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

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

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I wonder if the AE911truthers are going to include this clip as well.



But I guess not since these facts about the worsening condition of WTC7 are always being ignored, and never mentioned by the "truthers". Such a shame really. How is it that this firefighters can see whats going on and yet all the TMers ignore this completely, or even ridicule it. So to those that are excited to see the video of WTC7 falling, will you be hoping to see this part as well? Or is this just too much information?




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.


So you're still saying it was the debris?

NIST already debunked that, "Dave."


Go read the NIST report. For all the heckling you give others about it, it's obvious YOU don't even know what their report says.

They said it wasn't the debris impacting. It was the fire. That's what they said.


Now, the debris bringing it down is debunked. That's it. End of discussion. End the government disagrees with you. Get over it. Kaput.

If you want to say the debris started a fire, and the fire brought it down, well, by George, then I might believe you actually read the report.

And then we could start an INTELLIGENT discussion (yeah right) about all of this.




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.


"Try" being the key word.

I asked how they would identify something unconventional. I guess that went right over your head. That's okay, "Dave." Just concentrate on figuring out what the NIST report says and we'll move on from there.


It's a shame NIST had to go and leave you other feds so stranded on these internet boards isn't it? Didn't you say you worked for a federal agency on another thread, "Dave"?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Text



im done debating now this is just plain old fun you guys crack me up yes the government super agents have brainwashed us and fooled our /MY own eyes with there holograms I CANT WAIT TO HEAR WHAT ELSE COMES TO LIGHT FROM YOU BRILLIANT MINDS!!



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ohhwataloser

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
C)A ccording to NIST, the fires caused column 79 to overheat and expand, and becuase the steel was vertical and couldn't expand up or down, it expanded sideways, pushing the horizontal girder between columns 79 and 44 and causing floor 13 to collapse. The NIST report go into all of that so I'm not going to waste my time repeating it here to satisfy this weird little game playing of yours.


so thats what caused wtc 7 to come down? hmmm.... now my first question is why wouldn't the steel expand inward, instead of outward against the girders which would obviously have more resistance but we can ignore that

also how much did the steel expand?

lets assume worst case, I couldn't find any info on how thick the steel was for wtc 7, but wtc 1 and 2 used 5 inch thick steal for their columns at the base, which would be way over kill for wtc 7 at floor 13, but lets just use 5 inches.

how much did the steel get heated? I have no idea but, lets assume the steel is normally at zero degrees why not? and it got heated to 2500 degrees which would melt it, but lets just use some numbers

0.00000645in*in*deg F - forumla for steel expansion

0.00000645in*5*2500F = 0.080625 n. which obviously it would of been alot less.

so .08in was enough to cause a grider to fail?

or are we going to assume that the entire column expanded in the direction of column 44 and in no other direction? biggest column I could find is again from wtc1 and 2 so would be way oversized for wtc 7, is 52inx22in. so ill assume the same thing as above and that all 52 inches expanded in the direction of column 44.

0.00000645in*52*2500F = 0.8385 so even at an impossible amount of expansion, you think less than an inch caused a grider to fail? and mind you the amont of expansion would obviously be alot less.


come on dave, you respond to everyone else, why not me?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ohhwataloser
 


Stumped, has to return to the factory to get some better information.

He will be back.

He is hooked on bringing us back into the fold.

Next I suggest we tackle the pentagon fiasco. It is really FUBAR.

All you whiney sniveling morally superior disingenuous disintegritist who are bellyacing over six dead dogs.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
come on dave, you respond to everyone else, why not me?


Becuase I don't work for NIST, so you'll need to ask them, not me. I have no idea what the formula of thermal expansion of structural steel is, whether column 49 bent inward or outward, or how many toilet seats were up vs how many were down. My position is that if you have to resort to bickering over such a micro level of esoteric detail like this, this isn't discussing the evidence. It's grasping at straws out of of desperation from trying to keep your conspiracy stories alive.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Go read the NIST report. For all the heckling you give others about it, it's obvious YOU don't even know what their report says.


Right. I've been posting all this information about what the NIST reports says directly from the NIST report including section numbers and page numbers, and you're claiming I haven't read it. Virginia, that is by far the most brilliant thing you've ever posted.


I asked how they would identify something unconventional. I guess that went right over your head. That's okay, "Dave." Just concentrate on figuring out what the NIST report says and we'll move on from there.


Virginia, stop it already. There's no way that you are unable to figure this out on your own. Here's some of the evidence NIST and FEMA were looking at. It's the critical sections of steel they saved from ground zero and is currently being stored in a hanger at JFK. This steel hasn't been cut by any demolition charges, nor was it disintergrated by lasers from outer space, nor was it bent by King Kong. It was folded in half by the massive forces crashing down upon it.




Now near the bottom of the next photo is more evidence NIST and FEMA were looking at. This the end of a girder where the rivets are, and you can see right away from the granular edges of the steel that it wasn't melted by super secret thermite, nor was it blown up by nukes it the basement. It was snapped like a twig by the same massive forces bearing down upon it that bend the previous girder in half, and it snapped in that location becuase the riveted reinforcement made it a stess point. You can see right away how the whole beam was bent.




Now, please explain to me how everyone else in the world can look at this evidence and seem to be able to figure out right away what happened to it, and yet you can't. I know full well those damned fool conspiracy web sites you get all your information from are deliberately withholding this information from you so you didn't know any of this, but their duplicity only partially explains your befuddlement.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Just have to put my two cents in on this one... Ignoring technicalities about whether a fire could or could not bring down a 13 story steel building...what ever happened to enron, where did all that money go? Why did the BBC report the building had collapsed before it actually did? Why did the admin. Say they had never conceived of such a thing happening when the same day they were running war game scenarios amazingly similar to what actually happened? Why were no fighter planes called when they realized the planes were off course, possibly hikacked_ as would be the case any other day? If there are some logical answers to these questions- I haven't heard them. Please educate me...I'm just simple person



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by freedomintruth
 


desperatley clinging to the sinking ship there can always be a question but what you have stated is not a question rather an insult just so s ya know .


some of us are stable enough not ot be sucked into the endless what ifers paranoid dellusions



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedomintruth
Reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Just have to put my two cents in on this one... Ignoring technicalities about whether a fire could or could not bring down a 13 story steel building...what ever happened to enron, where did all that money go? Why did the BBC report the building had collapsed before it actually did? Why did the admin. Say they had never conceived of such a thing happening when the same day they were running war game scenarios amazingly similar to what actually happened? Why were no fighter planes called when they realized the planes were off course, possibly hikacked_ as would be the case any other day? If there are some logical answers to these questions- I haven't heard them. Please educate me...I'm just simple person


the answer is obvious- these conspiracy web sites feeding you this information are lying through their teeth and concealing information from you to prevent you from drawing an informed opinion and get you all paranoid over shadows-

a) The architects never ignored the possibility of fire. They planned on normal fire events. They didn't plan on all the systems failing all at once from a nearby building collapsing. In the case of WTC 7, when WTC 1 collapsed it took out the power grid so water to WTC 7 couldn't come from the street.

b) The BBC did NOT report that "WTC 7 collapsed". They reported the Salomon Brothers' Building had collapsed. The reporter was scrambling for information to report on and probably just didn't know that was the proper name for WTC 7, rather than for WTC 1 or 2. Until the conspiracy people started to make a stink out of it, I didn't know the proper name for WTC 7 was the Salomon Brothers' Building, either. Did you?

c) the wargames wasn't to prevent hijacked aircraft. It was a drill to intercept inbound aircraft from the sea

d) interceptors WERE scrambled. That's one of the most notorious of the lies those conspriacy web sites are spreading. A flight of F-15's were sent from MA and a flight of F-16s were sent from VA. they didn't intercept them in time becuase noone knew where the hijacked aircraft were heading.

This is why I posted to this thread to begin with- I know full well that the people who are setting out to "educate New Yorkers about WTC 7" are goign to likewise edit their information to make it look like the building was just sitting there unmolested one moment, and then fell for no reason the next. Regardless of where people stand on the 9/11 discussion, I'd have thought that both sides would agree that when someone needs to resort to lying to convince people of soemthing, it's a de facto admission that they know what they're saying is false.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
While you're at it, be sure to remind all the New Yorkers that the planes they saw hitting the towers were all holograms and the WTC was really brought down by nukes in the basement.


WHAT? When Shilling, it is advisable to ensure you have the correct information. If it is the intention of your CO to discredit the info with false info then try a different site! The base of the building did not collapse. It was a top down demolition with the floors and support columns disintegrating.

IF mini nukes were indeed used, they were probably to start the collapse and ensure it continued, TOP DOWN!

Slagging off truthers about conspiracies that NONE of us our using on an intelligent site such as ATS, is about as smart as voting for Obama was in 2008.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by theregonnakillme

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
While you're at it, be sure to remind all the New Yorkers that the planes they saw hitting the towers were all holograms and the WTC was really brought down by nukes in the basement.


WHAT? When Shilling, it is advisable to ensure you have the correct information. If it is the intention of your CO to discredit the info with false info then try a different site! The base of the building did not collapse. It was a top down demolition with the floors and support columns disintegrating.

IF mini nukes were indeed used, they were probably to start the collapse and ensure it continued, TOP DOWN!

Slagging off truthers about conspiracies that NONE of us our using on an intelligent site such as ATS, is about as smart as voting for Obama was in 2008.


You've never seen that theory advanced on ATS?

I very brief search will disabuse you of that notion.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Becuase I don't work for NIST, so you'll need to ask them, not me. I have no idea what the formula of thermal expansion of structural steel is, whether column 49 bent inward or outward, or how many toilet seats were up vs how many were down. My position is that if you have to resort to bickering over such a micro level of esoteric detail like this, this isn't discussing the evidence. It's grasping at straws out of of desperation from trying to keep your conspiracy stories alive.


"ask them not me" lol, is that "how to be a 9/11 debunker" video based off of you?

I told you what the formula of thermal expansion is (by the way its not my opinion or from some conspiracy website... its a fact) and its not micro level, the math tells you, how they said building 7 fell is completly wrong. How is it grasping straws? They said thats the reason the whole building came down... I mean come on. They came up with a bullcrap explaination for how the building fell is and you believe it, just because they are "experts."

Your thinking something along the lines of I don't understand the physics and what not, im not an expert so I obviously can't know. right? im obviously missing something but, any idiot can do math though.

This "idiot" can prove the NIST explaination is wrong.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
I told you what the formula of thermal expansion is (by the way its not my opinion or from some conspiracy website... its a fact) and its not micro level, the math tells you, how they said building 7 fell is completly wrong. How is it grasping straws? They said thats the reason the whole building came down... I mean come on. They came up with a bullcrap explaination for how the building fell is and you believe it, just because they are "experts."


No, I accept it because out of all the available explanations...

a) fires burned out of control due to the power grid being destroyed from the WTC 1 collapse, and thermal expansion caused a chain reaction of not fully understood structural failure

b) sinister gov't ninjas snuck into three occupied buildings and planted secret super demolitions that noone in the buildings noticed and which didn't leave even a microbe of evidence of sabotage on the wreckage, and who had the help of armies of secret disinformation agents in FEMA, NIST, NYPA, NYFD, NYPD, NORAD, FBI, CIA, and even the Red Cross to cover it up.

c) the towers were destroyed by secret energy weapons from outer space

d) the towers were destroyed by secret mini nukes planted in the basement

...option a is the only one that doesn't make me laugh out loud and make me think you're simply pulling my leg for flame bait. If you have an alternative explanation that doesn't involve super duper weapons, armies of secret agents, and everyone in a one mile radius of the WTC being as thoroughly as stupid as a bag of hammers, I'm all ears.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave



No, I accept it because out of all the available explanations...

a) fires burned out of control due to the power grid being destroyed from the WTC 1 collapse, and thermal expansion caused a chain reaction of not fully understood structural failure


1. lee harvey oswald, solo, shot and killed the president, due to the available explaination of the several hundred page warren report. no cospiracy here folks, keep moving on


2. the public does not believe the OS, and thirteen years later the Congress reopens the case and concludes that at a minimum four shots and maximum seven shotss were fired. thus revealing what the public suspected for years, decade. yup there is a conspiracy here, keep moving on, we will not prosecute anyone or dig any deeper.

3. while there have been countless plausible and some implausible alternative explainations about who, what, when, where, why and how 911 events happened, your continual bringing the most outrageous improabable explainations of the events of 911 as a tactic to ridicule those individuals proposing alternate explainations based on comon sense and scientific enquiry is juvenile and spohomoric. You cannot lump all non believers of the OS ino the same marginalized and blackballed group, and to continue to do so speaks more of you from your heart than the words you write, G.O.D.



b) sinister gov't ninjas snuck into three occupied buildings and planted secret super demolitions that noone in the buildings noticed and which didn't leave even a microbe of evidence of sabotage on the wreckage, and who had the help of armies of secret disinformation agents in FEMA, NIST, NYPA, NYFD, NYPD, NORAD, FBI, CIA, and even the Red Cross to cover it up.

c) the towers were destroyed by secret energy weapons from outer space

d) the towers were destroyed by secret mini nukes planted in the basement

...option a is the only one that doesn't make me laugh out loud and make me think you're simply pulling my leg for flame bait. If you have an alternative explanation that doesn't involve super duper weapons, armies of secret agents, and everyone in a one mile radius of the WTC being as thoroughly as stupid as a bag of hammers, I'm all ears.


No Dave you really are not all ears, for an explaination that does not involve SD weapons, armies of agents, or humans in a mile raidus being dums as a sack of hammers, so do not even shame yourself by claiming to be listening.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Go read the NIST report. For all the heckling you give others about it, it's obvious YOU don't even know what their report says.


Right. I've been posting all this information about what the NIST reports says directly from the NIST report including section numbers and page numbers, and you're claiming I haven't read it.


Right... because you are INCORRECTLY claiming it says things that it doesn't. Or maybe you just decided to take that burden upon yourself?

You keep insinuating that WTC7 fell because debris from WTC1 hit it, when NIST only says the fires caused it to fail. So the debris had NOTHING to do with it besides allegedly starting fires, if you believe fire was what actually caused that collapse. The structural damage by the debris was of NO significance itself according to NIST.

I keep asking you to show proof that fire brought it down, which I find laughable. You keep back-tracking to the debris which NIST already debunked as a collapse explanation!


You can't have your cake and eat it too "Dave."


If you've actually read the report then I have to call into question your reading comprehension.


Here's some of the evidence NIST and FEMA were looking at. It's the critical sections of steel they saved from ground zero


What's so critical about them? They were the least suspicious looking, so they shipped all the rest out to be recycled already? Now they're just too afraid to actually test these last remaining samples because they're probably contaminated with some sort of explosives residue or other evidence too?

No one has looked at this stuff except federal agents.

And I'm sure they haven't been looking too damned close, or else they'd be obligated to report it to us. Unless they were just looking to cover their own asses.


And you didn't answer about working for the federal government yourself. So did you or didn't you say that, "Dave"?

[edit on 2-9-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
a) fires burned out of control due to the power grid being destroyed from the WTC 1 collapse, and thermal expansion caused a chain reaction of not fully understood structural failure


you realize your point a is laughable because expansion of less than an inch apperently made a grider fail and bring a building down. I like how you leave it in the air saying its not "fully understood"

How bout e) a select small group of sinister people plant explosives that are not fully understood. Bringing all 3 towers down on their own footprint by demolition means that is not fully understood. Controling flow of information of any evidence of the above, by means that are not fully understood.

got anything against that theory?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
You keep insinuating that WTC7 fell because debris from WTC1 hit it, when NIST only says the fires caused it to fail.


I'm not going to address this children's game of yours any more. I said three times already that the debris from WTC 1 started a chain reaction of events that led to WTC 7 collapsing, and I already said that the chain reaction of events included starting fires that caused structural failure. The fires wasn't the ONLY thing that occurred- the power grid being destroyed and stopping water to come in from the street shut down the fire suppression and allowed the fires to burn out of control to begin with. If you still can't get it now, then the severe problem in comprehension is on your end, not mine, so addressing this a fourth, fifth, or even seventeenth time won't make any further difference.


What's so critical about them? They were the least suspicious looking, so they shipped all the rest out to be recycled already? Now they're just too afraid to actually test these last remaining samples because they're probably contaminated with some sort of explosives residue or other evidence too?


Oh, I get it now- you're been caught red handed making up crap off the top of your head with this explosives bit from my showing you the condition of the steel, so now you're making up more crap off the top of your head in claiming this steel was "carefully selected", and then you make up MORE crap off the top of your head and claim "they're too afraid to test the steel", all without even a microbe of evidence to back any of it up. How much of this nonstop make believe are you going to have to wallow in before you stop running around in circles?

First off, there's no flipping way this steel could have been folded neatly in half by explosives, and if you're saying that it was then you're lying through your teeth. Second, if you're admitting that *some* of the steel could have buckled becuase of the overwhelming stresses crashing down on it, then you're necessarily admitting that *all* the steel could have buckled becuase of the overwhelming stresses crashing down on it becuase this steel was used throughout the whoel building. Third, there were literally hundreds of people working on the site picking up this very steel and looking for survivors so you're necessarily saying that the ground crews AND the NY fire department AND the NY police department are "in on the conspiracy", and I doubt that even you are that childish and arrogant.


And you didn't answer about working for the federal government yourself. So did you or didn't you say that, "Dave"?


No I didn't and no I don't. Not even remotely...though since it's clear you'll happily make up whatever "evidence" you require to keep your conspiracy stories alive, I'm sure you're next going to accuse me of lying.

Good grief, it's one thing to imagine castles in the sky, but it's another thing entirely to be living in them.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

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.


I have asked you over a hundred times now to either illustrate this claim or stop making it.

You have failed every single time thusfar.

Ask yourself why before you respond, and don't respond to me unless it is to directly refute your claims.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
No Dave you really are not all ears, for an explaination that does not involve SD weapons, armies of agents, or humans in a mile raidus being dums as a sack of hammers, so do not even shame yourself by claiming to be listening.



On the contrary, I'm quite lookign forward to an explanation that a) can illustrate why the NIST report is incorrect, b) doesn't require hidden explosives and 10,000 sinister secret agents, c) doesn't presume everyone around is a blithering idiot. Up until now, that's 100% what the conspiracy people have put forward.

I know of one researcher suggesting that the towers had insignificant fire protection from day one which made it a potential death trap that noone recognized, but that doesn't involve any sinister secret plots for the gov't to murder us all so the conspiracy people pretty much find it too boring to entertain.





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join