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: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


adam bro slow down and reread anok is saying there was no way for it fall aging the other floors below it (thats his path of most resstance


and anok he is tinking u think it can

you both beleive the same thing you both think the building couldnt fall on other floors faster than air so both of you drop it you both get it

everyone needs to not be so quick to defend their ideas

slow down and read each post i do it to
thats why i went back and read it all agin




[edit on 16-1-2009 by lycopersicum]




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


im still waiting on you 2 who still havent posted any info about WTC7

question remains what do both of you think happened to building 7 and the info that leads you both to your conclusions



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 

Lyco,

You said: "why dont you tell us the thermodynamics and physics of why there wasnt explosives with factual info about flame temps ,steel melting temps, diagrams from of the building blue prints ,scientist and physics profesers that back up why u believe there wasnt any other energy source for to take WTC7 down"

What is being claimed is that those who say there was a conspiracy should discredit the official position [thermal expansion of components of a substandard building weakened by fire]. Saying the building fell down too fast or in the wrong spot according to what you feel, is not evidence. All the youtube videos in the world do not permit comparison to the videos of 911.
Why did the center fall out of WTC6? Unfought fire is the conclusion. WTC7 was damaged and was such an oddball of a building, being built over a substation and having unusually large spans, that it likely fell from fire, too. If you think there was a demolition conspiracy, it is up to the claimant to show evidence. Explosive residue, not burn marks from death rays. Timers. Parts of detonator assemblies. Unexploded ordinance. Unburnt thermite. Metallographic images of thermite evidence. Unequivocal explosive damage to beams or foundations. As of now, there are none.
No evidence, no conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I don't think you understand what that means....but let's find out.



Based on the image above, when the concrete sphere is dropped:


C'mon you're kidding me right?


No...you seem to think that the path of least resistance is off to the side...I'm just trying to show you how silly that assumption is.


Originally posted by ANOK
The 'sphere' in your diagram is going to drop straight down, path of least resistance, until it meets resistance, the block. What else do you want me to say about it?


Why wouldn't the same thing happen in the towers?


Originally posted by ANOKNo, the lower building is not going to apply any more force to the top than it was already applying. Where are you expecting this 'extra force' to come from?


Gravity.


Originally posted by ANOK The top was tilting, what can the pivot do to change that motion other than collapse underneath it? Problem is the pivot point didn't fail, that would have sent the top off the side of the building, the whole building failed equally in all directions around it's circumference, not just the pivot side of the tilt. It fell symmetrically from asymmetrical damage, which is physically impossible by itself.


Symmetrically? Which building are we talking about here?


Originally posted by ANOK
You are not claiming the towers fell with no resistance? How about proving to me they did? How can you seriously argue they didn't?


Did they make noise when they collapsed? Then there was resistance.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple


Did they make noise when they collapsed? Then there was resistance.



Of course there was enough resistance to make noise as they fell. Was there enough resistance to act as an intact lower half of a building should behave? That is quite different. It fell at the speed of gravity. How terribly weak the lower portions must have been to fall apart so easily but hey, at least it made noise.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 




After 21 plus years, yes, I know a little about the subject. You on the other hand continue to show a distinct lack of proper research. Rumsfeld's press conference was speaking about 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions reaching back over forty years that were not properly accounted for. He was not speaking about two billion in cash.

Yes, I made a mistake, and I see you wasted no time demonstrating I was wrong, big deal! Now as of the missing money where dose it say It goes as far as 40 years that this money 2.3 trillion took to be missing? Please post your sources to this info. I don’t care how many years you have in the military it does not make you the expert in the military spending. With all the corruption that has been going on for the past 40 years, you have no such knowledge of who is cooking the books and who is stealing the money.




THE WAR ON WASTE
Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion
On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.
He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.
"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.
Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.
Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending."
More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.
"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.
"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.
He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.
"They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job."
The Pentagon's Inspector General "partially substantiated" several of Minnery's allegations but could not prove officials tried "to manipulate the financial statements."
Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.
"Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year," he said.
Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy's 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976.
In his opinion, "With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers."

www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



Khaled Sheikh Mohammed

Mohammed Atta


Ayman al-Zawahiri

Shall I continue?


So only three where educated or would you please continue and while you are at it please prove to us how the FBI knows for absolutely sure these men committed 911 where is the proof? Besides the planted evidence and the torture that the FBI does to get false info what do you have?



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Watch this :



In China's Guangdong province, residents watch helplessly as a 26-storey half-built skyscraper burns. The cause of the blaze, which lasted for four hours, is unknown.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I bet it did not collapse

[edit on 17-1-2009 by pai mei]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
No...you seem to think that the path of least resistance is off to the side...I'm just trying to show you how silly that assumption is.


No I don't, not in your diagram. I already said the sphere would go straight down until it hits the block, learn to read. But yes in the case of the wtc towers the air around them is the path of least resistance, when they are collapsing onto themselves. The building itself would be the path of most resistance. You are trying to prove one thing with something entirely different. Sorry but I'm not the one being silly here


Why wouldn't the same thing happen in the towers?


Do I have to keep explaining the same thing over? I already answered this question more than once..


Gravity.


Gravity is not a force that can overcome resistance. If that was the case no building would stand in the first place. The force of gravity is extremely weak compared to thousands of tons of welded and bolted steel columns.


Symmetrically? Which building are we talking about here?


I was talking about the tilt of wtc2 sry I might have got off track. I used it as an example of something earlier...But anyway all three buildings fell symmetrically from asymmetrical damage. Show me ONE other building, ever in history, that has collapsed symmetrically to its foundations from asymmetrical damage. If it's physically possible there should be a direct precedence for this physical behaviour, and there should be laws of physics that support it. Funny thing is all the laws of physics I know contradict it, and all the demolition experts use that very same physics to make sure buildings DO fall symmetrically, because otherwise they don't.


Did they make noise when they collapsed? Then there was resistance.


LOL. The buildings fell at near free-fall speed, the amount of resistance/friction that caused sound is negligible. When I say resistance I mean the thousands of tons of bolted and welded steel columns that just gave way symmetrically, in all 3 buildings, an unprecedented act in all the history of known construction, and the total breakdown of known physics.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


for one i didnt say anything about the way the building fell

go reread the post

i could care less about that fact



[edit on 17-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


give it a rest he thinks the same as you
you both think its imposable to fall strait down threw the rest of the building

as for me i have no opinion



[edit on 17-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 
you have no clue what you are talking about

but would love to see where you get you information about substandard construction, really are u serious it was a bunker built to withstand all kinds situations

do some real research u sound uninformed
and i dont think there where explosives
im in the air on that

but what i do know is the temps of the fires recordrd that day

where never hot enough to effect the steel the way the official story says

do some research on thermal dynamics

but mostly reread the post





[edit on 17-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 17-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 


great great picture

now thats what i call a true building fire



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


we are still waiting
for you 2 to post information



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Gonenuts
 





Now as of the missing money where dose it say It goes as far as 40 years that this money 2.3 trillion took to be missing? Please post your sources to this info.


Its called common sense. In 2001, 2.3 trillion dollars would be two YEARS worth of Federal budget.....or six years worth of Military budgets, trust me, if the employees of the Defense Department were not getting paid it would have been noticed. It did not just "happen" all at once, it was a cumulative happening over many years and many administrations. It wasnt some super secret plot.

And no, Im not a DoD accountant. I have however, been responsible for spending some of it and keeping track which fund it comes out of....so again, yes I DO know how the funding works in general terms.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 


I'll bet it didnt get hit by an airliner either.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum

do some research on thermal dynamics



I have an idea.

Why don't YOU do some research on how loud any explosive charges would have been. Those facts alone eliminate any possibility of them being used. And since thermite has never been used before to bring down a building, that didn't happen either, according to truther-world beliefs....

But since you bring this up, explain why thermal dynamics prove that the NIST report is wrong.

Explain why thermal expansion of a floor beam can't break the connection and cause floor failure. Unfortunately for you, this now falls into the structural engineering realm, where simple physics alone don't adequately explain the results.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
No...you seem to think that the path of least resistance is off to the side...I'm just trying to show you how silly that assumption is.


No I don't, not in your diagram. I already said the sphere would go straight down until it hits the block, learn to read. But yes in the case of the wtc towers the air around them is the path of least resistance, when they are collapsing onto themselves. The building itself would be the path of most resistance. You are trying to prove one thing with something entirely different. Sorry but I'm not the one being silly here


So instead of falling straight down, the pieces of the building that were collapsing should have somehow moved outside the towers since there was less resistance there? What, exactly, would have moved them?


Originally posted by ANOK

Why wouldn't the same thing happen in the towers?


Do I have to keep explaining the same thing over? I already answered this question more than once..


No, you didn't, except to say that "the towers are different". Your "path of least resistance" claim only seems to work in certain situations.


Originally posted by ANOK

Gravity.


Gravity is not a force that can overcome resistance. If that was the case no building would stand in the first place.


Every time a building collapses, every time something falls to the ground, gravity has overcome its resistance.


Originally posted by ANOK
The force of gravity is extremely weak compared to thousands of tons of welded and bolted steel columns.


The more mass there is, the more force that gravity imparts to the object.


Originally posted by ANOK

Symmetrically? Which building are we talking about here?


I was talking about the tilt of wtc2 sry I might have got off track. I used it as an example of something earlier...But anyway all three buildings fell symmetrically from asymmetrical damage. Show me ONE other building, ever in history, that has collapsed symmetrically to its foundations from asymmetrical damage.


You keep claiming that the collapses were "symmetrical". What is this claim based on besides the fact that you've heard other people say it?


Originally posted by ANOK

Did they make noise when they collapsed? Then there was resistance.


LOL. The buildings fell at near free-fall speed, the amount of resistance/friction that caused sound is negligible. When I say resistance I mean the thousands of tons of bolted and welded steel columns that just gave way symmetrically, in all 3 buildings, an unprecedented act in all the history of known construction, and the total breakdown of known physics.


NEAR free fall is not the same as free fall. There was resistance so stop claiming there wasn't.

As to the "breakdown of physics", why don't you explain, using physics, why the collapses were impossible. (As soon as you can explain why it is you think the collapses were "symmetrical")

[edit on 17-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by adam_zapple


Did they make noise when they collapsed? Then there was resistance.



It fell at the speed of gravity.[b/] How terribly weak the lower portions must have been to fall apart so easily but hey, at least it made noise.


There is no "speed of gravity". Earth's gravity has an acceleration rate, but the collapses were all SLOWER than that. You might want to check your math.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Gotcha...come on folks, I am just looking for the answer to 2 simple questions. Just two that in my mind sum up the entire WTC 7 conspiracy. I have asked these in so many threads and it kills them quite a bit so I am wondering if I am hitting a nerve.


1. Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed? (This is a simple logistical question, I do not want to hear about big oil)

2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.

I will accept answers from trolls, trannies, truthers , commies, pinkos and evening bible thumping republicans viewpoint. I am just trying so hard to see what so many of you in these forums sees. I mean, if you wanted to create a piece of fiction that is one thing but please, convince me without links to garbage propaganda websites. I implore you.



I dont see how those are thread killers as they are quite easily answered.

1)If they had decide to pull the building there was a chance that somebody would see it go down with very little to no damage. There was very little damage in the first place but unless one of the towers were to topple over on it, it would have looked more fake than the original. So they set a few diversionary fires and let the general public believe THAT is enough to bring down a tower that houses several high security government offices.

I do see your logic though but if anybody had seen it fall WITH the tower before any "damage" had been done we might have a lot more ppl on our side. capiche?

2)there was evidence if you saw the columns. Not sure if they showed just the towers or the towers AND wtc 7 as its been awhile since i have revisited this subject. also as another poster stated they were loading that metal at an incredible rate to get it out of there. You say there was nothing but why not say there was nothing reported. Big difference.

I have a question. who was doing the cleanup? was it everyday NY construction joes or were they government employees?




top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join