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: 15
71
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




You are basically debunking your fellow truthers by saying that the heat weakened the building to such a degree that almost no explosives are required. Al you need to do it remove the "almost", and I welcome you to the land of the rational. You have absolutely nothing to support the notion that the heat was just too small, and only a very small explosive was required. You can as well argue that none was required. The only reason you don't is because you want there to be explosives.


To enter the land of the rational one must first accept the basic tenets of logic.

Draw a Venn diagram PLB...

What I said includes every scenario from what you describe to the scenario where the fire had no role at all. I did not point to any particular position on that continuum. That is not the same thing as pointing to any particular position on that big broad continuum, which would be an entirely different argument.

What I DID say was that there is no point on that continuum that PROVES that there could be no explosives, so the apparent magnitude of the explosion cannot be used as an argument that there was no explosives, no matter how small the explosions needed to be to not be readily aurally apparent on the available footage.

Learn to separate propositions in your mind PLB, this will help you enter the land of the rational.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The only evidence of the so called 'lean to the west' is a vid that only shows part of the building.

The building isn't leaning to the west, you are seeing the one wall that the vid shows, falling inwards.


I'm sure you mean "south". The building fell tilting towards the south, which is why we have the north side draped over the debris.



What you miss in the vid is the other three walls falling inwards.

Proof of this is post collapse pics, that show all four walls on top of the collapsed building, so they all had to have fallen inwards as the building collapsed.



Four walls? That's odd cause originally it was the north side. Then it was three sides. Now its four. Which is it ANOK?

and where is the roof?




If the whole building had fallen in one direction, to the west, then it wouldn't be in its footprint, which post collapse pics show it most definitely was.

This old tired excuse has been debunked so many times. Round and around we go again.


edit on 1/18/2012 by ANOK because: typo


Once again, I believe you meant south. And no it wasnt in its footprint. Ask the folks at Fritterman Hall. How did it manage to jump back and hit it? Or how the debris originally landed clear across the street.

yes ANOK, and please post video of the detonations heard in sequence prior to collapse. Or a firefighter's testimonial of a sequence of sharp explosions in sequence prior to WTC7 moving down. Remember, in any CD, explosions are heard first, THEN the building starts to move. I shall wait, as I usually do for anything relevant to my question from you.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





I'm sure you mean "south". The building fell tilting towards the south, which is why we have the north side draped over the debris.


Seriously, it is arguing points like this that makes people doubt the OS.

Sometimes it is okay to just say "We don't really understand why the building fell into its own footprint like that". That is enough.

Arguing that it did anything but what is patently obvious for anybody with two eyes to see (that it fell into what any reasonable commentator would describe as its own footprint) just makes the OS seem like more of a joke than it already is.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Yeah whatever way you claimed it fell it makes no difference because that is not what it did.

The building did not fall to the south or any other direction, the mass of the building fell equally in all four directions, and walls from all four directions can be seen on top of the debris.

If you can't see that, it's not my problem...



OK here's your chance to prove your claim, show me on that pic where the building fell to the south. No excuses. Here is a link to the original...

img214.imageshack.us...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
To enter the land of the rational one must first accept the basic tenets of logic.

Draw a Venn diagram PLB...

What I said includes every scenario from what you describe to the scenario where the fire had no role at all. I did not point to any particular position on that continuum. That is not the same thing as pointing to any particular position on that big broad continuum, which would be an entirely different argument.

What I DID say was that there is no point on that continuum that PROVES that there could be no explosives, so the apparent magnitude of the explosion cannot be used as an argument that there was no explosives, no matter how small the explosions needed to be to not be readily aurally apparent on the available footage.

Learn to separate propositions in your mind PLB, this will help you enter the land of the rational.



I hope you do understand that your options now include that fires alone can do it. Meaning you are not the kind of truther claiming fire alone can't possibly do it. From here on its not much further to realize how silly claims of explosives are, and how they lack any evidence.

But I think instead you just miserably missed the point of my post, and still for some irrational reason exclude the possibility there were no explosives. Which is more likely as logic isn't really your thing.
edit on 19-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
You are obviously NOT getting the point; shaped charges with C4 aren't going to make much of a flash and the "bang" is like a firecracker -- and the Firefighters reported "bangs."

The "leftovers" would be nothing much except what a forensics and a bomb squad might discern. Steel would have sharp cuts, there would be little "balls" of metal left of aluminum and iron. A mechanism MIGHT be found but only by someone who knew what they were looking for -- most of it would be destroyed by the blasting cap. Your point about "LEFTOVERS" was clearly a point made in the OP video; the NIST did NOT investigate for explosives and FEMA only got on sight after most of the steel was removed and no doubt BushCo agents got a chance to remove most things that might incriminate. The CRIME SCENE was destroyed by then.

Whatever charges were in "6 hours" of fires probably went off. But MOST of the building was not in even 15 minutes of fire and even the heavily burning parts would have a fire move on after about an hour when all the material burnt out.

It's seems you are trying really hard not to get the point -- and it's tiresome. I've talked about Flash and Bang so far 6 times and I'm afraid I'm going to start cussing and a person with an agenda if I have to go longer.

>> it's because of people like you that Conspiracies so successfully get away with murder. I think this video from A&E is a lot clearer than the pro-Bush ones, and I think that most people who watch it are going to come have more questions.


I have read you non-expert baseless assertions, and I do get your point. But I think your theory is complete utter nonsense. So I am saying that in order to convince anyone, you require to demonstrate that your non-expert baseless assertions actually have any connection with reality.
edit on 19-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




I hope you do understand that your options now include that fires alone can do it. Meaning you are not the kind of truther claiming fire alone can't possibly do it. From here on its not much further to realize how silly claims of explosives are, and how they lack any evidence.


Yes, at the one end of that CONTINUUM is the position that fires alone did it, so what is your point?

My point point is that there is NO POINT on the continuum that shows that explosives was NOT involved because the damage done by fire alone can be done by fire plus explosives that does no damage. So even if the explosives did not do ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER, it still does not prove that there were no explosives.

I know this is hard for you PLB, but do try to get it clear that lines and points are different types of things. For the record I do believe that fire couldn't possibly do it, but that is a separate argument to this one about YOUR argument failing to be consistent with itself because YOUR ARGUMENT posits a continuum of possibilities upon which YOUR CONCLUSION does not reside.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Yes, at the one end of that CONTINUUM is the position that fires alone did it, so what is your point?

My point point is that there is NO POINT on the continuum that shows that explosives was NOT involved because the damage done by fire alone can be done by fire plus explosives that does no damage. So even if the explosives did not do ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER, it still does not prove that there were no explosives.

I know this is hard for you PLB, but do try to get it clear that lines and points are different types of things. For the record I do believe that fire couldn't possibly do it, but that is a separate argument to this one about YOUR argument failing to be consistent with itself because YOUR ARGUMENT posits a continuum of possibilities upon which YOUR CONCLUSION does not reside.


You will notice it is not so hard for me at all, that I understand your point, but that you fail to understand my point. Notice for example that I nowhere said that it is not possible for fires+explosives to make the buildings collapse. It is just your delusional mind reading things that are not there.

The argument goes like this:

me: where are the bangs and flashes
you: the fire made the building very weak, so only very small explosives are required
me: if the fire made the buildings so weak, you can as well argue that no explosives are required
you: no, the building was not very weak, you require significant explosives
me: well then where are the bangs and flashes.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




The argument goes like this:

me: where are the bangs and flashes
you: the fire made the building very weak, so only very small explosives are required
me: if the fire made the buildings so weak, you can as well argue that no explosives are required
you: no, the building was not very weak, you require significant explosives
me: well then where are the bangs and flashes.


Uhm, no. Try this:

you: where are the bangs and flashes?

me: you tell whether there were explosions by simply looking for audible and readily apparent bangs and flashes on the available video record because there is no "standard amount" and there is no minimum amount of damage that explosives need to do. The video record is also patchy and the conditions for capturing audio was far from ideal, what's more there are means of doing the same damage you claim was done with fire by using thermite or sound-proofed explosives that would leave no bangs or flashes on the audio record.

you: if the fire made the buildings so weak, you can as well argue that no explosives are required

me: we can't tell how weak the fire made the building by looking for bangs and flashes alone because there is no one standard way to demolish buildings and all the damage that you suppose was done by fire can have been more easily done with thermite and can be reproducibly done in this manner while it is not clear that it be reproducibly done with fire. What we can say is that even in the extreme case of the fire doing all the damage it still does not exclude the presence of explosives, so there is no sense which the absence of readily apparent bangs and flashes indicate in any way shape or form the absence of actual explosives.

you: well then where are the bangs and flashes.

me: yeah, you're not very good at this reading comprehension thing are you?
edit on 19-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GenRadek
 
I am aware of the substation. In my mind, that doesn't explain the number of simultaneous failures that would have to happen to result in the level of symmetry I see. But it's definitely an important factor to consider.

There was a lean in WTC7, but not until much of the collapse had already occurred. the mobile/cell phone example is of course pathetic, I presume it as a joke. IMO, you will find leading posts by 'the numbers here' who alawys attempt to draw all three collapses together as a rational possibility with the main suspect as fire, they offer nothing else, and that is also the official explanation. My standpoint, regardless of the end result or cause, is that the official view also means then that those buildings were not fit for the purpose neither now, or when they were built in the worst case scenario. The twin towers were vunerable and that should have been known in the first instance, WTC7 also a hi-rise was also vunerable as it turned out. There is much room for suspicion, and while 'the numbers' waffle, Anok makes the valuable contributions.

edit on 18-1-2012 by VitriolAndAngst because: (no reason given)



The FLAWS in WTC buildings is just handwaving by the NIST. It would be great if there were some metallurgical proof that everyone could examine. WTC 7 was an unexceptional building with a very fantastic explanation for it's destruction that defies any historical evidence or physics.

Remember that WTC 1 had both an extremely large truck bomb and a fire for many hours (before sprinklers were added) before 9/11 so if there were these amazing flaws -- why did they not show up then?

edit on 18-1-2012 by VitriolAndAngst because: quote regions were off


I didn't say that I believe the official story, I was pointing out what is, (has to be) entailed if you do believe the official story, AKA that buildings were vunerable to fire, there's no way round that, and if you ask me, NIST shot itself in the foot by coming to that conclusion.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Conclusion: Darkwing desperately want explosives to be there but can't really come with an argument why the building could not collapse without them.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 


Footprint is not nonsense, it is the holy grail for demolition, even more so now in up to date electronic timing devices. That is a mile away from you saying pictorial observation of a collapse makes fire and gravity the culprit since there are all the different ways to make a building fall down in it's own footprint, or any other way for that matter.


If you have any examples of NON-Demolitions that fell inside their own footprints -- go find them. I'm sure there have to be one or two outside of 9/11. But just saying it repeatedly is NOT being honest or inquisitive.


I think you misunderstood, "The different ways" I refer to were different ways of demolition, and there are different ways. WTC7 would not normally have been a candidate for an explosive demolition given its size, whoever did it pulled it off successfully.
edit on 19-1-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Ah, so basic little facts and details are not important? Really? I think they are because thanks to people like you, leaving out the important minor details allows for truthers to come up with more crap to push their nonsense inside job stories. Convinently leaving out certain words, or facts, or changing one word for another, and what was once the truth is now a fabrication, or a lie, that is being now used to push garbage. Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected, truthers dont give a crap about the small details.

That is why people dont take truthers seriously, and why debunkers care to nip it in the bud. Cause those little facts that are left out or changed create garbage fodder for Truthers to shovel out as "Truth".



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Ah, so basic little facts and details are not important? Really? I think they are because thanks to people like you, leaving out the important minor details allows for truthers to come up with more crap to push their nonsense inside job stories. Convinently leaving out certain words, or facts, or changing one word for another, and what was once the truth is now a fabrication, or a lie, that is being now used to push garbage. Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected, truthers dont give a crap about the small details.

That is why people dont take truthers seriously, and why debunkers care to nip it in the bud. Cause those little facts that are left out or changed create garbage fodder for Truthers to shovel out as "Truth".


I think you can safely apply omissions and indeed assumptions were made by NIST. Once those omissions and assumptions were 'twigged' by others, their crediblity as a neutral entity was scuppered.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
That is why people dont take truthers seriously, and why debunkers care to nip it in the bud. Cause those little facts that are left out or changed create garbage fodder for Truthers to shovel out as "Truth".


What facts are left out?

We are the ones who bring up the details that you ignore. Details like equal oposite reaction, and momentum conservation. The fact that sagging trusses can not pull on columns. The fact that the FoS of the floors would allow then to hold their weight many times over, meaning failure of the floors would not be instant. The fact the heat transfer means steel temps would be nowhere near the fire temps, especially in only an hour. The fact that WTC 7 landed mostly in it's own footprint. The fact that a person could stand exactly where is was supposedly so hot steel could sag.

I could go on with details you either ignore, or make lame excuses for.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
That is why people dont take truthers seriously, and why debunkers care to nip it in the bud. Cause those little facts that are left out or changed create garbage fodder for Truthers to shovel out as "Truth".


What facts are left out?

We are the ones who bring up the details that you ignore. Details like equal oposite reaction, and momentum conservation. The fact that sagging trusses can not pull on columns. The fact that the FoS of the floors would allow then to hold their weight many times over, meaning failure of the floors would not be instant. The fact the heat transfer means steel temps would be nowhere near the fire temps, especially in only an hour. The fact that WTC 7 landed mostly in it's own footprint. The fact that a person could stand exactly where is was supposedly so hot steel could sag.

I could go on with details you either ignore, or make lame excuses for.


Then there are the NIST timeline variants, sagging steel, softening steel, and finally thermal expansion of column 79, who would have believed that steel expands with heat

All buzzwords for public consumption of course. And, as I have discovered, they had gone all buzzyword with the towers..just to make you hungry, Pancake, liquorice steel, and for WTC7 scooped out, sounds more like a popular mechanics idea. Then there is the NIST report assumption, "Assuming WTC7 collapse acceleration was approx/mainly constant", (which it wasn't to hide freefall) and compounded by, "thus the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on the video evidence, was approximately 40% longer than the computed free-fall time" Two seperate statements to make things agree with each other, based on the first assumption and its mathmatical constant model. In other words, it's a load of shiite.
edit on 19-1-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 






What facts are left out?

We are the ones who bring up the details that you ignore. Details like equal oposite reaction, and momentum conservation. The fact that sagging trusses can not pull on columns. The fact that the FoS of the floors would allow then to hold their weight many times over, meaning failure of the floors would not be instant. The fact the heat transfer means steel temps would be nowhere near the fire temps, especially in only an hour. The fact that WTC 7 landed mostly in it's own footprint. The fact that a person could stand exactly where is was supposedly so hot steel could sag.

I could go on with details you either ignore, or make lame excuses for.


Nevermind the inconvenient little tidbit that none of OS' "facts" manage to reach into the realm of reproducible science.

Not for lack of trying mind you.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Conclusion: Darkwing desperately want explosives to be there but can't really come with an argument why the building could not collapse without them.


If you had managed to read what I wrote you may have noticed that nothing in that post was presented as proof that there were explosives.

The only thing I said was that none of the things you think proves there was NO explosives actually do so.

But I am expecting you to read with understanding, which apparently is a big ask.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Then there are the NIST timeline variants, sagging steel, softening steel, and finally thermal expansion of column 79, who would have believed that steel expands with heat




So steel does not sag when heated? Steel does not soften when heated? Thermal expansion does not happen?



All buzzwords for public consumption of course. And, as I have discovered, they had gone all buzzyword with the towers..just to make you hungry, Pancake, liquorice steel, and for WTC7 scooped out, sounds more like a popular mechanics idea. Then there is the NIST report assumption, "Assuming WTC7 collapse acceleration was approx/mainly constant", (which it wasn't to hide freefall) and compounded by, "thus the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on the video evidence, was approximately 40% longer than the computed free-fall time" Two seperate statements to make things agree with each other, based on the first assumption and its mathmatical constant model. In other words, it's a load of shiite.
edit on 19-1-2012 by smurfy because: Text.


But what is so hard to understand about what NIST said about WTC7? The collapse of WTC7 was far longer than a free-fall collapse. I understand it. ASCE had no problem with it. Acceleration was constant but it was far slower than the constant of free-fall. Boy it seems as if reading comprehension is what causes so man problems for the Truth Movement.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

What facts are left out?

We are the ones who bring up the details that you ignore. Details like equal oposite reaction, and momentum conservation. The fact that sagging trusses can not pull on columns. The fact that the FoS of the floors would allow then to hold their weight many times over, meaning failure of the floors would not be instant. The fact the heat transfer means steel temps would be nowhere near the fire temps, especially in only an hour. The fact that WTC 7 landed mostly in it's own footprint. The fact that a person could stand exactly where is was supposedly so hot steel could sag.

I could go on with details you either ignore, or make lame excuses for.


Ah yes, if only, only you understood how to implement opposite and equal reaction whenever you try to bludgeon someone with it.
You've only been corrected a few hundred times and yet you still insist to be wrong. Sagging trusses can create a pulling force when coupled with loading.
It is what he have been saying all along and yet it does not compute for you. Makes me nervous then when you start quoting Newton when you cannot even understand what is being said in simpler forms. Heat transfer?
ANOK, do you even understand how THAT works in relation to the objects heated? I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with surface area and objects in contact. You've been corrected before ANOK.

And again with this thing about the person in the entry hole. My god how many times must it be repeated and explained to you before it sinks in? It is getting mighty old and a little aggravating, your willful ignorance. One last time ANOK: The impact hole was facing the wind. Fire likes to travel towards more fuel and combustables and gets pushed by wind. The winds were blowing right into the hole, which caused the flames to travel deeper into the building and higher up into the tower. The person then managed to get to the hole from an area that was not affected, and was standing directly in fresh air blowing INTO the tower at the impact zone. It cleared up the smoke and was not an inferno anymore. And looking at the photos, you can see that a few floors above her, the fires are raging across multiple floors and farther inside the building. The fire, traveled, ANOK, Mr. Physics. I thought you could at least figure THAT out. But you still cant, which makes me leery about you tackling more complicated issues like N3rdL. Details? Let's get the easier things straightened out first. You are still so far behind.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join