Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No ANOK, you are incorrect. What Gage did is a joke and he oversimplified the entire thing. And no, he was serious. It was not a demonstration of anything but his inexperience and zero understanding of physics.

I have not ignored any of Newton's Laws. In fact, I have reminded you time and again that your interpretation is erroneous in regards to the "equal and opposite" law. Time and time again, you have ignored it, the fact that "equal and opposite" only refers to the forces being experienced on both objects. It has NOTHING to do with what physically happens to the objects, especially objects of different shape, mass, and construction. So your entire argument is flawed and you have been reminded time and time again to fix it. But you cannot even get Newton's Third Law correct. So how can you lecture someone on the laws of physics when you do not even understand it either.
edit on 12/6/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The main networks which distribute nearly all of the news to the smaller ones, have editing rooms where military editors were accredited a few weeks before 9/11. We have discussed this in the past years here, with links to that info.
I expect those links to be dead by now, as is the case with all inconvenient information that resided on the net.

NIST found out while they were comparing photo and video timestamps taken with devices that were connected to their own NIST atomic clock timing service, that most news items on 9/11 were held back a few to several seconds before they reached the distributing channels and were aired. That provided enough time to alter the original material by cutting out material, or to block unwanted news items.

An example is the Cianca photo from the first sign of the sinking of the east penthouse roof line into the main 47 floor roof. His camera was taken as an example to show in these NIST reports how they calculated the exact, right atomic clock time for the many camera devices with initial wrong time settings by their owners, in those 9/11 used camera's. Most camera's internal time was set already long before 9/11 a little, to totally wrong.

They compared all Cianca his 9/11 photos in his camera with known atomic clocked events during 9/11, f.ex. the second plane impact, the three collapses, the seismic records which were luckily enough, also set rigidly to NIST's atomic clock timing service.
And then corrected his wrong time setting. Then all his photo's had the right atomic clock time attached and were then used as such in the NIST reports. And could be compared to all corrected camera-shot events.

That is why I could use that special corrected timestamp photo of Mr. Cianca to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to his now right, corrected photo timestamp.
And proved in the LDEO seismic record that a huge, much too high to be naturally caused, additional energy introduction event took place a few seconds before his photo's right timestamp.
Search ATS for "LaBTop seismic" and you will know it all.
Click the top blue words "LaBTop seismic" suggestion, on top of the first ATS search page, which comes up with "LaPTop seismic" instead. That second click brings you to the right search results for my screen name.!
Google search (as an ATS search is) always switches "LaBTop" to "LaPTop".



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

I would like to remind everybody:


Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.


This thread has already gotten heated in some respects. Please carry on with civility as it's being monitored closely.

~Tenth
ATS Mod



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
After the BBC reports the collapse early, a few moments later the signal is lost and the anchor says there's technical difficulties. in other words = they realized they released the scoop early and pulled the plug. its crazy - no one could have predicted that WT7 was going to fall yet here they are with the story already sat on there desks and prepared for air - before its even happened.


All right, then, here is my suggestion to help put an end to the petty 9/1 arguments- let's get rid of the "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping, because innuendo dropping isn't proof of anything. It's making an unsubstanciated accusation without actually coming out and saying it.

Case in point- this whole BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 before it collapsed bit, and let's face it, the only reason it's being used it to drop innuendo that the BBC is complicit in some way. There are lots of possible explanations for this, from announcers simply mixing up the names of the buildings to overanxious reporters shovelling out any factoid they came across without verifying it first. Deliberately ignoring all the other likely possibilities and zeroing straight to the conspiracy ones...particularly the "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" ones...can't NOT instigate the petty arguments the OP wishes to put an end to..
edit on 6-12-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





this whole BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 before it collapsed bit, and let's face it, the only reason it's being used it to drop innuendo that the BBC is complicit in some way. There are lots of possible explanations for this, from announcers simply mixing up the names of the buildings


I don't think so Dave. They did not mix up the names of the buildings. Quit inventing false excuses. The BBC has never made that claim.




BBC response

www.wtc7.net...


We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
are these explosions seen going off?



is it possible to embed gifs? doesn't seem to work



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
are these explosions seen going off?



is it possible to embed gifs? doesn't seem to work


Read this thread first: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
momentum conservation,


So Anok (aka mister avoiding basics physics questions)

What happened to the momentum of the top section right after collapse initiation? Did it increase? Decrease? Stay the same?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So Anok (aka mister avoiding basics physics questions)

What happened to the momentum of the top section right after collapse initiation? Did it increase? Decrease? Stay the same?


What basic physics questions lol? How many times have I asked you basic physics questions that you failed to answer, or answered incorrectly? That's how we knew you were lying about being an electrical engineer, remember both I and bsbray outed you on that. Not to bright to keep digging yourself a hole.

I think I can gather by your question you are still confused about what conservation of momentum is. Was it you who claimed that it means momentum is conserved regardless of resistance, or some nonsense like that?

Why don't you explain what conservation of momentum means, and we can then discuss who knows basic physics?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


In addition to my own, above linked post.
From the "Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited" thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


(LaBTop in 2007
Another last remark about media influence :
As has been noted by several internet writers already a long time ago, it was reasonable easy for military planners to insert their own editors in the editing rooms of most news agencies who would deliver the 9/11 news on a plate to all the smaller news outlets in the USA and worldwide.
News is first edited, then offered down the chain, even the raw feeds are edited first, to get them on air.
That's one of the reasons I do believe in the authenticity of Rod Siegel of 911Eyewitness proof of huge explosion sounds recorded during the whole day of 9/11 by himself on a pier at the board of the Hudson river :
911eyewitness.com...

The editing room's planted editors erased all explosion sounds, before they could be aired.
Hundreds of people interviewed, recalled hearing explosion sounds, but only a few video records got out, lately.
They had a firm grasp on all media outlets on 9/11, and most of us at these forums know that very well.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


In Feb 2006 NIST felt the need to alter all video timing in their possession, by ADDING 5 seconds.
This was based on "reviewing" the news-agencies provided atomic clock adjusted on-screen "time-bugs" in a sparsely four videos from the WTC 2 impact.
They forgot to mention however a possible main fault introduction in their new theory.
That the raw video footage timing of that day, fed to the news agencies, could have been altered to begin with, by planted army editors, who, like we know now, were present f.ex. in the CNN headquarters news editing rooms.
We also know now, that these military propaganda arm editors are now planted all over the networks editing rooms, to feed the news as they see to fit the US National Security, to the US public and consequently to the whole world. There are many threads and posts at ATS regarding these military propaganda units. US Congress has approved their work, no surprise there. If you shout around the words "National Security" in any country, passionated "patriotic" representatives of the People with a greedy agenda are always willing to forget any form of democracy ( We, the People. Remember that phrase?).


EDIT : I forgot to link to the NIST report copy with the Cianca photos, view page 20 from 24 from this PDF :
www.checktheevidence.com...

One of them was my famous "Penthouse sinking" photo by Nicholas Cianca, and was timestamp-corrected by NIST, and that corrected timestamp has never been retracted anymore by NIST, since this report was copied to this above, other site, and thus they could not let it disappear, like they did with the last 9/11 seismic collapse report made by Dr. Kim from LDEO, which he made for them in 2006, but NIST disappeared it from their reports quickly after they added it only once and very short, days, to a sub-report. And then they also disappeared all their other seismic sub-reports.
If that's not suspicious?
edit on 6/12/12 by LaBTop because: Added the offsite copy of the NIST report.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.


So how is that different from what I said? Some BBC reporter on the street came across someone saying it was WTC 7 that collapsed and in their rush to get copy out on the air they missed a few steps. The statement that they tried to reliably check and double check the information they were receiving is obviously incorrect because it's obvious it wasn't WTC 7 that collapsed.

The BBC admitted they screwed up and they're not sinister secret agents. There's nothing more to see here. Move on to the next conspiracy theory already.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What basic physics questions lol?


Like the one I just asked.



How many times have I asked you basic physics questions that you failed to answer, or answered incorrectly?


Never. Note that you completely ignoring answers isn't the same as me not answering them or answering them incorrectly.


That's how we knew you were lying about being an electrical engineer, remember both I and bsbray outed you on that. Not to bright to keep digging yourself a hole.


No I don't remember. Care to post links to where this happened? Or could it be that you have an extremely bad memory and are twisting the facts so that they fit your world view? Very likely.

What I do remeber, is that once you are confronted with real physics, you stop replying and often leave the thread. Only to resurface some time later with the same old nonsense.

Just like you did in this very thread, You are confronted with real physics how sagging trusses can cause a pulling force on columns and bam: denial.


I think I can gather by your question you are still confused about what conservation of momentum is. Was it you who claimed that it means momentum is conserved regardless of resistance, or some nonsense like that?


How about you answering that question? Or are you not capable of doing that?


Why don't you explain what conservation of momentum means, and we can then discuss who knows basic physics?


Conservation of momentum means the the total momentum of a system remains constant. Yes or no question: Do you think this applies to the models we use for building collapses?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





So how is that different from what I said?


There's a big difference between what you said. You claimed they made a mistake in the name of the building (a completely new and fabricated excuse). There were only 3 buildings that collapsed that day. The other buildings in NY which were damaged that day were crushed by the falling debris.

If you watch the video they repeatedly say "the Salomon Brothers building has collapsed". Also it shows a written text stating "the 47 story, Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Center has also collapsed". They don't even use the name WTC 7. Did they make a mistake of the height of the building too?

In the thousands of posts made by you and the other OS supporters you're always demanding accuracy and also ridiculing Truthers for inconsistencies in some of their statements and theories. Well I think all who support the OS should be held to that same standard. Your statement was neither accurate or consistent with any factual reports or statements made by the BBC.



Some BBC reporter on the street came across someone saying it was WTC 7 that collapsed and in their rush to get copy out on the air they missed a few steps. The statement that they tried to reliably check and double check the information they were receiving is obviously incorrect because it's obvious it wasn't WTC 7 that collapsed.


There are numerous videos of emergency personnel warning people on the street of the eminent collapse of WTC 7. There is even a video where an emergency worker says there is a bomb about to go off inside WTC 7.




The BBC admitted they screwed up and they're not sinister secret agents. There's nothing more to see here. Move on to the next conspiracy theory already.


Nothing to see here?


Only the first ever complete collapse of a steel high rise caused by fire. I think you should move on if that how you feel. I still think WTC 7's collapse is worth further investigation and discussion. And the fact that many people seemed to know it was going to collapse before it happened is suspicious at the very least.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Quite amazing how we go from:


Originally posted by GoodOldDave

possible explanations


to


Originally posted by MagicWand67

You claimed they made a mistake in the name of the building (a completely new and fabricated excuse).


Possible explanation equals claim equals excuse.

Edit:


Originally posted by MagicWand67

If you watch the video they repeatedly say "the Salomon Brothers building has collapsed". Also it shows a written text stating "the 47 story, Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Center has also collapsed". They don't even use the name WTC 7. Did they make a mistake of the height of the building too?


Does the scenario:

Reporter in studio: Can you confirm that the Salomon Brothers building collapsed.
Confused reporter on site who assumes it is one of the smaller WTC buildings that were mostely destroyed: Yes.

sounds possible? To me it does. I have no clue if that actually happened, but we are talking hypotheticals here. It sounds a lot more likely than:

Conspirator1: What the F$%^ why did you sent that report too early!
Conspirator2: Sorry I accidentally pressed the wrong button.

But thats just me.
edit on 7-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by GoodOlDave

There's a big difference between what you said. You claimed they made a mistake in the name of the building (a completely new and fabricated excuse). There were only 3 buildings that collapsed that day. The other buildings in NY which were damaged that day were crushed by the falling debris.


A building had just collapsed. The BBC said it was WTC 7. It wasn't WTC 7. If that isn't a mistake in their identification of the building then I don't know what else to call it. Did someone change the name of the building on them between the time the plane hit it and the time the thing fell, or something?


If you watch the video they repeatedly say "the Salomon Brothers building has collapsed". Also it shows a written text stating "the 47 story, Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Center has also collapsed". They don't even use the name WTC 7. Did they make a mistake of the height of the building too?


So you're saying that it was the obligation of every single person in the world to know WTC 7 was also called the Salomon Bros. building before 9/11? Or are you saying it was the obligation every single person in the world to be able to recognize WTC 7 on sight? I daresay that if you're shown a lineup of famous buildings you'd be hard pressed to identify it yourself unless people have already been arguing over it for ten years.

Let's test that theory. Without looking it up, what is this structure, and where is it located?



Move along to the next conspiracy already. There's even less to see here on this now than there was before.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





A building had just collapsed. The BBC said it was WTC 7. It wasn't WTC 7. If that isn't a mistake in their identification of the building then I don't know what else to call it. Did someone change the name of the building on them between the time the plane hit it and the time the thing fell, or something?


What a ridiculous response. Your answer makes no sense at all. I provided the video above. Maybe you should review it again. The BBC never said WTC 7. They specifically said the 47 story Salomon Brothers building collapsed. They even said it was due to fire and damage sustained from the collapse of the WTC Towers. No other 47 story buildings collapsed that day.




So you're saying that it was the obligation of every single person in the world to know WTC 7 was also called the Salomon Bros. building before 9/11? Or are you saying it was the obligation every single person in the world to be able to recognize WTC 7 on sight? I daresay that if you're shown a lineup of famous buildings you'd be hard pressed to identify it yourself unless people have already been arguing over it for ten years.


Again, what kind of ridiculous double speak are you trying to push here?


We're not talking about the average Joe on the street reporting this. We're talking about the BBC reporters. It's the obligation of news organizations to double check the facts BEFORE THEY REPORT IT. Which they claim they did.




Let's test that theory. Without looking it up, what is this structure, and where is it located?


Off topic and irrelevant. I am not a reporter on a live TV broadcast.




Move along to the next conspiracy already. There's even less to see here on this now than there was before.


I will not move on and I find your statement saying to do so very offensive. There is exactly the same to see as there always was. Maybe more so now.

edit on 7-12-2012 by MagicWand67 because: add video



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67

Off topic and irrelevant. I am not a reporter on a live TV broadcast.



Right, so you're claiming that newsreaders and the pretty faces reporting from the scene of the biggest disaster in US history:

1. Have encyclopedic knowledge of mediocre nondescript office towers built in the 80's

and

2. Do not have even the possibility of making an honest mistake.

Well, I think those are both false premises, and perhaps deliberately so. I wonder where this meme originated.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Let's test that theory. Without looking it up, what is this structure, and where is it located?





I'm always happy to venture where truthers fear to tread.

I can't recall the name of it, but It's a never-completed hotel in Pyongyang, North Korea. Probably, it's named after Kim Il Sung, or has some cheesy name like heavenly sunrise national palace.

IIRC the reason that it sat incomplete for so long is that the concrete work was so shoddy that the elevators could not be installed in the shafts because the holes in the concrete floors did not line up closely enough. Hilarious.

self fact check:

The Ryugyong Hotel (Korean: 류경호텔) (sometimes anglicised as Ryu-Gyong Hotel or Yu-Kyung Hotel[5]) is a 105-story pyramid-shaped skyscraper under construction in Pyongyang, North Korea. Its name ("capital of willows") is also one of the historical names for Pyongyang.[6]


I got the city right, and the hotel function, and I'd say 'capital of willows' is cheesy. Three for three.

Yippee!



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, that's two serious mistakes you made in that statement of yours :

A building had just collapsed. The BBC said it was WTC 7. It wasn't WTC 7. If that isn't a mistake in their identification of the building then I don't know what else to call it. Did someone change the name of the building on them between the time the plane hit it and the time the thing fell, or something?


1. This is the most serious one : At 17:10 late afternoon on 9/11 there had no building whatsoever just collapsed, and for sure not one nearly half as high as the already in the early morning collapsed, two 110 floors high WTC South and North towers .

2. The BBC did not say ever on 9/11 it was WTC 7. They said it was "the 47 stories high Salomon Brothers building", which stood firmly upright in the right background behind the reporter. They never used the term WTC 7, that term was introduced after 9/11.


And it's the combination of sudden loss of network signal (think about interfering military editors in the (only a few) main US networks their editing rooms, which distributed all 9/11 news further down to the smaller ones, and to the global ones) and the blatantly incorrect news reading with the just announced "collapsed" building still standing to the right of the reporter that makes it not just a tad bit suspicious.

Especially since that same reporter just identified that HUGE building (that was by far the highest one in the periphery around the twin towers rubble heap), with its correct name and height. And all the other high risers further away in the same video were certainly no candidate to go down, that was obvious for all viewers.

So, Dave, who do you think fed that piece of suspicious, too-early news to that BBC news reporter?
Someone in Manhattan, or someone in London? That female reporter defended herself years later, so the answer can be found.
In other words, would you find it more suspicious when that news was fed to her from her headquarters in London, then when it was told to her in Manhattan perhaps by a firefighter with accurate knowledge of the WTC 7 situation?

Not that your opinion matters anymore to me, since this row of above posts is exactly the kind of petty 9/11 arguments this thread is about. Introducing half truths and full non-truths, and go on and on about it for many pages.

Only the principle of conservation of momentum still has to be addressed here, which will follow.
edit on 7/12/12 by LaBTop because: Added the combination, etc..



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 



Right, so you're claiming that newsreaders and the pretty faces reporting from the scene of the biggest disaster in US history:

1. Have encyclopedic knowledge of mediocre nondescript office towers built in the 80's

and

2. Do not have even the possibility of making an honest mistake.

Well, I think those are both false premises, and perhaps deliberately so. I wonder where this meme originated.


I never said they can't make a mistake. The fact is they actually were correct.

The only mistake was that they reported the building collapse too early.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join