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 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


2-hour rating and 3-hour rating for fireproofing is the code. It does not mean that the fireproofing becomes useless after 2-3 hours. It means that it stands up to fire for 2-3 hours as the codes require.

Again, I'll ask you to prove that fireproofing melts in a normal office fire. Thanks.




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
a block and 1/2 away from WTC7 when it fell. not a single explosion or pre-charge can be heard. interestingly, i've never seen a "truther" use this video.



[edit on 4-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]


Funny how, yet again, no sound of a 47 story building falling. Or can you hear something I can't?

For being just a block and a half away, don't you think that a 47 story building would make some kind of noise?

[edit on 7/5/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Hey Griff,

In the previous page, I posted a video of the collapse. You can hear the sounds of the collapse.

thanks,

TY



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
This is what is funny, well not really, but damning against the official story, once again.

911 Third Tower 'Mystery' Solved

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.


I though there was no mystery and conpiracy theorists are wackos.

Why are they solving a mystery when the government and officials said there was no mystery as to why wtc7 came down a 5pm on 911 7 years later?

They are just digging their own graves anyways.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink


As far as showing you proof, If you are an engineer of Science and Physic
Please explain what is wrong with Steven E. Jones "Hypothesis".

I am leaning towards Steven E. Jones "Hypothesis".
I find it very SCIENTIFIC and credible.
physics911.net...

Without "Slandering" Pro Steven Jones Please show me and the rest of the world where he is wrong!


Not bad Cash, only 10 spelling errors on that post!!


Ok... Steven Jones.

I will not slander him, but from what I have seen and read... you are barking up the wrong tree.

First of all. he made claims of have an article that was peer reviewed. It turned out not to be.

Here it is:

www.bentham-open.org.../2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Letters to the editor in chief of this journal would not be forwarded. His paper was never peer reviewed. His website still boasts that it was.

There is a pretty well known truther named Gregory Urich. He is a member at many 911 forums and in my opinion one of the smarter ones. He pretty much has abandoned the MIHOP theory and is more of a LIHOP.

Why has he abandoned it? His own calculations have proven this. He has written an open letter to Richard Gage showing the fellow truther the errors that he has made backed up with the calculations. As of today...I don't believe Mr. Gage has responded.

Back to Mr. Jones. Gregory Urich forwarded a copy of the same letter to the Journal of 911 Studies.
They will not accept it.
From their website:


is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust.


Jones speaks of iron-rich microspheres as proof of Therm*te, not looking into what may have caused them. There are MANY causes.

So in regard to Mr. Jones:
1: Jones has yet to prove thermite was used
2: Thermite is never used in controlled demolitions
3: No-one has come up with a sensible way of using thermite to achieve a demolition like what was seen on 9/11

Please tell me Cash... what do you agree with him on and why?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan,

Please point out what in that article is so damning against the official story?

Please hesitate prior to posting any BS that Richard Gage has to say. The guy is just not right in the head.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt


Not bad Cash, only 10 spelling errors on that post!!

Grammar doesn't make your answer wrong. Constantly pointing out those errors is annoying. We, as readers, can make up our own mind as to if someones diction discredits them.

Ok... Steven Jones.

I will not slander him, but from what I have seen and read... you are barking up the wrong tree.

First of all. he made claims of have an article that was peer reviewed. It turned out not to be.
Could you show me a peer reviewed paper that disproves his or proves the OS? If not then you are discrediting your own case also.
Here it is:

www.bentham-open.org.../2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Letters to the editor in chief of this journal would not be forwarded. His paper was never peer reviewed. His website still boasts that it was.

There is a pretty well known truther named Gregory Urich. He is a member at many 911 forums and in my opinion one of the smarter ones. He pretty much has abandoned the MIHOP theory and is more of a LIHOP.

Why has he abandoned it? His own calculations have proven this. He has written an open letter to Richard Gage showing the fellow truther the errors that he has made backed up with the calculations. As of today...I don't believe Mr. Gage has responded.
So you say he abandoned his original theory and decided it was LIHOP operation? Pearl Harbor was LIHOP too. If you dont have any proof that it wasn't then dont try to discredit someone with higher credentials than yourself.

Back to Mr. Jones. Gregory Urich forwarded a copy of the same letter to the Journal of 911 Studies.
They will not accept it.
From their website:


is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust.

Thats a pretty damning case against the OS

Jones speaks of iron-rich microspheres as proof of Therm*te, not looking into what may have caused them. There are MANY causes.

So in regard to Mr. Jones:
1: Jones has yet to prove thermite was used
NIST has yet to prove they weren't
2: Thermite is never used in controlled demolitions
so that means it can't be?
3: No-one has come up with a sensible way of using thermite to achieve a demolition like what was seen on 9/11
like what was seen on 911? steel beams being cut at precise angles with no viable explanation?

Please tell me Cash... what do you agree with him on and why?

And why do you disagree? because someone said his paper was peer reviewed and it wasnt? If thats the case why do you agree with non peer reviewed journals stating the case you believe?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

1-Grammar doesn't make your answer wrong. Constantly pointing out those errors is annoying. We, as readers, can make up our own mind as to if someones diction discredits them.


2-Could you show me a peer reviewed paper that disproves his or proves the OS? If not then you are discrediting your own case also.


3- So you say he abandoned his original theory and decided it was LIHOP operation? Pearl Harbor was LIHOP too. If you dont have any proof that it wasn't then dont try to discredit someone with higher credentials than yourself.



4-Thats a pretty damning case against the OS


5-1: Jones has yet to prove thermite was used
NIST has yet to prove they weren't

6-2: Thermite is never used in controlled demolitions
so that means it can't be?

7-3: No-one has come up with a sensible way of using thermite to achieve a demolition like what was seen on 9/11
like what was seen on 911? steel beams being cut at precise angles with no viable explanation?


8-And why do you disagree? because someone said his paper was peer reviewed and it wasnt? If thats the case why do you agree with non peer reviewed journals stating the case you believe?


1- The smiley face was thrown in there to show him that I was not serious. Relax. I'm quite certain Mr. Cash can speak for himself.

2- A rebuttal was going to be issued to the company that published it. The editor in chief REFUSED to accept it.

3- I am not sure what you mean here. Gregory Urich was at one time a LIHOP'er he does in fact have higher credentials than that of Richard Gage. Jones has a degree in Structural Engineering?

Either way the discussion here is not LIHOP vs. MIHOP.

4-So Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones decide they don't want a paper showing evidence AGAINST their theories...that is damning to the official report?

5- NIST, the FBI, FEMA, and others that were involved in examining the steel have not found ANY evidence of thermite or CD.

6- You want to collapse two of the largest buildings in the world secretly, via a manner which has never been done? Really?

7- The beams were shown to be cut with torches on MANY occasions in this forum alone.

8- His paper (Jones) was not peer reviewed and he STILL boasts about it on his website. That would be a lie. right? Mr. Jones also wrote a paper regarding thermite at the WTC. His paper was rejected by his peers.


EDIT ... Gregory Urich has a B.S. in S. Electrical and Computer Engineering.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
There is a pretty well known truther named Gregory Urich. He is a member at many 911 forums and in my opinion one of the smarter ones. He pretty much has abandoned the MIHOP theory and is more of a LIHOP.

Why has he abandoned it? His own calculations have proven this. He has written an open letter to Richard Gage showing the fellow truther the errors that he has made backed up with the calculations. As of today...I don't believe Mr. Gage has responded.


Could you do me a favor and link me to this paper? Thanks.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Can you send me a link on the information you have spoken about?
The link you send me dosent work.

Befor I can move on I need to see proof of what you are saying.

This is new to me.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Hi Griff...

Here is the open letter. He doesn't "show his work" in his findings in this paper. I will have to look around to see if I can find it.

www.cool-places.0catch.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Griff...

Here is another paper written by Mr. Urich:

www.journalof911studies.com...

Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy
of World Trade Center Tower 1



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


First of all. he made claims of have an article that was peer reviewed. It turned out not to be.

Here it is:

www.bentham-open.org.../2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

I going to ask you again, to please send me a link. your link is not working



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Back to Mr. Jones. Gregory Urich forwarded a copy of the same letter to the Journal of 911 Studies.
They will not accept it.
From their website:

I have look, now show me that this is true.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Not sure why... let me try it again:
Ok.....it's not working.

www.bentham.org...

That is the home page. Try searching it:

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

Volume 2 Issue 1
ISSN NO: 1874-1495

Here is a link to the download:

www.bentham-open.org...


[edit on 5-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


I am going by the words of Mr. Urich. I believe his E-mail is on his papers that I have linked to.

He has contacted Kevin Ryan of the same forum and is requesting they accept it.

Let me dig up some more info.

In the mean time, please let me know what he has done that has you agreeing with him.

Thanks,

:TY:



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Look it is obvious that the WTC7 was purposely "pulled" down with controlled demolition. In my view the only question in my mind is why?
wouldn't the destruction of the other 2 wtc buildings be enough to encite the masses?
I guess I am thinking "follow the money" who gained the most from this?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I'm relaxed. The only reason i even mentioed it was because someone else hady rather poorly constructed posts also, and whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Seems to me the reason he refused to accept it was because they already had on overwhelming case.

Of course the discussion isn't LIHOP vs MIHOP. However the arguement was made that someone changed their CT from MIHOP to LIHOP. I was simply showing the logical fallacy in that line of reasoning.

No, its pretty damning that they have so much evidence against the OS that they quit taking more.

They (NIST) also admit (which I have mentioned and linked to already) that they have almost no steel to analyze because it was shipped off. Thats like having a murder trial without the ballistics or dna and going off of blood type only. So while they found no evidence of CD, they didn't have much to go on.

this one is priceless...


6- You want to collapse two of the largest buildings in the world secretly, via a manner which has never been done? Really?

Flying planes into them was certainly a manner that had never been done. I never said anything other than ask you if it could be used. You answered a question with a question that didn't even address the one I asked.

No one has ever seen buildings collapse like they did on 911. Thats ANY case FOR or AGAINST CD.

Urich has a BS? There is no peer review process for that. Peer reviewed requires a Ph.D.

While some of the beams may have been proven to cut after the fact, it is undeniable that some of the main support beams turned to dust after the collapse. That is video evidence and has been posted here many times.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


this one is priceless...


6- You want to collapse two of the largest buildings in the world secretly, via a manner which has never been done? Really?

Flying planes into them was certainly a manner that had never been done. I never said anything other than ask you if it could be used. You answered a question with a question that didn't even address the one I asked.

No one has ever seen buildings collapse like they did on 911. Thats ANY case FOR or AGAINST CD.



Why is it priceless? You are going to secretly rig up two 110 story buildings for demolition.... with something that has never been used before.. then fly two planes into them. Hopefully NOT damaging any of the demo cord or charges...or whatever holds vertically burning thermite in place.


Urich has a BS? There is no peer review process for that. Peer reviewed requires a Ph.D.

Did I say he was peer reviewed? If I did it was a mistake on my part. Sorry.


While some of the beams may have been proven to cut after the fact, it is undeniable that some of the main support beams turned to dust after the collapse. That is video evidence and has been posted here many times.


Please show me the "dustified" beams.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
All I was saying about peer review is that you cant discredit one side for not having it if neither side has it. And the real problem with that is that if you want to come out with a peer review supporting a CT, you are putting your career on thin ice.

As to providing a link to the beams turning into dust, its in the news archives, i'm not at home and don't feel like watching 911 again atm, sorry. I've posted links in this forum many many times. Its not hard to find. (again, genuinely sorry).




top topics



 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join