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 Third Tower

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by backinblack
So you are saying the quoted report from NIST is wrong??


No, you are reading it wrong, and not understanding it. It fell from the top down , as you can see by watching the unediteded video of it collapsing


The NIST report doesn't say that..
So what is it??




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



No, you are reading it wrong, and not understanding it. It fell from the top down , as you can see by watching the unediteded video of it collapsing


That is your opinion, now can you prove it?
Show some science that supports your claim?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
That is your opinion, now can you prove it?


Simply watch the unedited video of the collapse of WTC 7, not the video edited by a truther to remove the penthouse collapsing first. You will see the penthouse collapse first, which means it was not a bottom up demolition like some truthers claim!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



Simply watch the unedited video of the collapse of WTC 7, not the video edited by a truther to remove the penthouse collapsing first. You will see the penthouse collapse first, which means it was not a bottom up demolition like some truthers claim!



That is your opinion, now can you prove it?
Show some science that supports your claim?


You gave us your opinion, now show proof? Do you know the different between opinions and showing credible sources into supporting your opinions?

edit on 29-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
You gave us your opinion, now show proof? Do you know the different between opinions and showing credible sources into supporting your opinions?


So now you claim the video of WTC 7 collapsing is not credible.... Just how silly are the conspiracy theories getting?
Do you think it is CGI, and everybody who saw it was brainwashed, or what?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


So now you claim the video of WTC 7 collapsing is not credible.... Just how silly are the conspiracy theories getting?
Do you think it is CGI, and everybody who saw it was brainwashed, or what?


I never made any such claim! You certainly have demonstrated what a vivid imagination you have.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminnaughty
 


WTC was NOT designed originally as emergency bunker - it was built in 1987. Wasn't until 10 years later
that Giuliani converted 23 th floor as OEM HQ. A separate diesel motor generator was added as backup power
system.

I



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I am so glad no one takes some of you seriously. Defending the OS of 911 must be an emotional rollercoaster ride for some of you. But what can I say, defending the OS of 911 “proven lies,” one has to reject every piece of scientific evidence to sink their beliefs and opinions into it.


This is a disingenuous statement, coming from you. You are on record as being a subscriber to some of the more ridiculous fringe claims being circulated amongst the conspiracy theorists (I.E. a faked crash site in Shanksville, a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon, 10,000 secret disinformation agents everywhere, etc) and even your fellow conspiracy theorists here (I.E. Bonez) are specifically telling me to ignore you and your junk science becuase you are poisoning his well. I am well aware that the information I post here will be met with resistance amongst the more zealous of Dylan Avery's and Alex Jones' followers, but for *you* to be discounted by your fellow conspiracy theorists here, well, that takes you to a whole other sublevel of [censored] poor credibility, doesn't it?


I do not believe you know all the conspiracies related to 911, if you did, you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss every piece of scientific findings (evidence), or are you going to say that science is a conspiracy as well?


This is the misinformed ramblings of a near-religious zealot whose world is governed by faith based logic, rather than objective analysis, and I will dismiss it as such. I am posting eyewitness accounts of people who were physically there and who can give eyewitness descriptions of what they saw at the WTC 7 (I.E. Deputy Chief Hayden and Barry Jennings) as well as photos of the condition of the steel as found by ground crews clearing away the debris, and uniformly, the only defense you can muster to keep your prepostrous conspriacy stories alive is some drivel you found on one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites and an occasional, "they're all a pack of liars". I shouldn't have to tell you that little children behave in this way.

It's blatantly obvious that to you, credibility has absolutely nothing to do with the source and everything to do with whether they happen to agree with what you yourself want to believe. I'm sorry, but if you can't even get your conspiracy fairy tales past me, then how on Earth are you going to get them past any serious 9/11 inquiry?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

You gave us your opinion, now show proof? Do you know the different between opinions and showing credible sources into supporting your opinions?


Yes we do...

-Our quoting NYFD deputy chief Peter Hayden's on-site eyewitness account of out of control fires in WTC 7 and the blatant structural damage it was causing= credible sources

-Your accusing NYFD deputy chief Peter Hayden of lying to cover up some some conspiracy that killed 343 of his brother firefighters entirely becuase you don't want to accept that your conspiracy claims are rubbish= opinion.

You walked headlong into that one, Impressme.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You can call a “shadow” a gash all you like, however that photo is completely useless.
The photo only leaves one to speculate what the shadow is and nothing more.

You need to show a “clear photo” of this alleged gash, not what you want it to be.


A shadow? Really? A straight down the middle shadow that can somehow be seen through the smoke but not on the smoke. That is some magic shadow. Strange how we dont see the shadow appearing on the smoke covering the wall, but somehow a shadow is cast as a straight line on the wall directly. Are you starting to drift into an alternate reality impressme?


Most of us are in here to “deny ignorance” not to embrace it, as some of you have been demonstrating year after years in defending your 911 OS. Many of us are not interested in your opinions that you call facts. You are entitled to your beliefs but not your truths.


Ah so Firefighter Chief Hayden is stating an opinion about how he saw WTC7's large gash down the center of the building? He's stating an opinion that the fires were out of control? He was making an opinion about how the building was leaning, tilting and making sounds indicating a slow fire-induced creep that was destroying the structural integrity of the building? He was making an opinion about stating they put up a surveyor's transit on the building to measure the slow creep of the building as it was slowly failing from fires? Really? Impressme, do you know what an "opinion" means and what "facts" are? You are therefore calling Chief Hayden a lair. Just come out and admit it already, since you are constantly saying that I am not saying the truth but "opinions", well I'm getting my facts and truths from Hayden. So are you calling him a liar? I say you are. Oh is this firefighter also stating an opinion as well?



I believe you have a pretty warped view of what an opinion is and what facts are.


You gave us your opinion, now show proof? Do you know the different between opinions and showing credible sources into supporting your opinions?


You want proof the East Penthouse collapsed first, then the rest of it, then the whole building? Impressme, why do you play such childish games? And you want us to take you seriously.




Pay close attention to what falls first. I dont see the bottom falling first. I see the top penthouse fall into the building first, then I see the building collapse.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Pay close attention to what falls first. I dont see the bottom falling first. I see the top penthouse fall into the building first, then I see the building collapse


Well according to the NIST report that is not quite true. Read properly it seems it's just an illusion that the penthouuse collapses first. The buildings interior is falling while the exterior walls remain in place..

So who's wrong. you guys or the NIST report?
BYW the reports been linked to often on this thread so look yourself please..



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by backinblack
So you are saying the quoted report from NIST is wrong??


No, you are reading it wrong, and not understanding it. It fell from the top down , as you can see by watching the unediteded video of it collapsing


Dereks..Im not reading the NIST report wrong. Why dont you look up the definition the words that NIST used in their report. Remember, this is the report you are defending, so you especially should know what is being said in it. Here is a video posted by GenRadek. From his posts,it seems that he is a defender.



Has this been doctored, or is this a video you are willing to admit is real?

The penthouse does collapse first....Ill admit that. But Ive never denied it either.
But are you telling me that the rest of building doesn't collapse from the bottom up.
At least the outside walls?
Because clearly you can follow the top right corner of the building all the way down to the pile of dust of smoke.

It seems your just as bad as GoodOlDave. I have been waiting 2 days for him to rebut my posts criticizing him, but he skips it all together and moves on to another point made by someone else.
Stay on topic guys, maybe then we get somewhere.

So again, Dereks, is this video okay to use? And again Dereks, according to this video, like all the other, does it APPEAR that the building collapses bottom up?

Because I would really like to get to my point.
edit on 29-11-2010 by DIDtm because: added last line



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
ATTN GOODOLDAVE: You skipped this entirely all together. Maybe you just missed it, but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and repost it, so you can reply. I would really like to continue this particular conversation.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Oh, for the love of Ronald McDonald. You're telling me your entire rebuttal showing you aren't simply just quoting drivel you found on some internet web site is...posting a conspiracy theory video off some internet web site, and your entire rebuttal showing they're not just makign stuff up is...a video where someone is making up his own map of the flight path of flight 77 and passing it off as fact. Is this what you're telling me? Is this REALLY what you're telling me?


2 things.
1. He/They are just making a point that EYEWITNESS'S (of which you say more than anyone to listen to- and not to discount...YET YOU DO CONSTANTLY) saw the plane coming from the North, not the South, as the OS claims. I DID NOT mention that as an argument, for I have not investigated it all, their claims or what the OS says regarding that.
2.You have FAILED miserably at discounting the testimony of the cab driver, which is on VIDEO, telling two different stories. You failed miserably at even mentioning it, as it was the SOLE reason I even used this video.


All right, look. This guy supposedly interviewed eight different people and got eight different flight paths, which he plots out on an overhead map on his own. The eyewitnesses didn't draw them on any map, he did.


WRONG...Watch the video again. You are mistaken. He gave them a map and a pen/marker. Each one filled it out themselves.


It's pretty obvious that only one object hit the Pentagon, which means by this guy's own admission, seven eyewitnesses had misjudged the actual distance to the south the plane was. SEVEN FLIGHT PATHS ON HIS MAP ARE FALSE. Where is it written on what stone that all eight eyewitnesses didn't misjudge the actual distance to the south the plane was, meaning this guy is trying to pull a fast one and it actually flew even further to the south and therefore flew on the path all the OTHER eyewitnesses said it did? There were more people who saw the plane than just those eight, you know.


Yet, these are the mistaken ones. Right?


You accuse me of believing who I want to believe but from what I'm seeing you're doing literally the exact same thing. It has nothing to do with who believes what. It has everything to do with recognizing a con artist when we see one.


Ive read this guys blog and he is pretty emotional when discussing 9/11. That being said, you call him a con artist yet buy everything the government tells you. Furthermore, Im not believing what I want to believe at all. I WANT to believe that terrorist are solely responsible for this. I WANT to believe that we have the greatest government that stands for the people and would do no wrong. However, speaking of the latter, I know of lies the government have told the American people and world before and since.


No, actually, I listen to all the facts and I listen to all sides of the argument...which is why I know all your own conspiracy stories better than you do.


You claim to, but when something gets thrown in your face, you ignore it. I have seen it many times in many threads with you. The good thing, I only have to point to one to verify my claim.
THIS ONE. You have mentioned NOTHING regarding the credibility of the taxi driver. You skipped over it entirely.
I applaud you for trying to change the subject. I also applaud you for standing up for what you believe. I just dont see how you can be so blind.(this last statement is solely my opinion and not to be taken as an insult or the truth)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack


Well according to the NIST report that is not quite true. Read properly it seems it's just an illusion that the penthouuse collapses first. The buildings interior is falling while the exterior walls remain in place..

So who's wrong. you guys or the NIST report?
BYW the reports been linked to often on this thread so look yourself please..


It's amazing that the 'defenders' havent even read parts of the NIST report that they are trying to defend.
If Im trying to counter what the NIST report says, I sure as hell am going to read what I am going counter.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ok, so the interior was collapsing and failing first. How is this somehow equaling a "bottom-up" demolition? Why couldnt it be interior failure from fire induced creep over a long period of time, which then left the exterior shell to fail last? That would mean the building was failing and collapsing for nearly 18 seconds. That is also mentioned by NIST.

How is it just an illusion that the penthouse falls first? It fell into the building first. That is plain to see, and is not an illusion. Once one part fell into the building, the rest falls in, then the exterior that we see falls last. How does this equal a demolition I dont know, especially since firefighters all day saw the building slowly failing and falling apart internally, prior to total collapse. This is more indicative of failure from damage and fires than magic demolitions.

However, I have yet to hear a truster give a workable idea of how they would have managed to rig the building and have the whole failure of the building occur in such slow motion, to account for the fires, tilting, bulging, sounds of failure, and the gash occurring as observed by several firefighters.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


So have you read the NIST report as well? Do you agree with NIST about the failure mechanism and causes of WTC7's collapse? Or are you just going to take 0.001% of it and blow it out of context in order to bolster a failing idea of controlled demolition, like how you are doing now? You agree with NIST of how it fell, yet you disagree with the causes and refuse to even consider them. Well then how can you take one but not the other?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by DIDtm
 


So have you read the NIST report as well? Do you agree with NIST about the failure mechanism and causes of WTC7's collapse? Or are you just going to take 0.001% of it and blow it out of context in order to bolster a failing idea of controlled demolition, like how you are doing now? You agree with NIST of how it fell, yet you disagree with the causes and refuse to even consider them. Well then how can you take one but not the other?


Please dont be like Dave and assume that all 'truthers' buy into every little conspiracy in order to create a much larger conspiracy.
Have I read the NIST report? I have not read it all. I have skimmed over it, and well admit that alot of what is said is over my head. But rather than argue points that I dont understand, I investigate, read and educate myself the best that I can in order to further understand the complexities of it all. The point that I am trying to get across regarding the failure of WTC7 is that even the defenders don't know what the hell they are talking about. For the past 16+ hours, Ive (along with impressme and backinblack) have tried to get it into dereks head that he is defending something he doesn't even understand. He defends the report, but doesnt know what he is defending.
With that being said and now acknowledged by you now, at least, we are left with the conclusion of what NIST says is correct and that fires caused the collapse of WTC7, right?
Since NIST reports that the structural damage recieved by WTC7 had no bearing in the collapse. They said that it would have collapsed regardless of whether or not there was any structural damage. SOOOOO...fire caused the collapsed of WTC7. Defenders don't even realize that NIST says this and blame structural damage for the collapse.
FIRE CAUSED the WTC7 to uniformly collapse into its own footprint, while reaching speeds of free fall or near fall. Uniformly being the key word.
While I admit to not possessing the knowledge of structural engineering, or knowing how every law of physics works, I do obtain what people call 'common sense'.
And as far as I know and from what Ive read from experts who do understand structural engineering and physical laws, not affiliated with NIST, fire could not cause the building to collapse in the manner that it did. I would be more than happy to consider this as actually happened if this has ever, even one time, again ever has happened before or since. I would even consider it, if the building didnt collapse uniformly from the bottom up. If part of the top collapsed and then another part collapsed from the top down, I would not be having this discussion. I would admit to 'possible' and move on to a different theory or 'conspiracy' as you would say.
Alot of coincidences happened on 9/11/2001 for everything to have went have planned.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



This is a disingenuous statement, coming from you. You are on record as being a subscriber to some of the more ridiculous fringe claims being circulated amongst the conspiracy theorists (I.E. a faked crash site in Shanksville, a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon, 10,000 secret disinformation agents everywhere, etc) and even your fellow conspiracy theorists here (I.E. Bonez) are specifically telling me to ignore you and your junk science becuase you are poisoning his well. I am well aware that the information I post here will be met with resistance amongst the more zealous of Dylan Avery's and Alex Jones' followers, but for *you* to be discounted by your fellow conspiracy theorists here, well, that takes you to a whole other sublevel of [censored] poor credibility, doesn't it?


Interesting rant, to bad most of it is not true Dave. *Fact* Dave you have been on these 911 boards for some time, spewing nothing but your loathing against all truthers, and always rejecting every piece of credible evidence including all the science. You have demonstrated repeatedly that there is no conspiracy to 911; in fact, you have proven yourself to be “pseudo skeptic.”

As far as my credibility, one only needs to look at my profile and my contributions and compare it with yours.


You are on record as being a subscriber to some of the more ridiculous fringe claims being circulated amongst the conspiracy theorists (I.E. a faked crash site in Shanksville, a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon, 10,000 secret disinformation agents everywhere, etc)


I agree with the “faked crash” at Shanksville, and yes I am a stanch supporter of that particular conspiracy. You and some of the OS defenders have never been able to prove the government OS of Shanksville was true, and yes I am convince a missile hit the Pentagon and you and your friends here have “never” been able to disprove it much less prove a Boeing crashed in the Pentagon. As far as your ridiculous”10,000 secret disinformation agents everywhere, etc” You show one post anywhere on ATS were I made that claim? This is what separates you and I Dave when it comes to presenting the truth, I do not have to make up lies as you have just demonstrated against his opponent into trying to prove your case, the truth stands on its own merit and that’s something you cannot ignore.


(I.E. Bonez) are specifically telling me to ignore you and your junk science becuase you are poisoning his well.


You can play a Truther against another Truther all you want, however, I respect Bones even if we don’t agree all the time. We are entitled to our opinions, as you are.


I am well aware that the information I post here will be met with resistance amongst the more zealous of Dylan Avery's and Alex Jones' followers, but for *you* to be discounted by your fellow conspiracy theorists here, well, that takes you to a whole other sublevel of [censored] poor credibility, doesn't it?


I would like to clear up a myth that you have invented again Dave, I am no followers of Dylan Avery's and Alex Jones' never have been and never will. I can think for myself, I do not need to be a cheerleader for someone else, especially when I do not agree with many of their theories.


This is the misinformed ramblings of a near-religious zealot whose world is governed by faith based logic,


My initials are not “GOD” yours are.


I am posting eyewitness accounts of people who were physically there and who can give eyewitness descriptions of what they saw at the WTC 7 (I.E. Deputy Chief Hayden and Barry Jennings)


*Fact* Deputy Chief Hayden and Barry Jennings stories contradicts each other, one of them is lying, which one is it Dave?


as well as photos of the condition of the steel as found by ground crews clearing away the debris, and uniformly, the only defense you can muster to keep your prepostrous conspriacy stories alive is some drivel you found on one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites and an occasional, "they're all a pack of liars".


*Fact* Dave, the OS of 911 has been proven a lie, most people know that except you Dave.
Truthers do not have to tell lies to keep the truth alive, telling lies are for people who try desperately to keep their OS of 911 Myths alive.


I shouldn't have to tell you that little children behave in this way.


If only you could understand that you are posting to me on an emotional level and not on an intellectual level speaks volumes.
If that what you think of the Truth of 911, then no one can help you.


It's blatantly obvious that to you, credibility has absolutely nothing to do with the source and everything to do with whether they happen to agree with what you yourself want to believe.


My only goal on these 911 threads is to share the truth with credible sources and research. Again you keep harping on my credibility, anyone can see who is credible Dave, the fact that you personally attack and insult every truthers on these 911 threads for their opinions, speaks volume about you Dave.


I'm sorry, but if you can't even get your conspiracy fairy tales past me, then how on Earth are you going to get them past any serious 9/11 inquiry?


The fact is Dave, nothing can get past a “pseudo skeptic” the truth is the last thing many of you want, it is the likes of you who still believe in a fairytale world that our government can do no wrong, how does that work for you Dave.
edit on 29-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Why is it so difficult to believe that fire and "structural damage" caused the failure of WTC7's eighty-one (81) columns at virtually the same time? Giving the benefit of the doubt, if the collapse did take eighteen (18) seconds, which is an obsceneely high estimate, that is over four columns failing per second. Piece of cake.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
EDIT: Sorry Sphinx. Thought you were being serious until after I posted this and commented on it. _javascript:icon('
')


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Why is it so difficult to believe that fire and "structural damage" caused the failure of WTC7's eighty-one (81) columns at virtually the same time? Giving the benefit of the doubt, if the collapse did take eighteen (18) seconds, which is an obsceneely high estimate, that is over four columns failing per second. Piece of cake.


Because noted structural damage was only on one side of the building and building fell bottom up in its own footprint. Also because 'structural damage' had nothing to do with the collapse as they state. Also because fire has never caused a high rise building reinforced like all the towers were to collapse, much less collapse bottom up before or since.
Add in many things that dont add up. Such as BBC claiming the building fell due to fire, long before it did and was eventually claimed by NIST. Such as conflicting testimonies of eye witness's. Also because the building reach free fall speeds. Also because NIST states that its finding CANNOT be used in a court of law as evidence.
And this fact:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11

found here:
www.nist.gov...

They never tested for explosives, although by making this claim it makes it sound like they did.
If they would have tested, they would/should have made note of the red paint chips.

And then there are the political questions that have to do with it.
Larry Silverstien.
a. winning the bid for the towers with a lower bid than someone else offered. (looking for proof of this, I have it, will edit post when I find it)
b. the amount of insurance LS had on the WTC's
c. The whereabouts of LS on that morning/ and his daughter

edit on 29-11-2010 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2010 by DIDtm because: edit to sphinxmontreal



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join