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.

 

'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

page: 7
77
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Does calling the building "unsafe" predict this?


Their actions indicate that they believed it was possible.

It must really burn you up to realize that they have the training, knoeledge, and practical experience that you lack, eh?


Until you can find me a quote of someone predicting THAT


Really?

Do we have to go through all the quotes given where the fire chiefs etc, were discussing the view of the building leaning, etc, as they saw through a transit?

What a joke.




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
all four corners of the building dropped simultaneously.


What you are looking at is the shell of the building falling. The center columns failed first, as shown in video here:
www.nist.gov...


Originally posted by bsbray11
It had a convenient "kink" in the middle that kept the amount of mass spilling onto adjacent streets to a minimum


How kind and thoughtful of the conspirators, perhaps they had a change of heart after the towers fell.

But you are wrong. The kink is way off-center.
www.pastpeak.com...


Originally posted by bsbray11
There WERE explosions inside of it, including when it started "collapsing," according to witnesses who were there and on the record.


Those explosions were certainly not part of any CD. The explosions heard by witnesses were few, random, and inconsistent with CD. You have overlooked the fact there was plenty of explosive material in WTC7.

Is that all you got?


Originally posted by bsbray11
You, a mass of people I frankly have no intellectual respect for out of experience rather than prejudice ... Do you understand that? I am content with that.


Has no place on this thread. Take your drama somewhere else please.


[edit on 2010/4/17 by SteveR]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
What you are looking at is the shell of the building falling. The center columns failed first, as shown here:
www.nist.gov...


That makes absolutely no difference. Do you know how ordered and symmetrical what's happening inside the building has to be, in order to create that much symmetry and order on the outside of the building? Imagine it, if you're able. Or here's a hint: demolition teams actually have trouble doing this with smaller buildings.


How kind and thoughtful of the conspirators, perhaps they had a change of heart after the towers fell.

But you are wrong. The kink is way off-center.
www.pastpeak.com...


The point wasn't it being in the middle, the point was where it focused the mass of the building. Each side was leaning inwards towards this kink. I don't think it has anything to do with a change of heart because the towers didn't take out any surrounding buildings either except other WTC buildings and a shack of a church. And I would say you should know this building looks EXACTLY like a conventional implosion anyway but since you had to ask what looked wrong about it I assume you actually don't understand that either.


Those explosions were certainly not part of any CD.


Yawn. Prove it.


The explosions heard by witnesses were few, random, and inconsistent with CD.


Are you expecting these to be conventional to the point where it becomes immediately obvious to everyone that someone is demolishing a building? Can you explain why you would expect this to be the case?

Can you explain how a "random" explosion can't do damage to structure?


Is that all you got?


It's all you asked for. You said there were no explosions when it began collapsing. You were wrong. And there were other explosions coming out of it during the day too. But forget it. Just pretend there were no explosions, or that you already know they were caused by something else somehow. That's fine with me brother. You know it all already, I know, I know. You made it this many years denying there were any explosions, you might as well not stop now.


Has no place on this thread. Take your drama somewhere else please.


It's not drama. It's the situation. I don't have anything to prove to you and I don't give a damn what your personal opinion is. I'm the one that has questions about what happened that day and you're not doing a damned thing to help that. Quizzing me, doesn't answer them.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That makes absolutely no difference. Do you know how ordered and symmetrical what's happening inside the building has to be, in order to create that much symmetry and order on the outside of the building?


I disagree entirely. You are generalizing based on your own expectations of what would happen. Whatever you "imagine" does not stand up to the physics and computer model as presented in the video I linked. If these make no difference and instead you prefer to "imagine" what happened, I really am at a loss with you. If the core columns collapse in quick succession as calculated, it is logical all 4 sides of the building would come down together also.


Those explosions were certainly not part of any CD.

Yawn. Prove it.


Uh... you brought them up... you believe the building was demolished... don't ask me to prove your theory for you.


Are you expecting these to be conventional to the point where it becomes immediately obvious to everyone that someone is demolishing a building? Can you explain why you would expect this to be the case?


Another nonsensical reply. Show me your magical silent, fireproof explosives...


Originally posted by bsbray11
You said there were no explosions when it began collapsing. You were wrong.


I already knew of the explosive material being heard, but demolitions are another matter entirely. No audible explosions that fit the profile of a CD, no sequential flashes, no nothing.


Originally posted by bsbray11
You made it this many years denying there were any explosions, you might as well not stop now.


You have no clue about my beliefs apparently... but it is immaterial to the matter at hand. Your posts have been debunked before, you ignore the views of firefighters, you ignore both physics and common sense, yet you incessantly post your waffle in an attempt to drown us out and draw us into personal bickering. It is looking like you cannot question your own theories and hold them accountable to the truth, or that there are ulterior motives at play here.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I disagree entirely. You are generalizing based on your own expectations of what would happen. Whatever you "imagine" does not stand up to the physics and computer model as presented in the video I linked.


Are you kidding?



Is that what WTC7 collapsing looked like to you?

Do you understand how computer simulations work? You don't see any disparity at all there?


Look at the corners of the building in this model!

Then look at this animation of the real thing:






So you're telling me NIST's model is showing the corners doing the same thing, dropping simultaneously straight drop?

How about this: where is the collapse video that shows WTC7 looking anything like NIST has modeled?

And of course no comment on the fact that it is difficult for demolition teams to do this with even smaller buildings.



Those explosions were certainly not part of any CD.

Yawn. Prove it.


Uh... you brought them up... you believe the building was demolished... don't ask me to prove your theory for you.


Sorry, it went like this:

You: There were no explosions so it wasn't a CD.

Me: There were explosions.

You: They weren't part of any CD.

Me: Prove it.


I didn't make the claim. You did. You first said there were NO explosions. Wrong. Now you say, they were "certainly not part of any CD." Well excuse me, how did you arrive at this concrete conclusion again? Based on what evidence? Don't say a lack of evidence because you can't make positive claims on a lack of evidence, except to say you don't actually know!


Should we have to go into what constitutes basic logic and reasoning too now, or can you follow along here?


Another nonsensical reply. Show me your magical silent, fireproof explosives...


Oh yeah, so silent that a police officer said the lobby exploded right in front of him before the rest of the building came falling down to the ground on top of itself. So silent that people recorded explosions coming from it and journalists even mentioned explosions in its general area occurring every 15-20 minutes after the towers had both fallen. Yeah, remind me how "silent" these explosions that never occurred and weren't part of any CD were again.

Do you know what "denial" is? Because we can start with the fact that you deny there were any explosions to begin with. Then when I mention there were you deny that they were part of any CD, based on nothing. Now you're saying they're magical and calling them silent as if they never happened again.



I already knew of the explosive material being heard


Wait I thought they were silent?


Come on man. If you're not going to take this discussion seriously then I have no use talking to you, either. Either they made noise or they didn't. And in fact, they DID make noise. Including at the initiation of its "collapse," as I have specifically told you NYPD officer Craig Bartmer has specifically testified to, and he was there. What have you said about this? Nothing. You just ignore it. Of course. What a shock.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
You cherry picked a graphic that doesn't even relate to the actual collapse. Why would you do that? I have seen the correct NIST model and it duplicates what we see in the video you posted. It can be accessed from the link I gave earlier. Nice try though.

As for the rest, I will not dignify your petty bickering with a response. I spoke with you to get a better insight on the truther's view of WTC7, it was quite informative thanks.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
You cherry picked a graphic that doesn't even relate to the actual collapse. Why would you do that? I have seen the correct NIST model and it duplicates what we see in the video you posted. It can be accessed from the link I gave earlier. Nice try though.


I watched your video and they were using the exact same models, the only difference was it was animated. How many different computer simulations of the collapse does it take to model ONE real collapse?

Show me the still images from the model you think is the same as the one in the video, and let's see how well they correlate with real videos.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Here's one thing I always wanted to know: How do people who believe the official story explain the molten steel?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Why hasn't anyone posted the photos of the guy who took pictures from the freeway showing some people setting up the Pentagon a little before 911 to make it look like an attack. I tried searching for the pics but I can't find them. I know they're somewhere around here. The guy who keeps talking about firefighters having all the knowledge in the world about burning buildings. I agree with you so please explain to me why there are even firefighters who don't agree with the OS.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Perhaps below is the image SteveR is referring, taken from NCSTAR 1-9A, Page xlii, Figure E-4:




Though the highly reliable NIST report states on page xl that "Figure E-4 shows the progression of collapse as viewed from the northwest." by looking at the location of the penthouse and the perspective of the diagram I believe it to actually be from the northeast.

So lets find some actual footage of the collapse and do a comparison.

Below is their diagram showing 7.3s with an inset from a video as far northeast as I could find at 7.5s +/- 0.1s:




And below is their diagram showing 8.6 s with an inset from the same video at 8.1s +/- 0.1s:



So the question becomes: just how accurate is their computer model?

Or put another way: what is the actual probability their "Probable Collapse Sequence" is correct? Is it 75%? 50%? 25%? Inquiring minds would like to know.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ampaf707
Here's one thing I always wanted to know: How do people who believe the official story explain the molten steel?



What molten steel can you indicate what you mean, where it occured then we can see what you mean about molten steel



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


So you think NIST was able to accurately reproduce the symmetry of the four corners of the building dropping evenly together with their computer simulation.







Oh yeah. What a match. Now the symmetry of the free-falling roof line has been totally accounted for since they were able to reproduce it so clearly. It's obvious it's the way it should have fallen. My bad.


So I wonder why I always missed the East side of the building twisting a full 90 degrees in the collapse videos, and the whole building looking completely warped like that? Oh well, I guess I'm blind too.


[edit on 18-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If the explosions were detonating irregularly over the course of hours then why did the building fall suddenly and regularly into its own footprint?

If a bomb takes out a segment of the support, and then a subsequent device does the same thing half an hour later, and then a third twenty minutes after that, we would surely see an irregular collapse completely unlike a normal CD.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
So what you are saying is that WTC7, even though these buildings are built to withstand fires, fell from a little outer structure damage and fire?

How do buildings built to withstand airplane impacts perfectly pancake onto itself? If anything, it should have leaned towards one side due to the high impact of an airplane.

Those buildings were built with some of the best builders in the world. They had airplane impacts in mind when building the WTC's. They used a smaller but close relative of the 767, the 707.

There is just too much to profit from these losses, it is all a little fishy. Those attacks were carried out with ease and perfection. Ease and perfection is something that is very hard to come-by when dealing with these kinds of situations.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Those attacks were carried out with ease and perfection.


Three out of four isn't a perfect score.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

bsbray, perhaps it's because youtube and those paranoid "fool conspiracy sites" automatically de-twists the east side of twisted buildings whenever pictures or videos of such are uploaded to them. We can't trust them, only NIST can be trusted in this. Don't you see that it's all a conspiratorial plot by paranoid wackos to discredit NIST and to blame 9-11 on the innocent gover..n..m..e..n..... wait a sec... I grabbed all those pictures from NIST's own report.... hmmm...

Give me a week and I'll come up with some other lame excuse why they in no way match, or maybe I'll be able to come up with some razzle-dazzle rhetoric to fool you into thinking they do.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Oh and I would also like to just point out this gem I found while making my pretty pictures above.

While reading the ultra-clear, ultra-concise, ultra-reliable NIST report, you know the main one, the only one most people will read, the one labeled NCSTAR 1A-1, I came across this on page 44:


"The simulations DO SHOW the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physiscs in the model."


Are they saying that the severe deformation we see in their diagram is their version of the kink we see in the pics and videos?

I needed an answer, so I went to their more detailed report, you know the one most people won't read as they will be satisfied with the summary version, and in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 on page 600 I read this:


"There was another observable feature that occurred after the global collapse was underway and, thus, COULD NOT be captured accurately in the simulation. After the exterior facade began to fall downward at 6.9 s, the north face developed a line or "kink" near the end of the core at Column 76."


Besides the obvious question of how they could accurately describe the approximate 13 seconds of the "random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris" of the supposed internal collapse sequence, but they could not accurately portray the approximate 8 seconds of the "random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris" of the external collapse.... besides that.... one has to ask oneself, based on the quotes above, do they even know what their model showed? Why these two apparently contradictory vague statements?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99


How do buildings built to withstand airplane impacts perfectly pancake onto itself? If anything, it should have leaned towards one side due to the high impact of an airplane.



The impact on the North tower was almost in the center of the elevation of the building.

911research.wtc7.net...

The South Tower was hit nearer a corner so is this the lean you are after!

www.uphaa.com...

By the way they didn't perfectly pancake thats a myth to support CD.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If a bomb takes out a segment of the support, and then a subsequent device does the same thing half an hour later, and then a third twenty minutes after that, we would surely see an irregular collapse completely unlike a normal CD.


Not necessarily. You're just imaging a scenario where it would result in a lopsided collapse. It takes knowledge of demolition but companies definitely can set off sequences of explosions, only the last of which resulting in the building actually beginning to fall in on itself, and it does so symmetrically.

If I can find a video to serve as an example I'll post it. And it has nothing to do with what type of charge is cutting the steel or how much of something it takes, only the placing of the charges and the order they're set off. There's no reason the amount of time in-between the blasts can be as long as you want.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

"The simulations DO SHOW the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physiscs in the model."


Are they saying that the severe deformation we see in their diagram is their version of the kink we see in the pics and videos?


The worse issue for me is that the symmetry of the roof line and all the visible building below it all dropping at once is what's suspicious about the way the collapse looks to me, yet NIST's models can't even reproduce it, so it goes without saying they can't explain how it was possible with fire alone.

This is proof that the contents of NIST's final report on WTC7 still cannot address the issues we have. Between this and not offering a kinetic energy analysis of the building, their hypothesis was nothing but guesswork not demonstrated in any sense of the word.




"There was another observable feature that occurred after the global collapse was underway and, thus, COULD NOT be captured accurately in the simulation. After the exterior facade began to fall downward at 6.9 s, the north face developed a line or "kink" near the end of the core at Column 76."


Besides the obvious question of how they could accurately describe the approximate 13 seconds of the "random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris" of the supposed internal collapse sequence, but they could not accurately portray the approximate 8 seconds of the "random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris" of the external collapse.... besides that.... one has to ask oneself, based on the quotes above, do they even know what their model showed? Why these two apparently contradictory vague statements?


For the same reason they were also not able to reproduce the acceleration curve equivalent to the rate of gravity with their "external collapse" simulation. It's impossible in the way they are trying to describe it as happening, as the falling building theoretically does work in crushing the intact building below yet simultaneously and paradoxically free-falls, which means it is really exerting no kinetic energy of its own onto the mass below. Ever since we have known WTC7 accelerated at the rate of gravity we all should have known that gravity itself wasn't doing the work. But since NIST also didn't offer the kinetic energy analysis that would prove this with an acceleration curve deviating significantly from free-fall, they never had to face this problem and simply ignore it.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join