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.

 

Solid Debunking of WTC7 Theories

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

"A building falls down. A bombed building falls down. All buildings that fall down require bombs." Should be...
"A building falls down. A bombed building falls down. All buildings that fall down vertically to it's foundations with no resistance from undamaged floors, ejecting columns 600 ft and turning concrete, office furniture and people into a fine dust requires bombs".

You do not follow...




Adding words to the fallacious conclusion does not validate the logical fallacy.


Obviously you did not follow what I was saying.


I thought we were talking about 7? I wasn't aware that 7 shot columns out 600ft.

And I thought that WTC 7 was the one that looked like a CD. If you want to include 1 + 2, your argument just becomes more ridiculous as it looks nothing like a controlled demolition.

Doesn't the theory behind 1 and 2 have the buildings exploding floor after floor to make it look "natural"?




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by eagle eye
If the building fall like a tree, Larry's legit, unfortunalty it didnt.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by eagle eye]


It's not so much that, well it is, but as a progressive collapse.. it was too perfectly vertical, I mean.. for WTC 1, 2 and 7 to all collapse as they did, its a miracle.. it really is.

WTC 7 is an anamoly under the circumstances in which it fell. People want to support the official story but if you read in between the lines, you can tell there's not much assurance in giving a definite conclusion on that (within the official story) as there was with World Trade Center 1 and 2, because you had other stuff you could point to, to downplay a conspiracy.

People like LeftBehind are the lowest attempt to try and justify what happened, according to the Official Story and often his comments are found to be very unhelpful and if anything... non-sensical.. and it's true.

If no one has noticed that, go through threads in which he posts in and see the direction he tries to bring the threads. It's like him slamming his breaks on his semi on the information highway of 9/11 and him stopping a few people out of sheer non-sense.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Adding words to the fallacious conclusion does not validate the logical fallacy.



LeftBehind, how about we start here, what exactly ARE you trying to get at with your recent posts in this thread?

That WTC 7 wasn't really anything out of the ordinary, just a regular office fire that got out of hand and happened to successfully compromise the building's integrity at about the same time, allowing for a pretty much perfectly vertical collapse?

Don't attack what I just said, just what are you getting at?

I wanna see some sense come out whatever you seem to be posting.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Leftbehind I did follow what you were saying, you obviously don't understand what you were saying is not logical and all I did was point that out...


OK yes I was refering to WTC1+2 with the ejected columns. WTC 7 is even more like a classic demo and did fall in it's own footprint.

Let me do it again....

"A building falls down. A bombed building falls down. All buildings that fall down require bombs." Should be...
"A building falls down. A bombed building falls down. All buildings that fall down vertically into their own footprint with no resistance from lower floors with minimal damage and isolated fires requires bombs (or thermate
)".

Better? Do you get it yet?

A pic of the nice neat pile of WTC7 rubble in it's own footprint...




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   


Well look at that ANOK, what a nice neat pile... I mean.. hey I didn't think for a second that fires could simultaneously compromise the structural component (vertical beams) to allow it to fall straight down.

Silly me for thinking otherwise.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Yeah, this was a much easier point to make a couple years earlier when the doublethink on this hadn't had enough time to sink in.

A single set of a few columns still standing, resisting the collapse structure, can offset it completely and cause it to fall to one side. This applies to the towers just the same as it does to WTC7.

This is something that you can press demolition engineers with: ask them if they would ever leave one side of a building's columns untouched when trying to bring it straight down. They should tell you "no way". If you knock out columns by ANY means while there are still columns standing firmly asymmetrically, the building will not come straight down, and at LEAST it shouldn't accelerate at freaking free-fall!

The damage to WTC7 was asymmetrical. The building itself was asymmetrical. Yet, for it to fall straight down, as should be OBVIOUS to anyone who thinks critically about this for two seconds, it would take all the columns supporting the building to fail at virtually the same instant. That doesn't happen randomly, or on its own. It never has. Never. Only with demolitions can support columns be cut down simultaneously like that, and they keep it going, too, so that it falls unresisted. That's what happened to WTC7. It's not complicated. What's complicated is how control is kept over us as citizens. Take the situation of the French before their revolution, and introduce to it modern technology for starters.

That's the ultimate problem here, and not much is going to get done about it with people trying to say 2 + 2 = 5 because structural engineering or any other equally irrelevant topic is esoteric and not understandable after 9/11.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Doctor fungi where arth thou?

I have noticed a recurring theme with this user's posts, it is that dr.f
posts an attack minded thread on usually a 9/11 related topic, then sits back
and waits for the replies to start coming (and the ats pts to start adding up) while hardly ever making any further contributions to the original topic post.
This happened elsewhere where other users accused dr.f of trolling, www.abovetopsecret.com...

I then learned, thanks to thichHeaded that dr fungi stated on this site forums.randi.org...
that " This forum is actually quite intelligent unlike 90% of the populace at ATS. "

Hence I am wary of this users intentions.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Yeah I would like to see more Doctor Fungi participation in this thread, but if he's busy, I can understand.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar


Well look at that ANOK, what a nice neat pile... I mean.. hey I didn't think for a second that fires could simultaneously compromise the structural component (vertical beams) to allow it to fall straight down.

Silly me for thinking otherwise.

But OF COURSE it's possible.
Didn't you know, demolition firms have recently decided, in light of the events of 9/11, to simply set fire to their buildings to demolish them instead of spending weeks of labor trying to guess where to place what charge and how much of it and in what sequence.

The new age of control demolition - burn steel for a few hours and the thing will collapse like a slingky



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Great Article:


"The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries."


Check it out....www.thisislondon.co.uk...’inside+job’/article.do



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by texaspike
Great Article:


"The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries."


Check it out....www.thisislondon.co.uk...’inside+job’/article.do



We will never really know what happened that day untill we see the FBI reports.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I know, I don't need FBI reports, NIST reports and FEMA reports to understand what made this building fall down:
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
JUST LOOK AT IT AND TEL ME YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW HOW IT FEEL DOWN.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
[quote;Originally posted by ULTIMA1]

We will never really know what happened that day until we see the FBI reports.


I don't think we will EVER really know what happened that day, who was behind it & why it happened regardless of FBI reports because those would be censored/blacked out to hell & it the same as many of those reports would only become just another part of the conspiracy due to the heavy censoring!

even IF bush is involved in a bad way (for oil & profit as speculation indicates) & he is someday some how brought to justice for it, you don't really think that if he stands trial (in a court) that his oath of truth to the court will mean ANYTHING they'd be lies too just like his election win over al gore, maybe he could get FOX to fix that too! i know myself or at least my basic level of understanding tells me that those buildings 1,2 & 7 were ALL brought down deliberately & i get the feeling -- -that as well as being an excuse for war to divert the attention away from real intentions "the billion dollar stash of gold under the building & the erasing of thousands of wall street investigation documents" am i missing something else? oh & the insurance polices took out on those buildings too & defense contracts, the list goes on & on! -- that it was blamed on muslims/afghan extremeists in a way to isolate that particular group (muslims etc) of the human race from the rest of the world! US AGAINST THEM?

i guess if i was a bad man looking to get my hands on a few billion dollars & i had contacts "like bush does" i don't think id mind tearing down buildings & killing a few thousand people especially if id never even met those people & they ment nothing to me & their deaths would not affect me in any way!

I'm just wondering how long its going to take people to do something about it, if you pay tax you ARE contributing to it, I'm guilty of that much, i work so i pay tax, as much as i hate how portions of it are used to do things that i strongly disagree with, but what can i do as a single person with no power!

there is laws & constitutions that make it impossible for us to remove people from power that should never have been there in the first place, so i guess thats one of the first things id change if i had the opportunity,
no one can deny the majority, & if the majority were to vote on a change to the constitution to enable the swift removal of people from power when they fail repeatedly & as badly as bush has, then this should not happen again, "in the way that it has at least"

it seems crazy but since 9/11 the years have been going by so quickly, has anyone else had that feeling?

[edit on 26-11-2006 by eddie666m1980w]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
I know, I don't need FBI reports, NIST reports and FEMA reports to understand what made this building fall down:
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
JUST LOOK AT IT AND TEL ME YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW HOW IT FEEL DOWN.


Yes it fell down, but what we need to know the truth of what made it fall down.

Since the the reports and Silverstein stated the incident commander decided to bring it down when he called him to let him know what was going on.


I don't think we will EVER really know what happened that day, who was behind it & why it happened regardless of FBI reports because those would be censored/blacked out to hell & it the same as many of those reports would only become just another part of the conspiracy due to the heavy censoring!


Well i can find the FBI reports for other avition crime scenes like flight 800 and even KAL flight 007 that was shot down by the soviets.

We just need to see the FBI reports for the aviation crime scenes on 911.


[edit on 26-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


I don't think we will EVER really know what happened that day, who was behind it & why it happened regardless of FBI reports because those would be censored/blacked out to hell & it the same as many of those reports would only become just another part of the conspiracy due to the heavy censoring!


Well i can find the FBI reports for other avition crime scenes like flight 800 and even KAL flight 007 that was shot down by the soviets.

We just need to see the FBI reports for the aviation crime scenes on 911.


Key points in my comments were;

I DON'T THINK we will EVER really know what happened & - regardless of FBI reports because those would be censored/blacked out.

IF the reports do turn up in original form unaltered & ofcourse uncensored then cool its about time too!
the reports you can find are declassified & public to view,
theres ALWAYS the chance that any report you are ALLOWED to view is false to some point, altered to some point, or just complete bull based around the actual event aslong as its consistant to some extent it usually flys with most people!



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes it fell down, but what we need to know the truth of what made it fall down.

Well, I'll give you some clues at to what made it fall down:
Look at these two videos:
video broadcast on CBS - .4MB - mpeg
video broadcast by CBS - 1.7MB - mpeg
Now notice how they both show the penthouse of the building collapsing in first, this is a trademark characteristic of a carefully planned implosion where the core of the building is blown up first so as to make sure the building folds onto itself.

Than look at the second video gain and notice how the whole building appears to bow inwards as it falls down, that too is a trademark cgaracteristic of controlled implosion to insure the debris falls into it's own footprint.

Tjan take note on how the whole buiding fell down at free fall speed, not meeting any resistance from thousands and thousands of steel joints, beams, columns, concrete floors and office furnitures. This again is a typical characteristic of controlled demolition.

So it it is a controlled demolition, than why do you think the Dems, the NIST, FEMA, the FBI and all of the mass media seem to appear completely blind to all this?
Not only are they all blind to this, but the media always represent the truth movement as "conspiracy theorists" and site the "No Boeing in Pentagon" idea but they never, ever mention the WTC7? As a matter of fact, most people inside the USA don't even know that a 3rd building crumbled on that day.

Do you know why they are all hiding this from us?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
In your signiture you say "screw loose change" WHY what was wrong with it?

there is loose change 2 which ive got & ive watched & its like a revamp of the 1st including what it should have the 1st time & to me it details quite alot of the good stuff, its well constructed well spoken & its not confusing to me,
so i cant see why youd say screw loose change!

i STILL have not got hold a the official report, if theres anywhere i can get this then PLEASE show me the way to it, id really like to use it as my base of theory & intel on the matter then i can watch & read all or most of the conspiracy materials, so i can if possible pick it apart myself.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Collapsed into its own footprint? So explain the chunks of WTC7 in the surrounding buildings.....better yet, look at the photo and explain why the building next to the collapse zone is missing a chunk out of it?



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Collapsed into its own footprint? So explain the chunks of WTC7 in the surrounding buildings.....better yet, look at the photo and explain why the building next to the collapse zone is missing a chunk out of it?


So where did the vast majority of the building go?

Dust from WTC7 spread far down neighboring streets. I guess since that was mass from the building, you could use that to say it didn't fall straight down into its own footprint too, huh?

You're splitting hairs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join