Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Toronto 9/11 Ad Campaign Launched: Subway Riders Will See Footage of WTC 7 Collapse

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

jaffo

Sremmos80
reply to post by spooky24
 


HOLD THE DAMN PHONE!!!! we cant compare WTC to any other building that has ever been built but comparing it to an accident involving a tree and couple neighbors is fine............. seriously?????!!!!

Also you say there could have been dozens that did fall do to fire, but since we don't have video then it was not recorded? Again, seriously? How long have we as humanity been recording things on paper?
Find me a skyscrapper that was brought to a global collapse that falls at almost freefall speed form uncontrolled fires...
I don't need a video, find me a written account

There is proof that some one planted explosives, look at the collapse. No way a random chain of events causes a collapse with 2.3 seconds of free fall, eight floors were gone no resistance at all! How does fire achieve that?
Well I lied, towers 1 and 2 faced the same devastating chain reaction...
What mountains of evidence prove agains the CD? Please elaborate to us all
As far as NIST goes it was all brand new events that have never been seen before
Brand new phenomena
edit on thWed, 19 Mar 2014 13:29:38 -0500America/Chicago320143880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)


How about instead YOU show ME ANY example of ANY building or buildings suffering the same damages and stresses to which those buildings were subjected on 9/11. Oh that's right...you can't. Feigning obtuseness is not a valid argument.


Well here is a list of buildings that burnt for hours on end and did not collapse
911research.wtc7.net...
Skip down to the bottom and check out
The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire
I would say that is fair to compare to 7... I would say that building went through worse damage then 7 did

Oh and what you just did is classing moving the goal post btw




posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Who's paying for the ad campaign?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jaffo
 


So, in your opinion, pointing out a flaw in an analogy equates to moving the goal posts? Wut?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by vonclod
 





Even if the investigation were to be reopened i doubt the truth will ever be known for certian..tptb will never let it be..they control the evidence and chain of evidence.


no they don't.

science and facts already PROVED an inside job.

we don't need another investigation....they have shill NOT proved the FIRST!!!

NIST are the authors of the PUSHED official claims...they are the ONLY ones who can validate their data which as of now, they still refuse to...



Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'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."


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 (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 





a very interesting topic.


interesting, is an understatement indeed!!!

try IMPOSABLE!!!!!

unless of course you can tell me how fire alone removes the required 105 vertical feet of structural resistance consisting of...
...105 vertical feet of continuous support columns...
...8 floors of truss assemblies w/carrier beams...
...lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout..
...tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
...interior partitions..
...utilities...
...office contents...
...all removed globally in WTC7, before 1.74 seconds, [when we see the kink form], so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......as the 2005 NIST scientific investigation found occurred and 2008 NIST tries to HIDE!

you can go look in the NIST WTC7 report if ya want to for these quotes.....

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.

Do you understand what SCIENCE says 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 the structural connections, removal of structural resistance, below the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring without the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. ZERO resistance.

Do you know where else we see those same numbers as we see in the unified steel frame, 9.8m/s^2 ????
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 have scientific PROOF of 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"

oh it doesn't stop here.......

the 2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7, it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"


2008 NIST officially claimed "NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist"....stemming from a 2005 NIST that DID NOT TEST to determine.
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

so, what does the 2008 NIST do to remedy this...lol....they watch UTUBE!!!

NCSTAR1A 4.3.4] Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse.

[eyes open wide]....WICKED scientific huh!!!.....none the entire day based on 26 SECONDS of audio-less collapse video..

So, we have 2005 NIST not finding a scientific reason for collapse x3....now, ENTER 2008 NIST hypothesis crew whom is SOMEHOW allowed to IGNORE their own scientific investigation, and claim fire 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 at the end 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?
I-M-O 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.





OtherSideOfTheCoin's thread presents data which I had not known before, especially on his excellent opening posts


lmao......and I presented it with the same i just presented to you.....and it ran.

why do you think he did that??????


refusing to respond to me.....as a 'truther', I ask questions and DEMAND the supporting evidence off the claims PUSHED as truth...

first come the asserted pushed claims, now 'truthers' here asking questions and demanding those answers....something we can all do.


I need NO evidence to do this......but is seems it surly helps to know what your talking about huh!!!!!!!

please direct ALL duh-bunkers to this post......show/prove me a liar at what I presented.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by zazen
 





Certainly in the history of the world there must be ONE video of a building falling down like that which is NOT due to controlled demolition.


not before or since....pretty much the reason 2008 NIST is on VIDEO stating....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

they 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...

a claim of FIRE alone creating a "brand new physics phenomenon".....which is amazing cause 2005 NIST does NOT even see fire even though having access to 50,000 pics and 150 hours of recorded video....

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

yet 2008 NIST basses its hypothesis on fire, [they REFUSE to prove],.....that no one sees!



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 





If an ad is going to show the fall of building 7 it should show the fall of building 7, and not part of it


they do.....the collapse is 6.5 seconds.....do the math!

-[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."

when the kink forms, @ 1.75 seconds, is when the global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. begins and continues to 4.0 seconds.....then 2.5 seconds later, it's DONE!

6.5 second steel framed building collapse from fire we can't see from the windows.

The perimeter vertical support that HOLDS UP the facade where the 2005 NIST measured the global UNIFIED FFA, has NO FIRE that that is sorely NEEDED to REMOVE resistance to accelerate.....

tell me how that happens???????




but a horrible series of events which took the building down


which ALL takes place BEFORE 1.75 SECONDS!!!

tell me how fire alone, [we can't see], REMOVED the resistance....COMPLETELY, to allow FFA to occur....they authors of the pushed claims as truth REFUSE TO!



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





Common sense and physics has nothing to do with leftover components of actual "explosive demolition" as its being vaguely referenced.


...they BLEW up?!?!?!?!?!?




Show me one piece of shock tube, blasting cap, wire, battery, etc.


show ME one piece of WTC load bearing columns that failed from THESE FIRES PRESENT to allow the collapse to ensue, x3....NO ONE has yet.....be the FIRST on your block!!!!!

2005 NIST did NOT find any to represent the claim they did...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


Just one piece, even a teeny tiny piece…

That horse is beaten to death too, btw......



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 





I repeat, I do not know the details and data as well as you do, so I can't comment.


that doesn't seem to stop you though......




I realized that some of the collapse was missing,


the 'strawman' penthouse...lol

the building is STATIC during that time, we are focused on the ACTUAL global unified collapse with the FIRST 1/3 being in free fall.

you regurgitate a story designed to confuse, to which they also refuse to prove/support....so they can say what ever they want to, for;
Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the claim, is called BULLSH*t....no matter WHO says it.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 





No one in the mainstream cares what they think. If there was anything to this then the hundreds of periodicals, radio stations, TV outlets and citizens in general would support these adds-they don't. Also, just attacking Building 7 is proof to so many that they have no proof of anything-just conjecture.


yet you ignore me and my posts to you...

seems many are now seeing that people like YOU have nothing to say.....just spewing the same......



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 





Agreed, nothing has been changed. Why? I don't know.


here is an article from the Boston Chapter of Civil Engineers newsletter from May/07

The National Council of Structural Engineers

Associations (NCSEA) formed an ad-hoc joint
industry committee to review these proposals.
In addition to structural engineers representing
NCSEA, this committee includes representatives of ASCE/SEI, AIA, ACI, AISC, PCA, PCI, SJI, TMS and other industry associations.
This committee found that the proposals
developed by TRB were vague, unenforceable,
created undue liability on the part of design
professionals and did little to address the
disasters that occurred on 9/11. The ad hoc
committee was successful in convincing ICC to reject these proposals at the September 2006 code hearings.

"Although, most members of the ad hoc
committee believe that major changes to the
building code requirements are not warranted by the events of 9/11, committee members are resolved to the inevitability of some change being introduced to the code, based on political rather than technical reasons."

bsces.org/resources/BSCES%20News/newsletter/May_2007_Issue.pdf

there are NOTHING wrong with codes for load bearing or application practices in this Country...that is why NO changes occurred here after 9-11.

not ONE!





there could have been dozens that fell from just fire


oops sorry NOPE!!!

NIST is ON VIDEO stating that FACT!

but if YOU think so....the door is open...




Besides how something falls is not evidence of why it fell.


lol....really????
now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers as seen in the acceleration rate of WTC 7 @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s, 9.8m/s^2 ?????
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"

tell me bout this......





My first Federal Grand jury term a defense lawyer(now a Federal judge) instructing the panel on evidence gave this example.




well I'm gonna stop right here.......and call YOU out!


cause I think yer FULL OF SH*T

respond to the FACTS I presented Mr./Ms. Judge.

lets see how HONEST you really are.....or do you like to dance the Potomac shuffle?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 



You continue to spam this board and the 9/11 forum. That is the same cut and paste garbage you have posted more than a dozen times just in the last month.

STOP REPEAT POSTING!!!



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Sigh...

For those who haven't yet seen it, here's a link to the voluminous work done by Jeff Prager regarding the evidence (debunk it if you can) of mini-nukes being used to take down the towers. It's worth looking at just for the amazingly zoomable photos that are included which you won't easily have access to anywhere else.

Jeff Prager Nukes - 911

Funny that this information is so demonized and not discussed fairly, while Judy Wood's cockamamie theories are trotted out over and over again.

The truth appears to be that someone nuked NYC and whoever it is will feel free to do it again if they're not brought to justice. Is your city next in line for the 'no one could ever have imagined' false flag scenario?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

signalfire
Sigh...

For those who haven't yet seen it, here's a link to the voluminous work done by Jeff Prager regarding the evidence (debunk it if you can) of mini-nukes being used to take down the towers. It's worth looking at just for the amazingly zoomable photos that are included which you won't easily have access to anywhere else.

Jeff Prager Nukes - 911

Funny that this information is so demonized and not discussed fairly, while Judy Wood's cockamamie theories are trotted out over and over again.

The truth appears to be that someone nuked NYC and whoever it is will feel free to do it again if they're not brought to justice. Is your city next in line for the 'no one could ever have imagined' false flag scenario?


I have to admit that this theory is a new one for me. But in that sense, I'll look at anything that can possibly lead to the truth as we've been lied to for too long.

Thanx



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


Just want to thank you for your in-depth reply as a contribution to the topic.

Thanx

jude11



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   
WTC-7 is a interesting topic,

yet it is also one i am getting totally fed up of.

Yes it did look like a controlled demolition job, you look at that for the first time and most people are going to think "That was a controlled demolition" because that is almost exactly what it looks like.

So it only stands to reason then that people would make the assumption that it was a controlled demolition, which is the problem that truthers have. They approach this topic with a narrow minded preconceived view that it was a controlled demolition because it looked like one and Gage et al tool them so, then they cherry pick "evidence" to fit around this hypothesis that best fits their lay-man observations. A perfect example of this is never actually showing the entire collapse of the building and at the same time getting all excited over a mere 2.3 seconds of what happened that day where 8 stories of the building seemed to have fallen at near gravitational free fall. Then they start overly analyze many of the whiteness accounts and TV broadcasts from Jennings to Silversteien to Jane Stanley and it goes on and on and on. We get the same stuff time after time again, "I told them to pull it", ohhh look at these seismic recordings, but look at these hand full of pages from a 10,000 page NIST Report and OMFG YOUTUBE GUY SAID BOMB and it goes on and on and on.

The BIG elephant in the room however, is that so far they have proven nothing, absolutely nothing, other than it looked like a controlled demolition because to prove it was a controlled demolition they would have to provide proof of explosives being used to bring down the building. So far I have seen zero proof of this.

Not a sausage.

They can all rant on and on all they want about what it looked liked, who said what, take all the reports they want out of contest, quote all the bias pseudoscience they want because at the end of the day until they can actually come up with actual proof explosives where used that can stand up to expert scrutiny and in a court of law their "evidence" that WTC-7 was a victim of controlled demolition is just as absent of all their other claims about mini-nukes and space lasers for example.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I wonder who is behind that AD? Who realized and financed it?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



There are some more things coming out of the archives about WCT7 that I haven't been through yet-some eyewitness reports about flight 93 as well.

I am frustrated trying to find out just exactly who ordered the evacuation of the building and at what time. It was uninhabitable and dangerous around 11:45 as the Mayor said in his disposition. If you have discovered just who ordered it, and at what exact time, I need that for a timeline.

All I have is 'a fireman' a 'fire captain' or local authorities.

Also, "a solder at the scene said it was evacuated before the south tower was hit at 9:03"

A fire captain said it was evacuated at 9:59 because of reports of a third incoming plane ????

As I recall from you long thread you never really settled the issue.

This is from the Center for Cooperative Research:

"A fireman-Butch Brandies tells other fireman not to go into the building because of creaking noises and a collapsed ceiling in the lobby" This also, was at 9:59

Captain Chris Bolye recalls that there "was a hole 20 stories tall in the building with fire on multiple floors" and "I informed someone(?????) that the building was in danger of collapse"

However no time is given and Bolye got extremely ill from the toxic particles.

Frustrating to say the least!



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 


Do you mean you are trying to work out the exact time that WTC-7 was evacuated and who ordered it?

sorry just want to be clear on your question.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Yes, both. The exact time and who(in authority ordered it) This is the first time I'm seeing some of these dispositions.

This one is odd. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said there is a bulge extending out from the 10th and 12th floor-no time is given although he is sure the building has been evacuated. And he said the Deputy Chief Nick Visconti( got to love that name) told him it was already evacuated and went on to say a big chunk was missing from the Vesey street side-He must be confused or my geography is faulty. All the Deputy Chief remembers is it was 'after 9:50'

Somehow this got confused with Chief Palmer who we know was on the 78th floor of the south tower when it collapsed-the only person to report from the impact zone.

Anyway, I understand the confusion of the moment, however it's still not clear who ordered it and when.

On another Front:

The complete affidavits, name, address and their exact location,of the flight 93 witnesses has made it's way to researchers.





new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join