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.

 

The Anomalies

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





what you're saying is that pretty soon everyone's going to come round to your way of thinking


NO thinking involved DUH-bunker.....maybe that is why you are so confused?





Despite showing no signs of doing that in the last 12 years.



where do YOU get 12?
NO one can critique the official story, UNTIL it is the "official story" DUH-bunker....and that did not occur until Nov. 08, and since then it's been RELENTLESS against NIST to prove their PREPOSTEROUS claims.....to the point they REFUSE to acknowledge and only respond with a DENIAL-to-prove letter.




The world largely accepts my opinion of 9/11



lol....then why are we here???.....mr DUH-bunker...

most of the people in America Don't even know there is a WTC7 that fell also......that was NOT hit by a plane or falling tower debris and has LITTLE signs of FIRE!!!, yet we see a 'claimed, "BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon" occur to allow collapse to ensue as claimed by 2008 NIST...right before our eyes!!!





Whether I'm right or not, it's you who needs to make efforts to change opinions, not me.


so mr DUH-bunker.......then WHY are YOU here???????





From the character of your posts I'd say you lack both the charisma and ability to do that.




yea I know huh.....take YOU for instance, YOU would rather say that when impacts occurred......."OMG! FIFTY KAGILLIONJIGAGAGAWATTTTZZZZ OF ENERGY!@ NOTHING CAN WITHSTAND THAT!##!#!!!"...

and I would just QUOTE the 2005 NIST scientific investigation .....33 outer columns were damaged from the impacts. You can count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes. That's 33 out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. That leaves 86% of the outer columns intact and undamaged.

NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47. We'll go with 7 since it's in the middle. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.

Putting those two percentages together, you get 14.5% of the structure in each tower was damaged leaving 85.5% of the structure undamaged. That is minimal damage.


so yea.......so what if I lack "charisma", it's SCIENCE and FACTS......they might be boring compared to your statement, but mine has a little more credibility......than "FIFTY KAGILLIONJIGAGAGAWATTTTZZZZ OF ENERGY!@ NOTHING CAN WITHSTAND THAT"


Here is a WTC7 question DUH-bunker, so grab another beer, a handful of pretzel logic and tell me bout the AMAZING ability for fire that we can't see to COMPLETELY remove structural resistance consisting of 105 feet of continuous load bearing vertical support, 8 floors of truss assemblies WITH carrier beams, lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout, tens of thousands of bolts and welds, interior partitions, utilities, office contents, GLOBALLY, BEFORE 1.74 seconds of the collapse, when the kink forms to ALLOW GLOBAL UNIFIED acceleration EQUAL to g. to occur @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s, as the 2005 NIST scientific investigation found occurred and 2008 NIST TRIES to HIDE!!!!!


NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


this is my last REAL post to you.....from now on, I am only going to make fun of your ignorance and shillyness.




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Yes the US public was told that OBL and AQ was in Iraq, many many times.
They tied some of the hijackers back to Iraq, I know it is not true but it was fed to us daily
911 fueled the blind hatred to anyone the gov called "terrorist" or anybody helping the "terrorist" which Iraq was full of apparently
Yes we were also told that Hussan was producing and stockpiling WMD's
The fact that they did not fake the WMD's that they didn't need to find does not mean that the same gov would not perpetrate the very event that changed how the United States would operate in almost every aspect.
Finding WMD's would do nothing near that, even though it would be so easy to plant a nuke into iraq and be done with it.

Firing a missile off a boat or a UAV is crazy talk but planting a nuke is a no brainier.... Deal

Care to get back on topic btw?
Or would that just be to hard?


edit on stSat, 01 Mar 2014 16:32:13 -0600America/Chicago320141380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





I don't think it's suspicious that there's a lot of detail in reports about something like 9/11. Are you saying that they should provide a precis version or something?


This is science.

The 'scientific method' is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
*Ask a Question
*Do Background Research
*Construct a Hypothesis
*Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
*Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
*Communicate Your Results

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

'a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory'....
Can you please show the "experimental testing", or supporting evidence that steers the NIST HYPOTHESIS in IT'S particular direction...that FIRE ALONE caused the collapse of all three on 9-11

NIST was charged by Congress to SCIENTIFICALLY find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11....the only one in this Country, no one else.
the NIST 2008 claims ARE the OFFICIAL STORY pushed as truth....they are the ONLY ones whom can prove them......NO ONE ELSE!

so ANY so-called 'peer reviewed' paper from ANYONE, other than the NIST whom basses their claims on the NIST UNRELEASED data, are worth even less than the paper on the roll in your bathroom....specially when ALL those papers seem to focus on DYNAMICS that may occur AFTER the WTC steel failed from...????.....the reason we are all here.

2005 NIST, SCIENTIFICALLY found NO REASON why these three fell using FIRE and impact damage as the ONLY criteria.

2008 NIST, ignores this, forms an OFFICIAL CLAIM PUSHED on the American people consisting NOT of supporting evidence, but hidden data and "BRAND NEW SCIENCE" to explain the "brand new phenomenon" of FFA occurring in a steel frame, WTC7.

...they refuse to show......

now, YOU are shill on the fence about this huh....


This is what Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST had to say about free fall ACCELERATION, during the technical briefing streamed live on the web.....[BEFORE their formal admission of FFA occurring in WTC7.....still thinking they can BULL****]

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"...says Shyam Sunder.

www.youtube.com...

so what happened to 100+ft. of vertical structural resistance to have occur, what WE ALL SEE.....the EVEN GLOBAL decent, as fast as falling through AIR

the FFA was measured from a point on the facade that is attached to the perimeter vertical supports that has NO visible fire needed to effect it...if it's NOT fire affecting the perimeter vertical support...WHAT IS?


NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Yes the US public was told that OBL and AQ was in Iraq, many many times.


Give me one example of the US government claiming that OBL was in Iraq. They didn't because they knew it wasn't the case.


They tied some of the hijackers back to Iraq, I know it is not true but it was fed to us daily


They didn't. the closest claim they had was that Iraqi agents were involved in the potential sale of yellow cake uranium to AQ iirc.



Yes we were also told that Hussan was producing and stockpiling WMD's
The fact that they did not fake the WMD's that they didn't need to find does not mean that the same gov would not perpetrate the very event that changed how the United States would operate in almost every aspect.
Finding WMD's would do nothing near that, even though it would be so easy to plant a nuke into iraq and be done with it.


You keep saying that, but you also keep saying stuff that you just invent about recent history. All of it is fantasy.

The black eye that the US got from Iraq is still there today. Notice the Russian troops streaming into a foreign country, and all the US does is bleat about maybe imposing sanctions? The threat of American hard power is a shadow of what it was in the past, in part because of the failure to exonerate the invasion of Iraq.

You can pretend that they don't care about being partially neutered on the national stage. But I doubt you'll find many who agree with you.


Firing a missile off a boat or a UAV is crazy talk but planting a nuke is a no brainier.... Deal


The CIA persuading the navy to attack their own country, in fact their own capital, is crazy, yes. The CIA planting a nuke is far fetched but significantly easier, yes.

And in that story they don't have to also rig buildings, fake crash sites, plant DNA and debris, and kill passengers after making them perform their own masterpiece theatre.


Care to get back on topic btw?
Or would that just be to hard?


You've written a dozen or so posts and I've responded to your questions, but I'm the only one off-topic?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



Yes we were told OBL was in Iraq and that they were harboring and helping AQ. You say you don't live in america so maybe that is why you didn't see that reporting.
I saw plenty of it, with gov officials backing it
Oh ok ya none of the terrorist every got tied back to Iraq, you are soooooo right about that, we can just leave that one alone since you helped clear things up for me...

You can keep saying that the US was netuered... They got what they wanted out of both afgahn and iraq, oil, opium and killed hussan.
Also last time I checked we still have boots on the ground in both places calling the shots but that doesn't matter to you I guess.
Why don't you create a thread about the US loss of power because of Iraq and see what kind of response you get if you are so sure that Iraq scandal neutered the US.
I look forward to seeing that one



So persuading the navy to plant a nuke in another country is harder to launch a missile in the middle of war games about planes attacking the capital?
Also that is just my theory of one possible way it happened, could be many many more. I see that you won't get off of that and that is ok, what every floats your boat

Keep thinking that since our goverment didn't fake meaningless WMD that they wouldn't fake the very event that lead us into the 2 wars and has given the US gov all the power it needs over its citizens for "national security"


I am done with anything that does not involve the anomalies
If you would like to continue that then I will respond
If you want to continue this conversation make a thread about it



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Okay, I'm happy to leave it as I think this may be going over your head.

I'll leave you with one small thought - yet another example of how wrong you are on so many details.


Sremmos80

They got what they wanted out of both afgahn and iraq, oil, opium and killed hussan.
Also last time I checked we still have boots on the ground in both places calling the shots but that doesn't matter to you I guess.


The US withdrew from Iraq in 2011.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Tell that to the men and women in the service that still go over there,I know many



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Tell that to the men and women in the service that still go over there,I know many


That's not what "boots on the ground" refers to. And they are by no means "calling the shots". But continue with yet another fantasy, by all means.
edit on 4-3-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Tell that to the men and women in the service that still go over there,I know many


That's not what "boots on the ground" refers to. And they are by no means "calling the shots". But continue with yet another fantasy, by all means.
edit on 4-3-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)


What does boots on the ground refer too? What is the quantity needed before we can use that term?
I'd say as long as we have US troops stationed somewhere then we have boots on the ground... because we would literally
have boots on the ground... But that is just my fantasy land I guess
Same fantasy land where the US just completely changes how an entire country works and then just steps out and is not calling the shots of the country they pretty much own at this point...
Well will leave Iraq when we can't get anymore oil... well that is how it works in my sweet fantasy land.
edit on thTue, 04 Mar 2014 14:51:18 -0600America/Chicago320141880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


It's an exaggeration to say that there are US soldiers "stationed"in Iraq. That suggests a military-ready presence. In fact there are a handful of largely non-combat personnel.

I suspect you're lying when you say you know "many" service people who are over there. But you're evidently a master of believing whatever you like regardless of facts, so go right ahead.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


It's an exaggeration to say that there are US soldiers "stationed"in Iraq. That suggests a military-ready presence. In fact there are a handful of largely non-combat personnel.

I suspect you're lying when you say you know "many" service people who are over there. But you're evidently a master of believing whatever you like regardless of facts, so go right ahead.


We have troops on the ground guarding embassies and other strategic positions. There is combat ready troops there, nothing large scale but enough till the marines can get in there.

I don't care if you think I am lying about who I know, I know them and that is all that matters and I know there are men and women over there still.
And how is it an exaggeration to say we have a military base there when we actually do?



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


You said the US had "boots on the ground calling the shots". Now you're saying there's a handful of soldiers guarding embassies. And you claim to know lots of them.

Do you see why it's impossible to take you seriously?
edit on 6-3-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Sorry to change the subject a bit. I posted a topic regarding John Lear's recent testimony saying that no planes hit the towers. Whilst that may be a bit far fetched sounding it is not impossible. This it what I said.

Well he does have a point in saying this. We all know that no plane hit the Pentagon. No plane crashed in Shanksville. And the witness testimonies on the ground near the towers are a bit sketchy as well.

Subjects like these warrant discussion and not thrown in the LOL bin like the Sandy Hook ones always are!

Lear has a valid point about how these planes were able to pull off impossible moves. The official narrative said these planes at 1 - 2000 feet were going at 584 miles per hour. Pilots For 9/11 truth say this is rubbish. Lear says this is absolutely rubbish. And I have a friend that flies for British Airways and he says that is absolute BS.

I would tend to agree with the ones that know what they are talking about.

And how do these planes slice through the towers like butter without leaving a single trace of themselves on the ground and or in the rubble? That's impossible too. Just like the FBI BS story of the hijackers passport surviving a supposed impact, explosion, heat, flames, the complete annihilation of the Terrorist Carrier and the collapse of the tower. The FBI lie of the indestructible passport compared the actual indestructible can't find it anywhere black box recorder.

Yeah right!! I've always known that 9/11 was a False Flag attack. It's too obvious especially when the Government and the Lamestream media tell you silly stories of fold up origami planes at the Pentagon!

How far into the rabbit hole this goes regarding the no plane theory I don't know. But a lot of researchers not just Lear have said exactly the same thing!

Anything John Lear says will probably be dumped in the LOL bin anyway after his confrontation about Sandy Hook a few years back but John Lear is absolutely correct in what he says about the characteristics of a Boeing 737/757 airliner. What happened on 9/11 was impossible!"

The amount of anomalies associated with the planes staggers belief. Before the thread was moved by the mods to the LOL forum then closed someone else posted this:

" And I am sick and tired of the bull that believers in the US government fantasy about 9/11 offer as their reason for believing it.

Video footage from amateurs prove a plane hit the North Tower? Sorry, but get your facts straight. There is NO amateur video available of a plane hitting the North Tower, only the film made by the Naudet brothers.

"Everybody in the real world knows what happened"? Nonsense! All they know is what they both were told by the government and saw on TV. You beg the question that both sources convey the truth. And you beg the question that ALL the amateur video footage was genuine. That said, I am not a "no-planer" but accept that planes of some kind hit the two towers. I am as sick of the silly arguments and analysis made by by no-planers as anyone. But I am even sicker of the unthinking, naive, ignorant, unquestioning attitude displayed by those who accept that commercial jets collided with the towers when so much evidence has accumulated that contradict this."

He's right!! He's absolutely right. 9/11 was a False Flag. But how far down the rabbit hole does this go? How far have THEY gone to convince us of this BS?



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


You said the US had "boots on the ground calling the shots". Now you're saying there's a handful of soldiers guarding embassies. And you claim to know lots of them.

Do you see why it's impossible to take you seriously?
edit on 6-3-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)


I didn't mean that the actual soldiers on the ground were calling the shots...
I said the US still has troops there and the US is calling the shots about what goes on in that country
I do know many men and women that have gone to iraq recently and ones that are currently there... I spent 6 years in the corps, I met a couple people
I guess I can see how that is impossible
So yes we have boots on the ground and the United States calls the shots on what happens in Iraq



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stevcolx
 


Just wanna say that I think you are spot on
The flying at sea level and what some very established pilots have to say about it is very interesting....
I never found it strange that the planes went right through till recently but I wouldn't know enough about kinetic energy and just what the fact that the planes going 500+ would cause.

Also the video of the planes hitting has always been a sore spot for me. I'd say we should have hundreds of video of the second tower getting hit but as you point out we only have 1 or 2 good ones of it hitting the second towers

My biggest prob with no planes is now you have to figure out what hologram tech they used, how did the create that massive explosition ( fair that can be tied into the wiring/painting of explosives for collapse)
Would have to explain how the plane shaped holes got in the side of the building and of course the ones the OSers grab and run with all the time... What happened to the passengers?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





My biggest prob with no planes is now you have to figure out what hologram tech they used


regardless of what the object was or even if there was, the 2005 NIST found 14.5% minimal localized damage caused from it and did not cause collapse....x2.

that alone should cause suspicion with the official claims pushed...

minimal damage from so-called impacts and no supporting evidence the fire present allows the failure of the remaining 240 fireproofed columns left on each towers impact floor that must simultaneously fail to have occur what we all see

NIST 1-3, 6.8.7 "at the moment of collapse of WTC2 the top portion of the building was found to have moved to the west as it tilted to the southeast".

NIST found that 'tipping top' falling in two direction at the same time as soon as there is movement.....for it to move as a 'single unit' as we see, all remaining 240 FIREPROOFED columns not involved with impact must somehow simultaneously sever themselves from below...

ALL at the same instance to move as a single unit as we see it did....

no evidence fires present did this....or even could.

hundreds see this same witnessed event.....FDNY were told the noise they hear is only the sound of collapse...too bad they hear the sound 3 seconds before they see the building start to move....like sitting in the 'cheap' seats at a ball game, you see the batter hit the ball and 2 seconds later, you hear it.....guess what we have here is ANOTHER "first time physics phenomenon", where sound is faster than light only on 9-11.

LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
WTC2
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".


FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
"We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide."


FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"


Daniel Rivera Paramedic
-how did you know it was coming down?
-that noise it was a noise.
-What did you hear?
-It was a friggin noise. Do you ever see professional demolition where they set charges on certain floors, and then you hear "pop pop pop pop pop pop" I thought it was that, when I heard that friggin noise, that's when I saw the building coming down"


Captain Karin Deshore
"Somewhere around the middle of the 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 started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building.


it amazes me people even discuss the notion of 'no planes' or holograms....when it should be 2005 NIST found "NO planes collapsed the towers"...there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.


2005 NIST and known taught science already proved these collapses did not occur as a natural event.....the OS PUSHED by 2008 NIST says they did...they refuse to PROVE by releasing the data that shows this "brand NEW NEVER BEFORE seen physics phenomenon" that 2008 NIST claims fell these buildings.

why do people REFUSE to understand that the ONLY way these three collapses can proceed as a "natural occurrence" as claimed they are, is with THEIR CLAIMED BRAND NEW SCIENCE!!! that ONLY occurred on 9-11.



2008 NIST is allowed to ignore their own 2005 scientific investigation that found no scientific reason for failure ....x3, and to claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so in such a way as NO OTHER building has EVER done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they refuse to release the data that tells the models what to do...WHY?
in my opinion for one, that will show them the fraud they are, and two, because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.

Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the claim, is called BULLSH*T...no matter WHO says it.


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute


'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   


it amazes me people even discuss the notion of 'no planes' or holograms....when it should be 2005 NIST found "NO planes collapsed the towers"...there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.


This definitely slipped me, so just to make sure, nist in 05 said the planes could not have caused the collapse because thy did not do enough damage? Or no supporting evidence to get behind it.
And then in 08 they were able to trash that work and just start making up new things?
And that is where we get the "never before scene evet" Wordage correct?

And your goal is to get another investigation in 05?
Or a independent for the 08




Somewhere around the middle of the 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 started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building

This one caught my eye... This guy can see the charges going off in a pattern, he sees that fire and and explosions




It was a friggin noise. Do you ever see professional demolition where they set charges on certain floors, and then you hear "pop pop pop pop pop pop" I thought it was that, when I heard that friggin noise, that's when I saw the building coming down"


Another great one, just need the guys eating and they talk about the "foundry" of melted steel and one guys talks about the same pop pop pop sound before tower came down



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


The Explosions is what dominated the news crew reports all day. All Fire-lighters, Police, Civilians and First Responders were going on an on about the Explosions. All during, before and after the Towers collapsed. Yet the Official Story said the damage from 2 planes caused the Towers to collapse?

www.disclose.tv...

I can't access youtube hence disclose.tv videos.


Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released by NIST after a lawsuit by the International Center for 9/11 Studies shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings. Firemen discuss how bombs were going off in the lobby of WTC1 as they were staging to move up the building. They explain how the building had already been hit by the plane and fires were already burning. After two explosions in the lobby, a third went off and the whole lobby collapsed. I'm sorry 9/11 truth deniers, you now have another smoking gun that you can't deny!


As this quote says to 9/11 truth deniers there is no way 3 towers can be taken down by 2 planes. Of course devices were set in all 3 buildings.

It's stupid to think otherwise!



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





so just to make sure, nist in 05 said the planes could not have caused the collapse


they found minimal asymmetrical damage to each tower....14.5%.

we can see 33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, count the columns in any image or video that shows the holes...That leaves 86% of the outer columns intact and undamaged

NIST did three scenarios of probable core damage and estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47. I chose 7 since it's in the middle. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged....together, you get 14.5% of the structure in each tower was damaged leaving 85.5% of the structure undamaged. That is minimal damage.


just as designed by John Skilling to do. The Lead Structure Engineer of the tower and part owner of the Company...Worthington,Skilling, Hale,and Jackson

NO Leslie Robertson in sight.....he was hired after the project starts as a Mechanical Engineer...

I'm sure ya seen this interview before..

A February 27 1993 Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
community.seattletimes.nwsource.....


"our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

-- John Skilling, from City in the Sky

Along with the only fireproofing compromised on the impact floors were on the load bearing vertical support was on the ones involved with impact damage....the 14.5%, not the remaining 240 intact fireproofed support that MUST simultaneously fail.

NIST 1-6A Appendix C Passive Fire Protection p.274..."within the debris fields created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 &2...thermal insulation was damaged and dislodged"





And then in 08 they were able to trash that work


no....just ignore it....





and just start making up new things?



well, what do you call it when the initial scientific investigation does NOT find any supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT allowed the failure of ANY WTC load bearing vertical support for collapse to ensue, and yet 2008 NIST is allowed to ignore their own scientific investigation, and claim fire did, not only caused collapse, but did so as NO OTHER building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating,
"brand new event"
"new phenomenon"
"there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they refuse to release the data that tells the models what to do

....and there they are in all their glory stating ON VIDEO...new science they refuse to prove through peer review, just a pushed agenda.





And that is where we get the "never before scene evet" Wordage correct?


...no, that is where the 2008 NIST claims......"never before seen physics"...they REFUSE to prove......they are ON VIDEO at their OWN WTC 7 tech briefing....

so tell me.....why are you here?????






And your goal is to get another investigation in 05? Or a independent for the 08



?????.........why???...within ALL the sciences and Academia.....Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the claim, is called BULLSH*T...no matter who says it.

...all they have to do is PROVE THE BULL they already spew as truth!!!


WOW....what a concept!



so tell me.....why are you here.......





Another great one, just need the guys eating and


hmm....so, seems now we are a 'cheerleader'.....and WHAT was the point of me posting that information????

the FACT of the LIE that FDNY were TOLD that noise they hear is "just the building collapse"......but that is an IMPOSSIBILITY because that does NOT even occur till almost 4 seconds AFTER they hear the initial EXPLOSION that gets their attention to LOOK UP to see the building START to collapse AFTER it makes the noise that gets their attention...if it's the collapse that makes the noise, how are they able to hear it before seeing it occur?


MORE brand new physics huh!!!

wanna read more FDNY transcripts......

FDNY transcripts

maybe ya can tell me why the City found it necessary to 'black out', sometimes complete pages of testimony of what the FDNY saw, heard, felt???

but they didn't get them all......


why don't cha tell me how fire, we can't see, creates a situation in WTC7 where global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. occurs within the first 1/3 of it's unified collapse???

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse, "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance is NONE of the gravitational energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else do we see those SAME numbers????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


now, this entire post is supported by facts and science.......can you do the same??



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 





so tell me.....why are you here?????


Um not sure how i got on your bad side on this, I did word that part on the 05 and 08 investigations horribly and I think that is where it is coming from

I just wanted to make sure I was picking up what you were putting down correctly, sorry for the confusion.
I don't believe fire brought down the towers, i thought i had made that clear in this thread..

To answer your question I am in this thread because when OP stated that he has been told is strange that he questions the OS, but then is still able to quote and source it as fact and truth. I wanted to let him know that I had told him that many times in his WTC 7 thread... Then I let disco suck me into a sniping match, I tend to let that happen, hard headed and need the last word

Hope this can be water under the bridge
edit on thSat, 08 Mar 2014 12:59:09 -0600America/Chicago320140980 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join