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: 5
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kloejen
Dave!

I just put your own video up against you. You have still not answered any of my questions, yet you poor out the same OS garbage to hang on to, so we might miss the big picture?


I don't know what sort of weird game you're trying to play, but you've done no such thing. NIST created two computer models, to show two scenarios- one with WTC 7 being hit by wreckage, and one model where it wasn't...and the NIST repost says right away that WTC 7 was hit by wreckage so we KNOW which model they subscribe to. The guy who posted that video deliberately chose a model that was irrelevent, and deliberately cut off the label identifying it as the no-wreckage-damage scenario, all to make a false statement that NIST is saying that's how the WTC 7 collapsed. He *knows* he's lying becuase he cut off the label identifying it as the no-wreckage-damage scenario. .

Why are you still even arguing? If NIST, FEMA, etc ever pulled a stunt like this you'd be all over them like Rosie O'Donnel on a chocolate cake.


So WTC7 collapsed due to fire, and or fire/wtc1+2 damage ?
HOW could this happen in (almost) FREE( 98,8%) fall ?
Was there noting in the building to resist a free fall collapse?


...and that's another fallacy the conspiracy people always use- the "it fell too fast" argument. I'll ask you the same thing I'll ask everyone else who brings that up; how fast *should* the building have fallen, given the design, the known damage from the wreckage impact, and the damage from the fires? Can a baseball pitcher throw a ball at 300 mph? Can a Lamborghini travel at 40 MPH? You can't say what a "too fast" collapse speed is unless you already know what a "standard" collapse speed should be.

You're grasping at straws. You know that and so do I.



Did'nt people work there ?


Yes, people did work there. They had a full time staff of security and maintenance workers so it was more or less occupied 24x7. That's the whole reason why this controlled demolitions story of yours is hogwash to begin with. Thank you for pointing that out.




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
A truther repeating a lie... where have we seen that before!


What is it about you all keep calling me a liar with NO evidence or proof?

Why should I be surprised though, you believe the OS with no evidence or proof.



Yes, just look at WTC 7


Wrong, once again you have NO proof that WTC 7 was an uncontrolled collapse. Stop pretending you do.
And you have the nerve to call me a liar?


So when did they have the time to set WTC 7 up for demolition, and no one working there noticed?


Oh dear c'mon this has been covered a billion times. It is MUCH MUCH easier to sneak in a building and plant explosives than it is for a building to land in its own footprint from an uncontrolled collapse.


What unsubstantiated damage... you are ignoring the bulge that was so bad firefighters put a transit on it, and knew the building would collapse so they pulled all the firefighters out of the area!


That is not an indication that WTC 7 would collapse into its own footprint. There is NO evidence whatsoever that there was ANY compromising damage to WTC that would cause it to collapse into its own footprint.


So again you have nothing at all.


LOL in your opinion and fantasy Hollywood physics world maybe.

None of you have yet answered my question, how does an uncontrolled collapse cause all four outer walls to end up on top of the debris pile when it takes a controlled implosion demolition to achieve this and...


This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...



I guess that must have been some skillful fire huh?

So how come their methods have not been revised since 9-11, did the demolition companies not learn anything?

Now stop calling me a liar and address my points directly please.


edit on 9/16/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I've come to realize, the further this becomes faded in history, the less people care. Because those who didn't know about WTC 7 when I mention it...seem unfazed.

Most rebuttal with "So what? Even if it was brought down, Osama bin Laden is still responsible"
Or I get "It fell because it was weaken from being on fire for so. Get over it."

It's pointless. As long as they have a job to go to...are able to pay their bills and feed their faces, this doesn't bother the average person because....they have their own issues to contend with.


So in summation, I don't bother anymore. Those of us who realize what the implications suggest, already know the OS is just that: A Story!

Unfortunately like JFK..............nothing will ever happen. We're talking about the government here (white collar criminals). They write the laws therefore, they're above the laws!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


" Is this what you guys are all about, trying to keep anything that could work in court quiet? You are all getting pretty angry and desperate over my WTC 7 claims. "

Pretty poor attempt at twisting words again . Seems like you practice this alot , too bad you haven't mastered it to the point of being effective .

My point is , you have NOTHING that would even get you on a docket , much less convince a court .

And , I'm not angry , and certainly not desperate . If I was desperate , I would return to the truther circus .



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


" OK I admit it, now what? "

Now , help me out here , you admit that the firefighters put a transit on the building , because it was creeping and they wanted to measure the creep .

Do you realize that you are admitting that the building was in danger of collapsing ?

And yet , you STILL insist it was a controlled demolition !

Talk about confused ...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


" The outer sections of a building, or any part of a building, does not need any other part of the building for support. "

Hang on ,
, just a minute ,
.

Okay , I've got the tears out of my eyes now . Whew ! You sure cracked me up with that one there !

I think you need to take a break dude , 'cause you're starting to appear a bit frazzled in your reasoning capabilities .

That statement right there has to be the epitome of sheer IGNORANCE .

That might just get you excommunicated from the TM .



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by ANOK
 


" Is this what you guys are all about, trying to keep anything that could work in court quiet? You are all getting pretty angry and desperate over my WTC 7 claims. "


Hey now you claiming I said that? I NEVER SAID THAT. Nothing even like it.


Pretty poor attempt at twisting words again . Seems like you practice this alot , too bad you haven't mastered it to the point of being effective .


Oh the irony.

You make a false claim about me, AGAIN, and then you say I'm twisting things?

Sorry it is obvious who is lying to anyone paying attention.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by ANOK
 


" OK I admit it, now what? "

Now , help me out here , you admit that the firefighters put a transit on the building , because it was creeping and they wanted to measure the creep .

Do you realize that you are admitting that the building was in danger of collapsing ?

And yet , you STILL insist it was a controlled demolition !

Talk about confused ...


Oh dear, you have a big comprehension problem it seems. You don't understand my irony and sarcasm.

So what if it was in danger of collapsing? So what if it bulged, had mass damage, huge roaring hotter than physics allows fires, had frozen fish fly into it, in danger of collapsing from fire, none of that can cause a complete symmetrical collapse into its own footprint. And please don't ask me to prove it again as you already know I posted the evidence, go back and re-read.

And why are you so angry about this that you have to make things up and then accuse me of making things up?
Hilarious. You think this method of debate really works? What IS your motivation eh?

Hey, and how about actually addressing the points I made, all these replies and none of them address the actual points?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by ANOK
 


" The outer sections of a building, or any part of a building, does not need any other part of the building for support. "

Hang on ,
, just a minute ,
.


Laugh on it just shows your ignorance. Many many buildings have localized collapses that do not cause the rest of the building to also collapse. You can lose the center and the outer sections will still stand. Are you trying to deny this fact?

My reply was in answer to the claim that if one part of the building collapses the rest has no support, which is not true.

It's only an ignorant statement to those who are ignorant.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That is not an indication that WTC 7 would collapse into its own footprint. There is NO evidence whatsoever that there was ANY compromising damage to WTC that would cause it to collapse into its own footprint.


I'm sorry, but I can't let this outrageous lie go by without a challenge. Deputy fire chief Hayden was right there at the scene and he testified there was a three story tall bulge in the side of the building appearing several hours before it collapsed, PROVING...not suggesting or claiming but PROVING...that the support columns were being damaged and they were losing their structural integrity long before it collapsed.

Unless you're about to shamelessly slander the NYFD and accuse them of being part of this sinister mega conspiracy of yours, you're going to have to admit there WAS severe internal damage in WTC 7 before it fell, and that your imagined controlled demolitions simply can't suitably explain it.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, you are an educated man, from all indications of your command of the English language.
I presume that you can read between 600-1200 words per minuts.

Please open these threads, related to WTC7, and offer me your imput, insight and intelligence of the evidence presented therein.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


AND


www.wtc7.net...



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, you are an educated man, from all indications of your command of the English language.
I presume that you can read between 600-1200 words per minuts.

Please open these threads, related to WTC7, and offer me your imput, insight and intelligence of the evidence presented therein.


I addressed this in another thread. Jennings said that he saw the towers still standing after the explosion but there's absolutely no way they could have been standing at the time he said they saw them. Jennings admits he showed up to the WTC 7 when it was already empty, meaning that he arrived about an hour before WTC 1 collapsed. It would take him an hour to go up the elevator, find it was locked, come back down to find someone to take him up the service elevator, use the equipment to reach someone that told him to get out, and come down fifteen or so flights of stairs with his weak knees. Ergo, the explosion he encountered was at the exact same time that WTC 1 collapsed so that had to have been what Jenninng encountered, and with tons of wreckage coming down, it certainly would have seemed like an explosion. Besides, by the time the towers collapsed, every camera in Manhattan was aimed at the WTC and the place was crawling with police and firefighters, and not one person can corroborate any massive explosions in WTC 7 before the towers came down.

Once that's stripped out of Labtop's writeup, everything else he says is pretty much toothless.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The video of the penthouse collapsing does not remove the likelihood that this was a controlled demolition.

If that first section collapsing is "evidence" of a natural (ie, not demolition) collapse, why did the entire building collapse evenly?

Even this small section of video does not explain why the entire building collapsed evenly and uniformly.

Sorry to those who believe it was fire that brought down building seven, that first section of film does nothing to convince me that this was caused by fire.
And if you were really being honest, you'd accept that this doesn't explain why the entire building collapsed the way that it did.

I don't know what caused that collapse, but all of the evidence tells me that a fire and debris from a plane did not manage to remove every single supporting beam in a huge building like this simultaneously. It's simply not plausible in the slightest.
The weight of the structure itself is not enough to take out any stable beams uniformly either.
Therefore the chances of having the building collapse so perfectly are billions to one.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the penthouse collapsed down inside the structure while the outside structure remained standing for several seconds, before the entire structure fell. This proves the inside structure collapsed before the outside structure, and there isn't a controlled demolitions job on the planet that ever demolished a structure inside out.



Funny, you sound so sure of yourself, yet, with all due respect, you obviously have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
They do it ALL OF THE TIME!!!
They blow the interior first to pull the rest of the building inward or at least not allow it to push the outter structure outward onto nearby properties. Sometimes, in cases where the horizontal members are insufficient, they tie the exterior walls to the interior columns with heavy cable for the very pupose of pulling inward by letting the interior structure pull as it goes down first.

Your coment about the penthouse disappearing first only builds this case for CD.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirefly
Funny, you sound so sure of yourself, yet, with all due respect, you obviously have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
They do it ALL OF THE TIME!!!
They blow the interior first to pull the rest of the building inward or at least not allow it to push the outter structure outward onto nearby properties. Sometimes, in cases where the horizontal members are insufficient, they tie the exterior walls to the interior columns with heavy cable for the very pupose of pulling inward by letting the interior structure pull as it goes down first.


Well that's a pretty interesting statement, since I'm getting my information directly from Controlled Demolitons, Inc, the people who arguably developed the technique, and they're saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. Here's a video from the CDI channel on Youtube showing a similar building being demolished. They destroy one entire side of the structure first, and then the other side is rigged so that it falls on top of the previously collapsed pile.

How Controlled Demolitions, Inc destroys buildings

...and here's another one. It's a building in a congested area similar to where WTC 7 was-

Another example of CDI at work

Go ahead and check out their other videos, and you'll see this pattern over and over. The points it makes clear is that a) they do NOT fall "straight down" as you people claim, b) they do NOT blow up the inside first, and then the outside. If anything, they demolish it in the exact OPPOSITE way that you're describing. Moreover, c) every single video specifially shows the detonation charges that sever the structure supports going off, and not ONE of any of the WTC 7 collapse videos shows any such charges. Not one. WTC 7 wasn't demolished by controlled demolitions. It's as simple as that.

I showed you where I get my information from. Where do you get YOUR information from?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, i retract my premature compliment.
at 600-1200 words per minute it would have taken you
longer to read the informaion on the links ii asked you to look at.
but you come back and give me a reply and it is obvious you did not read the information.

And you are the guy who is constantly calling mostly everyong else a liar.
a guilty conscience needs no accuser.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


" " Is this what you guys are all about, trying to keep anything that could work in court quiet? You are all getting pretty angry and desperate over my WTC 7 claims. "



" Hey now you claiming I said that? I NEVER SAID THAT. Nothing even like it. "



UH , YES YOU DID SAY IT . Page four of this thread GoodolDave made two posts , then YOU made two posts immediately thereafter . In your second post , on PAGE 4 , you did indeed say that .

" Sorry it is obvious who is lying to anyone paying attention ."

You are exactly right ANOK , anyone paying attention , will go back to page 4 and read where you did indeed say this in your second post on that page . Apparently , it is you , who is not paying attention .

Talk about a desperate move ! Did you actually think it would be possible to tell such a blatant lie and get away with it ?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


" The outer sections of a building, or any part of a building, does not need any other part of the building for support. "

No , it is an ignorant statement to everyone who reads it .

Face it , you deny that you said something , when it is easily proven that you did indeed say it , then you turn around and post the most ignorant statement I have ever seen on this site .

You should probably chill out a bit mister .



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join