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.

 

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

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Hell, it could even be one of these far out theories like an energy weapon. I don't know.


So, you're not willing to dismiss sci-fi fantasy weapons, but the idea that an intense fire caused sufficient damage to cause the building to collapse is beyond the pale, huh?

So how do you think that is going to go over with the NYC crowd? I'll posit to hypotheticals to our hypothetical campaign audience:

A) Secret government energy beams were shot at the building causing it to collapse in order to cover up an accounting inveestigation, or

B) The engineers screwed up and some sections of the building were not as well fire rated as they thought.

I wonder which way most New Yorkers are going to go - super secret energy beams, or the engineers screwed up.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I see your point, and the watergate analogy is a good one, but will I remember these guys were here today a week from now? How about a month from now? Especially after a very tramatic experience, and assuming I survive the experience at all!

Plus, guys are in and out of here every day. Just a moment ago they were over at the window near me, looking up at a support beam in a little niche of the building. I was on my way to the waterfountain, and I asked them what was up there. They said they were looking for roof leaks. Sounded plausible to me, and if I weren't posting about it in this thread, I highly doubt I would remember it in a day or two.

Also, important to note, that many witnesses did report seeing odd repair crews in key areas of the building in the weeks leading up to the attack.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Well, I have a lot of science, math, practical application, and experimentation to back up the notion that it wasn't a kerosene fire at less than 250 degrees Celsius that only lasted a couple of hours.

However, I don't know a thing about fantastical sci-fi weapons, and if I were to completely discount them, it would only be proof of my close-mindedness and disregard for scientific theory.

When attacking an argument, it is very easy to attack what someone says or does, but it is difficult to attack what they don't say or do. Just as you picked up on that one statement of mine and ran with it, even though I have posted many times that I don't believe it was any of the fantastical theories out there. Had I said it definitely wasn't those things, you could have attacked my reasoning, or you could have twisted my words and said that I must admit they exist if I am willing to discount them with certainty.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Well, I have a lot of science, math, practical application, and experimentation to back up the notion that it wasn't a kerosene fire at less than 250 degrees Celsius that only lasted a couple of hours.


Ok, I shouldn't of just jumped on the space beam thing, maybe that wasn't fair. However, the notion that the perpetrators would accept the very high risk of being found out planting explosives is almost as hard to swallow.

Side note: why are you describing the fire in building 7 as a "kerosene" fire? It was much more than that and a lot of people in NYC are not going to be easily misdirected as many were there or new people that were there.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Well, I have a lot of science, math, practical application, and experimentation to back up the notion that it wasn't a kerosene fire at less than 250 degrees Celsius that only lasted a couple of hours.


Seconded. Those things have never had anything to do with any building that free-falls down to its own lobby anyway. The only thing that does that is a demolition. Literally people have been told this for years, and it's absolutely true there is no other example of this kind of collapse supposedly caused by fire in the history of mankind. Even the government says as much, that it was a "new phenomenon" and all this crap that only hoopers believe, because they never actually read the report and wouldn't be able to analyze it.

All thousands of more intelligent people had to do, was watch it fall.

And after that, we were all left wondering what in the HELL has made people so stupid.

Almost 10 years later and I'm still wondering the same thing.

Old-timers noticed it decades ago. People are getting stupider and stupider as they become more dependent on society to live. You can still find 5th grade tests from the 1800s or early 1900s online today, and get a sense of how much has changed. A lot of these people today, especially kids, wouldn't know a slide rule if you slapped them in the face with it, let alone what "path of least resistance" actually means.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


So , just because someone sees things different than you or disagrees that only your explanations / interpretations are correct , this gives you the right to label them as stupid ?

Would you say that Isaac Newton was stupid and that is why he was placed under house arrest ?




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Sorry...this "path of least reisitance" mantra is getting old.

This is yet another example of a 'meme' startedup by a "TM" somewhere (I'm guessing, maybe, "A&Efortruth", or someone like them?).

Let's see othr buildings that are falling, collapsing...please point out thie "path of least resisitance".

OR --- just realize that when things FALL, they fall according to physics, and the gravitainal forces of the Earth's gravitational field....which means, IF thre is no lateral motion, then it is perpindicular to the tangent at the Earth's surface where it occurs. Any lateral motion will describe an arcing path....:



Too small?

OK....here's one after (surprise!!) an airplane crashes into it, and it's on fire for a while...:



Hey!!! Looky!! A building, that is NOT demolished with explosives --- a cable pulls the supports, at the very bottom...and does it collapse in a "free fall", and through the "path of most resistance"? (Sorry about the guy's ad, at the end...not my video!):



OK....let's shine a light on some perspective of the "TM" --- this is not about WTC 7 per se, but does address the concept of "pre-planted explosives" and "controlled demolition" claims. Unfortunately, this sort of level-headedness video is LOST amidst the flurry of others who post the same old recycled "conspiracy" claims, in the feeding frenzy of repitition:



IF THERE WERE NO explosives in the Towers 1 & 2, why would anyone think there were in 7???



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Good Question.

Many people hear the term "jet fuel" and they assume it is some super fuel that is very volatile. In reality it is only Kerosene A.

The only difference between the fire in WTC 1 and 2 and any other typical high rise fire is that kerosene from the jet was the accelerant and ignition source.

Many other fuels to the fire were present, but according to NYC fire code, the building was constructed with all fire retardant materials, and the furnishings in the building had to meet fire retardant codes.

Therefore, there was nothing atypical about this particular fire that would have caused a unique catastrophic collapse.

Using the term "kerosene fire" is more descriptive of the actual circumstance in my opinion. It does away with the layman's notion that jet-fuel was a signficant factor, but it does admit to an accelerant being present.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Sorry...this "path of least reisitance" mantra is getting old.

This is yet another example of a 'meme' startedup by a "TM" somewhere (I'm guessing, maybe, "A&Efortruth", or someone like them?).


Close. It comes from thermodynamics, which IS an area of physics.

en.wikipedia.org...


The path of least resistance describes the physical or metaphorical pathway that provides the least resistance to forward motion by a given object or entity, among a set of alternative paths. The concept is often used to describe why an object or entity takes a given path.

In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system. For example, water flowing downhill follows the path of least resistance as it is pulled downward by gravity. Electricity flowing through a circuit behaves similarly; while every available path has some current through it, the amount of current through each path is inversely proportional to its electrical resistance. Atmospheric disturbances (storms) flow on the path of least resistance by flowing toward zones of low barometric pressure, where lower air density offers less impedance to the storm system than higher pressure zones.




Let's see othr buildings that are falling, collapsing...please point out thie "path of least resisitance".



You apparently don't know what rotation or torque are.

All the videos you posted besides the WTC Towers showed buildings leaning outward and collapsing down the side of the structure below, which remained intact.

None of those buildings apparently went "straight down" while spewing debris in all directions, taking out all the structure below. Except the WTC Towers.


You might want to re-read my last post because I really think you have over-estimated your own ability to deduce information and you refuse to consider it. I've debunked your posts before and seen how you handle it. By outright ignoring everything you got wrong. Ignore comes from the same root as ignorance for a reason. They mean essentially the same thing. Your arguments have already been defeated. All there is to do now is endlessly repeat myself I suppose.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Ahhhh, I apologize, but I did make one error in my last post.


I said that the videos you posted showed the buildings leaning outward and falling through open air (path of least resistance), instead of straight down through the remaining structure (what would be the path of "most" resistance).

You did actually post a video besides the WTC Towers showing a building collapsing straight down through itself. It was the other demolition video you posted.



No worries, I caught it quickly.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Good Question.

Many people hear the term "jet fuel" and they assume it is some super fuel that is very volatile. In reality it is only Kerosene A.


Sorry, I thought we were discussing building 7? There was no jet fuel in the building, though there was some diesel to fuel emergency generators. Am I confused about the subject? I thought it was about a proposed marketing campaign centered around the collapse of building 7?


The only difference between the fire in WTC 1 and 2 and any other typical high rise fire is that kerosene from the jet was the accelerant and ignition source.

Many other fuels to the fire were present, but according to NYC fire code, the building was constructed with all fire retardant materials, and the furnishings in the building had to meet fire retardant codes.


I would beg the term "typical high rise fire" because I don't believe there is any such animal. Fires in high rises are pretty rare as are high rise buildings themselves. So in my book there really is no such thing as a typical high rise building fire. Also, I am not aware of any building code requiring office furniture to meet any fire resistance coding. I know there were more than a few very expensive solid wood desks in that building (saw them myself having attended a few meetings there) not to mention God only knows how many tons of paper material and carpeting. Just think of the carpeting alone, acres of it.


Therefore, there was nothing atypical about this particular fire that would have caused a unique catastrophic collapse.

Using the term "kerosene fire" is more descriptive of the actual circumstance in my opinion. It does away with the layman's notion that jet-fuel was a signficant factor, but it does admit to an accelerant being present.


So by your review there is little to no difference between a fire as a result of a careless match in a wastebasket and one started by the crash of a 757 in the waiting room?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Dude, you are SO CLOSE that you're almost there...*noone* who believes it was an inside job has all the same views. Person A thinks there were controlled demolitions, person B thinks there were nukes in the basement, person C thinks it was lasers from outer space, etc. Even when a few of you get together and agree on some of the details, person D thinks the gov't was behind it, person E thinks it was Israel/Mossad, and I've even seen person F say it was the work of a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists. Unless you've lost all grasp on reality and think the 9/11 attack was staged by Satan worshipping Israeli demolitions specialists from space, you're going to have to concede yourself that many of these conspiracy claims are rubbish.

The reason for this conspiracy mongoring Tower of Babel is obvious- each conspiracy theorist is being suckered by different sources of information, and they can't come to agreement on anything becuase they all insist their point of view is right and everyone else is wrong. So the question still stands- is this poster campaign going to reveal *all* the information supposedly "being withheld from New Yorkers" up to including lasers from outer space, or are they going to invoke outright censorship to get New Yorkers to believe what they themselves want New Yorkers to believe I.E. not tell them that wreckage from WTC 1 fell on WTC 7?


The end result would look something like this:




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
[edit on 13-8-2010 by Paschar0]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


ok... the building that the plane hit... there was lateral movement as the upper part of the building hit the lower part and came forward. you can also see for a moment before the smoke obscures it that the lower part of the building remains intact.

the westinghouse building fell from the bottom up, so there was little lateral movement, whereas the WTC buildings fell well near the tops of the building, yet we are told to believe that it took the lower 70 or so floors out with it? it the top 40 floors that were damaged fell onto the lower 70 floors which would have had substantially less damage, the top part would have fell over the side of the remaining lower floors. but that didnt happen, the whole building came down.

your videos have nothing in common with the WTC collapses



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 



your videos have nothing in common with the WTC collapses


Well, you see....that's sorta the problem, innit??

The only videos that have something trulyin common with the WTC collapses ARE the videos of the WTC collapses.

"Top Down"....
~~~~~

Searching and searching for examples that resemble the WTC Towers....where there is a controlled demolition, using pre-planted explosives. One where the BOTTOM of the building is NOT DISTURBED at all. Ones where the buildings' lower floors remain intact, until destroyed by the upper portions as they collapse down.

What keep seeing is buildings taken out at virtually the same time, on just about all levels.

No comparable skyscrapers even close to the same heights. Not even (since this is topic) WTC 7's 47 stories.

This one is pretty tall...watch and listen:



OR, this one:



THIS one:





I wonder how tall the Landmark Hotel, Las Vegas was: (can look it up) --



(Yeah, I know...weird design, top-heavy, wasn't it??)

Or the Aladdin Hotel:



Most closely resembles WTC 1 & 2, I suppose:




Now, to be clear....the Towers 1 & 2 DID collapse differently than WTC 7.

Of course, different construction designs, yes? (In fact, ALL those examples differed in construction, in ways that can be researched, if one chooses to).

WTC 7's collapse sequence consisted of a great deal of events NOT normally seen in the many videos that the "TM" like to keep showing....I forget where the links are, I've seen some other examinations and studies done.

Essence was, a lot of the building was collapsing inside, and not seen...hints from the upper penthouse portion falling ("disappearing" from view) indicating a lot of internal things happening. When I watch the videos, I see it simply "caving in " on itself. AS the exterior walls seem to come down, due to gravity. Mostly, looks like "top down", but not sure about what is happening at the base....most videos I remember have buildings obstructing the view.

Progressively at first, but once the progression starts, gravity and the huge forces involved take over.

Main thing NOT seen?? Nor heard?? The very loud, sequential explosions in proper order, and ALL over the place --- the way the real controlled demolitions appear.










[edit on 13 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


For the first part, the OP is talking about a video of WTC 7. However it is part of a marketing campaign to get people to question the official story, and in my opinion WTC 7 is no more spectacular than WTC 1 or 2. It did not have the fire, but I don't believe the fire was a significant issue. It wasn't struck by an airliner, but I don't believe the strike was sufficient to cause a collapse either. Therefore, if we are talking about WTC 7 as an eye opener, we should be talking about all 3, and in essence the marketing campaign is aimed at opening the eyes of people to all 3 collapses.

As for the second part:


So by your review there is little to no difference between a fire as a result of a careless match in a wastebasket and one started by the crash of a 757 in the waiting room?

In a simplistic and literal way....yes. They are not significantly different when it comes to heat properties and chances of causing a building collapse. They are certainly different scenarios, but once the fire is up and going good, there really is no difference between the two.

An example of a different scenario would be a paint factory. Paint and paint thinners burn much, much hotter than Kerosene. Therefore, if a giant paint truck crashed into the WTC and started a fire, maybe this conversation would be different.

Also, certain chemicals can burn sufficiently without oxygen, and therefore the oxygen damped situation would have no effect on certain chemical fires. At the WTC we have kerosene, paper, wood, etc. They all need critical oxygen, which they were not getting, and the fire was thus burning inefficiently and not as hot as possible.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Well, OK. I just thought to stick to building 7 so as not to derail the thread to severly. Just put the front trucks on the ground. Anyway. To the issue of fires.

You brought up the analogy of a fire in a paint factory as opposed to a office building, noting that the source of the ignition is not relevant. I would beg to differ. The source in the case of WTC 1 and 2 was a the explosion of tow very large aircraft. The planes themselves were added to the available fuel and all the complex properties thereof. Most office fires do not include full size aricraft. Something I always thought about but never heard anything about - the skins of both aircraft were aluminum and I am pretty sure aluminum oxide burns at a very high temperature once ignited. Could that have contributed?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
nobody is going to open a new investigation, no government body is going to question the 9/11 commission...it's done folks, the word has gotten around by now that one could lose alot more than his job.
i don't know why people don't see this, it doesn't matter what the people think, if it steps on the wrong toes, than it's over.
big wealth controls this country, not the citizens. the big lie continues unabated and intact.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Something I always thought about but never heard anything about - the skins of both aircraft were aluminum and I am pretty sure aluminum oxide burns at a very high temperature once ignited. Could that have contributed?


Good point, and I have never looked into that, but you are correct about aluminum burning very intensely. So I will look into it.

However, I will still refer back to the official NIST report that stated no signs were found on any of the beams that indicated temperatures over 600 C, and that in fact there were no signs that any temperatures above 250 C were reached for any significant time periods. The official report also says that the microstructure of the steel was not altered by the heat.

So, you raise a valid point, and I will have to research it further, but in the end, the official report says that the steel was not altered by heat.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I believe that the NIST conditioned there report that they were not able to determine that the steel that they did examine was absolutely from the most effected areas due to the lack of markings and the nature of the collapse. Also, the whole gist of the report was that the steel was deformed and stressed from the heat to the point where the loading design failed, not necessarily that the steel was melted or vaporized. If you take any part of steel structure and superheat it when it is all still in tension you degrade the loading system. For the sake of this discussion I define superheated as anything over 300% of ambient temperature.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join