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.

 

Why is that.......

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Study? Make your own experiment. You like BBQ? Dose it in fuel set it on fire, keep dosing it in fuel and tell us how long it took for the steel to weaken to the point of collapse.


For me the actual experiments by professional experts are way more valuable than some irrelevant experiment suggested by some conspiracy guy on the internet who doesn't seem to know a thing about the subject.


So I will have to go with what engineers and architects say on that subject.


As long as those engineers and architects agree with your presupposed position, which is a minority. Why do you ignore the results of NIST and Quintiere?




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You link to a paper we can't read, what is the point of that? How can we discus a paper we can't read.

Can you post the paper so we can read it?

BTW IF they only tested one floor for its reaction to fire, it doesn't prove that the failure of that floor can cause the complete collapse of the building.

You keep pushing the floor collapse hypothesis, but you fail to address how that failed floor can cause the complete collapse of the building. This is where the laws of motion are thrown out the window, and your assumption that a failing floor can cause complete collapse ignores equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws. We know from those laws that the falling floors are not going to stay in one piece while impacting floors are destroyed. 15 floors will be destroyed before they can destroy 95. We know the floors were being ejected during the collapse because they were not in the footprint post collapse, and FEMA themselves pointed out the 360d arc of rubble around the towers. Floors being ejected means mass is being lost. So you are losing mass, and Ke which has to be converted into other energy to cause deformation, sound, heat, overcome friction etc. So, loss of Ke and loss of mass, means the collapse would slow and arrest long before it was complete. There had to be another energy acting on the buildings that was not investigated.

So you have explained your failing floor hypothesis, now explain how the collapses were complete when mass was being ejected, and Ke was being lost to other work, during the collapse.


edit on 8/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


If you had even the slightest interest in the "truth" you had bought the paper the day after it was published. I am not going to explain anything to you. You just ignore it and keep posting the same crap.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


If you had even the slightest interest in the "truth" you had bought the paper the day after it was published. I am not going to explain anything to you. You just ignore it and keep posting the same crap.


That's a cop out PLB.

If you have the paper then you could explain its conclusions, in your own words. Do you have the paper?

Just linking to something and telling people to read is lazy. If you want me to address something then explain it in your own words in detail. I am debating you, not someone else through a proxy.

BTW are you going to address the points I made?


edit on 8/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


If you had even the slightest interest in the "truth" you had bought the paper the day after it was published. I am not going to explain anything to you. You just ignore it and keep posting the same crap.


So much for denying ignorance.
You posted a Link to support your point... which doesnt support your point.

If someone still wants to discuss your argument you refuse to explain your point

I like your signature by Nietzsche btw.
edit on 29-8-2011 by ColCurious because: grammar



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Right, like you care about my opinion. I will even add that my opinion is irrelevant, as I am no expert. The only reason you are going down this road is so you can avoid addressing the fact that an actual physical scale model was made which showed that a complete floor failure would happen without any explosives. It is not like anything I say has any influence on that fact.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious
 


So my point that an independent study was done is not supported by the link I gave you? Of course you can ignore reality, but that doesn't make it go away.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


NIST never produced anything they did dare to call a scientific paper to begin with. They merely composed a report. A report they refused to defend in front of their peers when challenged on it. So far the NIST report is accepted by those who composed it and they or at least the entitities heading the workgroup refused to defend the work.

At this point the official conspiracy theory has not much more going for itself than cold fusion.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I have no doubt that a building could collapse after sustaining the amount of damage the WTC did, but that three buildings all fell almost the exact same way is one of the major reasons I find the OS hard to believe. An investigation might help push the banter one way or the other, but that depends on the direction that the investigators lean since it seems impossible to make a purely objective decision on this matter. Plus analysis that has been done comes out with experts taking both sides, although I find the pancake theory to go against my expectations, it might be possible. I wonder if there's more experts who support the truth movement or OS.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


So you are not going with what engineers and architects say on the subject in general, but just a couple of engineers and architects you selected because they agree with your opinion. That is fine by me, but claiming otherwise makes you either delusional or a liar.
edit on 30-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Where did I say that? You said that. Only because you put "so you are saying" does not mean I actually said that.

I am going with the engineers and architects who stand behind their work and are willing to defend it in front of their peers.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Because you reject what engineers/scientist at NIST and for example Quintiere say. This means you only listen to a small select group of engineers/scientists who agree with your opinion and reject all the others. You may not say this explicitly, but it is a consequence of what you are saying. I of course do the same, I reject what truther scientists are saying. I do that because I follow the consensus and not a small minority, which you are doing, even though you may not realize it. So your argument that your position is based on what scientists and engineers say doesn't work. It only works if you follow the consensus.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The people at NIST are an even smaller group. Also they withheld data, when they produce a simulation they dont make the data avaiable, but merely show the animation it produced, at which point its just that, an animation. Makes you wonder, what are they hiding? Why would they refuse to defend their work in front of their peers? Everybody else sees the problem with the work only accepted by those who composed it.

So you have one tightly knit group of Americans under one umbrella which is an American goverment agency saying one thing and a larger crosssection of experts from around the globe saying another thing.
edit on 1-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Most scientists that actually have a relevant education disagree with the conspiracies. The lack of interest in the issue should be enough evidence for that. But also the numerous publications should ring a bell.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Ah oh yes, the tired "silent majority" argument. Thousands of engineers pursuing the matter is not "lack of interest". Is cold fusion any more real because there is a lack of interest among the scientific community at present? Couldnt it be other scientists simply pursue other projects?

I can claim the silent majority as easily for my point of view, which actually is a more likely scenario, seen as the times I approached people with a relevant education on the subject I have yet to find somebody who corroborates the work of NIST.

So from my experience chances are pretty good "the silent majority" will not corrobate the work of NIST and the people who headed that task force seem to have that hunch too.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Ah oh yes, the tired "silent majority" argument.

Well, its not an argument, its just a simple fact.

Thousands of engineers pursuing the matter is not "lack of interest".

You're right. However, there are not "thousands of engineers" pursuing the matter. There is a handful of professional conspiracy hacks making a quick buck by hawking conspiracy junk.

Is cold fusion any more real because there is a lack of interest among the scientific community at present?

There is not a lack of interest - its just that those qualified to research the matter are a relatively small group.

Couldnt it be other scientists simply pursue other projects?

Huh?

I can claim the silent majority as easily for my point of view, which actually is a more likely scenario, seen as the times I approached people with a relevant education on the subject I have yet to find somebody who corroborates the work of NIST.

I find that really, really, hard to believe. How many structural engineers have you "approached" and pointedly asked if they thought persons unknown planted explosives in the World Trade Center and then intiated those explosives on the morning of 9/11/2001 after the plane impacts for the purpose collapsing the towers.

So from my experience chances are pretty good "the silent majority" will not corrobate the work of NIST and the people who headed that task force seem to have that hunch too.

No, they don't. This is a long settled matter. No professional is chasing any of these silly conspiracies. There may be some open discussion regarding building safety design issues as a result of 9/11, but that is the limit of discussion.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


He says the architects who do not show interest on the subject side with his point of view. That is an argument, quite frankly pulled out of thin air, unless he can read minds.

I made the experience that the architects and engineers I approached do not corroborate the work of NIST. I can assume that the trend will continue, the more architects and engineers I approach on the matter.


Thousands of engineers pursuing the matter is not "lack of interest".
You're right. However, there are not "thousands of engineers" pursuing the matter. There is a handful of professional conspiracy hacks making a quick buck by hawking conspiracy junk.


You need a reality check. The handful of "professional conspiracy hacks" prop up the conspiracy theory with the presidential seal.
edit on 1-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

He says the architects who do not show interest on the subject side with his point of view. That is an argument, quite frankly pulled out of thin air, unless he can read minds.


It is quite logical reasoning actually. It is a major event of great importance. There are huge moral issues involved. Unless you think the majority of the engineers and scientists are immoral and very afraid, they would speak out. However, believing something like that is nothing more than egotism. The brave and moral you versus the scared and immoral scientists.

You should take a look at the latest documentary from BBC. In it, actual engineers talk about the subject, and they explain why almost no professional engineer bothers to react to all the conspiracy claims.


I made the experience that the architects and engineers I approached do not corroborate the work of NIST. I can assume that the trend will continue, the more architects and engineers I approach on the matter.


The engineer I came with, Quintiere, also disagreed with NIST. To prove NIST wrong, he build a complete scale model of a WTC floor and set it on fire. And he succeeded. He proved that the fire protection did not require to be dislodged in order for the collapse to initiate, as suggested by NIST.

Why do you ignore the actual physical experiment by Quintiere?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Only because something is a highly moral issue does not mean the majority of architects will pursue it and they didnt, thats true for either side of the debate. One of the reasons could be that they are involved with projects that actually earn them a living. And yes, seen as a university professor was fired over something he said about 911, several actually, not just in America, but in France as well, its safe to assume that those who hold their careers dear and earning good money will not toutch upon the subject.

I am not aware of the work of quintiere, therefore I didnt ignore it. This is what I found after a quick search.

freedomisforeverybody.blogspot.com...

But you know what they say, a video says more than a thousand blogs. Maybe you can point me to a video of quintieres experiment.

Also here are more vids of explosions to add to the collection.



edit on 1-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 





Been awhile since I have started a thread and after reading several threads this week, Ive come up with some questions for discussion. Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day ("Jim Brady has died" "11 of 12 miners found alive" "Columbia was traveling at 18 times the speed of light" etc) and that is expected and accepted. When the BBC screws up one thing on 9/11, it becomes conspiracy fodder, why is that? Why is it when it takes professional demolition crews MONTHS to wire small buildings for demolition, people think that both Towers and WTC7 were wired in less than a day, why is that? Why is it that when George Bush, on a good day, could hardly string together two sentences without mangling the rules of grammer, people expect him to be English Professor perfect on one of the worst days in American History, why is that? Why is it, that when throughout history engineering projects prove to have fatal flaws (Challenger, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, KC Hyatt walkways, Ford Pinto), people will accept the word of an engineer that a building would survive being hit by an airliner without question, why is that? That should be a decent start.....if I think of others, I will add them, but for now......lets discuss.....


By the looks of these questions, I'd say we've probably been quite fortunate that you haven't started a thread in a while.

And....please....if you think of others, ponder them silently....




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join