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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 14
2
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Doesn't matter how much data or evidence you present ... the op won't listen to logic because thats not his job ...
stop wasting your time on forums debating people that will not change there minds and Get out and spread the word and convince people out in the real world instead...




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaman
if this is not the case then why is binladen hidding in a cave hes amillionaire an could afford a dream of attorneys to defend him,but hes just scared? so scared he admits to the deed? cmon kids put the koolaid back in the jug its bad for you.


How do you know he's hiding in a cave? Do you have evidence of this?

No offense but you should stop taking what the MSM tells you as gospel. Most of it is misinformation and outright lies. As long as you keep using it to base your opinions on you will never get anywhere close to the truth.

You need to go beyond the MSM and find out some things for yourself. Go learn about basic physics and how materials act in the real world.

Take a look here for some history...
medialies.com...

Notice how simple media lies and whitewash can completely shape the opinions of a whole nation.

example from above site...
medialies.com...
Don't be blinded by hollywood science.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

WHERE is the evidence of explosives?




Is this enough?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac
And tell me why again The United States would stage an Attack on itself?

And why would The United States want to murder tax paying citizens? Shut down commerce and close Wall Street?

Why would the United States attack it's Pentagon? Murdering and Wounding it's LOYAL military followers?

Why would the United States cause it's own Government to run for cover?

Is it just me or does any one else find this Preposterous and Utter Non-sense!?



Where have you been the last 7 years? To get the go ahead to....
wage war
illegally spy on US citizens
detain people without due process for any reason anywhere
make the presidential position one of great and frightening power.

Did you miss this stuff?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Luciferdescending
 
You said: "Where have you been the last 7 years? To get the go ahead to....
wage war
illegally spy on US citizens
detain people without due process for any reason anywhere
make the presidential position one of great and frightening power."

Why would they need the attacks to accomplish any of these?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
How convenient for your argument in not permitting a first of a kind. Until you have hard evidence of demolition, your "theory" has no credibility or basis what-so-ever. Since you claim it you must prove it. In the absence of any other evidence, it must be concluded that the planes and subsequent fires caused the collapses.
So let me get this straight, the buildings exhibited all the characteristics of controlled demolition from the way they fell, to the speed that they fell, to the visible squib detonations themselves. And because you are in such a state of denial, you would rather say the buildings collapsed for the first time in history due to fires?

I don't know what kind of backwards logic you're trying to use, but whatever you have to tell yourself to make it easier to sleep at night.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


If they had gone ahead with war in Iraq, without 9/11 happening, the Vietnam war protests would have seemed like a girl scout gathering in comparison.

Look at history, there is always an 'incident' before the country goes to war to appease the population. Almost always war is not popular with the population, WWII is a good example, the US had wanted to go to war with Japan for years but the public was not behind it, until they orchestrated Pearl Harbor. The 'Lords' could proceed without too much trouble from the 'peasants'...
It's nothing new.

A government at war doesn't want to also struggle with problems on the home front from an angry population. Without the support of the majority government has no power and cannot continue. Read some history.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

BoneZ,
You said: "So let me get this straight, the buildings exhibited all the characteristics of controlled demolition from the way they fell, to the speed that they fell, to the visible squib detonations themselves. And because you are in such a state of denial, you would rather say the buildings collapsed for the first time in history due to fires?"

How do you know what a controlled demolition of buildings this size would look like? There were no squibs. There was no evidence of demolition other than the airplanes. No evidence of explosives was found. I'll bet you've been reading all the conspiracy sites and memorizing their errors.

The way this works is that we consider evidence and then base conclusions on the evidence. The evidence we have is that airplanes hit the buildings, sheared some important structural members, and started fires. That's it for real evidence.

Try to find some evidence that doesn't involve guessing at what happened by amateur video analyses.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

posted by esdad71
WHERE is the evidence of explosives?



posted by GoldenFleece
Is this enough?



It was amazing how quickly they censored the hundreds of original newscasts from the day of 9-11 and removed them from the viewing of the American people. There is no doubt that the US Mainstream News Media was in on the coverup of 9-11 and still is. We should treat them all accordingly on the day of vengence.



[edit on 1/20/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Try to find some evidence that doesn't involve guessing at what happened by amateur video analyses.


It's funny you should say that.

Now let's see what NIST 'guessed at'...

The damage to the internal WTC columns from aircraft impact.
Damage to the structural integrity of WTC7 from building debris (that somehow came from a building collapsing from gravity).
The temperature of the fires.
That global collapse was inevitable once initiated.
Thermal expansion.
Fire proofing was 'knocked off'.

And a few debunker guesses...

Jet fuel ran down elevator shafts and exploded.
It couldn't have been a controlled demolition because______________(fill in blank).
Silverstein meant the fire fighters.
The explosions heard by firefighters were not really explosions.
The internal core structure failed from heat.
The penthouse collapse proves internal failure from asymmetrical damage and sporadic office fires.

Please feel free to add more, there are plenty more to chose from, they make them up as they go along....



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You said: "there are plenty more to chose from, they make them up as they go along"

Funny you should say that. This is exactly what the conspiracy buffs do.

For a change, try this. Start with evidence. Explain the results based on the evidence you have. Evidence doesn't mean that you have a feeling that things don't look right. If you want to claim explosives, you need things like explosive residue, timers, detonators, seismographic evidence, damage from explosives, or other physical evidence. All the "looks like it was demolished" and "fell in a pile" stuff doesn't say anything about the cause. The evidence should be diagnostic for that which you are claiming. Claiming that sulfur is evidence of thermate doesn't cut it because the amount of sulfur in the drywall completely swamps anything you'd get from anything else containing sulfur. Sulfate proves drywall.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Preston,
You said: "There is no doubt that the US Mainstream News Media was in on the coverup of 9-11 and still is. We should treat them all accordingly on the day of vengence."

What is the "day of vengeance" and how should the mainstream media be treated on that day? Are you and CIT planning a pogrom?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


What are you waffling on about? I have never maid any of those claims.

Please read my posts, my claims are only based on known physics and the observable evidence we have. The same observable evidence that NIST used to base their hypothesis on, yet I'm not seeing you question their methods and conclusions.

If you have anything unique that neither the public, or NIST, has seen please share.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What points did I make that demo companies disagree with? Please explain, with sources (other than 9/11 sites pls).


This one:

Originally posted by ANOK
WTC 7 fell with a precision you just don't get from 'natural' collapses.


Source for demo company that disagrees with you:
www.jod911.com...

It was originally posted at implosionworld.com but is hosted now by a 9/11 related site.


Originally posted by ANOK
LOL OK. Listen to you? Listen to what exactly? Your lame attempt to explain the physics you don't understand?


I understand the physics just fine, which is why I recommended that you discuss your thoughts with a physics professor. Specifically, your thoughts on the "path of least resistance".


Originally posted by ANOK
OK what sources do you need other than to the physics I posted?

What claims are you talking about? I didn't make any claims, I only stated facts that you have yet to prove wrong.


Here are a few of your claims which you still haven't provided sources for:


Originally posted by ANOK
You could completely sever ALL the columns around it's circumference and the top would still NOT fall through the rest of the building.


Source?


Originally posted by ANOK
The buildings could have taken twice as long to collapse, it would still be too fast.


Source?


Originally posted by ANOK
all four corners fell at the same time, or within seconds of each other. This is only possible when ALL supports fail equally.


Source?


Originally posted by ANOK
If only one columns remains standing the building will not collapse symmetrically, demolition 101.


Source?


Originally posted by ANOK
You didn't even attempt to discus my points, such as the hammer example.


What "hammer example?" None of your prior posts in this thread mentioned hammers. If your'e referring to your question about "what would happen if you drop an object onto another object of equal mass" I answered your question already.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Source for demo company that disagrees with you:
www.jod911.com...

It was originally posted at implosionworld.com but is hosted now by a 9/11 related site.


Again: This is the same "expert" that states the towers could not be a demolition because they didn't start from the bottom.


Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the structure moving.”


Really Mr. Blanchard?

www.youtube.com...

I guess that demolition never happened then?

Some "expert" eh?


That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse


Wow. I guess the NIST is wrong then in their analysis of floors failing/sagging and pulling the outer columns inward?

Again. What type of "expert" is always incorrect?


[edit on 1/21/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Source for demo company that disagrees with you:
www.jod911.com...


Please point out the actual section that you think disagrees with me.


I understand the physics just fine, which is why I recommended that you discuss your thoughts with a physics professor. Specifically, your thoughts on the "path of least resistance".


You THINK you do, but I've already shown you where you're wrong, you just don't know enough to know that you're wrong.

You have yet to show me where I'm wrong on the path of LEAST resistance.
I even supplied proof of what the path of least resistance is. This is not rocket science, the path of LEAST resistance means exactly what it says, if an object hits resistance it will try to take a path of LEAST resistance. If it can't take that alternate path it either stops or slows down, depending on the resistance met. When two objects of unequal mass collide the greater mass will have the least acceleration, and the smaller mass more, which is why the bigger object will not be overwhelmed by the smaller one.

You CANNOT have a crushing motion from that situation.


Source?


You seriously need a source for a basic physical truth? This just shows how little you understand. YOU need to go talk to a physics prof.


Source?


Again this is an obvious observation from years of known physics. If you need a source then I can't help you sorry.


Source?


Ditto


Source?


Ditto


What "hammer example?" None of your prior posts in this thread mentioned hammers. If your'e referring to your question about "what would happen if you drop an object onto another object of equal mass" I answered your question already.


No you didn't.

OK the hammer analogy might have been another thread, but I did repeat the analogy here also, so you're just playing ignorant.

Again one more time. Take a steel hammer and hit, as hard as you want, a sheet of aluminium, until one or the other fails from fatigue. Which would fail first? Isn't it obvious the aluminium would fail first? Please explain, without sources to 9/11 sites, how am I wrong on this? I want YOUR answer, not someone elses.

Quit saying I'm wrong and PROVE IT.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Really? I still have the VHS tapes that my wife threw in the VCR and recorded from the reports of the first impact to the collapse of WTC 7 that day.........



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are confusing threads. You posted nothing on this thread about a hammer example except your last confused post. What does the steel hammer striking aluminum have to do with anything? Why not a 4 pound aluminum hammer hitting steel foil?

[edit on 1/21/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

You said: "When two objects of unequal mass collide the greater mass will have the least acceleration, and the smaller mass more, which is why the bigger object will not be overwhelmed by the smaller one."

You should make an appointment with that physics professor you keep trying to send people to. Ask about elastic and inelastic collisions when you see him, then come back to the board and tell us what you've learned.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are confusing threads....


No I'm not, it was you jumped in in the middle of my convo with someone else.

The hammer was in relation to the debunkers hypothesis that the plane was able to damage the central columns after being ripped up by the same columns.

Yes OK a steel and hammer and steel foil
it's obvious which will fail first so I don't see your point. You keep using anaologies that have nothing to do with an aircraft hitting a building and collapsing. This is how I know you don't understand the physics involved here.

There was no tin foil, and yes I get your lame attempt at humour, we're talking an aluminium plane and construction steel. Thus a steel hammer and aluminum plate. As apposed to your head and a balloon, that was suggested by you or the other poster. Do you get it now?

I'm just trying to point out that there is no way an aluminium plane is going to be both destroyed BY the steel AND destroy the steel at the same time. You keep arguing nonsense.

As for your not understanding acceleration at impact, that's your problem.
When objects collide there is equal force but unequal backward acceleration. The larger mass has the LEAST backwards acceleration.
Equal and opposite forces that govern all collisions between objects. Unequal mass, unequal acceleration.

It's the law of momentum conservation...Maybe instead of going around in circles you go talk to a professor.

Go take your 4 pound steel hammer and wack the crap out of some aluminium, you really seriously can't believe the steel would ever fail first?
Then when you've done that put it into context with an airplane and massive steel columns....




top topics



 
2
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join