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.

 

Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

page: 53
61
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Shortly before the building collapsed, it is claimed he asked to authorize a CD. It takes months to set a CD to fall correctly and supposedly it was done "shortly" before it fell???? IMPOSSIBLE.


Who says it was done 'shortly' before it fell

The person who posted this info-whom I was responding to.


(by 'shortly' I'm assuming you mean on the same day, presumably after WTC7 became damaged from falling derby). I certainly don't think it could have been done in that short space of time, which suggests foreknowledge.

Or that the building was never rigged in the first place.


Nobody saw thousands of personnel zipping in and out of the building with massive amounts of explosives? vehicles?.


Apparently not. But does that disprove a controlled demolition? Nope.
edit on 10-10-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

Can you disprove that invisible, giant, flying wombats destroyed building 7?
The reality is that it's not reasonable to speculate that thousands of trained personnel with literally tons of equipment, went into a building that was going to collapse in the first place to make it....ehem, collapse.




posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


so you dont bother to answer my question then ...did you bother to read any of the reports i gave you....i guess not....why the heck should people keep on providing you with the evidence....where you just say a few words...by pasting quotes and not add ONE SINGLE SHRED to the posts...does it make you feel better to show that you can't post to the contrary...cause the term was used in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the reports i posted...not only that it was well explained.....
peole see right through you...i see four qoute pastes with out any...not one...not a single bit of added info...on your behalf....so you can take a hike...and when you actually post something that counters then you might be worth countering.
edit on 023131p://f42Sunday by plube because: a word change



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by jfj123
 


so you dont bother to answer my question then ...did you bother to read any of the reports i gave you

Sorry I missed your question. I always TRY to answer all reasonable questions posted to me. Could you repost your question? Again sorry for missing it !


peole see right through you...i see four qoute pastes with out any...not one...not a single bit of added info...on your behalf...

Could you post those 4 posts you claim I pasted but didn't respond to?


so you can take a hike...and when you actually post something that counters then you might be worth countering.
edit on 023131p://f42Sunday by plube because: a word change

I noticed you still haven't answered a basic question I've had. What is the official "truther story" ? You claim you have science on your side so based on that, there should be minimal discrepancy between all thruthers claims.
So what is the official truther story? Please don't send a link, post it here so we can all read it here.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
A bit of info found about WTC 7 collapse.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

www.thenakedscientists.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   


Sorry I missed your question. I always TRY to answer all reasonable questions posted to me. Could you repost your question? Again sorry for missing it !

Why don't you take the time to review the thread yourself....



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



The reality is that it's not reasonable to speculate that thousands of trained personnel with literally tons of equipment, went into a building that was going to collapse in the first place to make it....ehem, collapse.

Allow me to retort. To use your own words, the reality is it's not reasonable to speculate that WTC7 collapsed through itself at freefall acceleration, symmetrically, and spontaneously in 7 seconds due to 8 hours of office fire. I would say that the period of freefall acceleration for WTC7, which apparently lasted roughly around 8 floors, is all the proof that we need to conclude WTC7 was demolished unless NIST present some evidence that the building collapsed due to the never-before observed phenomenon of 'thermal expansion' in steel-framed buildings.

As NIST admit themselves, freefall can only occur if there are "no structural components underneath the falling section of the building", which means all structural components must have been synchronistically removed within a split second of one another - all 25 core columns and 58 perimeter columns (on those floors) - suddenly gone. Not gradually weakened by office fire. But gone. Suddenly. It's hard to imagine that fire could do that. And if it could, I would want to see some evidence, as opposed to unverified computer models which don't even bare any resemblance to the collapse of WTC7 itself.

Also, even if the majority of the internal components collapsed before the façade as NIST speculates, the outer-walls and few remaining columns still should have provided some resistance, should they not? Unless all the structural components were forcibly removed ahead of time by explosives before the falling section encountered them I don't see how freefall could be possible. I would be happy to believe what NIST says, but since they haven't provided any empirical evidence to support their determinations - just computer models, which are essentially just self-confirming expressions of input dogma - I'll trust my eyes, together with my elementry high-school understanding of physics.


Or that the building was never rigged in the first place.

That's a possibility. But unlikely.


speculate that thousands of trained personnel

Strange. Who said anything about thousands?
edit on 10-10-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

just spend a minute to watch WTC7 collapse next to a classic controlled demolition collapse....they are identical.
The NIST report is a sham...i think you are aware of this, but are more interested in presenting fodder to muddy the waters.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
A little bit about Controlled Demolition


Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures

....a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see.

But some would have us believe WTC 7 was done on the fly when the building was already damaged and would fall anyway. Why both with CD at all if the building was going to collapse anyway?


The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

So anything that caused damage to the building in this manner, could cause this type of collapse. Even, say a plane and fires?


In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.

Again, this suggests doing it "on the fly" as proposed, is unlikely in the absolute best of circumstances.


The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls.

Now here is an interesting point. Why would the government rig a building to fall straight down? Letting it fall sideways would create more death, panic, destruction. Isn't this what the truther movement is claiming the government wanted in the first place?


Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories.

Self explanatory.


Next, construction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.

science.howstuffworks.com...

So for those who claim that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were dropped with CD and the non-load-bearing walls were all left in, wouldn't it make it infinitely more difficult to set up a CD? With all the extra calculations, maybe impossible???

Just a bit of info I thought I'd post.
edit on 10-10-2010 by jfj123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet


Sorry I missed your question. I always TRY to answer all reasonable questions posted to me. Could you repost your question? Again sorry for missing it !

Why don't you take the time to review the thread yourself....


There are a lot of posts. If I missed one, I said I'm sorry.
If you are asking for an answer from me, help me out so I can answer it without reviewing 53 pages. If you can't do that, either can I.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
But the collapses aren't identical. I've watched them many times, and WTC 7 doesn't come down all at once like every single controlled demolition.

It looked like this:
Something happened inside on the eastern half of the building (the left hand side of the videos that are common, which were shot from the North). An ejection was visible at the same moment that the penthouse began to cave in half. The ejection was from exactly below, probably 20 floors down, which suggests that one column lost its integrity. The floors all in that area began to cave in, and multiple ejections are visible as the windows are shattered and debris and dust comes out.
Then, a couple seconds later, the whole building comes down, the interior going first as evidence by the windows breaking and the remaining visible roof segment disappearing inside. This says to me that since the floors were falling inside, that the building's exoskeleton was beginning to fall. Factor in the damage to the Southwest corner and the Southern side of the building and guess where the steel is folding and/or crumpling to allow somewhere around 10 floors of little to no resistance?
Now, this would also result in a tilting of the building if it was true. Oh my, guess what? I have proof of tilting of the building to the south:



And if you look closely, it tilts completely out of view. This wasn't the building collapsing in on itself straight down to its footprint. It collapsed downward for a few seconds and the resistance from the upper building made it tilt, exactly what I would expect to see when the South side is damaged and the North side isn't.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Allow me to retort. To use your own words, the reality is it's not reasonable to speculate that WTC7 collapsed through itself

In what direction should it have collapsed?


at freefall acceleration

It didn't.


As NIST admit themselves, freefall can only occur if there are "no structural components underneath the falling section of the building", which means all structural components must have been synchronistically removed within a split second of one another - all 25 core columns and 58 perimeter columns (on those floors) - suddenly gone. Not gradually weakened by office fire. But gone. Suddenly. It's hard to imagine that fire could do that. And if it could, I would want to see some evidence, as opposed to unverified computer models which don't even bare any resemblance to the collapse of WTC7 itself.

My post states that NIST in 2008 showed that it didn't collapse at freefall speed.


speculate that thousands of trained personnel

Strange. Who said anything about thousands?
edit on 10-10-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

How many personnel would be needed to study the already damaged building, calculate, haul material, access primary supports, rig lines and explosives, etc.. all shortly before the WTC 7 fell? 2? 3? 50? 100? 500? 1000?



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by jfj123
 

just spend a minute to watch WTC7 collapse next to a classic controlled demolition collapse....they are identical.
The NIST report is a sham...i think you are aware of this, but are more interested in presenting fodder to muddy the waters.

Just because something looks like something doesn't mean it is that something.
You need more than, "well it looks like it was blown up so it must have been" to make your case.
Let's try using your logic.
A witness see's a person that looks like you at the scene of a crime. Do we need more information or is it automatically ok to assume it's you and find you guilty??



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

Common sense is common sense. Why don't you find an example of a building collapsing in that manner that 'isn't' a controlled demolition? The more I watch your posts, the more it seems your agenda is other than a search for the truth.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by jfj123
 

Common sense is common sense. Why don't you find an example of a building collapsing in that manner that 'isn't' a controlled demolition? The more I watch your posts, the more it seems your agenda is other than a search for the truth.


How many times has it been repeated that there have NEVER been conditions like 9/11 before or since? I mean, the more I watch your posts, the more it's as if you have an agenda that is other than a search for the truth.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

It didn't

This is lifted from NIST's own website:


Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.

They admit gravitational acceleration (free fall) during stage 2 of the collapse between 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds which is 2.25 seconds, which equates to around 8 floors. You posted this earlier but appeared to misunderstand it.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by jfj123
 

Common sense is common sense. Why don't you find an example of a building collapsing in that manner that 'isn't' a controlled demolition? The more I watch your posts, the more it seems your agenda is other than a search for the truth.

Can you point out another building of the size and structure that has fallen period? Maybe you can but I can't find one.
I have no agenda other than the truth. I've stated before that maybe I am wrong and truthers are right and if that's the case, I'll jump right on the band wagon with the rest of you. I just haven't seen any real evidence to suggest the truthers are right.

I tend to go by the following:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by jfj123
 

It didn't

This is lifted from NIST's own website:


Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.

They admit gravitational acceleration (free fall) during stage 2 of the collapse between 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds which is 2.25 seconds, which equates to around 8 floors. You posted this earlier but appeared to misunderstand it.


Maybe I misunderstood your post as I thought you meant that the entire collapse was freefall, which it wasn't. If I did misunderstand, I apologize.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   



How many times has it been repeated that there have NEVER been conditions like 9/11 before or since? .

Ya, right. There has NEVER been a burning building before 911 like building 7 (not hit by a plane, so not the 'anomaly' you claim it to be)..Just find me ONE example of a burning building collapsing in that manner.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet



How many times has it been repeated that there have NEVER been conditions like 9/11 before or since? .

Ya, right. There has NEVER been a burning building before 911 like building 7 (not hit by a plane, so not the 'anomaly' you claim it to be)..Just find me ONE example of a burning building collapsing in that manner.


You forgot that a building collapsed large chunks of steel into WTC 7's side? Again, nothing like 9/11 has EVER happened before or since.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Okay i now know your a complete and utter Idiot....the video shows absolute clear evidence of explosions on all levels simultaneously. right at mark 1:42 thanks for the video and confirmation...and the video was posted showing that exact result do you not read the postings for the video....then you make a absolutely rediculous statment about ONE column failure which would have the complete opposite effect to a building coming down evenly...stick to your Anthropology.
You have contradicted yourself over and over throughout this thread...and you still continue with it. right at the mark i stated watch the whole series of explosions .....that is not ejections from the collapse as the building is failing simultaneaously.
what you have proof of is a controlled demolition...and if you had even bothered to read the posts on the vid itself you would have understood that.
you ask why i might be using such harsh words on you ,it is so you might stop with your crud and trying to just only see things one possible way.
Wake up as you have no idea what your saying....and you have no concept of building demolition just by the word you used.
One column failing.... OMG




new topics




 
61
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join