Where did the towers go?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The main point was to ask to keep this thread on topic. I won't be addressing your concerns here.

Thanks.




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
One of the factors contributing to the "disappearance" of the towers debris was the size of the basements that were dug out before the buildings were erected. Each basement had a greater volume than the Empire State Building, The volume of debris was only a bit more than the volume of the receptacles, so it only piled up a bit past ground level.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The main point was to ask to keep this thread on topic. I won't be addressing your concerns here.

Thanks.


What sense does it make to talk about where the towers went when we don't know what was there to go?


If we don't have accurate data on how much of what the towers consisted of then how can we talk about what there was to went?

That is fundamentally why this TEN YEAR discussion is so DUMB.

psik
edit on 21-1-2012 by psikeyhackr because: add sentence



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The point, my good man is that you post the same two youtubes in nearly every 9/11 thread, and derail most of them into talking about your videos and theories, and persistent demands for information that anyone capable of making use of it could figure out for himself.


Well that is rubbish because the majority of threads I do not even enter. Check it yourself. See how many threads that I do not have a single post in. It isn't my fault that all skyscrapers use the same grade school physics. Even on JREF they have this "STATIC, DYNAMIC" mantra. My model supports the STATIC load and Arrests the DYNAMIC load. What other way is there to test it?

psik



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

What sense does it make to talk about where the towers went when we don't know what was there to go?


If we don't have accurate data on how much of what the towers consisted of then how can we talk about what there was to went?

That is fundamentally why this TEN YEAR discussion is so DUMB.

psik

(Sorry to have been away...)

Am respespecctfully suggesting we all stick to the parameters set by Judy Wood to see if what she says is plausible? This is what the subject of discussion is about - - the presentation of her evidence . Thanks so much.

I put up this video because other than name-calling and derision, I never heard anyone address her theory and evidence, and was hoping that that someone in this thread would talk about that.

To me she presents a theory for particle beam weaponry of some sort, only defined in certain ways; namely that there was a static force field (the hurricane data) , that something was introduced to cause much of the buildings to pffft into thin air rather than crash to the ground and produce relative unimpressive seismicity (why no corresponding eq data for each building?) and bend some of those beams all the way around like Christmas ribbon candy or an Egyptian ankh rather than fall straight down.

Why did the iron rust on cars some distance away so that their door handles and motors also went pfffft and disappeared? Then the extraordinary rusting seemed to stop at points where "it" encountered the rubber around a car's door frame, for instance. What could it have been that melted those handles and engines and pretty well mashed up a large number of vehicles? Can a laser beam or microbeam act that way? Could some beam have deflected off something and veered to affect those cars so far away? If so what kind of substance would act like that?

And although she does not bring it up, I am curious about what effect this "it" has on humans in the line of this directed "beam" since human bodies contain iron and vit K. Wondering if there is any effect on prothrombin time then and down the road, for instance. I am wondering if the EMS people coming over the bridge to the site where the cars were pulverized suffered any damage later on even though they were apparently not in the exact 'line of fire'.

Obviously my field of study (health) is nowhere near Judy Wood's, but I am interested in why her theory makes sense and why it may not. TIA.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
There is no need to discuss Judy Wood. The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve. No ifs or buts.

The objections to the Greg Jenkins interview I've seen so far are as hilarious as the interview, which humiliates charlatan Wood, itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Ooooh sorry. I take it you are miffed at my reaction to your video. If Judy wood (or her work, rather) is not worth discussing, then I find it strange that you would post that video in the first place, unless it was intended to discredit her and disrupt the thread.

Your alias reminds me of a documentary I saw of Israelis skiing on 9/11. Were I a government, say the USA, Britain or Israel, I would recruit you in an instant to be a disinfo agent in the 9/11 forum., as your profile indicates you only seem to post in that one, and you are quite adept at putdowns.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Ooooh sorry. I take it you are miffed at my reaction to your video.


You try repeating yourself thousands of times for years on end. Sure, I wonder why I do it. Mostly because I want to fight mis- and disinformation.


Originally posted by aboutface
If Judy wood (or her work, rather) is not worth discussing, then I find it strange that you would post that video in the first place, unless it was intended to discredit her and disrupt the thread.


It was certainly intended to discredit Judy Wood, which is exceedingly easy. It wasn't intended to disrupt the thread, unless posting an on topic exposition of a hoax introduced in the OP is seen as such. The response I see is one of belief system crisis, followed by desperate straw grasping and prevarication. What else is new?


Originally posted by aboutface
Your alias reminds me of a documentary I saw of Israelis skiing on 9/11. Were I a government, say the USA, Britain or Israel, I would recruit you in an instant to be a disinfo agent in the 9/11 forum., as your profile indicates you only seem to post in that one, and you are quite adept at putdowns.

Peace.


Whatever.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

What sense does it make to talk about where the towers went when we don't know what was there to go?


If we don't have accurate data on how much of what the towers consisted of then how can we talk about what there was to went?

That is fundamentally why this TEN YEAR discussion is so DUMB.

psik

(Sorry to have been away...)

To me she presents a theory for particle beam weaponry of some sort, only defined in certain ways; namely that there was a static force field (the hurricane data) , that something was introduced to cause much of the buildings to pffft into thin air rather than crash to the ground and produce relative unimpressive seismicity (why no corresponding eq data for each building?) and bend some of those beams all the way around like Christmas ribbon candy or an Egyptian ankh rather than fall straight down.

Can a laser beam or microbeam act that way?


I have very limited experience with lasers. None with any particle beams. But how much energy is required to produce that event depends on how much matter was involved and what was done to it. It is obvious from the videos and witness reports that dust, apparently from the concrete, was produced and spread for blocks around. Now if we had accurate data on how much concrete was how high then we could better know how much seismic effect it should have had and how much energy was required to turn it into dust. But I don't know of any estimates of how many tons of concrete were hauled away and the NIST report does not specify the total amount of concrete that was in the intact building.

I don't have anything against Judy Wood or her approach but I regard it as speculation. Does she actually have a DEW that can turn concrete into dust? Because if she doesn't then what does the speculation accomplish? At least with accurate data on the amount of concrete the energy requirements could be computed.

psik



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
There is no need to discuss Judy Wood. The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve. No ifs or buts.

The objections to the Greg Jenkins interview I've seen so far are as hilarious as the interview, which humiliates charlatan Wood, itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


'The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve.'

And you know this how?

You know all of what DEW can do do you? Please explain!

--

Yes, hilarious, check it out:




This is also pretty funny:




Make of it what you will.


Cheers
edit on 22-1-2012 by NWOwned because: for clarity



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by snowcrash911
There is no need to discuss Judy Wood. The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve. No ifs or buts.

The objections to the Greg Jenkins interview I've seen so far are as hilarious as the interview, which humiliates charlatan Wood, itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


'The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve.'

And you know this how?

You know all of what DEW can do do you?


Why discuss this without first computing how much energy was expended on the target? And how can that be done without knowing the mass of the target and what was done to that mass? Then various assumptions can be made about the efficiency of the DEW.

But what direction could this hypothetical weapon have been fired from. With the symmetry of the destruction how could it have come from anywhere but straight down onto the target? This is just some very peculiar speculation.

psik

psik



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by snowcrash911
There is no need to discuss Judy Wood. The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve. No ifs or buts.

The objections to the Greg Jenkins interview I've seen so far are as hilarious as the interview, which humiliates charlatan Wood, itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


'The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve.'

And you know this how?

You know all of what DEW can do do you?


Why discuss this without first computing how much energy was expended on the target? And how can that be done without knowing the mass of the target and what was done to that mass? Then various assumptions can be made about the efficiency of the DEW.

But what direction could this hypothetical weapon have been fired from. With the symmetry of the destruction how could it have come from anywhere but straight down onto the target? This is just some very peculiar speculation.
psik


Here's something on Russian weaponry

The first-generation Cosmospheres were weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40 miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with “PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING” (PRF) which tunes in to the actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and can NOT be jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.

Source

Now if there's more than meets the eye in terms of 9/11, some people are obviously stating that it's highly possible that sophisticated weaponry was used. Judy stops just short of saying that, allowing the rest of us to look into this.
edit on 22-1-2012 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
Here's something on Russian weaponry

The first-generation Cosmospheres were weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40 miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with “PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING” (PRF) which tunes in to the actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and can NOT be jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.

Source


The problem is that to me that is just a bunch of words. I have no way of knowing if this Cosmosphere ever existed. It could just be so much talk.

I never saw the WTC but I know skyscrapers exist and they have to hold themselves up against gravity. And I know about kinetic energy and the conservation of momentum. So though I won't try to say much about what did destroy the towers I am pretty sure airliners with 10,000 gallons of kerosene each could not do it.

psik



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by snowcrash911
There is no need to discuss Judy Wood. The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve. No ifs or buts.

The objections to the Greg Jenkins interview I've seen so far are as hilarious as the interview, which humiliates charlatan Wood, itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


'The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve.'

And you know this how?

You know all of what DEW can do do you?


Why discuss this without first computing how much energy was expended on the target? And how can that be done without knowing the mass of the target and what was done to that mass? Then various assumptions can be made about the efficiency of the DEW.

But what direction could this hypothetical weapon have been fired from. With the symmetry of the destruction how could it have come from anywhere but straight down onto the target? This is just some very peculiar speculation.

psik



psik, I'm trying to get a handle on your position but think of it like this for a second.

Let's say there's some alien battlecruiser out by the sun and it's got a super-duper photon laser beam weapon and it's aiming it and shooting it for, I dunno, 8, 10, 11 or some 14.5 seconds etc., and in doing so, turns our own moon, largely to dust.

Literally right before our eyes.

So then we all get on ATS because from Earth, well the moon was there and then it was completely gone and all we can see with our cameras and telescopes is a big cloud of dust...

And we all go to the thread "Where did the Moon go?" and there we find you asking to examine all the moon rocks Apollo 11 brought back because we need to know what the Moon was made of before we try to figure out why it ain't there any more and all we can see is a giant cloud of dust. Is that right? lol

By your estimate what data do we need that we do not have?

Don't we know it's steel and concrete and how much? Weren't all the exterior sections the same size? Don't we know how big any one of them was? Don't we know how thick the concrete flooring was? Can't we add stuff up? Is this really not something that we can do? Or has never been done?

The buildings were there then they were gone. Some say in a pile in the basement but there's no pictures or evidence of this. Greg Jenkins was saying they were mostly air by volume. Yeah but there was a lot of steel and concrete too. Are you suggesting that we don't know, don't have or cannot accurately estimate the amount of actual airless material in those two towers?

I'm sure you've seen the construction videos, that's a lot of solid vertical steel there in those cores, you think it all just "fell down"? No, I'm asking you, only you. You think it all just fell down?

And more importantly, with any amount of data could you prove that it didn't or couldn't?

I agree, for any theory we should start, or try to start with what was there in the first place. But even a casual look at it by any layman watching a video, it's a lot of STUFF.

Lots of concrete and steel etc.

It may be that the first thing to do is to wonder in awe that all that stuff we could see is just gone and when we look around on the ground we don't see what we imagine was in the towers to pile them that high and so THEN we get out the calculator and see what was there, could it fall down, and if so, where is all the supposed debris?

Which I think is actually what we are doing?

Wood claims the 'collapse' was too fast, the debris piles were too small, the slamming to earth didn't register enough, the dust all over Manhattan was X amount of building, among other things. The debris people tacitly agree is missing from the debris piles is "in the vast basement" yet there are no photos of this or any significant damage to the 'bathtub' etc.

Now we got to figure out if all the material in those two towers caused to fail and to just "fall down" would we get the same kind of results?

But then even so, with accurate data what are you going to do? Let's say you have all the correct numbers right now. How are you going to use them to prove anything? I'm interested to know if you think the buildings just fell down? And if you had all the data could you show it couldn't or that it wouldn't? Even with accurate data could you say the ejected sides of the towers wouldn't be ejected as far as can be seen on the videos?

Or would you then become the Steven Jones of accurate data? As in, one guy with figures who says there's no way, based on the figures, that the panels could have ejected as far as they did or the towers "fall down" as they did. No way. etc. So what? One voice among many especially on ATS and some would argue your figures or calcs were wrong or that gravity actually was sufficient to cause what we all saw on the videos. And so on and so on.


Cheers



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

psik, I'm trying to get a handle on your position but think of it like this for a second.

Let's say there's some alien battlecruiser out by the sun and it's got a super-duper photon laser beam weapon and it's aiming it and shooting it for, I dunno, 8, 10, 11 or some 14.5 seconds etc., and in doing so, turns our own moon, largely to dust.

By your estimate what data do we need that we do not have?

Don't we know it's steel and concrete and how much? Weren't all the exterior sections the same size? Don't we know how big any one of them was? Don't we know how thick the concrete flooring was? Can't we add stuff up?


alien battlecruiser ???

I read a lot of science fiction but I distinguish fact from fiction.

Documentation from before 9/11 says there was 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in both towers.

That comes to 100,000 tons of steel and more than 300,000 tons of concrete per tower.

But some post-9/11 sources say there was as little as 90,000 tons of concrete per tower. Some sources say there was a concrete box around the core at least part way up the building. Some say no. There had to be a lot of concrete in the basements and I would suspect on the first 5 levels to provide a stable base to hold the building against the wind. But I haven't even seen people discuss how many tons of concrete were hauled away in the debris. So I see no way to tell how many tons of concrete got dustified therefore the amount of energy required cannot be computed.

I am not interested in any MAGICAL BELIEF in DEW weapons. Maybe they exist, but even if they do I want hard data on energy requirements. Otherwise it is silly talk that is too dumb to qualify as science fiction. It is FANTASY. Too many "Conspiracy Theorists" express belief in technology they don't understand and do not want hard data and then seem surprised that they are not taken seriously. I don't believe airliners could destroy those buildings that fast but I am not about to make up fantasies to explain it. There are peculiar things caught on vid, like the Spire dustifying as it fell but being completely gone before it could fall out of view. So there is definitely something weird going on. But I am not making up explanations. I want to know how much steel had to be left in that Spire and how thick it had to be at that height but I don't hear any physicists asking about that either.

I regard 9/11 as a permanent blot on the reputation of physicists for not being all over 9/11 in 2002. But now they pretend it can go away because they say nothing about it. I suspect the careers of our physicists are economically controlled so they keep their heads down. But skyscrapers are grade school level stuff so they look pretty silly not asking about the amount of steel and concrete on every level of the intact buildings.

psik



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I don't believe airliners could destroy those buildings that fast but I am not about to make up fantasies to explain it. There are peculiar things caught on vid, like the Spire dustifying as it fell but being completely gone before it could fall out of view. So there is definitely something weird going on. But I am not making up explanations. I want to know how much steel had to be left in that Spire and how thick it had to be at that height but I don't hear any physicists asking about that either.

I regard 9/11 as a permanent blot on the reputation of physicists for not being all over 9/11 in 2002. But now they pretend it can go away because they say nothing about it. I suspect the careers of our physicists are economically controlled so they keep their heads down. But skyscrapers are grade school level stuff so they look pretty silly not asking about the amount of steel and concrete on every level of the intact buildings.

psik


'I don't believe airliners could destroy those buildings that fast but I am not about to make up fantasies to explain it.'

Ok, see, here's what I'm getting at. You 'don't believe' airliners could destroy those buildings that fast. But even using the correct data, even your numbers, even heavy numbers, or accurate numbers (which you seem to indicate there is some dispute over) can you PROVE that airliners could not have destroyed those towers that fast?

So before you even start, before you even try, there is a dispute over accurate numbers? Not only that we don't know how much dust blew away or what the dust was really made of.

As well, of what did manage to fall to the earth, we don't know how much material it was or what kind of stuff it was by percentages. Is that right?

Look, even if you could come up with accurate data and an equation who is even going to care?

'They' (opposers) will say the amounts, numbers, percentages and calculations are wrong.

They will come up with their own gravity, mass, force, numbers and equations for the Official Story.

They will say: "Of course your answers add up to conspiracy because you already stated that to you the Spire 'dustified' and did not just fall down and this bias skewed your results."

They will say: "Your calculations indicate that jet fuel (being kerosene) cannot possibly melt steel but don't forget there was carpet and office furniture in there and the sprinklers weren't working."

They will say: "Your findings are impressive but you didn't factor in that the planes severed twice as many core columns than you used as a figure Here..."

Check out some of the new slow motion HD vids of the 'collapses' on youtube. When you look at those vids of the towers, man it LOOKS LIKE EXPLOSIVES. I cannot lie, that's what it looks like etc. There's a big thread on it running on ATS right now. It looks like demolition but then we get some people saying they never heard booms, and a bunch of others who say they did and that there were bombs in the basement!

It really really looks like explosives AND STILL no one is listening it seems.

Take the 'Squibs', it's like I said in the other Judy Woods thread, too many 9/11 things are too close to call, squibs included. Are they 'Squibs' or just air pressure ejections? Take the bombs and explosions. Were they bombs really or just stuff in the building going off at random?

So the 'explosive' theorists are like frothing trying to get someone to pay attention and do something. People like Jones and Gage go around the world giving lectures for crying out loud when if they had any real proof what they should do is go to NYC and hold a press conference.

Guess they don't have anything even with all their videos and calculations and "evidence" and fancy peer reviewed websites and t-shirts and DVDs and publicity.

Calculations ain't gonna solve 9/11. Calculations ain't gonna open a new investigation. Calculations just ain't gonna prove those airliners couldn't have destroyed those towers that fast.

Even if they do.


Cheers



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
can you PROVE that airliners could not have destroyed those towers that fast?


That's easy, equal opposite reaction and the conservation of momentum.

Calculations are not needed. We know the towers were built to hold themselves up, we know the steel was larger and heavier at the bottom tapering as the columns went up. We know the floors were designed to hold their own weight many times over (FoS). We know 15 floors can not crush 95 floors, against an increasing mass and path of most resistance, because of the equal opposite reaction and the conservation of momentum laws.
We know even if all the steel was heated up from fire, it would not cause global collapse due to the FoS.

Physics of colliding objects is simple when you know how. So why did NIST not explain the collapses? Because they couldn't, without revealing the truth.

The OSers want to talk about collapsing towers without ever considering equal opposite reaction and the conservation of momentum laws. Aircraft impacts and fires do not change the laws of physics.

You don't have to know how it happened, to know how it couldn't happen.

edit on 1/23/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hey, that's great ANOK, what you wrote there but I been through all those many threads where you put that forth and met resistance...

If what you say is the case and it's physics and science based then why don't we (Somebody) just put it to NIST about just this? Why not just take NIST to task over this one thing and leave how it may have 'collapsed' to a later treatment?

I mean why try to show it's explosives, thermite, DEW or even Fire and Gravity if certain Laws says it's impossible with the planes?


Cheers



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by ANOK
 
If what you say is the case and it's physics and science based then why don't we (Somebody) just put it to NIST about just this? Why not just take NIST to task over this one thing and leave how it may have 'collapsed' to a later treatment?


That is why the issue has been about psychology rather than physics for years. Proving something and having people accept it as proof are two different things.

When so many people with degrees in physics don't even acknowledge the importance of having accurate data on buildings that obviously had to hold themselves up then how can there be a resolution?

That is why the nation that put men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years. Millions of people carry smartphones more powerful than the computers NASA sent to the Moon but they can't understand the physics of the Empire State Building which is 80 years old. How was the steel and concrete distributed down it? And yet our engineering schools expect students to pay $30,000 per year when they say nothing about this problem.

psik



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
It seem to me that only a few people on conspiracy websites don't understand the collapse.

Why is it that these a&e 1500 don't come forward with calculations to show that the planes could not have caused the collapse?

Some one could place the plans in your lap and you could not show, with calculations, the buildings should still be standing because you do not have the structural background.

These 1500 claim they do have the background. And still they don't come forward with court worthy proof.

Claims from the a&e1500 and claims from the keyboard warriors do nor equal proof.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join