Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

page: 16
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Yeah. Use a film as evidence.

It's startling how much of 911 "truth" is based upon what people think should have happened because they saw it that way in a movie.




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787

In the sequence of still photos of WTC7 from the beginning of the day to 5:21 pm the fires ar seen getting smaler and smaller, and emitting less and less smoke, but accoring to you the fires are getting out of control, and now hot enough to expand steel to the point of collapse.


If you had read the NIST report as you claimed you did, you'd have known the fires didn't just stay in one spot like you're implying. What you call, "getting smaller and smaller" is what everyone else says is "the fires were finding more fuel further inside the building to start burning". The details on how the fires progressed is in section 2.3, on page 18

Will you read the frigging report already? I'm tired of you people making stuff up about how these reports are all a pack of lies when you never even read the things and you don't even know what the lies supposedly even are.

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat and the one thing better than that is water.


All right, I suppose it really is the case I don't understand what I'm talking about. As hard as I try to calculate it out, I still don't understand how the water towers on the tops of WTC 1 and 2 would have been able to put out the fires in WTC 7 way over on the other side of WTC 6. Before WTC 1 fell, WTC 7 wasn't damaged yet and didn't need the water, and after it fell, the water would have collapsed with it.

Please explain it to me, as you're the one who keeps bringing up the water supply in WTC 1 and 2 to begin with so you obviously understand something I don't.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The primary water supply for WTC 7 was provided by the 12 in. water main beneath Washington Street.
FDCs were located on the south, east, and west sides of the building (Syska & Hennessy 1984). A
750 gpm manual fire pump that served the entire building was located on the ground floor. A 500 gpm
automatic fire pump, located on the ground floor, supplied the sprinkler and standpipe systems through
the 20th floor (Syska & Hennessy 1984). The 21st floor through 39th floor sprinkler systems and 21st
floor through 44th floor standpipe systems were supplied from two gravity-fed water storage tanks on the
47th floor (Syska & Hennessy 1984). Each tank had a holding capacity of 18,000 gal and a fire reserve
capacity of 7,500 gal (Syska & Hennessy 1984). The 40th floor through 47th floor sprinkler systems and
the 45th floor through 47th floor standpipe systems were supplied from the storage tanks on the 47th floor
via a 500 gpm booster pump on the 46th floor.
Emergency power generators were located on several floors to provide back-up power to emergency
systems in the building, including the fire pumps (Swanke et al. 1998; GC Engineering 1998;
McAllister 2002; Grill and Johnson 2005b).

wtc.nist.gov...


oka DAve there is 36000 + 15000 gallons of water in and on WC 7.
51000 gallons of water times 8 pounds per gallon equals 408000 pounds of water for fire supression.

Do you recall remember seeing any repeat any water right after the building came down?

Me either.

"WHERE'S THE BEEF"

The comercial from the 1970.

It must have evaporated, like the OS will slowly but surely.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
David, Here is a quote from your most recent post.

"Dude, don't even go there. The more you try to drag the topic off on these side tangents, the more you're only showing your desperation in keeping these conspiracy stories of yours alive."

Now Dave go look at your very first post in this thread, very off topic, tangential, peripheral comments, then all you've done is scold others ever since them.


Technically, this whole "what happened to WTC 7" is off topic, since the REAL topic in this thread was about a campaign to put posters around NYC to "educate" New Yorkers about WTC 7. This is just a pretty way of saying, "pushing out a presentation to promote conspiracy theories" and that's what I said in my first post. Do you deny they're going to make it look like it was simply standing there unmolested one moment and just spontaneously fell for no reason the next, without mentioning that wreckage from WTC 1 fell on it and that there were fires burning inside?

I'm not the one who dragged the conversation away from that discussion to arguments over the exact physical procession of the structural damage and of the collapse. You did.


My grampa told me this when I was a lad:

"Every D.O.G. smells his own stink first."


...so childish name calling that does nothing except make you feel better about yourself is supposed to make me believe you're a mature debate partner HOW, exactly?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
The primary water supply for WTC 7 was provided by the 12 in. water main beneath Washington Street.


Now this is what is called, "misdirection". You make an argument about one topic, and when called on it you try to make it look like you meant somethign else. You weren't talking about the water supply in WTC 7. You were asking about, and I quote:


"G.O.D. aka GOODOLDAVEwhere did the 500,000 gallons of water disappear to that was on top of WTC1 and WTC2?

That combined Dave is 1,000,000 gallons of water. "



The NIST report already addressed why the fire suppression system in WTC 7 was incapable of combatting the fires so I'm not going to repeat what is your responsibility to already know. YOU, yes, YOU, were mentioning over and over that the water supply in WTC 1 and 2 was relevent in suppressing the fires in WTC 7 and I want to know why. During the time the water supply was intact, there weren't any fires in WTC 7, and when WTC 7 actually had fires the towers had collapsed and the water supply was gone. Please, enlighten me.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not simply being a BS artist and aren't grasping at a bunch of ridiculous straws out of desperation to keep your conspiracy stories alive, so here's your solid gold chance to prove everything I'm saying is wrong.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, I am not going to attempt to convince you that I am not a BS artist, that is, was and will be your opinion of me.

I moved to WTC 1-2 and admit that was tangntal.

I am back on WTC 7.

NIST does not say with certainty that WTC1 debris damaged the sprinkler system.
NIST does ay that WC1 debris started fires.

They report no evdence that the fire supression system in WTC7 was inoperable.

WTC7 had 51 thousand gallons to supres fire on floors above 21.

It has 12 inch NYC water pipes for floors 21-1.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Yeah. Use a film as evidence.

It's startling how much of 911 "truth" is based upon what people think should have happened because they saw it that way in a movie.


I used it because "A" the Building didn't fall down due to Fire in the Movie, because when they were making it they got advise from the San francisco Fire Department!

and "B" because i forgot about the fact that Buildings like the Trade Centre would of had big Water Tanks for the sprinkler system! an nobody mentioned them in all the Threads about that Murderous day!



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
NIST does not say with certainty that WTC1 debris damaged the sprinkler system.
NIST does ay that WC1 debris started fires
They report no evdence that the fire supression system in WTC7 was inoperable.

WTC7 had 51 thousand gallons to supres fire on floors above 21.

It has 12 inch NYC water pipes for floors 21-1..



(Sigh) It's blatantly obvious your misgivings are coming 100% from your lack of knowledge of what the NIST report actually says. NIST never said the sprinker system was destroyed. It said the water supply was cut off.

When WTC 1 fell it took out the electrical grid and the street water supporting the sprinklers on floors 1-21 as well as the backup water supply to the storage tanks was cut off, so the fires on those floors burned out of control. The water supply on the 47th floor was believed to have been spent on suppressing the fires on floors 22, 29, and 30, and without a backup supply from the street it ran out. The fires burning out of control on floors 5-8 then spread to floors 9-13, and the theory is that it was floor 13 where the initial structural failure occurred. All that is in section 2.3 I already directed you to.

Is there some reason why you refuse to read the NIST report? If you genuinely believe the NIST report is false then I'd have thought it would be your responsibility to read it to know what the falsehoods actually were to begin with.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Speaking of WTC7, you never told me why it the fires must "necessarily" have brought it down.

So you mean to tell me there's actually proof that fires brought down WTC7, "Dave"? And don't make me remind you for the 14th time that even NIST already says the debris damage didn't play a significant role in that collapse.

Come on "Dave," you've been weaseling around avoiding this question for about a week now haven't you?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Speaking of WTC7, you never told me why it the fires must "necessarily" have brought it down.


LIAR! If you're going to quote me then quote me correctly. I said the collapse of WTC 1 necessarily led to the collapse of WTC 7, and I already posted the chain of events starting from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7:

Explanation to Virginia's ridiculous question

...and I already acknowledged this is an estimate. Noone is saying this is irrefutably how it must have fallen. I accept it becuase it's based upon a serious review of the available evidence, and doesn't require make believe paranoid sh*t like armies of hypothetical sinister secret agents planted throughout all walks of life constantly plotting to murder us all.

Now that I noticed, *you* never responded to *my* statement that no signs of sabotage from explosives was ever found by ground grews clearing up the steel at ground zero, nor was there any signs of sabotage in any of the blizzard of photographs taken during the ground zero cleanup (I.E. Joel Meyerowitz). Care to explain why that is?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Cool Dave, you learned how to make the letters big.

It takes, an army of Arabs, hiding in caves, to fulfill the official conspiracy theory.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by slugger9787]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


It takes, an army of Arabs, hiding in caves, to fulfill th official conspiracy theory.


But we know that they exist. If not in caves then elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
It takes, an army of Arabs, hiding in caves, to fulfill th official conspiracy theory.


...and it takes a mountain of lies for the conspiracy theorists to get anyone to take these "secret plots" seriously. The hijackers were all from middle to upper class families, were mostly university educated, and never even stepped foot in a cave.

This cave man bit you're using to imply unsophistication is entirely your own fabrication.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Speaking of WTC7, you never told me why it the fires must "necessarily" have brought it down.


LIAR! If you're going to quote me then quote me correctly. I said the collapse of WTC 1 necessarily led to the collapse of WTC 7


Uh, exactly? Because of the fires, right? That's the only thing I can even think for you to blame since we already know it wasn't the debris damage.


Like the poster above said, congrats on figuring out how to make the text big. But I'm not a liar, unless you agree that fire didn't bring down those buildings. Otherwise that's exactly what you must be saying. And I want the proof "Dave"!



and I already posted the chain of events starting from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7:


You need to learn the difference between a theory and proof.

You think these conspiracy theories don't have proof, but they're still theories.

Unless you have PROOF, your THEORY is no different.



Now that I noticed, *you* never responded to *my* statement that no signs of sabotage from explosives was ever found by ground grews clearing up the steel at ground zero


If it wasn't conventional explosives then how would they even know what to look for?

Stick to the OP and your statements that I'm challenging, and stop diverting from the topic.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
You are right Dave, the ground cleanup crews never found evidence of sabotage in the steel,


BUT


Dave some scientists found thermite and thermate in the dust from WTC disaster.

That amounts to sabotage of the steel.

www.youtube.com...

Dave any questions??

[edit on 31-8-2010 by slugger9787]

[edit on 31-8-2010 by slugger9787]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
Dave some scientists found thermite and thermate in the dust from WTC disaster.

That amounts to sabotage of the steel.

www.youtube.com...

Dave any questions??

[edit on 31-8-2010 by slugger9787]


They also found Jesus in America.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


One only finds Jesus in their own heart, no matter what country of state they are residing in.
Even the state of confusion.

Your point of derailing the subject via this schizophrenic post is obvious.

The topic was sabotage of the steel fom WTC 7.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
Dave some scientists found thermite and thermate in the dust from WTC disaster.

That amounts to sabotage of the steel.


No, *a* scientist with no chemical analysis nor explosives background whatsoever invented the term "thermitic" to describe substances he found in the dust. This is innuendo dropping to get people to think that he found actual thermite, rather than the ingredients for thermite that came from a collapsed building chock full of ingredients for thermite (I.E. aluminum and iron oxide, particularly since he found so much of it), and THAT is innuendo dropping to get people to think thermite was used to destroy the towers. Let me settle the issue right now- if thermite was genuinely used, that'd be even more blatant than explosives. The steel would have been all melty-sloppy, rather than snapped like twigs or torn like paper. You know that and so do I.

Doesn't it seem even a tiny bit odd to you that despite my "slavishly clinging to the official story" that I know all your conspiracy claims better than you do?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Uh, exactly? Because of the fires, right? That's the only thing I can even think for you to blame since we already know it wasn't the debris damage.


No, it's becuase WTC 7 was standing perfectly fine for 30 plus years, and collapsed only after wreckage from WTC 1 fell on it and smacked it up. The action therefore irrefutably caused *something* that let directly or indirectly to the collapse of WTC 7. If it was from the fires it caused, that's one explanation. If NIST is entirely wrong and the wreckage caused more structural damage than NIST thought, that's another explanation. If being smashed up by falling wreckage happens to be sign language for space aliens from the 53rd dimension to come in and zap the building with inviso-rays, that's yet another explanation. The cause may be for debate but the event that instigated the cause isn't.

I can't explain it any more clearly then that, dude. If you still can't figure it out, then I can't help you.




You need to learn the difference between a theory and proof.

You think these conspiracy theories don't have proof, but they're still theories.

Unless you have PROOF, your THEORY is no different.


The PROOF is that the steel found at ground zero showed NO signs of sabotage whatsoever. It was either snapped like twigs or torn like paper, which is PROOF that it it wasn't explosives that brought it down.


If it wasn't conventional explosives then how would they even know what to look for?


What the heck do you mean, "how would they know what to look for"?!? They picked up what was lying around after the collapse and then tried to identify what they were seeing. It's what they do for *every* forensic examination, not jsut for the WTC. If you see a murder victim with bullet holes, you don't insist the victim was really poisoned and the bullet holes are part of some secret coverup.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


One only finds Jesus in their own heart, no matter what country of state they are residing in.



Not according to the scientist that the poster above is so keen to trust. They found him not just in their heart, but also in America.

Or are you saying you disagree with Dr jones? At least in this specific?

Anyway, the point is germane. The credibility of said scientist is fairly vital if one is to believe his - frankly - stunning claims.





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join