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.

 

911 The facts and the proof only.

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The discussion is indeed over. You failed to provide proof that puffs can only happen in controlled demolitions. It is basically a baseless assertion you make. Not sure what it is doing in a thread about "911 The facts and the proof only."




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You can't possibly be serious about this. First of all, you switch the subject altogether. And secondly, it is utterly impossible to make an analysis like this with such a lousy highly compressed low res image. More truther "facts" and "proof".



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The discussion is indeed over. You failed to provide proof that puffs can only happen in controlled demolitions. It is basically a baseless assertion you make. Not sure what it is doing in a thread about "911 The facts and the proof only."


You only need a little physics knowledge, and common sense, to understand that compressed air is not going to travel down floors and pick a window to spurt out of. That is the baseless assertion. If air is being compressed between floors the air would simply go outwards with all the rest of the debris, the path of least resistance.

What you are imagining in your head has no basis in reality. Having a clue as to the reality of physics is the difference between a child's imagination, and an adults. You can imagine anything and think, or pretend, it is reality but it doesn't make it so.

As there is no proof either way, it does not make your hypothesis automatically correct, as you seem to constantly think, but the most logical hypothesis should take the credit. In accordance with known physics, and common sense, your hypothesis is not the most logical. Do you have a third hypothesis we can consider?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by randyvs
 
You can't possibly be serious about this. First of all, you switch the subject altogether. And secondly, it is utterly impossible to make an analysis like this with such a lousy highly compressed low res image. More truther "facts" and "proof".


That is the trouble with this problem.

The amount of Wilfull STUPIDITY involved of not accepting the simple physics of skyscrapers is what makes this TEN YEAR charade so infuriating. The Empire State Building is EIGHTY YEARS OLD. What kind of computers were used to design the ESB? There weren't any electronic computers in 1929. How much better have computers gotten since 2001? The entire physics profession is making itself look ridiculous.

Except to the people too dumb to think for themselves about grade school physics.

The top 15 stories of the north tower had to be lighter and weaker than the bottom 90 stories. So it is absurd to think the top 15 stories could crush the bottom 90 in less than 18 seconds. That is where the conservation of momentum and strength of materials comes into this issue. This should have RIVETED the attention of physicists. So the fact that it has not for TEN YEARS is extremely suspicious by itself. But the distributions of steel and concrete must be determined to do the analysis properly. So why haven't the physicists been talking about it? Not even Steven Jones.

Suppose it was OBVIOUS to physicists within the first few weeks. But then it had to also be obvious that some organization with a lot of power cared about killing people about as much as stepping on ants. But now it has been TEN YEARS of experts not asking the right questions so now they will look silly if they do ask.

So how do experts admit that they have gone along with bull# for a decade?

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Would quote the entire response you posted psyk, but would be useless. Air does not pick a window on a lofty environment, flees in all directions... What is your issue -PLB-? All I read from you are denial of reality and self entitlement to the truth, asking for proof, getting some, then moaning some more because we can put holes on your "reality" that would let the planes that hit the towers through. Cant you see that real world physics dont allow for some of the events of the day to happen. But as said before, all your posts are denial, ignorance and self entitlement...



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




Half the plane has melted into the building before any hole has even appeared!!
This is of course impossible in real life, where immediately upon impact, a hugh
fireball should be observed, with most of the wreckage plummeting to the ground,
with the much weaker aluminium plane unable to penetrate the harder steel outer columns.
So we must be dealing with something other than a snapshot of Reality
This is proof to me that the official story is BS and indeed proof that none of
the images produced can be trusted.
The perpetrators incorporated movie-style fakery into proceedings to act as visual
convincer for their official fairytale narrative.

Also the weaker upper section cannot crush or overcome the stronger lower section.
Impossible. Approx. 90% of the steel mass was below the 'collision' point.
Each floor was designed to be able to support the weight of everything above it, with a built in
factor of safety of 20, meaning each floor can at least withstand 20 times the weight of
everything above it, So even if the upper section weighed 20 times what it actually did,
it still would not have crushed the lower section.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


The only indisputable facts ( Regarding the W.T.C's anyway...) are that two very tall buildings collapsed on themselves.

The collapse, whether you believe it was what it appeared to be, or, that they were brought down intentionally, was, as far as I'm aware, unprecedented in buildings of this size, and therefore, an event of which we have no genuinely comparable previous experience, so the speculation will go on, ad finitum, and round in circles.

Unless some indisputable, revelatory new evidence comes to light, perhaps it's time to let it rest ?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
 


I'm pretty sure there were three very tall buildings destroyed, plus the rest of the WTC complex.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


My apologies for not being clear, I was referring specifically to the " Twin Towers " - Sorry !



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok, you do not understand the least bit of physics. Air does not take the path of least resistance. It takes whatever path it is pushed to. It does not look ahead to see what it is going to encounter. If air always took the path of least resistance, a windmill would not work. The air would go around it instead of hitting the blades. Just to give you an easy example.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The top 15 stories of the north tower had to be lighter and weaker than the bottom 90 stories. So it is absurd to think the top 15 stories could crush the bottom 90 in less than 18 seconds. That is where the conservation of momentum and strength of materials comes into this issue.


I has been explained many times, and very likely to you too. There is no conservation of momentum in the building collapses. There is a constant increase in momentum, resulting in increasing impact forces, resulting in an accelerating collapse. This statement is true with our without demolition charges.

This is really physics 101, but no truther seems to realize this.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

S&F because I believe what my eyes tell me and not the TV.



Ive been trying to tell people to use their eyes for years especially in football games and big international sporting events

but people dont want to believe there world is so corrupt and will not believe you or there eyes as it goes against there brainwashing.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 




Half the plane has melted into the building before any hole has even appeared!! This is of course impossible in real life, where immediately upon impact, a hugh fireball should be observed,


Umm, no, because the fuel in a jetliner is stored in the wings. You've watched too many movies, these planes did exactly what they should have, smashed into the side of the building creating a hole, and breaking apart into nothing, as they are shredded by internal collumns, the jet fuel stored in the WINGS, explodes, and since it's currently in motion going out the backside of the building, most of the fireball is ejected out the back.

Simple, basic, physics. It's people like you that do a dis-service to the truth community as you are easily debunked and you take the rest of us down in credibility.




I has been explained many times, and very likely to you too. There is no conservation of momentum in the building collapses. There is a constant increase in momentum, resulting in increasing impact forces, resulting in an accelerating collapse. This statement is true with our without demolition charges.


Um, no. Lets play a game. Lets say "thermal expansion" allowed the certified steel to melt and buckle because of the limited office fires (jet fuel, which is kerosene based, burned off in those fancy orange fire balls ). Lets say, even though office fires burn unevenly so the heat will not stay in 1 location it will move around as the fire burns fuel, that the structure failed, evenly, right at the point of impact, a few floors above and below.

So we've got a massive chunk of steel framed cement "pancaking" down on top of the bottom section (which is still structurally sound but for the gaping hole in the top).

Follow me?

Ok, so that large body smashed down onto the floors below, which HAVEN'T been damaged by steel. It imparts it's force onto the lower floor, which buckles, then collapses, adding another level of the building weighing down on top of rest.

Still follow?

Now see, here's where your half physics fails. First, a pancake collapse is exactly what DIDN'T happen. The first tower had it's top twist, then start to slide off, while the building below it evaporated. The second building didn't even get a chance to topple, it just went straight down.

And guess what? Nothing but dust at the bottom. A pancake collapse will leave the top section mostly intact while crushing the lower section. This didn't happen. Instead, core steel beams were ejected hundreds of feet outwards, and almost the entire concrete structure was turned to dust.

According to your physics explanation, the only way for that to work in the world of our reality, is if any resistance from the bottom chunk of the building disappears, meaning it's core beams are cut, and gravity pushes the collapse.

This is exactly how buildings are demolished. Shape cutter charges placed on exposed core beams cut at an angle, timed, so the weight of the building falling due to gravity, brings it down into a controlled space (usually)

This appears to be the case with, at the very least Building number 7. Which fell, into it's own footprint, in I believe 6 seconds, almost free fall speed for a 47 story building that WASN'T hit by a plane and suffered MINIMAL fires.

See, the bottom chunk of the tower isn't simply going to say, oh crap, my top is coming, I'm outta here. The bottom half resists as it's a body at REST. The top half is a body in MOTION which wants to stay in motion, so when it contacts the lower half, it imparts force against it, trying to maintain it's momentum. The bottom chunk resists this as it wants to stay at rest, canceling out some of the force pushing down on it.


edit on 16-8-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Try watching the vid at www.septemberclues.info



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
And guess what? Nothing but dust at the bottom. A pancake collapse will leave the top section mostly intact while crushing the lower section. This didn't happen. Instead, core steel beams were ejected hundreds of feet outwards, and almost the entire concrete structure was turned to dust.


Proof for either of these "facts"? I think both are completely false. The amount of dust was marginal compared to ruble of larger sized pieces. I have never seen any evidence of core beams being ejected either.


According to your physics explanation, the only way for that to work in the world of our reality, is if any resistance from the bottom chunk of the building disappears, meaning it's core beams are cut, and gravity pushes the collapse.


No, that is not the only way for it to work. That is you being ignorant at figuring out an alternative way for it to work. Or in other words, you are making an argument from ignorance. That does not really belong in a thread about facts and the proof only.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jinni73
 



Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. While this often causes groupthink to be portrayed in a negative light, because it can suppress independent thought, groupthink under certain contexts can also help expedite decisions and improve efficiency. As a social science model, groupthink has an enormous reach and influences literature in the fields of communications, political science, social psychology, management, organizational theory, and information technology.[1]

The majority of the initial research on groupthink was performed by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University. His original definition of the term was, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1972).[2] Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. 'T Hart (1998) [3] developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance,” while McCauley (1989) [4] pointed to the impact of conformity and compliance pressures .

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Let's hear it from Dr. Steven Jones , a Physics Professor



The modus operandi of the FBI is to demean and discredit the 911 Truther movement and is blatantly obvious here on ATS.

Now as a result of bringing Physics into explaining the truth, which the OS conveniently overlooked. The new modus operandi has been to discredit one's knowledge of Physics to tin hatter status.

In order to avoid another PI$$ING match, Lets instead listen to a tenured Phd Physics Professor and his conclusions based upon his knowledge and experience in the field of Physics as it pertains to 911 and the WTC collapse.

Here's your GD Proof ! And if you have a problem with a Physics Professor, and his understanding of Physics, then why don't you raise it with him.








edit on 16-8-2011 by nh_ee because: Warum ? Weil es machts aber nichts...



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Proof for either of these "facts"? I think both are completely false.


Thinking is obviously not your strong suit:


“nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O’Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “At the World Trade Center sites,” he told the History Channel, “it seemed like everything was pulverized” (History Channel, 2002).


Source


In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.


Source

you can also read this post from a member here at ATS for more information, including images, of the ejected beams, one of which ended up sticking out of the from of a bank.

ATS post




No, that is not the only way for it to work. That is you being ignorant at figuring out an alternative way for it to work. Or in other words, you are making an argument from ignorance. That does not really belong in a thread about facts and the proof only.


Listen friend, I'm not going to ignore basic physics because your argument requires it, try that on some other forum.

Gravity is a vertical force, it can not account for horizontal ejections. Gravity, and the weight of the buildings, also can't account for the pulverization of concrete. Ask the guys who where on top of the piles looking for survivors (the ones still alive) as they said then, on tape, they will still say now. Pulverized isn't even the term for it. Nothing bigger than a few inches was left.

Well except a few remarkably undamaged passports of course.

Besides the pancake collapse theory being debunked, and not applying at all to the construction of the WTC towers, for a collapse, a GRAVITY fueled collapse, to accelerate, it must meet LESS resistance. And for it to happen at the speeds recorded (a matter of a few seconds) it had to meet almost NO resistance.

I'm with you on 1 point, they did not come down AT free fall speed. They came down NEAR free fall speed. Close enough, based on physics, to indicate little resistance.

Now remember what we're talking about, essentially a severed chunk of the building, concrete and steel, crushing down on the still standing base of the tower. Go look at the videos. The top AND base are disintegrating together.

Tower 1 should have fallen like this:

Top twists and leans, slides off, falling over and down. Most of the base should have remained intact as evidenced from the videos, the top section turns to dust as it comes down, so where exactly is all the weight, and force, that is crushing the base to nothing coming from?

I've backed up MY position with facts, sources, and if you bother to follow the links, images. What have you done? go back under your bridge and wait for the billy goats to try to cross


edit on 16-8-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


You know, I used to be an early member of the Scholars for 911 Truth.

I sat in the forumns when Jim Fetzer and Steven Jones first started out, and then began to fall apart. It became clear to me many years ago that Jones, Fetzer, et al, are controlled opposition who are directing people away from the truth.

Ask yourself if any "truth organization" would be respected by the rest of the "truth movement" if they were any where near the truth.

Then ask yourself what "hypothesis" gets the most derision from both the ironically named truth movement as well as the Official Story.

Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Alex Jones, etc...

They're on radio and TV and yet still breathing; which means they're no where near the truth. If they were, they'd be ignored, marginalized, ridiculed or otherwise silenced. As Noam Chomsky said:




“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”


www.alfiekohn.org...

Sounds like ATS, doesn't it? Just try to bring up "no planes", and watch what happens.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join