911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by davec0021
I'll concede BSBray a lot did fall into the streets

Oh a lot fell into the streets, but only a little fell into the footprints?

Do you know the exact percentage?

I didn't ask for an exact percentage. I said ballpark it. I want to see how warped your eyeballs are exactly.

Come on man, just give me the best estimate you can. Do you think NOTHING fell into the footprint? Do you think more fell into the streets than landed in the footprint?

By volume of debris, I would estimate about 90% within the prior WT7 "footprint," with the balance (near 10%) outside/"on the streets." By surface area "rainfall," I would put the debris field at about 75+% inside the prior "footprint."

I'm not sure why this is apparently such a "difficult labor" on this thread though. I would hate to think that it is necessary to have a poll to evaluate those 2 (or more that I've seen earlier) photos of the WTC7 debris field.

edit: Although I haven't seen a photo taken from ground-level of the debris pile, I would guess that it would look a bit like a [possibly-shortened] Gaussian distribution in cross section (based upon Radek's and bsbray's 2 photos, but that would be complete speculation on my part, not having seen any ground-level perspective photos of the WTC7 debris pile that I recall).

[edit on 9-3-2010 by rhunter]

Originally posted by rhunter
I'm not sure why this is apparently such a "difficult labor" on this thread though.

Me either except that when I say the grass is green, they must say it is red I suppose.

I say the building fell into its footprint, as is blatantly obvious by the photos, and they must minimize the amount that fell into the footprint as much as possible and try to insinuate it fell anywhere BUT there.

Okay here's my opinion of what caused it and why I still think it's a possible demolition based on how it fell.

Here's figures 5-207, 5-214 and 5-216 from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1. Notice the building in question is at the bottom of the frame. As we can see, the facade of WTC 7 is leaning to the south away from 30 West Broadway. The last picture is where the roofline is about to pass the roof level of 30 West Broadway.








NIST doesn't show anymore pictures so we have to go to the video. I tried to find one that was just this clip, but all I could find was a compilation. (And yes I know YouTube stinks at loading videos now..but be patient)



www.youtube.com...



The clip the photos were taken from starts at 4:55 and runs to 5:30.



The above is a screen shot at 5:27 and I circled the smoke cloud to watch. This is the only part that I see moving towards the north towards the building. And it was well after the roofline of WTC 7 sank lower than the roofline of West 30. (I estimate 3 seconds after the roofline of WTC passes the roofline of West 30)

So what could this be... another photo is in order! This next photo is figure 5-215 from the same document and NIST was so kind as to point out what it was.



Notice how it remains higher than WTC 7's roofline. But more importantly notice how relatively very small of a section it is. NIST calls it "a section of the northeast corner." (pg 285)

Now I believe this is what hit 30 West Broadway and it was a section of the northeast corner. That's all... a very small section. Most of the building fell straight down.

Now does this little section of the northeast corner disprove a demolition. In my opinion, it does not. Why do I say that? Because I watched other demolitions and saw similar occurrences. For example this:



www.youtube.com...



The best view starts at 3:13. I took a screenshot of the beginning and the part I found similar to WTC7. I also circled in red the area I find interesting.



Notice how most of the building falls straight down.... but not all of it. Just like WTC 7.

I know some people claim that because all the debris was not strictly in the footprint that means it wasn't possible it was a controlled demolition. I think the only point these people really have is that it wasn't a "PERFECT" controlled demolition. And who can expect perfection if this was a controlled demolition... as, if it were, it would needed to have been clandestine and also occur while the building was occupied at the time. (i.e. was full of furniture and stuff...not people)

[edit on 9-3-2010 by NIcon]

Edited the next morning to add:
Okay morning came and I had to check to make sure I didn't end up making the claim that Mephistopheles arose out of Vesey Street and started chomping at the bases of the buildings. I didn't do it, so that must mean I didn't have too much wine last night. But I did notice I never stated my conclusion based in the terms of what was being discussed last night.

Based on my argument above I estimate that 5% or less actually fell outside WTC7's footprint, 20-25% spread (as FEMA termed it) out of it, and the rest piled up on it.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by NIcon]

reply to post by NIcon


Excellent post (*'d) - yes, that was my contention, too - not a "perfect" CD, but still a CD, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


If one would presume that the information provided in this following video is somehow True , then who could the people piloting the 4 planes on 9/11 possibly be ? Care to take a guess ?


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

This video, aired over four years after 9/11 ------

Four years later, and victims' body parts found.

Yet, NO signs of explosives.

The short passenger lists of all those supposed planes have been discredited numerous times and no corresponding obituaries exist.

This discrepency is being treated as though its immatterial to the investigation and even many so-called truthers ignore it, yet it is everything but immatterial.

If you want people to take the government's version of events seriously then the government needs to show us all a bit of respect. And this was not the only discrepancy, there were like a 100 of them, of which none got satisfactoraly answered.

Try again "pal".

Originally posted by DrJay1975
Just for reference you would have needed tons of thermite to blow the building. How can you hide 5 tons of thermite? And to cut those particular beams the barrels would have to be wrapped around the columns.

I don't know what kind of explosives where used but I seriously doubt they needed "tons" as you so surely state. Much smaller quantities STRATEGICALLY PLACED would suffice.

Originally posted by DrJay1975
My favorite is The towers were built to withstand an aircraft impact. They did. NIST never said the jets collapsed the towers. Fire, impact damage and lack of fireproofing over the steel did.

Do you realise just how perposterous that sounds??

How could small raging fires on the UPPER FLOORS melt or deform enough of the lower collumn's STEEL FRAMES to trigger a rapid cascade failure downwards?

No way this can happen! You don't need a college degree in ANYTHING to understand that, just very basic common sense.

Not to mention THE TINY IMPACT HOLE at the pentagon, again with an alleged aircraft. Even rumsfeld later mistakengly admitted it was A MISSLE!

My friend, two plus two= four, and 9/11 was a setup much like the terror attacks that later ensued in europe. There were way too many strange anamolies IN EACH of those terror attacks and they all paint a similar picture. THE NWO PICTURE!!

[edit on 9-3-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


"discredited"?? By who?

Discredit these:









And, your claim of "no obituaries"?? Which loony 'conspiracy' site does that one come from?

Did that site investigate every single newspaper in every hometown for every passenger for every day that the Obit might have been published???

No, it is just too easy to believe the nutjob 'conspiracy' sites than to investigate for oneself.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No, it is just too easy to believe the nutjob 'conspiracy' sites than to investigate for oneself.

Speaking of investigating, what investigations have you done?

How many FOIA requests have you filed?

How many e-mails have you sent?

Please list research sites used.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I'll tell you what is most frightening of all.

When you allow that 9-11 was an inside job it is like discovering your parents are killers. What do you do? Do we just continue to live with them and keep looking over our shoulder? Do we turn them in? Where the heck do you go from here?

I believe it, (based on Tower 7 -not even being hit by a plane yet dropping slowly, imploding within it's own space- as in precisely timed and detonated explosions) but I don't want to believe it.

Frankly, I am in a protective shell of denial right now.
One day I may be able to accept the news. Not today.

reply to post by weedwhacker


And half of those flights where half empty.

(sarcasm)Yeah that makes A LOT OF SENSE! (/sarcasm)

As for the obituaries, please show me 10 that correspond to the actual passenger list and I promise never to bother you again. You can't and you never will, yet you have the balls to call me crazy. Get a life!

[edit on 9-3-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

And half of those flights where half empty.

(sarcasm)...

Yes, actually, you are correct. (not about the sarcasm, though). That is why the terrorists selected those flights.

They did research, beforehand, flying back and forth, looking for patterns in passenger loads, because they wanted specifically to hijack flights that had a historically low load factor. Also, it was a Tuesday, which is a traditionally 'slump' travel day for Domestic airline traffic.

Consider this:

Boston is not a major 'hub' city for American, nor United. (In fact, Boston/Los Angeles non-stops just don't generate the full passenger loads as many other city pairs do).

Washington Dulles is not a major 'hub' for American. United is the 800-pound gorilla in that market.

Newark is not a major 'hub' for United. Continental is dominant.

If people knew a little more about airlines, how they schedule and market and compete, then they would not be surprised by the low load factors.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
They did research, beforehand, flying back and forth, looking for patterns in passenger loads, because they wanted specifically to hijack flights that had a historically low load factor. Also, it was a Tuesday, which is a traditionally 'slump' travel day for Domestic airline traffic.

But isn't the usual terrorist tatic to cause as much destruction and as high a body count as they can?

Why choose flights with such samll passenger loads if they wanted to cause mase casualties?



[edit on 9-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
They did research, beforehand, flying back and forth, looking for patterns in passenger loads, because they wanted specifically to hijack flights that had a historically low load factor. Also, it was a Tuesday, which is a traditionally 'slump' travel day for Domestic airline traffic.

But isn't the usual terrorist tatic to cause as much destruction and as high a body count as they can?

Why choose flights with such samll passenger loads if they wanted to cause mase casualties?
[edit on 9-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Because the intent was to cause destruction on the ground and that wasn't going to happen if the passengers, by virtue of numbers, were able to thwart the hijacking.

Originally posted by hooper
Because the intent was to cause destruction on the ground and that wasn't going to happen if the passengers, by virtue of numbers, were able to thwart the hijacking.

So your stating that the terrorist were scared of a few more people being on the planes?

Doesn't sound like die hard terrorist to me.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No, it is just too easy to believe the nutjob 'conspiracy' sites than to investigate for oneself.

Speaking of investigating, what investigations have you done?

Obviously not much Weedy is only just learning what thermite is...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We're debating with people who do no research other then looking for the stock de-bunker reply to the discussions. This is why we see the same old sad tired arguments, like it would take 'thousands of tons of explosives'.

[edit on 3/9/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
They did research, beforehand, flying back and forth, looking for patterns in passenger loads, because they wanted specifically to hijack flights that had a historically low load factor. Also, it was a Tuesday, which is a traditionally 'slump' travel day for Domestic airline traffic.

But isn't the usual terrorist tatic to cause as much destruction and as high a body count as they can?

Why choose flights with such samll passenger loads if they wanted to cause mase casualties?

And they conveniently chose a time to attack the towers when they were not at full capacity yet, half hour later they would have killed twice as many people.

And they chose to attack the pentacon in an area that was the most unoccupied.

Hmmmmm unlucky terrorists, or by design?

reply to post by evil incarnate


okay heres another example the building was blown up you ever RUN into one of them
I hope you dont follow these paranoid and poorly researched individuals remember one could prove niburu is real using Unfounded you tube videos posted by those hoping for the fantasic
Yeah the givernment did it Sure.
Be above the nonsense and when people have proof ask why they are here and not in front of a local, state or government commity how about calling hmm i dunno the Police GEEEZ.

reply to post by ANOK


Well, I thought better of engaging you, ANOK, but sems you're starting to come around.

At least we agree on the terrorists, and the hijackings.

Now, back to some facts. You seem to think that 0845 is too early for most of the office workers to be in the buildings?

NIST estimated that about 17,400 civilians were in the World Trade Center complex at the time of the attacks, while turnstile counts from the Port Authority suggest that 14,154 people were typically in the Twin Towers by 8:45 a.m

en.wikipedia.org...

"turnstile counts". Perhaps there is more info, out there, to get a better historical record average. But, I think the determining factor was the time of the flights targeted, and the historically low load factors. Easier "crowd control" for a team of only three (possibly four) men.

Besides, not sure that Atta and 'team' would have had access to worker counts, back then. Not much of an Internet, in 2001 like there is today.

Same reason the Pentagon fallacy, about which side was selected for the strike. HOW would anyone know the construction schedule of what the 'TM' call the "Most Secure Building In America"?

What was convenient, for their purposes, was the physical arrangement of the major Highway, Columbia Pike, in Arlington --- as a guide to use to line up and target the Pentagon.

If you look carefully at how the Pentagon is built, you will see the next face, moving counter-clockwise, has a HUGE staircase and abutments. Would have provided too much protection, for their intent. Other possible route for the attack would have been South, down the Potomac, impacting a Northern wall. I am guessing they considered several courses.

You see?

Lots and lots of specualtion out there, by people who just sit around and think they've 'puzzled it out'....but they are often operating in a vacuum of real knowledge.

reply to post by ANOK


you are not living in reality you choose ignorance in the face of facts your research is a kin to learning physics from a 5th graders science book if you had proof you would be a national no international star to bad all you people trying to say what we all witnessed was fake will have to settle for ATS stars and if your lucky a flag from another person who obviously just needs a freind there are better ways to meet people then to join them in a paranoid fantasy
sorry i picked your post it was the last one my common sense o meter could take