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.

 

August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

page: 20
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by re22666


absoloutely they should be disregarded. they do not matter anyway, there is enough witness testimony, you already stated there were explosions all over so why would we need any video to prove it anyway?


So there's a plethora of eyewitness testimony of these 130-140 dB blasts going off right at the collapse initiation? Really? REALLY?

Where did I state that there were explosives going off all over the place?




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You dont mind that they averted the scientific method as long as it produces the results you want to hear.


You've got it backwards.

You hate that they used scientific method to prove that neither explosives nor thermate was used, because it didn't give YOU what you wanted to hear.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 



so sorry, i guess i get you all confused sometimes. you didnt say all over the place, you just referred to the explosions all being muted. my bad. oh and im sorry i guess all the witness forgot exactly what Db they registered the explosions at exactly so you have me there too. you win.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

You've got it backwards.

You hate that they used scientific method to prove that neither explosives nor thermate was used, because it didn't give YOU what you wanted to hear.

I've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the scientific method was averted, you didn't respond to that thread because you can't debunk it.

You're not going to change your mind and thats fine with me but I'm going to point out your whitwash to everyone else whenever I see it.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the scientific method was averted, you didn't respond to that thread because you can't debunk it.



I have no idea what thread you're referring to.

Regarding explosives:

They started with a hypothesis of the smallest RDX charge necessary to blast col79. Then used some software program to estimate overpressure and dB that would result from using this size of charge. The dB necessary wasn't heard, neither by videos OR witnesses, nor was any of the timing right. There also wasn't any testimony nor videos of windows being blown out by the overpressure. That's using scientific method - starting with a minimum amount and then trying to prove or disprove the hypothesis. they disproved it. Using scientific method.....

Thermate:

There's no device around that can cut horizontally through col 79. And a huge amount would need to be used, an amount that logic says couldn't go unnoticed. There are devices that could cut vertically through the girder however. But what makes this preferable over thermal expansion of the floor beams, which then push off the girder, which then allows the floor to fail? In order to make thermate a more probable explanation, you must first prove that thermal expansion couldn't do as specified.

I await your proof of this.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

There's no device around that can cut horizontally through col 79. And a huge amount would need to be used, an amount that logic says couldn't go unnoticed.



Yes, and a huge amount of fire would be required to produce the same effect, a huge amount that couldn't but somehow did go unnoticed. An unprecedented amount even.

so thats the fallacy in that logic.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

There's no device around that can cut horizontally through col 79. And a huge amount would need to be used, an amount that logic says couldn't go unnoticed.



Yes, and a huge amount of fire would be required to produce the same effect, a huge amount that couldn't but somehow did go unnoticed. An unprecedented amount even.

so thats the fallacy in that logic.


I see that you don't even know what NIST says about col 79. What a surprise.

They don't say that fire even affected col 79, that it prolly only reached 300C, which wouldn't have affected it's strength significantly. It says that the floor failures resulted in it being unsupported in the east/west direction, which then resulted in buckling.

The fires DID however affect the floor beams.

Firefighter quotes about the amount of fire proves that your statement that the fires went "unnoticed" to be a lie.

Try again. This time try to be accurate.

BTW, have any proof that thermal expansion of the floor beams isn't possible? No? Didn't think so.



Maybe your post is one that could be described as another posster likes to put it - a Red Herring......



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Step Up Kiddies

4 pages ago I offered to send a letter to NIST with a list of errors contained in the most recent report.

Lets see what we have so far:

-Larry Silverstein did it.

-B.S.

-Build a replica and burn that down.

-No building has ever...

-The bridge with the truck on it didnt collapse

hmmm ...

Well guys, I will need more than that. Please, I encourage you all to post the errors you find.

Thank you

-TY-


If you would have worked on a government administration (but maybe you do?) or in a big company you would know that it is no problem to produce a flawless report concerning anything that in itself proves nothing and has no consequence. Heck, they do it all the time. From what I read this is such a report. Too late too little. It is not science, it is just a theoretical experiment with the public.

Actualy, one you have there "
-No building has ever..."
is very scientific. Scientists live by it.
So sofar we have the strangest anomaly ever in the 911 "disaster".
And it wil probably never happen again.



[edit on 24-8-2008 by Pjotr]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pjotr

Actualy, one you have there "
-No building has ever..."
is very scientific. Scientists live by it.
So sofar we have the strangest anomaly ever in the 911 "disaster".
And it wil probably never happen again.



Hmm... Usain Bolt ran faster than anyone else before....

Michael Phelps won more gold medals then anyone else before.....

So I guess it couldn't happen, using troofer logic.

Wait!! It was on NBC right? Proof of MSM complicity !! They want to make us believe that new things can happen!! 11!!111!!11!!!



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
To Tezzajw...
I stand corrected. Bonehead mistake on my part. No excuses. Sorry for the late response, my better 1/2 had me out all weekend.
Oh, I will be submitting this to NIST.

That's ok, ThroatYogurt. When you spend so much time denying that there's anything wrong with the NIST report, I guess that you condition yourself to not believe any mistake that's pointed out to you.



I have to admit it was a good find on your part.

Yeah, I know - and that's only from me surface skimming the report. I'll look at it in greater detail later, when I get more time.

I can not believe a report, that was written by professionals, who have all published peer reviewed articles, yet the said report contains typos and grammatical errors.

It's sloppy and suggests a lack of attention to detail. I wonder how many other details NIST skipped over to reach the conclusion in its report?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Hmm... Usain Bolt ran faster than anyone else before....
Michael Phelps won more gold medals then anyone else before.....
So I guess it couldn't happen, using troofer logic.

Wait!! It was on NBC right? Proof of MSM complicity !! They want to make us believe that new things can happen!! 11!!111!!11!!!


You hit the nail on the head here.

Following that logic, we always hear that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. But, then they say it "looks" like a CD, so surely it must be!!!

But, how in the world would one know what a collapse from fire would look like, if it's never happened before ? I would imagine it would look the same. But that might make too much sense.

Since the NIST report came out last week, we keep hearing that since NIST says no enormous sounds of explosives were heard that WTC7 wasn't brought down with explosives.

But, then we hear stuff like "The firefighters and NYPD heard all these explosions, it must be an inside job!!!" But then they all point to the existence of Thermite/mate Hush-A-Boom® charges that surely were used.

Well which is it??? There are way too many contradictions with these "theories".

It's an endless spiral.... down, down, down.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Following that logic, we always hear that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. But, then they say it "looks" like a CD, so surely it must be!!!

But, how in the world would one know what a collapse from fire would look like, if it's never happened before ? I would imagine it would look the same. But that might make too much sense.



So if I follow your "logic", why do demo companies set up steel buildings to be demolished when it's "proven" that fires can do the same thing???

It would save a lot of money don't you think?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



But, how in the world would one know what a collapse from fire would look like, if it's never happened before ?

You said it!


It's a world first. Without precedent.

Trouble is, it sure as hell isn't the first fire............

[edit on 24-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam

So if I follow your "logic", why do demo companies set up steel buildings to be demolished when it's "proven" that fires can do the same thing???

It would save a lot of money don't you think?


What would be your fuel source for such a fire?

Do you propose to leave all the carpeting, furniture, computers, etc in there to burn?

Or do you propose to use jet fuel?

Problem with that is your local air quality board may have an objection or 2, dontcha think?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So I guess it couldn't happen, using troofer logic.


Well actually using basic common sense and logic we have seen several steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and as much or more structural damage and they did not collapse.


[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
On the troofer (sic) side we have:

* Video evidence
* Seismic evidence
* Witness testimony
* Botched early news reports of the collapse (don't under-estimate the importance of this - someone had to tip them off that it had already *collapsed*, not that it might or was about to collapse).


On the OS side we have:

* Wishful thinking
* A very poorly investigated and written report on WTC7 (written by no less than a government mouth-piece).


Which do you think carries the most evidential weight supporting its side of the story?

[edit on 24-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam
So if I follow your "logic", why do demo companies set up steel buildings to be demolished when it's "proven" that fires can do the same thing???

It would save a lot of money don't you think?



Putting aside the obvious absurdity of this question:

1. In most cases you would want to predict where and how the building comes down and force it to do so, would be the number 1 reason.

2. It could be done fast, not take several hours like WTC7.

3. If you could just set it on fire and have them all come down, that would put the demo companies out of business, since anyone could just set the building ablaze. How silly of them to do that.

4. Noone said EVERY steel framed skyscraper ever built would come down by fire and damage. But in this particular case, it happened, it might have been the first, who's to say if it will be the last? Too many variables to say anything is so absolute.


Here's the question. Why would "they" demolish a 110 story skyscraper so it crashes into another one on the way down, starting a fire in it that raged for hours, if it was rigged for demo? Why not bring it down at the moment of impact? I mean, after all letting the fire rage on could be harmful to the rigging and explosives, no? Of course that would also create suspicion like we have now, correct?

I guess "they" and "them" made a serious mistake there, huh?




So which was it, Hush-A-Boom's® or plain ole' loud explosives?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The Usain Bolt and Phelps analogy has problems. For one, people have in the past broken records before, so that is not unusual in and of itself. Moreover, it seems something more extraordinary would have to take place in order for this analogy to really work.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
What would be your fuel source for such a fire?
Do you propose to leave all the carpeting, furniture, computers, etc in there to burn?
Or do you propose to use jet fuel?

Have you read the NIST report?

Jet fuel was not present in WTC 7. NIST estimated possible fuel loads of 32 kg/m^2 on some floors and 20 kg/m^2 on other floors. Yep, common office furniture and supplies.

I never thought that paper could be so lethal, along with the timber desks and those oh-so-heavy filing cabinets.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

NIST estimated possible fuel loads of 32 kg/m^2 on some floors and 20 kg/m^2 on other floors. Yep, common office furniture and supplies.





32 kg/m^2 ???? Was that an average???

They must have stacked paper to the ceilings!!


EDIT: Actually, that is nothing masquerading as scientific fact. 32 kg/m^2 of what exactly? Do they say??

32 kg of an unknown unknown (to borrow from Rumsfeld
) does not make for fuel for a fire.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join