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.
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
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
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!
That is your opinion, now can you prove it?
Show some science that supports your claim?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
You gave us your opinion, now show proof? Do you know the different between opinions and showing credible sources into supporting your opinions?
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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?
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?
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.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?
This is the misinformed ramblings of a near-religious zealot whose world is governed by faith based logic,
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?
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.