Your 9/11 truth?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hi Hoop. For the sake of clarity, and because there appears to be quite a few new members, would you be so kind as to tell us what you believe caused building seven to collapse? Thanks, and I'm looking forward to your response, as well as Dave's, if he can find the time. It's been a while, and I've forgotten your take on it. Just trying to line the ducks up, ya know.
edit on 5-3-2012 by dillweed because: punctuation




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Ok, first off saying it happened when your kid just throws me off a little. EEEK

Me: I am a fencer. I have seen great arguements on both sides.

What I think and what a lot of people around here think: that intelligence knew it was going to happen and let it but did not realize the scale. Or Al Queda moved the date on them.

I think the PA crash was done by our own military.

the Pentagon, I have not made up my mind. My cousin was on the ground of the pentagon within two hours and never saw plane debris.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 
The reason your cousin never saw plane debris at the pentagon, was because they hadn't taken it out of the trunk of their cars and spread it around yet.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by hooper
 


Hi Hoop. For the sake of clarity, and because there appears to be quite a few new members, would you be so kind as to tell us what you believe caused building seven to collapse? Thanks, and I'm looking forward to your response, as well as Dave's, if he can find the time. It's been a while, and I've forgotten your take on it. Just trying to line the ducks up, ya know.
edit on 5-3-2012 by dillweed because: punctuation


In truth, I don't know with any absolute certainty what precisely caused building 7 to collapse. What I do know is that when the north tower collapsed the falling wreckage smashed it up to the point where "the lobby looked like King Kong came in and wrecked the place" (this is from an eyewitness account, not mine). Plus, firefighters on the scene said the falling wreckage destroyed the water supplies to the fire fighting systems in the building, and out of control fires had caused three stories-tall deformation in the side of the structure, and the whole thing was creaking like a haunted house in the hours before it collapsed (again, eyewitness accounts, not mine). From this, I have to conclude WTC 7 fell simply because the north tower fell on it. Wreckage from the north tower caused just enough damage to the structure to almost (but not quite) destroy the building, and the resulting fires delivered the coup de gras.

NIST says the coup de gras was from fires defeating some critical component near the sixth floor that the rest of the building depended on, and they may be right. Researchers like Dr. James Quintiere claims it was less a case of out of control fires and more the case the buildings didn't have the proper amount of fireproofing that it shoud have had even if the fires were out of control, and he might be right. I don't know, but personally, I don't care because it's an irrelevent detail in relevence to the 9/11 attack as a whole. It's akin to the Titanic sinking- It's definitely an interesting academic question to determine the exact physical progression of the breakup, and whether the ship broke in two at the surface or on its way to the bottom, but knowing this doesn't change the fact the ship was ultimately sunk by an iceberg, any more than our not knowing the precise mechanical progression of the collapse changes the fact WTC 7 was smashed up by falling wreckage and suffered severe damage from out of control fires.

I know it wasn't from controlled demolitions becuase a) that whole "pull it is slang for controlled demolitions" bit was entirely made up by the conspiracy theorists, and b) noone in his right mind is going to enter a building on fire and creaking to set up controlled demolitions even if they wanted to.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by hooper
 


Hi Hoop. For the sake of clarity, and because there appears to be quite a few new members, would you be so kind as to tell us what you believe caused building seven to collapse? Thanks, and I'm looking forward to your response, as well as Dave's, if he can find the time. It's been a while, and I've forgotten your take on it. Just trying to line the ducks up, ya know.
edit on 5-3-2012 by dillweed because: punctuation


Here ya go:
www.nist.gov...

They do it much better than I do.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by nixie_nox
 
The reason your cousin never saw plane debris at the pentagon, was because they hadn't taken it out of the trunk of their cars and spread it around yet.



Or, and this is a possibility until all possibilities are ruled out: He wasn't where the debris was at. Nixie_nox wasn't specific about anything, yet you are willing to take it without even a hint of skepticism.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thanks. That's the difference 'tween you and Hoop, he knows how ridiculous his explanation is when you try and put it into words, your ego is so large you think that by filling the page with words, it somehow becomes legitimate. But, it really doesn't matter either way, because nobody with even a shred of intelligence believes that building fell on its own. Who cares if it has been ten years, the cat's out of the bag my friend, and the unimpeded, free fall of building seven will ultimately provide the pink slip to all you debunkers.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Apologies for this reply (being new and all that) but I do not have a clue what you are on about? If you are in some way implying that I suggested that 9-11 didn’t occur then obliviously you didn’t read my post, I didn’t say it didn’t occur I asked the question if the U.S government was behind the attack then why make it so complicated ? But then again now I think about it I think you saw that I was new to this site and thought you could give me a bit of friendly hassle in gibberish, you crazy kid !!!


I did not say or imply that it did not occur.

How does the top 15% of any structure destroy the 80+% below when that 80+% MUST BE STRONG ENOUGH to support the weight of that top 15%.

And then the physics profession spends TEN YEARS not discussing the distributions of steel and concrete in that 80+%. Hooper can pretend i don't know physics all he wants but neither he nor anyone else has produced a physical model of that destruction and no computer model can claim to be correct if it does not get those distributions correct. So who claims to have accurate data on the buildings?

The 10,000 page NIST report does not even have the total for the concrete though they have it for the steel in three places.

psik



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You make a good point but he was. He was parked there for work and had to wait several hours before they let him retrieve his car. So he had plenty of time to poke around. He said he did not see any airplane debris at the sight. His father is an aviation mechanic and he is a welder, so he would recongize it if he saw it.
I am going to have to sit down with him and grill him.
edit on 5-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



But, it really doesn't matter either way, because nobody with even a shred of intelligence believes that building fell on its own.

You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. But you know its over. Persons with "shreds of intelligence" do understand that when you let a structure burn that collapse can more than be expected.

Who cares if it has been ten years, the cat's out of the bag my friend....

Really? And exactly where is this invisible cat? Because I don't see it anywhere. Neither does anyone else.

and the unimpeded, free fall of building seven will ultimately provide the pink slip to all you debunkers.

What kind of severance are we going to get?


Really, do you think this free-fall stuff is getting anywhere? Millions and millions and millions of people saw those buildings collapse and there's hardly half a handfull of people who think its suspicious and most of those think everything is suspicious anyway and 9/11 was just another conspiracy fantasy



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thanks. That's the difference 'tween you and Hoop, he knows how ridiculous his explanation is when you try and put it into words, your ego is so large you think that by filling the page with words, it somehow becomes legitimate. But, it really doesn't matter either way, because nobody with even a shred of intelligence believes that building fell on its own. Who cares if it has been ten years, the cat's out of the bag my friend, and the unimpeded, free fall of building seven will ultimately provide the pink slip to all you debunkers.


Well that's an absurd position to take. The 9/11 attack isn't something you can wrap up in ten words or less, especially with the technical questions you're asking. It involved what happened when the planes impacted the towers, it involved what happened when the towers collapsed, and it involved what happened when the fires were burning. If you insist on listening only to those explanations that would satisfy someone with the attention span of a moth then it's little wonder why you're clinging to these cartoonish sounding conspiracy claims- armies of evil henchmen, sci-fi superweapons noone on the face of the Earth has ever seen, outlandish sinister plots that make no sense, the list goes on and on. The only things missing in your conspiracies are the X-Men and that bald guy in the wheelchair.

You asked me my position on how the WTC 7 building collapsed and I told you as much as I knew. If you didn't want to hear the answer I was going to give you then don't ask such a question...particularly when you knew full well that ONCE AGAIN you wouldn't be able to show why anything I said was incorrect.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Varemia
 


You make a good point but he was. He was parked there for work and had to wait several hours before they let him retrieve his car. So he had plenty of time to poke around. He said he did not see any airplane debris at the sight. His father is an aviation mechanic and he is a welder, so he would recongize it if he saw it.
I am going to have to sit down with him and grill him.
edit on 5-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the additional info. It would be good to know specifics since it's hard to find anyone who was actually there, though it was over 10 years ago now.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Now I understand what you were saying I will apologise if I came across as curt in my last response.
As for your question asking about what caused the twin towers to collapse…do you know what, I’m going to have a crack it. ……

The aircraft struck the towers as a considerable force, no one knows exactly how fast, but somewhere between 300 -500kts.
The aircraft weighed 181,160 pounds (90 tons), not counting cargo, passengers and fuel load on impact.
The fuel load was probably around 9,100 gallons.

When the planes penetrated the towers, the combined factors of speed, weight and explosive power caused massive damage to the info-structure, which consisted of numerous, closely spaced perimeter columns which provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core.

It’s the columns I wish to focus on. Imagine you are holding a crowbar and you then hit the crowbar of a solid object you feel a massive vibration from the impact (or oscillate if you will) up your arm (a crude example, sorry).
Now the force of the impact and explosion would have sent a huge vibration wave through the metal columns throughout the building, the problem that this would cause would be to the concrete surrounding the steel, it is inelastic in nature. The massive vibration would have caused the steel columns to destroy the bonding capacity of the concrete and between the metal and hardened concrete, the concrete will break.

The concrete supporting the columns was destroyed, the structure weakened and it then collapsed into itself, as witnessed on the videos. I do apologies if this seems rushed but I’m typing this when I should be working. And apologies if any one has mentioned this theory before, got to go the boss is starring at me….



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Now I understand what you were saying I will apologise if I came across as curt in my last response.
As for your question asking about what caused the twin towers to collapse…do you know what, I’m going to have a crack it. ……


There's no need to apologize, Windsor, as you have done nothing to apologize for. You will find very quickly that the 9/11 conspiracy movement is attracting all sorts of fringe "the gov't is out to murder us all" zealots for the anti-establishment outlet it offers, and their goal isn't to discuss the facts of 9/11, but to force the 9/11 event (and by proxy, everyone else) to bend to their ideology. They WANT their conspiracy claims to be true so they won't even bother to listen to any alternative viewpoints.

Case in point- I note that despite Psikey's self rightious bluster, he is carefully avoiding the question you asked on why these conspirators would have concocted such an unnecessarily convoluted plot. The reason why is obvious- the question forces the conspiracy theorists to use critical analysis, and if they were to ever actually hold their own claims up to the same stringent level of critical analysis that they do everything else, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long. Of course, he'll read this and of course he'll offer even more bluster...but he still won't answer the question.

Welcome to ATS, by the way. You'll also quickly find that it ain't boring here!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thanks for the welcome and a big hello back. I am sure Psikey's will reply once he (or she) is on line. I have attempted to answer his question and I’m sure he (or she) will do the gentlemanly (or Lady) thing and be courteous enough to answer mine and tell me were my theory doesn’t hold water.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thanks for the welcome and a big hello back. I am sure Psikey's will reply once he (or she) is on line. I have attempted to answer his question and I’m sure he (or she) will do the gentlemanly (or Lady) thing and be courteous enough to answer mine and tell me were my theory doesn’t hold water.


I wouldn't get your hopes up for a courteous response, but it would be nice.

My personal opinion on your theory is that the reverberation would likely not be able to weaken much of the structure. More than likely, damage from that would be localized to the floors around the impact. It supports the possibility for initialization of collapse, but many here take issue with the progression of collapse after initialization.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thanks for the welcome and a big hello back. I am sure Psikey's will reply once he (or she) is on line. I have attempted to answer his question and I’m sure he (or she) will do the gentlemanly (or Lady) thing and be courteous enough to answer mine and tell me were my theory doesn’t hold water.


Well, let me guess on how he is going to respond. First, steel and concrete data, second, physics profession is embarrassed and third all the engineering schools can't build a model. Its pretty much his response to everything.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Now I understand what you were saying I will apologise if I came across as curt in my last response.
As for your question asking about what caused the twin towers to collapse…do you know what, I’m going to have a crack it. ……


There's no need to apologize, Windsor, as you have done nothing to apologize for. You will find very quickly that the 9/11 conspiracy movement is attracting all sorts of fringe "the gov't is out to murder us all" zealots for the anti-establishment outlet it offers, and their goal isn't to discuss the facts of 9/11, but to force the 9/11 event (and by proxy, everyone else) to bend to their ideology. They WANT their conspiracy claims to be true so they won't even bother to listen to any alternative viewpoints.


You will also find Windsor that some people need to shift cold calculated physics to emotional conspiracy crap bullsh#. Rational thinking must be derailed at all costs.

We can't face the fact that steel and concrete must be properly distributed in buildings over 1000 feet tall just so they can hold themselves up. So it is certainly curious that the physics profession can go TEN YEARS without being concerned about that information to explain the twin towers destruction.

psik



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thanks for the welcome and a big hello back. I am sure Psikey's will reply once he (or she) is on line. I have attempted to answer his question and I’m sure he (or she) will do the gentlemanly (or Lady) thing and be courteous enough to answer mine and tell me were my theory doesn’t hold water.


Well I do wish you luck on that, because I for one asked the guy numerous times what the heck his position actually is and I still don't know. Psikey actually has a number of Youtube videos. Here's one of them that he showed me:

Simulation of how much a building sways when hit by an object

If you can understand the point he's trying to get at, you're a better person than I am.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You will also find Windsor that some people need to shift cold calculated physics to emotional conspiracy crap bullsh#. Rational thinking must be derailed at all costs.

We can't face the fact that steel and concrete must be properly distributed in buildings over 1000 feet tall just so they can hold themselves up. So it is certainly curious that the physics profession can go TEN YEARS without being concerned about that information to explain the twin towers destruction.


...and I notice that once again, you've avoided answering Windsor's question.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join