It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

page: 14
14
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 03:23 PM

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

I will just simplify, what exactly does "4sides" equal. Your eqations lack specifics to justify multiplying 3 dimensions to get a square area instead of a cubed volume.

We're trying to get the exit velocity of the air as it was pushed out of the building.

Griff has the correct volume of each floor.

But he gave an area of the floor to figure out the velocity through the windows.

So what I was saying is that his correct volume of air for each floor needs to get out the correct square footage of the exterior of each floor.

So 208' x 9.525' x 4 sides?

Is that right?

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 03:26 PM

I'm missing something then.

If you're trying to get a volume of air through the square footage of the windows (79xx), why did you use the square footage of the floors (43,xxx)?

ETA:
Think about your results - 43.3 mph. they're exactly the same, but if you fit LESS air through the SAME opening in the SAME amount of time, then the velocity MUST BE LESS. I think all you did was calculate, in a roundabout way, was the fall speed.

ETA #2:

I'll show you that all you did was calc the speed of the collapse.

12.7 in .2 seconds = 63.5 fps.

43.3mph x 5280 ft/mile = 228,624 ft/hr

228,624 ft/hr divided by 3600 seconds/hr = 63.506666 fps.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by Seymour Butz

Ok, I understand everything except what you plugin for "4sides" besides the number 4?

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I think all you did was calculate, in a roundabout way, was the fall speed.

Yes, you are correct. But, we have to take this into account because trying to go through the windows (208x9.5) isn't correct either.

Because we are not computing the velocity of the air going through the windows. We are computing the velocity of the air that would hit the perimeter window walls. Which would be the velocity of the air in the collapse.

Anyway, this is a futile attempt because:

1. The air would compress (less volume)

2. There would be an added pressure coefficient to the calcs.

Edit: I do have to admit though that I jumped the gun. Now that you've explained your calcs they make sense. I just think it's a lot more trickier than we're making it.

Eh. Just thought of something else. I don't think we can use fluid dyamics to calculate this. I believe fluid dynamics don't apply to gasses as gasses can compress. I'll have to look that up when I get a chance. Thanks for taking up all my spare time Seymour.

(Joking)

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 08:40 PM
I like to concentate on the effects of the air blast - in North Tower Stairwell
B there were 14 survivors of the collapse. Several of the firemen who survived recount how the air blast pushed down the stairwell picked them
up and flung them several flights down the stairs

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”

Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”

A hurricane-like wind blew down the stairway. Firefighter Matt Komorowski flew, literally, from the fourth to the second floor. Battalion Chief Richard Picciotto, 51, was thrown from the sixth to the second floor.

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

So we have a 250 lb firemen carrying nearly 100 lbs of equipment lifted off
feet and blew down several flights of stairs.

Also outside have fire trucks picked up and flipped over

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 08:45 PM

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by Seymour Butz

Ok, I understand everything except what you plugin for "4sides" besides the number 4?

each floor has 4 sides x 208' wide x 12.7' tall minus 42" for the spandrels or 9.52'.

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Griff

1- But, we have to take this into account because trying to go through the windows (208x9.5) isn't correct either.

2-Anyway, this is a futile attempt because:

1. The air would compress (less volume)

2. There would be an added pressure coefficient to the calcs.

3-Eh. Just thought of something else. I don't think we can use fluid dyamics to calculate this. I believe fluid dynamics don't apply to gasses as gasses can compress. I'll have to look that up when I get a chance.

4-Thanks for taking up all my spare time Seymour.

1- That was my original question though Griff. Namely, calculate how fast the air will be going when it goes through the gaps in the columns. I used 9.5' since I took out 42" for the spandrels, but decided to forget about any restriction by the columns.

2- Now you know why I took the simple way out. Cuz to get from here to there (in this case, an average of 46') in .2 seconds, you'd have to do 156 mph. And since I didn't figure in for the spandrels in that calc, you'd need to decrease the area available for the air to get out by about 1/3, so increase 156 mph by roughly 1/3 to get about 200 mph.

3- Easier to figure that it doesn't compress. If the air compresses - and I don't think it would compress much anyways, if at all - it'll just squirt through at a faster velocity, and then return to ambient pressure. I see nothing to be gained by going through those mental gymnastics.

4- Hey, it was YOUR idea to use silent thermobarics. I'm just saying you should consider a simpler way to explain the dust shooting out.

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by Seymour Butz

Ok, I understand everything except what you plugin for "4sides" besides the number 4?

each floor has 4 sides x 208' wide x 12.7' tall minus 42" for the spandrels or 9.52'.

So you are talking about the width times the height times the length of each floor and you express that as a square? How are you correcting anyone's math?

You took someone's calculation of area and offered dimensions of a cube and expressed it as a square. That is wrong. Please explain what I missed here.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:22 PM
So much for

What I really would like is the 11 best questions to fire back at the 'official' story believers.

I don't want arguments or discussions I just would like the superb combined minds here to list what they think are the best 11 points / questions to fire back at the official line.

Another 911 thread successfully derailed by the trolls.

As I stated on page 10:
Why bother with a banner that says

Due to member demand, this forum is now under close staff scrutiny.
Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

if it's not taken seriously and/or enforced?

THIS thread was supposed to be a list of the (and I quote) "best 11 points / questions to fire back at the official line" yet the flood doors opened and the trolls piled in like it was the last train out of town, and are attempting to shootdown strategically cherrypicked questions, in a bad attempt to debunk and derail the thread.

Everytime the trolls do this it causes the member who posted that question to defend their point, which slowly but surely over time derails what was supposed to have been a list.

Twice tonight I started threads that were quickly jumped on by a mod.
One was because I had a security certificate error.
Security certificate error warning?
The other is under investigation which is why I shouldn't and won't get into details.
The point is that in both cases a mod was all over it 'like white on rice' in record time.

I was thankful that these problems got the attention that they needed, and was very impressed by the response time of these mods.
However neither of those threads were posted in a forum where a big flashy banner states: "Due to member demand, this forum is now under close staff scrutiny." like this one does. To me this seems highly suspicious.

Are there only certain people allowed to troll and derail?
If so can I be let into 'the club'?
I'd like to troll and derail with impunity too.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 01:32 AM

Oh cash whats up! we can post pictures and videos from other sites on the internet if they have some relevence BUT I cant post a link to something you post on WAIT FOR IT FOLKS!

"Controlled demolition for what reason"

Now since this thread is about q's to throwback to believers which is about WTC and the pic you posted on controlled dem...etc etc is also about WTC it's relevant!

The post is about 11 best 9/11 questions to etc etc one of the main ones is you guys always talk about is the total collapse is it NOT....

LETS look closely at what you said re this picure just to remind everyone!

reply to post by A W Smith

i18.photobucket.com...
" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

This is what a building collapse should look like notices all the broken slabs of concrete.

You posted the pic YOU state this is what a building collapse should look like SO you MUST be comparing it to the twin towers or why post it. You comment on all the concrete in that picture and you always comment on the lack of large pieces of concrete in the WTC which you ALWAYS claim is because of explosive YOU CANT DENY YOU SAY THAT!

You are using the picture to reinforce your idea of how the towers came down ARE YOU NOT if not why post IT!

That building was constructed using reinforced concrete for the main structure so not the same as WTC, that building would be say 6 floors high NOT 110 ,that building was destroyed by an earthquake not hit by a plane. Not many large pieces of concrete above ground level on the towers! So they cannot be found can they!

No one knows how a collapse from the WTC would look like as
its never happened before.

The thing I really like about you though cash is fact YOU call people liars, cheats, fraudsters and blind if they dont agree with what you say WHAT makes you an authority what skills or experiance DO you bring with you. Apart from your arrogant belief in yourself mate.

PS Anyone have any suggestions yet on what may have caused
a lot of the dust seen in the collapse ,YOU know the dust etc thats supposed to be smoke from squibs according to someone with BIONIC eyes.

THIS is a quote you said to me

I never said this picture proves that the WTC was blown to bits, so stop “lying” what I said this photo is what the WTC should look like had it just collapse ( in the photo.) However, I do not believe I posted that picture in this thread to begin with. You are taken my pictures, and quotes, from other topics and are trying to twist everything I have said in other threads. You have stoop to the lowest, under handing, of dishonesty I have yet seen.

WHY post the pic in Controlled Demo thread then?

LOOK at your statements in BOLD...... I will not insult you mate I will let everyone else or here form there own opinoin about YOU!

[edit on 6-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by Seymour Butz

So I take this contentless response to mean that you have no intention to do any calcs that show how much explosives it would take to do what you claim, nor can you even provide a link to someone that HAS done it?

Also, do you understand that your claims that I defend anyone to be baseless? Please explain how, since I agree that the 9/11CR to be a whitewash, that I am blind defender of anyone that has anything to do with that particular document, or retract your claim.

No, It does not take a genius to figure out we where lied to! Furthermore, I have to laugh my self-silly as “you” trying to do some ridiculous calcs to begin with, when “you” do not know what type explosives where even used. Your statement is very true I can not provide a link on anyone who has tried to do calcs, frankly, I don’t believe anyone has done it. However even if it was done, and proven, you would just dismiss it as you have with everything else that has been handed to you as proof. Retract my claim, ya right!

By the way what dose calcs have to do with
The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 09:00 AM

Originally posted by A W Smith
hey genius. help us out here. Whats that charcoal colored building directly under this shower of debris?

Genius? Directly under? Your charcoal building is certainly not the Bankers Trust Building. (Deutsche Bank Building) Isn't that the alleged Flight 175 impact with the South Tower, approaching from the left side of the photo? The Bankers Trust Building is about 300 feet ( here ) to the south from the near wall of the South Tower. None of those buildings are the building in question with the bone fragments found on the roof. Bankers Trust is not directly under that cloud of debris unless Flight 175 exploded 300 feet before it reached the South Tower.
Do you have evidence of such an event occurring?

Bankers Trust Building

That impact was between the 78th and 84th floors. Therefore the 40 story Bankers Trust would be too short to even be in the photo. And the Bankers Trust Building would be to the left (south) out of the photo; and not under the cloud of debris at all. Correct A W Smith? I may not be a genius, but I can sure spot deliberate disinformation.

The alleged passengers of Flight 175 would have been contained within the fuselage of the aircraft wouldn't they? Wouldn't the passengers be inside the Tower if they actually existed, instead of 300 feet to the south on top of the Bankers Trust Building (Deutsche Bank)? Didn't both the alleged Flight 11 and the alleged Flight 175 slip cleanly into both Towers without visible damage to fuselage, wings, or engines like knives through butter? Shouldn't the alleged passengers and alleged 'hijackers' still be inside the fuselage at impact? Isn't that the OFFICIAL STORY? Wouldn't the inertia of the aircraft and all contents of the aircraft be away from the Bankers Trust Building? Genius?

No those 700+ bone fragments found on top of the 40 story Bankers Trust Building were from firemen and innocent victims trapped in the South Tower and were blown there by some manner of explosives in the core structure. The same explosives which pulverized all the concrete and office furniture and dryboard and people in mid-air.

[edit on 12/6/08 by SPreston]

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Hal9000]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 09:42 AM
Another question: Isn't there something very suspicious about the manner of entry of the alleged Flight 175 aircraft into the structural steel outer wall of the South Tower?

Hmmmm? Is it an optical illusion or is the fuselage forward of the wings and engines still visible, when the left wing has apparently disappeared into the building? How would that be possible?

1. Video clip shows alleged U.A. Flight 175 (Boeing 767) entering the building.

2. Clip shows plane proceeding to enter building, however the left horizontal stabilizer seems to be missing (yellow arrow).

3. Clip shows where right engine entered building (orange arrow) and the right wing tip still sticking out (green arrow). Building between right engine and wing tip looks undamaged (yellow arrow).

4. Clip seems to show no entry point or damage to the building where the right wing was seen going through (yellow arrow).

u2r2h.blogspot.com...

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- That was my original question though Griff. Namely, calculate how fast the air will be going when it goes through the gaps in the columns. I used 9.5' since I took out 42" for the spandrels, but decided to forget about any restriction by the columns.

The air 2 feet away from the windows would not have the same velocity of the air 60 feet away. So, I stand by my statements that this is a futile attempt.

4- Hey, it was YOUR idea to use silent thermobarics. I'm just saying you should consider a simpler way to explain the dust shooting out.

I was not talking about the dust. I was talking about wall sections weighing tons being blown 500+ feet.

Experiment:

Take a flat piece of plywood. Drop it parallel with the ground. This is what you're calculating.

Now. Take the same piece of plywood and drill holes in it 2 inches on center to recreate a crushed floor falling and do the same. Is the air rushing out the sides at the same rate? This is what actually would have happened.

In your scenario the floors remained intact to push the air out. This did not happen or we would see 110 floors stacked on each other at the end of the collapse.

Again. This exercise is futile.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

each floor has 4 sides x 208' wide x 12.7' tall minus 42" for the spandrels or 9.52'.

So you are talking about the width times the height times the length of each floor and you express that as a square? How are you correcting anyone's math?

You took someone's calculation of area and offered dimensions of a cube and expressed it as a square. That is wrong. Please explain what I missed here.

Sorry, I wasn't being very clear. Let me restate again.

We're trying to get the volume of air contained inside each floor out the window area, and try to figure out the air velocity needed to do that in .2 seconds.

Griff has the correct cubic feet of air contained inside each floor.

But as I pointed out, and he later agreed to, he was using the floor area in his calcs rather than the exterior area (window area) of each floor in his also correct formulas that he gave.

So we need to figure out the square footage of the exterior (windows)for each floor, right? Cuz that the correct area we should use in Griff's formula.

Each floor is 208' wide and 12.7' tall - minus 42" for the spandrels gives 9.5' So each floor,on each side, has an area of 208' x 9.5' = 1976ft^2. The building has 4 sides, so 1976ft^2 x 4 = 7904ft^2.

So do you have any iput to the problem at hand?

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Griff

1-The air 2 feet away from the windows would not have the same velocity of the air 60 feet away. So, I stand by my statements that this is a futile.

2-I was not talking about the dust. I was talking about wall sections weighing tons being blown 500+ feet.

3-Experiment:

Take a flat piece of plywood. Drop it parallel with the ground. This is what you're calculating.

Now. Take the same piece of plywood and drill holes in it 2 inches on center to recreate a crushed floor falling and do the same. Is the air rushing out the sides at the same rate? This is what actually would have happened.

4-In your scenario the floors remained intact to push the air out. This did not happen or we would see 110 floors stacked on each other at the end of the collapse.

Again. This exercise is futile.

1- no, it's not futile to do this, unless you choose to close your eyes to the fact that the air had a high velocity - at least 156 mph - which would negate the claim of explosive effects.

2a- and here's why it's not futile. Here, you assume that the panels were "blown" 500' away. 1 thing you need to do in order to invalidate this assumption - which is an important of any hypothesis development - namely how big must these tb's must be in order to do this. And then, if this amount is clearly ridiculous, then you've invalidated your hypothesis. Then you also need to explain rationally what the point was in using such a large amount to do this. Why?

2b-The other thing you need to consider to explain this is whether or not exterior column assemblies, if they toppled like a tree after the floor detached, from high up, could reach that far. Apparently, there are photos from near the Winter Garden of nearly intact ext column assemblies that stretch back towards the WTC 1 location. Evidence of this can be seen in videos of 1's collapse, where the ext columns can be seen starting their lean/fall in that direction - but of course, this will be a tomato/tomahto situation, so take it or not.

3- for 1 floor, this might be a correct analogy. I say might because I could see carpeting, etc partially plugging those holes. But what happens when you have 2,3,4,5, floors worth of broken debris stacked up? I submit to you that the analogy is no longer valid, and the stacked up debris acts as a fairly good air plug.

4- no one assumes that some debris wouldn't be lost over the side during the collapse. But it's also logical that as debris is lost over the side, there is also debris being added to the bottom of the debris stack. Gage's "meteorite" is actually a photo of several floors compressed together. Rebar, concrete, and the corrucated steel pans can clearly be seen in it. So there's proof that while the entire 110 floors didn't stack up, certainly some did.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 11:27 AM

1-No, It does not take a genius to figure out we where lied to!

2-Furthermore, I have to laugh my self-silly as “you” trying to do some ridiculous calcs to begin with, when “you” do not know what type explosives where even used. Your statement is very true I can not provide a link on anyone who has tried to do calcs, frankly, I don’t believe anyone has done it. However even if it was done, and proven, you would just dismiss it as you have with everything else that has been handed to you as proof.

3-By the way what dose calcs have to do with
The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

1- I agree, apparently it takes the IQ of a monkey - 32 to be exact - to figure this out.

2- the point is, neither do truthers. And so, instead of doing the calcs standardized to TNT, nothing is done. This is the convenient "out" that truthers use when asked tough questions like this. They rightly state that if it was an "inside job" then there's no way what type of explosives were used. This of course ignores the fact that the calcs COULD be done using a standardized explosive like TNT, or RDX, or whatever... to prove or disprove the hypothesis that explosives were used. Note that this is an important point in hypothesis development - namely an effort at falsification of your hypothesis. Truthers haven't even tried to do this, and it makes no sense for "debunkers" to do it. Actually, I believe that some truthers HAVE done the calcs on the amount of explosives needed, but after they did them, they realized that they just falsified their hypothesis about explosivesbeing used and decided to not publish it, to enable them to keep telling their falsehoods.

3- You should reread the thread. In it, "we" are challenged to answer questions. If you don't want answers here, then don't do the callout here.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1 thing you need to do in order to invalidate this assumption - which is an important of any hypothesis development - namely how big must these tb's must be in order to do this. And then, if this amount is clearly ridiculous, then you've invalidated your hypothesis. Then you also need to explain rationally what the point was in using such a large amount to do this. Why?

Care to post where I could actually get this information for these explosives? I doubt I nor you could obtain this information. It's nearly classified. So, rather than telling me what I need to do, why not except the fact that we don't know what was used. Therefore, we can not possibly calculate what was needed. If I pick the wrong mixture of chemicals, my calculation will become exponentially off. Just like this futile attempt to calculate the entire volume of air rushing out the windows when the floor that is pushing this air is not hermetically sealed.

3- for 1 floor, this might be a correct analogy. I say might because I could see carpeting, etc partially plugging those holes. But what happens when you have 2,3,4,5, floors worth of broken debris stacked up? I submit to you that the analogy is no longer valid, and the stacked up debris acts as a fairly good air plug.

Then why are the puffs of air consistant in their velocity all the way down the building? Wouldn't more and more floors get "plugged" as more and more floors fails? Thus less and less air could escape through the top? Obviously once these puffs are no longer visible due to debris, my comments don't hold true, but we can see it fairly clear for quite a few floors of "collapsing" debris.

Gage's "meteorite" is actually a photo of several floors compressed together. Rebar, concrete, and the corrucated steel pans can clearly be seen in it. So there's proof that while the entire 110 floors didn't stack up, certainly some did.

Actually, Gage should use this meteorite instead. There used to be a video of the architect explaining this piece but like every other peice of evidence of the WTC attack it can't be found anymore. At least by me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This of course ignores the fact that the calcs COULD be done using a standardized explosive like TNT, or RDX, or whatever

Since you believe zero (0) lbs. of standardized TNT was used and/or needed:

I propose that 1 lb. of standardized TNT would be sufficient then.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This of course ignores the fact that the calcs COULD be done using a standardized explosive like TNT, or RDX, or whatever

Since you believe zero (0) lbs. of standardized TNT was used and/or needed:

I propose that 1 lb. of standardized TNT would be sufficient then.

So then you would agree that the ext columns weren't "blown" 500' then?

Cuz this IS the end result of this argument.

This also answers your Q from above : it isn't necessary to know WHICH specific explosive was used in any hypothesis that explosives "blew" the ext columns 500'.

Like I said, the math COULD be done using whatever you want, it doesn't matter cuz the explosive effect needed to "blow" the columns never changes. Only the quantity of whatever one wants to use in the hypothesis does.

Again, this is a smokescreen to avoid falsifying the hypothesis: the specific explosive isn't important. The explosive EFFECT is the damning factor to any explosive hypothesis. And this never changes. But as I said, it will never be done cuz it will conclusively falsify the hypothesis.

new topics

top topics

14