Science is great, but what about the non-scientific smoking guns on 9/11?

this is my post from another forum(physorg), so i don't know about the whole [ex] thing, and i would like the pics to remain here, so please let it stand, mods? i edited out some flames, and added a little(in italics).

to catch up, the discussion is about the 'when' of the 'pull' mentioned by silverstein, i say there were no fighters to 'pull', because they were 'pulled' at 3:30. two hours before the tower fell, and yet, silverstien's famous slip-up implies a chain of events, "they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall".

so, we are talking about foreknowledge, in other words. foreknowledge IS 'scientific' evidence, but it's such BASIC science, that i think it can be considered 'non-scientific'.

who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall? ('they' were the denizens of the guiliani's multimillion taxdollar blastproof shelter in the sky, the Office of Emergency Management, or OEM)

this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven.
not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)



that album cover came out in august 2001.

---source...www.enterprisemission.com...


reality check.
here's me being fair..........foreknowledge is proven by this album cover that came out in august, 2001. and, c'mon. "the COUP" with a red star?
the 'mad' fold up art on the twenty dollar bill minted in 1998 is further evidence(it's TOOO good to be a coincidence. and, you fold it like an airplane, no less), that this is an elaborate plot going way back.





go here glenn beck to see the amazing five, ten, fifty and one hundred dollar money airplanes. the other bills show the sequence of the towers falling, like comic book frames


there is also a card game, by steve jackson games that details the scenario we are now living out.
here's a card...


here's another...



another one shows the office that 'the usual suspects' work out of...



here's what the author of the game has to say about the illuminati..

50 awful truths about the illuminati

out there? oh, yeah! and yet, he made those cards in 1995. obvious foreknowledge, once again. shortly after these cards were released, steve jackson's office was raided by the secret service, and all his computers were confiscated. a lenghty legal battle ensued, with the mighty jackson coming out on top

the pilot episode of 'the lone gunmen', the three smart nerds from the x-files, was about a secret government plot to fake a terrorist hijack, and fly a plane into the WTC. you can find the clip on line without too much searching. it's eerie.

[sarcasm]there's no such thing as an 'amazing' coicidence. if you see what you feel is an amazing coincidence, rest assured that it is COMPLETELY NORMAL. information has a way of going back in time and 'imprinting' on the mass concsciousness. that's how these completely normal graphic 'coincidences' happened.[/sarcasm]

like i said before. bush is a MORON who can barely string together a sentence that makes sense. he's a puppet of MUCH larger forces.
he's still complicit, still a criminal, and still guilty as (literally)HELL. along with the whole money/power grid of the entire world.


check out the cutting edge(cuttingedge.com). i just noticed while looking for the steve jackson images that these guys KNOW.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by billybob]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

1. If you watch the videos you won't see an explosion. If there's a pile of dust on a desk and you slam your hand into that pile, what happens to the dust?

The difference here is plain to see. You are starting with pulverized dust. Now take that same pile of dust and pour some concrete around it and then slam your hand down on the hardened concrete. Same effect? I didn't think so.

2. Even if it was an explosion, you just went through all that telling how how they buildings were able to withstand the impact and explosion of the planes. If the impact and explosion of the planes only caused "minor damage" what makes you think a less explosion would cause enough damge to bring them down?

Why would you think that you would need many more explosive devices? I mean if you believe that the buildings fell from plane damage and fire alone....why is it so unplausible that some well placed thermite devices on the inner core would be all that is needed.

How did they do that unnoctied? Thousands of people worked in the Towers. You would have had to do major work trying to plant enough bombs to bring them down. There's NO WAY ANYONE could have done that and it not be noticed. And how did they know where the planes would go in? How did the bombs not explode when the planes hit or why were they not damaged?

I only could give you speculation on these points. But here goes. There are things that can be done by people unnoticed. For example, if it was a government op, then they would have had a bogus reason to be there. Then no-one would have noticed them being there. Just as an example.....I work on building rooftops sometimes. Now, I have a project close to the White House. When I'm on that rooftop, the building engineers have to contact the secret service to let them know I'm up there....or there'd be a red dot on my forehead followed by my brains on the roof. Moral of the story....how does the secret service know that it's me and not some other nutjob? I mean I could call the ss and say hey, I'll be on such and such a rooftop and really be some nut with a rifle ready to shoot....this is also post 9-11 mind you.

How do you know that the explosives didn't explode when the plane hit? I saw an explosion....whether from fuel or planted explosives....no-one could really know.

We have cell phone calls from each flight

Since they just came up with the technology to actually call from a cell phone on a plane, I'm guessing that these calls are bunk.

On flight 77 Majed Moqed, Khalid Almihdhar, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salem Alhazmiare selected for CAPPS. But how can this be if they're Arab and there were no Arabs on board!? On 93, Ahmad Alhaznawi is selected.

Excuse my ignorance here but what does CAPPS mean?

Griff, you're holding your own, but I gotta chime in here.

That'sjustweird, you are missing something HUGE here. You claim that the planes damaged the buildings so bad that the ensuing fires collapsed them?



Taurus feces, according to me AND NIST! I guess you missed when those pushing the story you accept said THEMSELVES that the planes did NOT cause the collapse. Hell, they said the planes didn't even contribute much to the collapse. So, stick with the super building collapsing fires that don't need to be shooting out of the building like the flames in the building in Madrid.

Esdad, you gotta be joking. Not only did you debunk all my points, but you and others also debunked the points billybob brought up?



More taurus feces. You said NOTHING about Able Danger or the Downing Street memos, just to name 2. And no, you aren't debunking a damn thing. Coincidence and other lame arguments are not debunking anything.

Truthseeka, NIST has videos that show the damage that was created by the planes. Do you even know what NIST is?

Coincidence and lame arguements huh? That is all it is. Man, I guess I am just wasting my time truthseeka.

Able Danger was the group who is believed to have ID Atta priorto the attacks. We are you arguing this point and also arguing that our government bought it down? Able Danger proves that terrorsits pulled this off without the aid of our government. During the 9/11 comission hearings, it was admitted that there were major interdepartmental msicues and non sharing of intel that could have helped ot prevent 9/11. It should also be known that the Atta who was seen by Able Danger may have actually been another Atta, and not the one connected to Al-Qeada.


The Downing Street memo occured after 9/11, so why are you bringing it up? This is not a 9/11 smoking gun, but more applied to Iraq. Again, stay on target.....

[edit on 22-3-2006 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
Truthseeka, NIST has videos that show the damage that was created by the planes.

And FEMA has the figures from the photographic evidence, and it took them no time because all they had to do was count, and these figures still stand.

Less than 15% of the perimeter columns in the impacted regions of either tower were knocked out, and the severest core damage in either tower from an impact is limited to about 2 whole columns max since the engines would've been the only plane parts strong enough to plow through the buildings' exteriors and offices into the core structure and still be able to knock out even thicker columns. And for that to have happened in either tower would require quite a bit of chance.

Show me where it says less than 15% of the supports were damaged. Please give me a link.....

Originally posted by esdad71
Show me where it says less than 15% of the supports were damaged. Please give me a link.....

FEMA Report, sections 2.2.1.1 for WTC1 and 2.2.2.2 for WTC2.

The 2nd Chapter of the FEMA Report, PDF Format

Diagrams they offer:

WTC1:

Interpretation of photographic evidence suggests that from 31 to 36 columns on the north building face were destroyed over portions of a four-story range.

Out of 240 columns total, remember.



WTC2:

Photographic evidence suggests that from 27 to 32 columns along the south building face were destroyed over a five-story range.

Do the math.


So what are you going to say about the impact damage now, esdad?

I'm going to say that you are talking about the perimeter columns, and I am talking about core columns. You do know there is a difference, right? You see, this is a common misconception that people don't relate to.

wtc.nist.gov...

Go back and do your homework.

Originally posted by esdad71
I'm going to say that you are talking about the perimeter columns, and I am talking about core columns. You do know there is a difference, right? You see, this is a common misconception that people don't relate to.

Lmao, they don't know how many core columns were hit! Read the parts of the FEMA Report I just provided you: they state it there as well.

The reason no one knows the state of the core columns is those columns were within the building and not visible from the outside. No one went in to check on them. Any speculation on how they were holding up is just speculation, just like the speculation on how the trusses were holding up.

They can really tell you whatever they'd like on those issues, because there's no way to prove or disprove what they say. Do I think there was damage to the cores of the buildings? Of course. Do I think it was major? No. I think it was less than the perimeter damage, given that those columns are bigger, and by that point the planes would've been badly broken up anyway.

Go back and do your homework.

I would suggest you take your own advice, personally, because you've only recently jumped into the discussions here and apparently aren't completely clear on a lot of issues.

So, know that i give links it is speculation. and I still think you do not know the difference in the columns. too funny.

Originally posted by esdad71
So, know that i give links it is speculation.

and I still think you do not know the difference in the columns. too funny.

. . .

Go look through all the posts I've made on the 9/11 section of ATS. Look through them all and tell me I don't know the differences between the perimeter and core columns.


And yes, info on the core columns is speculation. Can you tell me who went into the towers to check out the core columns while the buildings were still standing? Can you show me that any modeling accurately reflects the construction of the WTC Towers as per the construction drawings? No, and no; you can't. No one went in to check and there is no way for you to tell if the modeling is in any way accurate.

I can model you a plane going all the way through a tower and continuing on to Mars if you'd like, and maybe that'd put things in an entirely different light to you as Mars suddenly comes into the picture of 9/11. At least I would be providing the absolute same amount of evidence for the accuracy of my modeling as any that NIST has done.

And if you would drop the immature stuff I would really appreciate it. All of the crap you're getting from me is from how annoying you're getting with this immature crap.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by bsbray11]

So you admit that there is modeling, that shows the damage, but you choose not to believe it. So this makes it right?

There are specific differences between core and perimeter, and this is where people start to trip up because they combine and do not look at the big picture.

So, where is that demo evidence?

Originally posted by esdad71
So you admit that there is modeling, that shows the damage, but you choose not to believe it. So this makes it right?

The modeling is computer modeling. I hope you understand this and what it implies.

How can the parameters be verified?

There are specific differences between core and perimeter, and this is where people start to trip up because they combine and do not look at the big picture.

Dude, look through my freaking posts here. I swear to god you are an idiot if you think I don't know the difference between the exterior columns and the columns making up the core structure. You must be trying to piss me off. Really mature, man.

So, where is that demo evidence?

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
911research.wtc7.net...

Have fun.

I'm through with you. Again. Please grow up. Kthx.

What, esdad71?

I DO know what NIST is. If I didn't, I wouldn't talk about it; I'll leave that kinda stuff to you...

Are you high? No snot there was damage to the buildings due to the planes! Only a retard would say that the planes didn't damage the buildings at all when THE ENTIRE NATION saw them damage the buildings!! Oh, yeah, except bldg 7.

What I and NIST are saying is that the towers DID NOT collapse due to the impact of the planes. I'd post a link, but seeing how you responded to bsbray11's link, I ain't posting a damn thing. Look it up yourself, since you like NIST so much...

Please truthseeka, give me a link?

If you read it you would have seen the diagrams of before and after WTC1 and WTC 2 collaspses, and the damage to WTC 7.

Why so much frustration, and where is the link for the explosives that were used, I can't find that one?

Originally posted by Griff
The difference here is plain to see. You are starting with pulverized dust. Now take that same pile of dust and pour some concrete around it and then slam your hand down on the hardened concrete. Same effect? I didn't think so.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. People claimed there was an explosion then the towers fell. There were no explosions. Any brief flare up of the flames they saw is basic science. Put you hands up to your face and clap. What do you feel? Wind. Why?

Why would you think that you would need many more explosive devices? I mean if you believe that the buildings fell from plane damage and fire alone....why is it so unplausible that some well placed thermite devices on the inner core would be all that is needed.

Because I thought we were trying to be realistic.

What's the difference between a plane crashing into a building then exploding and an explosive device?

How do you know that the explosives didn't explode when the plane hit? I saw an explosion....whether from fuel or planted explosives....no-one could really know.

Would you people make up your mind...
When did these explosive explode? When the plane hit or when the building collapsed?

No one has yet to answer my question. After the planes hit, what happened?

Since they just came up with the technology to actually call from a cell phone on a plane, I'm guessing that these calls are bunk.

lmao! What are you talking about?
These people called their families and authorities. Why would their families lie about something like that? Also, 9/11 happened less than 5 years ago Not 20.
Technology to call from cell phones has been around.....I'VE USED IT! (pre 9/11)

(there were also calls made from the plane phones btw, like on flight 93 with Todd Beamer)

Excuse my ignorance here but what does CAPPS mean?

en.wikipedia.org...

.....

These systems rely on what is known as a Passenger Name Record, often abbreviated PNR. When a person books a plane ticket, certain identifying information is collected by the airline: full name, address, etc. This information is used to check against some data store (i.e., a TSA No-Fly list, the FBI ten most wanted fugitive list, etc.) and assign a terrorism "risk score" to that person. High risk scores behoove the airline to subject the person to extended baggage and/or personal screening, and to contact law enforcement if necessary.

n the investigations into the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, it was reported that 9 of the 19 implicated terrorists were flagged for additional scrutiny by the CAPPS I system, but none of them were intercepted. Sources have blamed this failure on the notion that CAPPS I was intended and designed to intercept bombs in checked luggage, and supposedly only 2 of the implicated terrorists had checked luggage.

*

That'sjustweird, you are missing something HUGE here. You claim that the planes damaged the buildings so bad that the ensuing fires collapsed them?



Taurus feces, according to me AND NIST! I guess you missed when those pushing the story you accept said THEMSELVES that the planes did NOT cause the collapse. Hell, they said the planes didn't even contribute much to the collapse. So, stick with the super building collapsing fires that don't need to be shooting out of the building like the flames in the building in Madrid.

What are you talking about?

I have yet to see a building where a plane crashed into it and exploded and that building not collapse.

If you have ANY credible proof at all that something else caused the collapse then please present it.

This is what happens when explosions occur on the outside of buildings:




What do you think happens when explosions happen on the inside?

Know what is really trippy about 911, and I bet I am the first in the world to say this..

Look at an old chess set, the rooks are towers. Two towers that on each end anchor the royalty.

Co-incidence? Maybe, maybe not.

DAMN it!

From wtc.nist.gov

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires. …

I don't wanna hear anything else about the planes causing the collapse. Please. Your own story spinners say it was FIRE, not the planes.

Yeah, and the fires would've had to have caused about 4 times as much damage as the impacts did for a single floor to fail according to some safety factor figures NIST has released.

The impacts knocked out less than 15% of the perimeter columns in the impact regions, and the core column damage was probably less in my opinion, but let's make it comparable and make it 15% too. If the loads were divided 50/50 (I think NIST actually says 60/40 with more loads carried by the core), then that'd be 15% total.

NIST gives safety factor ratings of, if I remember correctly, 3.5 or so for the core columns and 5 for the perimeter columns. The complete figures are worked out in a paper by a Mr. Trumpman that I've referenced a few times on here before, and it comes out that about an average of 75% of total columns on any given floor would have to be severed before that floor will fail.

Given a total of 15% (or less, in reality) of columns severed by impact (and remember: this was across multiple floors -- not actually 15% of the columns on ONE floor), that would mean there would have to be the equivalent of a further 60% of columns on a given floor being failed. So, again, that's at least 4x more damage than the impacts.

So, who agrees with NIST that the fires in the towers caused four times the damage that the initial impacts did? And that this is what allowed the towers to sufficiently weaken to begin collapsing? Looking at pics of those fires, it seems like a bit of a stretch to me, personally. Eh?

the ability of propagandists to completely ignore bare faced facts is remarkable. i wonder how they can tell when they're asleep, and when they're awake?

the infowar is stepping up, i'd say. the vile overtones of shillery are becoming more shrill.

but we've got charlie sheen, now. look out.

i'd say that's another non-scientific smoking gun. the repeated LOUD insistance by ignoramuses, that the government can do no wrong, and that freedom is overated, and that the fascist power structure is not 'too cozy' nor the principles and goals of THE PEOPLE relevent. it's 'okay' for the 'exhaustive 911 commision report' to COMPLETELY OMIT tower seven from the report. like it never happened.
to the good corporate citizen, freedom's something you fight for, not something you ACTUALLY have the right to. you are OWNed by the NWO, NOW.