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.

 

Former FDNY Firefighter, Rudy Dent: "Incontrovertible fact (WTC) buildings were brought down."

page: 7
118
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   


this is WTC 7 before it came down. No way those fires did it.

also what ground level explosion incinerated all those streets of vehicals?
edit on 4-6-2014 by haven123 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




What do you mean "from fire no one really sees? As has been posted here before,


and then YOU proceed to post from a duhbunker site....how bout the NIST reports?????

and as I said, NOT my words.....the 2005 NIST..

so WHY are you trying to insinuate that is my claim???


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



the windows are where the perimeter vertical support is located....the global unified acceleration equal to g. found in WTC7 was measured from a point on the facade that is ATTACHED to the perimeter vertical support where there is NO fire that is sorely needed to globally effect them....if not fire.....then what REMOVED the resistance @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s?

but sux fer you the OFFICIAL claim is fire huh.....so tell me how fire does ALL that work....before 1.74 seconds of the collapse.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: phinubian
there was no toppling,


How could they have toppled? what was strong enough to act as a pivot to let them topple?


to know if you thought it was amazing that they did not fall at an angle,


No, it would have been amazing if they fell at a angle, as you also would if you actually stopped to think about it a little bit!



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




The simple fact your crowd ignores is damage to the building and fires left to burn for a few hours all documented by the NYFD or are you calling them liars as well?


damage to the building NOT caused by falling tower debris.....found by the 2005 NIST...

"burned for hours" from fire we can't see....huh...

you seem to forget something......FFA can ONLY occur with a CLEAR PATH, to allow mass to accelerate......and at 1.75 SECONDS to 4.0 SECONDS....there is an UNDENIABLE, scientifically proved by the FACT of acceleration EQUAL to g......'clear path'..in which to accelerate...

tell me all about the marvelous fire, NOT seen.




all documented by the NYFD or are you calling them liars as well


no....I'm calling YOU as liar.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
It amazes me that the cognitive dissonance is so strong with this topic, a firefighters testimony with his credentials should at the very least allow people, for lack of a better term, to be agnostic towards the OS.

I believed the OS until 2006, so for 5 years, then WTC7 was brought to my attention.
I don't know exactly how, I just know the Government OS is a fabrication.

So many people know this too, they just don't actively talk about it. One of my close friends once said after we talked about it for an hour, said, "yeah there is nothing we can do to fix it now", it is an accepted historical evil at this point.

God will judge them, if humans don't bring them to justice, and that may be closer than many think.
They won't get away with this forever.
edit on 4-6-2014 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2014 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
So far these responses are very typical of what one would expect to find on this forum.

It is interesting how both sides seem to refuse to see things from a fresh perspective (i include myself in this), what the 9/11 debate needs is more members like Charles1952, open minded people who will actually take a much more objective view of the various arguments and facts free from bias. This is what I often strive to do, I try not to go into researching 9/11 with a preconceived view that the official narrative is the correct one, it just so happens that more often than not that is what my findings lead me to believe.

Now I am sure there are some members on this site who are more well read than me on the topic of 9/11 who have reached different conclusions based on the facts they have available to them and that is fine, we should embrace the differences not descend into petty arguments. The same petty arguments that are had time and time again because nobody is prepared to offer up or accept a fresh perspective.

For example I have seen quite a few member's so far on this thread talk about the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration of WTC7. How this came about is a legitimate point to raise, just how did this building fall at gravitational acceleration? With out getting into a wider debate on this issue, but to illustrate my point about seeing it from both sides lets say there are two leading schools of thought on this. Either it was explosives or it was due to the natural progression of the collapse of the building. Depending on what evidence you look at will depend on what school of thought you subscribe to, I have looked into both and deduced that the later is probably the the most fitting with the known facts.

Now that is not to say that there is not still a possibility that explosives where used, its just that I have yet to see any evidence for this that is strong enough to convince me. I have however seen evidence that demonstrates that WTC7's collapse started with a huge internal collapse of multiple floors before we saw the building begin to fall and this is what contributed to the speed of its collapse. No bombs required.

The difficulty I think will always be that yes, it looks like a controlled demolition, therefore that is the preconceived conclusion that many have arrived at before looking the evidence with some objectivity. But if we really want to know the truth of what happened on 9/11 that is exactly what we need to do, put aside our bias and just look at what fits with the sum of the facts.
edit on 4-6-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




would have been amazing if they fell at a angle


know what is really amazing....the 2005 NIST finding that 'tipping top' moving in TWO directions as soon as there is any visible movement....


NIST 1-3, 6.8.7 "at the moment of collapse of WTC2 the top portion of the building was found to have moved to the west as it tilted to the southeast".


after 56 minutes of spot fire that never covered the floor.

there are still 240 intact fireproofed vertical support connected to that, yet we see it move as a single unit....moving as one, can't do that till ALL those columns are severed from below.....and then, all of a sudden it disintegrates.......so much for the top block that is the HYPOTHESIZED claims Bazzant pushed caused collapse.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




So far these responses are very typical of what one would expect to find on this forum.


I see no one else quoting science and facts......





WTC7's collapse started with a huge internal collapse of multiple floors before we saw the building begin to fall and this is what contributed to the speed of its collapse. No bombs required.


so, how does reciting what we all see, and then posting "no bombs required", help you prove anything?????




Depending on what evidence you look at will depend on what school of thought you subscribe to


how bout FACTS and taught SCIENCE....

HUGE WHITE ELEPHANT ALERT!!!!!!!




"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


the OFFICIAL CLAIM is "low temp thermal expansion".....caused...


The NIST WTC7 report has a Fig 3-15 that 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.




....PROVE IT!

the AUTHORS of that OFFICIAL CLAIM, that "NEW SCIENCE occurred only on 9-11" refuses to.......
edit on 4-6-2014 by hgfbob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob




I see no one else quoting science and facts......


Yes but you are quoting the exact same science and facts on every single thread and acting like everyone but you has the brain to interpret them.

Your insistence on quoting the reports does not make you any more correct.

I have several threads where I have written about these reports at length and I have read each one of them in full.

Only unlike you I do not feel a need to quote them on every thread, because a single quote is not sufficient, you quoting a couple of lines in isolation from the bulk of the report means nothing. For a individual seeking a deeper understanding of what happened that day they will only get it by reading the reports and understanding them.

I have reached a point now where I do not feel a need to enter into these pointless 9/11 jousting matches. I know how they go every time and I just cannot be bothered with banging my head of a brick wall any more with the frustration that these debates induce.

I am happy enough to discuss my views but I am not going to go run away spend a afternoon diving some eloquent and well sourced retort only to have some idiot then hit me with the "ahhh but what about this......" line that will inevitable come next.

Because I find that very annoying.

Just like i find your use of caps very annoying.

edit on 4-6-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




Yes but you are quoting the exact same science and facts on every single thread and acting like everyone but you has the brain to interpret them.


uhmmmm....yet you CONTINUE to leave these ridiculous ramblings, RATHER than address what is FACT....

seems not one of you...duhbunkers ever read what is posted in reply to you....you all just keep repeating the same bull distractions.....hence the need to repeat.




I have reached a point now where I do not feel a need to enter into these pointless 9/11 jousting matches.



because you can't argue AGAINST facts and science.....lol...and you make it seem as if you have a choice.
edit on 4-6-2014 by hgfbob because: I added more stuff...



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




I am happy enough to discuss my views


therein lies the problem..your "views" include ignoring facts....there are NO views here....there are facts like them or not....and me thinks you don't like them.




Just like i find your use of caps very annoying.


a habit from utube....and I use it to emphasize......sorry it messes you up so......but how bout you work around that problem of yours to PROVIDE supporting evidence of the ALREADY IN-PLACE claims pushed as truth.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob




uhmmmm....yet you CONTINUE to leave these ridiculous ramblings, RATHER than address what is FACT..


Well I dont really have to address it, like I say, I have read all the reports, and as arrogant and this may sound when it comes to the subject of 9/11 I am very well read. I do not feel a desire to best you in any kind of debate because I also have quite a good understanding of the psychology behind what you believe and I know that most members on ATS are simply too closed minded to change their views on 9/11 and conspiracies in general because they form a corner stone of their wider understanding of the world.

I have absolutely no interest in changing your mind, as far as i am concerned these days if you want to believe the building where brought down by Jones's thermite or Juddy's energy beams go for it.



seems not one of you...duhbunkers ever read what is posted in reply to you....you all just keep repeating the same bull distractions.....hence the need to repeat


Well I like to think of my self as a truther rather than a debunker but whatever.

If you feel i am posting "bull distractions" then you do not need to respond to any of my posts, dont let yourself be distracted.

Its really that simple.




because you can't argue AGAINST facts and science.....lol...and you make it seem as if you have a choice.


No, its simply because i have absolutely no desire to get into the same debate that is had on every single 9/11 thread, its like i said before what I think is really needed from everyone is a fresh perspective. I have had to debate about those 2.25 seconds, I really don't see any point in going over it again.

if it makes you feel better you can take that as a "victory" but again, I am not really all that bothered by that.
edit on 4-6-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

Dude, just stop

If you are looking to have a debate with someone about 9/11 I am not that guy today.

if your are interested, I have a massive 10,000 word thread with lots of links, pictures and videos that provides some incite into why I do not believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Also i find it difficult to debate with a individual who has not so far, at least in this thread, stated what he/she believes caused the buildings to collapse.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: hgfbob




I see no one else quoting science and facts......





I have reached a point now where I do not feel a need to enter into these pointless 9/11 jousting matches. I know how they go every time and I just cannot be bothered with banging my head of a brick wall any more with the frustration that these debates induce.






So why do you it then? Is it in you're contract.


eluding to know one is forcing you to enter these discussions.
edit on 4-6-2014 by haven123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: haven123




So why do you is it in you're conract?


I do not understand that question, might be better if you fix the grammar.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




Well I dont really have to address it, like I say, I have read all the reports


too bad for you there is only one author of the official claim...the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew.

and there is no where within those 10,000+ pages from the 2005 NIST scientific investigation that shows the SCIENCE where impact damage and fire fell these three buildings on 9-11.


the later 2008 IGNORE their own 2005 initial findings.....so pointing to a report hat has NO supporting evidence backing the 2008 claims, is futile.




Well I like to think of my self as a truther


nope, your a poser.

a real 'truther knows whom is responsible to provide PROOF and supporting evidence.....the authors of the official claims....not a 'truther'....first come the asserted official claims, now 'truthers' are here asking and demanding...the dictum of both law and debate.

'truthers' have NO claims, they ask questions and DEMAND the supporting evidence...

why are you here......you not asking or demanding anything.....

you are a 'distraction' from truth.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




I do not understand that question, might be better if you fix the grammar.


he said why do you ignore facts and science presented....do you think you are correct????



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




I do not understand that question, might be better if you fix the grammar.


he said why do you ignore facts and science presented....do you think you are correct????


This is what really annoys me.

I am not ignoring any facts, rather the opposite.

I have quite a in depth knowledge of the events of 9/11 based on facts.

I just don't really want to enter into any kind of debate any more because they always go the same way, like i said after i have discussed one thing inevitably somebody then asks "ahhh but what about this....".

So now I just like to say my bit and be done with it, I have given up on sourcing its pointless when neither side will change their views or concede points.

And i dont think I am correct, I know i am correct.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

fixed^^^



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




And i dont think I am correct, I know i am correct.


NOT by telling people" I am correct"

PROVE IT!

shall I re-post ?



"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


that is the 2008 NIST official claim PUSHED as truth as to what fell 7.....NEW PHYSICS called ..."Low Temp Thermal Expansion"

tell me all about this brand new science that caused 105 vertical feet of global unified acceleration equal to g. within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

and why the authors REFUSE to peer review that claim.




top topics



 
118
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join