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.

 

9/11 Museum’s Biggest Oversight: No Mention of WTC Building 7

page: 11
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

You said they were perfect. I took that to mean you had some idea.




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco

Well considering the extreme height of the buildings, and the close proximity to many other buildings, I would say it was successful for the most part. Perfect? Well maybe that word was too strong, but it could have gone much worse.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




We've been over this before


the old stand-by...."we already did this"......gee I hear that so much from duhbunkers...because that is all they can post.

none of you can actually provide data supporting the claims pushed......so you just say there is.


but that don't seem to be working too good for ya here....why is that?





I don't need to "nullify" anything.


of course you don't, but hey, wouldn't it be nice to be able to say...."NO controlled demo took place here, FIRE did all this, and here is the EVIDENCE to prove it".....why is that sentence so far out of reach?

as is that evidence.....






The world proceeds


yup, and I still have a gig tonight......your point?






no general accpetance of your claims


a 'truther' has NO claims......they ask questions and DEMAND yours representing the claims pushed as truth.

???????...where is it...??????

2005 NIST found NO failed steel from THESE fires...YOU claim there is yet fail to provide.

2005 NIST found impacts caused minimal damage, less then 14.5%, yet you respond to anyone asking by retorting....."OMG! FIFTY KAGILLIONJIGAGAGAWATTTTZZZZ OF ENERGY!@ NOTHING CAN WITHSTAND THAT!##!#!!!"

[shakes head]

and we have the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew ON VIDEO, officially claiming that a "brand new physics phenomenon", never occurring before or since 9-11, fell WTC7 globally and unified equal to g. within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.



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



new science they refuse to prove through science....just push as truth.




You're the one with the mountain to climb. I'm sitting on top of it.



oh no duhbunker....the mountain is moving....most people do not know about this FACT of the OFFICIAL claim pushed of,"NEW SCIENCE", because for SOME REASON, NIST 08 REMOVED this video and ALL reference off their site.....
...good thing people recorder that LIVE webcast huh!!!!!!!!

but it is fact none the less......so you sitting there on an artificially made mole hill, will soon be presented with more and more people talking about this FACT.

you ignore what you don't want to heart....but that is ok, cause I have NO problem at all constantly reminding you.



so you go sit pretty duhbunker, perched there upon that throne of the perfidious postings you do......cause times, they are a changin...



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

Why are you still posting?

This thread should have been over in the first three pages because most of us can see that regardless of what we think might have happened to WTC-7 it does kind of make sense why it would not be included in the Memorial Museum.

But you just want to keep beating this dead dog the way you do on every single 9/11 thread demanding evidence for everything, ignoring that evidence and then making bold claims by manipulating and cherry picking the established facts.

This is a prime example of what i mean when you say that WTC7 collapsed due to a:



"brand new NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon"


Seriously dude,

This reads like you are trying to argue that the laws of thermal expansion are some how "NEVER BEFORE SEEN" physics.

What a load of rubbish.

You are just blatantly manipulating the facts.

What NIST do say is that what was a new phenomenon was how the differences in the co-efficent of thermal expansion between building materials caused a catastrophic weakness to a already structurally compromised leading to a unified collapse. Essentially the concrete floors and the steel girders expanded at different rates as the fires got hotter, (with no attempt to extinguish these fires) this caused the steel and concrete to crack and become week, eventually so week that almost a whole floor collapsed onto another weakened floor witch in-turn feel to another floor and so on for about 7 floors. This huge internal collapse left no lateral support for one of the huge supporting columns so then it collapsed setting of a huge internal collapse sequence which manifested in the exterior of the building just crumbling away because there was no longer anything to support it left internally.

But no Thermal expansion is not "new" stop trying to say it is.

For now however lets move away from that.

lets move on to your horrible attitude

It always amazes me how a few words on a screen if strung along together with the right punctuation can really make you sound like a total jerk (as does calling people "pathetic debunkers". Now I am sure your actually a very pleasant individual and its nice to see you get passionate about a topic you are interested in but you can do that with out the "OMG COLOUR CAPS TO SHOW EVERYONE WHAT A IDIOT I THINK YOU ARE AND HOW RIGHT I AM".

Really that and your over use of ellipsis's with your arrogant and patronising posts make it both very annoying and at times very difficult to read your posts.

You seem like a intelligent kind of guy/gall and there is no need for the attitude or all that punctuation


Lastly something else that I think might make it easier to converse with you would be if you actually had a point of view yourself other than the official story is wrong.

For me I subscribe to the official story and argue from that stand point but only because it is the theory that best fits all of the known facts. As such should a fact be presented that shifts the balance of evidence so strongly that it refutes that theory then my views would change, my views are very flexible on this subject. Yet conversely yours seem to be fixed firmly on the idea that the official story is wrong, you don't seem to sure why it is wrong (see your confusion over thermal expansion above) and at the same time you also don't offer up any kind of alternative hypothesis to replace the official story.

edit on 21-6-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




Why are you still posting?


kind of obvious....isn't it.....




the way you do on every single 9/11 thread demanding evidence for everything



not everything....just the already in-place claims PUSHED as truth.


and per your posting....I'm still waiting.





This huge internal collapse left no lateral support for one of the huge supporting columns


and we know this HOW???


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


duhbunker...NO steel was looked at from WTC7, so HOW can one PUSH an official claim in the MASS MURDER of 3000 innocents.....that NEW science is to blame...and then refuse to prove it.



Seriously dude,

This reads like you are trying to argue that the laws of thermal expansion are some how "NEVER BEFORE SEEN" physics.



no duhbunker....the official claim of, [you seem to leave off these FIRST TWO words], "Low Temp Thermal Expansion"


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


hence the reason 2008 NIST states...."phenomenon"....[something (such as an interesting fact or event) that can be observed and studied and that typically is unusual or difficult to understand or explain fully.].....

i.e. global unified acceleration equal to g. within the first 1/3 of WTC7's 6.5 second collapse.


to which 2008 claims....LOW TEMP thermal expansion enables conditions for the free fall @ 1.75seconds to 4.0s.





You are just blatantly manipulating the facts.


another fact-less statement by YOU, never showing how I do that......why is that?

seems you are the one doing that by LEAVING off the first two words when replying back to me, and then basing your ENTIRE post on that lie.....lol..seriously dude!


there is no denying it.....you just did it.




But no Thermal expansion is not "new" stop trying to say it is.


but LOW TEMP thermal expansion IS........stop LEAVING OFF the first two words duhbunker.





Lastly something else that I think might make it easier to converse with you would be if you actually had a point of view yourself other than the official story is wrong.


my point of view is YOU provide the supporting evidence of the claims pushed as truth...

now, tell em ALL about the brand new never before seen physics phenomenon of LOW TEMP thermal expansion......that so far in HISTORY of building and fires, has only occurred on 9-11.

they CLAIM it occurred......the authors of that never before seen science, REFUSE to prove it through science....

now since you claim this is all BULL, then all YOU have to do is PROVE the official story.....why can't you provide anything when you reply back????


scientifically convince me the OS is true.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   
What boggles the mind is how stupid people are.

You tell them WTC7 also fell that day, and they're like "so what?".

They have no concept.

It's only because so many people are extremely stupid that this conspiracy was a success.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob




my point of view is YOU provide the supporting evidence of the claims pushed as truth...


What claims?


This thread is clear as day, read the title



Is this a thread about what brought down Bldg 7 or the no mention of it in the museum /memorial?




scientifically convince me the OS is true.


You cant open another thread that debates and discusses the "OS"?

NO wonder no answers will ever be concluded, You cant discuss what the topic at hand is, such a simple task, a conversation to be held on a certain topic without steering the conversation into a debate about proving the official story or what not is what makes the image "truthers" give of as being completely insane.

Not going to bother going over your posts in this thread but has even one post been on topic?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale




Is this a thread about what brought down Bldg 7 or the no mention of it in the museum /memorial?


or the reasons why there is no mention of WTC7......





You cant open another thread that debates and discusses the "OS"?


I am discussing the REASONS WTC7 is NOT mentioned, and the OS of WTC7 is part of it.






steering the conversation into a debate about proving the official story or what not is what makes the image "truthers" give of as being completely insane.


..."insane"?....for asking questions and demanding the supporting evidence of the already in-place claims pushed...if it is oh so out of the ordinary to respond.....then the one debating should say...."hey, lets discuss this elsewhere, this thread is not about that"....but it seem NO ONE wants to discuss the absolute COMPLICITY of the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew to HIDE scientific facts and LIE about what occurred at WTC7.

the agenda of hiding WTC7 from the public has been ongoing since day one. and rightly so, it's the thorn in their side.





Not going to bother going over your posts in this thread but has even one post been on topic?



lol....not gonna bother huh.......oh, you read them all duhbunker, didn't you...and besides, I get that same response more than not from duhbunkers stating.."I'm not even going to read this nonsense"...funny that you should come up with that same response, huh.
btw......I didn't see you post on other threads I am on to DISCREDIT me with supporting evidence.......why are you so obdurate to oblige here to prove a point?

I gave an opinion as to why there is no mention of WTC7, and IMO, is within the intentions of this thread.....sorry that it ALL ties in with everything else 9-11......



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob


the old stand-by...."we already did this"......gee I hear that so much from duhbunkers...because that is all they can post.



I don't mean we've rehearsed the factual arguments. I'm saying that we've discussed why I don't need to do anything and the ball is in your court. Which means you need to hit it, not whinge about why no one is hitting it for you.


but that don't seem to be working too good for ya here....why is that?


Wrong- they are working just fine. As I've said, the world agrees with me. All you have are a series of demands that nobody cares about and a fantasy that somehow, with the same arguments, no mainstream interest or support and dwindling resources, you are somehow going to win out.

Unlikely, I'd say.







so you go sit pretty duhbunker, perched there upon that throne of the perfidious postings you do......cause times, they are a changin...


Okay. As I say I'll check in with you every couple of months and see how much the "times" have changed.

Get your excuses ready now



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
or the reasons why there is no mention of WTC7


Oh, so you still have not stopped and thought about why it is not there - as well as the other buildings that are also not there....

If you did that you would suddenly realise why they are not in the Memorial!



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

It knocked down three other buildings (at least). Not sure you'd be happy with that result if you'd paid for a CD!



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob




you read them all duhbunker, didn't you...and besides, I get that same response more than not from duhbunkers stating.."I'm not even going to read this nonsense"...funny that you should come up with that same response, huh.


there really needs to face palm icon.

What have I tried debunking, what are on about?




btw......I didn't see you post on other threads I am on to DISCREDIT me with supporting evidence


Yes because as I previously posted I haven't bothered with the 9/11 circus for a while now.

Seeing as how you post and how excited you get I think the circus hasn't died down but gone completely insane, I wouldn't even waste my time to see what arguments you have in the other threads seeing as you really don't want or cant follow a simple path to truth, you just want to fight.

If there must be sides like truthers or OS pushers well buddy I'm a truther and you sir are an idiot or a troll working against any one that is searching online for answers.

Some have gone past the online circus because they see it for what it is,

You just want someone to try and "DISCREDIT" you so you can release what ever it is you release when you post in these forums.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




I'm saying that we've discussed why I don't need to do anything


there was no discussion...you refuse to provide anything.....on this thread, or any other WTC7 thread...





the world agrees with me. All you have are a series of demands that nobody cares about and a fantasy that somehow, with the same arguments


you think so, prove it to me on the other 9-11 thread about the EVIDENCE, ....why is it this is the only thread you will respond to me on?....you and bruce
the only one where we can't discuss the official claims.....


a "series of demands"??....no duhbunker, it's called PROVING what you push.....and as for our other threads here we are involved in, you run away, refusing to respond...

reminds me of #18 and 19......The 25 Rules of Disinformation.


18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


why do I think no mention of WTC7.......cause they would rather forget it.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

why don't you hop on over to another thread and discuss the science of 9-11?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale




well buddy I'm a truther


.....judging by your response, you are not.




Some have gone past the online circus because they see it for what it is



why don't you go over to another thread I post on and we shall discuss what kind of circus is in town.....you seem no different than these other two here......they only respond to me on a thread where we can't discuss anything.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob




.....judging by your response, you are not.


My response/s in this thread is quite easy to follow.

It began with trying to point out what another member was saying and agreeing with that point.

Everything else onwards was questioning what I found sounded incorrect which lead to many posts trying to point out I don't want to discuss the OS or whatever science you want to discuss, I wanted to discuss what the thread calls for and that is Could this be another conspiracy to push the already lingering 100s already out there by leaving out Bldg 7 or simply like many have pointed out its not there because Its a memorial for the twin towers not for the whole World Trade Centre Complex and other surrounding building that were destroyed.




why don't you go over to another thread I post on and we shall discuss what kind of circus is in town.....you seem no different than these other two here......they only respond to me on a thread where we can't discuss anything.


So I was right,

Thanks for the invite but like I said in my previous post, NO thanks.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco

No it didn't. It damaged other buildings sure. Given the height of the buildings and that there were planes full of jet fuel that crashed into them, it wasn't that bad. Especially considering how close in proximity they were.

Look up the world record building height for a controlled demolition. 1/3 the height of the WTC towers, and considering two of them collapsed, the limited amount of collateral damage linked purely to debris(not fire) is impressive.
edit on 24-6-2014 by Euphem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob


there was no discussion...you refuse to provide anything.....on this thread, or any other WTC7 thread...


Pay attention. There was a discussion about how I don't have to provide you with anything.






you think so, prove it to me on the other 9-11 thread about the EVIDENCE, ....why is it this is the only thread you will respond to me on?....you and bruce
the only one where we can't discuss the official claims.....


As you note later I have responded to you on other threads. My point is that you are the one that needs to prove something, not me. I am satisfied. The world at large is satisfied. You may well be right, but events progress as though you are not.

So if I was you I'd change your game.



a "series of demands"??....no duhbunker, it's called PROVING what you push.....and as for our other threads here we are involved in, you run away, refusing to respond...


I don't refuse to respond. I refuse to provide you with the information you demand. This is because, first, I don't think your question is genuine - I suspect you will reject any answer no matter how persuasive. And second because I want to show you how having a hissy fit doesn't change anything. We still live in a world that agrees with me, and no matter how steamingly angry you get, that won't change unless you marshall your argument and strategy more effectively.




18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.


I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm quite upfront about why I'm not answering your demands, and it has nothing to do with making you look sensitive. Although you do look quite sensitive, it has to be said.


19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


I haven't ignored proof because by your own admission you have offered none. I haven't demanded any either. What you do is your own concern, I'm just pointing out that at the moment what you're doing is not working.


why do I think no mention of WTC7.......cause they would rather forget it.


Or it's a memorial and that tends to be something involving people who died.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

It wasn't that bad = it was perfect ?

Don't think so.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco

Okay so detach yourself from my "perfect" comment as I already stated it wasn't. Get back to actually responding to my posts instead mmkay?




top topics



 
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join