do we know if they are any exterior wall sections below the pile or in the pile? That's why there is a request to ANOK to inventory those walls and account for all of the exterior wall sections.

Its just a simple logical slip - "I see exterior wall sections on top of debris pile, therefore all the exterior wall sections are on top of the pile".

Look at this pic again, I have pointed out the walls, and the direction they would have fallen. If you can't see that walls from all four sides are on top of the rest of the collapsed building I can't help you any longer. BTW I'm not saying it's the whole wall section, it's just the top sections, the rest is under the debris, BUT it is still from all four sides, AND it is all inside the footprint.

It really doesn't matter though if ALL the walls were on top because NONE of them should be, none hooper, none, zero, zilch.

Unless the building fell in one direction only. Which the evidence shows didn't happen.

So for any section of outer wall to be on top of the debris pile, from more than one side, means the collapse was mostly in a vertical direction (asymmetrical straight down). It also means the building landed mostly in its own footprint, because most of the debris was under the outer walls inside the footprint.

It also means the collapse had to be controlled, otherwise the outer walls would have been pushed outwards and all be UNDER the rest of the collapsed building, and outside of the footprint. If you can't grasp that concept you seriously lack in any knowledge of physics in the real world. You're not fooling anyone. Building collapses are controlled to do exactly what WTC 7 did, as evidenced by post collapse pictures let alone video of the actual event.

I think it's obvious who is lacking in logic.

edit on 8/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

Those pics just pose more questions.

There was not enough energy from floors dropping on floors to crush them that way. It's not evidence of pancake collapse alone, because even IF floors crushed in that fashion the collapse could not have been complete. If that was evidence don't you think NIST would have kept with the pancake collapse hypothesis, instead of dropping it when their testing failed to produce what they wanted?...

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.

Again 15 floors can not crush 95 floors, simple physics, simple math. It only works if you twist the concept to make it seem 15 floors only needed to crush one floors at a time one by one, which is nonsense. It only works if you ignore the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws.

It doesn't address how the 47 core columns telescoped down through an increasing mass. Unless you claim the core couldn't stand by itself, but then of course the core would still not telescope down through an increasing mass it would topple.

None of your excuses work genradek. Yeah, not a lot of logical thinking going on, just parroting whatever you think supports your faith.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by GenRadek

Thanks. That first photo especially looks like floors are stacked up, but it's really hard to tell which floor ends where and where the next one begins in that one as well as the other photos, it's just kind of a mushed together clump of metal and debris, you know?

But in the first one it's easy to see at least 3 floors are stacked on the bottom section that's closer to the camera, and in the top section that's further back maybe a couple floors but it's really hard to see through the mess of debris.

A lot of the debris was compressed and compacted, and some while buried were exposed to a very corrosive environment where the temps, chemical reactions, and time took a toll on the debris. Some didnt experience fire, while others did. Of course it would very hard to find every floor too, since you had to dug and break your way through, and everything else laying on it. It obvious the lower floors would have experience more compression as they had more weight land on top of them then the upper floors. I guess you can say, it was a very chaotic and messy collapse, and it hard to get an accurate understand of just what :exactly" happened to what inside.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

Some didnt experience fire, while others did.

What weakened the steel that didn't experience fire then? Wasn't it already holding up the weight of the building above it?

I guess the extra weight of the plane was too much for the steel that hadn't experienced the fire?

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by sir_slide
Do you flat out believe the official story for 9/11? Do you believe there is no evidence to support any other theory?

If you answered YES to either of those questions, then I am interested in what you think of the following points:

Mohamed Atta (one of the main hijackers) was a coc aine snorting, vodka drinking hedonist who spent much of his time prior to the attacks motor boating strippers and doing lines of coke off them. He had even gone into the world trade center building completely out of his mind demanding blue prints for the building and generally acting deliberately suspicious. Few problems here. Extremist Muslims, especially martyrs are likely by definition to be incredibly religious, well needless to say Atta's behavior does not seem to fit here, it seems more like the behavior of a deranged hedonist. This doesn't fit.

The hole that was left in the side of the pentagon. We are told that without a doubt, a Boeing 757 slammed into the pentagon. Well sorry but the hole is absolutely tiny and anyone who payed attention can clearly see that a Boeing 757 would make a far larger hole, and there would also be a great deal of debris laying about. Donald Rumsfeld was also seen clearing the Pentagon lawn after the 'attack', pretty odd for the secretary of defense to do that. I would also like to know how people think that the hijacker who apparently flew the pentagon plane, who could barely handle a single engine Sesler according to his American flight instructor, was able to make such difficult maneuvers and actually successfully hit the pentagon.

The pentagon is one of the most protected and secure buildings in the US. It has missile defense systems that automatically take out incoming targets, as it is a military zone and an absolute no fly zone for a 30km perimeter. So what happened? Do you really think that a 757 could make it all the way to the pentagon without having any issues? Norad's missile defense systems would have shot it out of the sky before it got anywhere near the pentagon.

Building 7. How can a building that was not hit by any plane, apparently had no explosives in it and only some tiny fires on a couple of floors collapse demolition style, in free fall? People may say that it was damaged when the towers fell. Why didn't other buildings collapse like that then?

The exercises taking place on that day. Military exercises were taking place that day that predicted the exact same situation that was took place on 9/11, a lot of fighter pilots and so forth thought that the actual attacks were an exercise so they did not respond to the threat out of confusion. Strange that, not really relevant but the same thing happened on the day of the London bombings.

The explosions. Many many people have said they heard explosions on the ground and in the basement, witnesses saw their friends killed by exploding walls in the basement. So if we listen to the hundreds of witnesses claiming to have heard explosions, then who planted the explosives, video evidence has also revealed explosive flashes occurring as the towers fall. So do you believe there were no explosives? or that the terrorists planted them and the commission was just too lazy to investigate it or?

So here is just a few things worth mentioning.

So believers and 'OSers' what do you think of these things? Do you choose to ignore them to fit your idea of what happened, deny these realities because of the grim realization that the government may have actually let this atrocity take place? Even if you don't believe it was orchestrated by the government, do you not think that they may have had prior knowledge? which has been proven by the way. If they did have prior knowledge and did just let it happen, that is almost just as bad. Even if they didn't orchestrate it, can you not believe that they may have assisted? Pulled a few strings and turned a few blind eyes so that it could happen?

I want to know how when people see the points I am about to put forward, how they can still defend the OS so consistently. Do these things not matter to you? If so it seems you're basing your judgment on a small section of the information available and are not making an informed decision.

Cheers in advance.

edit on 14-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)

You are aware I assume that some of what you've post is not true?

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:02 PM
For example:

Once the fires developed, according to witness accounts and photo evidence gathered in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16) Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. There may not have been visible fires on most floors there. His quote is included to show how impressive the scene was.

First responder accounts

Unless otherwise noted, accounts are from the FDNY oral history transcripts.

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade page 48.
11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook
(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler."

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent
25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)
26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)
27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe
28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)
30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:06 PM
and the Pentagon doesn't have a "missile defence system" as it backs onto an airport

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek

Those pics just pose more questions.

There was not enough energy from floors dropping on floors to crush them that way. It's not evidence of pancake collapse alone, because even IF floors crushed in that fashion the collapse could not have been complete. If that was evidence don't you think NIST would have kept with the pancake collapse hypothesis, instead of dropping it when their testing failed to produce what they wanted?...

ANOK: What do you base this assumption that there was not enough energy to cause the floors to collapse and land on top of each other?

What held up each floor? Then answer me this: did whatever held up each floor get stronger the lower you got?

Oh boy, again with the reading comprehension fail! ANOK, NIST discovered that the floor trusses stayed connected to the exterior columns, which caused the exterior columns to sag inward. This is opposite of what FEMA and their version of the collapse initiator, where the floor trusses separated causing one floor to pancake onto the next, causing that one to fail, thereby leaving the exterior columns without any support for those failed floor areas. The stress was then to be too great, and the exterior columns buckled.

Its all about what caused the exterior columns to buckle and fail. FEMA stated it was because the floor trusses disconnected from them when they were sagging, causing the floors to progressively collapse internally. When that happened, the exterior columns no longer had the support, and they then buckled, causing global collapse. NIST stated that it was discovered the trusses stayed connected to the exterior columns, and did not cause a floor to fail and fall onto the one below it causing it to collapse (ie pancake). The sagging trusses caused the exterior columns to bend in, which then failed, bringing about global collapse. That is what NIST stated about how the original "pancake theory" of initiation of collapse was wrong. Of course that was the initial theory by FEMA. FEMA was wrong. However, after collapse started, the floors had to go somewhere. They went down, landing on top of each other. How many times must this be explained and repeated to you before it starts to sink it?

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.

And this means, what in relation to the trusses? You do realize that the test itself used floor trusses that had proper undamaged insulation, correct?

Again 15 floors can not crush 95 floors, simple physics, simple math. It only works if you twist the concept to make it seem 15 floors only needed to crush one floors at a time one by one, which is nonsense. It only works if you ignore the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws.

ANOK, what was directly below the block of 15 floors as they started to collapse? 95 floors? Or one floor? So when 15 floors land on to the floor below, those floor truss connections failed as they were unable to withstand the dynamic force of the impacting 15 floors. Now that floor is disocnnected and part of the 15 floors. Now the floor below that is being hit by 16 floors. Then below that, 17 floors. That is how the collapse progressed. 95 floors were not holding up the tower. Each floor was held up by the floor truss seats a each end. if you want to explain how that is suppose to stop the collapse, I'd like to hear it. 15 floors vs one floor's connecting seats, that floor is going to lose.

It doesn't address how the 47 core columns telescoped down through an increasing mass. Unless you claim the core couldn't stand by itself, but then of course the core would still not telescope down through an increasing mass it would topple.

Who said this? This is your own strawman creation ANOK. No one said 47 core columns telescoped into themselves. They sure as hell did fall over, tilt over, break up at the base connections of each segment, and even got bent over by the force, but no, no telescoping. Why must you make up things that did not happen? First you say somehow magically the majority of the mass of the Towers were ejected outside the footprint, which did not happen, then you say the core columns somehow telescoped into themselves, again, based on nothing more than your imagination. Why?

None of your excuses work genradek. Yeah, not a lot of logical thinking going on, just parroting whatever you think supports your faith.

Heh, says the person who cant even get NIST or FEMA's theory right.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Yankee451

What weakened the steel that didn't experience fire then? Wasn't it already holding up the weight of the building above it?

I guess the extra weight of the plane was too much for the steel that hadn't experienced the fire?

Who said it did? All that was needed was for the building to start collapsing, and it didnt need to be "weakened" below the impact zone. The dynamic force of the collapsing top segment was enough.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

The dynamic force of the added weight of the plane, coupled with the shock of the floors above the undamaged floor?

Again, wasn't that area undamaged, and wasn't it already supporting the weight above it, and wasn't it designed to hold much more weight than that?

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by dilly1

WOW ! Thanks dilly1 that was:

Deliciously Insane !

I have quoted my favourite parts below.

Acceleration can only come into play if the mass (above the impacted section) came down with a velocity as if it was dropped from thousands,"", of feet from above.

So no retard acceleration has nothing do with it. You know why retard ? Cause the structure below the impacted area was completely sound after the impact.

Even if the truss/dampers failed your retard physics doesn't explain the why all the vertical components failed too???. Bet you can answer that.

And your explosion explanation is way off.

Shrapnel is to small to be fragmented by the expanding gas but ideal to launch in extreme speeds covering fast terrain.

And last but not least your clown questions about why aluminum can't be an equal to steel.

On to my next question:

Why is it, that in Truther Physics, the mass of the building is always included in any equations involving the impact of the plane or the collapse of the building. But always excluded from any equations involving controlled demolitions ?

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:49 AM
I see, the OP hasn't admitted his mistakes yet... am I surprised?

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:38 AM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

I think the OP has moved on, mostly because of the snotty attitude of most of the posters on this forum.

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by Yankee451

When OS'ers bring facts, it is considered snotty.... When truthers bring facts, they are trying to wake up a nation. This implies this "self" mentality. This "I am enlightened" attitude is common in the truth movement.

OS'ers see the difference, as truthers not having a strong grip on reality... Truthers, see this difference as "disinfo agents" "shills" "sheep" and a bunch more really weak minded names and labels.

Truthers don't even know that 75% of their "talking points" have been 100% proven to be delusional and plain wrong!

"Building 7 fell, although it didn't have any damage" - BS Building 7 had extensive damage!
"The pentagon had anti air that would have shielded it" BS - Regan national airport is a stone throw away, there was NO ANTI AIR at the pentagon on 9/11

These are just 2 examples... I bet their are people in this forum that still believe the 2 examples I posted....

This is what happens when boredom is present in someones life..

There is a magical substance that makes these delusions go away... It rhymes with stussy! Normally after receiving a healthy dose of this "organ", these delusions seem much less important.
edit on 8/19/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by ANOK

Sorry, I can't share your hallucinations. Some of the outside wall sections ended up on top of the pile. You don't which is which or where they were standing before they fell you are able to deduce which way they fell. Interesting.

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by Yankee451

No worries about starting the thread and I am back, just need to read over the last few pages. It is good to clear up a lot of the issues and queries surrounding these events and yes it is certianly unfortunate the level of hostility that has been directed at me personally. Although it's okay, I understand that people are very passionate when it comes to their views on this issue.

Will get back with some thoughts once ive read back a bit, thanks for the responses man and thank you for your level headed attitude throughout. Cheers

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:27 AM
reply to post by ShaunHatfield

Did I single you out?

Did I single all OSers out? Nope, I included myself in that description.

Seems to me I struck a nerve.

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:36 AM
This was a very intricate situation with alot of things happening that can't all be predicted. If it were to happen again i'm sure there would be 100 different things that cannot easily be explained. Not being able to explain something however is no indication that foul play was involved.

I've seen tornado's rip down every house along a street except for one wall in one persons bathroom which still had knick knacks on the shelf that didn't move a milimeter and the tootbrushes still standing upright in their holder.

Does that mean there is some conspiracy there because there is no possible way that can happen. One wall surviving completely intact while the rest of the house was blown away? Of course not. It simply means that with 1000 things going on during the tornado some weird things happened.

In the case of 9/11 you have to ask yourself why the government would do this and if crashing 4 planes with a very high likelihood of something going on would be the route they would go. In my opinion trying to pull off an event like 9/11 while keeping it secret would be far too risky and i'm sure there would be many other things they could have done with less chance of their plan being exposed.

You bring up the evidence of why it may be a lie and that's good evidence but as most people do when discussing this you leave out the evidence of why the official story may true. There is an awful lot of that also.

new topics

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in