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.

 

WTC 7 fell in relative silence, no detonation capable of cutting steel.

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

For 2.5 second s of the collapse....


That just screams “moving the goal post”..


Truthers say “all the buildings fell at freefall”

Sceptics say, “no they didn’t every video shows the debris fall faster than the building..”

Truthers come back with “well fir 2.5 seconds building 7 did.”..


How do you know the videos who propose that are not being sped up???


It would be WAY easier than cgi debis.

More than that 911 was bringing a nuke to a knife fight false flag wise..


We know what American false flags look like..

Gulf of Tonkin, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Lusitania, exc..


None look like 911..

There are literally a million easier, cheaper and less risky ways to start a war..


911 is overkill on crack.




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: neutronflux

No... you're exactly right... everything all the "official" stories say are 100% fact, in all conspiracies. The government/s have never done anything nefarious.

Oh...and I absolutely buy everything the Truth Movement says, because that's exactly what I said in my post... that's not a jump of logic on your part at all, and it's great that you make such huge assumptions about what other people think, because you're always 100% accurate (just like the official stories) and contribute your great comprehension skills to a discourse.

Bravo.

I think we should all stop speculating about all potential conspiracies because a few whack-jobs went overboard with their particular theories, and take a page from your book and accept our lot as peons under the all knowledgeable and all truthful powers-that-be, even when there is a mountain of coincidences and logical discrepancies that suggest not everything may be as it seems.



This is about WTC 7. Obviously you have no credibile evidence or theories to supersede that WTC 7 was brought down by building damage from WTC 1 and 2 collapsing, fire damage, and thermal stress. Or you would provide an argument that is about WTC7.

There is zero evidence of CD.

And obviously the truth movement is populated with people with no credible. Truth movement cons that milk conspiracists for a bit of fortune and fame with nothing more than misquotes, innuendo, and pseudoscience.

Will you champion Richard Gages mythical fizzle no flash bombs that had to populate every floor?

Steven Jones’ fraudulent thermite research?

Or DR Woods fantasy of Dustification?

Will you choose self destructing buildings built with rebar covered in C-4?

Impossible hologram narratives with missiles or lasers.

The theories of nukes based only in pseudoscience, with no evidence.

Anyone that has a little background in science, and a dislike for charlatans, sees the narratives of CD at the WTC as the BS it is.

Now, would you like to cite the evidence of CD at WTC 7? Which truth movement theory totally lacking in evidence are you going to champion?

Or you going to push more false arguments. Quote where I said the government should be trusted. Quote where I said the government should not be scrutinized. I have repeatedly posted what I think the government was trying to hide during the 9/11 investigations. Is that a false statement.

But biased and blind people like you don’t understand the truth move is full of manipulative and lying persons like the government. That Richard Gage, Steve Jones, Dr. Woods, and the truth movement as a whole needs to be held to the same scrutiny as you would the government.

Sorry, but trust no one.

Only that which can be proven. So, please prove that WTC7 was brought down by planted demolitions.

I see another pointless rant coming by you, while you ignore there is no evidence of CD at WTC7.

So answer this, or go away.

Out of the truth movement theories, what type of charges do you think was used.

How did a complex floor to floor CD system survive building damage and fires?

Please cite the audio and visual evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns on every floor of WTC 7.

Please show the photographic evidence of WTC 7 that shows the steel structure was cut into floor to floor pieces.

If it was thermite, how was the CD system perfectly timed to encompass the erratic and slow burning thermite? A system that had to maintain its integrity through building damage and floor to floor fires.

Why did the collapse of WTC 7 start in relative silence. No evidence of shock waves or shrapnel from explosions.

If WTC7 was brought down by CD, why is there no seismic record from seismic recoding devices in Manhattan on 9/11.

Can you refute this linked to paper?
www.implosionworld.com...
edit on 8-2-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

And if you don’t think people with some intelligence don’t fall for “truth movement” cons, or push them just to find the sheep, then you need to study flat earth.

Or study Sir arthur conan doyle and the cottingley fairs.

Or you want to study a honest assessment of the weaknesses concerning NIST and WTC 7, here is a link:
wtc7-is-ae911s-and-nists-focus-on-a2001-justified-if-it-was-not-key-in-nists-global-model.t9427/

www.metabunk.org...

But the fact remains, for whatever reason, Intelligence people do champion theories based out of total pseudoscience. Such as flat earth, photos of fairies, WTC 7 CD...

Bottom line, truth movements are not about truth. It’s about finding sheep and making people jump.
edit on 8-2-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The top 911 truth , search result on yourube was also a flat earth channel lol.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


For 2.5 second s of the collapse.... That just screams “moving the goal post”..

No, it screams what it is.... 2.25 sec of the collapse was in free fall, period.



Truthers say “all the buildings fell at freefall”

We are talking about #7



Truthers come back with “well fir 2.5 seconds building 7 did.”..

That is correct, because it is a fact.... still not accepting this huh?



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

You going to define natural collapse for a steel structure?

Able to cite that scientific law that states it is impossible for a mostly hollow building to collapse at the rate of free fall.

Still going to ignore that WTC 7 only achieved the rate of free fall in the middle of the collapse. Not at the start, and not at the final duration of collapse.

Going to cite how WTC 7 looked like a classic collapse.

Going to explain how a CD system survive building damage and fires?

What type of charges are you going with, and have proof of. Fizzle no flash, thermite, or rebar covered in C-4. Or you a Dustification kinda person?



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


You going to define natural collapse for a steel structure?

A collapse without introducing an unknown force.



Able to cite that scientific law that states it is impossible for a mostly hollow building to collapse at the rate of free fall.

Any amount of free fall means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the buildings fall.



Still going to ignore that WTC 7 only achieved the rate of free fall in the middle of the collapse. Not at the start, and not at the final duration of collapse.

Not ignored, I understand the timeline of the collapse rate.



Going to cite how WTC 7 looked like a classic collapse.

By watching any collapse video of #7.



Going to explain how a CD system survive building damage and fires?

Don't know.... was the entire building damaged and on fire??



What type of charges are you going with, and have proof of. Fizzle no flash, thermite, or rebar covered in C-4. Or you a Dustification kinda person?

The "type" is irrelevant... The importance is if the collapse had help falling, that's all that matters.

How did the thermal expansion on column number 79 causes the whole building to implode on itself?

Did that thermal expansion cause all of the columns in the whole building to collapse as if they didn't exist?



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

The truth narrative , just like the narrative of a religion has constantly changed to fit the evidence..

EVERYONE used to say that both towersAND 7 fell at free fall..

Now that has been whittled down to a supposedly 2.5 second period and one building..

Have you actually established that it fell for freefall AT ALL , or are we just trusting the you tube channel of a flat earther??

None of y’all can keep your stories straight..

There are not 2 , 911 theories..

There is the mainstream. Account and about 2000 various different truther proposals, none of which agree with the other...



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

“The collapse had help falling, but I don’t know how or why..”


Lol sounds rock solid to me



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

You

“How did the thermal expansion on column number 79 causes the whole building to implode on itself?”

Pointed out weaknesses of NIST Model:

wtc7-is-ae911s-and-nists-focus-on-a2001-justified-if-it-was-not-key-in-nists-global-model.t9427/

www.metabunk.org...

It may not have been all about column 79.



www.metabunk.org...

By: Mick West


I wanted to convey that the initiating event was not a single girder walk off. There's several simultaneous initiating events around C79, none of which were girder walk-offs. But it was hard to show that in the podcast, so I pointed to the other area to show that more than one thing was going on. I should probably had focussed more on the multiple beam and girder failures that actually led to the collapse (in that simulation)


And quote where I ever said thermal expansion alone? It is a number of issues. Improper fire insulation, lack of a traditional concrete core, floor connections at angles not common in construction, fire weakening of steel, buckling, WTC 7 standing over a substation, no fire fighting efforts, and building damage from the towers’ collapse.


Nice false argument by you.
edit on 10-2-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Again, state what scientific law states a building cannot collapse at the rate of free fall? There is none.

how-buckling-led-to-free-fall-acceleration-for-part-of-wtc7s-collapse.t8270/

www.metabunk.org...



By Mick West

www.metabunk.org...

The problem here is that it does not make sense to people. Even if the columns buckled, wouldn't they still provide some resistance? Well yes, but the key question here is how much resistance. If they provide a force equal to the mass they support times g, then the mass they support will not move. If they provide a force equal to 1% of the mass times g, then the mass will move down with an acceleration of 99% of g (i.e. negligible resistance, and essentially free fall).

Columns of a building can support a static load of a low multiple of the mass above them before failing. Conservatively you can use 2x. So put very simply if the support of a column was to be reduced so that the mass it previously supported were to fall at 99% of g, then the supporting strength of the column would have to be reduced by a factor of 200.

And this happens when a tall column or wall loses its support and buckles.

Notice is does not mean zero support. If a column could support 1000 tons, and it's degraded by a factor of 200 then than means it can still support 5 tons. However while the column is buckling the 1000 tons it was supporting will fall at an acceleration of 99% of g.



99% of g is well in the accuracy of trying to determine when the actual collapse of WTC 7 started from video, and trying to determine the rate of collapse from video.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I can explain why WTC 7 did not look like a classic CD.

I can link to experts stating why WTC 7 did not look like a classic CD, and why WTC 7 was not brought down by CD.
www.implosionworld.com...

A document not refuted by you.

So, please explain how WTC 7 looked like a CD. Just don’t wave your hand and say it did. Typical conspiracist behavior.

You:
“By watching any collapse video of #7. ”
Please list what you saw to make you believe it was a classic CD?



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

You:
“Don't know.... was the entire building damaged and on fire?? ”

So? To keep your faith in CD you have to remain totally ignorant on the subject?


Please state, if you think the truth movement has a credible argument of CD, which theory you champion?

AE 9/11 Truth / Richard Gage mythical fizzle no flash explosives

Steven Jones’s fraudulent thermite work.

Dr wood and Dustification.

Rebar covered in C-4, or self destructing buildings?

Nuclear Bombs.

The prevalent theories of the truth movement after 15 years shows they are full of BS.


edit on 10-2-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 10-2-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Again there are more studies concerning WTC7 than NIST?




ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-31

www.metabunk.org...

By: benthamitemetric


Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science worked on Hulsey's study.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: neutronflux

What are you talking about,there were explosions on all the main support members,the building was set up for demolition in 99,use fact instead of theory,makes more sense


Where did you read or hear that it was set up for demolition in 99? Just curious...

Thanks



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: torok67


Sounds like a bluff to me



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




EVERYONE used to say that both towersAND 7 fell at free fall..

1. I guarantee it's not 'EVERYONE" 2. I don't care about 'EVERYONE"



Have you actually established that it fell for freefall AT ALL

Last time, FF is a fact for #7... move along please.



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: kyleplatinum

“The collapse had help falling, but I don’t know how or why..”


Lol sounds rock solid to me


lol, ok Einstein....

If a bird falls dead out of the sky, you know the bird is dead on the ground, but do you know how or why??



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



So? To keep your faith in CD you have to remain totally ignorant on the subject?

No. You asked...


how a CD system survive building damage and fires?

I responded with...
"Don't know.... was the entire building damaged and on fire??"

I get that I answered a question with a question, but what it seems you are implying is... a CD system couldn't survive because the building had damage and fires. Was the ENTIRE building damaged and on fire?? I'll answer for you.. NO.



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   
This is how the towers fell.




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join