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.

 

Botched Building Demolition Reinforces WTC 7 Lie...

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


King,
You are assuming that Jones proved thermite. He has not and until he does there is no evidence of demolition.
You did a good job of faking incredulity with the all caps post.




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by pteridine
 

The world you live in is very different from the REAL world. Their is all sorts of evidences that it was a controlled demolition. Just because you want to pretend otherwise does not make your fantasies true.

I will not go into it because many others on this thread already have and your idea of refuting their evidences is something akin to repeating "Nuh uh".

WTC7 fell due to fires according to the OS. Show me ONE Other skyscraper built in the 1970s or later that has fallen in the uniform manner of the WTC 7 (otherwise commonly referred to as a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION).

Just one example of a similar building collapsing due to fire... 1970s era or later...

YOU have tyhe whole internet in front of you.. If your right you can prove it.

If Fire can bring down buildings like the WTC then you can show me one other example.

Right?


Show me one other steel-framed building the size of WRC7 that was allowed to burn for hours after being hit by multi-ton debris. You have the whole internet in front of you.

Because you make the claim, the burden of proof of demolition is on you. So far, there is no evidence of demolition, just wishful thinking by those that desire a conspiracy.

"The world you live in is very different from the REAL world."



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


There was one more line from my post you forgot to twist and parrot. Maybe because it applies to your rebuttal to me.

It addresses your style of debate.

NUH UH

It is a childish style of debate that fails to address any point made by anyone just so that you can continue to parrot your view regardless of the evidence presented to you.

Already in this thread several folks have presented several building fires from a variety of buildings built in the seventies or later. NONE COLLAPSED.

I asked you to show me one that has.

I did not ask for the moon or even a favor, I only asked for you to prove your point by showing me one building similar to WTC 7 that collapsed due to fire.

The reply you gave me was akin to a juvenile 5th grade "NUH UH".

If thats the best counter argument you got the off with ya!



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


My argument has always been that there is no evidence of demolition. You and your fellow travellers have consistently failed to provide hard evidence. There are videos that have been clipped, chopped, interpreted, and spun. No evidence. There have been many arguments based on what someone thinks about speed of collapse. No evidence. There have been many incredulous posts that say "common sense" shows demolition. No evidence.

Your responses are predictable and devoid of evidence. You have no basis for your belief other than you feelings.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by die_another_day

The current 7 World Trade Center's design placed emphasis on safety, with a reinforced concrete core, wider stairways, and thicker fireproofing of steel columns, and incorporates numerous environmentally friendly features.
- Wiki


discombobulator- get some sources to back your claims please.

[edit on 8/5/2009 by die_another_day]


Are you referring to the NEW WTC7 design?

concreteproducts.com...

Everything you mentioned from wiki is about the newest WTC7, not the old one. I wonder why they would fireproof the steel columns with thicker coatings and install a massive reinforced concrete core, if office fires are not suppose to be that hot a some claim?


Unless I read your post incorrectly, if so i apologize.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Show me one other steel-framed building the size of WRC7 that was allowed to burn for hours after being hit by multi-ton debris. You have the whole internet in front of you.

Because you make the claim, the burden of proof of demolition is on you. So far, there is no evidence of demolition, just wishful thinking by those that desire a conspiracy.

"The world you live in is very different from the REAL world."


Typical deflection. 1st rule of the debunkers manifesto: 'Never answer a direct question'. Followed quickly by rule 2 (seen previously in this thread): 'Always answer a question with a question'. This thread contains the a-typical classic debunker BS.

Anywho, back OT. That was a very interesting video OP. It never ceases to amaze, how events occurring after the fateful 9/11 just seem to belie the events of the day itself.

Chrono



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Chronogoblin
 


Goblin,
Based on your authoritative response, I know you would not mindlessly repeat what you find on truther sites or link to pointless videos.

Will you provide the hard evidence now or wait until after it is used to indict Federal Government executives? I would want you to jeopardize your court case by premature revelation.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Did that guy that owned towers one and two, the one that gave the order to "PULL IT" when he was talking about building 7.
Did he own building 7 also?
It was in the 911 report, the goverment one.
I just can'timagine hin giving a command to demolish that building if he didn't own it.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

I just can'timagine hin giving a command to demolish that building if he didn't own it.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]


I agree. More to the point I can not imagine a civilian given FireFighters an order let alone an order they can not carry out. FireFighter blood runs in the family. Mind you I did not take that path. But others in my family did. I know for a fact, that fire fighters are NOT trained in explosive controlled demolition.

Point being that even IF they were to follow a civilians orders they did not have the understanding to carry it out.

That Larry Silverstien is in on it. He lied about it. Made a huge mistake.

I don't know how far the conspiracy goes....but I do think that guy needs to experience so of the intensive interrogation techniques used at gitmo to spill the beans on his co conspirators.....

....

He is a definitive link to the others involved... How to crack that nut is beyond me...



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





Show me one other steel-framed building the size of WRC7 that was allowed to burn for hours after being hit by multi-ton debris. You have the whole internet in front of you.
Actually I have 2.Wtc#5 and #6 did not collapse,and they had far more damage from fire and debris than #7 did.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I have a couple of arsonist friends who will be more than happy to level some old or new buildings for a few bucks. They can save landlords megabucks since those conventional demolition jobs aren't cheap. Maybe that Larry guy is interested. He will have to get the insurance situation straightened out first.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


Another really strange thing is how that guy wasn't even at the towers when they got hit.
How could he know when to say "PULL IT"
You would think he would be at a hospital giving comfort to all his friends families that died when he was absent from work that day.
Or helping drag the dead cops and firefighters that died trying to save his tenants.
Kinda smells like the Fulton Fish Market on a hot day.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
EDIT, ..Mis interpretation corrected.
Thank you crowpruitt.


[edit on 6-8-2009 by titorite]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
As for the OP, too me the botched demolition actually proves just how hard it is to successfully bring down a building. WTC 7 was bigger, and designed entirely differently than the building in the video. It's comparing apples to oranges.

I've watched the videos, when i watch a controlled demolition i see dozens of explosions, watched both the WTC 1,2 videos and the WTC 7 videos, I see about maybe 6-10 "squibs" If dozens of explosions are needed to bring down a smaller building, we would need to see hundreds of explosions, not the isolated puffs of debris which can be explained.

As for the firemen testimony, its been addressed. The pull quote comes from a meaning to literally pull down a building. Why would both use demolition lingo when both are not in the demolition business!!!

The reason why WTC 7 fell and not the other WTC was because of the design. WTC 7 was built a top of another building with its support trussed to the old building, the trusses interconnected the building so if one failed the entire thing did. Peer Reviewed Source

I do have to admit, there is no other skyscraper that has fallen due to fire. But to say thats proof that WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall due to fire is a fallacy. It's like saying no one will go to mars because no one has been before! Besides this logical fallacy there is peer reviewed evidence that states fire did indeed cause structural collapse of WTC 1 &2.
University of Edinburgh
Mechanics of Progressive Collapse

The first source disregarded destruction due to aircraft collision and still found that a fire can cause a complete structural collapse.

The second source wondered how much structural integrity would be lost if just one floor collapsed He then created a new mathematical formula to predict the damage of a collapsing floor. He found that the entire building would collapse in on itself if just one floor fell in.

Here is my proof that fires alone can cause structural collapse of skyscrapers. We know for certain that one plane each collided with WTC 1 and 2. The colliding planes caused structural damage and knocked off fire retardant. The resulting explosion plus thousands of gallons of kerosene heated up the main support columns, not to melting point, but to a point that they where structurally weakened. The weakening support columns caused at least one floor to fall, and the resulting collapse sent the rest of the building down.

WTC 7 is much the same, only instead of a plane, fiery debris caused damage and started fires.

For the demolition theory to be correct you would need over a 100 tons of explosive to be hidden and stragetically placed around the central support columns, how is all that explosives hidden, people would notice 100 tons (the number one of you threw out), thats almost 3 fully loaded semis being hidden from 50000 to 200000 people daily. I doubt that security could hide that from that many people.

As for the "squibs" as i call them, they are nothing more than air being shot out of the windows as the floors above collapse the air below. To bring down that building with just demolitions you would need hunderds of explosions, not the isolated pockets of squibs.

Can we stop saying that fire alone will not cause structural collapse please?
edited video to read building


[edit on 6-8-2009 by 3njoi]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Originally posted by thedman




Talking about conditions on 78th floor South Tower - this was the lowest
area of the impact zone . Also as sky (elevator) lobby did not have many
combustibles as was lined with tile and marble .

Bulk of the fires were 3-4 floors above in 82-83 floors

Have to do better than parroting this old piece of misinformation....


Way to completely debunk the fires weakened all the steels, all the way down debunking...

No resistance form start of collapse to finish = every single storey was weakened by fire.

Two isolated pocket of fires up to and including the 78th storey, so what`s it to be?, none existent fires that weakened every floor truss down to the lobby areas, or as stated by you and the fireman no fires until level 78.

Or shall we stick to the Jet fuel down elevators (only 1 elevator existed that went from top to bottom) crap.

[edit on 30/07/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3njoi
As for the OP, too me the botched demolition actually proves just how hard it is to successfully bring down a building. WTC 7 was bigger, and designed entirely differently than the building in the video. It's comparing apples to oranges.

I've watched the videos, when i watch a controlled demolition i see dozens of explosions, watched both the WTC 1,2 videos and the WTC 7 videos, I see about maybe 6-10 "squibs" If dozens of explosions are needed to bring down a smaller video, we would need to see hundreds of explosions, not the isolated puffs of debris which can be explained.

As for the firemen testimony, its been addressed. The pull quote comes from a meaning to literally pull down a building. Why would both use demolition lingo when both are not in the demolition business!!!

The reason why WTC 7 fell and not the other WTC was because of the design. WTC 7 was built a top of another building with its support trussed to the old building, the trusses interconnected the building so if one failed the entire thing did. Peer Reviewed Source

I do have to admit, there is no other skyscraper that has fallen due to fire. But to say thats proof that WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall due to fire is a fallacy. It's like saying no one will go to mars because no one has been before! Besides this logical fallacy there is peer reviewed evidence that states fire did indeed cause structural collapse of WTC 1 &2.
University of Edinburgh
Mechanics of Progressive Collapse

The first source disregarded destruction due to aircraft collision and still found that a fire can cause a complete structural collapse.

The second source wondered how much structural integrity would be lost if just one floor collapsed He then created a new mathematical formula to predict the damage of a collapsing floor. He found that the entire building would collapse in on itself if just one floor fell in.

Here is my proof that fires alone can cause structural collapse of skyscrapers. We know for certain that one plane each collided with WTC 1 and 2. The colliding planes caused structural damage and knocked off fire retardant. The resulting explosion plus thousands of gallons of kerosene heated up the main support columns, not to melting point, but to a point that they where structurally weakened. The weakening support columns caused at least one floor to fall, and the resulting collapse sent the rest of the building down.

WTC 7 is much the same, only instead of a plane, fiery debris caused damage and started fires.

For the demolition theory to be correct you would need over a 100 tons of explosive to be hidden and stragetically placed around the central support columns, how is all that explosives hidden, people would notice 100 tons (the number one of you threw out), thats almost 3 fully loaded semis being hidden from 50000 to 200000 people daily. I doubt that security could hide that from that many people.

As for the "squibs" as i call them, they are nothing more than air being shot out of the windows as the floors above collapse the air below. To bring down that building with just demolitions you would need hunderds of explosions, not the isolated pockets of squibs.

Can we stop saying that fire alone will not cause structural collapse please?



There you go, destroying a perfectly good conspiracy with logic and facts. Shame on you!




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
reply to post by pteridine
 





Show me one other steel-framed building the size of WTC7 that was allowed to burn for hours after being hit by multi-ton debris. You have the whole internet in front of you.
Actually I have 2.Wtc#5 and #6 did not collapse,and they had far more damage from fire and debris than #7 did.


I wasn't aware that WTC 5 and WTC 6 were the same size as WTC 7. For some reason, I thought that they were much smaller, low rise buildings.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


What Chief Palmer was doing was giving a report - he was describing
what he saw and resources needed

He was only describing what he saw on the 78th floor

Most of the fire was above them - the plane impacted from the 78th -84th
floors. 78 was at the lowest floor struck. The fires were most intense on
the 81 to 83 floors, which took most of the impact

You seen to be under the impression that every floor has to be on fire for
building to fail

As related by earlier poster all it takes is failure of ONE floor to bring
building down!

South Tower came down when the exterior columns on 82th floor east
face failed

Here is analysis of failure mode

www.scribd.com...

Read it (though I doubt you will)



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

Well I am no structural engineer,but being smaller buildings wouldn't they fall easier?

I 'm not picking sides here or anything,and I'm no expert.Maybe someone like Griff can answer this question.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by pteridine



My argument has always been that there is no evidence of demolition.


At this stage of the event there is as much evidence as there possibly could be .

A). Eye witnesses.

B). Video evidence.

C). Seismic data.

D). Injuries to people.

E). Photographic evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join