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.

 

The Zapruder film of 9/11 - Actor Daniel Sunjata

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Bonez , we have all seen the rubble pile of WTC7 after it collapsed . It is CLEAR that the outside walls DID INDEED "cave in from not having any support" . This is why the outside walls (for the most part) came to rest on top of the debris pile .


Oh so the debunkers have quit trying to claim the walls did not land on top of the debris pile?

So you finally came to conclusion that truthers were correct about that? Are you aware that admitting that also admits to the building landing in its own footprint?

The building could not have resulted in a perfect, in its footprint, collapse from fire.




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Is there any side-by-side footage available that shows what a similar building has done when actually destroyed by fire from the inside? I'd like to see that. If it falls to the side, or whatever, that would help with positive proof of the statement that such a collapse might not happen with a fire. Of course, it wouldn't prove that it couldn't happen that way, but it would be a step in the right direction for you.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Is there any side-by-side footage available that shows what a similar building has done when actually destroyed by fire from the inside?

No there is not because no other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed before from fire, before 9/11 or after.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Excellent post, the way you explain it makes it irrefutable.

WTC7 is the weak link in the enire 9/11 cover-up, look how fast they got a new WTC7 up, compared to the rest of the WTC site. Also the old WTC7 was only 14 years old when it fell, by New York standards that is a new building too.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
No there is not because no other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed before from fire, before 9/11 or after.


Because no other steel structured high rise were hit by heavily laden fast moving jets before... seems that when steel structured high rise buildings are hit by jets they collapse!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


steel structured high rise buildings are hit by jets they collapse!


And you have proof of this before 911 and after 911 right?
Perhaps you “assume” that office fires and jet fuel can melt heavy steel beams and pulverize concrete in less than an hour? Perhaps “fairy dust” was sprinkled in the impact hole where different videos of a woman standing in the impact hole unhurt, unburned and waving a clean white hanky.

I really believe that some of you OS people who defend the OS fallacies do not have any logic or conmen sense, sometimes. Remember NIST and the 911 Commission Report were proven a fraud a long time ago, so you have no scientific evidences to support your OS claims, especially the demise of the WTC.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by dereks
 


steel structured high rise buildings are hit by jets they collapse!


And you have proof of this before 911 and after 911 right?
Perhaps you “assume” that office fires and jet fuel can melt heavy steel beams and pulverize concrete in less than an hour? Perhaps “fairy dust” was sprinkled in the impact hole where different videos of a woman standing in the impact hole unhurt, unburned and waving a clean white hanky.

Still pushing Edna Cintron as evidence, despite a) her being on the opposite side of the tower from the blazing inferno, and b) Edna Cintron actually jumped! Why would she jump, if everything was fine and dandy?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Perhaps you “assume” that office fires and jet fuel can melt heavy steel beams


another lie from you - care to show us where steel beams were melted? Or is that just something you made up, like always!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Is there any side-by-side footage available that shows what a similar building has done when actually destroyed by fire from the inside?

No there is not because no other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed before from fire, before 9/11 or after.


...nor has there ever been an occupied skyscraper that was rigged secretly with controlled demolitions without the occupants noticing anything, before 9/11 or after.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


You seem to be unaware of the fact that WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It does nothing of the sort. Only in fantasy worlds does that happen. You're forgetting about the numerous witnesses, including NYPD Craig Bartmer, who heard the BOOM BOOM BOOM of the detonations when WTC 7 collapsed. Anyone wanna post a video of a fire-induced collapse that produces BOOM BOOM BOOM sounds as it's collapsing? I didn't think so.



You have the unrepentent gall to say that *other* people here are ignoring eyewitness accounts and video of the collapse?!? Here's the account of deputy fire chief Peter Hayden, who was actually there fighting the fires on 9/11, in an interview in Firehouse Magazine:

"Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."


www.firehouse.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Full text of Deputy Chief Hayden interview

So we have the deputy fire chief himself saying the fires in the WTC were burning out of control, that there was a visible bulge on the building running along three floors, and more importantly, he knew by 2:00 that from the condition of the structure that it was going to fall. Combined with the fact that the penthouse fell down inside the structure ten seconds or so before the whole structure collapsed, it's proven the fires were doing *something* that was destroying the building from the inside out...and yet you insist on misquoting eyewitness accounts and presenting censored videos games so you can pass off your controlled demolitions fairy tales onto people.

It's blatantly obvious you're trying to pull a fast one on everyone here, Bonez.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What you posted as proof of your ascertion clearly does not show something being detonated from inside out. It looks like your every day controlled demolition. I saw one right ehre in Louisville. I do not see how your scenerio is happening, it does not look like the center of the building is gone collapsed at all, the building came down in one level, not collapsing onto itself it its guts were gone.


The video I posted specifically showed that the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building several seconds before the entire structure collapsed, so by definition there was loss of structural integrity in the interior. PLEASE tell me you're not seriously suggesting these supposed secret agents of yours set up their explosives to target the penthouse to fall down only one or two floors, five seconds or so before bringing down the entire building. You know as well as I do just how goofball that sounds.

The problem for you is that my video shows the details that your video attempts to hide. When it collapsed, you can see cracks appearing on the side of the building, meaning that the wall is flexing inward. The only way it can flex inward is if there were no internal supports, and the most immediate evidence there is of why the internal supports were no longer there is becuase part of the interior had collapsed from the penthouse on down.

If you're genuinely saying that you've ever seen a controlled demolition demolish a building from the inside out the same way WTC 7 collapsed, you're lying through your teeth. Your own footage of a true controlled demolition shows they're rigged so the entire building collapses at once.

Oh please! I guess you think people are infallible and always demolish every part of a building in the right order. :@: Clearly, the detonations that took out the support for the penthouse occurred a split second before they were meant to do.


edit on 11-9-2010 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So we have the deputy fire chief himself saying the fires in the WTC were burning out of control, that there was a visible bulge on the building running along three floors, and more importantly, he knew by 2:00 that from the condition of the structure that it was going to fall. Combined with the fact that the penthouse fell down inside the structure ten seconds or so before the whole structure collapsed, it's proven the fires were doing *something* that was destroying the building from the inside out...and yet you insist on misquoting eyewitness accounts and presenting censored videos games so you can pass off your controlled demolitions fairy tales onto people.

It's blatantly obvious you're trying to pull a fast one on everyone here, Bonez.


Nah! Instead of asking silly, vacuous, rhetorical questions, how about asking the "experts" at NIST why they admitted that they could not after 8 years provide a satisfactory reason for why WTC fell down, despite your quoted certain belief of Deputy Chief Hayden that WTC7 was going to fall because of its damage - a view which you present as though it were reliable, when it clearly was not because the "experts" at NIST paid no attention to it? Perhaps you should write and ask them if they overlooked his testimony in regarding the collapse of WTC7 as still a mystery


By the way, the recently released film of WTC7 collapsing shows the NIST boys censoring the premature collapse of the penthouse so that the clueless masses looking at it won't notice the penthouse falling before the rest of the building. They deleted the very frames of the penthouse dropping down, so that one second it is there and the next second - it isn't, even though the building is still standing. Tut! Tut! Very sloppy!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Oh please! I guess you think people are infallible and always demolish every part of a building in the right order. :@: Clearly, the detonations that took out the support for the penthouse occurred a split second before they were meant to do.


Please explain how these demolitions would have quietly caused a three story tall bulge in the southwest corner of the building, in the same areas where fires were known to have been burning out of control, and hours before any explosions were ever heard.

You're making stuff up off the top of your head as you go along. You know that and so do I.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Editing out footage?

Nice try.

That entire structure drops evenly, uniformly and into a neat rubble pile without touching any of the buildings next to it. A classic implosion demolition. Screw your penthouse assertions. The real action involves all the building's support beams being blown at exactly the same instant.

The more you flail, the worse it looks for your argument. Go for a bike ride or something. This is the 9th anniversary of the murder of thousands of your fellow human beings, and defending the murders is no way to celebrate this anniversary. How do you people sleep?




edit on 9/11/2010 by NorEaster because: I suck at typing



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

To do this parts of the building have to collapsed in an exact way. The center of the building is dropped first, quite visible in videos of WTC 7 that debunkers call the 'penthouse kink' and try to claim was cause by fire, this allows a space for the outer sections to fall into once they are dropped (pulled).

In this video you can clearly see the left side falling inwards to the center.

www.youtube.com...

For this to happen the timing has to be perfect, or it would not result in all four walls on top of the buildings rubble pile. Fire and damage to one side could not cause a perfectly timed implosion.



edit on 9/10/2010 by ANOK because: typo



Another fantastic point! I never saw that picture before of the post wtc7 collapse. All four walls came down in chronological order to end up where they did. What are the odds of that happening naturally by fire? I think I have a better chance at winning the lottery me thinks.

And to gOd...

Michael Shermer claimed that all CD come down from the bottom up which he feels refutes the CD theory because of the top/down collapse. Your point of the penthouse seems to follow his logic.
However, Richard Gage from AE911 has a very simple answer rebutting Shermer. The building comes down however you want it to come down depending on where you put the explosives.

I think his answer can be used to rebut the penthouse question as well.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


wow

I think I'm going to subscribe to your posts so I can collect these arguments. I've been thinking of writing a book called "Post 9/11 Thinking", and focusing on the absurd assertions made by some people on both sides of this argument. You're certainly one of the most entertaining defenders of the OCT that I've come across. I've got some amazingly vicious attacks collected, but not a lot of funny ones.

As an aside....a controlled demolition takes out the internal support structure of a building before it drops the rest of it, so your penthouse dropping issue is evidence of a controlled demolition. Just letting you know, so that you rethink your strategy about pointing anyone else to that part of the drop. I've run into other debunkers who've slipped up like that, so don't feel bad. You guys have a tough job. It can't easy to defend this foolishness.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

edit on 9/11/2010 by NorEaster because: double post



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Editing out footage?

Nice try.


If you are attempting to claim that the conspiracy people aren't editing out the penthouse collapse out of their "smoking gun" videos they show, you're lying through your teeth, 'cause Bone'z attempt to compare it to a true CD shows their censorship right there. It's blatantly obvious why the penthouse collapse has been edited out- it answers why there were BOOM BOOM BOOM explosions comign from WTC 7 seconds before the collapse, since the penthouse certainly wouldn't collapse quietly, and it shreds the innuendo that the building was standing there perfectly intact one moment, and then collapsed "despite it never being hit by a passenger jet" the next. Firefighters specifically stated there was a three story tall bulge in the southwest corner, where the fires were burnign out of control, so you gotta be one hard core blind zealot not to concede the fires were doing *some* structural damage in the interior.

I'm sorry, but "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy and it isn't going to work on me. The available facts shows the fires were attacking the structure so these "controlled demolitions" stories are a product entirely of your own paranoia.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If you are attempting to claim that the conspiracy people aren't editing out the penthouse collapse out of their "smoking gun" videos they show, you're lying through your teeth, 'cause Bone'z attempt to compare it to a true CD shows their censorship right there.


Dave, why would 'conspiracy people' edit out evidence of a controlled implosion demolition?

Only in your fantasy world does the penthouse kink prove anything but a controlled demolition.

And I thank you for pointing it out in the first place, you guys do more to discredit the OS than support it. You should give up before you completely prove the OS a lie all by yourself...


Also btw I pointed out to you once before that you yourself are a 'conspiracy person', you believe people are conspiring to blame the 9-11 events on our own government, right? You also spend a lot of time on a 'damned fool conspiracy website' which I think makes you the ultimate 'conspiracy person'.

Get real Dave, your desperation is showing through your sloppy reasoning...


edit on 9/11/2010 by ANOK because: Typo



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join