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.

 

PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

page: 11
71
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Your theory is so far fetched that it just does not make any sense. You imagine conspirators to make a plan in which as many things can go wrong as possible, using never used before technology. That is not how any sensible person would go on to plan a thing like this. If you think that is how people would plan a conspiracy, the only conclusion I can make is that you would be terrible at it.

I actually would like to see truthers reproduce something like this, let a building burn 6 hours, then blow it up without any detectable signs of explosions recorded on video. Reproducing this would be a lot easier than the real thing, as you don't need to hide your self, you don't have to take in account fire fighters or police, you don't have to worry about the chaos that ruled that day. But still, it would be an amazing feat if truther could reproduce this even with a small building. It would at least show that this theory could be possible at all.

Since you claim it would be very easy, I think you should be the person coordinating this. Good luck




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

A slight problem with your theory that the destruction of WTC 7 resulted in the scrapping of an ENRON trial is that there was an ENRON trial :-
www.msnbc.msn.com...


Your term was "scrapped" -- they scrapped the Bush federal notes trial but there was more than just SEC documents so the ENRON trial could proceed.

>> Also Alfi, you've got 800 posts and all of them are 9/11 related. Isn't it more common that in Europe that 9/11 was seen as an inside job? To focus this much on an event in another country has to be a bit of an unhealthy preoccupation.

I do talk about 9/11 -- but it's in my own country, and it's just one of many things I see as our march towards a police state. Another thing I comment on is the lack of compassion and people rationalizing our torture of alleged enemies (there's evidence some of them were medical experiments for drug companies as well).

I see the 2008 Wall Street collapse as a byproduct of this corruption.

It's not like I'm emotional anymore about 9/11 -- it merely represents a fascinating thing for me that people can SEE an obvious controlled demolition, yet be told by authorities that it is not a controlled demolition. Many of the most pro gun, anti "Big" Government people are the most strident supporters of the Bush administrations theory of 911. Many of them are very religious.

I just wonder if there is a pattern,.. I understand a lot of relatively rational people (like my brother) are so ensconced in the status quo that they buy into the Popular Mechanics article and it's a done deal for them. But I wonder what drives people who have studied it MORE than the average American.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
It's not like I'm emotional anymore about 9/11 -- it merely represents a fascinating thing for me that people can SEE an obvious controlled demolition, yet be told by authorities that it is not a controlled demolition. Many of the most pro gun, anti "Big" Government people are the most strident supporters of the Bush administrations theory of 911. Many of them are very religious.


Only thing is that 99.9% of all people wouldn't have a clue what a collapse as result of just a fire should look like and how it would be different from controlled demolition. In fact, nobody can make an accurate prediction. Still, there are some significant differences between WTC7 collapse and controlled demolition. But you already know these, but choose to ignore them. And then as self appointed expert make the judgment that it was controlled demolition. If I had seen 100 buildings of a similar type burn for several hours, without any fire fighting, maybe I could make a sensible judgment about it. But maybe the conclusion would be that you can't predict the outcome. But since nobody has this knowledge, all you have left is speculation.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
We should fill the top floors of the Sears tower with jet fuel,

light it off,

and see what happens...

What is that tv show where they do things like that?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
We should fill the top floors of the Sears tower with jet fuel,

light it off,

and see what happens...

What is that tv show where they do things like that?


Fantasy Island.... where all the Truthers live.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Your theory is so far fetched that it just does not make any sense. You imagine conspirators to make a plan in which as many things can go wrong as possible, using never used before technology. That is not how any sensible person would go on to plan a thing like this. If you think that is how people would plan a conspiracy, the only conclusion I can make is that you would be terrible at it.

...

Since you claim it would be very easy, I think you should be the person coordinating this. Good luck


>> What is farfetched is the Gov theory you support.

Perhaps you are responding to other theories you might have heard. But truthfully, nobody can know everything about what was done beside the actual culprits. Al Qaeda probably was involved -- but as dupes. How hard is it to convince a cell that they should attack the US and you give them supplies and funds?

It's a straw man argument to say it's impossible to set up a building to demolish -- it has obviously been done before--whenever a large building needs removal and it all looks like 9/11. We also saw three buildings demolished -- or more improbably, brought down at free-fall speed. Somehow the supports that held up the building failed all the way into the ground. If a well-funded government with access to the building and months to prepare could not pull this off -- how did 19 guys with box cutters and just airplanes do it?

If the planes could bring it down -- then set charges WITH a plane could not? I don't get this kind of logic.

You argument that it was undetectable is basically false on it's premise -- because me and a 1500 engineers and counting, and thousands of others pretty much didn't buy it. Detecting also, would require evidence, and as it has been recorded, most of the steel which would have settled the matter was carted off before examination.

The NIST, by their own admission, did not investigate for demolitions materials.

I've never talked about any far-fetched technology. Just shaped charges that don't explode with flames (using C4 or some other electrically fired charge), and thermate.

>> That does not preclude other technology that could be involved. Jessie Ventura spoke of a nano-thermate jell that can be painted on and would look like a base coat of paint when dry.

Please don't put words in my mouth about other technology. I'm sure there is a bunch of things at the Pentagon we don't know about. But it's not my job to figure out what was done since obviously, the NIST went with their original concept and then tried to prove it. FEMA was ill equipped to investigate like the FBI would be, and were given a ruined crime scene.

The investigation by the 9/11 committee was stalled for over 4 years.

>> I haven't said anything above that is not on the record.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Perhaps you are responding to other theories you might have heard. But truthfully, nobody can know everything about what was done beside the actual culprits. Al Qaeda probably was involved -- but as dupes. How hard is it to convince a cell that they should attack the US and you give them supplies and funds?


I was talking about your theory specifically. If you were to plot such a conspiracy, would the way you are describing it really be how you would be doing it? Or would you shout it down because of the utter silliness of it? (I sure would, I can think of much better, less risky, more efficient ways of reaching the same goal, and I am not even as clever as the people you accuse of conspiring).


It's a straw man argument to say it's impossible to set up a building to demolish -- it has obviously been done before--whenever a large building needs removal and it all looks like 9/11. We also saw three buildings demolished -- or more improbably, brought down at free-fall speed. Somehow the supports that held up the building failed all the way into the ground. If a well-funded government with access to the building and months to prepare could not pull this off -- how did 19 guys with box cutters and just airplanes do it?


That is not what a straw man argument is. Look up what it means on Wikipedia.

However, what you write here is a straw man argument. I nowhere say it is impossible to demolish a building. What I do say is that it is impossible to demolish a building after first having it burn for 6 hours without any visual and audible effect that you expect with a controlled demolition (flashes and bangs), and without leaving and leftovers in the debris. Its up to the person claiming that it is possible (you even claim it is easy) to demonstrate it.


If the planes could bring it down -- then set charges WITH a plane could not? I don't get this kind of logic.


You do not understand the logic because you are building a straw man argument.


You argument that it was undetectable is basically false on it's premise -- because me and a 1500 engineers and counting, and thousands of others pretty much didn't buy it. Detecting also, would require evidence, and as it has been recorded, most of the steel which would have settled the matter was carted off before examination.


People not believing something is in no way evidence. Evidence would be, for example, a video showing bangs and flashes or leftovers from the explosive charges. What you are basically saying is that it must have been controlled demolition because there is no evidence, as it was removed before examination.


The NIST, by their own admission, did not investigate for demolitions materials.

I've never talked about any far-fetched technology. Just shaped charges that don't explode with flames (using C4 or some other electrically fired charge), and thermate.


Soundless charges that don't show shock waves do not exist. Technology that prevents explosives from being destroyed or detonated in a burning building for 6 hours while those same explosives are still capable of taking down the building and not leave any evidence (the isolation, wiring, detonators etc) do not exist, If you disagree, you will have to prove it.


>> That does not preclude other technology that could be involved. Jessie Ventura spoke of a nano-thermate jell that can be painted on and would look like a base coat of paint when dry.

Please don't put words in my mouth about other technology. I'm sure there is a bunch of things at the Pentagon we don't know about. But it's not my job to figure out what was done since obviously, the NIST went with their original concept and then tried to prove it. FEMA was ill equipped to investigate like the FBI would be, and were given a ruined crime scene.

The investigation by the 9/11 committee was stalled for over 4 years.

>> I haven't said anything above that is not on the record.


I am not putting words in your mouth. I am making clear what your explosives must be capable of in order for your theory to have worked. Good luck in showing that these explosives exist. I don't believe they do.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
It's not like I'm emotional anymore about 9/11 -- it merely represents a fascinating thing for me that people can SEE an obvious controlled demolition, yet be told by authorities that it is not a controlled demolition. Many of the most pro gun, anti "Big" Government people are the most strident supporters of the Bush administrations theory of 911. Many of them are very religious.


Only thing is that 99.9% of all people wouldn't have a clue what a collapse as result of just a fire should look like and how it would be different from controlled demolition. In fact, nobody can make an accurate prediction. Still, there are some significant differences between WTC7 collapse and controlled demolition. But you already know these, but choose to ignore them. And then as self appointed expert make the judgment that it was controlled demolition. If I had seen 100 buildings of a similar type burn for several hours, without any fire fighting, maybe I could make a sensible judgment about it. But maybe the conclusion would be that you can't predict the outcome. But since nobody has this knowledge, all you have left is speculation.



You are right.

As soon as I actually see a steel structure collapse do to fire, I think it will be news.

Still, there are some significant differences between WTC7 collapse and controlled demolition.

No, seriously I don't. The Penthouse collapse is consistent with the core leading the rest of the collapse. There was no pancake or "progressive collapse" because we see the whole side of the building coming straight down, and crumbling at the base. The building could not be collapsing "normally" on the side we did not have video tape of when the sight in view is falling at free fall -- because basically, it could not have fallen FASTER and it obviously did not fall slower because we would have seen it in the background.

If I had seen 100 buildings of a similar type burn for several hours, without any fire fighting, maybe I could make a sensible judgment about it.

You can find a dozen -- there are not hundreds of cases.

I don't think it's my EXPERT opinion that it collapsed -- I don't think it takes an expert to appreciate rudimentary physics. I can read about the temperatures of steel, and know that a few hours does not have enough time for the HEAT LOAD to become sufficient to weaken steel -- otherwise your home oven wouldn't be protected by a simple sheet of metal.

I don't need some conspiracy website or BushCo backed website to tell me what the truth is -- but occasionally I need some facts. When the facts conflict -- I have to use my own judgement.

>> The OFFICIAL story is trying to tell me that NORAD can't track planes inside the US. OFFICIALLY then, the Pentagon owes us our money back. The whole point was to defend the country from enemy planes. It's an insult to my intelligence to suggest that nobody would need to track bombers inside the country or that they would need transponders to do it. NORAD can also see air traffic control -- and THEY knew where the hijackers were.

Also, if you go off transponder, I'm pretty sure the FAA can discern known planes from unknown because if you ever try it, they will say; "will aircraft with heading 2.2 southbound from Detroit please tell us why they turned of their transponder?" on the general frequency. From what I learned flying with my dad, the pilot is listening to some general broadcast frequency and the tower where he intends to land.

I'm not an expert there, but it makes sense to me.

There are so many points that Bush Inc. made, that just don't sound like the truth. I think we've all hashed them a hundred times. The "government theory side" goes with the official story and nothing else, and the "truther side" uses the official documents contradictions, data from regular engineering, and other sources of information. Occasionally some of them talk about gravity beams and the like -- which complicates things.

If the military used some advanced technology -- then we could never prove anything, because it seems the burden of proof is on those pushing the most plausible explanation, and the corrupt government seems to be able to sit back and poke holes and ask for evidence -- as if anyone BUT THE CORRUPT BUSH GOVERNMENT had access.

During the Iraq war, evidence of WMDs was falsified. When accused of a program of torture, lies were said, and state secrets demanded, and then misinformation and finally pundits who explained how it was necessary. The same pattern was repeated over the 2008 financial collapse, the botched Katrina response, and dozens of other incidents that disgusted and horrified me.

>> Your concept is that the ONE TIME that BushCo was telling the truth was 9/11 and every other time they were caught was different. And I'm the one who needs credibility?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


When you said it's "What I do say is that it is impossible to demolish a building after first having it burn for 6 hours without any visual and audible effect that you expect with a controlled demolition (flashes and bangs), and without leaving and leftovers in the debris." -- I said that was a straw man argument. We saw the building demolished so "ipso facto" the burden of proof is on the BushCo side to explain how it fell by Progressive collapse.

Burning for 6 hours doesn't make a demolition LESS possible. Your conclusion that it left NO EVIDENCE flies in the face of the reports we got from firefighters who talked about "explosions" and of course, the little streams of molten steel -- obviously in anticipation of making millions on conspiracy theories later.

Most of the important structural material was carted off before FEMA "investigated" -- which they are unqualified to do. And the NIST is the one saying; "WE didn't see a need to investigate for demolitions" -- so obviously, your point about "no leftovers" is moot.

It doesn't take a master criminal if the police never investigate the crime, does it?

The NIST created a "Rube Goldberg" model where one support (#49 or something) in one corner of the building, caused a HORIZONTAL failure of attached supports, and then THIS caused all the supports at the same time to go straight down, and the building came down with NO RESISTANCE. I have only seen such a thing in a cartoon.




If the planes could bring it down -- then set charges WITH a plane could not? I don't get this kind of logic.

You do not understand the logic because you are building a straw man argument.


You keep saying "straw man" but I only use the argument put forth by the Bush administration -- if I MADE UP something that you or they didn't say to argue against the nonsense -- that's a straw man. Can we agree on that?

You did not reply to the simple question; "If a plane can bring down a building, is it not possible that a plane with demolition charges could bring down a building?"

>> You also talk about "flashes and bangs" but on the other reference demolitions, we don't see "flashes" -- and I've been saying all along that if you were rigging some building and didn't want to get caught, you'd use "shaped charges pointed inward" -- because, of course, you want to cut through an I-beam without being caught. No FLASH needed and only a firecracker "bang" which would only be heard INSIDE THE BUILDING.

This is consistent with firefighter reports.


>> The NIST's single column causing a symmetrical collapse doesn't hold water. The don't explain the explosions. They don't explain molten steel. They didn't test for demolitions or test for Thermate. The official investigation also only happened many years later and the officials themselves claimed they were "hamstrung by the administration" (their words, not mine).

Looks like a coverup the entire way.




Evidence would be, for example, a video showing bangs and flashes or leftovers from the explosive charges.


Again you speak of Flashes which would NOT be evident, and bangs which were reported. Shaped charges make less noise than normal demolition charges -- because, [drumroll] the bad guys don't want to get caught. If the Bush administration did it -- then we would see EXACTLY the kind of lame investigation followed by foot dragging and the corruption of the crime scene that we did.

I'm kind of done with this -- your rebuttals don't really answer anything -- and you are supposed to be coming from the revealed truth here. If you cannot use the NIST report to solve these nagging questions -- maybe your issue is with the NIST report.

I'm not being paid to figure out everything. But I'm pretty sure if I were given the money and resources and about two dozen people, there isn't anything I couldn't destroy and make it look like something natural -- especially when I've got the investigators in my pocket.

>> Why didn't the FBI investigate 9/11 like the first WTC bombing?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 





reaching a gross audience of 2,731,200 viewers.


So?

That means 331,000,000 + people did Not see it...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


OK, this last question is a valid one -- how could you rig a building to be demolished and have a fire in it?

1) The fires I saw were NOT extensive. There are a few videos of lots of ash and dust around the building but those are immediately after the collapse of the larger buildings.

Two floors had some fires on them. The original floor that had caught on fire allegedly from WTC 1 was already burnt out.

WE SAW THIS IN THE FILM of the OP. I'm not imagining it -- it's right there in the video. The fires were putting out black smoke which meant they weren't burning well.

2) Explosive charges can be flame resistant. Some charges probably went off early, but not enough to matter;
from Wikipedia;
4 is very stable and insensitive to most physical shocks. C4 cannot be detonated by a gunshot or by dropping it onto a hard surface. It does not explode when set on fire or exposed to microwave radiation. Detonation can only be initiated by a combination of extreme heat and a shockwave, such as when a detonator inserted into it is fired.

There are only two or three floors that ever got really cooking. I imagine that C4 is not the ONLY explosive that has a good heat tolerance. With a bit of fire-proofing foam or something sprayed over it -- I think that MOST of them would be fine from an office fire.

The "wiring" would not be done, as these would all be radio-controlled detonations.


3) We did NOT see evidence of a Pancake or Progressive collapse in any of the WTC buildings. A "pancake" collapse would show a "whoomp" the pushing out of debris and air as each level overcame the next. More or less, each level would start out at 0 speed, and move fast from there -- picking up speed as it fell. The time would take around 1 second for each floor (A 12ft floor takes .98 seconds to collapse) -- so it was too fast.

The alleged Progressive Collapse of WTC 7 is just bad "dog ate my homework" thinking. The whole structure doesn't show a ripple and dropped like a rock for 100 feet. That means one beam taken out by some debris from WTC 1 somehow caused beams to fail all across one level of the building (the 14th floor or thereabouts) -- and Meanwhile, the floor above doesn't move until the last one vaporizes -- then everything crumples without resistance.

You could imagine this vertically like a "house of cards" -- though I defy anyone to find a steel structure (not wood and concrete) that did this without being some mess in a earthquake riddled third world country where a contractor might not weld together the I-Beams. Some place like Haiti.

But if this were a house of cards (note that nobody glues the cards together), we'd see quite a bit of jostling from side to side as there has to be sheer force to remove the vertical supports -- because if you slow down a house of cards the "struts" are sliding and flattening out. Again -- this is to suppose that two floors with fires on them suddenly removes all the WELDING in the beams.

4) When I imagined a pancake collapse of WTC North tower back in 1999, I figured the floors -- designed kind of like bridges, would still be hanging onto the core, while the curtain walls would have to "push out" more than 12 degrees (as things collapse along the line of least resistance). We SHOULD have seen a good third of the building standing up like a collapsed umbrella, and the curtain wall SHOULD have been thrust out more, like petals from a flower.

>> Unfortunately, what we saw was buildings move down right through their areas of GREATEST STRENGTH, without resistance. If steel beams could suddenly turn to water -- that would make sense. The most likely reason is Demolition.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Here's a better post on the C4 Question; basically, there is NO WAY C4 will blow up even if it is burning. It requires a "shockwave" of a blasting cap combined with intense heat to explode.

LINK

So a C4 shaped charge will just add to the flames, but shouldn't be going off. The detonators, on the other hand might go off -- which might set off the C4. If there is an electronic detonator (like a spark plug), maybe there is a way to fire-proof a shaped charge.

It's funny that Mythbusters would show that thermate could go through an entire engine block in 30 seconds, but when they did the 911 version, they put an entire I-beam packed with thermate around it and it didn't do much damage. Seems to me, one of their shows contradicts the other. And merely a vertical versus putting thermate on top of steel doesn't seem to me like a huge difference as the heat is going to be dispersing through contact.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




I actually would like to see truthers reproduce something like this, let a building burn 6 hours, then blow it up without any detectable signs of explosions recorded on video. Reproducing this would be a lot easier than the real thing, as you don't need to hide your self, you don't have to take in account fire fighters or police, you don't have to worry about the chaos that ruled that day. But still, it would be an amazing feat if truther could reproduce this even with a small building. It would at least show that this theory could be possible at all.


Well your theory is that the building collapses by itself after 6 hours, so have a tiny firecracker in the building to satisfy your criteria. Easiest thing in the world.

Maybe you need to take out one column after the fire fatally weakens the structure? Maybe a half a stick of dynamite?

There is no sensible argument that you can produce that says that you need to have a clearly visible amount of explosives to have it done by explosives in addition to the fire, but that fire ALONE could do it no problem.

That is, unless your new argument is that some of the explosives magically healed the building too. Is that what you are arguing?
edit on 17-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Instead of all this nonsense, why don't you explain how the outer walls of a building can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building showing their outer facade? Please explain the process that allows that to happen. Not a trick question, thanks.






posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I've never heard of a fireman talking about a place "blowing up", when it clearly fell down, does that mean the terminology was incorrect, or contradictory?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I've never heard of a fireman talking about a place "blowing up", when it clearly fell down, does that mean the terminology was incorrect, or contradictory?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
It's interesting when you watch the HD vid of the collapse, that first some small structures on the roof collapse and then columns of windows blow up in sequence. All before the whole building started moving. I can understand windows breaking up when the structure lose shape, but before any movement the glass just blows out and the roof structure just falls down on its own....

Has anybody think about the possibility of a demolition through a different mechanism unknown to us? remember the Tesla Earthquake device? with sound frequencies you can make any structure collapse. Of course not us, average citizens with a speaker and an amp. But what about somebody with unlimited funds?

And in the case of the Towers....what about melting the frame in the corners with powerful laserbeams from high altitude or even orbit to make them fall in sequence?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
No, seriously I don't. The Penthouse collapse is consistent with the core leading the rest of the collapse. There was no pancake or "progressive collapse" because we see the whole side of the building coming straight down, and crumbling at the base. The building could not be collapsing "normally" on the side we did not have video tape of when the sight in view is falling at free fall -- because basically, it could not have fallen FASTER and it obviously did not fall slower because we would have seen it in the background.


Can you share a couple of cases of CD where this happens? And while you are at it, can you share a couple of cases of CD where there are no bangs and flashes?


You can find a dozen -- there are not hundreds of cases.

I don't think it's my EXPERT opinion that it collapsed -- I don't think it takes an expert to appreciate rudimentary physics. I can read about the temperatures of steel, and know that a few hours does not have enough time for the HEAT LOAD to become sufficient to weaken steel -- otherwise your home oven wouldn't be protected by a simple sheet of metal.

I don't need some conspiracy website or BushCo backed website to tell me what the truth is -- but occasionally I need some facts. When the facts conflict -- I have to use my own judgement.


This very piece of text proves that you do need a more expert understanding of physics, and probably chemistry, in order to make any sensible judgement. Comparing an oven of 200C with a fire that reaches 1000C is silly. You have no clue about the temperatures that were reached by the steel.


>> The OFFICIAL story is trying to tell me that NORAD can't track planes inside the US. OFFICIALLY then, the Pentagon owes us our money back. The whole point was to defend the country from enemy planes. It's an insult to my intelligence to suggest that nobody would need to track bombers inside the country or that they would need transponders to do it. NORAD can also see air traffic control -- and THEY knew where the hijackers were.


Its an insult to your intelligence to find out a government screws up? Can you show me a case where a government does not screw up?


Also, if you go off transponder, I'm pretty sure the FAA can discern known planes from unknown because if you ever try it, they will say; "will aircraft with heading 2.2 southbound from Detroit please tell us why they turned of their transponder?" on the general frequency. From what I learned flying with my dad, the pilot is listening to some general broadcast frequency and the tower where he intends to land.

I'm not an expert there, but it makes sense to me.


Correct, you are no expert.


There ... horrified me.

>> Your concept is that the ONE TIME that BushCo was telling the truth was 9/11 and every other time they were caught was different. And I'm the one who needs credibility?


"It doesn't feel right" is meaningless to me. And your last sentence is again plain silly. Do you seriously think that any given person either always lies or always tells the truth, but never sometimes tells a lies and sometimes tells the truth?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
When you said it's "What I do say is that it is impossible to demolish a building after first having it burn for 6 hours without any visual and audible effect that you expect with a controlled demolition (flashes and bangs), and without leaving and leftovers in the debris." -- I said that was a straw man argument. We saw the building demolished so "ipso facto" the burden of proof is on the BushCo side to explain how it fell by Progressive collapse.


It is not a straw man argument. Or do you disagree that the building burned for 6 hours? Or do you disagree there were no bangs and flashes? Or do you disagree no leftovers were found?

If you disagree, show this to be the case. Else you agree, and this is not a straw man argument.


Burning for 6 hours doesn't make a demolition LESS possible.


Not less possible, but extremely hard, and probably impossible without have any explosion recorded on video. If you disagree, show it. Its easy according to you.


Your conclusion that it left NO EVIDENCE flies in the face of the reports we got from firefighters who talked about "explosions" and of course, the little streams of molten steel -- obviously in anticipation of making millions on conspiracy theories later.

Most of the important structural material was carted off before FEMA "investigated" -- which they are unqualified to do. And the NIST is the one saying; "WE didn't see a need to investigate for demolitions" -- so obviously, your point about "no leftovers" is moot.

It doesn't take a master criminal if the police never investigate the crime, does it?

The NIST created a "Rube Goldberg" model where one support (#49 or something) in one corner of the building, caused a HORIZONTAL failure of attached supports, and then THIS caused all the supports at the same time to go straight down, and the building came down with NO RESISTANCE. I have only seen such a thing in a cartoon.


In building fires it is to be expected that stuff explodes. Molten steel was never demonstrated. You come with the usual worthless evidence truthers come with. Any real evidence, the type that would hold at a court, is nowhere to be seen.


You keep saying "straw man" but I only use the argument put forth by the Bush administration -- if I MADE UP something that you or they didn't say to argue against the nonsense -- that's a straw man. Can we agree on that?

You did not reply to the simple question; "If a plane can bring down a building, is it not possible that a plane with demolition charges could bring down a building?"


I did not answer because it is a straw man. Your question is beyond stupidity. (And I think I did answer it somewhere btw). Of course a building can be taken down with explosives. Who is arguing its not possible? Straw man.


>> You also talk about "flashes and bangs" but on the other reference demolitions, we don't see "flashes" -- and I've been saying all along that if you were rigging some building and didn't want to get caught, you'd use "shaped charges pointed inward" -- because, of course, you want to cut through an I-beam without being caught. No FLASH needed and only a firecracker "bang" which would only be heard INSIDE THE BUILDING.


Time for a demonstration. I don't believe this nonsense. Especially becuause you are no expert whatsoever and can make up anything.


>> The NIST's single column causing a symmetrical collapse doesn't hold water. The don't explain the explosions. They don't explain molten steel. They didn't test for demolitions or test for Thermate. The official investigation also only happened many years later and the officials themselves claimed they were "hamstrung by the administration" (their words, not mine).

Looks like a coverup the entire way.


It does hold water. Explosives on the other hand...


Again you speak of Flashes which would NOT be evident, and bangs which were reported. Shaped charges make less noise than normal demolition charges -- because, [drumroll] the bad guys don't want to get caught. If the Bush administration did it -- then we would see EXACTLY the kind of lame investigation followed by foot dragging and the corruption of the crime scene that we did.


Time to demonstrate it is possible. Well, I just realized again that the truth movement is completely incapable of getting anything done, and fully relies on the government, the people they do not trust, to do anything.


I'm kind of done with this -- your rebuttals don't really answer anything -- and you are supposed to be coming from the revealed truth here. If you cannot use the NIST report to solve these nagging questions -- maybe your issue is with the NIST report.


I asked a bunch of questions you do not like, because they kind of make your theory look silly and bad. I can understand you are done with this.
edit on 18-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
OK, this last question is a valid one -- how could you rig a building to be demolished and have a fire in it?

1) The fires I saw were NOT extensive. There are a few videos of lots of ash and dust around the building but those are immediately after the collapse of the larger buildings.

Two floors had some fires on them. The original floor that had caught on fire allegedly from WTC 1 was already burnt out.

WE SAW THIS IN THE FILM of the OP. I'm not imagining it -- it's right there in the video. The fires were putting out black smoke which meant they weren't burning well.


Who really cares what you saw or think. You have absolutely no clue about the fire temperatures in those buildings. You have absolutely no clue about what color smokes mean what. You read this on some silly conspiracy site.


2) Explosive charges can be flame resistant. Some charges probably went off early, but not enough to matter;
from Wikipedia;
4 is very stable and insensitive to most physical shocks. C4 cannot be detonated by a gunshot or by dropping it onto a hard surface. It does not explode when set on fire or exposed to microwave radiation. Detonation can only be initiated by a combination of extreme heat and a shockwave, such as when a detonator inserted into it is fired.


Do you think the C4, the detonators or wiring are still working after it has been exposed several hours to a hot fire? Demonstrate that this is possible. I don't believe this.


There are only two or three floors that ever got really cooking. I imagine that C4 is not the ONLY explosive that has a good heat tolerance. With a bit of fire-proofing foam or something sprayed over it -- I think that MOST of them would be fine from an office fire.

The "wiring" would not be done, as these would all be radio-controlled detonations.


Can you show me the heat tolerances of C4 and its detonator? You do understand that "not exploding" does not mean "not render useless" right? Do you also understand that, you being not an expert, your opinion is worthless, and you are just writing made up fantasies?


3) We did NOT see evidence of a Pancake or Progressive collapse in any of the WTC buildings. A "pancake" collapse would show a "whoomp" the pushing out of debris and air as each level overcame the next. More or less, each level would start out at 0 speed, and move fast from there -- picking up speed as it fell. The time would take around 1 second for each floor (A 12ft floor takes .98 seconds to collapse) -- so it was too fast.

The alleged Progressive Collapse of WTC 7 is just bad "dog ate my homework" thinking. The whole structure doesn't show a ripple and dropped like a rock for 100 feet. That means one beam taken out by some debris from WTC 1 somehow caused beams to fail all across one level of the building (the 14th floor or thereabouts) -- and Meanwhile, the floor above doesn't move until the last one vaporizes -- then everything crumples without resistance.

You could imagine this vertically like a "house of cards" -- though I defy anyone to find a steel structure (not wood and concrete) that did this without being some mess in a earthquake riddled third world country where a contractor might not weld together the I-Beams. Some place like Haiti.

But if this were a house of cards (note that nobody glues the cards together), we'd see quite a bit of jostling from side to side as there has to be sheer force to remove the vertical supports -- because if you slow down a house of cards the "struts" are sliding and flattening out. Again -- this is to suppose that two floors with fires on them suddenly removes all the WELDING in the beams.


I will remind you again, you are no expert, and what you say has no value. You either made this up (meaning it is worthless) or you read this on a truther site (meaning it is worthless).


4) When I imagined a pancake collapse of WTC North tower back in 1999, I figured the floors -- designed kind of like bridges, would still be hanging onto the core, while the curtain walls would have to "push out" more than 12 degrees (as things collapse along the line of least resistance). We SHOULD have seen a good third of the building standing up like a collapsed umbrella, and the curtain wall SHOULD have been thrust out more, like petals from a flower.

>> Unfortunately, what we saw was buildings move down right through their areas of GREATEST STRENGTH, without resistance. If steel beams could suddenly turn to water -- that would make sense. The most likely reason is Demolition.


I don't really care about what you imagine. If that is all you got, your imagination, there isn't much left to discuss.




top topics



 
71
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join