Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

page: 41
33
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
It doesn´t make any sense at all in a gravity driven event that asymmetrical damage to a reinforced building would result in symmetrical collapse.


Not that I agree with your assestments and descriptions of what was symmetrical and what wasn't and I really don't know what you mean by a "reinforced" building; but be that as it may, why not? What rule is broken? I don't recall Einstein or Newton or any other deep thinker ever declaring the "asymmetrical" damage must cause only a "asymmetrical collapse".




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had announced on the eve of the attack that more than $2 trillion was missing from the Pentagon.


he never said it was missing - try listening to what he actually said....



"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
It wasn't missing. It cannot be accounted for. Somehow $2.3 TRILLION was spent and they don't know what it was spent on. Maybe they spent it as hush money for 9/11? They had to pay off a lot of people to keep their silence.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by galdur
It doesn´t make any sense at all in a gravity driven event that asymmetrical damage to a reinforced building would result in symmetrical collapse.


Not that I agree with your assestments and descriptions of what was symmetrical and what wasn't and I really don't know what you mean by a "reinforced" building; but be that as it may, why not? What rule is broken? I don't recall Einstein or Newton or any other deep thinker ever declaring the "asymmetrical" damage must cause only a "asymmetrical collapse".


3 structures. The two Twin Towers. Each sustaining damage in different areas but they both collapsed/ were demolished the same exact way. Building 7, a different type of structure, sustained entirely different damage, yet it also collapsed/was demolished the same way as the Twin Towers. It doesn't take a genius to see that "asymmetrical damage" wouldn't cause symmetrical collapse 3 times in the same day.

Just like the "plane" at the Pentagon and the "plane" at the field in Pennsylvania would not have disintegrated completely.

So much "disintegration" and "symmetrical collapse" on that fateful day.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Buildings are reinforced to counteract the effect of gravity. This should be obvious to most people.

As a result it is a physical impossibility that reinforced buildings would fall though themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.

Your views here seem somehow faith based, in any event they´re not in touch with any physical reality.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper
 


Re-read the OP Hoop.

I think you and your buddies misunderstand the intent.


I think you should re read it...

In searching for the truth , sometimes we uncover things that go against our beliefs , such is the nature of the beast .
If we here at ATS can work together , put aside our petty differences of opinions and look at the evidence objectively , then maybe one day we can truly honour the dead .

I'm telling you now , any trolling or off topic remarks will be reported immediately .
Let's keep this objective and stick to the facts


The OP is not promoting a no plane theory, but you are? The OP is not promoting explosives...but you have with remote detonation. The OP is not stating the events of that day are all false and asks for people to work together, which again you are not doing.

You are reposting the same 4 pictures every couple of pages. Where is the facts that you have that make a difference 6 or 7 years after these pictures and such were first reviewed.

The OP asks that we can one day honor the dead and in a few threads some of you point out that the DEAD do not matter or that they do not exist and are hidden somewhere in an airport hanger in Ohio...Really? Do you actually believe the things you say are is it just for attention and stars???

There is what happened that day and then there are multiple conspiracies. There is no OS. This term was created by the Truthers to create sides and too again deflect and spread disinfo.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper
 


Re-read the OP Hoop.

I think you and your buddies misunderstand the intent.


I think you should re read it...

In searching for the truth , sometimes we uncover things that go against our beliefs , such is the nature of the beast .
If we here at ATS can work together , put aside our petty differences of opinions and look at the evidence objectively , then maybe one day we can truly honour the dead .

I'm telling you now , any trolling or off topic remarks will be reported immediately .
Let's keep this objective and stick to the facts


The OP is not promoting a no plane theory, but you are? The OP is not promoting explosives...but you have with remote detonation. The OP is not stating the events of that day are all false and asks for people to work together, which again you are not doing.

You are reposting the same 4 pictures every couple of pages. Where is the facts that you have that make a difference 6 or 7 years after these pictures and such were first reviewed.

The OP asks that we can one day honor the dead and in a few threads some of you point out that the DEAD do not matter or that they do not exist and are hidden somewhere in an airport hanger in Ohio...Really? Do you actually believe the things you say are is it just for attention and stars???

There is what happened that day and then there are multiple conspiracies. There is no OS. This term was created by the Truthers to create sides and too again deflect and spread disinfo.


They are factual images which support an objective hypothesis.

Part of my hypothesis is that these forums are populated by people who don't share the OP's quest for truth, and use ridicule and the power of numbers to swamp threads that are truly:

" searching for the truth"

So in the spirit of the OP,

"Let's keep this objective and stick to the facts"

Can you provide an objective, factual explanation that can account for the damage to the wrong side of the columns that is better than what I offered?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


This link will go into a little more detail about the truss seats failures.


Over 90% of floor truss connections at or below the impact floors of both buildings were either bent downward or completely sheared from the exterior wall suggesting progressive overloading of the floors below the impact zone following collapse initiation of the towers. Depending upon joint geometry, detachment of the main truss seats occurred either by fracture in the heat-affected zone of the base material, where the standoff plate detached from the spandrel, or through the weld metal, where the seat angle detached from the standoff plate. Failure in both cases was the result of a shear mechanism due to an overload condition.


Click it, read it.
Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers


Good to know.

But what we are talking about is charges on the upright supports. THOSE go out of the way and of COURSE the Truss Seats fail -- they hold the curtain wall in place.

However, WHO was reporting the truss seats? Who did the investigations at the scene?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There is no OS. This term was created by the Truthers to create sides and too again deflect and spread disinfo.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
This is an amazing video. It even addresses the no plane theory.
edit on 30-8-2011 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


Sean Booger - flight controller at Pentagon Heliport
Mark Skipper - Firefighter standing by at Heliport
Allan Wallace - Firefighter standing by at heliport

These three were only yards away from the impact point - all are reliable witness. The firefighters had to dive
under their truck to escape the shower of debris

Their truck was set on fire and destroyed by the fireball of burning jet fuel



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 



Buildings are reinforced to counteract the effect of gravity. This should be obvious to most people.

Buildings are initially designed to counter the effects of gravity or FORCE. Buildings are REinFORCED when additional stresses or purposes are imposed on the original structure.

As a result it is a physical impossibility that reinforced buildings would fall though themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.

Its is practically impossible for you to prove anything you just said. It has nothing to do with science or physics or engineering, just poor word choice.

Your views here seem somehow faith based, in any event they´re not in touch with any physical reality.

Yeah, OK. I am not in touch with physical reality. That's why there are millions and millions of people marching on government headquarters worldwide demanding new investigations.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by gentledissident
 


Ten years after a well done investigation.
One of the biggest operations that day with any exposure was NORAD and the
planning for that must have a lost paper trail for sure.
People with the know of paper trails sort of runs through the JFK JR video.
Putting that on mass media and TV can never be done alas as the Big Lie
continues with even lesser known conspiracies.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


If you believe that reinforced buildings can fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event then you must also believe that a parachutist, whose parachute opens and works normally, also falls to earth practically without resistance. Can´t have it both ways.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper
 


If you believe that reinforced buildings can fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event then you must also believe that a parachutist, whose parachute opens and works normally, also falls to earth practically without resistance. Can´t have it both ways.


Can a building that is not reinforced fall through itself with practically no resistance? Never mind.

Yes, I can have it "both ways" since niether scenario is relevant. The Towers collapsed, there was resistance. Hence all the cloud of dust and broken material. Resistance is not always manifested by event duration.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper
 


If you believe that reinforced buildings can fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event then you must also believe that a parachutist, whose parachute opens and works normally, also falls to earth practically without resistance. Can´t have it both ways.


Can a building that is not reinforced fall through itself with practically no resistance? Never mind.

Yes, I can have it "both ways" since niether scenario is relevant. The Towers collapsed, there was resistance. Hence all the cloud of dust and broken material. Resistance is not always manifested by event duration.


wrong, resistance is always manifested by event duration....there is no such thing as non resistance and a duration will last however long the resistance lasts...the two are inseperable........



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper
 


If you believe that reinforced buildings can fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event then you must also believe that a parachutist, whose parachute opens and works normally, also falls to earth practically without resistance. Can´t have it both ways.


Can a building that is not reinforced fall through itself with practically no resistance? Never mind.

Yes, I can have it "both ways" since niether scenario is relevant. The Towers collapsed, there was resistance. Hence all the cloud of dust and broken material. Resistance is not always manifested by event duration.



not when the building has 47 seperate vertical steel columns....they don't just fall through themselves...that's like you falling through yourself....you might be out of your mind but you can't fall through yourself....



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


You are out of touch with physical reality as you readily admit and therefore incapable of discussing these issues. Frankly, I think you´re the laughingstock of this thread. You should be discussing with others of your ilk how the universe revolves around the earth. That´s the appropriate venue for your mythical views.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had announced on the eve of the attack that more than $2 trillion was missing from the Pentagon.


he never said it was missing - try listening to what he actually said....




"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
It wasn't missing. It cannot be accounted for. Somehow $2.3 TRILLION was spent and they don't know what it was spent on. Maybe they spent it as hush money for 9/11? They had to pay off a lot of people to keep their silence.



if someone spent my money and i didn't know where it went, i would say that my money is missing....i don't have it any more and i don't know where it is, which is exactly the same thing.............
edit on 31-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 



....wrong, resistance is always manifested by event duration....


Really? Then don't try and heat your dinner on an electric range.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by esdad71
There is no OS. This term was created by the Truthers to create sides and too again deflect and spread disinfo.


Was going to post last part of that video too.
Former President George W. Bush's first address to the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City on November 10, 2001 and says:




"Let us never accept outrageous conspiracy theories,...........concerning the attacks of september the 11. George Bush


There you have it, you got no reason to believe it was a conspiracy theory.




Following clip is the speech Bush never spoke except between the lines about the the beginning of the
"War of Terror".
(yes its fake, so no reason to load it with older computers)



Good thing about this issue is that more and more "official" people address 9/11.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Mimir because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join