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.

 

Video of WTC 7 Burning! A Must See

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I find that hard to believe. You seem to have all of the common "movement" lingo and source fallicies down; like a "true" believer.




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
The NYFD couldn't even get there radio's to work in the Tower's and you're going to try and convince me that remote control device's in a raging fire would work properly?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
You are stretching...big-time.

I realize that it is hard , once you have put all of the research and footwork into something; you kinda gaurd that stuff you had to toil for as very relevant.



You mean like all the work you put into your diagram of the "wing" in the Doubletree video? Except you forgot the little detail of looking at the clock in the foreground? Self-projecting again, Gwion?

Instead of even debating this whole WTC7 thing ad naseum, why don't we all just wait 3 or 4 more years for the NIST to finish their report, and then we can learn how the fire collapsed a few strategic vertical steel beams, which then led to a universal horizontal failure of every truss, which then triggered a silmutaneous failure of all the remaining vertical beams.

Seriously, if the collapse of WTC7 was so easy to explain, why would the NIST take over 5 years to complete their report?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I find that hard to believe. You seem to have all of the common "movement" lingo and source fallicies down; like a "true" believer.


Well I guess it just shows how much you know. Maybe if you spent less time packing people into stereotypes you wouldn't have to assume these things and then fall back upon them when your other arguments fail.


Originally posted by Samblack
The NYFD couldn't even get there radio's to work in the Tower's and you're going to try and convince me that remote control device's in a raging fire would work properly?


Do you know when and why the NYFD's radios didn't work?

And do you know what a transmitter is, and radio frequency?

[edit on 21-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I find that hard to believe. You seem to have all of the common "movement" lingo and source fallicies down; like a "true" believer.


And you have all the signs of someone who is brainwashed by the media to believe whatever they tell you.


Originally posted by Samblack
The NYFD couldn't even get there radio's to work in the Tower's and you're going to try and convince me that remote control device's in a raging fire would work properly?


Well you must have never used a radio before. A radio needs an antenna to work a remote control does not.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:28 AM
link   
How does a remote control work,sorry Im not an expert in remote control's.I didn't think they could go through wall's from what I would guess a couple hundred feet away .The remote control theory will not change my mind either way.

And yes I've used radio's,I've had RC car's when I grew up.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Samblack]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by GwionX
You are stretching...big-time.

I realize that it is hard , once you have put all of the research and footwork into something; you kinda gaurd that stuff you had to toil for as very relevant.



You mean like all the work you put into your diagram of the "wing" in the Doubletree video? Except you forgot the little detail of looking at the clock in the foreground? Self-projecting again, Gwion?


Self-projecting? um..no..The clock? You are just chasing your tail..endlessly. Sorry I don't mean that to be projecting..I am just trying to understand.


Instead of even debating this whole WTC7 thing ad naseum, why don't we all just wait 3 or 4 more years for the NIST to finish their report, and then we can learn how the fire collapsed a few strategic vertical steel beams, which then led to a universal horizontal failure of every truss, which then triggered a silmutaneous failure of all the remaining vertical beams.

Seriously, if the collapse of WTC7 was so easy to explain, why would the NIST take over 5 years to complete their report?


Because there is nothing to compare it to. There has never been the amount of force that was thrown at a building like that before. One thing I have learned is Steel buildings are not as strong as stell-reinforced concrete ones; even if they are cheaper, lighter, and can be built taller.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Because there is nothing to compare it to. There has never been the amount of force that was thrown at a building like that before. One thing I have learned is Steel buildings are not as strong as stell-reinforced concrete ones; even if they are cheaper, lighter, and can be built taller.


Yea. It seems to have been forgotten that the buildings were designed as offices, not as nuclear bunkers. Yes there was apparently some element in the design of the towers allowing for an aircraft strike but what level of strike?

They did not build test buildings and hit them with different aircraft for evaluation purposes. They did not build a test '7 and bombard it with stuff and then build a stronger building based on the data. They built the buildings the best that they could at the time based on knowledge, cost and functionality imho.

I don't think anyone can be sure exactly what was happening in any of the buildings at that time. If science and technology was exact we would not need to build prototypes of anything prior to production. The real world so many times has shown experts don't know what they are talking about. I can remember that Millennium Bridge in London. With in days it was closed because people walking on it were making it unstable, this on a pedestrian bridge!!

I think basically the majority of people have now accepted their own interpretations of what happened. As I see it either way the case can only really be proved by replicating the experiment. Perhaps we should start a fund to raise the billions for such an experiment


I think that a few people will sway backwards and forwards into opposite camps. But there aint the evidence to prove either way, so just get on with life. I see no point trying to prove the unprovable.

There may have been a cover up of incompetence but that is all.

a tuppenny one



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
There has never been the amount of force that was thrown at a building like that before.


Can you explain what forces there would have been? Oh, and how does a gravity induced collapse shower a building hundreds of yards away with material that has enough force to damage said building?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Can someone please help me out here:

I am involved in a debate with someone on another forum who is an architect, I have no expertise in any type of construction activity and he is pushing the whole 9/11 official report story as simply being truthful beyond question.
I told him I believe that the Twin Towers could not possibly have been knocked down by a plane and a subsequent fire.
Basically for every challenge I put forward, he has mocked me stating that
the 'so-called' experts who 'make up' these theories e.g. explosives in the building, the presence of molten steel, thermite etc etc are simply false.

Here is an example:
Pm. I'm nearly done...I'm doing my duty here ... By the way... you know all those nuts who tell you explosives create very high temperatures and molten iron... they don't. The create high velocity not high temperature... high temperatures are created by incendiaries.....

How do I counter that argument or has the guy gotta point?


[edit on 21-2-2007 by pmexplorer]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
He has a point. That is why I go with incendiaries (sp?) as the mode of demolition. Incend. do produce heat to melt steel, they do produce molten metals and they do not make noise (well enough noise to be noticed).



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Because there is nothing to compare it to. There has never been the amount of force that was thrown at a building like that before. One thing I have learned is Steel buildings are not as strong as stell-reinforced concrete ones; even if they are cheaper, lighter, and can be built taller.


You are forgetting about the B-25 that hit the Empire State building causing fires and structure damage and it did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. 1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

4. The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.





[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX


Self-projecting? um..no..The clock? You are just chasing your tail..endlessly. Sorry I don't mean that to be projecting..I am just trying to understand.



Seriously, the clock on the Doubletree video tells the whole story. It took 6 seconds from the time the "wing" disappears from sight to the time of the explosion. That means the "wing" traveled about 1200 feet in those 6 seconds. A plane traveling at high speed would have hit it 1 second. The white thing can't be the wing.

That's not to say that the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. That just says that the Doubletree video doesn't show it.




Because there is nothing to compare it to.


I'm not sure I buy that reasoning. There's the laws of physics, building engineering principles, other fire-damaged buildings, say WTC6, WTC5, and WTC4 right across the street, etc.



There has never been the amount of force that was thrown at a building like that before. One thing I have learned is Steel buildings are not as strong as stell-reinforced concrete ones; even if they are cheaper, lighter, and can be built taller.


What about the above mention WTC buildings that did NOT collapse?

And I think you're missing a big point. It's not even a question of whether or not the fires and damage *could* have caused the collapse. The question is how the entire structure failed simultaneously from asymmetrical damage.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Here is an example:
Pm. I'm nearly done...I'm doing my duty here ... By the way... you know all those nuts who tell you explosives create very high temperatures and molten iron... they don't. The create high velocity not high temperature... high temperatures are created by incendiaries.....

How do I counter that argument or has the guy gotta point?


[edit on 21-2-2007 by pmexplorer]


Go to the NIST report on WTC2. They talk about how the molten metal seen dripping from WTC2 is really the aluminum from the plane that was melted. Then they explain that it should be silver, but it's really bright orange because of office materials being mixed with it.

Then show the YouTube videos on thermite.

Here's an example of one:



Then ask how the government reached the conclusion that the molten metal pouring from WTC2 was dirty aluminum and not from thermite.

This should provide more mocking of you, but what the heck, at least you might get this person to read the NIST report.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Are we going to make up our minds here? First its explosives.... remember ALL the witnesses? Then it's Thermite....then its therMATE....now its "Jellied" thermate. Oh wait...its Jellied Thermate AND explosives.

There is not ONE peer reviewed paper that has been written that explains the collapse of WTC1 & 2. (besides what NIST has put forth)

Everyone claims to have their facts down... well... go get it peer reviewed and come back here with it.

One more thing...IF there were plans to bring down WTC-7 ...then the collapse of WTC-1 would have had to been PERFECT...to allow debris to hit WTC-7. Know what Im saying ?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
There is not ONE peer reviewed paper that has been written that explains the collapse of WTC1 & 2. (besides what NIST has put forth)


It also includes the NIST report. How can a report be peer reviewed when they haven't given out their perameters for their computer analysis', any of thier structural calculations and even the construction documents to verify that they are correct?

Here's what Wiki has to say.


U.S. government peer review policies
To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this section may require cleanup.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, and/or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.
This section has been tagged since October 2006.
Most federal regulatory agencies in the United States government must comply with specific peer review requirements before the agencies publicly disseminate certain scientific information. These requirements were published in a Peer Review Bulletin issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), which establishes "government-wide standards concerning when peer review is required and, if required, what type of per review processes are appropriate."

OMB’s peer review bulletin requires that US federal regulatory agencies submit all "influential scientific information" to peer review before the information is publicly disseminated. The Bulletin defines "scientific information" as:

"factual inputs, data, models, analyses, technical information, or scientific assessments related to such disciplines as the behavioral and social sciences, public health and medical sciences, life and earth sciences, engineering, or physical sciences."
The OMB peer review Bulletin defines "influential scientific information" as

"scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. In the term 'influential scientific information,' the term 'influential' should be interpreted consistently with OMB's government-wide information quality guidelines and the information quality guidelines of the agency."


Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Bolded by me. Notice where it says that peer reviewed articles have to submit their factual imputs, data, models and technical imformation. Please show us where NIST has done any of this stuff. Conclusion, by definition, the NIST report has not been peer reviewed. At least not by an independant organization.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Are we going to make up our minds here? First its explosives.... remember ALL the witnesses? Then it's Thermite....then its therMATE....now its "Jellied" thermate. Oh wait...its Jellied Thermate AND explosives.


Are we going to make up our minds here? First it was steel melting, then it was pancake collapse, now it's Pile Driver Collapse. So, I guess the official theories can change when presented with new material but the CT theories can't?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Everyone claims to have their facts down... well... go get it peer reviewed and come back here with it.


Peer reviews aren't what determines if something is true or not. I know this may seem trivial but it really is a logical fallacy, not a strong "stepping-stone" to reaching a firm conclusion about anything objective.

And you act like there's hard info out there, like any old structural engineer can do calculations and figure out exactly what happened and prove/disprove a theory immediately. They can't. And no one has. NIST could have, since they had the construction drawings, but they didn't.

And I wouldn't call it peer reviewed, either, because they asked for comments but picked and choosed which to address publicly. It's not like they had to gain the approval of an independent publisher before having it released, either. Totally different than a real peer review.



One more thing...IF there were plans to bring down WTC-7 ...then the collapse of WTC-1 would have had to been PERFECT...to allow debris to hit WTC-7. Know what Im saying ?


No, I would say this is fallacious logic too. A lot of it was sloppy, really sloppy, for the magnitude of the event. If not for how amazingly easy it was to overlook details in the overwhelming trauma and unexpectedness of the events, then you might've had problems.

As it was, WTC7 went virtually unmentioned and hardly anyone knew the better. That's not a theory, either. That's what happened. And to this day most people don't even know of the building, let alone have seen video of it collapsing.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Are we going to make up our minds here? First its explosives.... remember ALL the witnesses? Then it's Thermite....then its therMATE....now its "Jellied" thermate. Oh wait...its Jellied Thermate AND explosives.

One more thing...IF there were plans to bring down WTC-7 ...then the collapse of WTC-1 would have had to been PERFECT...to allow debris to hit WTC-7. Know what Im saying ?


Well thier are thermite explosives and even a thermite fuel-air device, look it up.

Debris from WTC 1 that hit WTC 7 and causing damage just made it easier to bring it down.



[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CameronFox
Are we going to make up our minds here? First its explosives.... remember ALL the witnesses? Then it's Thermite....then its therMATE....now its "Jellied" thermate. Oh wait...its Jellied Thermate AND explosives.


Are we going to make up our minds here? First it was steel melting, then it was pancake collapse, now it's Pile Driver Collapse. So, I guess the official theories can change when presented with new material but the CT theories can't?


When new EVIDENCE is provided I would expect there to be changes... There is not any new evidence involved with the conspiracy theories... where is the evidence that CTers have that has allowed them to make their changes? Was there any explosive material found? was there any thermite found? thermate? jellied thermate?

NIST updated their findings as they gathered evidence.

Alex Jones seems to think yelling louder during his blow hole conventions makes his theories that much more believeable.




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join