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.

 

10 Years later and still waiting for the Truth...

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71 how long will you wait?
We're still working on JFK. I don't think we should wait. I think we should keep working.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Then you not only don't know what constitutes as "evidence", but you also haven't looked at the actual evidence. ... aid of explosives.


Explosions in an office fire are to be expected and in no way evidence for demolition charges. That is a huge leap of faith. There is a very extensive video and audio record from that day, none show these signs of controlled demolition you talk about. Whatever these witnesses saw, they are either mistaken or they are describing something else.

What I accept as real evidence is actual video footage that contains audible explosions together with visible blasts, leftovers of the charges in the debris or columns damaged in such a way it can only be caused by charges. But that all does not exist. We have a handful of eyewitnesses claim to have seen something that looked a bit like something that could be explained as demolition charges. I call that extremely weak evidence. It would not hold for a second in court.


Actually, the official version ... to believe them.


You are likely right, the official version can not be proven. The issue here is that no theory at all can be proven. So we have to go with the most likely explanation instead. And of course we have to trust the people who did the investigation. If you don't, you can't trust any investigation. It is not like DNA results can not be faked. So even if they made it public you will have to take it on trust, which is something else than faith. When you take something on faith you have no good reason to trust it.

As for NIST not testing for explosives, I don't really think that was their task, that is more the task of the FBI or an agency like that. The fact no signs of explosives were found, even after sifting through tonnes and tonnes of debris, is extremely good evidence there was no explosive residue in the debris.

As for no definitive evidence existing, that is no reason to believe conspiracy theories. It just means there is no definitive evidence, and there probably never will be. Not because it is a conspiracy, but because some things can just not be known with certainty. Again, it has nothing to do with faith. Something is not either based definitive proof or based on faith. That is a false dichotomy. In fact, nothing is based on definitive proof, except maybe for some math exercises. We go with the most likely explanation, and if we are not satisfied with any explanation, we do an investigation. For some reason, truther are not satisfied with any explanation but don't do any investigation. (One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that truthers are happy with status quo. An investigation would destroy their conspiracy theory which they are addicted to.)


Originally posted by -PLB-
But some people ... be serious.


You do not need omnipotence in order to fly a plane into a building. You just need the element of surprise and/or incompetent people in power. You do need near omnipotence in order to fill 3 skyscrapers with explosives and blow them up in everyones view without leaving any evidence or having anyone on the team speak out. I am sure you are capable of identifying the difference in complexity and risk of exposure between the two.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Explosions in an office fire are to be expected and in no way evidence for demolition charges. That is a huge leap of faith. There is a very extensive video and audio record from that day, none show these signs of controlled demolition you talk about.


To who are you trying to convince the OS is true with your opinions? Certainly not people on here who have researched 911 for many years?

To what “experts” in demolition, Engineers and science who have risked their reputations and careers that came out publicly to say that there wasn’t any explosions at the WTC besides NIST? What was their evidence?
You say there was no sign of control demolition? Perhaps you would like to elaborate your opinions to why you believe there wasn’t any explosions at the WTC, and perhaps science is completely wrong and you have the evidence to prove them so. This ought to be quite interesting and entertaining to say the lease.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I already wrote why I do not believe there were explosives: complete lack of evidence. I also wrote what evidence would convince me.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
(One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that truthers are happy with status quo. An investigation would destroy their conspiracy theory which they are addicted to.)
I for one would like all the doubt removed and all the evidence that contradicts the OS to be proven to be misunderstandings. It's no fun to think the elite global interests can do and will do whatever they want without regard to anyone but themselves.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Why do you choose an obscure line from a reference book instead of a quote from the designers themselves?

How about any of these guys...The Port Authority's Engineering Department served as foundation engineers, Joseph R. Loring & Associates as electrical engineers, and Jaros, Baum & Bolles as mechanical engineers. Tishman Realty & Construction Company was the general contractor on the World Trade Center project. Guy F. Tozzoli, director of the World Trade Department at the Port Authority, and Rino M. Monti, the Port Authority's Chief Engineer, oversaw the project.

There are 2 instances that describe what they could withstand...

1. In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark airports.

2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)actually mentioned a white paper that described the impact of a jet at 600 mph , They did investigate it.


Also, look into the Vierendeel trusses or the fact that When the WTC was designed it needed to meet code standards from the 30's. Not to high tech.



It's not an obscure reference, and regardless whether it's a source you've heard of, it's still a valid source.


Planners spent hours doing mathematical stress calculations of all kinds, but they confirmed their work by constructing an exact model which was subjected to costly, but necessary, wind tunnel tests.

avaxhome.ws...

Why do you mention the NIST report; a report full of distortions and omissions. Why are you so unyielding on new information?




edit on 1-9-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Why do you mention the NIST report; a report full of distortions and omissions. Why are you so unyielding on new information?


Then please explain all of the distortions and omissions. I am not aware of any except for what many of you simply say is

1. Incorrect with no evidence
2. Demand they investigate for explosives(which they addressed in an addendum)
3. Attempt to discredit it's members

NIST was not created to investigate 9/11 and the WTC collapses. It already existed for years and is the basis for safety standards as well as an investigative tool during major incidents to make sure it does not occur again.

Instead of quoting a table book, why not find some of the quotes from the designers and architects...all who had different ideas of what happened and what it was prepared for. I mean, what would they say, that it would not survive? God forbid someone ever lied during a construction project....
edit on 1-9-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Leslie Robertson was responsible for the sway-reduction features of the towers.


Some little known morsels on their studies of sway:


One of the fascinating aspects of designing the structure of the twin towers was to conduct tests on human subjects to see just how much sway they would accept. Engineers were confident that their towers were strong and flexible. But what about people? It is possible to obtain almost any desired degree of stiffness for a building at the design stage, but very difficult to change the movement of a building after it has been completed. It was known, for example, that in a 100 mph wind, the Empire State Building, at 1,432 feet high, would sway three inches. What the structural engineers for the World Trade Center wanted to find out was just how much movement would be tolerated.43

The Seattle firm of consulting engineers actually built two swaying rooms to test people's reactions. It was found that many people were reluctant to believe that a room could move at all. One man had to brace himself in a corner to avoid falling down, yet he still refused to accept the idea that the room was moving. The consultants lured unsuspecting subjects in Eugene, Oregon, to an optometrist's office for ''free eye exams" in a building that had once housed a car dealership. Once there, the subjects walked through the dealership into a trailer out back which was set up on springs to sway at various rates of acceleration. A similar experiment was conducted back in New York. An office, dangling from a cable, was set up inside an airshaft of the Lincoln Tunnel. It was then pushed back and forth to see how people would react. 44 From the results of both tests, it was determined that people at the trade center would accept up to eleven inches of slow or "damped" sway. In other words, they could keep working even if the outside winds reached 140 miles per hour.45 Psychologists asked to estimate how much sway office workers in skyscrapers could get used to said, "People will get used to almost anything."46

Wind was not only a consideration in allowing for sway, it was an important factor in selecting the glass for the twin towers. Powerful gusts can shatter windows, so for the sake of safety tempered glass eight times stronger than needed was specified. Planners designed the towers to withstand prolonged winds of 150 miles per hour, a severe condition that New York has never experienced. That kind of wind would give each tower a thirteen-million-pound pushthe equivalent of being smashed by a large ocean freighter. Planners spent hours doing mathematical stress calculations of all kinds, but they confirmed their work by constructing an exact model which was subjected to costly, but necessary, wind tunnel tests.47

In addition to worrying about the effects of the wind on the structural integrity of the towers, architects and engineers also took some pity on the hapless pedestrian buffeted by the wind. Critics say they could have done more about the problem, but at least they took it into account. It is a fact that winds deflected by buildings can reach speeds of two or three times what they would achieve in an open space. Wind speeds of thirty-five miles per hour or more at ground level are often found in urban areas. Not only are they unpleasant, they are dangerous as well. Such winds create an environment where it is difficult to get about.

The World Trade Center was placed on a site that ranks among the windiest in New York City. It was one of the first large-scale projects where the impact of the wind on pedestrian comfort was taken into account through aerodynamic analysis. The fundamental question: How close could the two towers be placed to each other?

The answer is that they could not have been placed any closer than they are without creating an intolerable "slot" effect that would have created a major acceleration of wind speed, and possibly a catastrophic "tuning fork" effect, that is, sympathetic vibration between the towers.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





Then please explain all of the distortions and omissions.


No.

You've already admonished me to not "hijack" this thread. Happy to oblige.


Instead of quoting a table book, why not find some of the quotes from the designers and architects


Books were written about the towers before the Internet. Why would quoting from one of them be less valid in your eyes? The reference is chock-full of quotes from the designers and the architect, as well as their backgrounds.


Finally, Yamasaki revealed his ideas about two towers surrounded by a plaza and the other buildings. Yamasaki unveiled a drawing.

"It's great. It's a beautiful plan! Does it meet my program?" asked Tozzoli.

"No, it doesn't. It's two million feet short," said Yamasaki.

"Why is that?"

"You can't build buildings taller than eighty floors."

"Why is that?"

"They just don't do it"

"Yama, President Kennedy is going to put a man on the moon. I want you to build me the tallest buildings in the world."


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Aside from being involved with building the Towers, which Ed Heidner shows was likely done to destroy evidence of institutional corruption, as well as destroy the towers and provide a pretext for war, Yamasaki was involved in a previous destruction of records as well:


We might expect to find reason for these professional failures in the misfortune of Yamasaki’s private life. Not surprisingly, the architect’s personal history was punctuated by its own string of disasters. He faced the harsh reality of being a nisei during World War II (relocated to the East Coast, Yamasaki escaped internment) and barely escaped death from a bleeding ulcer (just before completion of the Records Center and Pruitt-Igoe). He left his wife and three children, remarried, married again (a Japanese mail-order bride), and then finally remarried his first wife. Somewhere in between was a period of dismal health involving four operations in five months which left Yamasaki addicted to synthetic morphine.



A building commissioned in 1951 by the Department of Defense was built without a sprinkler system, and then burned in a spectacular fire. That building, the U.S. Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, housed 38 million individual service records and 4,000 employees. When it was completed in 1956, the six-story concrete and aluminum behemoth was one of the twenty largest buildings in the world.


Less than twenty years later, in July 1973, a fire tore through the building, burning out of control for more than two days. It was the weekend of the official end of the draft, and the news was all bombs and impeachment. Over the previous two years, the Records Center had reported a dozen small fires, all started intentionally. This one, set shortly after midnight on July 12, appeared to be another case of arson. No one died in the blaze, set when only 50 employees were on duty, but sixteen to eighteen million military personnel files, many of them irreplaceable, were lost. Today, the Personnel Records Center informs those seeking information that, as a result of the fire, it cannot provide access to 80 percent of army files on personnel discharged between 1912 and 1960, as well as 75 percent of air force personnel discharged between 1947 and 1964. Information about hundreds of thousands of veterans vanished from the face of the earth. The building survived


He was chosen because he'd do exactly as he was told.


Yamasaki’s designs, a sort of corporate gothic, articulated the will of the institutions that commissioned them. It was an honor to have IBM, Consolidated Gas, the Defense Department, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as his clients, even if they wanted their buildings with no fire sprinklers, or in a no man’s land, or too tall. “Since they were the client,” he said of the Records Building in St. Louis, “we went along with their option.” Yamasaki’s firm was selected for the design of the World Trade Center precisely because he could be counted on to be agreeable, to accommodate the developer’s demands


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 1-9-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


These are actually well known if you look into it as well as Viscoelastic (VE) dampers. The towers swayed in the wind everyday. Just ask someone who worked there.


A key point in the structure yet never mentioned in the Truther circle because it may reveal a design flaw.

www.designcommunity.com...

A few days after 9/11 this was posted because people knew it was a design flaw. The first building to ever use it and the first building to collapse when they failed.




Viscoelastic (VE) dampers are dependent on both relative velocity and displacement to dissipate energy. VE damping system in Twin Towers is a double-layer shear damper using a 3M material, which is a rubber derivative, glued to steel plate and angle irons. This material will carry some load (which is temperature-dependent and would be less than the two-bolt connection as shown) as it displaces. As installed it has several functions:
1. It develops continuity moment at the end of joist girder, that is, the joist girders will behave as partial continuous members under Dead and Live load. It is partially restrained under Wind load.
2. It restrained the lower chord of the joist girder (in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the joist). Therefore it stabilizes the concrete diaphragm. Note that for a 4-inch thick concrete slab spanning 60 feet, it would buckle if there were no joist girder. It also transfers compression load through bottom chord.
3. Joist girder-column connection is a moment connection.
4. It reduces the energy to be absorbed by the joist girder and the columns under Wind load.

As the temperature rises, 3M materials would loose its load carrying capacity, i.e. its energy-dissipating capacity. This is equivalent as loosing the two-bolt connection because it will act as though there is gaps between the steel plate and the angle irons. As a result, several things would occur:
1. The joist girder is no longer a continuous member. Therefore, even under Dead and Live load, its top chord would rotate more relatively to its supporting column.
2. All the compression or tension force to the diaphragm would go through the top chords only.
3. More rotation between the top chord and its respective column under Wind load.
4. No more lateral restraint for the bottom chord and the joist girder could buckle laterally and the slab diaphragm would follow.

And the result is a tremendous demand on the connection between the top chord and its supporting column.
Let be clear that the VE damping system is a novelty design. First of its kind in the World. First of its kind implemented in a skyscraper.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


HIjacking a thread does not mean answering a question. Nice excuse though...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 


HIjacking a thread does not mean answering a question. Nice excuse though...





Then please explain all of the distortions and omissions.


"explain all"?

If I explain just "one", the whole thing should be tossed. I can do so quite easily just by showing their images of the damage to the North Tower. But judging by your thread, you're only interested in "truth" that already suits your preconceptions.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I guess you are correct. If you feel that it is bunk then it is your choice. Then what type of report would prove it to you that NIST was correct? What if there was an independent investigation that showed there were no explosives. Would you concede and then understand the events of that day?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I guess you are correct. If you feel that it is bunk then it is your choice. Then what type of report would prove it to you that NIST was correct? What if there was an independent investigation that showed there were no explosives. Would you concede and then understand the events of that day?


Here's your one example:



This is a still shot from the Naudet 911 film, notice the damage to the side which was not included in the NIST report. BTW, anyone who doesn't have a copy of this DVD isn't serious about learning the truth:




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





What if there was an independent investigation that showed there were no explosives.


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an "independent" investigation. It'd be like waiting for the NAZIs to hold an independent investigation of the Reichstag fire.

But now that the NIST report is proven bunk, you'll stop referring to it as a source, right?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by esdad71
 





What if there was an independent investigation that showed there were no explosives.


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an "independent" investigation. It'd be like waiting for the NAZIs to hold an independent investigation of the Reichstag fire.

But now that the NIST report is proven bunk, you'll stop referring to it as a source, right?


No, I do not think it is bunk, i stated it is ok if you feel that way. I actually read it. Did i understand it all..no...but what I did not know or understand I researched and I learned alot about what they do as an organization, who they are and how they help. I think the NIST report is a dead horse that is perceived and referred to as something that it was not supposed to be used for....the main question as why did they not test for explosives. They did not need to but they addressed it. The FBI searched for bomb materials in the days and weeks after 9/11.

But what if there was...what if a private person backed a collaborative effort with former commission members and the board of the Truth movement. If they completed a a 3 year investigation with 1300 hundred investigators, 167000 interviews, 150000 pieces of evidence to create a chain of custody conducted over 100000 comparisons for fingerprints to indentify not only the dead but also the hijackers.

You see, they already did this...

www.fbi.gov...

But if it was independent would you understand and concur with the results?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   




Is that a long way to go to say you don't intend to discuss the evidence I provided?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Please watch the whole video instead of a still that just shows damage? Kind of like finding the obscure line in a book to fit your theory.

www.youtube.com...

I see a huge impact. There would not be severed columns there because the plane did not strike there. The resulting explosion has to go somewhere so the first place would be the closest to the impact. Path of least resistance as you guys always say? It is not as if it is ab explosion 20-30 floors below...that would be odd. That picture also does not support the JASSM either....

Also, which footage did the still come from...which brother?
edit on 1-9-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I already wrote why I do not believe there were explosives: complete lack of evidence. I also wrote what evidence would convince me.


Must have miss that post?
Perhaps you could post your post here so I don’t have to go on a hunting expedition, thank you.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Please watch the whole video instead of a still that just shows damage? Kind of like finding the obscure line in a book to fit your theory.

www.youtube.com...

I see a huge impact. There would not be severed columns there because the plane did not strike there. The resulting explosion has to go somewhere so the first place would be the closest to the impact. Path of least resistance as you guys always say? It is not as if it is ab explosion 20-30 floors below...that would be odd. That picture also does not support the JASSM either....

Also, which footage did the still come from...which brother?


What can an air-fuel explosion with chemicals not designed for an air-fuel explosion do to a steel column? It does not have a large surface area to take the pressure. Most of it would just go by the column.

All of those damage estimates are merely guesses and where do they explain the basis of the guesses?

There isn't much north tower video. What damage did the explosion in the south tower do to the columns on the side where we see the explosion come out of the building?

psik



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join