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.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Do you have the ones that prove it was a demolition? Please post them.
The burdon of proof is on the "official" reports which do not include these much needed calculations. How can I do any calculations without knowing the true construction of the buildings? Get me the construction documents and then we'll talk calculations.
Originally posted by mcgilligan02
I have never seen explosives placards on fire trucks at all. If the fire fighters were going to blow a building I am pretty sure there not going to have explosives on the old hook and ladder and I am pretty sure I have never seen one placarded for explosives and those are mandatory for explosive laden vehicles.
Originally posted by 1150111but all the evidence one should need to see that it was a controlled demolition is the simple video of WTC7 falling. Common sense alone should have told everyone that.
Common sense rules out "structural damage do to fires and debris", and it is absolutely controlled demolition. No doubt.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
If "all the evidence one should need to see" consists of the collapse "looking like" something, and common sense, then your standard of evidence has to be very low.
While "common sense" and similarity is all it takes for you, it is not enough to prove it to anyone else.
Please explain how that is even logical, those are not the only two possible choices. And that is negative evidence anyway. You can no more 100% rule out the "official story" by proving a negative, than you can 100% rule out the existence ofbombs by proving a negative.
Where is the positive evidence in favor of bombs?
Please hold the CD theory to the same standards as you would hold the official story.
None of your post contained any solid positive evidence of the presence of explosives, let alone the use of it.
I don't care how impossible the "official story" is, I want to know why the demolition theory should even be considered plausible with no positive evidence pointing towards the use of bombs.
Finding specific evidence of bombs is a straw man tactic.
I don't care what anyone says. A building that has damage to one side WILL NOT fall symetrically.
PROVE this and I'll change my stance on my theories. I bet you won't be up for the challenge.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I'm not trying to prove any theory Griff, I am trying to get some actual proof that would convince me that the CD theory is real. As I have said, I don't care if there are problems with the official story, I just want to see the proof of the CD theory.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I suppose that during a murder investigation, asking to see the murder weapon is some sort of straw man? Please.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ok, why does that automatically mean that bombs were used? There could be a number of different ways for this to happen. They could have snuck in and weakened the structure during the fire, they could have done so well beforehand planning on Building 1 to fall on it. It's no more or less elaborate than the bomb theory.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
My point is that there is nothing that points to the use of explosives other than that's what people choose to believe. Just because it looks like it could have been taken down with bombs, does not prove that it was.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Basically you are rationalizing your belief that bombs were used in the face of no evidence for their existence.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I don't know why you said this, I don't care if anyone believes as I do, nor do I care what you believe. I just want to see proof of bombs, which judgeing by the responses, does not exist.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
You cannot prove a negative.
1150111,This is by far the best explanation for the collapse of WTC7 I've heard so far.Good job dude!!!Anyone who doesn't understand what you explained above doesn't want to understand.Plain and simple.
Originally posted by 1150111
Ok, I don't know how to say this without being rude, but all the evidence one should need to see that it was a controlled demolition is the simple video of WTC7 falling. Common sense alone should have told everyone that. But these days, common sense is just not common. Let me get specific, yet stay in laymen's terms.
The Game Called Jenga.
If you haven't played it, or don't know what Jenga is, then it is probably because you have been living under a rock or somewhere similar.
Look at the picture above. Now, try to imagine that Jenga game on a table that is only about 3 inches bigger than it on all sides. Now imagine pulling 2 pieces from the bottom, and the game falling symmetrically straight down, and no pieces falling off the table.
Oops, wait, if your brain can actually imagine the above, then you have failed my IQ test. The above is not possible, no matter how you stack the pieces. Try it, it will just fall to one side, off the table.
Why does it do this? Because of the Second law of thermodynamics.
en.wikipedia.org...
Basically, it means that, naturally, things like to move where there is less pressure, or less resistance. The air inside of a balloon, always wants to escape because there is less pressure outside of it. Cut a small bit out of the side of a tree, and the tree will want to fall towards that cut, because the side without a cut has more pressure than the side that doesn't. I don't know how else to explain it.
The only other way to make this Jenga game fall down symmetrically, like WTC7, is to damage the side of it, and burn it, like WTC7. LOL j/k. Seriously, the only way to make this Jenga game fall down symmetrically, is to stack it in columns, and take out each level as it is falling, from the bottom, up. There may be other ways, but it includes taking out several floors at the same time, with some type of external force. Or else, the second law of thermodynamics will force the pieces to fall to one side or another. Just like this building did...
...and if you believe in the official story, WTC7 should have fallen like the building above. Remember this is a steal building, held together by welds and rivets. Unless you break each weld and rivet at the same time, one side will have more pressure than the "structurally damaged side", and the "burnt side" of WTC7.
Does that make sense?
To sum it all up, the "fires" would have had to burn every load bearing steal beam at exactly the same temperature, and at exactly the same time. Also, since there was "structural damage" (which really only looks cosmetic from pictures), the fires would have had to burn fast enough as to mimic an instant "cut", in order to reproduce the symmetrical downward collapse.
Just look at this picture...
...no damage to that side, and no visible fires. That means, if you agree to the official story, the building should have fallen away from the camera position, right on top of the still standing (at the time) WTC 6. But it didn't, it fell straight down into its own footprint.
Common sense rules out "structural damage do to fires and debris", and it is absolutely controlled demolition. No doubt.
Cosmetic damage should not be confused with structural damage.
I find it hard to believe Controled Demolishion companys waste so much time and money knocking down a building with syncronized explosives, when they can just damage a few supports, and light it on fire..
[edit on 23-1-2007 by 1150111]
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I don't care what anyone says. A building that has damage to one side WILL NOT fall symetrically.
Ok, why does that automatically mean that bombs were used? There could be a number of different ways for this to happen. They could have snuck in and weakened the structure during the fire, they could have done so well beforehand planning on Building 1 to fall on it. It's no more or less elaborate than the bomb theory.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
How can you say this definitively without any similar examples or tests?