Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO
Wow! Cointelpro is alive and well. Jeez!


YAWN! I am no more cointelpro than these people in this short clip are in "Correcting NED" You can be "Ned" for buying the cheap, street-carney shell game that is 9/11 truth.





Interesting spread of ATS points here guys. Not that it really means anything but it is interesting.


What? Do they all add up to the number "23" or something?

I am glad to see that MirageofDeceit recanted on his erronious claim that WTC 7 didn't damage surrounding buildings during its collapse.

Yay Ned!




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Ah! another graduate of the Bill O Reilly school of debate.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Should I take that as a withdrawl of your cointelpro non-sense?

Ya see, Ned, just because people don't always agree with you doesn't make them part of a vast conspiracy. If they DID agree with you in lock-step precision that would make them mindless, believe-anything "sheep" Ironic. ain't it!



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Your last statement is the most important. These are your opinions and are in no way based on facts. You simply have an opinion of what happened and you'll say anything that makes your opinion seem valid.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Seriously OP.

All kidding aside. You better come to your own conclusion and get focussed. Stop seeking others approval and go with what you believe.

Understand that this is a war. I know that sounds extreme but we are already taking casualties and it is time to stop pussy footing around and accept what is happening around you.

Don't just look at a single event. Take in the whole picture and you will see how it is all coming together.

With regards to your friends. State your case, look for a glimmer of cognitive thought then move on. Time is short and the work is plentiful.

Ask that God lead guide and direct you and you will do fine.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuy
Your last statement is the most important. These are your opinions and are in no way based on facts. You simply have an opinion of what happened and you'll say anything that makes your opinion seem valid.


That's all easy enough to say, but what have you shown? Just remember that I'm the one referencing real physics and engineering concepts, not you.


Btw, if you have anything specifically you'd like to rebut in my last post, I'm up for any discussion on it. I'll even post references.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What would you like for me to provide to prove that there wasn't energy present to cause the building to fall in any direction other than straight down?

What could I possibly provide that proves that EVERYTHING will accelerate at "free fall" speeds?

And again, aside from polling every person who was alive during that time and checking their alibi that they WEREN'T setting demolition explosives in those buildings, how could I possibly prove there wasn't?

Seriously, there is nothing but conjecture and handwaving in the "truth" movement of 9/11. If you have some eye-opening evidence that something is amiss in the belief that damage caused by the falling towers caused WTC7 to collapse, then please present it. All the "loose change" in the world doesn't make your opinion a fact.

I'm also not suggesting that strange things weren't afoot during that time and even now. In fact, I think there were enough things wrong with those events that we don't need to make up some fantasy physics.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
Google 9/11+Sirius, he was one of the dogs that died inside the WTC.


Sirius was the only dog that died on 9/11. How many dogs was "normal"? And if the dogs were mainly in the basement garages which was standard proceedure then I believe, could they smell someone bringing in explosives through the front door?

But, I don't believe HE was used anyway.

Are dogs trained to detect thermobarics?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuy
What would you like for me to provide to prove that there wasn't energy present to cause the building to fall in any direction other than straight down?


First of all you'd have to prove to me that it should have collapsed in the first place. Again, maybe you're seeing something I'm not?


What could I possibly provide that proves that EVERYTHING will accelerate at "free fall" speeds?


Nothing, because that statement is false. Everything does not automatically accelerate at 9.8m/s^2, not even on Earth, and not even in free-fall. You are obviously confused as to what the term "free-fall" implies, and by the way I am not talking about any "speed."


And again, aside from polling every person who was alive during that time and checking their alibi that they WEREN'T setting demolition explosives in those buildings, how could I possibly prove there wasn't?


I never cared about the logistics, but only the physics, because logistics depend largely upon the creativity and resources of the planners, while physical laws are constant. Logistics are conjecture. Physics, not so much.


If you have some eye-opening evidence that something is amiss in the belief that damage caused by the falling towers caused WTC7 to collapse, then please present it.


I already told you, it accelerated at 9.8m/s^2. As in, no energy from the building, went towards actually collapsing the same building. If you don't understand that (which you obviously don't), then that's your problem. I'm not trying to convince you; it would be a waste of my time. And you're not going to convince me of anything, either; you are wasting yours.


In fact, I think there were enough things wrong with those events that we don't need to make up some fantasy physics.


If you can provide some sources as to what exactly I'm wrong about, ie what is "fantasy," I'd love to read them. But coming from you, I'm just going to chalk it up to you talking out of your ass.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
You may have to wait till April to find out from this video here:

www.liveleak.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You can "believe" whatever you want.



Well, it's obvious that you didn't click the link, ( as expected ) cuz more math was there that answers/refutes what you claim.

Funny thing, that post was made in defense of a troofer or at JREF that was trying to figure out why or how 7 could have collapsed so fast. His conclusions, I believe, are that there's nothing suspicious about it, once one actually does the math, rather than rely on sources like anonymous posters on ATS. The troofer in question has a couple of papers over at S Jones' joke-of-a-website to prove his troofy-ness.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


One thing about 9/11 building collapses - the buildings which collapsed
(WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7) were all of unusual construction. WTC 1/2
were tube structures lacking interior columns, the exterior walls were
part of the building support structure. The main interior support
were a series of columns around the central core. The WTC towers
had no support columns between the walls and central core. When the
plane slammed through the building there was nothing to stop it until
smashed central core, damaging the buildings support structures
leaving it vulnerable to fire.

WTC 7 was built over Con Ed electrical station - in fact WTC 7 was
twice size originally envisioned and required long cantilver trusses
like in a bridge to carry loads. It is believed that these trusses damaged
by the debris impact and heated to failure by the fires caused the
collapse.

Buildings like Bankers Trust (130 Liberty St) were built to standard
model - building had dense forest of support columns every 30-35 ft
to give it redundancy. Older buildings like 90 West or the Verizon
Building which had masonary walls and terra cotta fire proofing
weathered impacts and fires suprisingly well.

Its all in how the buildings were constructed - modern cheap and nasty
construction vs older heavier solid construction



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
instead of ats people trying to give evidence..
why not go to the ones doing independent research.

and think this site says it all.
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

enough evidence in there to choke a horse..

but i prefer the not so technical proof...like
my favorite is still Larry (pull-it) Silverstein...



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Well, it's obvious that you didn't click the link, ( as expected ) cuz more math was there that answers/refutes what you claim.


Seeing formulas and numbers like that must completely dumbfound you, I understand, but believe it or not, you can actually use formulas incorrectly, leave things out, etc. Even my professors do it, formerly professional engineers in their fields.

You need to show me how they assumed how much energy would be needed to cause global collapse (something the structural docs are required to do, btw, and that debunkers ALWAYS try to minimize because otherwise they just prove themselves wrong), and how this energy is taken away from the PE. All of these things have to be based on assumptions, simply because of all the information the feds are hording from the public. You can't just guess it and call it proof. In the end, the collapse is going to require energy (a SIGNIFICANT amount of energy to totally destroy itself -- you will have a hard time convincing me otherwise, even the seismic energy was insane and it didn't go towards collapsing anything) and that is absolutely contradicted by a free-fall acceleration.

That is why I mentioned Frank Greening's work on the subject, because he made up the most ridiculous technical BS I have ever read in my life and nonetheless it was celebrated by armchair "debunkers" who had no idea what in the hell he was saying. Similarly you do not understand what you are posting. I doubt you realize how many estimations and assumptions are made simply because the real structural documentation is unavailable and certain variables just have to be assumed. Those same variables are also the critical ones, like the "resistance" that would have been provided by all the steel, by the configurations of the steel and its strengths, etc.

If you want to talk specifically about where the variables in the paper came from and how they are used and what they show, then fine. But if you just want to wave numbers in my face, learn what they mean first.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
One thing about 9/11 building collapses - the buildings which collapsed
(WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7) were all of unusual construction.


I see this all the time but can you actually support it with something other than someone's opinion?

Here is a completely unrelated building, that also suffered fire (longer than the WTC Towers, on more floors.. you've heard it all, didn't collapse obviously):





Gee, no similarity there at all.

Like I said, if you just want to call them "unusual" and have that be your explanation, at least try to justify it a little more than just parroting others and confusing it for a fact.



WTC 1/2 were tube structures lacking interior columns


You have no idea what you are talking about.


The main interior support were a series of columns around the central core.


You just said there were no interior columns. Which is it? And they weren't just around the outside, they were also within the core between various shafts and etc., as depicted here:





When the plane slammed through the building there was nothing to stop it until
smashed central core, damaging the buildings support structures
leaving it vulnerable to fire.


And where is this documented again?

Btw, between the perimeter columns and core structure were trusses, which were only hung between to the two so that a floor could exist. The trusses existed, at least locally, for no other reason than for the floors. On a larger scale they contributed to lateral stability, but even NIST showed in early models that at least 5 floors worth of trusses could be totally removed without major deflections in the columns.



WTC 7 was built over Con Ed electrical station - in fact WTC 7 was
twice size originally envisioned and required long cantilver trusses
like in a bridge to carry loads. It is believed that these trusses damaged
by the debris impact and heated to failure by the fires caused the
collapse.


This isn't the first time I've heard this line, but that's all that it is. You can't show me a single technical report that explains how this could have happened, or that reconciles this theory with a free-fall acceleration of the roof line.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Hey bs Bray, what kind of fuel laden jet-liner slammed into your completely unrelated example building? I must have missed that.

And you insinuate others as being fast and loose with the circumstances leading to collapse.. shame.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Hey bs Bray, what kind of fuel laden jet-liner slammed into your completely unrelated example building? I must have missed that.

And you insinuate others as being fast and loose with the circumstances leading to collapse.. shame.



Actually I was responding to him saying that the towers were "unique" designs.

If you can manage to stay on topic, my posts might make more sense to you.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Just keep repeating that. Maybe someday it'll mean something.

Because in the rational world, some people can make assumptions and STILL come up with a valid conclusion. It's called using a range of values.

For example, start with a set of numbers for your elusive structural docs that seem realistic, and if it shows near free fall speed, then that's your first example.

Then, artificially skew the numbers outside the range of any accepted probability in order to encourage for a slower fall speed. But if it STILL shows no real difference in fall speed, guess what? It means that it SHOULD have fallen quickly.

Sorry, but no amount of hand waveing that simple fact is gonna change that simple truth. I know it's "cool" to argue the points you do, and it impresses the irrational hordes on ATS so you can get a few stars next to your post, but really, take a step into the rational side and see how ridiculous you're being for a change........



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Hey Butz.....

your crack makes more sense than the crack you have been smoking as you blindly accept the official story.....

nice!



[edit on 23-6-2008 by Jeff Riff]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
For example, start with a set of numbers for your elusive structural docs that seem realistic, and if it shows near free fall speed, then that's your first example.


I'm not even going to argue about this with you, because to pretend that you are qualified enough to know what numbers are realistic is a joke. Analyzing a collapsing building requires dynamic analysis above and beyond even what structural engineers are required to know, and you sure as hell don't know anything about it.

You can keep your amateur psychology to yourself, too. I don't need to take pity on how you try to reconcile yourself with what I say.


Bottom line, come back and post your links again when you (a) understand them, and (b) can justify them with something other than an opinion or an end trying to justify the means. To get to step 'b', you probably should get to step 'a' first. I'm not going to argue with a parrot.


Btw, I mentioned analyzing collapsing buildings. Keep in mind that, until 9/11, this kind of analysis never had to be attempted and the actual science behind it is still sketchy. One of the members of the FEMA BPAT team (Astaneh-Asl) was doing lab work testing the effects of impact-loading on steel structures in only August 2001. Before that, the only half-related study that anyone has dug up so far comes from 1984 paper by Calladine and English, and from what I understand, what they studied could not easily be directly related to the failure mechanisms attributed to the Twin Towers, and presumably WTC7 (if NIST or any other agency would ever get around to even presenting a working theory on that building -- it amazes me how blind you are). All previous "failures" in steel structures were limited to sagging, deflections, buckling, and things of that nature. Never a dynamic system, where the steel is actively shearing off and falling and then shearing more steel off. This has never been observed in a lab or anywhere else except supposedly on 9/11, and even NIST admits what theories they have in those regards are just that -- theories. "Hypothesis" is the actual term they use. (They never verified them in the lab, either, and for Christ's sake POST THE DAMNED TEST RESULTS if you are still in denial about this FACT.) You can try to contradict me on this but I seriously doubt you would know what you are talking about and you're only going to show me how sad you are, unless you can actually find relevant information that I'm missing (please do, use Google or whatever you can). Just go dig up information on steel impact-loading behaviors and prove me wrong if you want to run your mouth like I know you will. Thinking of some clever way to insult me is not impressive, it's what every adolescent with an internet connection does.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by bsbray11]





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join