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.

 

9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

page: 18
283
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


well i do read all the post...but having my own opinons i also put that in there....and you keep on saying things like all truthers...and i am sorry M8 that is a extremely childish remark...and it only damages any credibility you might have in getting any points across....now that is just some advice to help you....but I see you use agressive tactics...trying to scream out your points...without evidence to back things up...and you also just say go google it...which again does not help you out in anyway shape or form....now that is constructive criticism.

you also reapeatedly use the top down demolition model the french have employed in some circumstances...but gets pointed out to you over ad nauseum that those examples...not one of them had a steel core...and if you have so much experience in buildings as it is implied...then one would immediately realise the diference and would not even in the slightest way present such a comaparison.....the old apples and oranges comes to mind.

so hey you might also notice that the Bazant zhou report does actually apply in those circumstances...and before someone comes back and says i need to use latest CORRECTION of the Bazant Zdenek paper you can find here www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf which says a lot since it had to be corrected and not only once.

and if you go back in this thread you will find my analysis which is open for discussion....and of which is my own work by analyzing video....as that seems to be the only real access third parties have to evidence....now why would this be the case if the government were actually looking for answers......you tell me.

So please do not assume things....because that is exactly what you seem to acuse truthers of.


edit on 013030p://f31Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


you see capt there are more and more...and that was to give you some constructive criticism about the bolts...and i could show you photo after photo after photo of seats...bolts...dampers...trusses...but you know something...just go through previous threads and read...heck go through my postings and you will see over and over.

the point is....your just saying google it...well google it....yup .....that is a fine argument is it not.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


you see capt there are more and more...and that was to give you some constructive criticism about the bolts...and i could show you photo after photo after photo of seats...bolts...dampers...trusses...but you know something...just go through previous threads and read...heck go through my postings and you will see over and over.

the point is....your just saying google it...well google it....yup .....that is a fine argument is it not.

So you didn't go back and read what I was responding to... Big surprise. But hey at least you got to type some meaningless crap on a messageboard.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Just curious if you've read this paper:

sites.google.com...

I posted it a couple pages ago here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What are your criticisms of the points he makes?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Hiya Verm.....hope all is well with you....i just thought i would add to the Ryan Mackay Paper.....you might try this for a complete breakdown.....

ouch it is pretty damning though.....I am Sorry....but it is getting a wee bit silly now...with terms like..debunking911Debunking.

but it seems that is what all this has come down to...some says something...someone trys to debunk it...and then they get debunked.


Conclusion
Mackey's long-winded article seems designed to give the appearance of having addressed Chapter 3 of Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking, but the more one examines his article, the more fallacies and baseless assertions become apparent.


debunking the debunking
edit on 013030p://f51Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Yes i did read what you had sated...and yes the loads are to distributed evenly throughout the floors ....and the load is carried by the trusses and then transferred down the core and down the perimeter walls...hmmm...nothing wrong there.

But NIST tested componet parts and they tested the compponents under...LISTEN captain...MAXIUM loads and still the component parts did not fail...they teast this on a built 17ft floor and truss design....then they scaled it up for a 35ft

in an open air type fire system....not the confines of a office fire...and when they did the office fire test...they still could not get it much above the 600degres...

but yup...this is me spewing more rubbish....rubbish based on NISTS' very own tests

go on....be brave....GOOGLE IT


edit on 023030p://f04Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I've been reading Mackey's work, and already the criticism you linked to is making mistakes.


At the outset, Mackey insists that Griffin bears the burden of proof in arguing that the WTC skyscrapers were subjected to controlled demolition, implying that whereas demolition is an affirmative assertion that requires proof, the collapse explanation promoted by the government and media is true by default.


This is not what happens at all with Mackey's argument. Mackey shows that Griffin has done no scientific work to prove that there was a controlled demolition, and then goes on to describe the scientific work done by NIST and others. By scientific I mean tests with data and observable reasons to be true. He never once claims that the official story needs no proof, never once stating that it is true by default.

I can't take this criticism seriously at all if this is how it starts.

Edit: After reading some more, the only point I will give it is that there is evidence of molten metal in the debris pile, which Mackey apparently seemed unaware of.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


appreciate the points and they are taken....just a question...if he is unaware of the Molten metal....then how can he be so sure of anything....but lets go through all the stuff...i will go through mackay....and you go through griffin and we willl see what we can come up with on it....sound like a plan?


that way you have a truther going through an OS stuff and we have a OSer going through truther stuff....

edit on 023030p://f38Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 023030p://f38Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Captainnotsoobvious - You have been OWNED so my times on this thread..

Why don't you go back to your own thread that backs the OS, that also has 1000 less stars, and 200 less flags..




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

What are your criticisms of the points he makes?



The paper is poor, imo. It starts by saying "Dr. X words, are unfounded". Then he continues these words on and on again. Then the paper is made to look professional, without having any significant structure. Finally he starts debating issues, when far into the paper itself. This paper is a show off ... to show off, for some audience ... the logic he makes is the following, both A and B can be wrong. That sounds logical ... sure. But he doesn't go anywhere, except to repeat the same old ...

The physics stand, a falling structure falls asymmetrically. 3 symmetrical falling structures, in the same, at the same place ... is not a viable possibility. And that is just taking the physics and ignoring anything else. The first things, people should do ... is to create an experiment, to prove this conspiracy theory, and the ONLY conspiracy theory here, is that 19 nincompoops, armed with boxcutters did it. That IS the ONLY conspiracy theory here ... seriously. Prove it ... a computer model, doesn't work. You can have a computer, simulate anything you want. Take any structure at all ... have a stiff central pin on the center, put floor supporting colums outward toward a wire frame perimiter. Have the something drop on top and see what happens ... it should be evident, even to a child. The central pin will stand, the wireframe will bend and crumble, and the floors will collapse ... but you'll end up, with a basic skeleton, with the central pin intact. IN EVERY EXAMPLE ... PERIOD.

The people of the US of A, and a lot of other places. WANT to believe this theory. Because, they don't want to believe that their own government could do a false flag operation, to get the wars they wanted. Every government in the world, has done it ... including the US. Americans just live in denial, and deny to see it. See the fault in thy neighbours eye, but not in your own ... says thy Lord. In the mind of the Average American, every government on this planet could do it ... except their own. This isn't logical thinking, this is stupidity and living in denial. This is denying the facts, and believing in anything rather than accepting the alternative. 9/11 is an Archive X, example ... the people WANT TO BELIEVE. So they'll see aliens, angels ... and they will see no evil. But Mr. Saddam is Evil ... Mr. Gaddafi is Evil ... Mr. Usama is Evil ... everybody in the World is evil. EVERYBODY ...

That's insanity ... seriously. That is literally being insane ... people in the US are doing the same thing, over and over again, and always expecting different results. New wars, new enemies... new bombings, new terrorists ... everybody in the world is EVIL and MALICIOUS ... just not their own Government. Yet, they have mounting evidence that their government or the people behind the government, benefited from the act ... stil they don't want to suspect, don't want to believe ...

But they'll believe in a symmetrical natural falldown ... anytime of the day. And they'll go to church and say "God kill Usama", and end the sentence with "God bless America".

Is that some new kind of sound logic?

You have trillions of dollars mysteriously *lost* ... you have gasillions of investigations *lost* ... you have the government getting everything they wanted, war wise ... you have UBL appearing on TV, basically undisturbed all the time .. and everytime he does so, it proves beneficial for the BUSH administration. And in the end, you have Al Qaida, allied with NATO in Lybia ...

God bless America!

These are incidential evidence ... but if this was a crime court, people would end up on death row on this evidence ... and yet, the American people don't see any evil. Because THEY DON'T WANT TO.

I remember, historically, ONE other nation doing the same thing. They saw evil in everybody else ... and they were also the center in a world wide economic collapse. They marched down the street, feeling their nation was the greatest, their people were the best. When their government made a false flag operation, they all believed in it and went to war over it ... all as one, and nobody spent a second in doubting their purpose. They all shouted SIEG HEIL, SIEG HEIL ...

To me ... such behaviour, is GOD DAMN UN AMERICAN.

edit on 14-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
In its WTC report, NIST made the startling claim that –

“The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the
combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires
if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been
only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.”



now if this is NISTS' calim then look at the results promoted by Mackay.

In defending the weak shotgun test, Mackey says –

“The shotgun test appears to have been brought in to provide
additional testing in response to criticism that the industry standard
tests were a poor fit to the aircraft debris impact. In other words,
what Dr. Griffin and Ryan are criticizing is, in fact, NIST going above
and beyond to provide additional, innovative, and more realistic
testing.”






There is,
however, an industry standard test that might have been used to provide
some useful information, and that is ASTM E 736, Standard Test Method for
Cohesion/Adhesion of Sprayed Fire-Resistive Materials Applied to
Structural Members.

Unfortunately, instead of performing that relevant test, NIST performed the
other, non-relevant test, a modified version of ASTM C1583.


I will source the pdf file shortly....

I have nothing to hide and please read the whole pdf.

The surprising
result NIST found was that the average results from the modified nonstandard
test, for the adhesive and cohesive strengths of the SFRM, were…

"considerably greater than the manufacturer’s published strength
of 295 psf obtained using the (correct) ASTM E736 method under
laboratory conditions.”



Now we a talking about the Spray-Applied Fire-Resistive Materials

From this statement Mackay is trying to say the sfrm was properly tested in NIST report....but under the test conditions the material held up better than expected.

the dislodging is under the assumption the the aircraft broke into shotgun sized pellets and richocet all over the area in the fire concerned areas dislodging SFRM

“…energy of the debris impacting the SFRM (would need to be)
distributed through a debris area that was about five floors high (60 ft
or 18 m) and 150 ft (45 m) wide.”



now that is just a wee bit of what is being said to Mackay....so verm...just as your are discounting griffins...it seems we can discount mackay..

but there is a lot more in that particular pdf

Source

so by reason...if we can discount griffin...then by the same token we can now discount the NIST report for it's failure in conducting reasonable test.....It would seem that when a test failed NIST needed to come up with tests that would go above and beyond and even then they out performed their hypothesized results.

Also from the opening statment...if the tests did not perform the necessary results then we can conclude the towers should not have come down by the planes and fires acting upon the towers structure.




edit on 033030p://f34Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 033030p://f37Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 033030p://f38Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Gando702
 



You could have just posted the video, instead of replicating all of the information in the video...most of it verbatim.
Nah dude if I just posted the 2 hour video, at least 50% of people wouldn't even watch the whole thing before commenting.


I believed they were brought down by demolition for a LONG time. However, I've seen a few websites and read a few things that changed my mind about them. But then again, I consider myself having a VERY open mind. There are lots of thing that don't add up about the events of 9/11, but the buildings collapsing (except 7) aren't an issue for me.
That's fine man. It's just really hard for me to look at the 10 characteristics of a CD that matche up with the collapses of WTC7 and the Twin Towers and say "Those weren't brought down by explosives".


I can't argue with you, as I replied before I viewed the entire video. But as I watched, I kind of followed along with the reproduced material, and it's definitely compelling, and the guy makes a great case. But understanding how the buildings ever constructed, and how heavy the building was, despite being 95% air, the building simply has to much inertia to go anywhere but straight down.

Thanks for your reply, it's respectful and I appreciate that. Too many people get worked up if someone doesn't agree with them. Like I said, I didn't believe in the official theory about the collapses until I did some real research into the architecture of the buildings. My wife has an architecture degree from Arizona State University, and she had her own architecture firm for many years. I asked her to look into what I was studying, and she said that the pulverization of the concrete is explainable. The WTC was over 100 stories tall. When you show YouTube clips of collapses, and claim that the resulting dust cloud is far smaller than that of the WTC, it's because the building itself is far smaller and lighter than the Twin Towers.

Building 7, I can't explain. To me, everything points to controlled demolition. But for the other two, I honestly think they collapsed on their own. The squibs, the explosions on the stories below the crash impact, to me can all be explained. The squibs might have just been pressurized rooms that burst as the building came down. The explosions might have been fuel (from the plane or another source) that hadn't yet been burned, but came into contact with flame as the building fell.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


again, you miss the point, this isn't about fire, or heat, it's about the combination of all the elements. I, and many folks, believe that the fire alone wouldn't have brought down the building, or the loss of some of the insulation, or the damage to the structure, but the combo certainly did.

And here, can you tell me what demo techinque produces an accelating pancake top-down effect, that doesn't produce noise or any visible signs of burning and which can be controlled so effectively that it can mimic gravity drivin free-fall, not uniformly across the structure, but one floor at a time.

Can you?

Not explosive, not thermite.Neither will come close to mimic that.

You can't refrence imaginary technology either.

Only refrence things you have evidence for.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



A woman can look like a woman and still have balls just as a building collapsing can look like a demolition.



I mean, what else would a building falling be compared too..another building falling?
Yes, which is what I did in the OP. See how I have multiple examples of buildings collapsing without the use of explosives, and not one of them even remotely resembles a symmetrical collapse?


ust because something looks correct does not mean it is correct which is where we go back to your scientific method that is filled with theory and not facts.
The OP is filled with facts, try reading it again.


Two simple facts kill the Truther 9/11 story.
Well I have dozens of facts in the OP that kill the official story.


NO physical evidence was ever found. None.
And as I have explained to you over and over again when discussing this very subject, none would be present due to the technology that is available.


Sorry, but JOnes testing, not sent to independent labs, means nothing. I could write a paper and pay to have it published but that does not make it correct.
And the metallurgical analysis of the steel in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report doesn't make it correct either. I mean they probably just paid to publish the fact that that piece of steel can't be explained by the collapse of the building, and there's no rational explanation for the sulfidation, the swiss-cheese appearance, and the analysis that shows it was once molten. :shk:

Even the government investigations debunk the official story in several places, not to mention the dozens of things they don't explain.


Not ONE person has stepped forward and stated that they help plant explosives.
So even thought the collapses match up with a demolition, since nobody has explicitly stated publicly "I planted the explosives that evidently brought down the buildings", that means the buildings that match up with a demolition....don't match up with a controlled demolition.

edit on 14-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





TextSee how I have multiple examples of buildings collapsing without the use of explosives, and not one of them even remotely resembles a symmetrical collapse?


Why don’t you present multiple examples of an airliner crashing into other buildings and then it might be something worth paying attention to, other then that, the building portion of this…whatever it is, holds no clean water to this ….habitual deceiving thread.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


In its WTC report, NIST made the startling claim that –

“The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the
combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires
if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been
only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.”



once not once have i said what brought the building down....I am saying what i believe did not bring the buildings down...from a technical point of view.....

and showing how in the investigating bodies own work they fail to show that in their papers what brought the buildings down....as you have shown your ability to distort what people say over and over...it is no wonder your having trouble presenting....I was just reading a book...IT's a good book nothing to do with 911...

but there ws a phrase in it appropriate to here..."some peoples strategy is to awe people with arrogant confidence that often covers ignorance"
the book is called REVELATION by C.J. Sansom

It is a very enjoyable book try it...but anyways...if you had read...or even bothered to attempt to go look...Respect to verm....least he presents well and does look at both sides with an open mind.

you might have realised that the SFRM was being shown by NISTS that the product was holding in place better than anticipated...and they had even devised a test that they thought would even give them more favorable results.

so please don't imply things as you might start to look like the truthers that you condemn for such things.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Alright, well, the first problem I find is this:


Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.


How, in the 60s, did the designers manage to design the towers to withstand a Boeing 767? They were supposedly meant to be able to take a hit from a 707, and they did survive for an hour after impact, proving that the towers could take the impact and remain standing. It was the extent of the damage and the ensuing fire which is something that is far more difficult to account for in the design of the building. How they were able to conclusively build a design which could resist a plane impacting with much more energy than the normal plane and then resist the fire as well, I have no idea. If anyone can show me how this was determined when the building was designed, I would love to see it.

Edit:


In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.


Here, it is something very interesting. He has shown that NIST was not able to prove conclusively that the steel reached the temperatures needed to weaken resistance enough, but he also admitted that they only had access to 1-3 percent of the steel from the burning floors. This is absurd, of course, if we're looking for scientific evidence, but it is what it is.

The thing is, he cannot conclusively say that the steel could not have reached those temperatures, so I feel that some of his bias may be slipping through here, assuming that the steel should not have gotten hot enough, even in extremely localized spots, to cause failure in the towers.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)


Edit2:

Thus far, I feel that his discounting of the aircraft damage as having an effect on the fire's effect is very academically dishonest. He cites many buildings which did not collapse from fire, but never provides examples of any which were structurally damaged beforehand.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)


Edit3:

In my opinion, his pushing that the building should not have collapsed at the speed it did is simply opinion, not backed by any scientific evidence. Therefore, I cannot judge the likelihood of explosives based on it. No demolition has ever been done similar to the towers' destruction (as far as I know). The only kind that even comes close is the French method which is useful in concrete buildings and is done using a certainty that the concrete will be nearly entirely pulverized by an equally sized upper portion falling onto it. With the towers, the steel construction makes the scenario entirely different. I don't know how it could have been planned (but if others do have a proven method which would accurately do this, please, let me know).
edit on 14-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 



Why don’t you present multiple examples of an airliner crashing into other buildings and then it might be something worth paying attention to, other then that, the building portion of this…whatever it is, holds no clean water to this ….habitual deceiving thread.
OK, here ya go:

C130 Hits Building -- Image of C130:


B-25 Hits Skyscraper -- Image of B-25:


Plane hits Milan skyscraper -- Image of hole in building (No description of plane):



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Steady-on cowboy, I was debunking the debunking source provided by the poster I was replying to. You misunderstood my entire post. And for the record, my bachelors of engineering means I can give my mere "opinion" (which is always backed up with reasoning) with some validity to the topic.


edit on 14-9-2011 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The next issue I have is with this:


Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles.


This is simply not what the explosives do. The explosives take out key points and make a small cloud of dust from the immediate area which was blown up. They do not cause the entire building's concrete to become pulverized. Here is an example from wikipedia which describes what the controlled demolition people must do to reduce dust in a non-explosive demolition:


To control dust, fire hoses are used to maintain a wet demolition. Hoses may be held by workers, secured in fixed location, or attached to lifts to gain elevation.


en.wikipedia.org...

So if dust is a big problem when there are no explosives being used, isn't it logical to say that perhaps it is not the explosives making all the dust?

Edit:


Then it reversed direction [even though the] law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).


Here, I will make the simple point that the upper floors of the tower were not a solid object in rotation. It all moved at once, but as soon as they impacted the floors below, all the parts encountered individual forces, causing a change. This change then led to gravity being the main driving force downward, not to the side. Only in the case of a strong upper concrete section might one expect to see it topple off, and even then, as we know with the French demolition method, it might have ended up destroying itself before toppling over.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)


Edit2:

I will give him points again for the quote about there being a bunch of engineers coming in and out of the South Tower a few days before 9/11 when there was a power outage from floors 50 and up. While this doesn't explain the North Tower or WTC 7, it does raise suspicion levels. If there were a demolition, then there's no way these guys were setting charges (it takes too long). The only reasonable explanation, while sticking to the pre-supposed idea of explosives, is that they were already there, and these guys were checking on their status to make sure that they were still viable for use.

But, this is entirely speculation with no factual support, so it is not something meant to be an actual explanation.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
283
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join