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.

 

NEW: WTC7 and North Tower Collapse Video

page: 11
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

If the ICC PERFORMANCE code for Buildings doesn't include modeling a collapse, what would you suggest does?




Why are you asking me?

If you're right, you can point out where it says that collpase modelling should follow these guidelines.

Although, since you didn't in the first place, nor in the thread you started, I suspect that once again, you're distorting facts in order to make your argument.

Once again, the burden of proof is on you. Deny it all you want, it does not make you right.




posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I guess you didn't look at the video I posted before replying? Because your questions are answered by it.



I did. Now I KNOW you're a smart guy, but this is a stupid statement too.

You're aware that demo crews will make every effort to prevent flying glass. Whether that takes the route of removal, or covering them with kevlar blankets, etc... depends on the situation, right?

So what are you trying to prove here with this video? That the demo crew did their job?

If you're integrity is intact, you will admit that preventative measures will be taken, and that you have no idea what they were.

Once again, distortion of facts.....



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
GenRadek said the video is about Stuyvesant High School. Obviously it is not.

Obviously? I think the point was that you don't know where the quote you sourced was actually from. You can see the quote at 2:50 in the video you linked, this quote is referring to Stuyvesant High School.

The rest of the video is just trying to make the claim that explosions = bombs, which is obviously ridiculous. Indeed I can provide you with many quotes of people talking about the impact on WTC2 as explosions in their building, people hitting the ground sounding like explosions etc.

Where is the actual evidence? Where are the people who saw explosives, not just explosions?



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Exactly. And pray tell, can you tell us how the demolition crew accomplished this?

I'll help. They severed the columns in order from one side to the other. Just like the "progressive collapse" of WTC 7.


Again how do you know exactly WHAT they did?

Did the building have an open floor design, like 7, or a "lattice" framework?

In order to get that collapse sequence, did they also blow exterior columns, which would have been seen at 7?

Face it Griff, you're failing to make a point to anyone other than conspiracy believers. They are not your target audience, or at least, they shouldn't be if you want another investigation. You need to make a case to "us" and convince "us" before you can ever have a hope of achieving anything.......



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So what are you trying to prove here with this video?


1. Columns collapsing either by demolition or progressive collapse from one end of the building to the other will result in a progressive collapse of the outer shell as well. Including the roof line.

2. Explosives used to sever said columns do not need to be powerful enough to:

a). be heard for miles or even across the street.

b). break the window glass of the building being demolished.

Now, I can't help it if you can't see from the video posted that I have proven these things.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
If you're right, you can point out where it says that collpase modelling should follow these guidelines.


The code that I posted is for computer modeling of performance of buildings. If you don't think that includes collapse modeling, then can you suggest a code that would better fit?



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Seymour, why have you avoided to show me where it was stated that there was a higher fuel load at the alleged collapse point in WTC7?

I'm waiting for your source and page number.

My apologies if you are intensely looking for it. I know how difficult it can be trying to verify some claims with actual proof.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Yes Seymour....wheres the page number???????


I suspect you havent got it and are being a little unfair with your approach here....

just because you attempt to speak like an authority on the subject....
does not make you an authority, just someone who "makes the noise" of one
....

Wheres your evidence???I dont think you are feverishly looking for it....you aint got it boy!!..

Prove me wrong .....

i am waiting...



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
alright.... I've read enough of this thread;

ATSers, we are either fortunate to have been graced with the presence of an assorted cast of dis-info douchbags, or we are still forced to put up with scared, de-evolved, stupid, no-homework-doing dorks, who can't see what is right in front of them;

people.. wipe your eyes.. look again, this time with a truly open mind..

if that still doesn't work, get off the thread, 'cause you're wasting our time -- since the rest of us would like to expose the truth..

out



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
My suspicion is the majority of ATsers who view this thread will clearly see something terrible is amiss....it smacks of cover up from a to Z.....

And those who attempt to discredit are fighting a losing battle....

The video of wtc7 is irrefutable proof of a controlled demolition regardless of the govt employed disinfo agents who seem hellbent on spreading the Official Verdict of "terrorists did it...." when anybody who does a bit of research(unlike the disinfo crowd who clearly have not....)
Note how seymour asks lots of questions on this site, gets nasty when its not going his own way, yet doesnt play by the rules he insists others have to play by.....

....and he still hasnt answered the Q posed previously.....know why??

I do....hes not being as honest and sincere as he would have us think he is.....which is a shame because theres a lot of families, in fact thousands, who would dearly love to know why their family members were murdered....

Seymour and co. are small parts of a massive BS campaign....to cover up this most cowardly of acts....

Shame on you all... do any of you have a conscience???

clearly not......



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

The code that I posted is for computer modeling of performance of buildings. If you don't think that includes collapse modeling, then can you suggest a code that would better fit?


Translation:

Oops, I know that the code is for building design, and that in order to "comply", the structural docs would have to be released, something that NIST is legally prevented to do due to privacy laws.

And.... building design and collapse modelling are 2 different things, and so maybe if I bluff enough, I might be able to convince my fellow conspiracy minded users of this website. Too bad it won't hold water in the real world though. In the real world, as opposed to Twoofaloon world, I must prove my points, something I can't do....




posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1. Columns collapsing either by demolition or progressive collapse from one end of the building to the other will result in a progressive collapse of the outer shell as well. Including the roof line.

2. Explosives used to sever said columns do not need to be powerful enough to:

a). be heard for miles or even across the street.

b). break the window glass of the building being demolished.

Now, I can't help it if you can't see from the video posted that I have proven these things.



Lol, you can't even answer my very simple questions about the building that was demolished. Questions like what was the construction type, what measures were taken to prevent glass flying everywhere, how big were the charges used in that building and hence what was the overpressure and expected dB level and what measures were taken to lessen flying construction material - like kevlar blankets, etc that would have also dampened the sound level, were the exterior columns blown also in your video and what effect it would have on the collapse in comparison to 7's ext columns NOT being blown,etc. I have many more that you cannot, nor will not even try to answer since your whole aim is to take the ridiculous assumption that proving your points to the conspiracy minded means you have proven it to others... like say your peers.

The only thing that you have proven is that, as I said, the demo crews took measures to prevent flying glass that were effective. You have failed miserably to prove that the glass in 7 wouldn't have needed to go flying.

Total fail.....



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
seymour...
You have some Q's to answer yourself mate.....
stop deflecting them...

answer them.....

or are you lying???

[edit on 9-11-2008 by benoni]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni

Wheres your evidence???I dont think you are feverishly looking for it....you aint got it boy!!..

Prove me wrong .....

i am waiting...


What's in it for me?

I'm not trying to convince any troofers of anything. It's a lost cause and I'm aware of that fact. I've explained why in other posts.

Here's what all troofers ignore - the NIST reports, etc, is accepted as the best hypothesis for the collapses. NOTHING will change that fact until y'all come up with decent evidence to show that they are wrong.

And convincing other conspiracy minded folks means NOTHING also. I'm open minded - I agree with Griff that in that I also wish structural docs were released. I also believe that the 9/11 Commission Report was a coverup, but not in the way that Twoofaloons believe that it was a coverup of some LIHOP conspiracy.

Bring decent evidence. If you can't even convince "us", then you'll never get antwhere in your quest for a new investigation.

Like I posted before when I pointed out that the whole Pentagon loons were dead in the water, but can't recognize that fact, every other 9/11 CT is also bunk, but you guys just can't see it....



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
seymour...
You have some Q's to answer yourself mate.....


No.

I don't.

Get used to the undeniable fact the the WHOLE burden of proof is on y'all.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
yawn.....

how old are you???
Because your maturity levels seem quite low.....
...especially if thats the best youve got....yawn....



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
yawn.....

how old are you???
Because your maturity levels seem quite low.....
...especially if thats the best youve got....yawn....


Translation:

Seymour's right and I know it.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by benoni
seymour...
You have some Q's to answer yourself mate.....

No.
I don't.
Get used to the undeniable fact the the WHOLE burden of proof is on y'all.

Seymour, you made a claim that there was an unusual fuel load distribution at the point of collapse in WTC7.

Please cite this source for all of us to read.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

posted by benoni
My suspicion is the majority of ATsers who view this thread will clearly see something terrible is amiss....it smacks of cover up from a to Z.....

And those who attempt to discredit are fighting a losing battle....

The video of wtc7 is irrefutable proof of a controlled demolition regardless of the govt employed disinfo agents who seem hellbent on spreading the Official Verdict of "terrorists did it...." when anybody who does a bit of research(unlike the disinfo crowd who clearly have not....)
Note how seymour asks lots of questions on this site, gets nasty when its not going his own way, yet doesnt play by the rules he insists others have to play by.....

....and he still hasnt answered the Q posed previously.....know why??

I do....hes not being as honest and sincere as he would have us think he is.....which is a shame because theres a lot of families, in fact thousands, who would dearly love to know why their family members were murdered....

Seymour and co. are small parts of a massive BS campaign....to cover up this most cowardly of acts....

Shame on you all... do any of you have a conscience???

clearly not......

No, they have no conscience whatsoever.

They will deliberately lie and refuse to back up their lies with actual evidence.

They are coldly MOCKING the justice due the 3000 victims of the 9-11 perps.

Disgusting aren't they?






[edit on 11/9/08 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Seymour..
Lost in translation it seems pal...

Seymour is wrong, and he knows it, hence the childish tone and disingenuous comments...

Wheres your answer to the above "allknowing one.."?????

We are waiting...
Can he squirm out of this one...
no he cant!



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join