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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 76
17
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So, Anok, you are again going to ignore everything I wrote? So that next time you can still claim that I did not refuted your arguments? Who would have guessed. Aah yes, you are too busy with your interesting real life.




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Meatballglove
 


Engineers use physics and calculations to come to their conclusions. Where are yours? Can you share them?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

No, I'm using an older method of calculation called the glaringly obvious.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Meatballglove
 


There is no such thing as "glaringly obvious" in physics. Many things are counter intuitive. One of the first thing an engineer learns.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Meatballglove
Erm, yeah all good except I'm an engineer. The term truther suggests some sort of organisation. What is wrong with just being intelligent enough to see an obvious deception, your label not mine.
edit on 15-4-2012 by Meatballglove because: needed second line


I've never heard an engineer in any field make an absolute pronouncement on anything relevant because they watched it on the television.

Ever.

Engineers deal with data, not supposition.

Just sayin'...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 



And yet that is exactly how you came to your own conclusions. Next....

Look, if you can't tell 3 controlled demolitions when you see it then too bad. I am not here to debate it anyway, I just relayed what I saw and felt at the time. I didn't become aware of the term "truther" until 7 years after 9/11 when I got the internet for home use. I honestly believe that deception is afoot that is all. No I haven't got loads of graphs and stuff to throw at you. What good would it do anyway? I simply felt at the time and to this day that the events of 9/11 were very suspicious.

edit on 15-4-2012 by Meatballglove because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Meatballglove
 


If you ignore the publications about the WTC from NIST and other highly regarded engineers and scientists then you are indeed left with Youtube videos. The rest of the engineering world however does not ignore those sources.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Meatballglove
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 



And yet that is exactly how you came to your own conclusions. Next....


Welcome to the boards, engineer. Since you're anonymous, the best way to use your engineering degree and experience is to post evidence and careful arguments. No doubt you are well prepared to do so, having designed and documented many sophisticated devices and processes in your career.

Like I said, It does us no good merely to know you are an engineer, since none of this can be verified. However, you can do a great service to the board by making posts that use your experience and knowledge... if real.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Yes but I could throw the same argument back at you for the very same reasons. It's a pointless circular argument. I was just saying what I think.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Meatballglove
I just relayed what I saw and felt at the time.


Assuming you have a profession in engineering, do you often use your feelings in your work? Or do you rely more on other instruments, such as mathematics and computer models?



No I haven't got loads of graphs and stuff to throw at you. What good would it do anyway? I simply felt at the time and to this day that the events of 9/11 were very suspicious.


I would not regard you as an engineer. Maybe you got a degree but you are not doing anything with it. I never ever met an engineer who thought it would be useless to support his professional opinion with cold facts and maths, and instead insisted his feelings about it were sufficient.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Here is where you go ignorant.
In FRAME only a small portion of the structure suffered temporary SPACE
Most of the structure remained static there for would not have contributed to momentum in any way. Have a look....


I am going ignorant also. What on earth are you saying here?


In case you want to remain in your condition don't read below this line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

en.wikipedia.org...
If an object is moving in any reference frame, then it has momentum in that frame. It is important to note that momentum is frame dependent. That is, the same object may have a certain momentum in one frame of reference, but a different amount in another frame. For example, a moving object has momentum in a reference frame fixed to a spot on the ground, while at the same time having 0 momentum in a reference frame attached to the object's center of mass.

The amount of momentum that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object in the frame of reference. In physics, the usual symbol for momentum is a boldface p (bold because it is a vector); so this can be written


<



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Meatballglove
 


Relying on scientific publication instead of Youtube videos is a circular argument? What? Can you explain that?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


I understand the Wikipedia, its pretty much common knowledge. But I just don't have a clue what the text you wrote means, or what your point is. Especially a sentence like this: In FRAME only a small portion of the structure suffered temporary SPACE. What does this mean?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Look, good luck with whatever it is you are trying to achieve but the whole 9/11 argument like this has been done to death. I'm happy with my job and all that, I don't have to prove myself to you. I was simply saying that 9/11 was an obvious fraud. If you can't get that then fine. Incidentally I only joined ATS a few hours ago and it seems to be over run with quite shallow sort of bitchy people. Is that normal here?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Meatballglove
 


Maybe if your first post did not accuse about every engineer (or person with a different opinion in general) of lacking insight in engineering or common sense, you would have been treated with a bit more respect. But instead you came with a smart ass post. Frankly, I don't really care about your feelings, as that seems all you have to offer. Too bad, another truther "engineer" with a big mouth but nothing to show for.
edit on 15-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TattooedWarrior
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hello Dave.
Instead of asking for proof that ''pull it'' means bring the building down, why don't you present some evidence showing how 3 buildings can all fall in their own footprint at the same speed as a controlled demolition just from fire that doesn't burn hot enough to even start melting the metal part of the structure.


Hello, Warrior-

I can't provide any such evidence because there is no such evidence showing the exact step by step physical progression of how the buildings fell. There are a lot of estimates and they frequently contradict each other (though I myself support the Purdue University model). My point wasn't to show how the buildings definitely collapsed, but an inquiry where the term "pull it" came from because my suspision was that it was an outright make believe BS claim coming from one of those damned fool conspiracy websites, and guess what- it DID come from one of those damned fool conspiracy websites- namely, Alex Jones.

Why did I ask that? To make a point that a whole lot of not all of the information you're basing your opinions on are likewise make believe BS coming from those damned fool conspiracy websites. Cases in point are...

-The buildings did NOT come down in its footprint. NOAA aerial photographs show that when the towers fell they threw wreckage in every direction. There was a gigantic crater in the roof of WTC 5 and there's a huge gash in the side of the Deutchebank building. The only reason why you're being fed that baloney is to hide the fact that WTC 7 was smashed up by falling wreckage from the north tower to make it all more spooky sounding than it really is.

-The buildings did NOT fall because the fires "melted the steel". Thousands of years of blacksmithy have taught us that metal doesn't need to be heated to the melting point for it to become soft. The claim is a red herring becuas eit also draws attention away from the fact that a plane had hit the towers and caused unknown amounts of damage.



In case you forgot - no building in history - let alone 3 - has been brought down by fire alone or as in the case of the Empire State building by being hit by a plane and then catching fire before 9/11/2001.
Not forgetting the fact that most of the fuel in the planes burnt up on impact - that was the reason we all saw huge fireballs OUTSIDE of the building.


Excuse me?!? Eyewitnesses in the building reported fireballs from the burning fuel being thrown down the elevator shaft. It pushed the elevator down numerous floors to the basement and severely burned the occupant. This was the victim that William Rodriguez rescued.

When will it finally dawn on you that you're being raped by those damned fool conspriacy websites, and badly? You certainly aren't stupid and you certainly aren't foolish. You're simply the victim in their con job.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join