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.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 25
3
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Please provide me with links to those pictures and threads detailing what you describe first before I continue with this topic. Until such time I cannot, and will not, proceed with this argument.

And still nobody answers my second question....




posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Please provide me with links to those pictures and threads detailing what you describe first before I continue with this topic. Until such time I cannot, and will not, proceed with this argument.

And still nobody answers my second question....


Please start here: www.debunking911.com...

Assuming this is your second question:

Also, if you have time, could you also please explain to me why so much of the footage has been confiscated and never released? Could you explain, out of the numerous camera's situated around the Pentagon, why only 5 frames from one camera were released?

You are wrong, four cameras have been released thusfar, and FOIA requests have identified the contents of the remaining cameras. Do you really think the USG is going to 'pander' to conspiracy theorists? If you want these videos releasing, file a FOIA request for them!



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I was under the assumption that a non-American who does not live there either could not access the FOIA. Please correct me if I am wrong.

And those debunking websites just seem to spew out the same old rehashed crap they always have. I wouldn't trust the source of that website either to save my life.

Quite frankly, to bring this back to the original topic, the premise of it being demolition as opposed to just the planes hitting makes more logical sense to me. I believe what I see with my own two eyes and those eyes saw a kink in WTC7 as it fell, and little puffs of smoke preceeding the fall of each tower indicating an explosive device.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadowXIX
 

But please tell me how buidling 7 went down then, since you say that "It was due to planes hitting the buildings and not a cigar fire...."

Best regards.

Loke.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

bsbray11
Ahhhh.. Now I see why you call it extreme!

That smoke isn't coming from Building 7, it's the concrete dust that came the collapse of one of the two WTC towers.

Here's another example of such a dust cloud, from the South Tower's collapse:

External Image


wecomeinpeace
I originally thought that the cloud in the WTC7 photo could be from the collapse of a tower, but a look at the layout seems to refute this.

Here is the full, uncropped photo of the smoke coming from WTC7:

WTC2 collapsed first, followed by WTC1. You can see the piece of debris that has hit the top of the Winter Garden and also some damage to SE corner of WFC3. This debris and damage could only have come from the collapse of WTC1, since WTC2 is too far away. Therefore at the time of this photograph, both towers had already collapsed. The only possible way that the cloud could be from a collapse would be if the debris fell and hit those buildings before the dust cloud reached them, which seems unlikely, but not impossible.

What you are overlooking is that huge piece of steel stuck in WFC3 was hurled over there by explosives in WTC1. That multi-ton piece of steel is about 450 feet from the North Tower. Those are corner offices in that nearest edge of WTC7 and not one has smoke coming out of it. That is a concrete dust cloud you see between the buildings and it looks exactly like the other slurry clouds. Did you think every window on the WTC7 south face was broken and pouring out smoke with raging fires on every floor? Nobody has claimed fires on every floor. This is the dust cloud from the WTC1 top-down demolition.

North Tower Top-Down Explosive Demolition

Diagram of WTC





[edit on 10/3/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
I was under the assumption that a non-American who does not live there either could not access the FOIA. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have heard contradictory information on this, I am a British citizen and so I don't really know what the deal is. There are plenty of American truthers though.


And those debunking websites just seem to spew out the same old rehashed crap they always have. I wouldn't trust the source of that website either to save my life.

They very clearly show a picture from cleanup of columns being cut at an angle. You trying to attack the source is irrelevant.


Originally posted by SPreston
What you are overlooking is that huge piece of steel stuck in WFC3 was hurled over there by explosives in WTC1.

Of course it wasn't. This is a perimeter column section, how in the world would explosives manage to hurl a perimeter column that far, but not blast lightweight debris at supersonic speeds over the entire site? Do you have any idea of the ludicrous quantity of explosives you'd need? It defies logic.


Those are corner offices in that nearest edge of WTC7 and not one has smoke coming out of it.

Other than the two floors with obvious smoke damage of course


That is a concrete dust cloud you see between the buildings and it looks exactly like the other slurry clouds. Did you think every window on the WTC7 south face was broken and pouring out smoke with raging fires on every floor? Nobody has claimed fires on every floor. This is the dust cloud from the WTC1 top-down demolition.

Large quantities of windows on the south face were smashed, and you have no evidence to suggest this cloud is purely from the collapse of WTC1. You are just speculating in an attempt to minimise the apparent severity of fires and damage to WTC7.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Actually WCIP was wrong on this one...

See my thread here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look at the series of pics, that 'smoke' is clearly from the towers collapse not WTC7.

Have you ever asked yourself why the smoke is only on one side, when the rooms have windows on two sides at the corners?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Please provide me with links to those pictures and threads detailing what you describe first before I continue with this topic. Until such time I cannot, and will not, proceed with this argument.



See, now this is what i was trying to avoid.

I could post links and pics all day long, but if you're gonna hand wave it away, it's a waste of time and bandwidth.

Give me something that will be conclusive to you, and I will try to find it. If I can't, then you can maintain your beliefs.

Simple as that.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 



If photos and videos of guys doing exactly that isn't conclusive, what would be?


I was simply asking for the links you are looking at so as I may formulate an argument (or not) based upon the evidence you have seen.

OK, while I concede that the posts may have been cut with torches, I remain unconvinced as to it being just planes that downed the buildings. The video I have seen, from multiple angles, suggests the use of explosives (as indicated by the puffs of smoke seen blasting out of the buildings just before they fell.

Also, the one piece of evidence that sticks most firmly in my mind is the kink in the roof of WTC7 as it fell. To me that is undeniable proof of it having been felled in a manner similar, if not the same, as a controlled demolition. The whole premise that a fire can down the whole building, something that has never ever happened in the past, in the way that it did is rather preposterous in my opinion. One cannot just make up a new way of a building coming down without precedent.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
OK, while I concede that the posts may have been cut with torches, I remain unconvinced as to it being just planes that downed the buildings. The video I have seen, from multiple angles, suggests the use of explosives (as indicated by the puffs of smoke seen blasting out of the buildings just before they fell.

Unless you are referring to something other than what I think you are talking about, these puffs occur after the building begins to collapse. There were also some smaller smoke puffs throughout the fire period, these were attributed to collapsing floors as we have evidence that floors were increasingly disconnected from the perimeter.


Also, the one piece of evidence that sticks most firmly in my mind is the kink in the roof of WTC7 as it fell. To me that is undeniable proof of it having been felled in a manner similar, if not the same, as a controlled demolition. The whole premise that a fire can down the whole building, something that has never ever happened in the past, in the way that it did is rather preposterous in my opinion. One cannot just make up a new way of a building coming down without precedent.

Your statement here can be read in one of two ways
  • Nothing new can happen
  • New things require proof


The first is obviously ludicrous, and so unless I have used a false dilemma fallacy, we must choose the second. If this is the case, what proof would you require that WTC7 was a 'natural' collapse? There's obviously no conclusive evidence of controlled demolition (recovered blasting caps, detcord, eyewitnesses, conspirators coming forward etc) but obviously you still feel this is the case.

What would convince you?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


The truth would convince me.

I know that sounds like a cop-out but it is nearly 5am here and I just suddenly hit the wall of tiredness. I'll have a think about what you said and get back to you on it when I have a fresh mind.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
The truth would convince me.

I know that sounds like a cop-out but it is nearly 5am here and I just suddenly hit the wall of tiredness. I'll have a think about what you said and get back to you on it when I have a fresh mind.


Fair enough, you've no obligation to respond to me, I just want to give you information that would help you come to terms if that is possible. Please feel free to start a thread where we can discuss this in more depth if you have specific questions.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

ANOK
Actually WCIP was wrong on this one...

See my thread here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look at the series of pics, that 'smoke' is clearly from the towers collapse not WTC7.

Have you ever asked yourself why the smoke is only on one side, when the rooms have windows on two sides at the corners?

Thank you ANOK. That is exactly what I remembered from that very photo you posted and I saw a long time ago. I believe I remember the original to the uncropped photo below, which also showed a larger portion of the dust cloud.

Similar photo for the uncropped photo showing the dust cloud between the buildings


exponent
Large quantities of windows on the south face were smashed, and you have no evidence to suggest this cloud is purely from the collapse of WTC1. You are just speculating in an attempt to minimise the apparent severity of fires and damage to WTC7.

Here is your proof exponent.

And another less clear photo
And another
And this great shot of the dust cloud on the WTC7 south face between the buildings


wecomeinpeace
I originally thought that the cloud in the WTC7 photo could be from the collapse of a tower, but a look at the layout seems to refute this.

Here is the full, uncropped photo of the smoke coming from WTC7:



[edit on 10/3/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

1-I was simply asking for the links you are looking at so as I may formulate an argument (or not) based upon the evidence you have seen.

2-OK, while I concede that the posts may have been cut with torches, I remain unconvinced as to it being just planes that downed the buildings.


1- well, I took you for your word that you've seen this evidence and remain unconvinced, therefore I saw no value in putting up the same things again. Hence, why I asked specifically WHAT would be conclusive, in your eyes. To volunteer from the opposite side of the fence what would convince me - if someone was to burn through a sizeable piece of steel with thermxte and it looked similar to those photos... well then ok, that would be a good start. Statements out of the blue by someone that it looks just like a thermxte cut isn't very convining to me. Noone has ever done this, to my knowledge.

2- Get it straight - the planes alone weren't responsible. Fire and fire proofing removal also played major parts.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


If you consider a photograph and speculation to be proof then this should blow your mind:

www.youtube.com...

Check out this well known video of the collapse, what do you see immediately behind the building in large quantities?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

posted by exponent
Check out this well known video of the collapse, what do you see immediately behind the building in large quantities?

Dust? Stirred up pulverized concrete dust? Perhaps the explosions bringing WTC7 down were stirring up the pulverized concrete dust left over from the Tower demolitions. Sure does not look like smoke from oxygen starved office fires does it?

Besides I have already proven in my previous post that the alleged smoke between the buildings was the pulverized concrete dust from the demolition of WTC 1. Did you see the Aman Zafar photos I found?

Nope not much smoke on south side of WTC 7 seen here



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Dust? Stirred up pulverized concrete dust? Perhaps the explosions bringing WTC7 down were stirring up the pulverized concrete dust left over from the Tower demolitions. Sure does not look like smoke from oxygen starved office fires does it?

I don't know if you're joking here or what. WTC7 collapsed nearly 7 hours after WTC1.


Besides I have already proven in my previous post that the alleged smoke between the buildings was the pulverized concrete dust from the demolition of WTC 1. Did you see the Aman Zafar photos I found?

I did, this is not proof by any stretch. The Spak video clearly shows smoke and fire originating in WTC7 and it's well known that WTC7 had significant fires.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

posted by LeftBehind on 11/13/05
Here is a great picture of WTC7 entirely covered with smoke on one side. You probably won't see this one on sites dedicated to the demo theory.


posted by wecomeinpeace on 11/14/05
Here is the full, 'uncropped' photo of the smoke coming from WTC7:



Hmmmmm. Did somebody dishonestly crop that 'uncropped' photo from another original Aman Zafar photo to give the illusion that there was a lot of smoke coming off the south face of WTC 7? Who would do such a dishonest thing? Surely not somebody on 'sites dedicated to the demo theory.


Here exponent, I made you a new cropped photo from the WTC 1 dust cloud photo. This one even shows which windows are broken on the WTC 7 western face. See how similar the pulverized concrete dust clouds look in each 'cropped' photo?



Strange thing is, I cannot see a single fire in WTC 7 glowing through the dust cloud, and I can see many of the windows. How do you explain that exponent? Demolition?

Original Aman Zafar photo from which I cropped the above photo



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Hmmmmm. Did somebody dishonestly crop that 'uncropped' photo from another original Aman Zafar photo to give the illusion that there was a lot of smoke coming off the south face of WTC 7? Who would do such a dishonest thing? Surely not somebody on 'sites dedicated to the demo theory.

Do you really believe the first picture you posted was cropped from an Aman Zafar picture? You might notice the massively different perspectives between the two.


Here exponent, I made you a new cropped photo from the WTC 1 dust cloud photo. This one even shows which windows are broken on the WTC 7 western face. See how similar the pulverized concrete dust clouds look in each 'cropped' photo?

I'm sure that dust can look a lot like smoke, unfortunately WTC7 was emitting smoke for approximately 7 hours. It is hard to believe that despite the well known fires in WTC7, all the smoke seen was in fact dust. Your apparent assertion that this is the case baffles me. Are you really stating that WTC7 was not producing smoke?


Strange thing is, I cannot see a single fire in WTC 7 glowing through the dust cloud, and I can see many of the windows. How do you explain that exponent? Demolition?

Please view the Steve Spak video I posted.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   


Strange thing is, I cannot see a single fire in WTC 7 glowing through the dust cloud, and I can see many of the windows. How do you explain that exponent? Demolition?


posted by exponent
Please view the Steve Spak video I posted.

But you were supporting the illusion that the cloud of pulverized concrete dust between the buildings was actually smoke from raging fires in the WTC 7 offices. I proved beyond any doubt that you were mistaken concerning the above 'uncropped' photo. Your video has nothing to do with this photo.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join