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.

 

Crazy crackpots melting steel/rock with an energy beam (VIDEO)

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PonyoSon
 


To be clear , I am not the one who introduced the percentages that are being argued about , so , maybe you should address that opinion to the one who did . Furthermore , when someone makes a claim in these threads , such as those percentages , would you rather that everyone simply accept those claims as truth , or do you feel it is okay to challenge said claims in an attempt to show whether those claims are true or false ?

I challenged that claim , as I am aware that there are those on this site who have been known to approve of allowing false information to be introduced as evidence . Do you have a problem with hearing both sides of the debate ? If not , then don't chastise me for challenging information that I know to be false , especially when I present sources that prove that information is false .

In case you missed it , here it is , for the FOURTH time now , a presentation that shows the absurdity of claiming that all the concrete was turned to dust . As you can see , even the percentages being argued in this thread , are also absurd .


One of the more scientifically respectable arguments against the conventional view of 9-11 is that it would take more energy to crush the concrete than was available. One site uses a figure 0f 1.5 kilowatt hour per ton to crush concrete to 60-micron (.06 mm) powder. One kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules, so it takes 5,400,000 joules to crush a ton of concrete to 60 micron powder. Crush the 390,000 tons of concrete in a tower to powder and it takes 2.1 x 1012 joules to do the job. That's twice the gravitational potential energy of a tower. In other words, crushing the concrete should have absorbed so much energy that the collapse would have been halted.

www.uwgb.edu...

As you see , this even supports your statement that there wasn't enough available energy to crush all of the concrete . So , since this compliments your own statement , what other problem(s) do you find with this study ?


let not forget these were very sturdy building.


Would you care to elaborate upon this statement ?


is the information in this video incorrect?


Yes , anyone with half an education in physics , and basic knowledge of the construction of the towers , would agree it is incorrect .
edit on 1-2-2011 by okbmd because: eta




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PonyoSon
To argue that the explosion were cause by "electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, or what have you" is fine and i can except that as a possibility, but i would then have to also except that maybe the explosions were caused by explosives (the case for either can be made). Also explosions cause by "electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, or what have you" would only account for the explosions during collapse not those before.

Im afraid you are guilty of the very thing you accuse the "conspiracy people" of of doing. which is seeing what you want to see in the evidence.


In truth, I have to agree with you- I may very well be seeing what I want to see. The reason I myself believe the explosions weren't bombs is because some years back, the electrical transformer in the building across the street from when I worked overheated and exploded. I know it was an electical transformer because they always make a distinctive BZZZZZT! POW! noise. The explosion was so powerful it rocked my own building and set the restaurant in the building across the street on fire. This was a few years after 9/11 so during this time, all my coworkers with hyperactive imaginations were running around screaming WE'RE GOING TO DIE and IT WAS A BOMB in a display of primordial panic I don't ever care to see again. This isn't anything I've read in a book anywhere. This is what I've seen with my own eyes.

So yes, when I hear someone hearing explosions going off and yelling IT WAS A BOMB in knee jerk reflex you'll need to forgive me if first hand experience tells me I should take the claim with a grain of salt, especially when I know full well that a building as gigantic as the WTC must have had some hard core heavy duty transformers in it, and particularly when the conspiracy people stick their fingers in their ears yelling I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA whenever I try to explain it was a transformer they heard going off.


I am fully aware that people make stuff up, but there are multiple videos of fireman and people who worked/lived in the area that reported events that don't support the official story. It seems that allot of these people were ignored during the investigation, which might make the public feel a little suspicious, wouldn't you agree.


Can you give me an example of who it is you're referring to?


...are you referring to the video?


No, I'm referring to the topic of the original post, since the further we deviate from the OP the more likely the moderators will start yanking our posts.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


But Dave don't you think that firefighters would also know what an exploding transformer sounds like?

I'm pretty sure they would have more experience in all types of sounds heard during building fires than you.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



Take the number of tons of concrete in both towers and subtract the number of tons of concrete recovered at the site?


Please step out of the truther bubble for a moment , and give a logical explanation as to why ANYONE would think that there would be "numbers" for this , anywhere .

Do clean-up crews , and salvage crews , keep records of this type of information ? Are you seriously supposing that the debris should have been taken somewhere and separated and then all of the concrete should have been loaded back onto trucks , to be taken to a facility with scales , to be weighed ?

You guys are certainly reaching new levels of ludicrousness .
edit on 1-2-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Apologies, but are you dense? This makes no sense at all!

If you had all other factors being equal, MINUS GRAVITY, the forces would balance out and the building would cease its collapsing. However, with gravity and the fact that the force does not completely dissipate upon demolishing a single floor, the collective debris becomes heavier and more kinetically active as it progresses downward. You can see proof of this looking at many other things.


Am I dense? If you think gravity can overcome the resistance of a building that has been designed to hold it's own weight, against gravity, then you are the one that is dense.

BTW the debris was not falling straight down, it was all ejected laterally, otherwise there would be a huge pile of floors in its footprint.


FOR EXAMPLE:
If you remember some of those controlled demolitions of skyscrapers that went wrong, it was because when they blew the bottom support, the building began to fall and the earth resisted all the force, having far more mass with which to absorb energy. Plus the fact the building was a concrete exoskeleton in the one I"m thinking about. Regardless, it is an example of the physics.


HUH? How does that make any sense?

A controlled demo goes wrong because the resistance that was supposed to be removed wasn't, so the resistance resists the collapse and it either stops or falls to the path of least resistance.


This presentation is absolutely convoluted and you cannot say that the destruction defied physics when clearly you are misunderstanding the forces involved.


LOL. From a guy who thinks gravity is a stronger force than the resistance of a buildings structure.


Take this to the boat and sink it!


Using your logic the boat will sink due to gravity.
edit on 2/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains


I have already showed this to be an OUTRIGHT lie , why do you insist I still consider it valid research ?


What have you proved in supporting the OS?


What the hell does this have to do with "the OS" ?

You stated all the concrete was turned to dust , I showed you were lying about that , with pictures , and now you want to jump on the "OS supporter" crutch . How pathetic is that ?

Bottom line , you fail , your claims are false .
edit on 1-2-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



So, you showed me enough concrete to make up maybe one floor, if you're lucky.

Where are the other 109 floors?


Wow , we're making progress . As for the other floors , you are a big boy , you've been a member since '04 , do a little research on your own . Kinda strange that you have been here for 7 years and I have been here for less than a year and yet I can find this information . Why can't you ?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by PonyoSon
 


To be clear , I am not the one who introduced the percentages that are being argued about , so , maybe you should address that opinion to the one who did . Furthermore , when someone makes a claim in these threads , such as those percentages , would you rather that everyone simply accept those claims as truth , or do you feel it is okay to challenge said claims in an attempt to show whether those claims are true or false ?

I challenged that claim , as I am aware that there are those on this site who have been known to approve of allowing false information to be introduced as evidence . Do you have a problem with hearing both sides of the debate ? If not , then don't chastise me for challenging information that I know to be false , especially when I present sources that prove that information is false .


Im sorry i guess i addressed you because you were the last one to comment on the situation when i began to write my comment. i love the challenges from both sides of the debate (i like to keep an open mind about 911) and i think both sides have information that is worth hearing. Just arguing about something that really can't be proved is wasteful and distracting.



In case you missed it , here it is , for the FOURTH time now , a presentation that shows the absurdity of claiming that all the concrete was turned to dust . As you can see , even the percentages being argued in this thread , are also absurd .


One of the more scientifically respectable arguments against the conventional view of 9-11 is that it would take more energy to crush the concrete than was available. One site uses a figure 0f 1.5 kilowatt hour per ton to crush concrete to 60-micron (.06 mm) powder. One kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules, so it takes 5,400,000 joules to crush a ton of concrete to 60 micron powder. Crush the 390,000 tons of concrete in a tower to powder and it takes 2.1 x 1012 joules to do the job. That's twice the gravitational potential energy of a tower. In other words, crushing the concrete should have absorbed so much energy that the collapse would have been halted.

www.uwgb.edu...

As you see , this even supports your statement that there wasn't enough available energy to crush all of the concrete . So , since this compliments your own statement , what other problem(s) do you find with this study ?


I'll be the first to admit that i don't fully understand the numbers involved in your post. for i never studied Physics or architecture. seem like very interesting information and i'm interested in reading up on it.


let not forget these were very sturdy building.


all i mean is that through my own common scene (especially when it comes to WTC7) it seems like these buildings just fell apart with ease, yet they were made of materials that aren't known to be fragile. its just doesn't all add up in my mind for some reason.


is the information in this video incorrect?


i do not have half an education in physics. and as much as i'd just like to take your word for it, i can't. are their any members here on ATS with a background in physics that could clear this up?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Am I dense? If you think gravity can overcome the resistance of a building that has been designed to hold it's own weight, against gravity, then you are the one that is dense.

BTW the debris was not falling straight down, it was all ejected laterally, otherwise there would be a huge pile of floors in its footprint.

-------------

HUH? How does that make any sense?

A controlled demo goes wrong because the resistance that was supposed to be removed wasn't, so the resistance resists the collapse and it either stops or falls to the path of least resistance.

----------------

Using your logic the boat will sink due to gravity.
edit on 2/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Alright, alright, I get it. I'm not the most articulate and perfect respondant. I'm just trying to get a point across. You are ASSUMING (learn this word!) that the building is sturdy enough to withstand floors collapsing.

Point #2: No, not EVERYTHING collapsed laterally. What was ejected laterally ejected because there was nowhere else for it to go. There is still a great deal of mass collapsing downward through the interior of the structure. If you think that the steel will resist tons of mass being non-uniformly crashed into it, then that's your opinion. I simply doubt that the facts of physics would agree with you there. The building is not a solid block of magic, however much it may seem like it while it is not collapsing.

And yeah, I get that my example was not the best. It was just to describe how the situation would have to work. In one case you have steel and concrete pummeling NON-UNIFORMLY downward (and yes, some laterally due to path of least resistance), and in the other there is a solid concrete block of a building that did not successfully overcome itself with the uncompromisable earth.

The thing about gravity is that it allows the mass to accelerate, something that doesn't occur in a zero-gravity Newtonian model. This acceleration, even though encountering resistance from the mass of the intact building below, is still building up enough energy to overcome the supports. To my knowledge, they do not build skyscraper floors to withstand concrete and steel impacts; only to distribute the weight of the floors above in a way that keeps everything stable. You probably only have to compromise half a floor to cause a complete global collapse on the single floor. Imagine all that weight falling, yes I said FALLING on the floor below it.

Now let's do a tiny bit of math here. You have say one pound. It drops three meters (say, the height of a generic floor). Gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s2, so we need to figure out its velocity and then its force. (I'll figure this out eventually. Physics class was some time ago)
3 = .5*9.8*t/2 which is 3 = 4.9t/2 so t=1.22 seconds
velocity = a * t so 9.8 *1.22 is a velocity of 12 m/s
Although, I may have done unnecessary math here. F = ma, so the force exerted by the single pound would be 1*9.8 meaning that there would be 9.8 Newtons for every pound of weight. assuming that the 40k square feet of each floor had just one pound per square foot, then you have 40k pounds. Now let's see that force equation again.
40,000 * 9.8 = 392,000 Newtons if all focused on one point. We do know this not to be the case, but I am also under-estimating. If just part of the support system on one floor failed because of too much force, then the entire floor will go... then the next floor... then the next floor. Does this make sense?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
But Dave don't you think that firefighters would also know what an exploding transformer sounds like?

I'm pretty sure they would have more experience in all types of sounds heard during building fires than you.


Let me answer your question with a question- Up until now, all these videos are from the events happening that very day when everyone was still in shock and noone knew what was going on around them. How many of them are still saying they were explosives that they heard ten years later? Someone saying "it sounded like bombs were going off" does NOT mean bombs were going off nor does it mean they're saying that bombs were actually going off. It simply means the sound they heard sounded like a bomb going off, and I can definitely tell you that an electrical transformer blowing up definitely sounds like a bomb going off.

I have no idea whether a given firefighter would know the difference or not. Do they train firefighters on the audio differences of explosives going BOOM vs an electrical transformer going BOOM?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
yes it can be weaponize.
you put lots of big mirrors in space you
focuses them on a small point on earth.
and it will melt it instantly.
not little mirrors.
say, ten mirrors 100 meters circle.
that would not be slowed by the atmosphere.
unless its a very cloudy day.
has there been any spontaneous combustions of humans lately?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains


I have already showed this to be an OUTRIGHT lie , why do you insist I still consider it valid research ?


You have showing no such evidence in any of your post in this thread. No one is telling you lies. Appealing to posters on an emotional level is not helping your disagreements.


What the hell does this have to do with "the OS" ?

You stated all the concrete was turned to dust , I showed you were lying about that , with pictures , and now you want to jump on the "OS supporter" crutch . How pathetic is that ?


Again, you did not read my post, in fact you completely ignored that I corrected my statement in my last post.


**There are a few broken pieces of concrete in the bottom of the debris, however I may have used the wrong word as to [color=gold]“all” of the concrete been pulverized, but I will stand behind 90% of the concrete been pulverized.**



Bottom line , you fail , your claims are false .
edit on 1-2-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)


Bottom line, you “have not disproved” any of my claims that 90% of the WTC concrete was pulverized. Furthermore, you have just demonstrated that you never read any of my previous sources in supporting my claims in my recent post to you.

There is no point having this conversation with someone who is not interested in discussing the given topic and your comments towards me are atrocious and false, I really believe it is pointless to continue on with this discussion with you. I really don’t like the “cyber bullying” tactic you continue to use, consider yourself on a “permanent ignore” from me.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, and can you show us the picture of this three-story bulge again?


If such pictures exist, I don't have them.


Then I'm going to have to go with other eyewitnesses, and even NIST, all of whom say the impact damages were insignificant to the "global collapse" sequence.


I'm going by eyewitness accounts, and the eyewitness accounts didn't come from some drunk guy lying in his own urine in the gutter, nor did it come from the speculation of some researcher who was over in Los Angeles at the time. It came from a deputy fire chief of the NYFD who was standing there fighting the fires in WTC 7 who reported this.


And I have a testimony from a NYPD officer who was on duty that day at WTC7, and said there was no way the amount of damage was going to result in the whole building falling down, and who said the lobby exploded when the building started "collapsing." You've read it, it's Craig Bartmer. So what makes yours better than mine? Nothing at all.


I never said NIST claimed the damage from the collapse of the north tower caused fatal structural damage to WTC 7. I said it was the thermal expansion from the fires that caused the collapse. I subscribe to teis scenario because the unnatural bulging that witnesses had seen support the scenario. If you can explain how controlled demolitions can cause a three story tall bulging in the side of the building as well as cause a building to collapse from the inside out then I'd like to hear it.


I don't even believe there was a significant bulge in that building. Maybe they could measure deflections and expansions typical of any other skyscraper that will be on fire, and these things do happen. But something that is going to result in a symmetrical free-fall acceleration to the ground, no. And all you're doing is taking vague testimony and trying to bolster it into an explanation in itself, but it isn't even close.


I'm not demanding rigorous proof. I'm demanding to see ANY proof.


Same here, from the NIST report or whatever other "official" investigation that you base your own opinions on.

You don't have anything.

And yet when we come on here complaining about the total lack of proof for anything the feds published, you ignore it and expect us to come up with everything. You have it a little back assward.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Why do you trust the opinions of some people, but not the observations of others? Observations tend to be unbiased, but what truthers cling to are the opinions.

Example:
Person #1: "There was an explosive sound and then the roof caved in"
Person #2: "A bomb went off! I'm sure of it!"
Person #3: "I saw some serious fire going on on the floors above. A few minutes later the building started to collapse."
All three could be describing the same exact thing, but notice how it all sounds different?
Edit: In this situation I'm imagining a beam busting from the damage and fire, and then the floors of a generic few-story building collapsing.

Now for an example of what basically was going on with WTC 7:
Person #1: "There was a three story bulge in the side of the building which didn't look good and I could see a huge gash. Must've been twenty stories high"
Person #2: "I didn't see anything from where I stood. The building shouldn't have come down."
Person #3: "We need to get everybody out. The building looks really bad."
Person #4: "We're now getting reports that WTC 7 either is or will soon collapse. More on that later."

Can you spot the observations and the opinions? When it comes down to opinions, even the most tenured physicists and engineers can be completely outright wrong. It's best to look at the observations and draw conclusions based off them.
edit on 1-2-2011 by Varemia because: added an adendum



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces


M-A-C-R-O-S-C-O-P-I-C : visible to the naked eye ( Random House Dictionary )

Translation : " the photographs reveal almost no evidence of pieces visible to the naked eye ."

I showed you images that were filled with chunks of concrete that are visible to the naked eye , THEREFORE , your source is INCORRECT . FALSE INFORMATION. End of story .



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Then I'm going to have to go with other eyewitnesses, and even NIST, all of whom say the impact damages were insignificant to the "global collapse" sequence.


So do I. The building clearly remained standing for quite some time after the wreckage from the north tower hit it, so the damage it inflict wasn't fatal. If you're agreeing with me and NIST then what are you arguing about?


And I have a testimony from a NYPD officer who was on duty that day at WTC7, and said there was no way the amount of damage was going to result in the whole building falling down, and who said the lobby exploded when the building started "collapsing." You've read it, it's Craig Bartmer. So what makes yours better than mine? Nothing at all.


Are you referring to the impact damage from the collapse from WTC 1 or the damage from the out of control fires? If it's the former then you're cherry picking your quotes for your own benefit as even NIST concurs the collapse didn't cause fatal structural damage. Not only does Bartmer himself confirms there were definitely fires burning in WTC 7, every video footage of the collapse of WTC 7 shows the penthouse collapsed down into the interior of the building before the exterior did so all bets are off on what should or shouldn't have happened in the lobby.

In other words, nothing Craig Bartmer says is refuting what Peter Hayden says. Your problem is that what Bartmer is actually saying ISN'T what you think he's saying...which isn't surprising, seeing it was that lying POS con artist Dylan Avery from Loose Change who made that interview video you're quoting to begin with.



I don't even believe there was a significant bulge in that building. Maybe they could measure deflections and expansions typical of any other skyscraper that will be on fire, and these things do happen. But something that is going to result in a symmetrical free-fall acceleration to the ground, no. And all you're doing is taking vague testimony and trying to bolster it into an explanation in itself, but it isn't even close.


Is that a fact?

"...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"- Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden.

There isn't anything remotely vague or hard to understand about Peter Hayden's testimony. They had to put a transit to support a damaged building and even then they knew the building was in such bad shape it was going to come down anyway. Claiming this can be interpreted in any other way somehow is wishful thinking.


And yet when we come on here complaining about the total lack of proof for anything the feds published, you ignore it and expect us to come up with everything.


I'm not ignoring it. In fact I'm repeatedly telling you why this is- you're getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy websites who are trying to get you all paranoid over shadows so that you'll buy their knicknacks. Why are you going to lying POS con artists like Dylan Avery for your information rather than from people who were physically there on 9/11 like Peter Hayden?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Man, i can't keep up

any way here is another energy beam, only this one was made by so kid in his backyard.



www.dailymail.co.uk... /sciencetech/article-1351935/Eric-Jacqmain-invented-Death-ray-dish-intensity-5-000-suns.html



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Why do you trust the opinions of some people, but not the observations of others? Observations tend to be unbiased, but what truthers cling to are the opinions.


If all we are doing is making observations then this might have merit. But as soon as you introduce some opinion on what happened to bring those buildings down, you are then guilty of exactly the same thing.

Example:

"Dave" saying there was a 3-story bulge in WTC7 somehow, despite having no photos of it, so therefore WTC7's collapse is somehow validated as not involving any explosives.

If the three-story bulge in itself could be verified, then it would be a valid observation, and nothing more. Extrapolating it to mean something else based on no scientific method whatsoever, is exactly what you are accusing me of doing.


Now I have nowhere said what was causing all of the explosions, since you bring up explosions. I have only been pointing out observations witnesses have made, which in themselves contradict the various explanations given for why so many explosions were happening.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
In other words, nothing Craig Bartmer says is refuting what Peter Hayden says. Your problem is that what Bartmer is actually saying ISN'T what you think he's saying...which isn't surprising, seeing it was that lying POS con artist Dylan Avery from Loose Change who made that interview video you're quoting to begin with.


What did Bartmer NOT say, that I THINK he is saying?


I can have all 3 parts of the interview on this thread in no time, quotes and all, and at the time of the interview at least that man definitely believed WTC7 was demolished based on what he saw as a police officer at the scene that day, there before and during its destruction.



I don't even believe there was a significant bulge in that building. Maybe they could measure deflections and expansions typical of any other skyscraper that will be on fire, and these things do happen. But something that is going to result in a symmetrical free-fall acceleration to the ground, no. And all you're doing is taking vague testimony and trying to bolster it into an explanation in itself, but it isn't even close.


Is that a fact?

"...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"- Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden.

There isn't anything remotely vague or hard to understand about Peter Hayden's testimony. They had to put a transit to support a damaged building and even then they knew the building was in such bad shape it was going to come down anyway. Claiming this can be interpreted in any other way somehow is wishful thinking.



There really isn't anything hard to understand about what I'm saying either.

WTC7 was 100% unprecedented for building fires. That means nothing like it had ever happened before in history, period. No skyscrapers collapsing completely into themselves, to the ground, symmetrically, even close to the rate of gravity. So how do you predict something that's never happened before, when you're supposedly using some established procedure?

Here's where you are confused. "Collapse" on and prior to 9/11 meant something very different from the "collapses" that happened for the first time ever that day, and haven't happened since. So when someone says they are predicting a "collapse," it would be impossible for them to imagine what actually happened to WTC7, outside of imagining a controlled demolition, because no other kind of "collapse" in the history of the world has looked anything remotely similar.

Read that about 10 or 20 times and let it sink in for 10 minutes, then maybe read it a few more times after that, and see if it does anything for you.





And yet when we come on here complaining about the total lack of proof for anything the feds published, you ignore it and expect us to come up with everything.


I'm not ignoring it. In fact I'm repeatedly telling you why this is- you're getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy websites


No no no. I'm not getting all my information anywhere. I'm asking YOU for PROOF from the Damned Fool NIST Report.

Even in this response you totally ignore my request for real evidence, to make more accusations at me instead.

There is difference between posting evidence, and posting accusations, fallacies and other garbage. Maybe the real problem is that you don't know what real evidence is in the first place.

If you do know what it is, then I am still waiting for any hard evidence for what you think brought the buildings down.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There really isn't anything hard to understand about what I'm saying either.

WTC7 was 100% unprecedented for building fires. That means nothing like it had ever happened before in history, period. No skyscrapers collapsing completely into themselves, to the ground, symmetrically, even close to the rate of gravity. So how do you predict something that's never happened before, when you're supposedly using some established procedure?


The fire fighters who were physically there were able to judge from the condition of the building that collapse was imminent. If you are genuinely suggesting that firefighters need to look up some manual of procedures somewhere to judge whether a building is in such a messed up condition that it's going to fall then we both know you're grasping.


Here's where you are confused. "Collapse" on and prior to 9/11 meant something very different from the "collapses" that happened for the first time ever that day, and haven't happened since. So when someone says they are predicting a "collapse," it would be impossible for them to imagine what actually happened to WTC7, outside of imagining a controlled demolition, because no other kind of "collapse" in the history of the world has looked anything remotely similar.


Huh? Are you seriously suggesting there was thermal expansion from the out of control fires *and* controlled demolitions? First of all, it's blatantly obvious that controlled demoliitons don't cause steel support columns to slowly bulge out, and second of all it's blatantly obvious that the fires would have destroyed the explosives even if there were explosives there. Plus, I don't have to tell you that with all the personnel in the vicinity they would have heard explosions from your hypothetical demolitions, and the only time anyone heard any explosions was when the building started to collapse. Plus, I don't have to tell you that controlled demolitions don't destroy the building from the inside out- they destroy the whole building all at once.

The laws of physics have to apply to your conspiracies just like they apply to everyone else, you know.


No no no. I'm not getting all my information anywhere. I'm asking YOU for PROOF from the Damned Fool NIST Report.


I already told you- NIST got much of its material from eyewitness reports, specifically, Peter Hayden and other firefighters who were there. When the NIST engineers hear there was severe bulging in the side of the building in the same location where out of control fires were burning, they are necessarily going to try and figure out whether the two had a connection with each other and whether it led to the collapse.

Peter Hayden isn't repeating the NIST report. The NIST report is repeating what Peter Hayden said.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join