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.

 

Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

page: 41
60
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


asimple answer...it all takes energy to wehter it is a little amount or a large amount.....every little bit adds up in the system...every connection...and every weld...nut ...bolt...will all take energy to rip it apart....you cannot for one second discount the laws of physics and that is where you failed.

you can argue your points...and that is fine...but soon as you discount the physics...and you should know with your experience the force involved in ripping out evey seat...the upper 10th cannot take out the lower 90%...
:

Again my direct quote from above.



You are wrong about Newton's Laws. They completely explain how the upper mass while accelerating and picking up momentem can subject the construction materials well pass their design specifications.


This whole comment of yours is moot............

You keep talking about physics, and physics can explain how the buildings failed.....

It took me a while to finish the whole reply. I apologize. I have two crazy kids running around, one bitchy girlfriend breathing down my neck, all while I am trying to explain some physics of building constructiuon




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I am replying to myself because I wanted to correct how I was trying to say this.




Once it is damaged its design specs are altered.


I should not have said altered.

I should have said once it is damaged to a certain degree, it can no longer operate within its design specifications and can be subject to failure.

I am sorry i did not want to edit the original statement. It was at it's max capacity, I believe. I just wanted to clarify what i was trying to state. It did not come out right



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

lol
your funny



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
At this point 10 years later it's pretty safe to say people will believe what they want to believe. I personally don't think it was an inside job. But since it happened it's a great excuse to throw away the Constitution as a means retaining legitimacy and going to Iraq a second time to secure an oil source. But even without 9/11, the Government didn't have much of an excuse to do a lot of the terrible things it did around the world but did them anyway.

I just live my life, and have begun to care less about what happens around me. If we're about to enter a time of great suffering according to conspiracy theorists, the NWO, Nibiru, etc, then whatever. I've been through enough in my life that this doesn't phase me. Adapt and overcome and stop worrying about things that could happen. But that's just me. Love those around you, and the rest just doesn't matter as much.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


let me guess.....
your not an Engineer are you?
To begin to understand the technicalities of a physical event,
first you must have a basic grasp of the science involved.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


wow....see we can agree on something....lol.

bitchy GF and two kids getting in the way of discussing life changing events....

So we are not that different after allbut as far as physics goes....it does not expalin what happened...in my post to canoli i gave him a link to an analysis i did on some videos footage with some anomalies....now you might actually go and take a look at it,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

now the two anomalies are explained...i am listening to you about your single florr senario...but if you look at the images...the upper bloclk is crushing on itself before the collapse of the floors below.

also in the first section the antenna is dropping before the roofline which is on the hat truss....so the senario imo is not occuring in the way your believing it is....if you look at the second set the lower floors stay in tact befor upper flor impacts it...not also know all this is in less than a second as this vid was approx 29frames a second.

as you i do not just take peoples words...i go and do my own analysis....and draw my own conclusions.

now if you look in the OP vid you will see his top down vid with no Explosives used...so we assume there aren't any explosive...then the upper section would and should have acted like a rigid block...that is why i doubt things...because i have look at it carefully....and also if you watch the sauret video....before for the collapse the camera (in a fixed position) shakes...yet at no time during the collapse does it shake.
.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
now if you look in the OP vid you will see his top down vid with no Explosives used...so we assume there aren't any explosive...then the upper section would and should have acted like a rigid block...that is why i doubt things...because i have look at it carefully....and also if you watch the sauret video....before for the collapse the camera (in a fixed position) shakes...yet at no time during the collapse does it shake.


The only thing I might point out here is that in the top-down no-explosive videos, the buildings are nearly purely concrete structures. This means that the falling structures really are solid blocks.

With 9/11, this was not the case, as each floor was separate and only connected by vertical steel columns which could twist and break apart. This means that only one floor would be destroyed at a time (the destruction maintaining much of the original mass of both floors), but the weight from above would remain extremely high for the entire collapse.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by plube
now if you look in the OP vid you will see his top down vid with no Explosives used...so we assume there aren't any explosive...then the upper section would and should have acted like a rigid block...that is why i doubt things...because i have look at it carefully....and also if you watch the sauret video....before for the collapse the camera (in a fixed position) shakes...yet at no time during the collapse does it shake.


The only thing I might point out here is that in the top-down no-explosive videos, the buildings are nearly purely concrete structures. This means that the falling structures really are solid blocks.

With 9/11, this was not the case, as each floor was separate and only connected by vertical steel columns which could twist and break apart. This means that only one floor would be destroyed at a time (the destruction maintaining much of the original mass of both floors), but the weight from above would remain extremely high for the entire collapse.


Yes, they are hollow blocks held together by steel beams and sheetrock.I think most apartment buildings and skyscrapers are all built that way.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


wow....see we can agree on something....lol.

bitchy GF and two kids getting in the way of discussing life changing events....

So we are not that different after allbut as far as physics goes....it does not expalin what happened...in my post to canoli i gave him a link to an analysis i did on some videos footage with some anomalies....now you might actually go and take a look at it,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

now the two anomalies are explained...i am listening to you about your single florr senario...but if you look at the images...the upper bloclk is crushing on itself before the collapse of the floors below.

also in the first section the antenna is dropping before the roofline which is on the hat truss....so the senario imo is not occuring in the way your believing it is....if you look at the second set the lower floors stay in tact befor upper flor impacts it...not also know all this is in less than a second as this vid was approx 29frames a second.

as you i do not just take peoples words...i go and do my own analysis....and draw my own conclusions.

now if you look in the OP vid you will see his top down vid with no Explosives used...so we assume there aren't any explosive...then the upper section would and should have acted like a rigid block...that is why i doubt things...because i have look at it carefully....and also if you watch the sauret video....before for the collapse the camera (in a fixed position) shakes...yet at no time during the collapse does it shake.
.



Do you know for sure the camera was in a fixed position?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by smurfy


Blaine what you say just fortifies the thread as being null and void since it is about dishonesty. not what anyone may believe, rightly or wrongly.


One thing pointed out here, perhaps not as well as it could have been, is that those still pushing the nonsensical parts of the Truther agenda, are doing so for nefarious reasons. Some I'm convinced are pushing it based on their support of, or involvement in the same Terrorist agenda behind the lunatics who flew those planes into the towers. Some are doing it and even knowingly spreading lies because they hate America and Americans and are perfectly willing to lie or pretend false evidence is real. The Conspiracy Theory has become the real Conspiracy.

Perhaps we need a Forum for the 9/11 Truther Conspiracy, Conspiracy (...and no I'm not stuttering).


That is a very far-fetched conclusion and normally you would have to prove it by sources and patterns. It si a broad generalization - if you do not believe the government, you are a terrorist...

In contrast, I feel that those who at least allowed the planes to fly into the WTC are the true terrorists - and this porbably includes the then vice president of the US.
Evidence points to explosions prior to the plane crashes at least in the WTC.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


Prior to the plane crashes? I've never heard that before. Do you have a source?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


There is absolutely zero evidence of explosions prior to the plane crashes. More dishonest behaviour.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Except the testimony of the only person who was there still alive.

LAST MAN OUT



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


I can't believe you've fallen for that guys BS:

sites.google.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


In case you just ignore this, I'll expand.

His supervisor, who was with him at the time, claims Rodriguez is wrong.

Rodriguez NEVER made these claims to the 9/11 commission (though he DID lie and claim he did)

He's repeatedly lied about the fireball int he shaft, claiming it couldn't have happened, then telling the truth, when it suited his story.

And on and on...

Another lying truther.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


The mock simulation tests being done for the same attacks on the same day is the one that leaves me stractching my head.. Funny the same thing happened in the UK on 7/7. Mock terrorist attacks being carries out at the same stations at the same time as the real ones.
I wish someone could explain these away for me............



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by drunkendonuts
 


I wonder if anyone else has read this article. It is from Alternet.

www.alternet.org...

"Is the Saudi Royal Family Connected to 9/11 Hijackers?" New evidence links the Saudi royal family to Saudis in South Florida who reportedly had contact with the 9/11 hijackers before fleeing the US prior to the attacks.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I think there's never explanations for coincidences, other than the human mind seeing patterns... to make sense of the senseless... as you yerself know from being on ATS there seems to be a terror drill every other day...

the plane one on 9/11 wasn't national and it was a crash, not a hijacking... I believe



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


And your point is WHAT? That government is a humble non lying enttidy that has come to support and help us...YOU need to get a life that reads well. I won't even start with the Gulf Of TONKIN and continue to present day...Your reasoning has to be admired by only those who still think that Government is something that we can control and is here for our protection...I have to many freinds lying in fields in SouthEast Asia and other places around the world for me to be listening to someone who has little knowledge about fields (that turn red). AND THAT INCLUDES THE FIELDS of the TWIN TOWERS.
NOT ON OUR WATCH
iamdlogan



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Well bud. I have sent you three posts asking you to answer my question I put to you... Sofar you have refused to answer it...

why? because you cannot... You thread is full of misinformation. It is you that cannot answer to the facts. Not the truthers. Funny 4 anti 911 truther threads made in a week of the 911 anniversary.. None of which had any backbone...

low level trolling....




top topics



 
60
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join