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.

 

Why did building 7 fall?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   


You are grasping onto a false hope in the validity of your love for a country that can do no wrong to the extent of murdering its own citizens and staging a "war on terror" to get the American people behind a right wing capitalist assault, both on the economies and religious foundations of the MiddleEastern world...


not to mention waging war on its OWN people, because it knows we'll catch on to its no-so-hidden agenda en masse soon enough. When the majority of the country REALLY gets the drift, we'll be a major threat to the powers that be... because WE have the power to turn our backs on them and say NO MORE!

I say we fight them with knowledge and love this time.

Instead of ignorance, fear, and hate.

I just thought I'd add that... slightly off subject.




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04
Defcon, I would like to know why you purposely tried to mislead adjay into thinking that a building collapsed in S.C. due to truss failure.

The building did collapse, whether that be in part or totally, that is by definition what “structural failure" means.


Charlston Sofa Super Store
The Charleston Sofa Super Store fire occurred on June 18, 2007, in Charleston, South Carolina, United States, in which a flashover and structural collapse contributed to the deaths of nine Charleston firefighters.

Despite efforts to confine and extinguish the fire, it continued to spread into the structure and ignited furniture in the showroom, growing more quickly than the few operating hose lines could control before additional water could be applied to the fire, however efforts to stretch and begin operating additional hose lines continued[4][3]. At 7:41 p.m. the showroom area of the store experienced a flashover while at least sixteen firefighters were still working inside. The flashover contributed to the rapid deterioration of the structural integrity of the building, leading to a near-complete collapse of the roof just minutes later. Many of the firefighters caught in the flashover were unable to escape and were trapped under the collapsed roof and shelving weakened by the fast-spreading fire. Several calls for help were made by trapped firefighters and efforts to rescue them were commenced. These efforts proved unsuccessful. By the time the fire was brought under control, nine Charleston firefighters had lost their lives.

Fine I was off by one firefighter due to reading the article too quickly, still better then 99.99999% of the truth movement information you get on the web. IHMO your splitting hairs on this one. Your beliefs must be taken a better beating then I realize if this is what your going to use to try and discredit me…



[edit on 12/14/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
defcon5, I'm pretty careful about what I post on these forums. I don't have a bad habit of breaking the rules. If I did I would hear about it from the moderators. This is just typical of your style of agument. You can sum it up in one phrase, "no foundation in fact".


Well you have already accused me of living in some type of cuckoo land (being nuts), and of being a disinformation person of some form. You do realize that both of those things are not allowed in the rules since the latest crackdown on personal insults came into being. Unless you can prove that I am a paid disinformation agent, or that I am insane, then I suggest you keep those thought to yourself. Besides just because someone does not personally agree with you does not make either of those two insults true.



Originally posted by ipsedixit
"no foundation in fact".

O…RLY?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
And that would be left up to the owner, wouldn't it defcon5, in cloud cuckoo land?


Originally posted by ipsedixit
some of the people regurgitating the same old Bush droppings in these threads are actually students getting paid by the line to perpetuate certain absurd lines of thinking. Just a thought.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

IF you want to comment on the associations, memberships, or any other PERSONAL LIFE/PERSONALITY aspect of anyone you must source the connection and then explain how and why that connection is valid and germane to your point.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
No sir, you are in fact the one who is wrong, let me explain.
The frequency controls how much electricity is generated in the wire, not that there is electricity generated in the wire. Something with a frequency of 1 will not induce as much current to flow in the wire as something with a frequency of 100K, but both will induce a current. The reason being due to the lines of flux that are cutting the wire, the more rapidly that it occurs the more current produced in the wire, but both induce a current.


*Sigh* How ironic your next post throws accusations of "blatant lies", when right here you have a full deck of them. You say I'm wrong, yet I was pointing out you proved yourself wrong by stating:


It has nothing to do with the frequency that the phones use, which is why I posted links to what I was referring to. It has to do with the RF Signal of the cell phone


I am not wrong.

The amount of induced emf is proportional to the rate of change of flux linkages (with the conductor (flux linkages = number of turns x flux)). Something with a frequency of 1Hz could easily induce more current than something with a frequency of 100KHz. The power of the device in question is a factor here, if you don't believe me on this check this paper again to consult the tables.

Firstly, note there is no direct relationship between frequency and power. Observe how, as the power increases, so does the safe minimum distance. Observe also, how, as the frequency increases, the safe minimum distance decreases (except for the MF industrial column, due to things like shielding, requirement for less RF interference).

The reason for this, is due to a special thing called a wavelength, the distance between two adjacent crests on a wave, which is inversely proportional to the frequency. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength, frequency being measured in Hertz, or cycles per second. The lower the frequency, the greater the wavelength, and the less cycles per second. Thus, high frequency radio waves having shorter wavelengths mean more power is required to travel the same distance as a lower frequency radio wave. Lower frequencies with longer wavelengths can travel further with less power. A cell phone, has little power and an ultra high frequency.


Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by adjay
Here's your misleading 10,000 Watts cell phone example, for clarity.

I never said that it had to be a cell phone which generated that much wattage, I just requoted your table. As truthers tend to do you only want to show the numbers that fit your story, instead of all the numbers. This could be a high wattage cell tower test unit, such as a friend of mine had in his car to test cell sites, and driving 560 feet away in the street it could induce a voltage. You’re the one who assumed it has to be hand held.


No, we were talking, as the thread title indicates, about WTC7. And if you throw out a figure like "520 feet", you should make it clearer to people than just saying:


Originally posted by defcon5Originally posted by defcon5So if the wattage is high enough on the device the distance can go all the way up to 560 feet.


You are more than aware how misleading this is. And there's no need to attack truthers ad hominum, you know this very well too. Especially when I point out that you are the one twisting numbers to fit your story, specifically, that WTC7 couldn't be controlled demolition as someone's mobile phone could have set them off (implying at 520 feet with the statement above)



Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by adjay
I really can decide that nobody would be walking around WTC7 in a boat! Please provide links of common cell phones with more than 10W transmitting power.

I believe that there is a phone called a brick phone which is a hand held phone that is made for use on boats, and operates at a higher wattage then a normal cell phone. How about satellite phones, what type of wattage do they output?


Try getting the boat into WTC7. It isn't possible and therefore it's baseless to suggest it to backup your claim of CD being impossible due to someone's cell setting it off. Typical Iridium handsets transmit approx. 0.5 – 0.6 watts. 3W boosters are linked above starting at ~$169.


Originally posted by defcon5
Shielded cable is wire wrapped with layer of other wire, and as such is substantially thicker then normal wire and harder to bend.


Yes, but not like you are making out. I have installed a fair amount of this stuff, and it's never caused a problem like you seem to suggest. In any situation.


Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by adjay
· You do not know what circuit was used, or how much current would trigger
· You do not know if the circuit was shielded
· You do not know where the circuit was, or how close anyone could get to it
· Considering the above, you have no idea how close the cell could trigger it
· You have no proof that it even can trigger it
· You have no idea how powerful any cell phone was that day
· You assume the charges were placed way in advance
· You also assume an electrical and wired trigger circuit

You also assume these things. Anyone trying to execute such a plan have to assume several of them as well. They would never attempt it because there are to many factors which could go wrong, and they would be caught red handed.


No, I don't, I consider them all as being possible. You outright dismiss them based on your claim that cell phones would have set them off, therefore no CD on WTC7.

I state again, a wireless system could have been used, which would throw out your claim completely, if it was still around to be thrown out (which it isn't).



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
reply to post by defcon5
 


It's not an insult, I'm sorry if you took offense. My statement mentions the word "see", as all it takes is a look to see how buildings are demolished in a controlled way, some examples are here of earthquake destruction and controlled demolitions. It is my opinion, if you cannot see the blatant similarities, that you are in fact kidding yourself. I'm not calling you anything, and you have every right to your own opinion.

Danny Jawenko is a controlled demolitions expert, and he was unaware of a third building falling that day. He says "absolutely" that it is controlled demolition. He even consulted the building plans, after being told it was building 7 that came down on 9/11 next to and after WTC1 and WTC2, and concluded it could not possibly have been brought down by fire. And reaffirms it was controlled demolition, and confirms the "pull it" term is in fact a controlled demolition term.



I had typed out a longer post, but the internet swallowed it. (not a conspiracy!)


Jowenko also said that the twin towers was brought down by the planes alone. No bombs needed.

Do you trust him on that one?

If not, then he can make mistakes. Which calls into question him saying building 7 was demolished by bombs.

You can't have it both ways.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by albie
There is witness testimony from firefighters who were in the building well up to before it fell.

What was the latest any firefighter was actually inside Building 7. How many were there at that time, and can you identify them and link to their testimony please?

Out of interest, do you know what time Larry Silverstein made the 'pull it' comment and to whom?


First off the FEMA report.


The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."


www.prisonplanet.com...

But quotes from firefighters say they were in the building.


We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden


www.firehouse.com...

Now, this debunks the whole idea that there was never any firefighters in building 7.

Conspiracists say that when Silverstein says this " I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”

He was talking about blowing the building. But he wasn't. He was talking about the rescue operation.

Consider the context of that sentence. He's talking about lives. How does blowing a building up save lives? No, but pulling rescue workers out of a building that was already showing signs of leaning over, then it makes sense.



[edit on 14-12-2007 by albie]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Hi Defcon,
I read through the entire thread very carefully and it's obvious you are "debating" with some (not all) people who are not looking for honest discussion. They are, however, looking for "gotcha" moments.

My speculation is the original poster is someone we know quiet well in other threads. The original exchange was full of bait, although carefully hidden. Most likely, one of the more active people you are talking to is, in fact, the OP.

I say again, demanding "proof" that those of us who think the WTCs came down because of what is, to us, obvious is merely a clever argumentative tactic. The proof they seek is literally everywhere. Reams and reams of video tape, audio tape, eyewitness accounts, third party analysis, etc.

It's a circular argument and one to which there is no answer. Which, to them, is the point. If they can demand you further "prove" that the reams and reams of data that exists are true - thereby defacto ignoring the reams and reams of data that currently exists - they hide their arguments from scrutiny (which it never stands up to) and create a flase sense of "debate".

Bottom line; through clever argumentative technique they dismiss the overwhelming amount of evidence amassed, demand "proof" that the massive amount of data is accurate (which of course they will never be satisfied with) and in the same breath expect you to believe that shaped charges, holograms, cell phones, massive conspiracies involving shadowy government types, special demolition teams, window washers on the inside, explosive experts hereforto unnamed, the "cooling" effect thousands of gallons of JP4 had on building trusses and............

Basically, your arguing fine, scientific-based evidence with a few people who are just throwing out wild ideas offering evidence that is interesting but, doesn't validate their positions when viewed in complete context- IMHO.

Imagine if the WTCs had, in fact, been destroyed in a controlled demolition? What if the three buildings that had been collapsed were, in fact, gutted, roped off, cleaned up and rigged for explosions. Over a year. Or two. Or three. Say the big day came and the buildings were demolished, right on que. Then one day, a group of people materialized and insisted that planes flying into the buildings were responsible for the destruction. What if a giant cabal of the "military industrial complex" had a vested interest in doing this? Maybe hologram projectors were used to "cover up" the crashes! Perhaps all of the demolition workers were paid employees of the shadow government. All three thousand of them. The demolition crews, engineers, city officials and, of course, all of the acronym agencies were/are involved. After the building came down and literally years after all of the materials were removed, self professed internet detectives comb through hundreds of pictures and point out "inconsistencies" and ignore rational, reasoned explanations. These same people insist that - perhaps - cell phones were used to trigger the hologram to cover the "real" cause of the explosion. Maybe the before mentioned construction crews, demolition experts, engineers, city officials, etc were actually on the planes that flew into the buildings; thereby eliminating those in the know. Maybe their families and all of the their extended families......oh and friends....and the friends families and extended families were too. Oh, and co-workers of the main actors and extended friends and........

And I haven't even covered a 10th of the hoop-jumping that would have to go on to give this story any legs.

But yet, here we are.


[edit on 14-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Jowenko also said that the twin towers was brought down by the planes alone. No bombs needed.

Do you trust him on that one?

If not, then he can make mistakes. Which calls into question him saying building 7 was demolished by bombs.

You can't have it both ways.


Oh, yes I can. It isn't about trust. It's about finding out the evidence for myself, if he disagree's with me on WTC1 or WTC2, that's fine. In fact, let's see where he said that, and see if he said it with such conviction as he did regarding WTC7.

One major point is that WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by planes, more likely his expert opinion is valid that he cannot say they were CD for sure without more evidence, but we don't have that. The story may be different if we did.

I want to see this link of him flat out denying WTC1 and WTC2 was not CD, not a vague reference in the documentary where he says something like "not like the others".



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   
The Leaning Tower 7





Hayden is also quoted as saying:


By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


activistnyc.wordpress.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
First of all, why would Giulliani choose an "unstable" building to house a reinforced emergency center?

There was no reason they should have believed that the structure would be unstable under most conditions, but given enough damage any structure right up to a hardened bunker will fail. All of you guys like to act like an engineer can calculate everything out mathematically about how a structure is going to react to an event, but that is not the way things work out. When I worked in the computer field I worked in an engineering department for an automotive company, and they cannot accurately tell how a vehicle is going to fail based solely on math either. Math will give them a good estimation of the way it should react, but not exactly how its going to react. That is why they have to do vehicle testing of every new model that is produced, so they know exactly how it should react in most situations and failures. Even actual testing is not going to guarantee that the vehicles will always react the exact same way to every similar failure. There comes a point where there are too many factors in play at one time to even try and accurately model the situation.

This is the problem with even engaging in these conversations, because truth movement folks believe that everything should be in these perfect little boxes, that they have to happen an exact way, and then they ask for similar proof to a situation which has never occurred before in history. The reality is that we can speculate on similar situations as to why things occur, but you can never truly reconstruct what happened here. There is no way to know if this bolt was manufactured better then spec and that one was right at spec. There is no way to know if a riveter got lazy or distracted, and skipped a rivet here or there. There are so many factors to take into account that it is impossible to duplicate the situation even if you built a 1 to 1 scale model, and reenacted the entire situation. Based on my experience working for the airlines, my experience being present immediately after two aircraft mishaps, my experience flying, my experience working for an engineering department, my experience with electronics, and my experience working in the medical field, I see much more that is wrong in the speculation of the truth movement then I do with the official story so far.


Originally posted by indierockalien
And your own story conflicts itsself. Either the building collapsed from the "huge gash" and the fires... or it collapsed from truss failure. Which is it? It can't be both, because then

Um. Yes it can. The burning debris caused both the gash in the building and the fires. The Weakening of the structure due to the fires caused the truss failure. The “root cause” of the collapse must then be said to be the debris of the other buildings hitting this building, but the final event which caused the collapse is the failure of the trusses. I assume you have studied root cause analysis considering that you have studied statistics.


Originally posted by indierockalien
You are grasping onto a false hope in the validity of your love for a country that can do no wrong to the extent of murdering its own citizens and staging a "war on terror" to get the American people behind a right wing capitalist assault, both on the economies and religious foundations of the MiddleEastern world...

I have stated this before, I will state it again. I don’t really care that much one way or the other, that is why I don’t normally post in the 911 forums too often anymore. To me it makes more sense that even if the government was involved in some way, it was to help the guys who did it get up to par so they could do what they did. It makes no sense to try and pull all this conspiracy stuff which would leave them open to get caught. I think that many CT’ers in general overestimate what the government is capable of.


Originally posted by indierockalien
It's a hard thing to accept as truth...

I'm sorry, but it's true. We've been had, defcon. We've been raped and murdered bigtime by the hand that keeps us so "free".

It is time to accept this, for it is a fact that even the laymen are starting to grasp their minds around. For you to continue trumpeting out this... frantic propaghanda.... that you are posting here, it is an insult to YOUR intelligence.

I just don’t see it yet. I have seen a lot of circumstantial evidence, and a lot of misinterpretation, but I have not seen anything that proves to me that anyone from our government was directly involved. Many of the things which folks base their theories on are nothing more then reading between the lines on a day where people were acting on imperfect information, and doing the best they could. Where people where in shock. Where possibly some decisions were made to try and control the situation that may not look so nice after the fact, and have been covered up. These things happen in those types of situations, and they are not intentional conspiracies.


Originally posted by indierockalien
You are grasping onto a false hope in the validity of your love for a country that can do no wrong to the extent of murdering its own citizens and staging a "war on terror" to get the American people behind a right wing capitalist assault, both on the economies and religious foundations of the MiddleEastern world...

Personally I think truthers are afraid of the thought that a small rogue group could pull of such an attack, and they need to feel that it was done by some big “all-powerful” government force. I think that is comforts them to think that even if “Big Brother” was behind this, that at least it was “Big Brother “ in control of the situation. I also think that many of the first to jump on the Truth movement bandwagon were the democrats that felt spurned after the 2000 elections.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   
right, obviously.... reason flies out the window when dealing with "facts and figures" flying from every possible source with every possible differing opinion you could imagine, all with IRREFUTEABLE PROOF, and this is obviously turning into a thread forum where it's all about flexing of academic muscle and wit. It's not about stepping back from everything and going "Hmm, what doesn't fit right here to me... to my own conscience?"

Each side is biased, and each side is trying to support "flimsy" (in debunker terms) facts, when it's actually a lot simpler than that. Just friggin LOOK and accept it for what it is. If nobody ever told you "Oh that was a building that fell due to damage from the terror attacks of 9/11", what would you HONESTLY think that was? What does it LOOK like?

What did Dan Rather say as the building was falling LIVE on TV? What did it look like? It looks almost like a.... controlled demolition!?!?!?!

By God, man!

Looks can be decieving, but not in this case. Structural failure is just too complicated of an event to look like anything else. We can't prove too well that the WTC twin towers were brought down in a controlled fashion (although, like I said, structural failure of steel buildings due to unforseen ocurences is a complicated event involving uneven steps, especially when due to uneven structural damage... so deductive reasoning using clear headed logic can tell us all we need to know...), but we have plenty of other models to compare WTC7 to.

Try using Google video and studying controlled demolitions. WTC7 fits the exact profile of an outstandingly perfect controlled demolition example. I'll bet some CD contractors WISH they could do that clean of a job. "Natural" failures due to excessive damage just happen to fail in a perfect CD fashion? Get real. Seriously. Like you said, defcon5, this IS a world of gravitational forces and physics.

How you can disprove something that has video proof is beyond me.
Stop watching the idiot box, is all I can say to all the CD debunkers (and pretty much anyone). It's clouding your judgement, or killing your braincells or something. I wouldn't trust the CD debunkers with my dog for the week, no matter how many degrees they have perched on their walls. Why? Because they'll probably try debunking the existance of my dog, and in doing so, they'll become so wrapped up in trying to give nice scientific data to prove that my dog is actually just the mad delusion of a psychotic, that my dog will go hungry and die of starvation.

This argument is starving the truth of ever seeing the light of day, and it's so sad because it's staring right at you in the form of video proof. The most documented conspiracy in history, and still people are denying the conspiracy happened.

You're insulting your own intelligence, defcon5. You really seriously are. This is coming from a guy with a GED in dropout-dynamics. I'm not trying to insult you, but if a guy with a GED is calling a Computer Engineer's argument silly, this should say something about the argument in general. I don't care about either side's agenda, really. The proof is in the pudding. It doesn't matter the specific ingredients. The pudding is there to be digested by all easily, by just opening your mouth and scooping it in... but no, you people, you sit here and argue about the specifics of why or why not the ingredients do or do not add up to pudding.

It's right friggin' THERE, in the 8 zillion copies of footage of WTC7!!!!

The sweet video-flavored pudding of truth!

These arguments are petty, and they serve no purpose.

I agree with some people. They should just close this forum, because it's just a good reason for opposing factors with differing agendas to bicker back and forth in an andless stalemate, seeing how much shinier their golden knowledge is than their rivals. Sad to say, but ATS will not be the medium of truth for 9/11, so just end it.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   


Try using Google video and studying controlled demolitions. WTC7 fits the exact profile of an outstandingly perfect controlled demolition example. I'll bet some CD contractors WISH they could do that clean of a job. "Natural" failures due to excessive damage just happen to fail in a perfect CD fashion? Get real. Seriously. Like you said, defcon5, this IS a world of gravitational forces and physics.


What about the leaning and bulging that the firechiefs saw well before the building collapsed? How do you make that happen?

It seems to me you judge too much on the shallow side of witness statements "It LOOKS like". Means nothing.

Until you realise that fact you are basically saying nothing to us.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I do however agree with some things you said. People are afraid of our country being compromised by a rogue group of DIY terrorists on a religious jihad mission against the US. That is scary... and it scared me for a long time, too. To deny that it's possible is silly.

But this is a completely different ballgame. Every action taken before, during, and after the event, as well as the plain ole stink of the event itsself, in hindsight, does not suggest that this was the case.

I hope I don't sound like I am insulting you, defcon. I can see where people on the other side come from, really.... and maybe you aren't out just to debunk everything..... but like....

This is so obvious. So easy. So easy, maybe that's why it's so hard to accept. Because how could we all have been so stupid as to just let this slip through our sights? Well, distraction.

The idiot box.

Repetition.

The idiot box.

Patriot fervor.

The idiot box.

We have become the opinions we see on TV, well educated or not. Scientific data in hand or not.

I wouldn't trust a debunker with my dog, but in the same breath, I wouldn't trust humanity as a whole with the world... so don't feel bad. It's nobody's fault but everyone. Even my own... and I get frustrated at this whole thing, and the debunkers, and the truthers, and it all.... because I am frustrated at myself for not seeing the simple truth sooner. Why didn't I pay closer attention? Why was it such a hard mental block to break through to get to the point where I'm at today?

Ya know, really... is it really more comforting to not trust your own government that has its hand in everything and that you depend on for safety and survival?

I don't think so at al. I didn't want this to be true, defcon. Do you really think I like having contempt for America? That is not the type of thing I was raised to do. That is not the type of thing I would've done without solid proof. I loved America about as much as any regular joe did not too long ago.

but the footage of building 7 IS the proof.

A lotta people never saw it fall on TV that day, and most people in New York City that day didn't even see it fall... so it's very easy for it to have been forgotten and then brought up later after the official lines had been repeated 24 hours a day 7 days a week in the weeks leading up to the Afghanistan invasion. You have to wonder why building 7 was swept under the rug so fast. It was just as much a part of the disaster that day as the twin towers... because it was yet another steel framed building to have fallen on a day where two other steel structured buildings had fallen and completely crumbled for the first time in history.

It remains a mystery to only those whose minds are still engrained with the intense mind desensitization that was the result of those 24-7 newscasts, especially the days following those attacks.
If you were not completely destroyed mentally and emotionally by the realization of the stupidity and the ease of just how fast you were manipulated by your own country on the events of that day, and just how much this exposes America as the lie that it is, then either that mental block is still there, and you are still in denial, or you ARE just one of those people who like to be different and "anti" somethingorother just to spark controversy... or maybe you've already suspected lies such as this to exist to begin with, and it came as no surprise to you.

Well it did for me. Building 7 IS the reason why everything has changed for me. Building 7 video IS the proof. There is no "proof" other than that, because that type of "collapse" has never occured in that type of way to that type of building ever before in history... no scientific data has existed to explain how such a perfect "collapse" could take place... and as you can see, the officials didn't even try explaining it, barely mentioning it in the Commission report, and NIST's report... can you really trust NIST? Don't you think that their research could be purpousely flawed? Just for the sake of reducing this argument, just imagine, defcon5, that you believed building 7 WAS proof of a CD and an inside job... don't you think any study by any National Institute would be compromised at that point? Don't you think the gov't would've made sure of that? This is THE biggest lie in American history we're dealing with, after all.

I dunno what else to say, man. If you can't see it by now, maybe you never will... but don't expect to be reading the newspaper or any scientific journal and find the truth on the matter. This is a very tight lipped secret we're talking about here, and the only thing keeping the cat in the box is an almost religious duty of denial that America has been compomised in the biggest most frightening way possible. America IS the new religion, and with that religion comes religious-type dogma that has plagued mankind for millenia.

You've gotta ask yourself.... with all these "religions" going around proclaiming their dogmatic "truth" ("democracy", republicans, science, Judeochristianity, pro-life/pro-choice, Islam, feminism, etc), you've gotta wonder... who's really telling the truth? I thought there was only one truth.
Is my religion of choice telling the truth? Should I just blindly decide to believe it because I've put faith in it my whole life and I would feel like a fool if my whole life's beliefs were proven wrong? Maybe they are ALL lying, and I should find my own truth because all these narrow beliefs are separating everybody and causing arguments, chaos, warfare,death and povery.

Same with building 7. You never answered the key question in my previous post, defcon5.

If you had never known about building 7 or september 11th at all, and you saw the footage from building 7 falling, let's say...in 1999, because I had traveled back in time with a video and shown it to you.... what would you HONESTLY believe had just happened in that video clip?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
I am not wrong.

The amount of induced emf is proportional to the rate of change of flux linkages (with the conductor (flux linkages = number of turns x flux)). Something with a frequency of 1Hz could easily induce more current than something with a frequency of 100KHz. The power of the device in question is a factor here, if you don't believe me on this check this paper again to consult the tables.


No my initial statement is correct:
Inductance is not reliant on frequency.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Why did it fall? select one;

1. it got tired and wanted to nap

2. the wind blew it over

3. it committed suicide

4. someone exploded it



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie



Try using Google video and studying controlled demolitions. WTC7 fits the exact profile of an outstandingly perfect controlled demolition example. I'll bet some CD contractors WISH they could do that clean of a job. "Natural" failures due to excessive damage just happen to fail in a perfect CD fashion? Get real. Seriously. Like you said, defcon5, this IS a world of gravitational forces and physics.


What about the leaning and bulging that the firechiefs saw well before the building collapsed? How do you make that happen?

It seems to me you judge too much on the shallow side of witness statements "It LOOKS like". Means nothing.

Until you realise that fact you are basically saying nothing to us.


Well, what if... and let's just say this is a big IF.... which it's not really a big if, because if there were leanning and bulging, that means that sections of the building had been compromised and weakened, and if those sections were the cvause of the leaning, bulging, and eventual collapse, wouldn't they have failed and collapsed in the direction of the said leaning and bulging? .... but what IF either A) those comments were taken out of context after the building had fallen, B) the building had been "set" by several smaller charges before the actual collapse/final "pull"
or C) the firechiefs knew what was up, and had been put in the position of fire cheifs because they knew how to comply with official explanations. Loose lips sink ships.

But either way, I don't care what fire cheifs said. That's a lotta evidence that doesn't concern itsself with the collapse itsself. Do you mean to tell me that, even if that building was about to collapse, that it would collapse in a perfectly straight downward motion that was capable of taking the whole building down in one perfect fluid motion, with zero resistance at all from any floors? You can't apply the pancake theory here, because the building was built in a completely different way than the 1300 foot skyscrapers, and there just wasn't enough damage to make it an even collapse of one floor at a time....and if the truss's failed, the whole building would come crashing down several floors, and smash up quite a bit, but not crumble into a nice little pile right into its footprint. Like a previous poster said... if that were possible, then why all the need for these weeks and months of professional controlled demo preparation? Let's just throw some junk at the building and smash some truss's and colums with hammers and start a fire or two, and we could have these babies gone within a day's notice. And screw hiring demolition experts. Let's just hire a bunch of drunk city workers, have some guy paint some Xs on certain points of the building, and let em go to town on the thing with wrecking balls and malotov cocktails. Essentially re-creating the randomness of the said damage. Then we'll see how it goes from there. The city would save a hell of a lotta money doing it THAT way.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pc is here
Why did it fall? select one;

1. it got tired and wanted to nap

2. the wind blew it over

3. it committed suicide

4. someone exploded it



Oh my god hahaha.... I think I almost woke up my entire house while reading this short post. Very funny satire, pc. I applaud your sense of humour.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by indierockalien]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Now, this debunks the whole idea that there was never any firefighters in building 7.


I have never argued there were no firefighters in Building 7. In fact, I have even introduced information that shows firefighters were inside the building. There was no need to reconfirm this point.

What your information fails to do is prove there were firefighters in building 7 'well up to before it fell', which I'm interpreting as being shortly before it fell.

To quote from your extract: 'We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon.

Pulling everybody back is different from pulling people out from within the building. The testimony I linked to earlier shows that the building was completely clear by no later than 2:00 p.m.


Conspiracists say that when Silverstein says this " I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”

He was talking about blowing the building. But he wasn't. He was talking about the rescue operation.

Consider the context of that sentence. He's talking about lives. How does blowing a building up save lives? No, but pulling rescue workers out of a building that was already showing signs of leaning over, then it makes sense.

This is your interpretation. Further, it shows you didn't read my earlier post.

I'll repeat the salient points but would ask you to read the entire post again for clarity.


...f the building was cleared by 2:00 p.m.; and if the Chief Officer then discussed ‘the FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires’ with his command officer; then the fire department commander could not have informed Silverstein ‘that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire.’ until after the building had been evacuated.


The logical conclusion is that there were no firefighters inside building 7 when Silverstein spoke with the fire department commander.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pc is here
Why did it fall? select one;

1. it got tired and wanted to nap

2. the wind blew it over

3. it committed suicide

4. someone exploded it



There's at least another possibility:
It was damaged by heavy debris falling 100's of feet, was at ground zero of 2 seismic events and to top it off had uncontrolled fires going on inside with an above-average fuel source.

Had it collapsed without those factors I'd have less doubt about the cause but I'd still expect to have seen the sequenced demo charges being detonated.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Some one ran in and put explosives inside at major beam supports for two
hours after the 3rd plane hi jack (say hello at the airport) was canceled
do to a confused Osama Bin Laden.

Or it was a pre wired WTC7 the old fashion way to bring down a building.

Giuliani was in this building watching and smiling but little did he know
he would be seeing a plane coming at him signed Illuminati Zionist Oil and
Gas Coalition.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join