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.
Originally posted by bob2000
jake wrote: "
BSBray has unwittingly proven my point… the diagram she is using is WRONG. "
okay, is bsbray a man or woman?!
bsbray11 wrote: "Can you say lack of retardation? Yes, I know how to make immature jokes too, but the collapses continued at the exact same speed even as the driving mass disintegrated and the collapse descended on too thicker columns. Flawed concepts "
Okay, now where is your scientific fact to backup this statement, becuase I cant seem to find it. Where is it? am i not looking hard enough in your post? Remind everyone with your scientific facts why this couldnt have happened without demolitions. I see the statement and implication, but I cant seem to find the backup for it, maybe you can help me find it.
The badgering, name calling & smart alec comments are all a ploy to make you forget that she hasn't really answered questions herself, but simply cut & pasted stuff.
The 3 points of "proof" can not be backed up
Facts are tossed out of the way if they don't fit.
Terms are being used thatshe has little to no knowledge of outside of the conspiracy.
What do you THINK they're going to do as floors are collapsing onto them? Or as the fire is burning through them? You're dropping several hundred TONS of steel, do you really think that these things are NOT going to explode as this is happening?
People, other then myself, have taken your "points" and explained why they are not so over & over, with follow-up questions that you choose to ignore.
Do you understand the point about the JFK “magic bullet” & the limo seat being removed? Therefore ALL attempts to mimic the results have been flawed? Yet, when the seat removal was factored in, a sniper (Austrian, I believe) was able to get the same results 3 times straight? This could explain lots of small factors in 9-11 not being known/available to answer ever single little petty question? Do you understand how this is directly related to the claims/evidence of 9-11?
The "proof" or "points" you think you have are note enough for a logical person to entertain such a claim.
The burden of proof is on you.
Do you honestly feel like you have enough evidence to even file a complaint? You barely have enough evidence to write a speeding ticket, let alone bring down a government.
I will apologize for thinking you were a chick. I am sorry. I meant nothing by that & it certainly wouldn't matter in the slightest anyway.
Originally posted by realrepublican
What do you THINK they're going to do as floors are collapsing onto them? Or as the fire is burning through them? You're dropping several hundred TONS of steel, do you really think that these things are NOT going to explode as this is happening?
I think they would fall any which way but to fall like perfect pancakes was a Red Flag.
The fire was not even near as hot as we are supposed to believe when the buildings collapsed. That's why we could see the people who had survived and remained alive after the initial crash, begin to stand halfway outside the building and waving for help – that was before it came down.
The fire was not burning through the floors on the lower levels. Those lower floors would have at least slowed down the collapse, assuming that the law of physics allows a delay for the floors to fall onto each other, from top end to the bottom. I have seen few buildings collapse this way due to fire lasting days or even a week – no matter how hot.
If you're going to answer the question, at least answer what I'm TALKING ABOUT. The question was about the transformers, gas pockets, and gas lines. NOT THE FLOORS.
Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Again, you have shown how you add & subtract where you want, not to mention seem to disregard how basic facts do affect a simulation. You are the one who keeps insisting on physics & simulating the collapses. PLEASE read the post, instead of just skimming it over. You are missing too much...
- “I doubt extremely that moving where a person sits can explain”… doesn’t that sound foolish? When the mockery known as the “Magic Bullet Theory” is being discussed for almost 4 decades, not factoring in that Connelly was seated considerably lower then Kennedy… might not explain anything? I am surprised we even take measurements anymore with your new method saving so much time & effort and all...
- I never stated ANYTHING about ANY number of bullets, or number of shooters. This is where you pick & choose & add & ignore. I made 3 points of flawed facts, you only chose 1 to misunderstand.
- Though “angular momentum” is farther from the topic then JFK… you are attributing too much on one law. I am no physicist, though I have read many explanations of this claim, and their comments are not as nice as mine. There were many other forces that day that can explain this “magic bullet” of angular momentum. As I stated before, you need to spend some time in the service dropping things from planes...
In physics, angular momentum is analogous to (linear) momentum except that it applies to rotating objects.
Momentum can be defined as "mass in motion."
- You repeatedly claim that I believe the government… official report… whatever. I think you give them more credit then they deserve, but that is another thread. I don't & wouldn’t believe them just as I don’t believe you until a creditable scientist, computer model, evidence or proof. I feel there is sufficient evidence to support the official story
, again, I am speaking of the WTC 1&2 collapsing only (you have a tendency to add meaning & words to my statements). You claim there is none for the official story, well there is even less on a controlled demo theory.
I do wish you could keep this to the threads that already are discussing such matters. Please don’t feel the need to swing all the threads your way so you have more places to go. ALL the threads really are not about YOU or personnel attacks on YOU. Really.
Originally posted by bob2000
okay, you still havent given me the scientific evidence your famous for. I agree that the bottom collumns were thicker. I agree that the collapse was "fast" as seen in the videos. Its nice how your pointed out this stuff, but that is not what I was asking from you. You assert that the momentum should have diminshed because the base was thicker etc., it sounds intuitive that that would be the case, but so did a flat earth back during midieval times; what I wanted was scientific evidence that this would be the case. Just becuase something sounds intuitive, doesnt make it scientifically valid or true. So backup your assertion that momentum would have diminished in the absence of demolitions with some scientific facts that you are famous for .
Ok, you're still not understanding me. Let me spell this out more simply for you. I really didn't think it was that difficult to understand, but I guess I was wrong.
The gas pipes, the transformes, and the pockets of fuel did NOT bring the buildings down. They COULD have contributed to it, but they were NOT RESPONSIBLE for it.
What I am saying is that they could have been responsible for all the eyewitnesses saying they heard what SOUNDED LIKE explosives going off. NOT causing the buildings collapse. The sound of explosions was going on well before the buildings came down, so something OTHER THAN explosives was causing it.
Ok, how hard is this to understand? WHY is it AUTOMATICALLY an explosive if you have an explosion in the WTC?
Because everyone is desperate to believe that they were brought down?
You don't have to have an explosive to have an explosion! It's that simple. There were PLENTY of things in the WTC that would cause explosions that had NOTHING to do with explosives.
You want to know the real reason that intelligent people can ignore eyewitness accounts of explosives? Because we don't know that they WERE explosives. There were MILES of natural gas pipes in the buildings. There were HUNDREDS of transformers in the buildings. There were pockets of jet fuel that created vapor clouds. ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN EXPLODE. And yet NONE OF THEM are explosives.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm sure I could provide proof that the bottom columns were thicker if the good old US of A would release the blueprints it has to the public.
NIST 1-1 Structural and Life Safety Systems (pdf)
p11 (pdf71)
Exterior Walls
Columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of thinner steel plates, as thin as 0.25 in., with the grade of steel dictated by the calculated gravity and wind loads. In this manner, the gravity load on the lower stories was minimized. In the lower stories the perimeter column webs were often more than 2 in. thick.
Core Columns
The columns in the lower floors were primarily very large box columns, as large as 12 in. by 52 in., comprised of welded plates up to 7 in. thick. In the upper floors, the columns shifted to the rolled wide-flange shapes.