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: 20
283
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyesdown

So yes thats my question, Why did the fires not detonate or destroy the explosives?



That isn't any biggie, really. As a young kid, I used to work as an assistant with industrial explosives. These explosives are dynamite, but you can throw them on fire and they'll just burn and not explode. In fact, the expert in the field, teased us with this once in cold wether ... by throwing one of the clayes on the fire. But if you use a very sharp knife and cut it quickly, it'll explode.

This was 30 years ago ...

And IFF there were explosives, they'd be in the elevator shaft ... around the building support columns. And would pobably react to "stress" or "preassure", rather than heat.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
Because there really at this point is no other explaination....IS it what i believe....not to sure...but it does seem a logical explaination....the problem here is NIST and FEMEA and BAzant have tried...and failed with their explainations as the physics does not support observation.


The block tilts, as the structure is weaker on one side of the building. This is a normal, asymmetrical failure in the structure ... so far, ok.

Now, this edge of this enormous block is on one side of the building, and not on it's center. So, the main weight of this block, is no longer on the central columns, but on the floor structure itself. But still receives such an enormous resistance that it stops the rotating motion.

The point is, each and every floor in the building should have provided equal amount of resistance ... but didn't.

Of course, there is one other explanation ... and that is, that the building was built to collapse, when stress reached a certain point.

But all in all, the building is damaged asymmetrically, and therefore cannot falla apart symmetrically ... unless by design.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

How the tilt was arrested?

That's a stupid ass "theory"... It wasn't "arrested". The potential for it to collase down was stronger than the potential for it to magically slide off. Once the steel was damaged enough to to a variety of elements the tilting LED to the collapse.

Unless you know of some horizontal force none of know about the tilting was simply the inital stage of the vertical collapse.



The only "stupid ass theory" here is yours 19 arab hijackers, armed with boxcutters overpowered trained personell, hijacked 4 aeroplanes, flew sick sack across the country, blew up the towers without so much as a one single fighter stopping them, then died in a fire that destroyed even the blackbox, but the hijackers passport mysteriously was found intact a few blocks away from the impact that left the entire world trade center towers as dust particles. Directed by a UBL, who used a mobile phone and a laptop, to direct them across the world. Then constantly appeared on TV for 10 years, becoming younger and younger as he did so, and finally died old an crumbled, not resembling anything least of all himself" ... now that is a stupid ass conspiracy theory, if I ever heard one ... I suppose you went to school, and learn the basic newtonian physics, which tells you that any object set in motion, will stay in motion unless reacted upon.


edit on 15-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 



I think the official account says that if they hadn't been hit by jets they'd still be standing. So thats 100%.


No, the official account argues that the towers withstood the impact and would have remained standing. NIST's collapse theory is predicated entirely upon the assumption that enough fireproofing was dislodged during the impacts to allow the fires to weaken the steel sufficiently to initiate a collapse.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
this is an awesome piece of work - i want to be able to take this places and show people. i am going to save this url and post it as many places as i can... it only takes 30 minutes to read (not watching all the videos) and is a much better theory than the trusters want us to believe.

amen!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

How the tilt was arrested?

That's a stupid ass "theory"... It wasn't "arrested". The potential for it to collase down was stronger than the potential for it to magically slide off. Once the steel was damaged enough to to a variety of elements the tilting LED to the collapse.

Unless you know of some horizontal force none of know about the tilting was simply the inital stage of the vertical collapse.



The only "stupid ass theory" here is yours 19 arab hijackers, armed with boxcutters overpowered trained personell, hijacked 4 aeroplanes, flew sick sack across the country, blew up the towers without so much as a one single fighter stopping them, then died in a fire that destroyed even the blackbox, but the hijackers passport mysteriously was found intact a few blocks away from the impact that left the entire world trade center towers as dust particles. Directed by a UBL, who used a mobile phone and a laptop, to direct them across the world. Then constantly appeared on TV for 10 years, becoming younger and younger as he did so, and finally died old an crumbled, not resembling anything least of all himself" ... now that is a stupid ass conspiracy theory, if I ever heard one ... I suppose you went to school, and learn the basic newtonian physics, which tells you that any object set in motion, will stay in motion unless reacted upon.


edit on 15-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)


We don't know exactly what the hijackers did on the planes. Yes, many of them had boxcutters. Those can kill if used properly.

Zig zagging across the country is impossible by plane now, I guess. [/sarcasm]

The fire didn't destroy the black box. The collapsing towers did, and the passport survived because stuff like that survives crashes and explosions all the time. The shock wave blows them outward. It isn't magical paper or anything. It just is able to travel by air because it has less density and more interesting aerodynamics.

The impact caused a fire, which combined with the damage led to a collapse that pulverized most of the concrete. The steel was still almost completely intact in a massive rubble pile. You do know there was a rubble pile filled with steel and concrete, right?

Also, using the internet and phones to coordinate is not unheard of. Not sure why this is impossible to you also...

I suppose you would know, having gone to school, that the upper part of the tower reacted with the lower part, causing it to cease its angular motion.

ALSO, remember that the damn horizontal beams and supports were not meant to encounter vertical resistance. The bolts and resistance was designed to take lateral forces such as sway from wind and such. It was only the vertical columns which are meant to resist the lower floors and upper floors. Guess which ones were applying weight? That's right! The horizontal columns were holding up the building during the collapse! Oh, well I guess in the world of magic physics, they will hold up as well as a vertical column at rest, right?

I may not be the most well educated in these matters, but it seems like you are ignoring a lot of factors here.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 



I think the official account says that if they hadn't been hit by jets they'd still be standing. So thats 100%.


No, the official account argues that the towers withstood the impact and would have remained standing. NIST's collapse theory is predicated entirely upon the assumption that enough fireproofing was dislodged during the impacts to allow the fires to weaken the steel sufficiently to initiate a collapse.


It wasn't entirely an assumption. NIST performed tests to see how resistant the fireproofing would be to an impact, and the official account says specifically that it was the combined impact damage with the fire that caused the collapse. Had there been no impact, but fire, the towers would have remained standing.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



It wasn't entirely an assumption. NIST performed tests to see how resistant the fireproofing would be to an impact, and the official account says specifically that it was the combined impact damage with the fire that caused the collapse. Had there been no impact, but fire, the towers would have remained standing.


Yes, it was an assumption. No one knows exactly how much fireproofing was dislodged during the impacts. NIST's own assumptions were those "deemed most likely from the computer simulations and analysis carried out under the Investigation."



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Varemia
 



It wasn't entirely an assumption. NIST performed tests to see how resistant the fireproofing would be to an impact, and the official account says specifically that it was the combined impact damage with the fire that caused the collapse. Had there been no impact, but fire, the towers would have remained standing.


Yes, it was an assumption. No one knows exactly how much fireproofing was dislodged during the impacts. NIST's own assumptions were those "deemed most likely from the computer simulations and analysis carried out under the Investigation."


Exactly. They don't try to hide that there was no way for them to determine the exact amount of damage. They could only approximate as close as possible and leave room for correction. It's called science. In science, you are readily able to be proven wrong, because all your theories are testable. NIST admits when its theories are based on aspects which cannot be conclusively determined, and anyone is allowed to dispute these.

It is just that a lot of people in the Truth Movement do not follow science. They make claims and ultimatums, and then offer no scientific data which can be disproved. Anything in the NIST report can be scientifically disproved. Truth Movement rhetoric is faith-based and relies on "convincing" people that something happened, rather than proving that it happened.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Exactly. They don't try to hide that there was no way for them to determine the exact amount of damage. They could only approximate as close as possible and leave room for correction. It's called science.


So, just to be clear... you agree with me that it's an assumption? Albeit, one based on the scientific method.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Varemia
 



Exactly. They don't try to hide that there was no way for them to determine the exact amount of damage. They could only approximate as close as possible and leave room for correction. It's called science.


So, just to be clear... you agree with me that it's an assumption? Albeit, one based on the scientific method.


Yes. I completely agree. The Official Story is not some cut-in-stone truth. It is basically a conglomeration of everyone's best guesses as to why what happened, happened.

By the nature of science, I welcome people to challenge it and change it. That's what makes science better than most other philosophies of knowledge (such as religion).



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Brilliant post, Now we hope that the truth will be shared with everyone, and bring the ignorance and disinfo down.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Yes, and all that molten metal in the pit of the pile was caused by a jet fuel fire and friction caused by the collapse.

You have over 1500 Architects and Engineers who have nothing to gain by scientifically lying to you ... versus a few scientists who work for the government or contract out to it ... who have everything to gain. We all know what happens when the government hires you to tell their version ... and you don't. You are fired and vilified as some crackpot ... like OKC.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

I may not be the most well educated in these matters, but it seems like you are ignoring a lot of factors here.



No, I'm not ... you're just the same kind of religious fanatic, the muslims are ... just biased towards a different cause.

Let me put it this way, even if I give you right and say ... sure it's all because of US failure in air defence, building failure ... failure to assess the threat, failure to respond ... etc, etc.

Let's assume, that the guy was holding up his passport, so that his passport could have blown out of the window and then out of a second window, before the fire cought it ... and wasn't stopped by a pocket, glass, or other aspects, just to satisfy your desire for never-ending-set-of-coincidences. I mean, being religious fanatic ... GOD probably helped you in identifying the culprits.

How does that excuse, murdering over a million people over it? how does that, excuse laying Afghanistan to waste over it .. and in what way, is the child on the following picture (or a link to it, I'm too lazy to upload and stuff), to blame for it?




The more you use "coincidences", the more it's the US's fault, and not the terrorists act that is to blame.

Our air defences were non operational ... is UBL to blame for that? or you? If he took advantage of it, how did he know about it?

The horizontal beams couldn't handle it .. The building isn't supported by the horizontal beams, it is supported by the vertical beams, that stand straight up into the air. Your physics fails here ... the floors can collapse, but you'd end up with a skeleton building ... this failure, is a failure in the building ... how is that UBL's fault. Did somebody tell him? I sure didn't know, did you? is it the terrorists act, that does he has this information available or is it a failure in US to make a threat assessment? And even if the horizontal beams, holding the vertical beams together, collapsed, the vertical beams should have fallen apart and not straight down. Physics don't add up ... and sure as hell, not three times in a row.

In fact, I'd say that if the concrete dust was probably a clue here. The concrete sure as hell smells bad, if it wasn't pulverised by explotion, the building sure as hell sounds like it was in need of a total renovation.

Doesn't matter how you try to viggle this one out ... the US is at the point, where they have caused over a million people to perish ... because they did the same thing the nazis did ...is UBL also to blame, because the US acted like the nazis did?

Did the US go to war, because it had to cover up it's own incompitence? Which is worse, the US went to war and killed over a million people, to cover up their own incompitence, or a few oil barons in the US and abroad, used the opportunity of an impending attack to get what they always wanted, wars to increase stability and more secure control over gas and oil lines, and fields in the world.

Which is more likely, the twin towers fell because they were hit by planes and kerosine melted steel, to the point where the assymmetrical failure of the structure, caused it to symmetrically collapse in on itself ... leaving no skeleton of it's vertical support beams, because of the failure of the horizontal floor support columns ...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by VaremiaBy the nature of science, I welcome people to challenge it and change it. That's what makes science better than most other philosophies of knowledge (such as religion).


Except that all the evidence was destroyed. So now all we have is this holy gospel called the NIST Report which no-one can scientifically challenge because there is no evidence to test. A real investigation (what the 9/11 Commission should have been) would have taken samples to keep. A Government who actually wanted its people to know the truth would have released information to the public (e.g. Footage of plane hitting the Pentagon).

Also, lots of people who believe the OS speak about the NIST report as though it is infallable. Anyone who questions its validity is denounced as a crack-pot conspiracy theory.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
No, I'm not ... you're just the same kind of religious fanatic, the muslims are ... just biased towards a different cause.


Um, if you say so.



Our air defences were non operational ... is UBL to blame for that? or you? If he took advantage of it, how did he know about it?


They weren't non-operational, they just weren't prepared. Don't know if you remember 2001, but the US wasn't at war yet.



The horizontal beams couldn't handle it .. The building isn't supported by the horizontal beams, it is supported by the vertical beams, that stand straight up into the air. Your physics fails here ... the floors can collapse, but you'd end up with a skeleton building ... this failure, is a failure in the building ... how is that UBL's fault. Did somebody tell him? I sure didn't know, did you? is it the terrorists act, that does he has this information available or is it a failure in US to make a threat assessment? And even if the horizontal beams, holding the vertical beams together, collapsed, the vertical beams should have fallen apart and not straight down. Physics don't add up ... and sure as hell, not three times in a row.


This is a lot of assuming based on nothing concrete that I can find. The building is held together by horizontal beams, which are attached to vertical beams. When the metal is broken, bent, and twisted by forces, it does not magically shear away from the rest and leave it standing (and by the way, in one tower, part of the core DID remain standing? Where's your god now?




Doesn't matter how you try to viggle this one out ... the US is at the point, where they have caused over a million people to perish ... because they did the same thing the nazis did ...is UBL also to blame, because the US acted like the nazis did?


I've never been a supporter of the idea that UBL was the only one at fault here. In my opinion, the government probably had a hand in allowing 9/11 to happen in order to allow them to go to war. I also think they misjudged how far the attacks would go.



Which is more likely, the twin towers fell because they were hit by planes and kerosine melted steel, to the point where the assymmetrical failure of the structure, caused it to symmetrically collapse in on itself ... leaving no skeleton of it's vertical support beams, because of the failure of the horizontal floor support columns ...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs

Originally posted by VaremiaBy the nature of science, I welcome people to challenge it and change it. That's what makes science better than most other philosophies of knowledge (such as religion).


Except that all the evidence was destroyed. So now all we have is this holy gospel called the NIST Report which no-one can scientifically challenge because there is no evidence to test. A real investigation (what the 9/11 Commission should have been) would have taken samples to keep. A Government who actually wanted its people to know the truth would have released information to the public (e.g. Footage of plane hitting the Pentagon).

Also, lots of people who believe the OS speak about the NIST report as though it is infallable. Anyone who questions its validity is denounced as a crack-pot conspiracy theory.


There is a warehouse with samples, though as NIST reported, there is only about 3% of the floors which were damaged (and when you think about it, when the only thing people want to do is save the lives of the survivors in the rubble, sorting debris is not the primary concern.).

Also, it is not a holy gospel. It is a scientific report which can be challenged. You are also assuming, again, that there are videos of the plane crash from the Pentagon. Even though it may sound logical, you can't assume this. You don't know what direction the cameras were pointing in, or how many seconds each one waited before recording a shot. What if most of them were pointed at the street and the ground? That would be logical, considering they are security cameras, and it would not capture the plane.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 



Also, lots of people who believe the OS speak about the NIST report as though it is infallable. Anyone who questions its validity is denounced as a crack-pot conspiracy theory.


No, go right ahead and question the report. But few, if any, ever questions the report. They're too busy feigning shock about "anamolies" that don't exist. Or reverting to standard conspiracy non-arguments like the government lies, ergo everything from the government is false.
I posted a similar report in another thread and after 6 pages there was only one actual question pertaining to what is in the report.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


One still intact...that proves what? nothing except one survived and nothing else...this was part of the reason for the collapse and will never come to light.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




No, go right ahead and question the report. But few, if any, ever questions the report. They're too busy feigning shock about "anamolies" that don't exist. Or reverting to standard conspiracy non-arguments like the government lies, ergo everything from the government is false.
I posted a similar report in another thread and after 6 pages there was only one actual question pertaining to what is in the report.
I have a few problems with the NIST report. First off, they didn't test for explosive residues. Then there are the computer models that to my understanding they haven't released to the public. Then there are the fire tests that didn't cause any catastrophic failures, so I would like to see some tests that actually produce the results that the report asserts. Then probably the biggest issue I have is section 6.14.4 of the Twin Towers report, because the explanation of the actual collapse itself is basically explained by "The top section was massive and it crushed the builidng".

There are also some papers which show that the top section would not have crushed the bottom section to the ground.

Momentum Transfer Analysis. That paper calculates the energy of the falling section of the North Tower, and even with multiple assumptions in favor of collapse continuation, the collapse would be arrested due to an expenditure of energy.

However this response paper shows that some calculations were incorrect and that a gravity driven collapse is indeed sustainable, so I'll have to do some more reading this weekend.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies has many published papers about the collapse of the Twin Towers, so I'll do my best to read through a lot of them and see if there are any responses/peer reviews that refute the claims.
edit on 16-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post




top topics



 
283
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join