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: 18
71
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK



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...



If you choose to see that then you're basically just acting on faith. There's no evidence from that picture that the wall at the top has fallen inwards. You've even made two red shapes with arrows (at the top corners) that are complete supposition on your part. You are, effectively, seeing things.

I notice you roll out the old saw about it being someone else's responsibility to "prove" the "OS". You must realise that in practice this is nonsense. Nowhere are your ideas mainstream. You are failing to win an argument that you say is self-evident, and which therefore should be easily accepted.

Even if the fact that it is not doesn't tell you something about its weakness, it should at least convince you that you have some work to do. And that the burden of proof is with you.




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




You know, how a REAL cd should sound like.


No.

It is the sound what a real cd

CAN

sound like.

How do you even have the cognitive capacity to navigate a keyboard without being imbued with the capacity to understand the difference between these two propositions.

Either you are irrational or you are trolling.

Also a cd:


No explosive noises.

Can we move on please?

Before you go there. Yes, you can very much have large explosions at that range without a sound being in evidence, here is a patent for one such device: www.trainex.org...
edit on 21-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


So you're saying there were explosives, but they were silent. And you've used a video of a cd with no explosives as some sort of corroboration?

Either that or you're just frigging around with some sort of daft semantic nonsense that doesn't really further your cause.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


All I got to say to you is if you can't see that the outside walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building is significant, and in fact proof the building landed mostly in its own footprint, then you have no idea what you are looking at.

That one pic alone debunks the building fell to the west or south or any one direction. The majority of the mass fell straight down and stayed within the footprint.

I don't care what you or anyone says, I know fire can not do that. Only in the imaginations of the ignorant.

Implosion demolition can. One hell of a job actually, as it was the tallest building ever to be 'imploded'.


edit on 1/21/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


All I got to say to you is if you can't see that the outside walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building is significant, and in fact proof the building landed mostly in its own footprint, then you have no idea what you are looking at.

That one pic alone debunks the building fell to the west or south or any one direction. The majority of the mass fell straight down and stayed within the footprint.

I don't care what you or anyone says, I know fire can not do that. Only in the imaginations of the ignorant.

Implosion demolition can. One hell of a job actually, as it was the tallest building ever to be 'imploded'.


edit on 1/21/2012 by ANOK because: typo


I don't agree WTC 7 fell "outside its own footprint", because, even if it was a natural collapse, the building simply did not "fall over". It went straight down, for a long phase of its collapse. At the end, there is indeed a tipping towards the south.



The tipping seen here is insufficient to project the building's mass far outside its footprint, although it's well known Fiterman Hall was severely damaged.

The reason "debunkers" feel compelled to repeatedly contest this, is that they feel so intellectually superior, to even grant their opponents this, would feel like or be perceived as surrender.

"Debunkers" feel that to concede WTC 7 fell in its own footprint would somehow undermine their case, which I think is silly, because it doesn't. "Truthers", on the other hand, wish do deny any tipping occurred whatsoever. This is equally irrational.
edit on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
"Debunkers" feel that to concede WTC 7 fell in its own footprint would somehow undermine their case, which I think is silly, because it doesn't. "Truthers", on the other hand, wish do deny any tipping occurred whatsoever. This is equally irrational.


reply to post by snowcrash911
 


The building falling to the south is just an assumption from bias.

You can only see the one wall in that video, what you can't see is the tops of the other three walls doing the same thing, falling inwards, to end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building. Post collapse pics show that to be the case. Post collapse pics are not consistent with the building falling in any other direction but straight down. The outside walls could not be where they are if the building fell naturally to one direction.

Vids and post collapse pics are consistent with a straight down collapse, outside walls from all four directions laying on top of the rest of the collapsed building is the definition of 'in its own footprint'.

Denying what is obvious from vids and pics is intellectual dishonesty.

The OSers will do all they can to deny that for obvious reasons. Who cares? They can babble on all day wasting their time for all I care. I think most folks here can see through them by now.


edit on 1/22/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The building tips to the south near the end of its fall. Watch the video.

You are in denial.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



So you're saying there were explosives, but they were silent. And you've used a video of a cd with no explosives as some sort of corroboration?

Either that or you're just frigging around with some sort of daft semantic nonsense that doesn't really further your cause.


It is not semantic nonsense.

When GenRadek posts of video of a cd using explosives and claims that ALL cd's must use explosives it just plain wrong. There is no FACTual basis for his opinion. Because some cd's obviously don't use explosives, in fact most don't.

When PLB claims that if there were explosives they MUST be heard he is just plain wrong. Because there are PATENTED ways of damping the noise of explosions and there is no established minimum threshold for how much explosives needed to be used. There is no reason to believe, as a matter of FACT, that a small well placed charge could not have brought down the buildings. In FACT, implied in PLB's own position is that the buildings came down very easily, so why does he then believe that to do the same thing with explosives would require tons of the stuff?

It isn't semantic nonsense to point out that neither of these positions has any basis in FACT.

If all you need to knock the buildings down is take out a number of core columns or other columns then that can be achieved through thermite/thermate as demonstrated EMPIRICALLY (i.e. as a matter of fact) by Cole, and neither leaves a residue that was not as a matter FACT detected at the scene,

None of the FACTS are with OS, and I am the one dealing in semantic arguments?

edit on 22-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ANOK
 


The building tips to the south near the end of its fall. Watch the video.

You are in denial.


No, you look at the video again. You can only see the one wall, a little bit of the facing wall, you can not see the other walls. You can not see the whole building lean, so the claim is bogus. In fact as I explained, post collapse pics show that the building did not lean in any one direction. Post collapse pics can not lie. The building could not have both leaned in any one direction and have the outer walls sitting on top of the rubble.

If the building had collapsed in any one direction then the rubble pile would have followed that direction.

Denial has nothing to do with it, observation of the visual evidence has. You can cling to the myth the building leaned to the south if you want, but you will have to reconcile that with the post collapse pics that show you to be wrong. All you have is that one vid, and it is inconclusive at best, but with the other evidence it's obvious what we are really observing.

Outer wall folded inwards on top of the rubble pile...





Here is another vid that claims the lean, but again shows only one wall as it folds inwards on top of the rest of the collapsed building, 'implosion demolition' style, as evidenced in post collapsed pics...




edit on 1/22/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


The majority of the mass fell straight down and stayed within the footprint.


What sort of majority? 95 per cent?

The fact is that you've annotated the picture to show something that it does not. Why is there so much damage above the top line of the building? What caused that if your red arrows are correct?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01


When GenRadek posts of video of a cd using explosives and claims that ALL cd's must use explosives it just plain wrong. There is no FACTual basis for his opinion. Because some cd's obviously don't use explosives, in fact most don't.


That's not really what he claimed. But whatever.




When PLB claims that if there were explosives they MUST be heard he is just plain wrong. Because there are PATENTED ways of damping the noise of explosions and there is no established minimum threshold for how much explosives needed to be used. There is no reason to believe, as a matter of FACT, that a small well placed charge could not have brought down the buildings. In FACT, implied in PLB's own position is that the buildings came down very easily, so why does he then believe that to do the same thing with explosives would require tons of the stuff?


One can turn that question around though. If you think the buildings can come down very easily why do you not believe that it was acheived without sinister outside agency? After all if only a small failure is required why do you think any explosive at all would be required?




It isn't semantic nonsense to point out that neither of these positions has any basis in FACT.


It is. Or at the very least it is misleading and sophistic. Because you're trying to show that explosive demolitions of this size can occur silently by producing a video that involves no explosives. And then producing information about explosives which have no history of use in this type of context.




If all you need to knock the buildings down is take out a number of core columns or other columns then that can be achieved through thermite/thermate as demonstrated EMPIRICALLY (i.e. as a matter of fact) by Cole, and neither leaves a residue that was not as a matter FACT detected at the scene,


We'll have to agree to disagree there. I think the science of both is laughablly inadequate, as does most of the rest of the world. If you need it to be true I guess you'll find reasons.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The video shows without any question whatsoever that WTC 7 leaned south towards the end of its collapse.



You are in severe denial. I know what I'm seeing and I know you are lying about it. Pathetically.

The post collapse pictures do not debunk leaning and they don't need to, as I explained.

I said leaning towards the end, not tipping at the beginning, Anok.
edit on 22-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
The capacity for conspiranoids to live in a fantasy world completely divorced from all reality never ceases to amaze me. Even with unequivocal video evidence shoved in their faces, they continue to deny and lie.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


You guys are crazy! WTC7 wasn't brought down by controlled demolition, fire brought it down! Fire is what caused the building to collapse symmetrically in a way that parallels demolitions, by symmetrically severing the core columns at the exact same moment to ensure symmetry.

And this happened on several floors, allowing the building to free-fall during it's collapse. Because fire is capable of doing that. If there's anything we know about fire, it's that it burns perfectly symmetrically. In fact, it's so predictable and uniform in it's damage, that it could caused several core columns to fail within less than a second of each other allowing the symmetry and free-fall. That's completely possible, and that's what happened. Just ask NIST, the mainstream media, and George Bush.

If you disagree with them, even if you're a structural engineer or high-rise architect with decades of experience, you're nothing more than a charlatan peddling conspiracy theories in order to fool gullible idiots into buying your film, because a career in architecture or engineering definitely doesn't pay good, so they need to make a couple hundred bucks for doing an interview.

And the BBC reporting it's collapse before it happened? That was just some confusion, that's all. They weren't handed a script that was read at the wrong time, because they were playing their role in the agenda, they were just confused, because it was a chaotic day. I know when I'm confused, I can accurately predict events that have never happened in history, such as steel-framed skyscrapers collapsing entirely from fire damage.

Those dozens of people who reported explosions, many of which explicity stated things like "I know what explosions sound like. It wasn't the sound of a building collapsing that I mistook for explosions, they were without a doubt explosions", are all lying. They just heard the building collapsing, that's all. 100 witnesses reporting the same thing, 200 witnesses, who cares. They're all wrong about hearing explosions, and me, one person, is right, and am in the position to tell all of them that they're incorrect.
edit on 16-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)


So a 40 odd storey sky scraper came down symmetyrically, with a tell tale kink in the middle, at free fall speed, within its own footprint all due to fire on a few floors? Right...

Now, tell us who you are working for?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 


Tupac was being sarcastic there GIb' if you read it again, you will see.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You can't light thermite or thermate with the temperatures generated in an office building fire.


Except for Jones "thermite", which ignites at 430 degrees. Even if this is true, you will still have to show the detonator is still working.


You mean apart from eutectic melting and iron micro-spheres?

No, it doesn't leave any obvious trace. The reaction products of thermite are iron and aluminium oxide.


So no cut pieces of metal? How does the thermite damage the building then?


If it was some other explosive in a purpose built containment device, all the residue would be inside the device, all that a cleanup crew would need to do is to locate and remove the (what would be fairly bulky) devices which would obviously remain physically intact. If you can safeguard sensitive recording equipment in a black box then you can safeguard much less sensitive secondary or tertiary explosives in a box like this.


Ok, so clean up crew is in on the conspiracy. Check. And of course, no residue is spilled outside the apparatus. Sound really plausible (not).


I take it you know the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary explosives?


No I don't, and I don't care. Excellent job avoiding my question whether your theory is falsifiable (and how). I take it isn't, so its worthless.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


One thing about this collapse is in favor of the truthers though, the penthouse collapsed a couple of seconds early. Oh wait, it didn't.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


You did it again Darkwing. You made me laugh
. Having a video of a collapse without explosives to support your theory that CD can also be done without bangs. Only oops, where are the explosives. THEY GONE


edit: I see that you already realized your epic fail and added a document in an attempt to save your face. I can tell you it didn't work. How about you show us a demonstration of your hush-a-booms in action taking down a building?
edit on 22-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Except for Jones "thermite", which ignites at 430 degrees. Even if this is true, you will still have to show the detonator is still working.


Haven't we been through this?

If you can secure people and equipment from the heat of re-entry from outer space you can secure secure an explosive device from an office fire...




Having a video of a collapse without explosives to support your theory that CD can also be done without bangs. Only oops, where are the explosives. THEY GONE



Explosive cd uses explosives to remove key support structures to effect a demolition.
Verinage uses cables and pulleys to remove key support structures to effect a demolition.
X uses Y to remove key support structures to effect a demolition.
Thermite demolition uses thermite to remove key support structures to effect a demolition.

The only question is whether thermite can be used to remove key support structures, Cole proved it can. Therefore thermite can be used to do a cd.

"cd" means Controlled Demolition, just fyi. Controlled demolition is as opposed to fire induced spontaneous collapse, not as opposed Verinage (which is just another type of controlled demolition). There is a company called "Controlled Demolition inc." that specializes in using explosives, but there is no reason to suppose that this technique was the one used on this occasion.

In fact the whole ruse that you employ is to use that fact (that that company uses explosives in THAT manner) to hoodwink the unwary into thinking that that is the only way to use explosives to effect a demolition, or that high explosives (that make a big noise) are the only types of explosives that can be used. The thermate Cole demonstrated would be classed as LOW explosives and would not make the loud bang associated with the work of the company: "Controlled Demolition inc." but would still be what most people describe as a controlled demolition.

But even if you ignore that, I have demonstrated, and you have failed to acknowledge, that the use of high explosives does not equate to there necessarily being a detectable BOOM from any appreciable distance. It is simply a question of how much money you are prepared to spend to dampen the noise. So even the basic underlying premise of your position is wholly without merit.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


In fact the quote on the Wikipedia page for the company is instructive in this regard:

en.wikipedia.org...


The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

—Stacy Loizeaux, NOVA, December 1996

In other words, there is no significant difference in effect between a Verinage demolition and a made for T.V. High Explosive demolition. The only difference is that one is done by the COMPANY Controlled Demolition inc., which just so happens to employ high explosives in a way that does not attempt to dampen the noise.

If damping the noise was a job requirement for a specific client on a specific job and they still wanted to use high explosives to do it they could very easily do so, but it would be significantly more costly, so they don't.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join