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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 55
17
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by anoncoholic



Holy smokes man!!


That was some diatribe! This is a first- you managed to call me a liar, a murderer, an atheist, and a non-human all in one lucid post.

You have exposed yourself as a complete wack-adoo in my book. Man, I love ATS! :up


LOL! It was impressive wasn't it?


and I am still awaiting an answer from any of you trolls. Whats wrong, government got your tongue? Brain farting is only when you can blow smoke? No mirrors around to take the heat off the subject matter so you think it will just go away like the lives of 3000 innocent people on that day you all decided to murder your own?

you think this is funny?

you must be the sorriest of the bunch...




posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



....the C-130 witnesses claim to have seen supposedly increasing altitude after the crash...


Although (not your fault) this has veered yet again into another aspects of the events of 9/11, I can actually speak to this.

The C-130 belonged (belongs) to the Minnesota Air National Guard, and was under the command that day of Lt. Col. Steven O'Brien. You may feel free to Google, or search on YouTube for many references. (I refrain from posting that in this thread, because it's so far off topic).

I am not, not ever have been a military pilot...a civilian all the way. But, that doesn't mean I don't understand when a fellow pilot is telling the truth...or, when he/she is lying (because what is being said doesn't add up).

Lt. Col. O'Brien is telling the truth.

The C-130, 'Gofer 06' (....pronounced "gopher zero six")...was their ATC call-sign. Upon being asked to visually identify AAL 77, they did....and, they were asked to 'linger' over the Pentagon, after the impact....which means they circled once, perhaps a couple of 360s...then, continued on to their destination, their base in Minnesota.

I do not know much (yet) about MP3 audio, but here is a link to quite a few files archived, that will relate to one or several topics regarding the events of 9/11:

forums.randi.org...


In any case, out of the many informative books that exist out there, I still recommend a book from an airline pilots' perspective....something ALL should read at least once, in order to comprehend the reality of that day, aside from the noise of the many, many ridiculous "conspiracy" websites.

It is "Touching History", by author Lynn Spencer.

Likely available at your local library. Here is a direct link to her web page: cleartheskies.com...

And one other link to Amazon (since it's worldwide): www.amazon.com...

I have NO financial entanglement whatsoever with the author...in fact, have never met her (although, perhaps one day, would be honored).

From an airline pilot's standpoint, it was clarity, her book. Is the reason I recommend it.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by anoncoholic


and I am still awaiting an answer from any of you trolls. Whats wrong, government got your tongue? Brain farting is only when you can blow smoke? No mirrors around to take the heat off the subject matter so you think it will just go away like the lives of 3000 innocent people on that day you all decided to murder your own?

you think this is funny?

you must be the sorriest of the bunch...


And again, I invite you to open a new thread on just the Pentagon and prove to all here your point(s)
Funny how you keep dodging that challenge. What's the worst that could happen to you?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Relax chief.

You're coming off as belligerent.

You don't know me. So please don't presume to. You don't know my beliefs. So please don't presume to.

I could give a f88k about you or what your opinion of this whole situation is.
Why is it that you truthers are so hostile towards those who disagree with your view?
How insecure are you people?

Contrary to what you think, I don't spend my time here following what you post in these threads. I just recently started posting in the 9/11 forum and have been involved in maybe 3 or 4 threads as of late, so I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. And at this point, after engaging with you- I don't care to.

We won't agree on anything. And that's fine.

But don't presume to know me, chief. You have no clue.

To add:

I don't for a second think any of this is funny. I was there. Standing on Wall and Broadway. Watching the 2nd plane hit. I saw it. Heard it. Felt it. I breathed it in. The death and destruction. I ran from the debris cloud. I knew someone who perished in the WTC.

This isn't a joke. So quit making it one with your baseless claims.
edit on 19-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Thanks Proudbird.

I actually agreed with the member who brought up the C-130 that it was confirmed by the Pentagon. Witnesses saw it. There's even a pic or two. I don't deny that fact.

From reports Ive read, the crew of that flight was instructed to keep track of what was presumably AA77. They reported on its tracking up until it went into the Pentagon. This may explain why it may have been flying at a lower altitude and then climbed after the plane went down. This seems perfectly rational to me.

But that other member seems to think the C-130 was making a drop off of plane parts to be planted at the sight. After the crash.

This is what's become of the truther movement it seems. How sad.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

and I am still awaiting an answer from any of you trolls. Whats wrong, government got your tongue? Brain farting is only when you can blow smoke? No mirrors around to take the heat off the subject matter so you think it will just go away like the lives of 3000 innocent people on that day you all decided to murder your own?


Strunk and White are your friends. Plus, accusing us of murder, just because we have a different conclusion than you is an example of paranoid thinking. I know it's hard but you should always try and remember that the people on the other end of the series of tubes are probably very much like you, no matter how annoying they seem to be.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Hello.

For any of who *asked* for some numbers, figures, or whichever terms that are preferred or were used to describe the progressive collapse of the WTC Towers, both 1 and 2.....and have trouble wrapping minds around the complexities involved....

...I recently saw this post from another thread, and thought it was worth sharing.

Enjoy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by anoncoholic

and I am still awaiting an answer from any of you trolls. Whats wrong, government got your tongue? Brain farting is only when you can blow smoke? No mirrors around to take the heat off the subject matter so you think it will just go away like the lives of 3000 innocent people on that day you all decided to murder your own?


Strunk and White are your friends. Plus, accusing us of murder, just because we have a different conclusion than you is an example of paranoid thinking. I know it's hard but you should always try and remember that the people on the other end of the series of tubes are probably very much like you, no matter how annoying they seem to be.


How do you ACCURATELY compute the Potential Energy of the towers without knowing how much steel and how much concrete was at what height in the buildings? The physics profession has become an accomplice after the fact for not settling this crap.

Where have they even tried to build a physical model that can completely collapse? This not solving the physics issue is now more important than who did it. This is getting into the fundamental workings of our educational system as to who is supposed to understand what and who is supposed to BELIEVE because someone can wave a degree in their faces.

Like structural engineering is too difficult for electrical engineers to understand when the Empire State Building was completed before the transistor was invented. 9/11 is a grade school physics joke.

psik



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You are confusing "not solving the physics issue" with "not understanding the physics issue". The problem "how did those buildings collapse" has been solved long ago, and everyone relevant (engineers etc) understand the explanation. When you want to understand it too, learn physics. If you don't, you should believe what experts are telling you. If you think that you do have the required understanding of physics and are not willing to educate yourself, then you will forever be the broken record that you are.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You are confusing "not solving the physics issue" with "not understanding the physics issue". The problem "how did those buildings collapse" has been solved long ago, and everyone relevant (engineers etc) understand the explanation. When you want to understand it too, learn physics. If you don't, you should believe what experts are telling you. If you think that you do have the required understanding of physics and are not willing to educate yourself, then you will forever be the broken record that you are.


So they should have had no trouble building a physical model that could completely collapse.

WHERE IS IT???

Physics is not about words or mathematics. It is about what happens with mass, and energy and force.

No words here:



So where is the collapsing model without the talk?

psik



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


As you yourself admit, your model proves nothing. Quit posting it.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You are confusing "not solving the physics issue" with "not understanding the physics issue". The problem "how did those buildings collapse" has been solved long ago, and everyone relevant (engineers etc) understand the explanation. When you want to understand it too, learn physics. If you don't, you should believe what experts are telling you. If you think that you do have the required understanding of physics and are not willing to educate yourself, then you will forever be the broken record that you are.


Show me an Engineer , a highly qualified engineer , who has nothing to do with the bush family or their gang of thugs .... Show me ONE engineer who agrees with the OS and would bet his life on it .

Video preferably ... not trying to be a d1ck , just its been over ten years now and i have never heard a rational person back up the OS.
edit on 19-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



oh and ..... "If you don't, you should believe what experts are telling you." ....
thats why were in this mess ... these so called "experts".
edit on 19-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia
 


Aaaaah , so burning plastic and air preassure , blows massive steel structures into DUST
dude , get a grip.

And yes... i know what im saying .... yes ... youd need some grade A explosives to do that wouldnt you ?
shock horror


I`m guessing you beleive the squibs were air blowing out of the buildings too right ? , if so , can you explain why theyre not coming out of every window on each floor ? and why they were isolated squibs , not big old dust clouds blowing out of 5 - 6 windows at a time ? let me guess .... most of the doors were closed


And the distance those chunks of debri were travelling ... were talking like 500 - 600 feet ....
plastic , carpets and air preassure
c`mon what`s next ? chuck norris punched the foundations ?

edit on 18-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)


I don't even know how to respond to this. Your information is just so... wrong. We'd have to begin with the absolute basics of everything. I honestly don't have the motivation to give a full response.

The squibs were air blowing out. They were "isolated" because that's where the glass broke first, and energy likes the path of least resistance.

I don't have the exact details on the horizontal parabolic motion of the falling debris, so I can't really tell you exact numbers. You're being awfully presumptuous by saying you think it had to have been caused by a massive explosion.


So you dont have the motivation ? or the balls ?
Watch a video of the collapse with a clear view of the squibs ..... squibs are a part of controlled demolition , and the way these squibs in question were positioned , shows that it was not just windows ..... why do you ignore that ?

So you dont have the exact details of the horizontal parabolic motion ..... but your fast as lightning to knock my claims back ?? Oo ? what exactly was the point of this reply ?

You DID research every little detail right ? then you should know the distance from the position of the debri in question before the EXPLOSION, to the buildings effected from the debris after the EXPLOSION ....

what is so hard about this ? dont you understand that when a building collapses , the debri stays with the building ?? only an explosion could send debri 500-600 feet .... so please , stop dodging FACTS and explain to me YOUR theory as to what happened that day... its a fair request , ive explained mine.

I WILL keep asking you ..... what is it ? 5 times now ? and you still wont prove your point ...... why are you even here ?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 



Watch a video of the collapse with a clear view of the squibs .....


That will be difficult, since there were no "squibs", hence there is no video of them. Unless you fake one up, as is often done in order to *prove* the so-called "conspiracy".

What is amusing though, is when a fake video is made by someone who admits it's fake, but it is gobbled up by the conspiracy theorists as if it were gospel. Utter hilarity:




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Why would anyone in their right minds take the effort to build a physical model just to show a couple of people who are almost completely ignorant of physics that a rather easy to grasp concept is possible? People who understand physics, and understand the physics behind the collapses, have better things to do. You are not important.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


am i talking about building 7 ??? 7 was controlled demo , it was admitted .... "pulled" is a well known term.


THIS is what i mean -> www.youtube.com... < if it doesnt load up (paused) at 4 seconds, keep looping it from 4 seconds .... youll see it.
edit on 19-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Why would anyone in their right minds take the effort to build a physical model just to show a couple of people who are almost completely ignorant of physics that a rather easy to grasp concept is possible? People who understand physics, and understand the physics behind the collapses, have better things to do. You are not important.


Well if it is IMPOSSIBLE then they certainly would not do it.

If they know it is IMPOSSIBLE the they will come up with excuses to not try it.


psik



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Video preferably ... not trying to be a d1ck , just its been over ten years now and i have never heard a rational person back up the OS.


The irony of this exceeds any known scale to measure irony.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


So where is this engineer then ? you know ... the one who laughs in the face of physics .... the towers collapsed due to explosion ..... prove THAT isnt true ... and i`ll be your human slave for life



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 



... it was admitted .... "pulled" is a well known term.


No, this has been covered extensively in other threads. ATS members who have actually worked on building demo jobs have said it is not the case. Only instance where "pulled" could be considered apt is in the "Verinage"** method of building demolition.

The "pulled" term came from only one person, Larry Silverstein...who is not a building demolitions expert. And, in the context of the conversation, it is quite obvious that he meant "pull" the men back from Building 7, it was a lost cause in terms of fighting the fires, and he didn't want anyone to get hurt when it collapsed. Any of those conspiracy websites that say otherwise are distorting the truth, and lying to you.


Originally posted by ReptileRipper
He actually said the words "pull IT "


Yes, "it" in the context of the conversation being the effort to fight the fires. This is well-known, and any conspiracy site still trying to peddle that nonsense is one unworthy of your time and effort to visit.



**

This video from France demonstrates how a block of upper floors can crush all the floors below down to the foundations.
The technique, called Verinage, is common in France.




"Pull" here refers to the hydraulics mounted inside that pull on critical supports, initiating the progressive collapse.

So you see, with the damage inflicted on the Towers (all three), combined with the fires and that devastation, the progressive form of collapse is perfectly understandable.



edit on Wed 19 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join