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 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

page: 22
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
You don't need plans to know how physics work.

You guys do everything you can to distract from the real issues.

So Obvious...




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Cuz even in his statement above, he admits that it WAS hindered, just not as much as he would think.


The metaphor I used earlier was a feather accelerating through granite stone at only 2 m/s^2 less than free-fall. Does that sound possible to you? Because it was still "slower than free-fall," which is your entire (fallacious) argument as to why it must have therefore been completely possible.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yes. Things like moment of inertia and mass can only be definatively known if we know the materials. So yes, we do need the elements for a finite element analysis.

BTW, I agree with you that the basic physics can be modeled without the plans. But, then we still need to know the true mass.

When I say that no one can write a paper. I don't mean that people can't write their theories, assumptions, and conclusions based on those assumptions. I mean that anyone who claims to be an expert and know definatively what this is and that was and what happened without viewing the documentation to prove their assumptions are correct are what I mean by quacks.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The metaphor I used earlier was a feather accelerating through granite stone at only 2 m/s^2 less than free-fall. Does that sound possible to you? Because it was still "slower than free-fall," which is your entire (fallacious) argument as to why it must have therefore been completely possible.


At least you're consistent.

Yet ANOTHER strawman.

Guess you missed my post to Griff where I clearly stated that I am unsure........



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I agree with you Griff it's just that certain obvious posters here will jump on anything that they think can refute 'truther' arguments.

In other words it gives them another excuse to ignore obvious physics with a strawman.

I think anyone with a basic understanding of engineering and physics can get enough information from pictures, and known facts such as how office fires act and how steel reacts to heat and damage etc., to know that those were not natural collapses. To know exactly what and how they collapsed we would need the actual building components not blue prints.

If something about the building is being hidden that would indicate even more that they are guilty. People don't hide things that would help their case.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
There is no denying that World Trade Center 7 was brought by controlled demolitions.

With all the sensitive information in wtc7, would it not be prudent to prewire for demoltions incase of a major fire or attack?

Terrorists can just pose as firemen, start a fire, then steal or do what they have to do since they have access to the most top secret areas in the name of firefighting.

I remember in September 2001 a story about the fbi offices in wtc's 24th floor or so being described as if a bomb went off in there. (self destruct?)

[edit on 28-5-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
There is no denying that World Trade Center 7 was brought by controlled demolitions.


Actually, I will be happy to deny that your statement is true. Because...



With all the sensitive information in wtc7, would it not be prudent to prewire for demoltions incase of a major fire or attack?


How in the world would the "prewired" explosives and all the massive amounts of wiring needed to bring such a large building down survive the fires for so many hours???



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Actually, I will be happy to deny that your statement is true. Because...


Actually, all you did was ask a question. That's not really a rebuttal.

Maybe if you can rephrase your question into the form of a statement, and then explain to us how and why your statement is accurate and relevant, we could get somewhere with it.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
All firefighters know that buildings under such conditions are destined to collapse. Common sense. The firefighters there at the scene when it was happening even went so far as to discuss this on camera.


you're misinformed, the fire fighters at WTC7 were told to leave the building by government agents on site.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by JPhish]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
Actually, I will be happy to deny that your statement is true. Because...


Actually, all you did was ask a question. That's not really a rebuttal.

Maybe if you can rephrase your question into the form of a statement, and then explain to us how and why your statement is accurate and relevant, we could get somewhere with it.



Actually I answered a question with a question. I'm sorry, but I will not rephrase my question, as it is valid to the subject at hand and should be considered as such. If you are having problems understanding how it is accurate and relevant then maybe it is not the post for you to comment on.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
How in the world would the "prewired" explosives and all the massive amounts of wiring needed to bring such a large building down survive the fires for so many hours???


According to the working theory, only ONE column failed and brought the whole building down.

So, maybe there didn't NEED to "prewired" explosives and/or massive amounts of wiring.

Just one well thought out explosive to sever that ONE column.

BTW, can show me these massive fires? Didn't think so.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
According to the working theory, only ONE column failed and brought the whole building down.

So, maybe there didn't NEED to "prewired" explosives and/or massive amounts of wiring.

Just one well thought out explosive to sever that ONE column.

BTW, can show me these massive fires? Didn't think so.



And does anyone have any evidence of explosives and their mechanisms large enough to blow up a 47 story building surviving such a large fire, or any fire for that matter, yet still able to function as intended?

As far as the fires go, if you choose to be in denial about them given all the video, photos and *especially* FD witnesses then so be it, no one can convince you.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
And does anyone have any evidence of explosives and their mechanisms large enough to blow up a 47 story building surviving such a large fire, or any fire for that matter, yet still able to function as intended?


First, who says it would have to be "large enough" to blow up a 47 story building?

I said, they say only one (hear that?....one) column was the failure mechanism.

And it would be easy to place some C-4 (which BTW can be thrown directly into a fire and not explode) on ONE column.


As far as the fires go, if you choose to be in denial about them given all the video, photos and *especially* FD witnesses then so be it, no one can convince you.


Well, convince me. So far, all I've seen are videos of smoke.

I don't discount that the building was on fire. What I DO discount are the lies that the building was "fully engulfed" in flames. Please show me your evidence of a fully engulfed building. Thanks.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Well, convince me. So far, all I've seen are videos of smoke.

I don't discount that the building was on fire. What I DO discount are the lies that the building was "fully engulfed" in flames. Please show me your evidence of a fully engulfed building. Thanks.


There was certainly a substantial amount of smoke obscuring fires and several large fires that were visible. That much we know for sure.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
First, who says it would have to be "large enough" to blow up a 47 story building?
I said, they say only one (hear that?....one) column was the failure mechanism.
And it would be easy to place some C-4 (which BTW can be thrown directly into a fire and not explode) on ONE column.


So has this been done before? You seem very sure it wouldn't take much, so I would assume we should have another case to examine how little C-4 it would take to bring down a 47 story building. I would be interested in seeing something to compare. Otherwise it sounds like a theory to me, and one that isn't very solid at that.

Also, isn't C-4 extremely flammable? I seem to remember stories of our troops in Vietnam using chunks of it to heat their canned rations, etc. Throwing it into a fire doesn't sound like a good idea, do you have any kind of evidence of C-4 thrown into a fire and still detonating?



Well, convince me. So far, all I've seen are videos of smoke.


Sorry, as I said earlier, if you choose to be in denial about all the evidence and especially eyewitness testimony, then I cannot convince you of anything.

One thing I would add is that the explosion generated from even this rather small amount of C-4 would blow that single column would still be rather *loud* would it not? We have no evidence that this explosion happened anywhere right at the time the building collapsed.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There was certainly a substantial amount of smoke obscuring fires and several large fires that were visible. That much we know for sure.


Have you ever seen a "fully engulfed" fire? The flames are so hot and intense they break the glass in the windows and start shooting out them. Smoke does not "obscure" a fully engulfed building.

"Several large fires that were visible" DOES NOT equate to a "fully engulfed" building. The word several should be the first clue as a fully engulfed fire is ONE fire.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
You seem very sure it wouldn't take much, so I would assume we should have another case to examine how little C-4 it would take to bring down a 47 story building. I would be interested in seeing something to compare.


It is not my theory that one column caused the entire building to fail. That I believe is NIST's theory. You know, the one you guys are defending here.

Damocles might be able to help you out there as I don't pretend to know everything. Like some around here.


Otherwise it sounds like a theory to me, and one that isn't very solid at that.


It is a theory. And it's NIST's. Still think it isn't solid?


Also, isn't C-4 extremely flammable? I seem to remember stories of our troops in Vietnam using chunks of it to heat their canned rations, etc.


Yes, military C-4 is flamable. There are plasticizers that can be added to make it more stable.

I only used C-4 as an example to your question about the fires and the explosives.


Throwing it into a fire doesn't sound like a good idea, do you have any kind of evidence of C-4 thrown into a fire and still detonating?


Hmmm...let me think. It won't explode from the heat, so I'd just insulate it from the flame as not to "burn" and it should be fine. Again, I'm not explosives expert so I could be off on this.



Sorry, as I said earlier, if you choose to be in denial about all the evidence and especially eyewitness testimony, then I cannot convince you of anything.


So, you're just automatically going to assume I'm in denial and instead of showing me the evidence of these "raging" and "fully engulfed" fires, hand wave it away? How convenient.


One thing I would add is that the explosion generated from even this rather small amount of C-4 would blow that single column would still be rather *loud* would it not? We have no evidence that this explosion happened anywhere right at the time the building collapsed.


There are many reports of "rather loud" occurances throughout the day.

As far as evidence, I have seen eyewitness testimony (since that is evidence to you) saying that right before the building fell, there was a countdown and from multiple other people that there was a "loud" clap followed by the building comming down.

Do you just disregard this testimony? Or is the testimony that fits YOUR view, the only ones that matter?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish


you're misinformed, the fire fighters at WTC7 were told to leave the building by government agents on site.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by JPhish]


Firefighters ARE govt agents in some respect.

So your statement, while true, is misleading.

Because they're the ones that decided to abandon firefighting efforts due to lack of water.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Actually I answered a question with a question. I'm sorry, but I will not rephrase my question, as it is valid to the subject at hand and should be considered as such.


Whether or not you think it's a valid question, doesn't matter.

There's a difference between saying, "How did they do this?", and, "It's impossible to do that!"

That's why you should rephrase your question, to make it a positive statement, so then you can explain to us why it would be impossible.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

It is not my theory that one column caused the entire building to fail. That I believe is NIST's theory. You know, the one you guys are defending here.

It is a theory. And it's NIST's. Still think it isn't solid?


I must have missed the part of the theory that NIST put out that says explosives brought the building down, since that was what I was referring to.



Hmmm...let me think. It won't explode from the heat, so I'd just insulate it from the flame as not to "burn" and it should be fine. Again, I'm not explosives expert so I could be off on this.


I've never heard of this insulating of C-4 before, it would be interesting at least to find out if this is possible. Proof of that would at least to some degree go a ways toward lending the CD theory some bit of possibility.



So, you're just automatically going to assume I'm in denial and instead of showing me the evidence of these "raging" and "fully engulfed" fires, hand wave it away? How convenient.


It's been several years now, if you haven't seen the video, stills and eyewitness stories by now, then no I'm not going around posting them. From your tone I certainly believe you would just argue their severity and legitimacy anyways, so why waste the time? They are out there, all one has to do is search.



There are many reports of "rather loud" occurances throughout the day.


Throughout the day, but what of at the moment of collapse? Where is the evidence of that? How many CD's have had explosions "throughout the day"? Is it not always BANG and then down comes the building?


As far as evidence, I have seen eyewitness testimony (since that is evidence to you) saying that right before the building fell, there was a countdown and from multiple other people that there was a "loud" clap followed by the building comming down.


Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Naturally, I'm not inclined to buy into this too much since I have several in-laws who were there, and disagree, BUT, noone's perfect and I would be more than willing to take a look at what you have found.



Do you just disregard this testimony? Or is the testimony that fits YOUR view, the only ones that matter?


No I don't actually, having talking to several people that were there and watched their family members die earlier in the day, I am inclined to believe they are telling the truth regardless what I believe, however, the fact that it lines up with everything I do believe speaks volumes.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join