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.

 

If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 
I didn't mean to be disrespectful or dismissive of the casualties there. Sorry if it came across that way, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

What seemed odd to me was the flight path as it was reported on the news (if I remember correctly, this was on the afternoon of 9/11, though I could be wrong). I remember seeing the path circle around the Pentagon before striking it, and I remember being told by the reporters that the plane had crashed into a section that had been recently renovated and was mostly unoccupied compared to the rest of the building. That definitely seemed odd to me.

Also to clarify - I was responding to GoodOlDave, who had asked me to explain how I had been "swayed by these conspiracy claims," and I was describing to him some of the things that caused me to be suspicious (long before any of the conspiracy sites got started). I don't offer this as proof of anything, just as one of the details that started me on my journey.




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Actually no one would give a rat's hairy a$$ about your being punched in the face.


You're the one who brought up the face punching, not me, so you shouldn't complain if your example only wound up proving my position and refuting yours. It was my assumption that you wanted to discuss face punching physics in earnest, which is why I refrained fom the standard "I would beat anyone who punched me in the face into jelly" macho rhetoric and the self serving "trust me when I say this; I'm a better shot than any of the truthers here" ego soothing.


Since the mass and velocity of the plane are known then the kinetic energy of the airliner can be computed. How would we know the kinetic energy of a fist punching you in the face? But that kinetic energy would do two things in both cases. So how much energy went into moving the building is relevant in determining how much energy was left over to go into doing damage. But computing that energy would require knowing the distribution of mass and the stiffness of the building.


This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard a supposed physics scholar say. It is generally agreed that it was the fires that delivered the coup de gras as the building remained standing for some time afterwards regardless of the damage the impact caused . The energy released from the heat of the fires had nothing to do with the energy from the impact any more than the velocity of a falling incindiary bomb dropped over a Japanese city during WWII had any relevence to the damage the napalm it carried was able to cause.


Now I would bet engineers worked out programs to do similar stuff decades ago for wind calculations on skyscrapers. The WTC was designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind. So the absurdity is that this has not been mentioned and addressed by numerous EXPERTS by now.


The answer should be obvious by now- you're addressing something which has no relevence to the 9/11 attack whatsoever. I would have thought your own statement of "in ten years, not a single physicist in the world has bothered to calculated it out" would have been enough of a clue for you to figure it out. Why do you think noone cares how many vending machines were in the building either?

Go ahead and get the last word in, if such things matter to you. I will waste no more time on you. I should have known you were an utter waste of time the moment you brought up face punching.
edit on 30-1-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Honestly, to me it all comes down to the simplest solution is usually the correct one. If was to believe what I am told from people on ATS about 9/11, the American Government pulled off the most complex ruse of all time...yet they can't seem to fake a birth certificate?

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not saying that we know the entire story, because we probably don't. I'm not even sure we need to. I'm just saying that the theories being put forth are so complex and would require so many people that is just doesn't make sense.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Honestly, to me it all comes down to the simplest solution is usually the correct one. If was to believe what I am told from people on ATS about 9/11, the American Government pulled off the most complex ruse of all time...yet they can't seem to fake a birth certificate?

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not saying that we know the entire story, because we probably don't. I'm not even sure we need to. I'm just saying that the theories being put forth are so complex and would require so many people that is just doesn't make sense.


It is a matter of which is more fundamental to HOW REALITY WORKS.

Either an normal airliner can TOTALLY DESTROY a skyscraper 2000+ times its own mass in less than TWO HOURS or not. If an airline can do that then physicists should be able to explain it in detail with Newtonian Physics. But of course they can't do that without accurate distribution of mass data. The Potential Energy of the towers cannot even be computed without that.

Potential Energy is mass times height times gravity so 50 tons of steel on the 100th level has a lot more potential energy than 50 tons of steel on the 5th level. So what is the problem with demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the buildings?

All conspiracies are irrelevant to physics.

psik



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


No, I wasn't suggesting that you were being dismisive of casualties at all but 125 dead, and I don't know how many injured , doersn't really equate with " mostly empty ".

If you felt suspicious because you sensed an attempt to minimise casualties how do you reconcile that with the Towers where it seems obvious the intention was to kill as many as possible.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





So what is the problem with demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the buildings?

You can't seem to get past that one point. You bring it up page after page.
The fires weaken the undamaged steel to the point they couldn't hold the extra stress they were under.
Look at that link I posted where a steel beams fire failure can be predicted. They didn't make this Excel program to coverup anything.
The fire finished off what the plane started.
The distribution of steel and concrete is irrevant.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by magicrat
 

No, I wasn't suggesting that you were being dismisive of casualties at all but 125 dead, and I don't know how many injured , doersn't really equate with " mostly empty ".

Fair enough. I don't know how many people were in the other sections of the Pentagon; I'd assume that 125 fatalities is low compared to what it would have been if the attack had hit another section, but that's not really relevant to my point, which was that the media's reporting that that particular section was under construction and mostly empty (paraphrasing from memory) felt odd to me that day.

I agree that's not necessarily an accurate description, and I do see it as disrespectful to the victims and their families to describe it that way, so that may be why I took your comment the way I did.


If you felt suspicious because you sensed an attempt to minimise casualties how do you reconcile that with the Towers where it seems obvious the intention was to kill as many as possible.

It didn't even occur to me to try to reconcile it on that day; throughout that morning I was concerned about family and friends who lived or worked at or near the WTC complex (they were all okay, thankfully) and not trying to divine the intent of the attackers.

Now that I've had time to think about it, I could reconcile it by noting that it's possible that the intention of each attack was different. I could also note that the attacks began before the workday started, and that the planes hit at a relatively high point in each building. These facts make it much less obvious that the intent was, as you assume, to kill as many as possible.

I didn't say that I felt suspicious because I "sensed an attempt to minimize casualties," though. I felt suspicious because I was being told that a hijacker flew a big circle around his target and flew directly into the one part of it that was not staffed because it was under construction.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 



Fair enough. I don't know how many people were in the other sections of the Pentagon; I'd assume that 125 fatalities is low compared to what it would have been if the attack had hit another section, but that's not really relevant to my point, which was that the media's reporting that that particular section was under construction and mostly empty (paraphrasing from memory) felt odd to me that day.

Why? Why would that feel odd on that day? Do you have an in-depth knowledge of the Pentagon and its working population? I know that I didn't have one on that day. I knew it was one of the largest office complexes in the world, but that doesn't mean that on a given day that every square inch of the building is always equally populated. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised that there may be large sections of that building that are completely unoccupied as one project or department shuts down and another starts up as is the case with many large old institutional buildings.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracyAs long as we're speaking 'honestly', I have to assume that by your post you have no dog in this fight, and that you really don't think we need to find out anymore about that day. Fine. Let it go. But, I have a hunch you're not gonna' do that, and that will tell me just who you are. Prove me wrong.
 



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So what is the problem with demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the buildings?

You can't seem to get past that one point. You bring it up page after page.
The fires weaken the undamaged steel to the point they couldn't hold the extra stress they were under.
Look at that link I posted where a steel beams fire failure can be predicted. They didn't make this Excel program to coverup anything.
The fire finished off what the plane started.
The distribution of steel and concrete is irrevant.


How do you figure out how much time it takes to heat the steel enough to weaken if you don't know how much steel there was? All you are saying is that IF YOU JUST BELIEVE then you don't need to KNOW anything.

The Conservation of Momentum is irrelevant also because YOU say so and want to ignore it. A supposed top down collapse is mass hitting mass therefore how much mass hits how much mass is relevant. It is why YOU can't build a physical model that can completely collapse while damaging its support components.

psik
edit on 30-1-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


I find it difficult to subscribe to your suggestion that the attack on the Pentagon had a different intent from the Towers.

The attacks on the Towers were at 08.46 and 9.03. I am not familiar with working hours in New York but they would be very much working hours in London and, it would seem from the numbers of people present, that New York is not so different.

The height at which the Towers were hit I think was dictated by geography and other high buildings rather than a desire to spare.

I think the obvious inference is that the attacks as a whole were intended to inflict maximum casualties. That is a mark of terrorism not an administration looking for an excuse.

With regard to AA 77 making a wide turn; do you not think that was simply necessary to lose height ? My personal theory is that he may well have used Columbia Pike to line up for the Pentagon. If you were going to destroy yourself crashing into the Pentagon would you be much concerned which bit you hit ? Wasn't the point to be made by just hitting it ?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

I think the obvious inference is that the attacks as a whole were intended to inflict maximum casualties. That is a mark of terrorism not an administration looking for an excuse.

What results would an "administration looking for an excuse" be?

Your assuming(again) that the false flag put forth by the Gub mint, would be a Kind and Gentle attack.

Not if the intent was to promote Terror.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by magicrat
 

Why? Why would that feel odd on that day? Do you have an in-depth knowledge of the Pentagon and its working population? I know that I didn't have one on that day. I knew it was one of the largest office complexes in the world, but that doesn't mean that on a given day that every square inch of the building is always equally populated. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised that there may be large sections of that building that are completely unoccupied as one project or department shuts down and another starts up as is the case with many large old institutional buildings.

I remember watching the news that afternoon, and seeing a reporter show the flight path of AA77.

I remember the flight path showing the plane circle almost fully around the Pentagon before crashing.

I remember the reporter noting that the plane crashed into a section that was under construction and not fully occupied.

I remember thinking that the obvious conclusion to draw from those two pieces of information was that the plane had circled the building with the intent of hitting that specific section.

I thought that was odd.

It was one of the things I saw on that day that prompted me to research all I could, and that is the reason I included it in my response to GoodOlDave's question about how I had been "swayed by these conspiracy claims." I'm not offering it as proof of anything, only as evidence that felt odd to me and prompted me to do my own research, before anyone had a chance to "scam" me one way or the other.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Alfie1

I think the obvious inference is that the attacks as a whole were intended to inflict maximum casualties. That is a mark of terrorism not an administration looking for an excuse.

What results would an "administration looking for an excuse" be?

Your assuming(again) that the false flag put forth by the Gub mint, would be a Kind and Gentle attack.

Not if the intent was to promote Terror.


9/11 was total overkill. But, it could have been so much worse if one or both towers had collapsed earlier or UA 93 had got to Washington .

In the event the casualties were close to 3000 but wouldn't 500 have been plenty enough to arouse public fury ?

If I was planning this to justify a war on terror or whatever I would have allowed a small part to go ahead, maybe an attack on one Tower and then stepped in. That way I would have my excuse, the public would be infuriated, but I would still be a part hero for intervening instead of looking a total clueless chump.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
Also odd that you've been able to find facts to back up the other conspiracy theories you mentioned. Do you really think the story of John O'Neill isn't weird? The more you look into it, the weirder it gets.


It's not odd in the least because I've been listening to the theorists' presenting their case for a long time so it isn't exactly fresh material. The conspiracy theorists are simply manufacturing their own links from A to B to create a perception of impropriety where none actually exists. For one thing, John O'Neill wasn't transferred to the building- he actively pursued the job himself becuase it was a huge pay increase. For another, On'Neill's office was way down on the 34th floor so the main reason he was even killed is because he elected to stay inside the building directing people out (as per eyewitness accounts). Some eight out of nine WTC workers survived the attack (either because they were able to get out in time or because it was election day and people were coming in later than normal) so it's clear that as a supposed assassination attempt, as the conspiracy theorists enjoy imagining, the plane strikes were grossly inefficient.

If John O'neill had left the building along with everyone else, he would have survived and you would never have heard a peep about him from the theorists. You know that and so do I.


I acknowledge the fact that no hard evidence exists. I also note that there's a ridiculous amount of circumstantial evidence that does exist. Anyway, I was again referring to the things that made me initially suspicious, and not citing proof of anything. When I see a lot of witnesses talking about explosives, and then realize that no one ever investigated explosives, that seems weird.


During the cleanup of ground zero all this supposedly sabotaged components of the building were there for hundreds of personnel (and a few cameramen) to see, and not one microbe of sabotage was encountered. I invite you to pick up the book AFTERMATH, by Joel Meyerowitz, who was a photographer who kinda/sorta snuck onto ground zero to document the cleanup in photographs and you can see the condition of the wreckage as clear as day. Not one beam, girder, or support shows any sign of sabotage.

For them to do an autopsy for a gunshot wound on a victim there necessarily needs to be a bullethole in the victim somewhere, so for them to do investigations of explosives there needed to be more tangible evidence for explosives than simply saying "witnesses heard explosions". That inconvenient detail tells me right there that this "they never examined for explosives" bit is just a theorist red herring.


They're all possible explanations, but you haven't proved any of them, and you've still only refuted the conspiracy theories by arguing from incredulity.


...but isn't that what the conspiracy theorists are doing themselves? If you've followed the truthers, you'll know that Judy Wood is bitterly denouncing Steven Jone's thermite theory in favor of her own energy weapons theory and vice versa, and AE911truth's Richard Gage is staying clear of Thierry Meyssan's "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" claims. You cant' tell me you think they're all right simply on the basis that they're all refuting the findings of the 9/11 commission report. Someone is just seeing what they themselves want to see, here.


And yet you're willing to assume, without any proof, that uncontrolled fires and structural damage would simultaneously affect all of the specific weak points in the towers so as to cause the structures to fall virtually straight down? If it's difficult to achieve that via controlled demolition, it should be difficult to achieve it via uncontrolled fire damage, right? Especially three times in a row.


Not true. The fact is that noone can definitively state how and why the towers collapsed. The NIST engineers themselves stated their explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 was an educated guess. I myself actually support the Purdue report speculating the incompressible fluids acted like a wrecking ball against the structure because anyone that's been hit by a four foot wave knows how much power fluids have...but even the Purdue report says up front it's a theory. For all I know, there may be another as yet undiscovered reason noone has taken into consideration yet.

The one thing they do have going for these reports is that they look at the available facts and then attempt to come up with a scenario that explains the facts. They DON'T come up with an explanation first and then try to force the facts to conform to the explanation...and they're willingly capable of ignoring all the inconvenient facts that refute them. If there really were lasers from outer space then you know the people would be disintergrated along with the buildings, right?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by magicrat
 

I find it difficult to subscribe to your suggestion that the attack on the Pentagon had a different intent from the Towers.

I'm not surprised. I'm not saying I subscribe to it myself; only that it's a possibility, since we don't know the attackers' intent(s).


The attacks on the Towers were at 08.46 and 9.03. I am not familiar with working hours in New York but they would be very much working hours in London and, it would seem from the numbers of people present, that New York is not so different.

True. Working hours generally start at 9am, but I'd guess the majority of office workers come in earlier than that - especially for financial firms and other tenants of WTC. I do remember reporters mentioning the fact that it was before 9am and the towers weren't as full as they would have been later in the day. But you're right; it wasn't like it was late at night or a bank holiday.

Edited to add: GoodOlDave's post above reminded me of a detail I had forgotten about that helps make sense of the relatively low occupancy that morning - there was a special election being held in New York that day, making a lot more people late for work than usual.


The height at which the Towers were hit I think was dictated by geography and other high buildings rather than a desire to spare.

Totally possible. I don't think any of the other buildings in lower Manhattan come close to the height of the towers, but maybe close enough to force the target to be high.


I think the obvious inference is that the attacks as a whole were intended to inflict maximum casualties. That is a mark of terrorism not an administration looking for an excuse.

I appreciate that you describe that as an "inference" and not as a fact.


With regard to AA 77 making a wide turn; do you not think that was simply necessary to lose height ? My personal theory is that he may well have used Columbia Pike to line up for the Pentagon. If you were going to destroy yourself crashing into the Pentagon would you be much concerned which bit you hit ? Wasn't the point to be made by just hitting it?

I think going down is necessary to lose height; turning isn't. I do see the logic of your theory of using Columbia Pike, but of course there's no way to know for sure. I also notice you've abandoned the assumption that the intent was to inflict maximum casualties. The question of whether or not I'd be concerned about which part I hit depends on what my intent was. But circling around the building implies - to me - that there is a concern about which part of the building was to be hit.
edit on 30-1-2012 by magicrat because: new old evidence introduced



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


I haven't noticed that I have abandoned my thoughts that the attacks were intended, as well as hitting prestige targets, to cause maximum casualties.

The point of circling to lose height is that you end up at lower altitude but still close to the target.

But, if you still think that particular section of the Pentagon was a specific target what was the purpose ?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

For them to do an autopsy for a gunshot wound on a victim there necessarily needs to be a bullethole in the victim somewhere, so for them to do investigations of explosives there needed to be more tangible evidence for explosives than simply saying "witnesses heard explosions". That inconvenient detail tells me right there that this "they never examined for explosives" bit is just a theorist red herring.

I really wish I had time to respond as quickly and fully as you and others are able to do. I'll try to come back to this, but my life is busy, and usually I only have time to read posts here. I do want to address your autopsy analogy quickly though - I'm not a doctor, but I don't think anyone does an autopsy for anything in particular - I think you just do an autopsy. If someone brings in a body with no clear cause of death, and says well, we're guessing it was natural causes, then I'd imagine an autopsy would look carefully and objectively at all possibilities.

What I see (continuing the analogy) is an autopsy that looked only for what it expected to find, failed to conclusively find cause of death, made a couple of guesses about what might have caused death, announced that all reasonable people should see nothing weird about that, and then called it a day. I'm not satisfied by that.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

I haven't noticed that I have abandoned my thoughts that the attacks were intended, as well as hitting prestige targets, to cause maximum casualties.

I was thinking of these, from your previous posts:

I think the obvious inference is that the attacks as a whole were intended to inflict maximum casualties.

If you were going to destroy yourself crashing into the Pentagon would you be much concerned which bit you hit ? Wasn't the point to be made by just hitting it?

Seems to me that your argument has changed.


The point of circling to lose height is that you end up at lower altitude but still close to the target.

I feel a little stupid for missing your point on that earlier. Yes, I see what you're saying now. That's a possible explanation.


But, if you still think that particular section of the Pentagon was a specific target what was the purpose ?

I have absolutely no idea. I still think the evidence suggests that that section was a specific target. Since I don't believe I know who was responsible, I definitely can't claim to know their motivation.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard a supposed physics scholar say. It is generally agreed that it was the fires that delivered the coup de gras as the building remained standing for some time afterwards regardless of the damage the impact caused . The energy released from the heat of the fires had nothing to do with the energy from the impact any more than the velocity of a falling incindiary bomb dropped over a Japanese city during WWII had any relevence to the damage the napalm it carried was able to cause.


I didn't mention punching in the face until after you wrote this:

Oh, so what you're saying then is that it's impossible to claim that a sniper's bullet weighing half an ounce could have ever killed John F. Kennedy without first knowing how far the bullet pushed him forward and his dying from massive internal injuries is "total nonsense". Good luck trying to sell that idea to anyone.


All you can come up with is conspiracy crap and ridicule to dispute physics.

Now you want to switch to talking about fire but the quantity of steel affects the amount of heat required to weaken that steel. So steel has mass, inertia and strength and all of these things are involved in analysing all of the effects of this event. It is more important than JFK and World War II. You keep brining up irrelevant crap and then want to say the steel that had to hold up the building doesn't matter.

I don't give a damn what is generally agreed by morons. Where has any of them built a physical model that can be collapsed by its top 15%?

psik



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join