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.

 

13 Reasons To Question The Official Story

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by bing0
 


LOL, it has not been proven by anyone! If it had been proven, there would be a court case right now.. No court case has made past the early stages. Let me guess, all the judges are in on it too? Judges - Demo men - firefighters- newscasters- witnesses... You people have lost touch with reality and logic!

How many people do you think took part in the conspiracy?? 10K?? 20K??

Your "experts" say it would take 40 SKILLED charge placement experts... 3 buildings... That's 120 people.. Then all of the people, including myself, that saw the plane hit the Pentagon, must be in on it too?

USE YOUR HEAD!!! There is no way that 5 people can keep a secret, let alone 1000 people.. The theory that you truthers employ, would take a minimum of 500 people...


Pearl Harbor, 1941: how long has that setup been a secret? As far as i know 59 years....




posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by bing0
 


You see it as "Its been 59 years and nobody has let the cat out of the bag"

I see it as " Its been 59 years and some fools still think its a conspiracy"


Let me guess.. You don't think we landed on the moon either....



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


First of all... "the damage to the building" How can you assume to know what the damage was?? Were you on those floors?
No, but I told you exactly why the damage was random. So we're going to go over it once again, and you're going to have some simple Yes or No questions to answer, followed by my explanations from the last post.

Now it's very important that you answer these Yes or No questions, so be sure that you don't ignore them.

Here is the damage that the building sustained by falling debris:
Do you agree that this damage is asymmetrical? (Yes) (No)

Here is a quote from my last post:

OK, so try to visualize what is happening inside of the building: there are fires burning randomly in the building. These fires are heating the core columns, and let's up the ante on the official story and say that the fires were heating the majority of the core columns rather than just one to the point of failure.

So we have most core columns being heated by fire, but for the building to collapse symmetrically, they would have to fail within milliseconds of each other, but lets give your point of view some breathing room and say within 3 seconds of each other.

This means that the fires would have to be fueled by the exact same amount of office furniture on the exact same location of the column burning at the exact same temperature for the exact same amount of time in a symmetrical orientation. A symmerical orientation meaning that if a fire of X degrees is burning on column 80, then a fire of exactly X degrees is burning on column 59 with the above conditions. (Refer to the image of the columns above in case you're lost)
Do you understand the above explanation of the conditions within the building compared to the conditions needed to satisfy a free-fall collapse? (Yes) (No)

Since fires were scattered asymmetrically, do you agree that the damage to the core columns was also asymmetrical? (Yes) (No)

You remember that quote from Tom Sullivan, right? Here it is again:

When we load a building, we have to have all of the support columns on a given load floor fail at the same time, within milliseconds of one another, and therefore the entire building comes down in a synchronized implosion.
Do you understand what he is saying? (Yes) (No)

Do you agree that for a building to collapse symmetrically, the damage to the core columns would also have to be symmetrical and must occur within milliseconds of each other? (Yes) (No)

Do you agree that it is a fact and not an assumption that WTC 7 fell symmetrically? (Yes) (No)


Do you agree that it is a fact and not an assumption that WTC 7 free-fell? (Yes) (No)

Do you agree that it is a fact and not na assumption that WTC 7 had a fault during collapse? (Yes) (No)


Your "movement" is completely based on assumptions. PERIOD!
From my last post:

Despite your claim, none of those things are assumptions, they are all facts. If you can prove to me how the building didn't fall symmetrically, didn't free-fall, or didn't have a fault, I will be more than willing to look at your evidence. But until then, claiming that I'm making assumptions when I slap you in the face with cold hard facts doesn't disprove anything I'm saying but instead just makes you look stupid.
Alright, let's talk about assumptions. You claim that since an engineers wasn't there to assess teh situation, we don't know what happened inside of the building so a fire could have caused the collapse. But the implications of what you're claiming is a staggeringly large assumption, because you're making the case that the damage to the building may have been enough to satisfy the collapse based solely on the fact that we weren't inside the building to see it for ourselves. That's an assumption dude


Basically what you're saying is since we or an engineer didn't assess the damage, the damage was sufficient to cause the collapse. That is incredibly stupid. The explanation of the conditions necessary to produce a free-fall collapse in this post prove that there's incredibly slim chances that that would occur, but since nobody actually saw the damage from the inside you can just assume that those improbable events occured by pure chance.

Your post contained no debunking, you just played stupid: "durr we didin't see the damage to da columns, so letz assoom that da damage wuz symmetrical".


This is ridiculous! You want to believe SO damn bad, that our Govt. did this..
....
You think I enjoy the idea that our government did this? Do you think I consider the government killing 3,000 Americans to be cool or something? THAT is ridiculous, I just looked at the facts and realized that the official story is false and that our government must have pulled off this false-flag attack for their own personal gain.
edit on 4-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Please prove that the WTC 7 collapsed symetrically. By the way, posting the video and saying you think it looks like it was symetrical doesn't count.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Please prove that the WTC 7 collapsed symetrically. By the way, posting the video and saying you think it looks like it was symetrical doesn't count.


Can you prove it didn't hooper?

No you can't, because there are post collapse pics that proves it fell symmetrically into its own footprint, and supports the OP.









It doesn't just 'look' like its in its own footprint, it is.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yes ... To me it looks like the left side and right side of the viewable area fell at roughly the same time. Do these explosives experts know ALL of the different ways to load a building to make it fall symmetrically? OR do they know that they were taught to do it the "standard" way..

Do they have proof that one wouldn't fall symmetrically, if say, 1/3 of their explosives fail to detonate? Do you think they have ever tested it? No you say?? Why is that?? Oh that's right.. It would be a HUGE waste of money and illogical to test lesser explosions in different ways..


I agree that it looks very similar to a controlled demo that you would see if you looked one up. I am not arguing that fact... BUT, you cant asses the exact damage to the building from video of the outside. You can guess and assume, but you can not with 100% certainty what it was..

This is where we split like atoms on this subject...

I assume there was more damage than what was thought...
You assume they are right, and that damage could not have brought down the building.

You see it all comes down to perspective.. I also agree with Dave.. I feel that we were lied to on 9/11, but not to the extent that some of you folks do.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Can you prove it didn't hooper?


Can I prove the building did not fall symetrically? Well, I will say no - ergo, ispo facto, you can not prove it did. Therefore any argument that requires exact knowledge of the collapse dynamics is rendered fallacious.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




Please prove that the WTC 7 collapsed symetrically. By the way, posting the video and saying you think it looks like it was symetrical doesn't count.
That image that I posted shows that it collapses symetrically.
You would be lucky to find a controlled demolition that falls that smoothly.

I took this into Paint and did a little editing. I blew up the image by 300%, and then broke them up into individual images. I took the second image, zoomed in so I could see the rows/columns of pixels, and cropped it at the top of the building and pasted it so that the bottom right corner of that image lined up perfectly with the bottom right corner of the first image. Then I cropped the third image at the top of the building, pasted it onto the combined first/second image so that the bottom right corner again lined up perfectly.

Then I drew red lines two columns of pixels away from the edge of the building, and marked the spacing in between the red lines and the building with a box of two pixels wide and three pixels down. I did this for all three images, and the red line matches up perfectly for images two and three, and the first image is two pixels to the right of the other two images. I did the same thing for the Philips Building, except I didn't draw any lines because the quality of video wasn't very good and the pixels were hard to tell apart.





posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



Can you prove it didn't hooper?


Can I prove the building did not fall symetrically? Well, I will say no - ergo, ispo facto, you can not prove it did. Therefore any argument that requires exact knowledge of the collapse dynamics is rendered fallacious.


So what is your point then? If you can't prove your point it's not worth the time it takes you to type it out.

It's obvious from video and post collapse pics that it did fall symmetrically. To claim it didn't, with nothing to support that claim is disingenuous at best.

You do know what symmetrical means right?


sym·met·ri·cal
   [si-me-tri-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
characterized by or exhibiting symmetry; well-proportioned, as a body or whole; regular in form or arrangement of corresponding parts.

dictionary.reference.com...

I think we can safely say WTC 7 most definitely did fit that definition, however much you've convinced yourself it didn't.


edit on 8/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



It's obvious from video and post collapse pics that it did fall symmetrically.


Ok, that is what we refer to as "opinion". You are more than welcome to yours, but please don't try to hoist it on anyone else as a "fact".

Sitting there waling on about how symetrical it appears does not mean anything. Your entire thesis is based on the supposition that something that, in your opinion, fell straight down can only have been casued by purposeful and thoughtful demolition of key symetrical elements in the structure. You still haven't even proven that, let alone the idea that the collapse was symetrical. You've got a long way to go.

Start by first proving that failure by fire could not have caused what was observed.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Start by first proving that failure by fire could not have caused what was observed.

This post does just that.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Sorry, you're just repeating ANOK's poorly thought out thesis. Please prove that what was observed could not have been caused by fire.

Your opinions about symetry are just that, opinions.

Now prove that fire could not have caused what happened.

Good luck.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Sorry, you're just repeating ANOK's poorly thought out thesis. Please prove that what was observed could not have been caused by fire.

Your opinions about symetry are just that, opinions.

Now prove that fire could not have caused what happened.

Good luck.
Wrong, try again. This post does just that.

You know you're supposed to debunk things, right? Just saying that everything we bring to the table is assumption and opinion doesn't get us anywhere. You have to show how the building didn't fall symmetrically, how the building did not have a fault, and how the building did not free-fall.

Symmetrical Collapse vs. Damage Pattern:

OK, so try to visualize what is happening inside of the building: there are fires burning randomly in the building. These fires are heating the core columns, and let's up the ante on the official story and say that the fires were heating the majority of the core columns rather than just one to the point of failure.

So we have most core columns being heated by fire, but for the building to collapse symmetrically, they would have to fail within milliseconds of each other, but lets give your point of view some breathing room and say within 3 seconds of each other.

This means that the fires would have to be fueled by the exact same amount of office furniture on the exact same location of the column burning at the exact same temperature for the exact same amount of time in a symmetrical orientation. A symmerical orientation meaning that if a fire of X degrees is burning on column 80, then a fire of exactly X degrees is burning on column 59 with the above conditions. (Refer to the image of the columns above in case you're lost)


So, unless you can find me a situation or experiment in which the non-symmetrical removal of an objects supports caused the object to fall symmetrically, the above explanation is correct because there is no historical precedent in which asymmetrical damage can cause a symmetrical collapse of something.

Also, I love how first your position was "the building didn't fall symmetrically", now you changed it to "Yeah, but you can't prove the damage was insufficient to cause the symmetrical collapse, so that means it was sufficient!".

Free-fall vs. Damage Pattern:

Then, the next thing we're going to look at is the free-fall collapse of the building. We're going to compare two situations, OK? Let's say we take your favorite red bouncy ball and drop it from the top of WTC 7. It would take 6.0 seconds for the bouncy ball to hit the ground in an unimpeded fall to the earth. When I say unimpeded, I mean that it doesn't hit Alladin's magic carpet while it's falling through the air, it falls straight through the air with nothing disturbing it until it contacts the ground.

The collapse of WTC 7 took right around 6.5 seconds. For the building to fall so quickly, that means the mass below that the falling section should impact provides almost no resistance. That means when the upper floors should be hitting the bottom floors, they are actually already moving and the top section doesn't hit them. You can see this in the video of the collapse, the floors stay the same distance from each other but they're all falling towards the ground at the same speed.
Proof that the building free-fell:


Proof of a core column failure which caused the building to implode:


Free-fall, symmetry, and a fault during the collapse of a building due to explosives have all been witnessed dozens of times during controlled demolitions.

On the other hand, free-fall, symmetry, and a fault during the collapse of a building due to fire has never been seen in history despite the fact that fires have burned for much longer and covered more of the building than with WTC 7. This building didn't free-fall symmetrically:
Neither did this one:
Or this one:
I'm sure your next argument will be something along the lines of "Yeah but those buildings weren't also damaged by falling debris! You're being misleading! You're misrepresenting the facts just like every truther does! It's all opinions, assumptions, and skewed reality in your crazy truth movement!", but let's remember the damage pattern to the core columns from the falling debris:
Asymmetrical.

I'm guessing your next argument will be "Yeah but the structure of WTC 7 was different! It had a dangerously unstable design that allowed the entire building to collapse because one core column failed!", but that's just the official story believers cop-out and poor rationalization backing up the impossible collapse.

Here are some buildings that have collapsed without the use of explosives:
There's a pretty distinctive pattern that all of the non-explosive building collapses follow. Did you figure it out? None of them fell symmetrically.

Here is the only video of a symmetrical collapse that I could find, because even for demolitions that is rare:
But as you can see here, they both fell almost perfectly symmetrically, and one was brought down by precisely timed explosives that sever the columns within milliseconds of each other, and one was supposedly brought down by a single core column failing and initiating a collapse.


Hooper, you're not retarded, you have common sense and you are intelligent enough to use a keyboard. Even though there has not only never been a symmetrical collapse caused by fire, but a skyscraper hasn't even collapsed due to fire damage alone, so how can you continue to tell yourself that an event which has never been seen due to fire damage but has been seen due to controlled demolitions dozens of times happened by fire?

The core columns had to have been severed symmetrically, meaning that the fire must have been distributed evenly while burning at the same temperature for the same amount of time in a symmetrical pattern. Like I said earlier, the odds of this happening due to fire is so unlikely that it's nearly impossible, yet the possibility of explosives bringing down the building in the manner it fell is nearly 100%.

Now you can't just say "Oopsie poopsie wrong again! I need more evidence! More! MORE! MOOOOOREEEEE!", you have to show how I'm wrong. Saying "Durrr dose r uhpinnyons" doesn't disprove any of the above analysis, it just shows that you can't refute anything, your only tactic is to deny deny deny deny deny deny deny. Go through every point that I made and show how I'm wrong.

I explained how the building couldn't collapse as it did based on the damage. You didn't prove how it could collapse based on the damage, you just said that I was wrong in my explanation and remain stubbornly attached to your irrational belief that one column failing can cause the building to free-fall symmetrically without explaining how.
edit on 4-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Sorry, you're just repeating ANOK's poorly thought out thesis. Please prove that what was observed could not have been caused by fire.

Your opinions about symetry are just that, opinions.

Now prove that fire could not have caused what happened.

Good luck.



22,000 gallons of jet fuel cannot disintegrate 500,000(the weight of each tower) tons of concrete and mild steel including building 7. It just doesn't happen that way.
And the shock wave impact or any damage from the planes entry did nothing to the result of the collapse. If that was the case the Japanese would have won the pacific with there Kamikaze tactics.


I suggest you truly inform yourself with construction/design and structural/civil engineering knowledge. Once you do. You'll understand.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Easy, the pictures you keep ignoring of WTC 7 post collapse, showing all four outer walls on top of the rest of the collapsed building. So no, it didn't lean in any direction other than down symmetrically, because that is the only way all four walls could fall at the same speed, in the same direction, into the path of most resistance (that had to be removed quickly, and separately, from the outer walls).

Please explain how a buildings outer walls can wait for the buildings center to drop before falling inwards when they're all attached? (fire can not cause them to all become detached from the frame)

Explain how a collapse can be so fast for that to happen, yes it's the speed, from a natural collapse that could not have caused every column to fail instantly, and at the same time?

Please don't pretend you haven't seen this because I have posted it numerous times....


Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.


A feat that....


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


science.howstuffworks.com... (don't be afraid to learn something that is not a 'truther' site, even though it is the truth, or at least as the Discovery Company sees it if that is good enough for you Hooper?)

Be sure to look at, and play with, the graphic to see a demonstration of what I am talking about. Then go tell all the demolition companies that Hooper says you can do that by just setting the building on fire, and creating some random damage. Apparently it doesn't matter where, just as long as it's good enough to fool the insurance investigators. See if you can do that before you jump to your reactionary reply. Are you still reading? Hello? Hooper? Are you there?

BTW do you really think because you have no proof, and you think we have no proof, that it defaults to the OS? Really?


edit on 8/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



BTW do you really think because you have no proof, and you think we have no proof, that it defaults to the OS? Really?


Unfortunately for you, yes, that's how it works. We observed the building on fire for an extended period of time then we observed the building collapsing. Until you can present direct evidence to the contrary the cause of the collapse remains the only other oberved phenomenon, the fire.

For the record, your opinions about symetry and your personal incredulity do not count as direct evidence to the contrary.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Unfortunately for you, yes, that's how it works. We observed the building on fire for an extended period of time then we observed the building collapsing. Until you can present direct evidence to the contrary the cause of the collapse remains the only other oberved phenomenon, the fire.

For the record, your opinions about symetry and your personal incredulity do not count as direct evidence to the contrary.
Hooper, I explained exactly why a symmetrical collapse has a 1 in a Million chance of occuring, but you just want to maintain your belief that fire can cause a symmetrical collapse.

You can't provide us with a single example of an objects supports being removed asymmetrically and producing a symmetrical collapse, but it's clear that your mind is made up. No matter how we explain it, what we tell you, you'll always fall back to "Oh, there was fire in the building. The building collapsed, so the fire caused it".

Enjoy living in the dark, because I explained why the collapse couldn't have happened due to fire and falling debris damage but you still want to think that caused it.

So since the rational people have concluded that the symmetrical free-fall collapse of WTC 7 is a hair short of impossible based on the damage, what would you like to talk about now since your mind is shut off to the obvious? The molten metal? The eutectic steel? The eyewitness accounts of explosions during the buildings collapse?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



BTW do you really think because you have no proof, and you think we have no proof, that it defaults to the OS? Really?


Unfortunately for you, yes, that's how it works. We observed the building on fire for an extended period of time then we observed the building collapsing. Until you can present direct evidence to the contrary the cause of the collapse remains the only other oberved phenomenon, the fire.

For the record, your opinions about symetry and your personal incredulity do not count as direct evidence to the contrary.



what evidence do you have? Reports that you have no idea what they mean?



22,000 gallons of jet fuel cannot disintegrate 500,000(the weight of each tower) tons of concrete and mild steel including building 7. It just doesn't happen that way.
And the shock wave impact or any damage from the planes entry did nothing to the result of the collapse. If that was the case the Japanese would have won the pacific with there Kamikaze tactics.


I suggest you truly inform yourself with construction/design and structural/civil engineering knowledge. Once you do. You'll understand.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Unfortunately for you, yes, that's how it works.


No hooper that is not how it works. You might have convinced yourself but I know better.


We observed the building on fire for an extended period of time then we observed the building collapsing. Until you can present direct evidence to the contrary the cause of the collapse remains the only other oberved phenomenon, the fire.


And if you pay attention to the details you'll also notice what I and others have pointed out. We can observe that the four outer walls ended up on top of the rest of the collapsed building, and that is evidence of the building collapsing in a symmetrical and controlled manner, why have you not addressed this?


For the record, your opinions about symetry and your personal incredulity do not count as direct evidence to the contrary.


Really? Opinions? Then you explain how a building can mimic an implosion demolition from fire alone. How was the timing so perfect, and the collapse so symmetrical, as to allow the outer walls to fall last, and land on top of the rest of the collapsed building? You need to explain that, not just keep repeating your erroneous claims.
Saying that didn't happen is just playing ignorant in order to dodge the point. You're not convincing anyone hooper, you don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to physics in this forum, whether that is truly ignorance, or it is on purpose.

There is no other way that can happen, nothing incredulous about that. Incredulity? What am I incredulous about, your unscientific claims? You're the one who is hand waving away science, and replacing it with faith in authority.



edit on 8/5/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Then you explain how a building can mimic an implosion demolition from fire alone.
What are you, stupid? Everybody knows that fire doesn't burn randomly and chaotically, it's actually magnetic and attracts itself to steel. All of the fires were burning on the core columns symmetrically for the same amount of time at the same temperature using the same amount of material until the core columns failed in a symmetrical manner that just happened to look exactly like a controlled demolition and match every characteristic. [/sarcasm]

Controlled demolition: Free-fall
WTC 7: Free-fall
Controlled demolition: Symmetrical collapse
WTC 7: Symmetrical collapse
Controlled demolition: A fault which causes the building to fall in on itself
WTC 7: A fault which caused the building to fall in on itself
Controlled demolition: Audible explosions
WTC 7: Audible explosions
Controlled demolition: Weeks of experts precisely setting up explosives so that the core columns will fail at the exact right time, because even being off by milliseconds will screw it up.
WTC 7: Fire causing the core columns to fail symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other even though they were burning randomly and asymmetrically.
Controlled demolition: Almost always successfully brings down a building
Fire: Has never brought down a skyscraper despite the fact that fires have covered entire buildings and burned for longer.

So every characteristic of the buildings collapse matches a controlled demolition, and none of them match a fire-caused collapse, but our buddy hooper here still thinks fire caused it.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join