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.

 

WTC - Controlled Demo Admission by Fox News

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I'm not changing the subject, I'm giving you mounting and supporting
evidence to show that the building was pulled and that Shapiro overhearing
Larry wanting to "pull" the building coincides with all the other points on my list.

So, is your quotes from Firemen the 'proof' that fire can bring a 47 story
steel building down in 6.5 seconds...or do your quotes simply state that
WTC7 was coming down?

Big difference.

Are you able to answer my other questions and debate them one by one?

By the way, I can list hundreds more firemen and over one thousand A&E professionals that disagree with your 3, or 4...

Can we please get back to the science; mainly the pryoclastic flow.
Come back when you can find me one credible source of fire, or falling
object (other than explosive/volcano) that can produce the cloud formation
seen at ground zero on 9/11/01




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I'm not changing the subject,



You specifically are. The subject is what you misleadingly term an "admission of controlled demo" by Fox News. I've shown that you have not given an accurate summary of what the article says, that the piece itself derides 9/11 "Truthers", and that the evidence for Silverstein's quote is at best third hand. Now that you realise this you are trying to talk about something else.





Are you able to answer my other questions and debate them one by one?


Absolutely. I just choose not to do so here.




By the way, I can list hundreds more firemen and over one thousand A&E professionals that disagree with your 3, or 4...


So what? I've quoted the people who were actually there, in charge of the building. You are signally failing to explain why they say what they do regarding the collapse.

This must be because you are unwilling to call them liars, or to suggest that they are part of the conspiracy. Either that, or you just can't explain it so you're ignoring them.


Can we please get back to the science


You mean: "can we please change the subject because my OP is pretty rubbish."



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 





steel building down in 6.5 seconds...


Newsflash, WTC 7 did not fall in 6.5 seconds. The 6.5 seconds is a fantasy dreamed up by the "truth" movement.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
News flash, time the video.

News flash, NIST admits to free fall collapse.

News flash Trick of the Shade can't debate me, nor can he find other
sources for pyroclastic flow other than volcanos and explosives.

Do you care to try?


Funny how you GL's swallow the lies but can't find a theory to explain
the pyro flow, free fall collapse, explosive residue found by Harrit/Jones.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


"News flash, time the video"?????

Turbo, turbo....

You are referring, of course, to the often-shown and repeated video of the FINAL seconds, of the EXTERIOR of WTC7?

I fear you have fallen (again) into the "truther trap" --- a common affliction, for it is the "truther" websites that lure people in, and once lured, they snap the trap....with the same disinformation they sell to everyone...

Here:



Rather than going on ad infinitum about the 6-7 seconds, try sitting back and contemplating everything that had to be occurring INSIDE, and out of view, of any exterior cameras....


Oh, and....I think you're a bit late to the party...


...pyro flow, free fall collapse, explosive residue found by Harrit/Jones.


"pyro flow"...??
That seems to be yet another new angle red herring...was this "pyro flow" in the video you mention? You know, the 6-7 "freefall" video of WTC 7?

"free fall collapse"...already covered.

"explosive residue"....?? THIS is what I mean by "being late to the party".

This so called "explosive residue" is only claimed to be such by the two you mentioned (oh, and the numerous others who just accept them at their word, with no scientific peer review to back them up).

Others have pointed out multiple times around here at ATS that what they actually "discovered" is paint...red paint dust.



[edit on 12 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


the buildings where wired after the first attack in 1993
it was done namley because of the fear of an other attack
and that it could be brougth down without the need to risk
anyones life because of the unstable foundation / structure
it could have suffered.

i guess guilliani and co failed to mention that back in the days



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Sorry Weed, You'll have to watch David Chandler's video which correctly
times the video using a single point on the edge of the roof.

It matters not what happened inside with a few columns as the main outer
structure and columns fell as a whole, STRAIGHT down.

Not too many people get this concept. The building had several steel core
columns were all tied together. As you can see from any of the collapse
videos, the walls are all rigid units and fell symmetrically down in 6.5 seconds.

I don't care about the Penthouse that was seen falling earler (which still
indicates CD); it's about the rest of the columns and entire building that
telescoped down at free fall for at least 2.5 seconds ADMITTED BY NIST
and close to free fall thereafter.

Here is a pic of the pyro flow:




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Also Weed, it's not paint. It seems you're a little late on the news.

Mark Basile has reviewed this, along with several other scientists. YOu can
catch the review here:

www.radio4all.net...

Transcript here if you don't have time to download the file:

911blogger.com...

Funny that you think a red paint chip can do this when heated in a DSC?




Care to explain how tiny iron balls attach themselves to the red/grap chip
all of a sudden?

[edit on 12-5-2010 by turbofan]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by turbofan]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I think pterdine thoroughly bashes the Steve Jones findings, and the thermite/thermate argument right here at ATS, in another thread. Have a search, and you'll discover it.

Oh, and while you're on about it, have a go at a more thorough explanation about the ACTUAL time of collapse of WTC 7. It's buried somewhere, in an ATS thread...I haven't the time to go looking for any of them, it is YOUR mission, should you decide to accept it.....

This is not my field of expertise, but I have been reading a lot, from some very, very good contributors here to ATS.

Maybe one of them will stumble in here, to this thread, and send a few links to the ones I've mentioned...



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I've already schooled Pterdine on this issue as I have first hand help from
Steven Jones, and Hoffman as well as studied the science.

Pterdine cannot explain where the sudden exothermic spike originates
since combustion is too slow a process to produce such a curve.

Do you believe combustion can produce a more narrow curve than a
KNOWN sample of nano-thermite?

Yes, or no?

If yuo want to get into the collapse of WTC 7, I can show how the 6.5
seconds is solid and proven using the video analysis.

You have to ask yourself:

Was at least one side of WTC7 fully intact before the onset of collapse?

Surely you agree the outer walls were all one unit and rigid after the
penthouse fell, and prior to the descent of the building.

Agree? Yes, or no?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
So you think that pyroclastic flow happens from fire, or high pressre from
falling objects?


No Tino, a pyroclastic flow happens from a VOLCANIC ERUPTION. Can you please show me the reports that show there was tephra found at ground zero.

Thank you.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I've already schooled Pterdine on this issue as I have first hand help from
Steven Jones, and Hoffman as well as studied the science.


Can you ask Steven Jones WHY he changed his tune and said his na-nu na-nu therm*te was used only as a FUSE?

This is what he now claims.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You've "schooled" Pterdine?


Well, you might want to let him in on it, then:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Come on...we both know and remember last summer, with the EAS flapadoodle, right? Bad info from P4T then, bad info from someone else now...



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Pterdine is well aware of our debate and he left it with the unanswered
question much like everyone else in this thread.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PAINT CAN GENERATE A MORE ENERGETIC AND
MORE NARROW CURVE THAN A CONTROL SAMPLE OF NANO-THERMITE.

YES, or NO Weedwacker?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 





I don't care about the Penthouse that was seen falling earler


The first three words pretty much sum it up. "I dont care" about the facts. "I dont care that the Penthouse falling, as it does, indicates the south facade of the building was collapsing and pulled the rest of the building down with it"

"I dont care" about the truth, because my conspiracy theories keep me warm at night.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I don't care about the Penthouse because IT DOESN'T MATTER.


What does the Penthouse have to do with the outer walls? What was
holding up the rest of the floors and the roof AFTER the Penthouse fell
?

So, come on ViperTech let's debate shall we.

Do you agree that the outer walls were intact and rigid AFTER the Penthouse
fell, and before the building began to descend?

Yes, or No?


[edit on 13-5-2010 by turbofan]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
News flash, time the video.

News flash, NIST admits to free fall collapse.

News flash Trick of the Shade can't debate me, nor can he find other
sources for pyroclastic flow other than volcanos and explosives.

Do you care to try?


Funny how you GL's swallow the lies but can't find a theory to explain
the pyro flow, free fall collapse, explosive residue found by Harrit/Jones.


Once again you avoid the issue that you brought up yourself in the OP. You avoid the answer to the question that you addressed and which I replied to with reference to the fire chiefs.

Are you doing this because you realise that your OP is worthless and feel safer with some other (also debunked) bits of pseudo-science? Or is there some deeper reason?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Don't waste my time Trick; it's obvious you can't answer my questions.

I already reposted the question on the previous page that you haven't
answered. The list of fire fighters means nothing.

So they knew it was going to full ... does that justify fire being the main
cause of global collapse?


My OP on it's own is weak, however coupled with the massive list of
other evidence, it's just another nail in the coffin for CD.

Have fun trying to answer my question next time you reply. You will be
the first of the GL's to have the sack ...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Don't waste my time Trick; it's obvious you can't answer my questions.

I already reposted the question on the previous page that you haven't
answered.


You asked "What was your "strong" evidence again?"

This was in response to my pointing out that the article you posted was an exceptionally weak piece of evidence for the premise you put forward.

So essentially you had no answer to my criticisms - which I suppose means you accept them - and tried to change the subject. I said "you're wrong", and you said, "yeah, but what about..." and then lurched off in another direction.

This is a typical TM tactic. One piece of evidence is painstakingly shown to be rubbish, so you move quickly onto another one, hoping that nobody notices that the whole edifice is propped up on sand.




The list of fire fighters means nothing.


Then why won't you discuss it? Why won't you explain what they meant or examine their motives?

I suspect because they don't fit your cobbled-together theory.





So they knew it was going to full ... does that justify fire being the main cause of global collapse?



It obviously suggests that conclusion. None of the ones I wrote about mention anything about demolition or bombs. If you are correct then they are liars or shills.


My OP on it's own is weak


Four pages and we finally get there. Thank god for that.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 





Do you agree that the outer walls were intact and rigid AFTER the Penthouse


No. The collapse of the penthouse is evidence that the south wall was failing around the gash carved into it by wtc 1's collapse.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join