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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
You don't agree that the outer walls were rigid?


How does the falling Penthouse weaken the south wall? Can you show
me your proof of this using the Blueprints?




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Now you're just being stupid...really. Let me correct you:


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.


I gave an answer and reason for the evidence. Further more, I explained
how it fit into the equation. YOu just don't want to accept that Larry
agree to "Pull" the building.


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.


Wrong. It's called mounting evidence.




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.


I already explained what they meant. They knew the building was going
to fall because of the explosions.

That doesn't mean they're "in on it". It means they made a statement
based on their assessment of the building.

That also does not mean that FIRE destroyed WTC 7




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.


See above.


My OP on it's own is weak

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


Thanks for the partial quote... however your poor tactic doesn't help
your integrity in this debate.

Most people would agree that one piece of evidence is weak on its own.
When you gather several pieces of evidence that point to a similar cause,
it's a much more solid case.

A couple of pages ago I gave you a list of about eight items that fire
cannot account for.

Good luck trying to pass them all of as coincidence when science and
history are against you. Even NIST agrees there was free fall acceleration.

Do you guys not understand the implications of this alone?

Somebody please explain how this is physically possible in a gravitational
collapse.


[edit on 13-5-2010 by turbofan]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


hey, turbofan....about Steven Jones, you might consider giving this some thought:

Steven Jones' paper slapped down by BYU

(Courtesy of, and all honors for finding and posting go to, GoodOlDave).



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I went looking through the page supplied by GoodOlDave (www.debunking911.com...) for a real refutation of his red/gray chip paper, but most of the links are broken.

The first quote was from a letter dated April 9, 2006. So how does this relate to a paper released in February 2009?

But I did find, by checking the headers, that the page on debunking911.com was last edited on:

Last-Modified => Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:52:21 GMT

So I assume all these quotes are from before that time. So how does anything on that page apply to his red/gray chip paper?

We are talking about the red/gray chip paper are we not?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Exactly Nicon! It seems Weedwacker has been caught spreading disinfo
again.

I just checked that site and the links have no reference to BYU; not even
the archive news dating back as fas as 2006:

ceen.et.byu.edu...

Isn't it funny that a search on the BYU site still brings up papers from
Steven Jones, but nothing about this crap from W.W.?

This is the second time in this thread W.W. has posted up lies and refused
to answer my questions in debate.

Earlier he stated the science paper was not reviewed, yet we all know it
has been peer reviewed several times, and most recently by Mark Basile
whom also did an audio interview. Here is a VALID link:

911blogger.com...

You can follow the insert to find the radio interview.


Finally, here is a link to Steven Jones' entry at 9/11 Blogger which states
that BYU still allows him access to the facility to perform research and
other Ph.D.'s support his science:
911blogger.com...

Weedwacker, please review your source before spreading more disinfo.

I'd also appreciate if you could use your own brain and answer the question
about whether YOU think PAINT can exhibit a more narrow and more
energetic curve than a known control sampe of nano-thermite.

Is this what you believe? Yes, or No?

[edit on 13-5-2010 by turbofan]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan
 


hey, turbofan....about Steven Jones, you might consider giving this some thought:

Steven Jones' paper slapped down by BYU

(Courtesy of, and all honors for finding and posting go to, GoodOlDave).


That links to a forum post which links to a debunker site which is a dead link that does not go to the letter. In the interested of being unbiased I want to have a link to a site that's not a debunker site have a copy of the letter. (the best debunker and truther sites have working links to the publishings they are citing as evidence as proof that quotes are accurate and not being taken out of context)

Hell I'd love to just have a copy of the letter to read for myself and not have someone read it to me (or possible take quotes out of context).

I HATE HATE HATE when an expert source is cited on a truther website just to have the college he works for have a link to his official report which is a debunking report. I HATE HATE HATE when the debunkers do that exact same thing to the truthers.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I gave an answer and reason for the evidence.


No you didn't. You're just far enough away from it now that you feel able to pretend you did.



Further more, I explained how it fit into the equation.


Must have missed that. All I saw was a list of other things which have nothing to do with the post you made at the top.




YOu just don't want to accept that Larry agree to "Pull" the building.


I don't care either way. But the facts don't suggest that he did.


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.


Wrong. It's called mounting evidence.

It's really not. I'll show you what you've done

- posted a thread misleadingly entitled "WTC - Controlled Demo Admission by Fox News"

- been shown why this is misleading

- changed the subject

- tried to claim that a piece of evidence you admit is "weak" stills somehow counts towards proving your thesis



I already explained what they meant. They knew the building was going
to fall because of the explosions.


Why don't they mention explosions? Why do none of them entertain the idea that the tower was demolished intentionally? Why do they say that they knew the tower would fall hours before it did? What kind of controlled demolition sets of explosions hours before the building comes down?

As mentioned above William Ryan says they thought the tower might come down at 3pm. Your claim above must mean that the bombs had already gone off a full 2.5 hours before the collapse. And neither he nor any of the others I mentioned ever say anything about bombs or a CD. If what you say is true then that's pretty weird.




Thanks for the partial quote...


It retains its meaning. You've admitted - to your credit - that your initial link was weak and hardly supports the premise of the thread.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Thanks again for not answering my question a 5th time Trick. You are truly
a waste of my time and obviously cannot think for yourself, or justify
your position on 9/11.

"Iampc", I totally agree with you no matter what side you're fighting for!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Yeah, right...shoot the messenger.


It seems Weedwacker has been caught spreading disinfo
again.



Links...if broken, then after I found SOMEONE ELSE'S post. It was not I who offered the information. I just thought it would be a great step forward.

But, what's this ad hom directed towards me, again?


....caught spreading disinfo again.


Really? I point to this thread itle as a more salient example of "disinfo spreading", but nevertheless, let the record show that I do NOT 'spread disinfo".

Heck in this case, the LINKS were broken, correct?
So, what...I'm guilty of copy/pasting/forwarding someone else's "bad links"? Ad Hom (Comedy) Central, here I come....



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Weed, it just shows you're not reading the links and simply copying and
pasting.

If you had read the source, and followed the link you would have known
they are broken. There is no credibility to your post, or Dave's.

It even PRE DATES the science paper, so how the heck can it be valid?

Do you care to answer the question about whether you believe paint
is more energetic and can produce a more narrow exotherm, or do
you just believe nonsense?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Thanks again for not answering my question a 5th time Trick.


When will you be supplying us with the proof of volcanic lava at ground zero? You have been asked three times now, Tino.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Lava?


You guys make me laugh.

The dust clouds coming from either collapse resemble pyroclastic flow.

I posted picture proof and a comparison between dust and volcanic
eruptions a few pages ago. Obviously you didn't see it, nor did you
supply me with an alternative source which produces the cauliflower
like clouds other than volcanos and controlled demolition.

Here it is again 'six sigma':



Here is what a dust cloud looks like:


Here's a shot from a volcano:


Please spare me your immature response about my thinking the Towers
produced lava. Do yourself a favour and show me you understand
your position and have some sort of debate skills.

Show me an alternate source that can produce the pyro cloud (cauliflower)
as seen at ground zero other than controlled demo, or volcano.

We know there weren't any volcanos, therefore it must have been explosives.

Prove me wrong mr. six sigma . YOu and the others continue to avoid
answering my questions.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by turbofan]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
You don't agree that the outer walls were rigid?


How does the falling Penthouse weaken the south wall? Can you show
me your proof of this using the Blueprints?



Who said the falling penthouse weakened the south wall? I said that the collapse of the penthouse was indictative of the south wall failing because of the damage WTC7 suffered during the collapse of WTC1.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The problem is the south wall telescoped at the same rate as the North, East, and West wall.

What is your explanation for this? If the other walls weren't damaged
by debris, why did they all come down at the same rate as shown in the video?

Second Point:

How is the Penthouse indicative of the South wall falling? Did you study
the Blueprints? Did you read this in a report from a certified structural
engineer?

If so, please produce the link for the report.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Please spare me your immature response about my thinking the Towers
produced lava.

Prove me wrong mr. six sigma . YOu and the others continue to avoid
answering my questions.


You have stated three times in this thread alone that there was a Pyroclastic flow at the WTC. I asked you to back it up. (no you didn't state anything regarding lava, my mistake! Sorry)

Only now, have you stated that it "resembles" a similar cloud.




Originally posted by turbofan
- Pyroclastic flow

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by turbofan
How do office fires produce pyroclastic flow?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, explain in detail with evidence how WTC 7 came down.




[edit on 14-5-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I just googled googled pyroclastic flow.

Causes:
Gravitational collapse of a lava dome or spine, with subsequent avalanches and flow down a steep slope e.g., Montserrat's Soufrière Hills volcano.

source en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


So your mounting pile of weak evidence conveniently ignores the firefighters - and a good deal of other factors - once again.

I'll indulge you and venture off-topic. I guess if people are hell bent on running away from what's in front of them then you sometimes have to chase them.

My "strong" evidence - not by any means all of it, but one very strong piece - is the testimony of the firemen.

You contend that they knew about the bombs, which had gone off 2.5 hours before the collapse, and that was why they knew the building was going to come down.

Why do none of the commanders admit this now? Why did they not make explicit reference to this in their testimony at the time? One would have thought that the CD of the tower would at least be worth a mention. Have you or anyone else in the TM re-interviewed them? If they agree with you then this is surely your smoking gun.

I put it to you that this is nonsense. That they don't think what you suggest and that their interviews provide strong evidence that a CD is nonsense.

You may not answer this with "Yeah, but what about..." without losing credibility.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



Weed, it just shows you're not reading the links and simply copying and
pasting.

If you had read the source, and followed the link you would have known
they are broken. There is no credibility to your post, or Dave's.



Tino....I DID darn well futzing READ the link from GoodOlDave!!! Here, THIS is the letter in reference, I just went and looked:


Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU


I fell for the "broken links" cliams because I TRUSTED YOU, and YOUR claims.


Perhaps people are having issues with the DATE of that letter, above?

April 9, 2006.

Let's repeat the writer's main gist:


I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.


Look, it is obvious that Mr. Jones, stung by this criticism in 2006, THEN went out of his way to attempt to vidicate himself, and his reputation. Call it a "crusade", if you will --- for it certainly appears to be one.

He grasped at the next straw that he thought he could, and this was the completely ludicrous "thermite/thermate" baloney.

He was certainly experienced enough to get the results HE wanted, and to obscure and obfuscate the entire process in such a way that paypersons would be "convinced". He is a fraud, and a charlatan. And possibly not quite right in the head, anymore.


Your tactic is clear....you've been caught out on the OP title, as being incorrect, that is obvious.

So, time to distract and deflect..."pyroclastic" flows?

OK, so you weren't as specific as you may have wished, we all do that. It isn't fair to jump on someone, in this sort of forum, for writing what is in their head, and having it misinterpreted because of the way it appears once posted...I have been a victim of THat sort of disaster many, many times. IN FACT, on this very subject --- the collapse of WTC 7. SO, I've been following the discussions very keenly on this topic, even though (as I've said) my bag is flying airplanes, not building design. (or building destruction).

However, even without an engineering degree, or hands-on experience in controlled demolitions of buildings, even I can see how silly your earlier comparison to a helicopter rotor's downwash stirring up some dirt, and the visions of the dust clouds emanating from the collapsing WTC Towers is.

A helicopter's rotor wash, over some dirt that is unrelated to the various building materials (drywall, fire insulation, etc) present in a modern building, and the QUANTITY of such materials simply haver no comparison.

SO....If I were you, I'd slowly back away from the "pyroclastic" flow analogy, as a method to "support" your OP.














[edit on 14 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
That's so weird. Turbofan spends the whole thread trying to avoid the issue he himself posted at the top by asking to change the subject.

When I indulge him and do just that he's suddenly nowhere to be seen.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Now you're just being stupid...really. Let me correct you:


Most people would agree that one piece of evidence is weak on its own.
When you gather several pieces of evidence that point to a similar cause,
it's a much more solid case.


[edit on 13-5-2010 by turbofan]


Like the independant WTC investigations done by PERDUE, MIT, and Northwestern all give results that support debunker theories?

web.mit.edu...
www.purdue.edu...
www.civil.northwestern.edu...




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join