Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I understand that, thanks for the clarification,

why would people ever occupy such a building, knowing such and presume it was a predictable and someone knew it had a huge flaw, before hand, or if not, in hindsight, knowing that, would suggest that maybe it was designed to collapse and it was Japan now, who we should consider suspect, as motive was established years ago..
edit on 16-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by Varemia
 


I understand that, thanks for the clarification,

why would people ever occupy such a building, knowing such and presume it was a predictable and someone knew it had a huge flaw, before hand, or if not, in hindsight, knowing that, would suggest that maybe it was designed to collapse and it was Japan now, who we should consider suspect, as motive was established years ago..
edit on 16-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)


No one ever expected them to be damaged by full throttle airliners, or to have a skyscraper collapse on top of it in the case of WTC 7.

The towers had really great redundancy to allow for redistributions of loads, but the planes simply damaged too much in the towers, and the fire and time allowed more supports to break. WTC 7 was hit by a bunch of debris from WTC 1. No building is designed to have another building land on it.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Think I have heard it was not only thought of before hand, by The New American Century, Project Northwoods, and the drill exercise on 9/11 all were planning for such an event and/or contemplating it to some extent?

Even with plane colliding with the buildings, fuel or no fuel, how would the temperature spectrum signature evidence.

Squibs and projectiles going verticle up and not down and directions that would require force upwards, and other law of physics and gravity support, would not be from planes or simple collapse as proposed and since when do buildings fall with core columns, and all fallen into a nice footprint, that makes sense, as these 3 are the only ones have ever seen before and we can't blame Japan on the first 2 at this moment, unless we want to go a on wild goose chase, however we can look at the reality and common sense, of vanishing buildings and obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence and who gave the orders and who was in charge and covering it all up...since it is clear there has been one on a major scale, and those who did it, should not be in question, since only a few could do it...



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
A few photos for archive and entry into consideration


















Still amazed anyone can blame the planes, unless something more to the picture than meets the eyes and common senses, and realizing that a hoax is up and who...who needs motive, who needs eye witnesses, who needs anyone other than looking at them fall like that, buildings don't fall like that, would be suggesting a tree falls the same way, and know we all better double check ourselves before we try and argue that...as it would be some hoax, is presumption, as impossible..
edit on 16-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: photos added



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by earthinhabitant
 


Yeah, but no one expected it when the buildings were constructed. They thought that maybe a plane might accidentally collide at a low speed, as is what happened to the Empire State Building. Before 9/11, no one ever suicide crashed an airliner into a building.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


believe half of what I see and nothing what I hear, is my motto...seen the mistakes made too many times before and some still in denial...catch any good majic shows lately>?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


not sure the intentions of the plane and operators need to be considered, as well as altitude, and speed, either way, does not add up as an explanation, since we know that it was a target and impact models, would not and have not suggested this could be the cause of buildings fallen, plane or no plane, as theories seem to be more common belief and ignoring laws of physics and engineering sciences and blaming the architects for under-sight for something that was not even the cause of the collapse, unless we have a building to compare its collapse too that supports your theory, then it sounds like theory to me, and since we do have a building to compare it too, that has fallen in this shape, fashion and form, would hope we can agree, what theory is strongest and more valid?
edit on 16-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
here are some things that feel need to take a look at and make sure that we are on the same page..

www.ae911truth.org...

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.



As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by earthinhabitant
 


Velocity is entirely important when considering the energy that must be able to be absorbed without a collapse starting. Technically, the towers did exceedingly well in that regard, because the towers did remain standing after sustaining a good deal of damage. It was the uneven heating and cooling of the interior by fire that caused expanding and contracting of metal that did it in. This is not to say the damage played no role, but were the only problem damage, then I think the towers would have remained. The big problem was damage+fire in the towers as well as in WTC 7.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


fire and heat damage still does not explain the collapse, as it happened, so we can forget that illogical theory...as the collapse if was possible by heat and fire, and made pancakes was possible, then buildings would not be safe to enter or occupy.
edit on 17-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by Varemia
 


fire and heat damage still does not explain the collapse, as it happened, so we can forget that illogical theory...as the collapse if was possible by heat and fire, and made pancakes was possible, then buildings would not be safe to enter or occupy.
edit on 17-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)


I said damage and fire, not heat and fire. The buildings were safe until they were structurally damaged. Is that really so difficult to grasp?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


No, I grasped it and still theorectacally does not even come close to explaining it or justifying the official story version, as they were design to take damage or they would not be built and design to withstand fires and heat, what they were not design to withstand, is a demolition implosion, something clearly can be seen and compared to any other one ever in history, as a signature style that no other buildings in history, has ever shown otherwise...unless you count these 3, that defy logic, reason and physics...if we are to believe what has been suggested and fabricated...

Way to many experts, do not agree with the paid for advertisements, I am one for the obvious reason, as nothing has suggested it could be true or happen as they explained, and all the lies and coverups and actions that followed and proceeded, just add to the motives, as sure it was a block buster...


Did you say you watched., "ring of power, the empire city"?


Google Video Link



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


NIST is not a credible source, just so we are clear on that one...do you, Varemia , work for them by chance?
edit on 17-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by Varemia
 


NIST is not a credible source, just so we are clear on that one...


Shut the hell up. You cannot discredit an entire report based on who made it. That's stupid. You have to prove that what they determined was wrong based on their methods and evidence. I have read their report, and they use solid evidence, witness testimony, and videos.

So stop with your ignorance, man!



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by earthinhabitant
 


The damage destroyed the fireproofing in the damaged area. That was something that the designers did not consider. Ever think about that? I'm beginning to get really tired of explaining this elementary crap after all the time I've spent here.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Just going from overwhelmingly general consensus who did not get paid, as they are the only ones found to be credible, as NIST got paid, so their testimony and evidence is not acceptable to me, and hope that is not your only source that you feel is valid and credible...?




NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed




National Institute for Standards and Technology Encounters Resistance, Pretends to Investigate

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration. In NIST's May 7, 2003 News Release on the progress of its investigation, there is clear evidence that the agency has been hampered in its investigation by a lack of access to evidence.

In contrast to FEMA's investigation, which relied on volunteers from the ASCE, NIST's investigation was funded by Congress. However, NIST's investigation would not even start until virtually all of the steel had been removed from Ground Zero and recycled. On March 5, 2002, W. Gene Corley, leader of FEMA's Building Performance Study, testified to the House Science Committee about the need to further investigate the performance of buildings that were damaged or collapsed on 9/11/2001. With his own study almost finished, Corley stated that it would take $40 million to adequately study the issue.
The $40 million would cover the expense of stockpiling the steel and other debris; examining the steel; physically testing the steel; partial parametric computer modeling of the steel, the fire, the plane and the blast; and the examination of egress issues, says Corley. From the study, tools could be developed to address fire as a structural design load and to understand the behavior of structural connections under fire conditions. Tools also could be developed to look at strategies against progressive collapse. 1

NIST's Final Report on Building 7


On August 21, 2008, NIST held a press conference to release the draft of its Final Report on WTC Building 7. 11 The draft included a half-dozen PDF documents, all of which were locked. Researchers working make NIST's investigation more transparent published unlocked versions of the documents. Bloggers pointed out glaring illogic in in Shyam Sunder's answers to audience questions. 12 New York Times reporter Eric Lipton, who co-authored the anthropomorphism-laden book City in the Sky wrote a review of the press conference that summarized some arguments by "conspiracy theorists" in attendance. 13

NIST allowed only 30 days for public comments on its report. A group of sixteen researchers, including scientists, architects, and engineers, submitted this letter to NIST's WTC Technical Information Repository before the deadline. The letter points out numerous inconsistencies, unsupported conclusions, and failures of investigation in NIST's Report. NIST's Final Report, entitled "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building Center", or NIST NCSTAR 1A, was released in November of 2008. 14

In his review of the Report, whistleblower Kevin Ryan points out, among other things, that:

The Final Report shows that NIST avoided physical testing altogether. Instead, it created a computer model that it claims supports their collapse theory, but won't even release that model for inspection by the public.
In the new Report, NIST quietly drops the theory promoted by since 2001 by the New York Times and FEMA, that diesel fuel was responsible for the collapse, and minimizes the role of purportedly extensive damage from the fallout of the North Tower.
NIST entirely ignores the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA, despite these issues having been directly raised with NIST in press conferences, and public comment periods for this and the previous report on the Twin Towers. NIST's pointmen act as if they never heard of aluminothermic incendiaries, yet some of the NIST Report authors and other supporters of the collapse theory have been on the forefront of research into advanced energetic materials based on thermite.
NIST advances a theory that the entire "collapse" was caused by a beam disconnecting itself from its column supports through thermal expansion -- a behavior that is the opposite of that exhibited by actual building fires and building fire simulations, in which severely heated beams sag downward and stay connected, rather than remaining rigid and breaking their connections.
To support its new theory, NIST apparently resorts to fabrication, claiming -- in contradiction to its earlier reports -- that girders lacked shear studs and had only two seat bolts per connection.

NIST's final installment was its December 2008 Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investi



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
NIST Claims “New Phenomenon” Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7

Yet fails to address why ground zero workers and media outlets had prior knowledge of an “extraordinary event” never before observed an hour in advance, plus myriad of other ignored issues

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, August 22, 2008

In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)


This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.

Which is the more likely scenario – that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be “pulled” – or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?

NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.

We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

“There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” he added, citing NIST’s claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.

Even aside from this argument, there were numerous close proximity eyewitnesses who reported loud explosions, including NYPD officer Craig Bartmer and ground zero first responder Kevin McPadden (who also experienced the countdown before the building fell), but this fact was again simply ignored by NIST.

“FEMA found it,” said Gage. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”

www.prisonplanet.com...

could have a thread on just debunking NIST Myths and failures, etc. etc., if we need to go into why they are not credible, only need to google and understand why they are not considered credible and why, so start a thread on it and link us to it, as they are the ones making jokers on ats claim such non sense and shilling sock puppeteer-ed



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


yea, asbestos fireproofing was destroyed by design, called abracadabra, now you see it, now you don't, and it is safe to breath and yes, don't listen to conspiracy theorist...just trust NIST, and us and everything will be Okay...how much you getting paid Var?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


well, Watson, Sherlock, it is more than elementary, to know why you are getting tired of it, cause it is hopeless and your sources and evidence is bogus, so the more you try and explain it, the more ignorant you look, so I would be thinking about that thread on NIST for a starter for you, then see if anyone credible, thinks NIST's reports are credible...an those that claim it is, presume they are getting paid and/or profiting or just plain ole ignorant...here is nice page to start with and see what you are up against, evidence wise, etc.

rense.com...
edit on 17-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by Varemia
 


yea, asbestos fireproofing was destroyed by design, called abracadabra, now you see it, now you don't, and it is safe to breath and yes, don't listen to conspiracy theorist...just trust NIST, and us and everything will be Okay...how much you getting paid Var?


This is why I hate arguing with you people. It's always the same damn thing, every single time. You're immune to logic, it seems.

The fireproofing was a powdery substance sprayed onto the beams, and it is not very hard to knock it off. NIST tested to see how easy it would be by firing different caliber bullets at a sample on steel. Every single time, it came off completely.

I get that you don't want to accept data from anyone who's being paid, because everyone should be a volunteer in science, but that's a damn stupid position to take. EVERYONE in the scientific realm gets paid for their research. Are you then saying that you do not trust any science at all, because people accepted money for their research?

I'm tired of debating you. You're completely impossible to reason with.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join