Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

page: 12
50
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 





And what you fail to understand is that many of us who are considered "OS" defenders, do not necessarily agree with the NIST report. We just agree that the controlled demolition theories are horse manure.


If NIST is wrong and there were no explosives, what then?
edit on 15-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



And what you fail to understand is that many of us who are considered "OS" defenders, do not necessarily agree with the NIST report.


How many? Do you have a club? Is there a secret handshake? Which report do you agree with? Is there more than a FEMA or NIST Report? Describe the SALIENT differences between the versions of the OS. Essentially, what you are stating is there IS NO OS!!!


We just agree that the controlled demolition theories are horse manure.


Out of all the statements I have seen made in this thread, this must receive 1st prize for the most disingenuous utterance ever. What possible qualifications do you have to make such a statement? Out of all the buildings in the history of man, there has been NO other way for ANY building to be taken down, except for a wrecking ball.


ANY investigation into the collapses that day is going to be a semi-educated guess.


This is a patently FALSE statement. We know all the factors in regard to construction. We know all the characteristics of material performance and ratings. WE KNOW, we are not uneducated or semi-educated. We have prior experience in what it takes to bring down buildings. This is HOW we can bring down buildings.


The ONLY way to have a no BS, this is the reason the buildings collapsed report, would be if all three buildings would have been wired to the wazoo with data collection devices.........which none of them were.


This is what you think. You cannot even describe where you disagree with the NIST Report. You come here and make a blanket statement. You are mimicking Linus Van Pelt.

edit on 16-9-2012 by totallackey because: formatting



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


There was an earlier post about FEMA versus NIST....neither mentioned explosives. Just because NIST or FEMA may be wrong in their reports does not automatically mean explosives. It doesnt matter if column A failed first or column B failed first or if the angle clips failed..... The end result was the same, the unchecked fire,the damage, and the structure changes made for the Con Ed station, all contributed to WTC 7's collapse.....

And again, the witness statements, the video, the photos.....all support the collapse from damage/design/fire....



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


There was an earlier post about FEMA versus NIST....neither mentioned explosives. Just because NIST or FEMA may be wrong in their reports does not automatically mean explosives.

Here, you clearly demonstrate you have not read either report. They both mention explosives. Why don't you take the time to read the reports and then come back and write.

It doesnt matter if column A failed first or column B failed first or if the angle clips failed.....

Obviously, it does matter if there is to be prevention of repeat events. Or does this not matter to you? Or, could it be that you truly know that failure of clips or failure of a single column in any kind of high rise fire would NOT result in total building collapse? As demonstrated by many other high rise fires lasting much longer than those in WTC 7.

The end result was the same, the unchecked fire,the damage, and the structure changes made for the Con Ed station, all contributed to WTC 7's collapse.....

You have clearly demonstrated with this statement YOUR TOTAL LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF EITHER REPORT!!! You really have no business inserting yourself into any discussion of this matter. The NIST Report is very clear in making this statement in Executive Summary, page xxxvii : "The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."


And again, the witness statements, the video, the photos.....all support the collapse from damage/design/fire....


No, they do not. If they truly did, we would not even be discussing this topic.
edit on 16-9-2012 by totallackey because: misspelling/further content



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
There many dead giveaways that 9-11 was a false-flag operation and I don't even care about the explosives theory...which is indeed true.

1)no serious pentagon footage of what impacted the building.

2)camera footage of local shops around the pentagon was confiscated by the feds on national security pretenses.

3)fox news said cargo planes impacted twin towers.

4)dancing israelis arrested AND THEN RELEASED!

5)patented tell tale numerology associated with illuminati, specifically the numbers 9 and 11!

6)general of all nato intelligence admits 9-11 has enough holes to be false-flag operation during interview in germany.

The only thing that lends ANY CREDENCE to the official story is what happened in shanksville pennsylvania and the reported cell phone calls telling of highjackers and passengers fighting for control, BUT this could easily have been planted.

1700 architects and enginers totally ignored and ridiculed with so much controversay in the midst. How the hell can people have any faith in government and the media with so much blatant dishonesty?????



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I am very thoroughly confused by this thread. One, does OP believe in the official story or not? Two, everyone is picking some small detail and arguing over whether or not it's legitimate. Are we arguing FOR the official story, or AGAINST it?

I'm confuzzled...



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
"Additionally, the BBC and other news outlets reported that Building 7 had collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did. This indicates that the news script had been written with foreknowledge of the demolition"

If that it is proof of an inside job it means:

1. The US government told the BBC (A UK media outlet nb UK, just in case it has not sunk in yet UK and really really obvious reminder NOT UNITED STATES) about a future planned secret illegal demolition.

You have got to be joking.

As soon as anyone uses that one single BBC cock-up as proof they are showing total ignorance of media screw ups which happen all the time.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Hi all

The WTC towers were a system the outer walls the floorslab trusses and the core worked together.

The South Tower collapsed first althought it was hit second but then of course a far greater load over the impact point.


Look at the demolition videos below avg weight of just the concrete in a Twin Tower floor slab 600+ tons, 30 floors of concrete and steel hitting the area below the imapct at 19 mph!!!

Progressive collapse in action



Other examples of progressive collapse.


In December 1985, a catastrophic accident occurred in Los Angeles during construction of a 21-story steel-frame building. Eighty tons of structural steel sections were stockpiled on one bay on the fifth floor, loading the bay to twice its designed capacity. Three beams failed suddenly at their temporary connections, precipitating a progressive collapse of 10 bays all the way to the ground floor. Three construction workers were killed in the accident.



In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.



The building was constructed from pre-cast concrete elements. A gas explosion occurred on the 18th floor, blew out the perimeter structural panels, resulting in the collapse of the floors above in that quadrant of the building. The falling debris impacted the floors below, resulting in the failure of the majority of floors below. The incident was identified as a progressive collapse, the extent of which was disproportionate to the cause.



Again look at this video of the start of the North Tower collapse.



For the first 3 seconds of the collapse all the mass is inside the perimeter walls so you around 9000 tons of concrete plus the weight of the steel,hat truss,mast and anything else on the upper floors impacting the floor slab and core below the aircraft impact point at around 19mph.

THE bulk of that mass must land on the 42,000 sq ft floor slab the rest on the core steel, once that floor slab failed and it would due to the massive load debris from that joins the rest and falls.

Very tall steel columns can suffer from slim coulmn buckling were the column buckles under its own weight.

This is not a simple 2 mass problem this was a chaotic system.



Regarding the above picture.


At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.


That was just a small section of shoring removed from one area of the floor slab the slabs BELOW didn't stop it it got to ground level


Now that was just a small section removed what if the whole floor area was removed?

Ronan Point the UK



A small gas explosion (4psi) in a kitchen in the corner of the building knocked out a floor slab again progressive collapse to the ground.

Progressive collapse HAS happened before many times only to a smaller degree !



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The examples you show of "progressive collapse" are either controlled or asymmetrical accidents on part of the building.

You say that the WTC collapses were not just two masses interacting but "chaotic" -- or nonlinear randomized. O.K. gotcha but that cuts both ways: here


As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.


Asymmetrical failure is much more likely.

Indeed. Wouldn't the top sections of the WTC not fall symmetrically if the damage was asymmetrical?

What about the diminished rate -- the deceleration due to momentum transferred to the upper section? If it doesn't exist - which it apparently doesn't - then the mass is not doing work to destroy the lower section. So you state that the mass is added to the upper section when it destroys the progressive lower section -- which should slow it down. The demolitions you show are much smaller buildings so the deceleration is less noticeable but still more noticeable than on the WTC towers.

The horizontal ejections of the steel beams is also not shown in the controlled "progressive collapses" but it is indicative of explosions.

What about the explosions before the towers came down and before WTC 7 was even damaged. A controlled demolition takes out the basement foundation first and then does a top down series of charges and this is exactly how the WTC towers were taken down.

One of the people a thorough investigation should question under oath would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)


O.K. so according to NIST the exterior walls got pulled inward but stayed connected to the floors.

But in the demolition of the WTC the walls are being ejected outwards like an explosion.

Then for the pancaking model where the angles connecting the floors break -- on both the interior and exterior columns -- then why did the interior columns also get disintegrated?


Also, NIST constructs a computer model -- but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)
edit on 16-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Explosions is not the same thing as explosives. If you watch any video of any demolition, you will notice one primary factor. There are always very loud explosive pops/bangs just before the collapse. Every camera on each demolition is able to capture it unless the audio gets replaced by music by the uploader. While there were certainly explosions on 9/11, none of them took place before the towers collapsed. All three had explosive sounds only after the collapse began, indicating that the explosive source was the collapse itself, not exploding devices.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


There are several prominent witnesses who heard explosions before the towers collapsed and with WTC 7 -- before even there were airplane crashes.

Bryan Jennings was the most prominent yet he had a death "apparently by foul play."

William Rodriguez -- he heard explosions before the towers collapsed and so did many others when the lobby blew out and also the basement -- yet he was not even included in the 9-11 report despite the fact that he was awarded for saving so many lifes.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Varemia
 


There are several prominent witnesses who heard explosions before the towers collapsed and with WTC 7 -- before even there were airplane crashes.

Bryan Jennings was the most prominent yet he had a death "apparently by foul play."

William Rodriguez -- he heard explosions before the towers collapsed and so did many others when the lobby blew out and also the basement -- yet he was not even included in the 9-11 report despite the fact that he was awarded for saving so many lifes.



I'm well aware of Barry Jennings. His story has been dissected countless times over this last decade. The facts in his story only line up when one considers where he was in the building at each point in his story. The part where the building "explodes" and he gets trapped temporarily is a part where he is on the stairway in the corner of the building, right next to where there is documented damage from the collapse of Tower 1. Tower 2's collapse threw out the power, which is why he had to use the stairs in the first place, remember? Now, that's about as compressed as I can make the analysis. Just do a Google search on it if you want more detail.

With Rodriguez you're talking about explosions happening right when the planes hit. Think. Jet fuel and elevator shafts. That'll explode down the whole building. It was certainly not directly before the collapse. That's the part you need to pay attention to. Find any explosions right before the collapse begins. Cameras would have caught it. Cite as many witnesses as you want, but I like to think that recordings from that day are pretty reliable!



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



With Rodriguez you're talking about explosions happening right when the planes hit. Think. Jet fuel and elevator shafts. That'll explode down the whole building.


Sorry, but the idea of jet fuel and elevator shaft is movie making. It will not explode down the whole building. The doors are rated for protection and the elevators are blocking the shaft. There is no indication the jets even penetrated any elevator shaft. Explosive force was directed OUTWARDS, hence the fireballs of both collisions.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
As Sigmund Freud said ... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Sometimes a radical muslim terrorist is just a radical muslim terrorist.

Look ... 20 radical Muslim terrorists crashed four planes in the USA on 9/11.
They took out the World Trade Center; hit the Pentagon; and tried to take out the White House (failed).
You can question if the World Trade Center was a controlled detonation.
That's secondary.
You can question if the Israeli Government found out about 9/11 ahead of time and let it happen.
That's secondary. (I happen to think they did)

But the bottom line ... it really was radical muslim terrorists who 'did the dirty' on 9/11.

A cigar is just a cigar.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Varemia
 



With Rodriguez you're talking about explosions happening right when the planes hit. Think. Jet fuel and elevator shafts. That'll explode down the whole building.


Sorry, but the idea of jet fuel and elevator shaft is movie making. It will not explode down the whole building. The doors are rated for protection and the elevators are blocking the shaft. There is no indication the jets even penetrated any elevator shaft. Explosive force was directed OUTWARDS, hence the fireballs of both collisions.


So how do you explain firefighters entering blown out lobbies and recalling the smell of fuel? I don't think that's movie-making. There was one elevator which ran the length of the building, and the report was that the elevator car was blown down to the bottom in a flaming explosion. Obviously, the plane impact disabled the doors. I doubt that they are rated against plane impact.

Edit: To be clear, I'm talking about towers 1 and 2. As far as I know this wasn't even a situation in building 7.
edit on 17-9-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Reading the 9/11 Commission report or anything from NIST and/or FEMA means that the readers are actually participating in their own ignorance regarding matters 9/11 - the effect of which is to involve themselves in their own destruction as a culture - or as a healthy and functioning society

Only a fool would take any of the aforementioned seriously. The hallmark of a subjugated society is their propensity to absorb government propaganda as though it were actual. The first casualty of a "victim culture" such as America is - is the ability to use common sense. Americans are devoid of the ability to use common sense. This is typical of a victim of mind control on a mass scale such as we see implemented here in the USA.

Americans have surrendered their will to government, and inasmuch as they have allowed govern(mental) access to their own (mental) inner life (as in mind control) Americans are directly responsible for their own demise - culturally and in every other way. They have succumbed to the notion that the government is where their faith should lie. This means that the average American is worshiping the functions of government and the cult of personality rather than to put their trust in God - in Christ.

For an understanding of what is meant by all this - Think of what is most antithetical to a good spiritual life in Christ - Marxism! Think of BHO as the Marxist that he really is.
edit on 17-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by totallackey
 


Explosions is not the same thing as explosives. If you watch any video of any demolition, you will notice one primary factor. There are always very loud explosive pops/bangs just before the collapse. Every camera on each demolition is able to capture it unless the audio gets replaced by music by the uploader.


Well not always...




While there were certainly explosions on 9/11, none of them took place before the towers collapsed. All three had explosive sounds only after the collapse began, indicating that the explosive source was the collapse itself, not exploding devices.


Actually you are wrong here as well.


CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we ran into the parking garage because that's basically where we were. Running forward would be running towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down.

PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
THEN THAT'S WHEN KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN? THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE .WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE? IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE AT FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP POP THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.

FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH MEOLA
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.





posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Except that the "radical Muslim terrorists" were actually CIA. Just watch the below documentary and face the truth.




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Either NORMAL Airliners could destroy the buildings or not. That includes the fires resulting from the airliner impacts. If airliners could not do it then something else had to have done it even if we do not know what it was.

The NIST admitted that the distribution of weight in the building was needed just to analyse the motion due to the impact.

So will we just have endless discussions of unimportant details? It has only been 11 years so far. How about another 11?

psik



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Are we all in agreement that the events of 9/11, in retrospect, were inordinately suspicious, at least? Can we agree on that, or is the range of discussion spread fairly evenly between the two sides of this debate?

I was under the impression that the majority of ATSers were, at the very least, leaning toward the "inside job" end of the spectrum.






top topics



 
50
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution