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: 24
2
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
can anyone tell me why this building didnt collapse until they blew it up during clean up
would this damage and fire be considered worse then WTC7?

www.youtube.com...

wouldnt this make WTC7 collapse not from just fire?? but added help from explosions??

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

In an earlier post you said: "I only deal with science, math and logic. I've been researching 9/11 for several years and my main course of study is controlled demolition and the explosive demolition of the WTC towers with explosives. Most of us aren't anonymous people typing a bunch of garbage out of our keyboards because we think we know what we're talking about.

The science of the event, along with the video evidence, physical evidence, the witness testimony, all support the demolition of the WTC towers with explosives. And saying anything else is to deny all available evidence."

With all the evidence you claim to have and all the study you have done, you should now be able to say what explosives were used.
You should be able to state where the explosives were placed.
You should be able to estimate how much explosive was used.
You should be able to postulate how the explosives were placed against the building components.
If you are not an anonymous person typing a bunch of garbage out of your keyboard because you think you know what you're talking about, you will inform us of the details above. Certainly all that scientific evidence you have accumulated, coupled with your incisive logic, cannot be denied.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by pteridine]

[edit on 1/27/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 
anyone here answer this since there are few here who seem to have an answer for everything regardless their logic

i would love to see them explain this



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If it should look like the towers, it could show that there was no demolition and all the CTer's would have to admit defeat.

Not if all available evidence suggests demolition by explosives as it does at the WTC.


Originally posted by pteridine
Now if buildings cant collapse from fire why do they teach FF from day 1
that structural collapse is the greatest killer of FF?

I don't think anyone here said that buildings can't collapse due to fires. You're twisting peoples' words for your own benefit.

Again, we're talking about steel-structured highrises, none of which, have ever completely collapsed due to fires.

esdad71 posted this video a couple pages back to try to debunk us truthers, but instead shot himself in the foot and gave us more proof. This video shows that the top half of the part of the building that's on fire, collapses onto the bottom half. Guess what? The weight of the top half did not crush or collapse the lower half, nor did it collapse the rest of the building around it. Only a local collapse of the fire-damaged section only:

www.dumpert.nl...



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
With all the evidence you claim to have and all the study you have done, you should now be able to say what explosives were used.
You should be able to state where the explosives were placed.
You should be able to estimate how much explosive was used.
You should be able to postulate how the explosives were placed against the building components.

This can't be answered due to the crime scene being destroyed. No proper fire investigation was done either, due in no part by the crime scene being destroyed. You may want to take a look at Firefighters for 9/11 Truth's website and learn a little about what the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations manual says about investigating fires, and what it says about the conditions and what could have happened at the WTC.

If and when we get our new investigation, your questions could be answered at that time.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

posted by pteridine

With all the evidence you claim to have and all the study you have done,

you should now be able to say what explosives were used.

You should be able to state where the explosives were placed.

You should be able to estimate how much explosive was used.

You should be able to postulate how the explosives were placed against the building components.


We do not even know the technical level of the explosives the US Military Demolition Teams have at their disposal. Therefore we cannot possibly guess what explosives or thermal devices were used. It was not dynamite or ANFO since they cannot shear heavy structural steel.

Since we do not know the type, we cannot possibly know where they were placed since their strength would determine placement.

We cannot possibly guess how much explosive was used without the type and the strength. You people claim the Towers could be destroyed with ZERO explosives, so any number greater than ZERO should be sufficient for our side.

These are questions you need to direct at the 9-11 perps. Perhaps the NeoCONs will allow you to attend one of their meetings and ask some questions there.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You said: "This can't be answered due to the crime scene being destroyed. No proper fire investigation was done either, due in no part by the crime scene being destroyed. You may want to take a look at Firefighters for 9/11 Truth's website and learn a little about what the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations manual says about investigating fires, and what it says about the conditions and what could have happened at the WTC.

If and when we get our new investigation, your questions could be answered at that time."

I have looked at the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth's website. I have looked at many websites with "Truth" in the name and found very little but I looked, anyway.

I doubt that anyone's questions will be answered. If the crime scene was destroyed, what will the new investigation investigate? What evidence will they look at? What would be the purpose of a new investigation with nothing to investigate?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Pteridine has gotten this same response time after time but it doesn't register for him. You just tried to explain why his argument is null, Bonez did, and I repeated myself over and over before I put him on ignore.

It was never my duty, or anyone else's that posts here, to figure out exactly what made those buildings fall. I simply have made certain observations as a citizen.

If anyone was charged with that responsibility, it was the federal government and the agencies they appointed. But now you have a potential conflict of interest. They had all the physical evidence that was to be had (that wasn't already scrapped), which wasn't much. And they let us see even less of it. Their report was not peer reviewed, and they did not test their final hypothesis.

All of this is verifiable fact. How many repetitions does it take to sink into a dense skull?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Oh, the same old excuses. We talk the talk and we know what happened but when called out, you truthers and CT's cannot prove anything. NO explosives and no theory.

Why can you not make estimates of what, where and how many explosives were used? NIST did as well as a few other professional CD firms. The amount of material to bring down a building that size would require months if not years of preparation before planting the first charge.This is a fact that no one can deny or prove different with physics.

Also, I did not shoot myself in the foot with that video. It is a steel structured building that shows complete structural breakdown at the point of the fires. It was only a few stories high. If you take that up 80 floors, put another 20 floors on top, you can see that if there is weakness to the structure then there is no support and a collapse is inevitable.

Third, there were searches for explosives by the FBI at the crime scene known as ground zero. It was an early assumption that there could have been 'truck bombs' that were used in association with the collapse. Nothing was found and there is nothing hide.

I feel that the closed minded people in this forum are those who do not want to think that the government had nothing to do with, directly, bringing down the towers. Argue that intel failures and horrible foreign policy bought the war to our shores but that is another discussion.


Also, this was not a fire investigation, it was and still is a criminal investigation by the FBI.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
i would like to hear thesee guys explain this

they always seem to know more that even physicist and Thermodynamists do

so this should be great!!
pteridine
adam_zapple
Swampfox46_1999
Seymour Butz
thedman
cogburn
esdad71

can any of you guys explain to me why this building didnt collapse until they blew it up during clean up
would this damage and fire be considered worse then WTC7??
www.youtube.com...

wouldnt this make WTC7 collapse not from just fire?? but added help from explosions??
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

would love to hear from you guys on these videos above and below and these witneses

911research.wtc7.net...

he is dead now
www.youtube.com...

he is also dead now
brasschecktv.com...

thanks agin cant wait



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Demo companies wire buildings from top to bottom and it wouldn't matter if a jetliner destroyed a few floors or a demo company destroyed a few floors, if the rest of the building wasn't wired, there would only be a local collapse of the damaged section only.


Argument from personal belief.

I find it unfathomable that you take something that's factual and try to say that it's someone's personal beliefs.


The statement I bolded above was your personal opinion. If it's a fact, you should be able to state a source. If you can't, then it's your personal belief...and believing something doesn't make it fact.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm truly floored. You've just shown that not only do you know absolutely nothing about controlled demolitions or how they work, you will make up any excuse in the book to deny anything factual.


Factual statements have sources. You've committed a logical fallacy in that you assert your own belief or opinion as fact:

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false"



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum

adam_zapple

do none of the videos of witnesses count as evidence ??

do the explosions recorded not count as evidence??

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

911research.wtc7.net...

i would call this evidence hands down


Recordings of noises that sound like explosions are not physical evidence of explosives.

Statements from people who heard what they describe as explosions are not physical evidence of explosives.

Physical evidence of explosives would be:

- Beams shown to have been cut by explosive charges
- Det-cord or blasting caps


Originally posted by lycopersicum
i would like to hear thesee guys explain this

they always seem to know more that even physicist and Thermodynamists do

so this should be great!!
pteridine
adam_zapple
can any of you guys explain to me why this building didnt collapse until they blew it up during clean up
would this damage and fire be considered worse then WTC7??
www.youtube.com...

wouldnt this make WTC7 collapse not from just fire?? but added help from explosions??


Short answer: You're comparing apples to oranges

WTC5 was not constructed like WTC7, therefore the damage required to make it collapse is different than the damage that would be required to make WTC7 collapse.

I don't know if you are aware...but WTC7 was built over a con-edison power substation, which required much of its vertical load to be re-distributed around said substation with cantalevered trusses. WTC5 did not have any such design considerations.

WTC5 was also shorter...9 stories vs 47.

Two very different buildings, two different results.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Why can you not make estimates of what, where and how many explosives were used? NIST did as well as a few other professional CD firms. The amount of material to bring down a building that size would require months if not years of preparation before planting the first charge.This is a fact that no one can deny or prove different with physics.


According to you, only one level needs to drop on the rest. I can't really see there needing to be months and years of prepwork just to bring down one story.



Also, I did not shoot myself in the foot with that video. It is a steel structured building that shows complete structural breakdown at the point of the fires. It was only a few stories high. If you take that up 80 floors, put another 20 floors on top, you can see that if there is weakness to the structure then there is no support and a collapse is inevitable.


And I also asked for more detail. I may have missed it though as the last few days have not been good.


Also, this was not a fire investigation, it was and still is a criminal investigation by the FBI.


Did they test the steel for residues?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

According to you, only one level needs to drop on the rest. I can't really see there needing to be months and years of prepwork just to bring down one story.




This is interesting.

Do you agree that even if 1 story was blown, then the collapse would have progressed to the ground?

If not, can you answer the question about how long you think it would take to prep the entire building, as your fellow se (
)Bonez suggests?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Actually, they did testing that showed on a molecular level how the steel loses it strength based on heat and expansion. It was actually quite a cool read. It is under "Case 9/11" if I remember correctly. Sorry about that.


What we are looking for is a fire that causes enough damage that a steeel structure collapses. The building in the video is not the same type of structure as the WTC but it shows that steel reinforced construction CAN FAIL in the event of a fire.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


BS,
You said: "It was never my duty, or anyone else's that posts here, to figure out exactly what made those buildings fall. I simply have made certain observations as a citizen."

Your observations that the buildings fell are valid. Your conclusions, based on personal feelings, are groundless. You have no evidence and not enough technical depth to understand any of this. I explained the concept of "evidence" to you many times and how it differed from "heresay." Your response was that you felt that something was wrong, so therefore something must be wrong. As pointed out by another poster, you are guilty of one of your vaunted logical fallacies.
If you claim something like this, it is up to you to provide evidence. Based on the evidence, you should be able to postulate a theory that can be proved or disproved. If it is disproved, you then postulate another theory that may be proved or disproved. When you run out of demolition theories, you may only be left with impacts and fires, which means that that is how things must have happened until new evidence is brought forward. Claiming that everything is unknown but that a demolition took place because you, with vast expierience in these matters, think it did, is the root of your, and all the other CTer's, fallacy and failed argument.
What the arguments of secret, ultra-powerful quiet explosives, planted by persons unknown, for unknown motives, as part of a great conspiracy, say to the world is that you have no evidence. You don't even have enough heresay to postulate a testable theory. You have nothing.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman


Whatever you saw collapse I can guarantee didn't globally collapse in a matter of seconds...

You can make that claim all day long, it won't change my mind because I know it's not true. Sorry but you have physics working against your claim.

Show me that buildings collapsing and I'll show you how it was nothing like the WTC complexes, because I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, with no fear of contradiction, that NO steel framed building has EVER globally collapsed from fire the way the WTC buildings did.

WHERE IS THE PRECEDENCE. If this is so possible, and normal, why do you have to make claims that you CANNOT support with evidence.

I can support my claims with known physics, you guys ignore that physics and argue nonsense, and when proved wrong just move on to more nonsense, or drag up nonsense that you dropped years ago. You might fool the new guy, but we've been here researching and discussing this for years.

Lets see this building you claim collapsed like the WTC buildings, or is this another wasted post of more garbage you will drop now you've been called out?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Here you go, this is the link.
LINK to ARTICLE

This is the project and there should be a link to the findings and what they did. I still find it ironic that it was their building that suffered the collapse.It has some interesting points.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


as far as building 5 height dosnt matter acording to you steel is steel the damage was more severe then building 7 and the fire was bigger and more wide spread was it not??

should it have not collapsed just like WTC7

according to you the steel should have still weakened just like you said WTC7 correct or no?? a steel strycture is a steel structure when it comes to fire according to you

shouldnt there have been some kind of collapse?

or are you saying it was built better then WTC7??

and explain to me the height thing and how it effects a collapse

this building was way taller and the fires burned way longer

whatreallyhappened.com...

so how dose height matter i mean really??

another question if some one showed you WTC 7 WTC 1 WTC 2 on video for the first time collapsing ( i mean in most of the videos as all the building collapsed you cant see the fires right) so what dose it look like to you if you cant see the fires?

poor construction ??

and give me a break about the power station WTC7 was built better and with stronger and thicker steel and really was stronger after they renovated it as a safe haven for official in case of a disaster and such

and you didnt say what you might think the loud booms where ??

you do amaze me with your wisdom and ideology i learn every conversation and argument you have with anyone about 9/11 , i learn very much how blind some people can be ,its like the blind leading the blind all of you guys

pteridine
adam_zapple
Swampfox46_1999
Seymour Butz
thedman
cogburn
esdad71

thank you so much you have helped me wake up so much more these days






[edit on 28-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 28-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by thedman


Whatever you saw collapse I can guarantee didn't globally collapse in a matter of seconds...



How can you guarantee it? Are you that omnipotent? I mean, I do not think anyone is trying to change your mind but maybe try to open it a bit. The link to the video of the building collapsing has been posted. It is a steel structure that collapses due to fire. That is all that is needed. That is the precedent. It can happen.

What known physics are showing me explosives you cannot even name? Dragging up things dropped years ago....dropped by who? You and....(crickets)...calling out...ok, you have asked and again, something has been provided. So ANOK, where is the evidence of explosives...hmmmm....



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join