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 photos. Debunk.

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Seriously, if you need to ask for evidence for a demolition in case of WTC7 I feel for you.

yet you are willing to believe that there were explosives without proof? interesting.


- No large fire

inconclusive. show me a picture of wtc7's south face taken the afternoon of 9-11-01


- No extensive damage

see above


- Fast collapse

which proves it fell really fast



- Footprint collapse

which proves it fell straight down


- Eyewitness say explosions occured

which proves nothing, most people cant tell the difference between a car backfiring and a block of c4 being detonated. they know what they know of explosives from hollywood so anytime they hear a loud bang they say "it sounded like a bomb going off" proves nothing.


- Typical 'dip' in the building

which proves the center gave way first for whatever reason


- Squibs
ROFL im not even going to touch that one...


In fact, there is NO evidence for a collapse due to structural damage and fire. NONE, other than ASSUMING (quoted from the actual report) that there was extensive damage and ignoring all the evidence that there wasn't.


in FACT theres no proof of it being as a result of preplaced, preplanned high explosives either. bring me a fragment of a blasting cap. bring me residue. bring me audio evidence or real video evidence. ive watched the clips ad nauseum and theres NO evidence of explosives. (the video from across the bay...tell me how you can hear it before the building collapses? or better yet, how the building stood for 9 seconds between the 'explosion' and the collapse?) bring me SOMETHING and ill really seriously reconsider my stance. theres NOTHING. ive looked with a very open mind becuase the collapse of wtc7 confuses the hell out of me. but there is ZERO hard proof for explosives. ok, in deference to bsb, theres no hard evidence for CONVENTIONAL explosives, ill admit that. but bring me something...oh yeah "they" hid all the evidence...ok.

but i have to ask, why is it ok to have no evidence and jump to a nefareous plot in this matter, yet everyone wants bush crucified for there being no evidence of wmd's in iraq.

hypocrisy bothers me.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Damocles]




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Shroomery, explain then how the firefighters were not in on it, and yet Silversteins comment, while talking to a firecheif, still proves demolition.

Secondly, none of that was evidence. If you have some post it, if not stop complaining.

When you consider all of the evidence, not just prisonplanet, it becomes readily apparent that there was severe damage and multistory fires in 7. If you want to live in fantasy land and deny it, it's not my problem but at least admit that you have nothing to back it up.

I agree that there are numerous people who heard explosions. Explosions are not always bombs. Nor is it evidence for bombs when someone says it sounded like one. Especially as the reports were continuous for the whole event.

www.911myths.com...

Is it your theory now that they planted bombs that went off randomly for an hour before the buildings fell?




originally posted by Bsbray11He said that I claimed there were no fires in WTC7, and then that I said that "smoke can exist for hours without fires". Where? That's all I ask. I never said either of those statements, and LB will never link us back to the posts, because they don't exist. That simple. And I don't even know where in the hell the stuff about smoke existing without fire even came from.


Well, maybe you should remember what you posted on the same thread.

Here are the links. Foot meet mouth.

You insinuating that there are no fires.


posted on 2-2-2007 at 10:49 AM (post id: 2922921)

And more importantly, where is the freaking fire? The fact that you have to point to the smoke at all is pretty sad. Think about it.


Then you deny saying anything like this.


posted on 4-2-2007 at 12:51 PM (post id: 2927630)

No one's saying there wasn't any fire.


Then you imply that smoke can somehow exist on it's own, and that smoke is all that was at 7, somehow independent of any fires.


posted on 4-2-2007 at 11:40 PM (post id: 2928760)

Maybe smoke made it fall down, too?


You are consistently deceiving on this site Bsbray, and you still seem to think that those WTC 7 photos are "just smoke".

And here is a picture to finally put to rest your lies about the smoke coming from a different building.




The fact is that none of you have any evidence for demolition of 7.

You just like to speculate about firefighters participating in insurance fraud and mass murder. I hope you sleep well at night.


How about instead of attacking me, you guys lay out your case and we can judge it on it's merits.

How exactly was the building demoed?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
So where did I say there were no fires in WTC7, LB?

I don't want your interpretations of "insinuations". I want to know where I said there were no fires in WTC7, or that "smoke can exist for hours without fires".


Btw, I'm sure smoke can exist without fire per se in some circumstances, I just don't know wtf LeftBehind is getting these ideas of me saying things that I haven't even remotely put into any of these posts.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by Shroomery
Seriously, if you need to ask for evidence for a demolition in case of WTC7 I feel for you.

yet you are willing to believe that there were explosives without proof? interesting.


Yes without proof, but with evidence. There's proof nor evidence for a collapse due to fire or damage.


Originally posted by Damocles


- No large fire

inconclusive. show me a picture of wtc7's south face taken the afternoon of 9-11-01


It's not inconclusive. Like I said, do you think there were large fires, in a pretty narrow building, without spreading to the other side of the building?
There were video's posted here of the part that was smoking, and stills of the other sides where concentrated fires are visible.
Show me a picture of your large fires and extensive damage that would cause a building to collapse, I haven't seen it, yet I've showed you what evidence there is, because ALL the evidence shows what I'm saying, not what you or others are stating.

All the signs (read evidence) POINT to a demolition, that is not proof, I'll let a judge decide. But there's so far no evidence that a building like WTC7 would collapse from fire and damage seen on that day.


Originally posted by Damocles


- No extensive damage

see above


So you admit there is no evidence for either fire or damage. Ok.


Originally posted by Damocles


- Fast collapse

which proves it fell really fast


Exactly, you could say, without resistance. This is evidence for a demolition. Maybe not conclusive on it's own.


Originally posted by Damocles


- Footprint collapse

which proves it fell straight down


Yes. Let me further explain what this means.
The fire HAD to have spread to a large portion of the building for a symmetrical collapse to occur. Video and photos show the fire didn't spread that far. More evidence that a normal collapse did not occur.


Originally posted by Damocles


- Eyewitness say explosions occured

which proves nothing, most people cant tell the difference between a car backfiring and a block of c4 being detonated. they know what they know of explosives from hollywood so anytime they hear a loud bang they say "it sounded like a bomb going off" proves nothing.


It was firefighters, I think they would know the difference. Besides one of the explosions is on tape, even I can tell the difference.
But that's not the point LB was arguing that I was ignoring firefighters, I was just making clear he's doing the same thing. I don't like to use eyewitness accounts in an argument but I was somewhat forced.



Originally posted by Damocles


- Typical 'dip' in the building

which proves the center gave way first for whatever reason


Yes, this is typical in demolitions, as you know. But again not conclusive on it's own.


Originally posted by Damocles


- Squibs
ROFL im not even going to touch that one...


Oh but please do.. It's on video, no reason denying it, and no reason to react like you have the final answer to that because your opinion is as good as mine.


Originally posted by Damocles


In fact, there is NO evidence for a collapse due to structural damage and fire. NONE, other than ASSUMING (quoted from the actual report) that there was extensive damage and ignoring all the evidence that there wasn't.


in FACT theres no proof of it being as a result of preplaced, preplanned high explosives either. bring me a fragment of a blasting cap. bring me residue. bring me audio evidence or real video evidence. ive watched the clips ad nauseum and theres NO evidence of explosives. (the video from across the bay...tell me how you can hear it before the building collapses? or better yet, how the building stood for 9 seconds between the 'explosion' and the collapse?) bring me SOMETHING and ill really seriously reconsider my stance. theres NOTHING. ive looked with a very open mind becuase the collapse of wtc7 confuses the hell out of me. but there is ZERO hard proof for explosives. ok, in deference to bsb, theres no hard evidence for CONVENTIONAL explosives, ill admit that. but bring me something...oh yeah "they" hid all the evidence...ok.

but i have to ask, why is it ok to have no evidence and jump to a nefareous plot in this matter, yet everyone wants bush crucified for there being no evidence of wmd's in iraq.


How can you look at that building collapse and say there's no evidence for a demolition? Then you try to water down the arguments but basically without any substance. The only thing that keeps your theory standing is blind faith. Atleast our evidence supports our theory, you on the other hand have nothing. So stop trying to blame us for not having any 'proof', I honestly think you're projecting.

Besides, I'm sure the towers were brought down by explosives, which is proven by physics. So I doubt that WTC7 was the only building that day that came down yet had the least damage of all.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


The fact is that none of you have any evidence for demolition of 7.


I once had a pet mynah bird that had a larger répertoire of sayings...

Of course there is limited evidence because the evidence was destroyed before it could be examined. We do have circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to:

1) molten metal in the rubble of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 weeks after 9/11

2) video of bright, molten metal pouring from corner of WTC2

3) free-fall collapse times of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7

4) photos of steel beams that appear to have been cut

5) Symmetrical collapse of 3 steel frame buildings that suffered asymmetrical damage

6) Eye-witness testimony regarding explosions and flashes in the lower floors and basements of WTC

7) rush to clear away and dispose of evidence without permitting testing on materials

8) immediate blaming of al-Qaeda as perpetrators before any investigation was done

9) fact that FEMA and NIST investigations only covered up until collapses initiated

10) lack of reasonable explanation of how concrete was pulverized in WTC1 and WTC2

11) videos of puffs of smoke coming out of WTC1 and WTC2 far below collapse line

12) videos of puffs of smoke coming out of WTC7 on upper floors when WTC7 collapsed from the lower floors, thus eliminating possibility of "pancaking" causing the puffs of smoke from the upper floors

13) Lack of explanation of how upper floors of WTC2 were destroyed once collapse was initiated since the upper section already started it's rotation. I.e., "pancaking" cannot account for destruction of upper block of WTC2

14) WTC1 tower begins collapsing first, implying WTC1 inner core columns collapsed before "pancaking" could occur

15) No theoretical proofs ever produced that explain conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. I.e., how did 110 stories collapse in WTC1 and WTC2 without lower floors providing and resistance?




You just like to speculate about firefighters participating in insurance fraud and mass murder. I hope you sleep well at night.


This is a very disingenous, and frankly insulting, twisting of what anybody on this board has posted. Nobody has ever accused the firefighters of insurance fraud or mass murder.




How about instead of attacking me, you guys lay out your case and we can judge it on it's merits.

How exactly was the building demoed?


First, we need to have samples of the steel columns from WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 to analyze. What? They were shipped to India and China and destroyed?

Ok, then we'll have to go by the circumstantial evidence that exists.

If the buildings didn't come down from the pancake theory, then they came down from something else. The circumstantial evidence points to the possibility of thermite being used to cut the steel supports of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 so that the internal supports of all three buildings failed simultaneously, causing a symmetrical implosion of all three buildings.

The thermite charges could have been used in conjunction with sulfur additives, creating thermate, which would explain the sulfur residue on the steel beams, and which would cause the beams to be fail faster and burn hotter.

The U.S. government has a documented history of planning fake terrorist attacks (Northwoods), had access to the buildings (CIA), and has a "black" budget of billions of dollars.

Motive, means, and opportunity.

P.S. Please spare us all any more whining about there not being "evidence" when you know darn well that the government, who many suspect being involved in the attacks, destroyed all the evidence and failed to investigate the questions being raised here.

Perhaps you should hold the government as accountable for evidence as you do posters on the internet who are troubled by the comple lack of competence and honesty shown by the U.S. government in this matter.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Yes without proof, but with evidence. There's proof nor evidence for a collapse due to fire or damage.

i give you props for differentiating between proof and evidence



Originally posted by Damocles


- No large fire

inconclusive. show me a picture of wtc7's south face taken the afternoon of 9-11-01


It's not inconclusive.
yes it is, without an actual picture of wtc7's south face we cant tell one way or the other, yes that means we also cant tell if it was on fire and extensivly damaged.



Like I said, do you think there were large fires, in a pretty narrow building, without spreading to the other side of the building?

Show me a picture of your large fires and extensive damage that would cause a building to collapse, I haven't seen it, yet I've showed you what evidence there is, because ALL the evidence shows what I'm saying, not what you or others are stating.

emphasis added. lets keep a thing straight...i have no idea how bad the fires were...never said i did. dont lump me in with anyone just becuase i disagree with you.


All the signs (read evidence) POINT to a demolition, that is not proof, I'll let a judge decide.

signs MAY point to a demolition, but do NOT point to high explosives being anywhere near any of the wtc towers.



But there's so far no evidence that a building like WTC7 would collapse from fire and damage seen on that day.

i can agree with that.



Originally posted by Damocles


- No extensive damage

see above


So you admit there is no evidence for either fire or damage. Ok.

sure i can admit taht as i never said there was...



Originally posted by Damocles


- Fast collapse

which proves it fell really fast


Exactly, you could say, without resistance.

i could say that but im not...


This is evidence for a demolition. Maybe not conclusive on it's own.

sure, it could also be evidence for a building falling down




Originally posted by Damocles


- Footprint collapse

which proves it fell straight down


Yes. Let me further explain what this means.
The fire HAD to have spread to a large portion of the building for a symmetrical collapse to occur. Video and photos show the fire didn't spread that far. More evidence that a normal collapse did not occur.


but ive never said it was normal...



Originally posted by Damocles


- Eyewitness say explosions occured

which proves nothing, most people cant tell the difference between a car backfiring and a block of c4 being detonated. they know what they know of explosives from hollywood so anytime they hear a loud bang they say "it sounded like a bomb going off" proves nothing.


It was firefighters, I think they would know the difference.

u can think that all you want...doesnt make it so. what makes you think that a firefighter knows more about explosives than say...you do? find me a bomb tech who heard demo charges going off and ill listen. ive never met a firefighter that had even a fraction of the demo training i have, and the ones i DID meet that had any at all were at a DOJ training class on wmd's and terrorism that i attended in july of 2002. many of them were from NYC. many of them were there that day. the whole day was the subject of many discussions in class and up at the bar over many beers. guess how many of them thought there were bombs in those buildings...ill give you a hint. its a nice round number.


Besides one of the explosions is on tape, even I can tell the difference.

and your basis for comparison is...what? how many demo charges have you set off? tnt? c4? dynamite? anfo? hell...claymore mines? bangalore torpedos?

ive set up and detonated all of those. so...when i hear the tapes. when i watch the vids...i do NOT see demo charges, i do NOT hear demo charges.






Originally posted by Damocles


- Squibs
ROFL im not even going to touch that one...


Oh but please do.. It's on video, no reason denying it, and no reason to react like you have the final answer to that because your opinion is as good as mine.


no, theres a 'puff' on video. there is no accompanying sound, no flash, and everyone wants to talk about symetrical/asymetrical damage. lets apply that to explosives shall we? how can you expect that an explosion large enough to blow out a window is only going to blow one out when its an omnidirectional overpressure? unless it was a linear shape charge, and then its not going to have enough overpressure to blow out a single window. and how does it blow out a window, yet not make a sound? silencers? and ive worked with all these things, in real life. i can do the calcs in my head in many cases. i know RE factors off the top of my head...hell ive even tasted c4...so, in this particular case..my opinion is slightly better than yours. but thats only my opinion.



How can you look at that building collapse and say there's no evidence for a demolition?


because...thers no evidence for a demolition? cuz, well, there isnt...?

Then you try to water down the arguments but basically without any substance. The only thing that keeps your theory standing is blind faith.

well, a few things on this one...first, im not watering down anything. im asking for PROOF for your argument to compare to my real life experience. next, blind faith doesnt keep my theory standing becuase quite simply, i have no theory. i have no theory at all why wtc7 fell the way it did. never said i did. my only theory is that there were no explosives preplaced in wtc7 and thats based in the real world...not google, not the matrix, not mi3.


Atleast our evidence supports our theory,

and the bible can be taken as evidence to prove the existance of god...so...whats your point?


you on the other hand have nothing. So stop trying to blame us for not having any 'proof', I honestly think you're projecting.

think what you will. but you are wrong about me having nothing. well, actually...youre right, i have nothing. nothing that will convince me there were demo charges in any wtc building.


Besides, I'm sure the towers were brought down by explosives, which is proven by physics.

no, it isnt.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ive never met a firefighter that had even a fraction of the demo training i have, and the ones i DID meet that had any at all were at a DOJ training class on wmd's and terrorism that i attended in july of 2002. [edit on 6-2-2007 by Damocles]


You must not have met any smoke jumpers. Most forest fire firghters have some demo training and experience. Also fire resuce teams have some demo training and the equipment and knowleddge to cut beams.

I was a federal police officer for 12 years, have a basic knowledge of explosives from training and having a friend in EOD. I also have knowledge in emergeny incident managment so i can tell when the official story is wrong when it comes to how the WTC and Pentagon incident was handled.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
ULTIMA1

Your not alone in your assessment on what happened on 911.

Have you seen this site on Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, who have problems with the official story.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Some very interesting comments.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   


guess how many of them thought there were bombs in those buildings...ill give you a hint. its a nice round number.


I will bet its ZERO.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
How do physics prove explosives bought down the WTC? Please explain.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Damocles
ive never met a firefighter that had even a fraction of the demo training i have, and the ones i DID meet that had any at all were at a DOJ training class on wmd's and terrorism that i attended in july of 2002. [edit on 6-2-2007 by Damocles]


You must not have met any smoke jumpers. Most forest fire firghters have some demo training and experience. Also fire resuce teams have some demo training and the equipment and knowleddge to cut beams.

I was a federal police officer for 12 years, have a basic knowledge of explosives from training and having a friend in EOD. I also have knowledge in emergeny incident managment so i can tell when the official story is wrong when it comes to how the WTC and Pentagon incident was handled.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]


heh, you are correct that i havnt met any smoke jumpers, but i am aware of the use of explosives in helping create firebreaks etc, but we're not talking about smoke jumpers, i only say this so that no one goes sidetrack to my posts. apples=apples.

firefighters are equipped for demo as far as cutting away beams and have to have a working knowledge of structural architecture so that they can safely move and remove debris to rescue people trapped in collapsed buildings etc, but can we both agree taht in no situation would you use explosives to clear away rubble to get to survivors of a catastrophe? when i personally say demo, i mean demolitions IE explosives. i can see where by using the slang 'demo' it can be taken to mean anything, so i will clarify for everyone.

part of the hazmat training i got when i was with the wmd response team included incident command (think i even still have the FEMA cert around here somewhere for their IC class) and ill agree...there were a LOT of things that were either mishandled due to the WTF? factor etc, but even someone with a lot of training and dicipline is going to be subject to stress. and lets face it, regardless of who was responsible for 911, the guys on the ground were under stress. ive said before i dont think we're getting the real story in the 'official version', i just have difficulty making the leap from 'not getting the whole and accurate story' to 'the govt did it', and i just cant see complicity on the part of FDNY in any plot by the USG.

but ultima, let me ask you a serious question, answer in u2u if you like becuase im not being a smart ass in asking, its a real question. i talk at GREAT lengths about how i dont see the use of explosives in the wtc's on 911 based on my own real life experiences. based on yours, do you see evidence of demo charges? if so, what specifically? ive said in many other threads many times ill admit theres a chance im wrong and im open minded enough to consider valid evidence by experienced people. if youve seen something i missed, id love to discuss it honestly.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

no, theres a 'puff' on video. there is no accompanying sound, no flash, and everyone wants to talk about symetrical/asymetrical damage. lets apply that to explosives shall we? how can you expect that an explosion large enough to blow out a window is only going to blow one out when its an omnidirectional overpressure? unless it was a linear shape charge, and then its not going to have enough overpressure to blow out a single window. and how does it blow out a window, yet not make a sound? silencers?


I would think the better question is this:

If the puffs of smoke seen on all three WTC collapses were caused by the pancaking of the floors, why didn't puffs of smoke come out more windows, and on more floors?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
because air pressure built up by compression is going to be slower than overpressure from an explosive. no matter how fast that building falls, its going to be slower than overpressure from an explosive. i say it twice becuase its pretty important. so with a building falling, it stands to reason the frames of the windows could shift a bit and air will blow out the weakest one or two on a floor.

an explosive big enough to blow out a single window in an area that wide open floorplan wise is going to
A: blow out more than one window
B: make a HELL of a lot of noise. even with the sounds of the building collapsing, its going to make noise that someone would have picked up on and been able to pinpoint in later videos.

also, lets play the 'lets pretend' game for a moment. lets pretend there WERE explosives...people will say that they were premature detonations.

ok, so...you rig the charges to ripple top to bottom so it looks 'natural' and you ahve a random charge going off several floors below. well, given that any real demo expert is going to rig all the charges on a floor to go off simultaneously on a single circuit, usually dual primed, you would have seen the whole floor blow out and the collapse to start a second (or more depending how many 'squibs' you see) collapse and it wouldnt look natural.

do you really think a demo expert would be good enough to ripple them taht precisly and make that kind of dumb grunt mistake?

edit to add: but the question posed to me is not one i should have fielded. im not in design or construction of highrises. and even the classes i went to in college were in electrical engineering not structural engineering or high level physics. so my first paragraph could be proven wrong in regards to window frames and air pressure. i took the question more as a way to illustrate some more explosive data than anything.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
How do physics prove explosives bought down the WTC? Please explain.


Simple, fire not hot enough, damage not extensive enough. This according to physical evidence and analysis provided by our good friends at NIST.
There's a lot more, but this is enough to prove that the towers didn't come down from damage and fire.

Haven't you read the official rapport?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Simple, fire not hot enough, damage not extensive enough. This according to physical evidence and analysis provided by our good friends at NIST.
There's a lot more, but this is enough to prove that the towers didn't come down from damage and fire.

Haven't you read the official rapport?


ok, so...you have what you feel is proof that the fire and plane impact couldnt bring down the towers.

where does that provide proof, through physics that it was in FACT explosives?

here i was hoping for something earthshattering



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
yes it is, without an actual picture of wtc7's south face we cant tell one way or the other, yes that means we also cant tell if it was on fire and extensivly damaged.


Ok then, you're right, 9/11 was pretty magical and all sorts of crazy stuff happend, so why not an invisible fire.


Originally posted by Damocles
signs MAY point to a demolition, but do NOT point to high explosives being
anywhere near any of the wtc towers.


That's not important, you don't need a gun and bullet to know someone has been shot. What we need is sufficient evidence, in all three cases, that fire and damage were insufficient for the collapses. I think that should be obvious from any of the videomaterial and the analysis.


Originally posted by Damocles

This is evidence for a demolition. Maybe not conclusive on it's own.

sure, it could also be evidence for a building falling down


Buildings tend to resist, the 6 second fall suggests little resistance.


Originally posted by Damocles
u can think that all you want...doesnt make it so. what makes you think that a firefighter knows more about explosives than say...you do?


I never said they knew anything about explosives. I really wish you'd let an answer sink in for a bit instead of just reacting to it.
Obviously a firefighter would recognize explosions of regular appliances, gas tanks, gas lines and whatnot. They don't have to be demolition experts to know something was out of place.


Originally posted by Damocles
and your basis for comparison is...what? how many demo charges have you set off? tnt? c4? dynamite? anfo? hell...claymore mines? bangalore torpedos?

ive set up and detonated all of those. so...when i hear the tapes. when i watch the vids...i do NOT see demo charges, i do NOT hear demo charges.


No, but some firefighters obviously did.
And really, explosions all day, how much gas tanks did they have in those buildings? And all in those small pockets of fire? But exploding spread out throughout the day?

What do you think the explosion audible on the next video is?
www.youtube.com...



Originally posted by Damocles
no, theres a 'puff' on video. there is no accompanying sound, no flash, and everyone wants to talk about symetrical/asymetrical damage. lets apply that to explosives shall we? how can you expect that an explosion large enough to blow out a window is only going to blow one out when its an omnidirectional overpressure? unless it was a linear shape charge, and then its not going to have enough overpressure to blow out a single window. and how does it blow out a window, yet not make a sound? silencers? and ive worked with all these things, in real life. i can do the calcs in my head in many cases. i know RE factors off the top of my head...hell ive even tasted c4...so, in this particular case..my opinion is slightly better than yours. but thats only my opinion.


So many words just to say "well I don't know how they did it". I don't blame you, neither do I.

The squibs haven't moved btw.


Originally posted by Damocles
because...thers no evidence for a demolition? cuz, well, there isnt...?


From your other comments you're obviously undecided but from this comment it seems you are biased.

There is evidence for a demolition, period. What you are looking for is conclusive proof. Like a confession note or charges, since everything was destroyed, that's not gonna happen any time soon.

But if you want to be convinced, look at the two towers, it's a fact that they could not collapse due to fire and damage. Thanks to physical evidence and heat analysis. There's no way around that other than the fact that people still buy what they say instead of the numbers they offer. Because they are two different things.


Originally posted by Damoclesmy only theory is that there were no explosives preplaced in wtc7 and thats based in the real world...not google, not the matrix, not mi3.


So how is yours based on the real world and for instance mine isn't?
This shows that you're just clinging to one side of the story because obviously you don't want to fall in the x-files category?


Originally posted by Damocles

Atleast our evidence supports our theory,

and the bible can be taken as evidence to prove the existance of god...so...whats your point?


So you admit that there is evidence for a demolition. Earlier you said there wasn't. I'm a bit confused. My point is exactly that, LB said there wasn't any evidence.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Here's that video I was talking about in my last post, Damocles (did you see that post?):




You can hear a deep rumble, and then what follows immediately sounds like a static-like noise that witnesses described as a roar.

Now check out this clip:

media.putfile.com...

The WTC towers fell at a speed that would've put the collapse at about 7 floors a second, or 0.14 seconds per 12.5-foot floor, "average" (not like there was any real acceleration anyway; the collapse rates remained constant as far as I have ever seen).

The clip above is a C4 detonation overlapping itself in similar, varying intervals of time, so that the peaks are offset and do not amplify each other. With multiple detonations per floor you suddenly have a much smoother sounding cover of noise, and much smoother than the clip I linked to above. Even if the charges didn't go off in perfect timing, the overall effect would still be a vague roar, especially to digital equipment which is subject to losing great peaks of amplitude to noise anyway.

People still felt it, and it was far from quiet, no matter how you think it fell. How many people reported explosions as the buildings were falling? I would imagine they felt them rather than heard them in all that mess, aside from the ones that heard explosions that did not occur during the collapses. I doubt we can get a real sense of it through video.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Just seeing this conversation going, it is interesting how prophetic this artcile was, from the Seattle Times 1993:

archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com...



Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."



The article goes on, here are some eerie quotes



"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."


Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."




Then this from City in the Sky




The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

--City in the Sky, p 131



The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
--City in the Sky, p 133




So am I to believe that all these engineers were that far off the mark? That they basically had no clue? Cause in light of what happened, if the buildings came down without explosives, thats what it looks like.

I even re-call Donald Trump one time on Larry King, saying 'those buildings should have never come down'.

I think he probably thought it was something to do with 'cutting corners'.

In fact, he said he thought it was a good idea to re-build them as they were, only stronger and one story higher.

The question is, did Donald know about all the engineers that poured work into studying them beforehand and just how redundant they truly were?


[edit on 6-2-2007 by talisman]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
shroomery: first and foremost,before i go into the rest of my post, maybe it would be beneficial for me to really explain to you what i do and dont believe about 911. that way you arent so confused and wont read into my replies so heavily, or at least be able to quote me in proper context.

i DO beleive that the official story is a sad excuse for a full explaination.
i also beleive that it is possible that the govt threw something together because they HAD to. the people of this country really NEEDED explainations and in the face of having none they glossed over the bits they couldnt explain.
i believe its possible that the government COULD HAVE been complicant on any level in either orchistrating or by virtue of not doing anything allowing it to happen.
i believe that it is POSSIBLE that the government did in fact destroy the world trade center complex.
i even believe its possible that, despite my long years of experience i am totally wrong about everything ive ever posted about explosives in regards to their not being in any of the wtc buildings.
i believe that i am allowed to believe something could be POSSIBLE, WITHOUT necessarily believing that it is what actually happened.
i believe that evidence does not equal proof.
i believe its possible that what you see is what you get. its possible that muslem terrorists hijacked 4 planes and flew them into buildings and they subsequently collapesed.
i believe its possible to believe something is possible without being able to personally explain it.
i believe you are allowed to believe what ever you want.

i do NOT believe there were explosives in any of the wtc buildings.

am i unclear on any of these points?

moving forward:




Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Damocles
yes it is, without an actual picture of wtc7's south face we cant tell one way or the other, yes that means we also cant tell if it was on fire and extensivly damaged.


Ok then, you're right, 9/11 was pretty magical and all sorts of crazy stuff happend, so why not an invisible fire.

read it again, only this time take into context the statements we both made to spur this particular quote. i said the evidence is inconclusive either way and anything beyond that is pure speculation. thats it.




That's not important, you don't need a gun and bullet to know someone has been shot.

no, but a bullet hole would sure help the case wouldnt it?


What we need is sufficient evidence, in all three cases, that fire and damage were insufficient for the collapses. I think that should be obvious from any of the videomaterial and the analysis.

ok, sure, but to make the immediate step to it being explosives? you dont find that to be jumping to conclusions at all?





Buildings tend to resist, the 6 second fall suggests little resistance.

on this i have no particular disagreement. personally i dont have enough evidence or proof to lead me in any direction. this is the reason ive never offered an opinion on what DID bring 7 down.


Originally posted by Damocles
u can think that all you want...doesnt make it so. what makes you think that a firefighter knows more about explosives than say...you do?


I never said they knew anything about explosives.

really? then if you could clarify what you meant exactly when you wrote this:

It was firefighters, I think they would know the difference

if im reading too much into your statments by all means tell me, ill admit that it is possible, context tone and intent are so hard to determine on an internet forum.



I really wish you'd let an answer sink in for a bit instead of just reacting to it.
Obviously a firefighter would recognize explosions of regular appliances, gas tanks, gas lines and whatnot. They don't have to be demolition experts to know something was out of place.

now i realize that this quote is a continuation of the previous one but i wanted to address it separatly. and in the spirit of a fair conversation, im acknowledging that ive split them. but, ill go ahead and ask, what exactly should have been 'in place' on that particular day? what would one have expected to hear? can u deny that at some point on that scene there should have been gas explosions? is it possible, even at all that in the stress of it all when asked in an interview they might have just said 'yeah we heard explosions'? and as to the quotes of firefighters saying they had 'bombs in the building' were each of these guys speaking from first hand knowledge or what they heard from others? did the guys they heard it from know first hand? is it POSSIBLE that in the confusion, maybe not everyone had any idea at all what was really happening?




Originally posted by Damocles
and your basis for comparison is...what? how many demo charges have you set off? tnt? c4? dynamite? anfo? hell...claymore mines? bangalore torpedos?

ive set up and detonated all of those. so...when i hear the tapes. when i watch the vids...i do NOT see demo charges, i do NOT hear demo charges.


No, but some firefighters obviously did.
And really, explosions all day, how much gas tanks did they have in those buildings? And all in those small pockets of fire? But exploding spread out throughout the day?

well if things were 'obvious' we wouldnt be having this discussion now would we? also, explosions all day?

all day?

what kind of crackhead morons did the government hire to righ these buildings? i can only guess thats what you meant, that there were explosions reported all day, because ive never made such a statement that i can recall...so all day? and it took until 5pm for 7 to fall? if i was the govt, id ask for my money back.


What do you think the explosion audible on the next video is?
www.youtube.com...

now THAT is the closest sound ive heard on a 911 video to a HE going off. what do i think it is? without a frame of reference i cant even speculate. it would appear as though its after the twin towers fell and before 7 fell but we have no way of knowing do we? hell that could have been the one that dropped 7 if it was in fact HE. how far away was it? what building was it in? etc...see, to hear a loud bang in nyc on 911 still proves nothing other than that there was a really loud bang (2?) but what i did find really interesting about it was that the firemen, who everyone else puts so much faith in their ability to identify bombs from the sound...just stood there going wtf? if its me and i think a bomb just went off, im gonna hit the deck in case theres another one where that came from.


< snip my own quote.>

So many words just to say "well I don't know how they did it". I don't blame you, neither do I.

The squibs haven't moved btw.

yer right, i dont know. wasnt trying to say i did, just say what it wasnt, with an explaination cuz i know if i had just said "i dont know" someone woulda wanted the detailed answer.



[edit on 6-2-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   


Originally posted by Damocles
because...thers no evidence for a demolition? cuz, well, there isnt...?


From your other comments you're obviously undecided but from this comment it seems you are biased.

yes, undecided, yes biased. i dont think there were explosives in the wtc buildings.


There is evidence for a demolition, period. What you are looking for is conclusive proof. Like a confession note or charges, since everything was destroyed, that's not gonna happen any time soon.

obviously theres evidence, even proof of a demolition...the buildings are gone. there isnt any proof of a controlled demolition using high explosives that has been presented to me that stands up to even a cursory examination. yes i am looking for proof. id like you and yours to prove your case with hard facts and physical evidence. i would like the us govt to prove its case the same way against osama bin ladin and his. is that unreasonable? so in the absense of proof i remain undecided.


But if you want to be convinced, look at the two towers, it's a fact that they could not collapse due to fire and damage.

convinced of what exactly? i have looked at it all and i cant say i disagree about the fires. but that doesnt mean it was preplaced explosives. one>



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join