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.

 

Where's all the WTC 7 deniers now

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I'm never terribly comfortable with being pigeon holed in such an simplistic way but I probably fall into the category you are thinking of.

I can only speak for myself but I'm certainly still here and not about to change my views in the immediate future on the basis of one or two somewhat overexcited threads that have been running for a few days now.

If you feel that not enough comment is coming from the "deniers" at the moment then it may be that like me they are really rather bored with repeating the same answers to the same questions each time they get asked with the "CTers", (if you'll forgive the pigeonholing), frequently appearing to totally ignore any comments which don't fit with their most recent flight of fancy.

I will always try and look at any new evidence rationally and thoughtfully and try to explain my point of view as appropriate but I am constantly surprised that there are some on internet discussion boards who appear not to want to discuss anything but rather seem simply to adopt a fixed standpoint and regard it as some kind of badge of honour that they will not be swayed from that position under any circumstances.

After all, there are plenty of mainstream media services which already fulfil that role more than adequately.




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Too many witness other than a hand full of reporters.

Not logical to belive 99%+ of the people who witnessed it were given scripts.

If it was that obvious that is was a controlled demolition, there would be a lot more people than just a small handfull that would be screaming this form the rooftops.

Ocam's Razor would seem to side with the planes crashing into the buildings as being the most likely cause of the collapse.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Why do we have another thread that is duscussing the collapse of WTC7 when there is already several doing the same? This is just going to rehash everything said in the other posts. Waste of space IMO.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ff2k1984
So my question for all the spooks and 9/11 deniers is how did the BBC and CNN
call the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened???? Just curious......... I got it, it was aliens right??????


I'm not sure if you're trying to be insulting or not, but i'll offer up my opinion anyway. I remember watching CNN on 9/11, and I remember them talking about the structural integrity of WTC 7 long before it actually fell. If you look at the facts very technically, the building was falling the moment it was compromised. We all know the media would rather talk about this building collapsing than weakening, and that's likely how it played out.

Despite the fact that conspiracies have happened, it continues that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A couple of aircraft slammed into a couple of buildings. All the jet fuel ignited and heated support beams to melting temperature. When these support beams started to go, the floors above came down on the building below, which is the final collapse we see.

I'm not sure i've seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
And it's really not hard to believe that a fire could cause the WTC's to fall symmetrically.

Jet fuel burns VERY hot. You don't need to heat steel that is supporting tons of weight to the point of melting to cause it to lose enough strength to not be capable of supporting tons of weight.

If a Hugh chunk of concrete breaks loose it's going to be pulled to the center of the nearest and most powerful source of gravity, which would be earth. In other words, straight down. When that chunk hits the next floor down, it's not hard to believe that its mass would cause the next floor down to break loose, again the next chunk would be pulled straight down. From there it's just a domino effect.

The WTC's collapsing symmetrically as a result of an extremely hot fire weakening the structural steel is not only believable, it's also quite probable.

I think Ocam's razor would agree.

--- Its not directed at any of the real people asking 9/11 questions, its directed at the deniers especially the ones I saw in the Steve Spack thread---

So are saying that people that don’t agree with your point of view are just plain wrong and can go 7734?

Are you saying that that there is no possibility that what you “believe” to be correct might not really be correct? If that’s the case, I’d really like to see your irrefutable evidence. Speculation really is not evidence.


[edit on 2-3-2007 by hlesterjerome]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet

Originally posted by hlesterj
erome

I you were going to engineer the collapse of the WTC, why would you risk disclosure of your plot by handing out a script to news people ahead of time? Why not just wait until it collapses and let the reporters report what they just witnessed?[edit on 2-3-2007 by hlesterjerome]


Because they didn't want reporters to report what they just witnessed, they wanted them to sell the lie that the building collapsed because of fire. If they reported the truth they would have said it was an obvious controlled demolition.


If it was an obvious controlled demolition, witnessed by countless folks, how exactly has the evidence been surpressed. Wouldn't folks that don't like Bush be chomping at the bit to get that info out(which includes 90+ percent of the media)?


Ram

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I saw somwhere that the steel of WTC7 was more thick than normal building contruction steel. it's on video somwhere.. It had thicker pillars or somthing compared to those of the twin towers.

weird?

[edit on 2-3-2007 by Ram]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   
If he wans to know the reason why some of us who believe the official explanation have stopped arguing our point, it is because of people like the author of this thread who are belligerant and so cocksure about about their theory. Nevermind that I am in structural engineering, nevermind that the person who wrote the book on structural failure, Salvadori (wrote why buildings fall down, something everyone should pick up, its a simple read that communicates the concepts without making you learn all the details that come structural analysis and finite elements) concurs with how it collapsed. I am not going to tell you you are stupid for thinking what you do; don't tell me I am stupid believing what my experience and education in the field leads me to believe.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
WTC 7 was damaged during the collapse of the towers, and then subsequent fires and the damage from the collpase led to instability. This is why they pulled the firfighters and decided to "let it burn". It was unsafe. It was originally to be the staging area after the second plane hit, and then after the collapse the people there were evacuated due to safety concerns.

If you would take the time to read something other than what is posted on the Internet, you might know these things. THere are things called books and archived articles from the days after 9/11.

During the time between the first plane striking and the collaspe, there were numerous reports from people that they were unsure of what had happened. If you were these and heard the planes hit, you would have first thought bomb also because it sounded like a huge explosion.

WTC 7 was collateral damage to the terrorists original objective. I mean, some of you who post were in grade school when the 93 bombing occured, so I can understand that you do not know much of the history of what is occuring, but it might help to pick up a book. 8 1/2 years after the first attempt, they succeeded.

Bojinka was the predecessor to the 9/11 attacks. Same exact MO.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ff2k1984
where are you know?????? [edit on 1-3-2007 by ff2k1984]


Short Answer:

We're still here. We're just sick of arguing with people who change their theory daily as pieces are debunked.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AHCivilE
Nevermind that I am in structural engineering,


Could you post some of your structural calcs for us? Could you also quote in the book where it says that buildings with asymmetrical damage fail symmetrically? Or in your own words as an engineer how a building fails the way it did? Don't worry about the details of the engineering being too over the top. I have a BS in Civil Engineering with emphasis on structural and I'm in the process of studying for my PE exam. I ask for your calculations because I'd like to see what you have done and how (as part of my study). Thanks.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Obviously the idea was not to release the report before it collapsed. The press release was supposed to be ready for just after it had collapsed. Somebody's schedule got screwed up. They wanted their press release with their official explanation put out as soon as it happened to prevent speculation and to prevent people from reporting what they actually saw.

Jet fuel burns around 550C. If steel actually gets up to 600C, it will loose half of its strength, which is NOT enough to cause collapse. Where's the evidence showing that any of the steel actually got up to 600C? NIST's own report states "...most steel did not see temperatures of abouve 250C..." They only found three pieces of steel that got over 250C, and they got to around 450-500C, and based upon the temperatures affects on the paint, these temperatures were only maintained for a few minutes at most.

Trying to say that a puddle of jet fuel burning on the floor for about 10 minutes (NIST Report) is enough to heat all the steel to 600C is just as ridiculous as saying that because your fireplace is burning wood at 550C, all the windows on the other side of the room are melting... they're not. Its called 2nd law of thermodynamics and adiabatic heat transfer.

Even if the steel got to 600C for sustained periods of time, loosing half its strength, it still has quite a ways to go. Steel structures such as bridges work with a 10:1 safety ratio. In other words, their working load is less that 1/10th of it maximum load bearing capacity.

Skyscrapers have much much much higher safety ratios and incredible redundancies. Even if its safety ratio were only 20:1, if it lost half of its strength it still has a 10:1 safety ratio. More likely, if it were 200:1, then after heating it would be 100:1. Clearly its not loaded past its maximum load bearing capacity.

Plus, you have NIST's own models that used fires twice as hot for almost twice as long as what could have possibly been seen on 911. Their fires were generated by massive spray burners putting out megawatts of power. Their temperatures generated by controlled burns, as opposed to the uncontrolled burns on 911, were specifically calibrated to be fed with the perfect amount of fresh oxygen. Their temps reached between 900-1200C, way hotter than jet fuel can burn at in uncontrolled, open-air puddles.

And yet, NIST's models DID NOT collapse!!!

How do you explain that? If its soooo reasonable to expect skyscrapers to totally eviscerate themselves for the first time in history based upon fire, why cant anybody reproduce it???

Its not science if you can produce and reproduce it in a lab. In fact, NIST's models disprove their theories. Unequivocally!

[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
As sensfan said above there are a number of threads already running discussing just about every aspect of the collapse of WTC 7.

The OP asked where the "deniers" were and some of us have answered him but this really isn't the place to instigate another discussion about why the building fell or why the reporting got screwed up.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
How convenient...

Debunkers are debunked so they respond, "this isnt the place to talk about it!!"

This is the place! This is the time!

Quite making lame excuses and face the facts!

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I talked about it to a considerable extent in the main thread on the subject until I got bored of repeating myself. I stopped contributing to the thread on page 40 and explained why at that time.

I'm not making any excuses, lame or otherwise, I just don't see the need for a succession of threads on the same subject.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Spoon 1 made some good points above.Why was this video yanked off google,you tube ,etc. so fast with little or no explanation of why.


The BBC have a deal done with Google and Youtube, google own youtube.
Obviously the BBC don't want anyone to see those clips and to ask awkward questions that they can't answer. Those clips were very clear evidence that the maintsream media were a propaganda tool for the government in selling the lies about 9/11.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   


...

Jet fuel burns around 550C. If steel actually gets up to 600C, it will loose half of its strength, which is NOT enough to cause collapse. Where's the evidence showing that any of the steel actually got up to 600C? NIST's own report states "...most steel did not see temperatures of abouve 250C..." They only found three pieces of steel that got over 250C, and they got to around 450-500C, and based upon the temperatures affects on the paint, these temperatures were only maintained for a few minutes at most.

...

Even if the steel got to 600C for sustained periods of time, loosing half its strength, it still has quite a ways to go. Steel structures such as bridges work with a 10:1 safety ratio. In other words, their working load is less that 1/10th of it maximum load bearing capacity.

...

Plus, you have NIST's own models that used fires twice as hot for almost twice as long as what could have possibly been seen on 911. Their fires were generated by massive spray burners putting out megawatts of power. Their temperatures generated by controlled burns, as opposed to the uncontrolled burns on 911, were specifically calibrated to be fed with the perfect amount of fresh oxygen. Their temps reached between 900-1200C, way hotter than jet fuel can burn at in uncontrolled, open-air puddles.

And yet, NIST's models DID NOT collapse!!!

How do you explain that? If its soooo reasonable to expect skyscrapers to totally eviscerate themselves for the first time in history based upon fire, why cant anybody reproduce it???

Its not science if you can produce and reproduce it in a lab. In fact, NIST's models disprove their theories. Unequivocally!



That, plus the logical contradiction being purported here.


I have a question below that I pose for any "inside job" denier because it seems to go unanswered from the official explanation:

First, let's extrapolate from the official story that jet fuel didn't melt the steel, but instead burned and heated it to the point of structural weakness just enough for the building to collapse.

Ok.

Now for the sake of this argument, Let's put aside how asymmetrical damage, and the consequences of the fires, brings down a steel re-enforced structure symmetrically, without resistance from the lower floors (even though the "pancake" theory explains this would occur), onto it's own building footprint within the free fall speed of an object falling to earth dropped from the same distance, and not encountering any physical resistance.

Done.

Next, let's remember (and then forget) that building 7 did not get hit by an airplane, and was not affected by any kerosene jet fuel, but instead was burning due to small fires that broke out from supposed propane, or other small gas tanks located it kitchens or other areas that were damaged and then exploded, after the initial collateral damage occurred.

Fine.

The building is now on the ground.

Now we're finally up to speed!

HERE'S MY QUESTION:


Where did all this molten slag come from?

Molten "Hot Spots" @ WTC's


What existed in the buildings to generate molten metal that burned for 6 to 8 weeks after the collapse of the buildings at temperatures above the theoretical maximum temperatures for hydrocarbon fuel?

Unfortunately we can't say melted steel, because that would contradict the official story of steal not being melted, but only heated to debilitating temperatures.

Unfortunately we can't say jet fuel, because these "hot spot" slag deposits existed under the rubble of building 7 as well.

It had to have been an element that existed in all 3 buildings before the planes struck.

And finally, where did all this sulfur come from?

Sulfur Content of WTC Steel

I look forward to the response.

Thank you,
--Hamking



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
There is nothing for the administration to gain from this being an inside job. Nothing. They would have destoryed offices for the Secret Service, DOD, the INS, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).


Also, NIST has not released a final report on this to my knowledge, only working theories. A paper will be published this year on the final findings.

NIST

NIST wiki

Take a look at who they are. This is not a few government guys making BS findings.

The building itself was built on a Con Ed substation that was already there for 20 years. So, you are building a structure on a structure. This is harder than jsut building a new building with its own base. IT is common, but it is a factor I am sure.

There also is absolutley no evidence of a controlled demolition. If you think that there were no sniffers that were dispatched you are mistaken. The thought of chemical/dirty weapons aboard those planes with the hijackers were of a major concern.

Also, take a moment and step back. Look at the big picture. SO many in these posts state also that this was needed to go to war. Then I will read in other posts about how dumb bush and his cabinet are or how they do not need a reason to go to war. WHich is it? Credibility goes farther to earning respect than attacking another persons view.

If I choose to beleive that the debris which ripped a 10 story whole in a 40+ stroy building, and based on the design it gave way and collasped after 8+ hours on fire, what am I denying? Why did the 'neo-cons' wait 8 hours to "pull it"?

Think about it



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There is nothing for the administration to gain from this being an inside job. Nothing.


are you really this gullible and this misinformed. The Bush admin and their cronies have made BILLIONS of dollars in all sorts of contracts, from military, security, oil etc from the events of 9/11



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
What you do not understand is that those things exist no matter who is in office. Are you that guillible to think putting someone else in office will change Haliburton contracts or give you free medical care, or lower the cost of a gallon of gas?
Wars are nothing more than arms shows. That is what GW 1 was. It was the oppurtunity to show off the F-117 and the Patriot missle batteries we wanted to sell for protection to other countries, so what better than a war. HUssien was in the wrong place at the right time for US.

The only thing that the government gained from 9/11 is doubt in their decsions. Do you not think they would have tried something that would garner support? THere are no black helicopters wisking conspriacy bloggers away to Gauntanamo, so I think we are safe.

Hopefully when NIST presents its findings it will be able to shed some more light on this subject.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join