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 Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

page: 12
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 





You said that if it was a natural collapse, it should lean in the direction of the damage. It leaned slightly in the direction of slight damage it received from 1's collapse. Proving your thought to be correct. Now you're backpedaling. Hypocrite.


Wrong. It wouldn't be a slight lean if it was a natural collapse. It would simply fall over like a domino. Did I make it simple enough for you this time?

I'm not aware of any proof that building seven had a slight lean in the direction of the damage. And even if it did, this is no proof that it wasn't planned demolition. It's normal for their to be a slight lean in a controlled demolition.

However. It is completely impossible for a natural collapse to have a slight lean. Unless you can give everyone just one example. No. You could never do that! And everyone with a lick of sense knows it. Just do what you have failed to do and give us 1 example.




The dip in the Penthouse is yet more evidence of a demolition as the beams are typically first blown out in the center to cause the building to implode.




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Why waste time trying to educate those who do not want to be educated? The Official Story cultists cannot and never will answer the hard questions. They cannot, so all they do is try and distract and confuse the casual reader to make it hard to believe the truth.

They cannot explain vaporization of the steel, so they ignore the evidence. They cannot explain the FACT that the Towers and 7 showed all of the signs of planned destruction, so they twist what is said and attack the websites that show the evidence , as if that mattered.

Sometimes it makes the unbiased mind cringe...they are so blatant in their errors, and so wrong in their assertions, that one wonders where they get the nerve..and what possible reason anyone would have to defend an obvious lie.

There is a psychological condition that causes denial for many people who are faced with horrifying or unacceptable realities; they simply block out logic and reason and stubbornly cling to a scripted sort of belief that makes then comfotable...then there are those who simply are so bored or lacking a life that they take any adversarial position just to have someone pay attention to them..they are the ones I have some sympathy for...poor souls.

We KNOW that we have a massive amount of hard evidence, and that any fair and honest investigation would lead to only ONE conclusion:

The Official Story is an insult to the informed mind. Period.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


There really is little need to:


They cannot explain vaporization of the steel...


...since that is a fantasy, and a lie, and it never happenend in the first place!

NO STEEL WAS "vaporized" at the WTC!!!

It is just one of the many and extant ridiculous "beliefs" that are ascribed to the extreme (and most whacky) fringers of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement".

"Steel vaporization" belongs in the same bin as the "No Planes Theory"....

And, THAT is the only reason NO ONE has bothered to engage on that "debate"...it is ludicrous, and a non-starter.

Period.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
."Steel vaporization" belongs in the same bin as the "No Planes Theory"....


It appears FEMA disagrees with you.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
We KNOW that we have a massive amount of hard evidence, and that any fair and honest investigation would lead to only ONE conclusion:
The Official Story is an insult to the informed mind. Period.


What massive amount of hard evidence might that be?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


A eutectic, in this case, is a mixture of components that melts lower than the steel. Your reference did not mention when this occurred, but it is likely that it happened as a result of the underground fires in conjunction with the thousands of tons of CaSO4 in the wallboard. While the structural engineers at NIST may be baffled by a source of sulfur, most people are not.
Your reference is from a group that occasionally gets things right, but this was not one of those times. They brought up Jones' paper, but have no explanation how thermite paint eroded metal in the fashion suggested. It wouldn't.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 





Why waste time trying to educate those who do not want to be educated? The Official Story cultists cannot and never will answer the hard questions. They cannot, so all they do is try and distract and confuse the casual reader to make it hard to believe the truth.


I notice they don't have the truth on their side so they tend to complicate everything in an attempt to confuse the masses. If they can get someone arguing with them then very often you can't really tell who is saying what and the masses think they actually might have an argument. When in fact they don't. All you have to do is simplify and make your case clear and they always lose.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Do you really believe that a 47 story building has enough structural integrity to "fall over like a domino" of are you basing this opinion on Hollywood disaster movies?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Do you really believe that a 47 story building has enough structural integrity to "fall over like a domino" of are you basing this opinion on Hollywood disaster movies?


I don't believe it. I have an actual example. This building is of weaker construction than building 7 and it holds together.

www.snotr.com...


Now could you show us all a building that falls like building 7 that isn't controlled demolition? Or are you basing your opinion on fantasy?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Hardly 47 stories. There is still no evidence for demolition of WTC7. Try again.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
If fire could take out tall steel and concrete buildings out like a controlled demolition (building 7) then all the demolition companies would be out of business.

Some advice..contact as many controlled demolition companies you can and ask them if fire can take down tall steel and concrete buildings like a controlled demo.

Oh and be sure to record it.Because I'm sure they would get a kick out of it.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Proof of explosions in building 7 AFTER the towers were down.Listen to what Barry Jennings says.!
www.youtube.com...
Isn't that proof?
Barry was stepping over bodies in the lobby of building 7.An explosion knocked him back into the 8th floor.The landing below him blew away.Barry was trapped for several hours.
www.youtube.com...

Then you have firemen coming forward saying it was an inside job.
watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I
Then you have people dying in the basement from explosions.
www.youtube.com...

The only way to make a building fall like WTC 7 would be to take out all the supports at the exact same time.Fire can't do this.If this were the case then all the demolition companies would be out of business.

It looked like a controlled demo probably because..it was.

Ever hear the saying "looks like a duck,walks like a duck well then..it must be a duck"?



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


Finding it just a bit more than a little suspicious, seeing your registration date, and sudden spamming of 9/11 threads....

...and apparently, from the postings, seems you haven't read.

What it seems is yet ANOTHER "truther" groupie (either just getting started, or BACK on ATS after --- umm --- "leaving" for some reason


Because, all that you bring up has already been thoroughly discussed, it's not new, and is just the same old, same old litany of "talking points" ** that come from the "truth movement" ** and their website dittoheads.

** ("TMTP")



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Looks like someone's parents just allowed them unrestricted access to da intrawebs.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The problem we continue to run into concerning the WTC demise is the OS believers believe what a bunch of government bureaucrats told them, as if they are the experts.

Everyone knows by now that the NIST report is hogwash and we all know the 911-Commission Report is a proven fraud.
The WTC did not just fall down from office fires and jet fuel, which has been proven false.
What has been proven by science is demolition, which is what brought down all three WTC.
www.ae911truth.org...


The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

ATS casual readers, you be the judge you decide for yourselves who is making up the pseudo science.
For some of the debunkers I am not interested in your opinions unless you are a qualified scientist who are experts in this field of science and have run the dust samples under an electronic microscope in a proper laboratory and have greater understanding of the chemical compounds that should have been found in the dust sample, and what should not have been found in the dust samples.




[edit on 16-7-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Or the local asylum left the computer room unlocked.....



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


Perhaps you are confused about controlled demolitions. Collapse due to fire is not controlled, so CD companies would not use it. They would also not use thermite because failure cannot be accurately timed.
They do use cutter charges which cause failures that can be accurately timed to collapse a building in a controlled and predictable fashion, hence the phrase "controlled demolition." Watch a few youtube videos of CD's and see how those compare with the uncontrolled collapses of the WTC buildings.

[edit on 7/16/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Give it up, WW. Jones not only has an agenda, he is completely out of his depth when it comes to analytical chemistry. The science in the paper is so bad he had to pay to get it published and the only peer review it received was the Bentham owner peering into the envelope to review the check.

Jones couldn't find thermite if it was burning in his back pocket.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
"The Official Story is an insult to the informed mind. Period."

Which tells you something about the debunkers, who gladly bend over and accept the OS with no questions asked.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Give it up,


Give up what? The truth?


WW. Jones not only has an agenda



Please enlighten us to this agenda? The only people I see here with an agenda are people who sit on these 911 threads 24/7 defending the OS fairytales and promoting ignorance.


he is completely out of his depth when it comes to analytical chemistry. The science in the paper is so bad he had to pay to get it published and the only peer review it received was the Bentham owner peering into the envelope to review the check.


Can you back this offensive drivel with credible sources?


Jones couldn't find thermite if it was burning in his back pocket.


That’s like saying airplanes cant fly. You have tried to debunk Jones peer reviewed paper but have failed miserably. You can do all the character assassination on Professor Steven Jones all you like; it still does not hide the truth in his peer-reviewed journal.




top topics



 
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join