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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 43
135
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




but that someone had to make some serious leaps and bounds to come up with ideas on why their theory is right.


I can remember the lack of any scientific study regarding the complete collaps of all WTC-buildings. Can you? There is no need nor base to redicule the OP, collapse and explosions have been caught on video.

And NIST didn't come up with a coherent theory to explain it all, neither did any OT-believer who did partake in this thread. We have to live with different opinions on the matter as long as there is no scientific study to nail the topic with. In respect thereof, something to consider as well.


What you meant to type was "Nist didn't come up with a coherent theory that I agree with to explain it all". What Nist did do was come up with a coherent theory to explain it all. And there is the rub. There is no more evidence that they can show you because it's all on show. You are relying on YouTube videos and out of context quotes and a day of panic and garbled information. The evidence quite obviously removes these elements of doubt but you don't wish to accept them.


Actually, no explanation has been given for the complete collapse of the towers. NIST stopped at collapse initiation with the statement that "collapse was inevitable". Not an explanation at all. And as for WTC 7, anyone can see that their model of the collapse was absolutely nothing like the witnessed event. So again, not an explanation, just a theory...and not a very good one judging by their model.




posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




but that someone had to make some serious leaps and bounds to come up with ideas on why their theory is right.


I can remember the lack of any scientific study regarding the complete collaps of all WTC-buildings. Can you? There is no need nor base to redicule the OP, collapse and explosions have been caught on video.

And NIST didn't come up with a coherent theory to explain it all, neither did any OT-believer who did partake in this thread. We have to live with different opinions on the matter as long as there is no scientific study to nail the topic with. In respect thereof, something to consider as well.


What you meant to type was "Nist didn't come up with a coherent theory that I agree with to explain it all". What Nist did do was come up with a coherent theory to explain it all. And there is the rub. There is no more evidence that they can show you because it's all on show. You are relying on YouTube videos and out of context quotes and a day of panic and garbled information. The evidence quite obviously removes these elements of doubt but you don't wish to accept them.


Actually, no explanation has been given for the complete collapse of the towers. NIST stopped at collapse initiation with the statement that "collapse was inevitable". Not an explanation at all. And as for WTC 7, anyone can see that their model of the collapse was absolutely nothing like the witnessed event. So again, not an explanation, just a theory...and not a very good one judging by their model.


Blah blah blah, "I don't buy it," blah blah blah, "Moving the goalposts," blah blah blah, "Explain every single moment in excruciating detail to my personal satisfaction even though I won't understand most of it anyway or you're clearly lying," blah blah blah. . .



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




but that someone had to make some serious leaps and bounds to come up with ideas on why their theory is right.


I can remember the lack of any scientific study regarding the complete collaps of all WTC-buildings. Can you? There is no need nor base to redicule the OP, collapse and explosions have been caught on video.

And NIST didn't come up with a coherent theory to explain it all, neither did any OT-believer who did partake in this thread. We have to live with different opinions on the matter as long as there is no scientific study to nail the topic with. In respect thereof, something to consider as well.


What you meant to type was "Nist didn't come up with a coherent theory that I agree with to explain it all". What Nist did do was come up with a coherent theory to explain it all. And there is the rub. There is no more evidence that they can show you because it's all on show. You are relying on YouTube videos and out of context quotes and a day of panic and garbled information. The evidence quite obviously removes these elements of doubt but you don't wish to accept them.


Actually, no explanation has been given for the complete collapse of the towers. NIST stopped at collapse initiation with the statement that "collapse was inevitable". Not an explanation at all. And as for WTC 7, anyone can see that their model of the collapse was absolutely nothing like the witnessed event. So again, not an explanation, just a theory...and not a very good one judging by their model.


Which part after collapse was inevitable is confusing? The bit when it fell or the bit at the bottom when it stopped falling? You'll never be able to model precisely everything that happens during a collapse.

As for wtc7. I read the report. I watched the videos. Makes sense to me. Your issue seems to be it doesn't look like what you want it to look like. Perhaps we dismiss the many materials engineers and structural engineers who sat on the nist panel and we you can tell us what you, from your much less informed position, believe should have happened?



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




but that someone had to make some serious leaps and bounds to come up with ideas on why their theory is right.


I can remember the lack of any scientific study regarding the complete collaps of all WTC-buildings. Can you? There is no need nor base to redicule the OP, collapse and explosions have been caught on video.

And NIST didn't come up with a coherent theory to explain it all, neither did any OT-believer who did partake in this thread. We have to live with different opinions on the matter as long as there is no scientific study to nail the topic with. In respect thereof, something to consider as well.


What you meant to type was "Nist didn't come up with a coherent theory that I agree with to explain it all". What Nist did do was come up with a coherent theory to explain it all. And there is the rub. There is no more evidence that they can show you because it's all on show. You are relying on YouTube videos and out of context quotes and a day of panic and garbled information. The evidence quite obviously removes these elements of doubt but you don't wish to accept them.


Actually, no explanation has been given for the complete collapse of the towers. NIST stopped at collapse initiation with the statement that "collapse was inevitable". Not an explanation at all. And as for WTC 7, anyone can see that their model of the collapse was absolutely nothing like the witnessed event. So again, not an explanation, just a theory...and not a very good one judging by their model.


Blah blah blah, "I don't buy it," blah blah blah, "Moving the goalposts," blah blah blah, "Explain every single moment in excruciating detail to my personal satisfaction even though I won't understand most of it anyway or you're clearly lying," blah blah blah. . .


Pleasant chap aren't you....at least you're improving a bit, you've almost constructed complete sentences. Keep trying.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




but that someone had to make some serious leaps and bounds to come up with ideas on why their theory is right.


I can remember the lack of any scientific study regarding the complete collaps of all WTC-buildings. Can you? There is no need nor base to redicule the OP, collapse and explosions have been caught on video.

And NIST didn't come up with a coherent theory to explain it all, neither did any OT-believer who did partake in this thread. We have to live with different opinions on the matter as long as there is no scientific study to nail the topic with. In respect thereof, something to consider as well.


What you meant to type was "Nist didn't come up with a coherent theory that I agree with to explain it all". What Nist did do was come up with a coherent theory to explain it all. And there is the rub. There is no more evidence that they can show you because it's all on show. You are relying on YouTube videos and out of context quotes and a day of panic and garbled information. The evidence quite obviously removes these elements of doubt but you don't wish to accept them.


Actually, no explanation has been given for the complete collapse of the towers. NIST stopped at collapse initiation with the statement that "collapse was inevitable". Not an explanation at all. And as for WTC 7, anyone can see that their model of the collapse was absolutely nothing like the witnessed event. So again, not an explanation, just a theory...and not a very good one judging by their model.


Blah blah blah, "I don't buy it," blah blah blah, "Moving the goalposts," blah blah blah, "Explain every single moment in excruciating detail to my personal satisfaction even though I won't understand most of it anyway or you're clearly lying," blah blah blah. . .


Pleasant chap aren't you....at least you're improving a bit, you've almost constructed complete sentences. Keep trying.


I tend to respond in accord with what is presented. Present bad arguments with no foundation and I tend to point it out.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru




Your issue seems to be it doesn't look like what you want it to look like.


My issue is it doesn't look anything like what actually happened. That should raise a red flag with anyone.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: scottyirnbru




Your issue seems to be it doesn't look like what you want it to look like.


My issue is it doesn't look anything like what actually happened. That should raise a red flag with anyone.


That doesn't make any sense at all. You are literally just disagreeing with everything you do not want to hear.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

You know.. the structural engineers somehow seem to be unaccountable for the complete failure they constructed.
I just love our ot-thrusters! Reputational damage without any evidence, you definitely need some balls to pull this show off.

Applause and standing ovations, my dear players! Yes. All of you, consider myself very entertained.




posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You are right. We should take out all the structural engineers that were responsible for building WTC 7 and shoot them ISIS style. How DARE they design a building that is not impervious to a skyscraper collapsing into it and setting it on fire.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: scottyirnbru




Your issue seems to be it doesn't look like what you want it to look like.


My issue is it doesn't look anything like what actually happened. That should raise a red flag with anyone.


That doesn't make any sense at all. You are literally just disagreeing with everything you do not want to hear.


Do I honestly have to post a video of side by side comparisons of the NIST model and the actual event? i'm sure just about everyone on this forum has seen it. I'm sure you've seen it too. Please explain what doesn't make sense.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat




Do I honestly have to post a video of side by side comparisons of the NIST model and the actual event?

You arguing minutia.
We have lots of evidence of planes initiating the whole thing.
We have ZERO evidence for anything else.
That is the bottom line.
I don't care what so called expert says to the contrary.
NO evidence of anything else.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Show me your evidence for this rediculous reputational damage. NIST somehow even forgot to mention the cores. Yeah I know, who ceres anyway... and cores? Which one?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There were none mentioned. Funny stuff, isn't it?
This whole discussion usually stops exactly at this point. What a shame.
edit on 15-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You are starting to remind me of a poster from that past who used big words in trying to advance their ideas....and generally it made them look foolish. Rediculous reputational damage? That makes no sense in regards to my post you were answering.


edit on 15-7-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




How DARE they design a building that is not impervious to a skyscraper collapsing into it and setting it on fire.


How dare they designed a building that collapsed due to a crashing airplane, that was just 20% bigger than the one that it should withstand easily?
I see no coherent theory to accept the explanation for those falling towers in the first place. Explain that and we may talk about one failing column, that 'magically' let to the collapse of a third building into it's own footprint. Just another conspiracy-theory on a big pile of crap, that lacks any objectivity at all.

And excuse my French if you like, I'm just a lazy Kraut.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Flatcoat




Do I honestly have to post a video of side by side comparisons of the NIST model and the actual event?

You arguing minutia.
We have lots of evidence of planes initiating the whole thing.
We have ZERO evidence for anything else.
That is the bottom line.
I don't care what so called expert says to the contrary.
NO evidence of anything else.


See, that right there is the HUGE PROBLEM for Truthers. There is Z-E-R-O evidence of the magical explosives either being there, being placed there, or exploding. Nor is there ANY evidence of them in ANY of the remaining samples of the debris. It's just that simple. Do we have film of planes being flown into the buildings? You bet we do. Do we have film of the collapses as they happened? You bet we do. In all of that, is there ANY SHRED of evidence as to supposed explosives? No. Not one tiny shred. So all Truthers have. . . is denial.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent




We have lots of evidence of planes initiating the whole thing.


There is no scientific study with regards to the cores. None, nothing, nada, niente. They 'magically' vanished.
But all those twoofers could deny that as well, I guess. Soo... if you and all the other wisdom-keepers wish them to do so - this is your chance!

Just say the magic three words:
Cores? Which cores?



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: samkent




We have lots of evidence of planes initiating the whole thing.


There is no scientific study with regards to the cores. None, nothing, nada, niente. They 'magically' vanished.
But all those twoofers could deny that as well, I guess. Soo... if you and all the other wisdom-keepers wish them to do so - this is your chance!

Just say the magic three words:
Cores? Which cores?



The problem here is that you just keep moving the goal posts. Nothing will ever satisfy you. There does not need to be a scientific study done to your own personal satisfaction. The truth does not rest with you. We all saw what happened. There is plenty of evidence right before your eyes. You have plenty of questions. The problem is that you do not like the answers.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Flatcoat




Do I honestly have to post a video of side by side comparisons of the NIST model and the actual event?

You arguing minutia.
We have lots of evidence of planes initiating the whole thing.
We have ZERO evidence for anything else.
That is the bottom line.
I don't care what so called expert says to the contrary.
NO evidence of anything else.


We're discussing WTC 7. No planes involved I'm afraid.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion Such blind faith must be fantastic. Blind faith that the building design will withstand a high speed impact. Blind faith that the fireproofing would not be dislodged from the steel it is supposed to protect. Blind faith that there will still be a way to fight a fire before it surpasses the three hour rating for structural steel that is FULLY protected by fireproofing. You have a lot of blind faith. See, Herbert Levine said it best when he said that a large fire above the 60th floor would cause the building to collapse.....and he wasn't even considering a high speed airliner slamming into the building.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat. Nope. No airplanes, just a collapsing 1100 foot skyscraper falling into it.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join