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.

 

Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

They're saying that WTC7 couldn't be a CD as it required time to plan and place explosives to bring it down.



So who says it wasnt wired for CTD in advance? Indeed it must have been.

The simple facts are:

1. The building was 'pulled' (as stated by Silverstein), and as this couldnt have been planned and completed in a day it must have been wired in advance.

2. The news report of the buildings collapse by the BBC, prior to its actual collapse, proves prior knowledge.

No technical argument put forward for the buildings destruction/collapse can negate these facts.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by Nonchalant]




posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by jprophet420
 


This assertion is incorrect. None of the buildings collapsed at near freefall speed. This assertion has been rehashed for (literally) almost seven years with nothing new being brought forth. This claim can be made as many times as someone might care to but, it doesn't make the claim correct.

Here is the last detailed analysis I am aware of. It was updated in 2006.

Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse

[edit on 26-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


and noone else thinks it is a little fishy that every year, we have a new set of 'official' findings, even if they contradict the past findings, to wrestle with. according to the last detailed analysis in 2006 this is the official fall time? so did we not know how to count and divide before 2006? did it take 5 years to analyze the fall speed? or does 'official' info seem to change a little each year. i can understand things that take a long time to discover. collapse time, apparently all the facts were there in 2001 to determine this but it took top scientists 5 years to figure out if there were 3 more seconds in the collapse time than originally stated? where is the 'official' collapse times of all 3 buildings and just who came up with these 'official' times and based on what?



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


actually, that is not an official paper.
dr. greening is 'free-lance' (at least, on the surface)

dr. greening entered the 911 fray with 'coincidental thermite' theory. he has also proposed spray on ammonium percholate (rocket fuel) 'fireproofing'.

from his paper, page two, erroneous thoughts:


First, it should be noted that the start of the major
oscillations in the seismic signature of each collapse event corresponds to the ground
impact of the main upper section of the towers.


newton's cradle illustrates what's wrong with this thinking. as soon as the broken off 'cap' hits the intact lower portion, the impact is translated directly into the ground. the only way this wouldn't be true, is if the whole tower deformed upon the initial impact.

another way to prove this is get an ibeam, spray-paint 'twoofer' on it, and stand it vertically on the head of a debunker. then strike it on the top with a 25 lb. sledgehammer, and then drop the hammer so it lands on his toe.
if he comes to, ask him what hurt more(ie. larger force translated into the dirt), the hammer on the toe, or the initial hammer strike.
now, if the debunker says he didn't feel the initial strike, then the greening logic stands.

really, the siesmic distrubances are more likely cause by the explosives, and that account for the 'short' times; 10 secs and 8.1 secs. the actual debris hitting the ground only cause negligible spikes.
and, speaking of the siesmic traces which were also feeding from the same energy trough as the collapse, deformation and comminution, notice they have been left out of (de)bunker logic.

notice how they like to ignore the INCREDIBLE amount of time and energy, and more importantly, geometry, required to crush(that's what comminute is) things into smaller and smaller particles. think of it this way, it is easy to break a rock into two pieces with a hammer, but to powder it, you would have to hit it thousands of times, and at a certain point, you would not be able to crush it into smaller pieces, because it would just move out of the way through teeny tiny momentum transfers. a ball mill is used to crush things into fine powder, because that is the ultimate geometry for crushing, ...two opposing arcs.
so, in short, the two towers fell way too fast, and the third should not have fallen at all.

to the OP, tell your friends to watch the youtube videos of mystery workers at wtc7 telling people to get back because the building is 'going to BLOW UP'.
talk about foreknowledge. where were the debunkers on 911 to tell these workers that the building was going to 'collapse naturally', and not 'blow-up' after a countdown.

tell them that silverstein could not have been talking about firefighters when he said 'pull it', because there were no firefighters in the building.

tell them all of the exterior columns failed at exactly the same rate, which coincidentally exactly matched the acceleration due to gravity, ie. freefall. tell them also that these columns failed from the bottom up, and that because they failed at the rate of gravity, it took exactly zero energy to break them.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by re22666
 


actually, that is not an official paper.
dr. greening is 'free-lance' (at least, on the surface)

dr. greening entered the 911 fray with 'coincidental thermite' theory. he has also proposed spray on ammonium percholate (rocket fuel) 'fireproofing'.

from his paper, page two, erroneous thoughts:


First, it should be noted that the start of the major
oscillations in the seismic signature of each collapse event corresponds to the ground
impact of the main upper section of the towers.


newton's cradle illustrates what's wrong with this thinking. as soon as the broken off 'cap' hits the intact lower portion, the impact is translated directly into the ground. the only way this wouldn't be true, is if the whole tower deformed upon the initial impact.

another way to prove this is get an ibeam, spray-paint 'twoofer' on it, and stand it vertically on the head of a debunker. then strike it on the top with a 25 lb. sledgehammer, and then drop the hammer so it lands on his toe.
if he comes to, ask him what hurt more(ie. larger force translated into the dirt), the hammer on the toe, or the initial hammer strike.
now, if the debunker says he didn't feel the initial strike, then the greening logic stands.

really, the siesmic distrubances are more likely cause by the explosives, and that account for the 'short' times; 10 secs and 8.1 secs. the actual debris hitting the ground only cause negligible spikes.
and, speaking of the siesmic traces which were also feeding from the same energy trough as the collapse, deformation and comminution, notice they have been left out of (de)bunker logic.

notice how they like to ignore the INCREDIBLE amount of time and energy, and more importantly, geometry, required to crush(that's what comminute is) things into smaller and smaller particles. think of it this way, it is easy to break a rock into two pieces with a hammer, but to powder it, you would have to hit it thousands of times, and at a certain point, you would not be able to crush it into smaller pieces, because it would just move out of the way through teeny tiny momentum transfers. a ball mill is used to crush things into fine powder, because that is the ultimate geometry for crushing, ...two opposing arcs.
so, in short, the two towers fell way too fast, and the third should not have fallen at all.

to the OP, tell your friends to watch the youtube videos of mystery workers at wtc7 telling people to get back because the building is 'going to BLOW UP'.
talk about foreknowledge. where were the debunkers on 911 to tell these workers that the building was going to 'collapse naturally', and not 'blow-up' after a countdown.

tell them that silverstein could not have been talking about firefighters when he said 'pull it', because there were no firefighters in the building.

tell them all of the exterior columns failed at exactly the same rate, which coincidentally exactly matched the acceleration due to gravity, ie. freefall. tell them also that these columns failed from the bottom up, and that because they failed at the rate of gravity, it took exactly zero energy to break them.


let me try again
"official"

see the qotes this time?



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I have read every post to see if this has been presented. I rarely post so don't know how to post a hyper-link but here is my best shot.

Google video -search ' Dr Steven Jones Boston 911 conference' 2007. The last seven minutes
are ground breaking. There IS Thermite In all collected samples. No speculation, not theory, no conspiracy. Hard evidence. IMHO it is a MUST see prior to engaging in any further speculation.



video.google.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


yep.

'sorry'?



you should use the 'reply to' button instead of the 'quote' button for this kind of reply, btw.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   
It doesn't get much more unequivocal than this:




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by jprophet420
 


There is no need to go any further. The assertion that the buildings fell at free fall speed is incorrect.
I posted a direct quote from the NIST report and they agree that it was 'near freefall speeds.

Your original assertion concerned "free fall" speeds, not the amount of energy required to initiate a global collapse.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


There really is no need to go any farther, agreed. NIST cant prove what happened with 20 million dollars and 7 years time. You can back them up all you want but the truth is no one has been able to come up with an unchallenged hypothesis or back the complete hypothesis with the scientific method.

At least 'us twoofers' are trying. The government sure as hell isn't.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


At least 'us twoofers' are trying. The government sure as hell isn't.


The government and the vast majority of the population is not questioning the results from NIST. Thats why the government isn't do anything. They are not interested in a silencing a small, yet loud group.

And I would have to disagree with the "twoofers trying". All the truth movement has done has made accusations of bombs, therm*te, and space beams.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by jprophet420


At least 'us twoofers' are trying. The government sure as hell isn't.


The government and the vast majority of the population is not questioning the results from NIST. Thats why the government isn't do anything. They are not interested in a silencing a small, yet loud group.
Yes I agree the rest of the free world is just that.

And I would have to disagree with the "twoofers trying". All the truth movement has done has made accusations of bombs, therm*te, and space beams.
They have applied the scientific method where the government has applied pseudoscience

While I agree that the average 'truther' is only your armchair investigator, so is the average jrefer. As the OS has yet to be completed, we can only speculate.

No, you probably aren't going to get unequivocal proof WTC7 was a CD. However the lack of proof after 7 years that it wasn't in itself is unequivocal proof of incompetence and mismanagement on a legendary level, and that is cause enough for alarm.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
You know what amazes me the most?

That -not one of you, pro or contra- mentioned my seismic evidence of a huge external energy source introduction far before WTC 7 started to collapse.

Most opponents of the "official truth" ( i.o.w., my fellow "debunkers") are very well aware of my undeniable proof that a huge energy source existed many seconds before any indication of building movement was observed for WTC 7, and before it started to globally collapse, 8.2 seconds after the first visual building movement was recorded on video, being the sudden dent in the east penthouse roof.

So, 6 seconds before that first visual dent, a huge energy source shook the New York bedrock under WTC 7.
So huge, that the 14.2 seconds later starting, and finally ending, total global collapse of a 47 stories high steel building, was smaller on the seismic record registered by LDEO.

Think about that carefully, total global collapse means all steel columns and floor trusses, beams and cross sections and concrete, were breaking, warping and shearing off. And that event was recorded on seismographs as being SMALLER than that 14.2 sec. preceding huge energy event.

So don't even dare to come up with the same ridiculous explanation NIST came up with, that a single failing column was the source of the failure of the whole building.
LDEO seismic recordings proved that to be utterly nonsense.
How can one breaking column show a far bigger energy than the breaking of all columns? Totally impossible, a fairy-tale indeed.

What more evidence do any of you need to see that some entity was involved with the demolition of WTC 7 on 9/11?

And I repeat again, ad infinitum as it seems by now, years later already :

I invite ANYONE, to try to prove me wrong.

NIST and LDEO haven't been able to. Their problem is, I used both of their investigation results, and their identical, GPS based timing results.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I, and others have brought your thesis up several times. It seems like everyone ignores it and hopes it will disappear. I think it was throatyogurt that was going to try to debunk your seismic data in the flight 93 shoot down award thread. He used Mackey to try and discredit it, but after you posted why Mackey was completely wrong, he was no where to be found until the thread had gone a ways past that point and everyone forgot about it.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
sdgsdgsd
sdg
sdg
s
gsd
g
sd
g



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Hi LaBTop....

These "Large Bombs" or "Pack of bombs." Were these the special "Hush a Bombs?"

I haven't seen any video of WTC7 collapse with sounds of large explosions.

Thanks,

:TY:

[edit on 29-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Well, if even the truther "leaders" haven't picked up on your "proofs", then what does that tell you?

The issue about silent explosives is an important one, and one you must solve to push this any further. There have been many that have mentioned this to you, from reviewing old threads, but you have avoided explaining it. IMHO, you have been debunked several times on this issue alone, but since you don't admit to it, you seem to think that you HAVEN'T been debunked. Sorry, but YOU don't get to decide when you've been debunked or not. If someone asks a crucial, valid question, and you are unable to answer AT ALL, then you have been debunked.

Also, I just read where you said to the effect that "there is no need to do maths and calculations.....". Well, I'd say that there IS a need to do calcs. Start here :

How much explosives would need to be set off in order to get the seismic activity that you claim? Do these calcs. It would be interesting to see what you get and how you will explain away this inconvenient fact.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



there are MANY proofs, but yours IS the most 'rock solid'.

EVERYONE NEED TO UNDERSTAND LABTOP'S PROOF!

HUGE spike BEFORE any visible motion, visible motion equals 'small' rumble by comparison.
obviously, the large seismic spikes were explosives in ALL the 'collapses'.

and, to seymour butz, despite the fact that civilians were not allowed near the building, people reported hearing explosions, and one guy even reported a 'huge shockwave' on the radio, so disinfo off, eh.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Sorry, but no.

His interpretation has many holes in it. They have already been raised in other threads so I won't bother here, other than to say that his timing is wrong. Don't you find it curious that for example for 7, there is a spike, followed 8 seconds later with a prolonged disturbance... which exactly matches what is seen on videos? This points to him getting it wrong.

Although I must say that I find it hard to follow all of his work. Maybe he should get some help putting it all together and posting it somewhere so it could be read in its entirety, and without multiple links to other posts.

But one thing I knwo for sure will never happen, is the calcs on how much explosives would be needed.... and then time matching that to videos cuz that would be debunking his little "thesis".

All in all, just a sad display of affirming the consequent fallacy.....



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


His work has already been put together. I haven't seen any of these holes you are talking about either. Usually, his thesis is completely ignored.

Here you go, LabTop's data all in one place:www.studyof911.com...
I'm sure he would love to see your attempt to poke holes in his original work.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Seymour Butz, another Jref'er with no reading skills, but a lot of foul-mouthing.

About your obvious non-existing reading skills, I'll need to fall back shortly to your level of understanding civic debating :

Either you're a lier, or you need to follow a few more basic school classes.
It's so damn easy to lure your kind of Jref-forum attention whores into a semi-victory frenzy, by just having a bit of patience, and wait and see you types, winding each other up to the level that you start spouting your usual "victory" propaganda.

Back to ATS civil debate.
For those that fall for this type of propaganda-posting on all Internet 9/11 boards by the usual suspects, here is my rebuttal to his obvious lies :

1. Please read first all the contents of this post of mine on page 8 of my NIST rebuttal thread, which I have posted multiple times in multiple threads all over this 9/11 ATS forum, thus easily to be found by using simple search terms in the ATS search-function :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and follow through on the first link at the end of that post to another thread about explosives calculations, and note carefully that after my last posts on page 9, that thread died off in a silent manner on its last page 10, with no reaction anymore, thus in total contradiction to what Seymour Butz is trying to ridicule in his last posts.

In fact I am the one proving that my opposition kept silent and did not react on obvious and simple and clear calculations :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Read all posts after this one, up to the last one on page 10.
No rebuttal on my calculations. Note all posting dates, they will try to post a few of their usual waste in there, to obfuscate the dates.
The last post on page 10 was written on 10/3/08 at the time of me posting this on 30/7/08.

Then he missed again a very important last post of mine in my NIST rebuttal thread on page 11 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted the same link to this post in several other threads, which Butz also hasn't found or comprehend. He takes very little research time to boast off such bold statements, which can be so easily opposed.

The interested reader should carefully read the external quote, and pay special attention to the bolded out text pieces, and this piece of the last bolded out section which is the most IMPORTANT evidence, that :

"" "Even the smallest of those detonations (from the May 23rd demolition of the REMAINS of the Murrah building) had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building," he added, "which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. "".

DO YOU all UNDERSTAND THE WEIGHT of this statement, compared to my three pre-collapse energy events?

For the readers with real comprehensive-faculty, you can find snippets in the links I provided in this post, about 13 and 14 seconds intervals of other indications of the use of explosives for the WTC towers.
Note carefully what I said about that 14.2 sec. preceding huge energy event in my last post above.

Well, Butz.
You really need to clean your own mirrors, regarding your abject practices in posting this kind of drivvel :

But one thing I knwo for sure will never happen, is the calcs on how much explosives would be needed.... and then time matching that to videos cuz that would be debunking his little "thesis".

All in all, just a sad display of affirming the consequent fallacy.....


Thus, I expect a rectification, or you must face the consequences of posting LIES on this board.


PS:
These posts of Bsbray11 are a fine rebuttal of the usual circular logic spouted by Jref members, but the first one says it in the best and shortest form :

Source:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Pilgrum
LabTop's work on this is excellent and extensive and it indicates a definite 'something' but whatever it is doesn't stand out visually or audibly for the level of force it would take to produce that signal.


Obviously the part I have bolded is false. If nothing was there to account for it, then why is it on the seismic record?

What's apparently wrong is your assumption that HEs or some other conventional blast put the energy to the bedrock. It is possible for something you don't know about, to function, unless you already understand everything that functions. And then we would have to be dealing with the impossible. The signal was still presented on the chart, as actually occurring.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
A short addendum on the last part above :
I hope Pilgrum gets not offended by the -"circular logic" tendencies of Jref members- remark, I don't think he is a Jref'er, especially regarding his most mature posting style. He is to me, a respected opponent, if not partly assisting proponent for some aspects of the "official" lies.

Btw, there are a few respected, intelligent opponents at the 9/11 JREF forum, but the first thing they should teach their "no-brain groupies" is civil debating, and point that out to them, when these critters post their usual drivel in the amount of tenth of posts in between the worthy posts.

That would make the JREF forums a respected opponent in the future, while now it resembles more an ADHD-disorder-kids playground, with a few smart kids, and a wolf-pack of attention whores with no research skills at all, but a damn loud mouth and very bad manners.

EDIT :
I like to add the following quote :

"" experts say that the "crack" of a C-4 cutting charge is "downright disappointing" to hear. ""

So don't come up again with the seemingly logic rebuttal of missing huge explosion sounds at the time of the recorded pre-collapse seismic spikes.

Especially for the Twin tower collapses, these collapses started somewhere beneath the plane impact zones, which were so high up in the stone canyons of Manhattan, that cutter charges would have been drowned in the overall concerto of loud sirens, people shouting, helicopter noise, fire fighter pumps running, motors running and all the other clearly to hear cacophony of overall background noise in all videos of 9/11.
Even the second plane impact recorded by the Nodet brothers was not impressive in audio effect, since it was so high up.

All other following collapse-aiding-explosions sounds will have been lost in the directly following global collapse's immense destruction roar.

[edit on 29/7/08 by LaBTop]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join