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: 20
71
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Well, at least you agree, just like Darkwing, that the stuff tested by Jones isn't thermite.


From the same engineer who brought us the amazing insight that the electromagnetic force is in fact not a significant factor in everyday interactions we learn the amazing insight that surface area is in fact irrelevant to chemical reaction.

A small nano-scale particle with an enormous surface will apparently react no faster than a pile of material with a relatively tiny surface area.



Ahaa so in your silly theory those columns do not conduct heat, and are good isolators. Right . Now what is left is to put you ridiculous theory to the test.


A good conductor moves heat around efficiently, which makes it harder to get it very hot in one tiny little area where the box is in contact with the wall.

Also...

Air is poor conductor of heat, there is no need for the energetic material to be directly in contact with the column.

Do I need to explain to you how a thermos flask works?

Here's a picture:


At most the surface area in contact in this scenario would be the little lip at the top. Heat flows DOWN the temperature gradient, not up it. So if the lip starts getting super hot the good conductor (column) will move the heat away rather than continuing to heat up the container.

What kind of engineer did you say you were again?



edit on 23-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
From the same engineer who brought us the amazing insight that the electromagnetic force is in fact not a significant factor in everyday interactions we learn the amazing insight that surface area is in fact irrelevant to chemical reaction.


Aah I see you are falling back to lying. Why would that be. I said that the electromagnetic force is in no way an explanation to the question that was at hand. And you even agreed to that. Its interesting to see how truthers always have distorted memories of past events.


A small nano-scale particle with an enormous surface will apparently react no faster than a pile of material with a relatively tiny surface area.


Jones sample was not nano scale.


A good conductor moves heat around efficiently, which makes it harder to get it very hot in one tiny little area where the box is in contact with the wall.

Also...

Air is poor conductor of heat, there is no need for the energetic material to be directly in contact with the column.

Do I need to explain to you how a thermos flask works?

Here's a picture:


At most the surface area in contact in this scenario would be the little lip at the top. Heat flows DOWN the temperature gradient, not up it. So if the lip starts getting super hot the good conductor (column) will move the heat away rather than continuing to heat up the container.

What kind of engineer did you say you were again?


You did it again, you made me laugh. Fire heats the entire column. Not just a small section. So when you heat all of the column where there is none of your fantasy apparatus, the heat will be conducted to the place where your fantasy apparatus is attached.

And, if your material is not in contact with the column, how is it going to destroy the column?

Your fantasy apparatus is getting shape slowly. Don't you think it is becoming time to show your fantasy apparatus isn't just that, fantasy, and show that it could actually do what you claim it can do? Which is take down a building that is on fire for at least one hour? And for now, you may forget about all the traces your apparatus leaves. Although that is of course another major fail in your theory.
edit on 23-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




So when you heat all of the column where there is none of your fantasy apparatus, the heat will be conducted to the place where your fantasy apparatus is attached.


You are aware I trust that these columns we are talking about are fairly large and the fire doesn't span much more than floor? The building had a mostly steel superstructure, that is a sizable chunk of of material for the heat to go to, the overwhelming majority of which was not being directly heated even in the immediate vicinity of the fire.

But you're right, it is a fantasy apparatus for sake of argument. Did you not get the memo?



And, if your material is not in contact with the column, how is it going to destroy the column?


I take it you haven't heard of shaped charged either?

Even in Cole's experiment the thermate wasn't in direct contact with the column. Figure it out for yourself.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Sure Darkwing, so when can we expect a demonstration of your fantasy apparatus in action? I am really curious what it will look like and what its dimensions are. I already see the conspirators sitting around a table where one says "What if we weaken the building using rather large heat isolated apparatus which do no expel any residue and after collapse are removed from the scene by a crew of well paid secret cleaners in the middle of huge the rescue operations and pray nobody notices it or catches it on video, and pray that they find all those apparatus and don't leave any behind for others to find." And the crowd goes "Wooo great idea, lets do it".

And great job ignoring all the rest of my response, which obviously shows how your are lying and fail to grasp the difficulties you face with your apparatus. It would be great fun seeing you struggle with building one. But that will never happen of course, it will remain your fantasy forever. Oh, and Darkwing, how can we falsify your theory? And if we can't falsify it, what exactly is your theory worth?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Cassius666
 


If there was one, or at least of there was a loud noise, I'd imagine it's because collapsing buildings sometimes emit loud noises. There was an explosion heard at the school of architecture at Delft before it collapsed but I doubt the NWO knocked that down.



Can you enlarge on the second sentence a little?


Sure. Here's a link. It's in Dutch but the meaning is fairly easy to ascertain.

www.nu.nl...

The building was on fire. Around 13.30 there was an explosion and subsequently it came down in part. One can conclude from this either

- that large burning, on-the-verge-of-collapse buildings sometimes emit loud bangs

- that the NWO blew up the school of architecture at Delft



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Depending on the volume level, yes it does, but then it requiers imagination to hear the sound of the building collapsing too and the white noise does not help either.

Which brings us to the age old question, if a tree drops in the forest and Alfie does not hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course today we know that the sondwaves we register as sound are triggered, wether Alfie is there to register them or not.

I just relistned to the audioclip. Is your defense on the stance that there were no charges audible before building 7 came down still, that alfie can not hear them?
edit on 22-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


What I am saying is that there was nothing in your clip clearly identifiable as an explosion. When the penthouse fell in there must have been noise as the structure collapsed below it and I suggest there is nothing in the clip which cannot be explained by that. If you have to turn up the volume and imagine a demolition detonation then I don't believe it is there.

This is a clip of Ashleigh Banfield conducting a street interview when WTC 7 collapsed in the background.:-

www.youtube.com...

Again, where are your explosions ?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I'm afraid you dont full realize the error of your assumptions.

Explosives whether exploding outside or inside will ALWAYS have a sharp crack on detonation. I mean seriously, of all the controlled demolition videos out there, in EVERY SINGLE ONE, you can clearly hear (even on the crappiest iPhone camera) the sound of the charges going off even up to almost a mile away. In a downtown setting with all of the buildings nearby, it would be echoed throughout the city. Downtown areas with lots of tall buildings can bounce the sound of explosions quite well. Come to Chicago during a fireworks display, you can hear the fireworks bouncing off the buildings well away from the lake.

WTC7 has to of been the quietest explosive demolition in history. Not a single firefighter heard the explosives going off prior to collapse, not a soul noticed the building going down until it STARTED cashing down. Even that one police officer who claims explosives brought it down ends up shooting himself in the foot with his account because that while standing next to the WTC7, he didnt notice anything was wrong until everyone around him started to scream and run when without warning the building started crashing. I dont know how you can make this stuff up that the explosives would be muffled and very hard to hear, when in reality, demo charges are very loud. Your video of the F-16 bomb run is a strawman. Show real demolitions with explosives.









huh, every time I hear the loud crack or thuds of exploding demo charges.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well, at least you agree, just like Darkwing, that the stuff tested by Jones isn't thermite.


Huh? And how do you come to that genius conclusion?

Did I even mention Jones? Do I even care about Jones? No I don't.

I don't need speculation on what caused the collapses to know fire and gravity didn't cause it. All I did was debunk the claim that the thermite would be ignited by the fires, and didn't need to be isolated from the heat as you are trying to claim. One of the little details you ignore in order to continue spreading nonsense.


Originally posted by -PLB-
So you propose to isolate the thermite from heat.



edit on 1/23/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So who exactly made "the claim that the thermite would be ignited by the fires"? Let me guess, you were not paying attention and made some assumptions. Next time read before you hit the reply button.

By the way, did you know that Jones "thermite" ignited at 430 degrees?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Again the sound level of the explosions and the sound level of the building coming down about match each other. The audio of the building collapsing is way better audible than in the video of WTC 7, although nowhere near loud, but so were the xplosions, clearly audible, but nowhere near loud.

In the video of WTC 7 the sound of the collapse is barely audible, so are the explosions.

Thanks for making my point. I am sure the human ear can hear a detonation charge up to a mile away. What is captured on the audio track of a professional camera on the other hand is up to the settings. Ask a professional how he can conduct an interview in a busy city like New York, without everything being drowned out by the traffic noise.

But if you want to keep insisting, that lots and lots of transformators exploded and by pure coincidence the building collapsed, well its a free country.

By the way this is a tranformator exploding



It does not sound like a bomb, because it isnt, but I believe it sounds damn close to what is known as the "Hollywood explosion".

By contrast the sound of this explosion is much sharper.


edit on 23-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Sure Darkwing, so when can we expect a demonstration of your fantasy apparatus in action? I am really curious what it will look like and what its dimensions are.


Add a $10 hard cover and ceramic thermal insulation to the device in this video and you have your answer:


It is not even like it is a hard thing to do.

Take a garden variety roofing tile, place it over a delicate origami duck:


Then take a blow-torch and try to burn that sucker through the tile. Get back to me when you succeed.

You speak as if thermal insulation and shock resistance is a hard trick to pull off. It is more EXPENSIVE than not doing it, but it isn't hard technically. Some goes for sound insulation.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




TextExplosives whether exploding outside or inside will ALWAYS have a sharp crack on detonation. I mean seriously, of all the controlled demolition videos out there, in EVERY SINGLE ONE, you can clearly hear (even on the crappiest iPhone camera) the sound of the charges going off even up to almost a mile away. In a downtown setting with all of the buildings nearby, it would be echoed throughout the city. Downtown areas with lots of tall buildings can bounce the sound of explosions quite well. Come to Chicago during a fireworks display, you can hear the fireworks bouncing off the buildings well away from the lake.


Try typing "Explosion Silenced" or some variation into the youtube search-box...

You won't find anything because people don't find videos of nothing happening terribly interesting. When you make a video you want to make it sound as LOUD as possible and if your video fails to capture the loudness you will fail to bother to put it up.

Of course the loud noise will always be there, but it won't always be detectable at the kind of distances we are talking about especially if someone took measures to dampen the sound.

What you are dealing with here is as clear a case of confirmation bias as I have seen:
en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, explosions ARE loud. Big ones are LOUDER. But that doesn't mean that you have to have a single BIG and LOUD explosion to effect a demolition. All that your search demonstrates is that people are more prone to put up and watch spectacular demolitions with a big bang than dull noise-suppressed ones without.

Just because the one YOU saw used that technique does not mean that that is the only way to do it.


edit on 24-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Add a $10 hard cover and ceramic thermal insulation to the device in this video and you have your answer:

It is not even like it is a hard thing to do.


Aha its not even hard. So when can we expect your demonstration?



Take a garden variety roofing tile, place it over a delicate origami duck:

Then take a blow-torch and try to burn that sucker through the tile. Get back to me when you succeed.[


Oh of course, you want me to do the experiments for you. And you think that concentrating a blowtorch on a single spot is similar to an office fire




You speak as if thermal insulation and shock resistance is a hard trick to pull off. It is more EXPENSIVE than not doing it, but it isn't hard technically. Some goes for sound insulation.


Yes, I think it is hard, and I think if it was up to you you would not succeed in a hundred years, no matter your budget.

Oh, and great job for ignoring everything else I wrote. I guess as truther you don't mind spreading falsehoods. And you don't care about the falsifiability of your theory.
edit on 24-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Aha its not even hard. So when can we expect your demonstration?


A demonstration of what PLB?

A demonstration of a small device being hardened against the shock of a plane impact is readily had in every plane impact. That is what a black box is and the contents are FAR more sensitive.

A demonstration of thermal insulation can be found in any thermos flask. Dewar flasks for holding liquid nitrogen withstand far greater temperature gradients. The only issue is safeguarding the device itself which can be easily done with a ceramic, as demonstrated in a re-entry module, the contents of which is highly sensitive to high temperatures.

A demonstration of such a device where the thermate is not in direct contact with the column can be had in the Cole video.

There is nothing else to demonstrate.

What's more, the is all moot, because the fire was only ever over a limited number of floors and if the destruction had started in the core it would be below the fire level anyway. In WTC7 the OFFICIAL explanation calls for the heating of a SINGLE column. That means that even if all the devices on THAT column were rendered inoperable the remainder would remain.

The truther position is that MORE than one needed to be taken out, that MORE damage than fire alone + impacts needed to be done. Even if EVERY column with such a device was taken out, that still leaves the columns that were NOT so damaged to be damaged by devices that were NOT so destroyed, because the column (with device) was intact and away from the flames and not being heated.

You are so far out on a limb now that I am afraid the branch has long since snapped without you being aware of it.



And you don't care about the falsifiability of your theory.


Once you demonstrate that you will accept falsification of your own ideas we can talk about this.

You do nothing BUT backpedal.
edit on 24-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
There is nothing else to demonstrate.


Of course there isn't. Your apparatus is pure fantasy.


What's more, the is all moot, because the fire was only ever over a limited number of floors and if the destruction had started in the core it would be below the fire level anyway. In WTC7 the OFFICIAL explanation calls for the heating of a SINGLE column. That means that even if all the devices on THAT column were rendered inoperable the remainder would remain.

The truther position is that MORE than one needed to be taken out, that MORE damage than fire alone + impacts needed to be done. Even if EVERY column with such a device was taken out, that still leaves the columns that were NOT so damaged to be damaged by devices that were NOT so destroyed, because the column (with device) was intact and away from the flames and not being heated.

You are so far out on a limb now that I am afraid the branch has long since snapped without you being aware of it.


So how many of these devices (which don't exist of course, so we would not know the size and shape) are required? Where were they placed? And how did the super secret demo team plant them in the building without anyone noticing and did the super secret cleaning team remove them all again without anyone noticing it? And what do you think fellow conspirators would say to the moron who came with this idea? Would they say "Great idea" or "You are a moron"?


Once you demonstrate that you will accept falsification of your own ideas we can talk about this.


Sure, my idea is that there were no explosives or thermite. Methods to falsify my idea:

*show video evidence of explosives/thermite going off.
*show leftovers of the devices used for demolition, or residue of the explosive material.
*show columns or beams that are damaged by these devices.

Or in other words: Evidence

Things that do not count are:

*a video with a random loud bang, which in no way can be linked to the detonation of an explosive.
*a video of a yellow glowing substance which could be anything dripping down.
*a bunch of clowns looking at paint thinking its thermite.
*columns that are cut by the cleanup crew.

Or in other words: Misinformation or speculation.

So how can we falsify your theory?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Explosives whether exploding outside or inside will ALWAYS have a sharp crack on detonation. I mean seriously, of all the controlled demolition videos out there, in EVERY SINGLE ONE, you can clearly hear (even on the crappiest iPhone camera) the sound of the charges going off even up to almost a mile away.



And now you are talking from what? knowledge?

I have experience with explosives, and they do NOT HAVE to give a loud crack. In fact, those loud cracks are probably more for your entertainment, than they are ever needed, especially in that last part youtube movie you put up.

All charges, are "directed" charges ... and rarely do people use anything but industrial dynamite. What is industrial dynamite? it's a clay-like material, which is in reality a lot of small balls filled with nitro. The material as such, is not heat sensitive ... you can throw it onto a fire, and it won't explode. Take a sharp knife, and cut it ... and "bam".

In the case of steel structure buildings, explosives are not enough ... even if it will break the lowest part of the column, it will not demolish the upper parts. In the images you showed, these are concrete buildings ... and this is not the same thing. Most concrete has iron in it, not steel ... this iron is only slightly put together to help the concrete keep it's shape, and is not velded or boltet. In the case of a steel structure building, the steel is much stronger than the iron used in concrete buildings, much more rigid, and more heat tolerant. And it is also a requirement to treat the steel with heat resistant material. This however, is not a requirement in the building of bridges. Bridges will not have the same quality steel frame material, as a skyscraper.

No matter how you bend physics, the structure in question will not EVER break apart the way it did. It is physically impossible.

You have steel columns of the mentioned quality, it doesn't matter what you put on top of them. They will assert resistance on that top column. These steel bars will bend, rather than break ... meaning, that in the end, you should have seen a large skeleton frame, bent and broken, falling to the sides. Absolutely irrespective of everything ... unless ...

unless ... and yes, unless ... it fell by design.

This is what is being referred to by "assymetry" and "symmetry". If something breaks apart assymetrically, it will leave assymetrical remains behind ... not symmetrical residue.

Now, here is a test for you ... take several steel bars, have them thin. wire them together, and erect them on a solid surface. Now, take a weight, and drop it on top of these. The size of the steel or iron bars you pick, is not imporant. It's their ration, concerning the weight you drop on top of them, that is important. I want you to observ what happens. If you want, you can build your own "LEGO" building, with plastic screw bolts. In this case, you will have to pick a weight of relative ratio, because the plastic will break easily, whereas the iron will not. What is important for you to understand, is the ratio between the weight you drop on top of the columns, and the ability of these columns to withstand it.

These are simple physics ... nobody is telling you, that the WT7 DID NOT collapse, as is being said. What is being said, is that given the facts ... that the buildings WERE construction according to construction codes. These buildings could not have collapsed the way they do. So, either these buildings had failures which is do to construction problems ... or an alternative theory, which has been pointed out by thermite .... which is the only SANE explanation as to HOW the central columns could have weakened enough to have the building fall apart like that.

So, stop showing pictures of concrete structures being blow up ... the WTC buildings, were steel buildings.

And stop banging your head on the stone, and bending physics ... go to a construction site, and see how they "direct" charges. Each charge, only gives a minimal "thud" as they are shaped charges ... there is no need for a loud "BANG" ... that's just for the movies, hollywood and CNN in Bagdad scenarios.

And finally, if there is thermite involved ... this does not need any explosives ... only minimal ignition setting, to start off the chemical reaction. No bangs, no cracks ... no nuclear explotion stuff ... and no need for a big scene to have the public go "WOW! BANG A GONG ... BIG BANG".

Now you should start looking into these aspects, because irrespective of everything ... these buildings collapsed due to structural failure. And this structural failure cannot EVER have been caused by oxygen starved burning kerosine. Not even in a million years. And even if partial collapse occurred, it would have remained partial and a partially damaged building would remain unless that building collapsed due to internal structural failure. In which case, the people inside died because of the builders or owners, failure ... not because Usama Bin Ladin was such a big bad monster that he ate them alive.

It's almost amusing to look at all this ... to see the entire United States believe in this hoax. Of course, in a way it's understandable. After all, we believe what we are being told, because it's the way the world works. We obey our masters, our slave masters. Because we want to eat, and survive ... and with the patriot act, it's understandable that people don't want to voice skeptism and start to talk about this. After all, it might end up in people losing their jobs. Being ignored, or ridiculed or worse.

But, where is that nation of the brave? Where is this nation of the righteous?

Your government, might have just as well said "WTC collapsed because a pair of giant Aliens, kicked them down". You don't even go to the heart of the story ... and this story, is going to sell like waffles. It's so full of holes and garbage, that it is going to be longer on the line than the Kennedy Assasination.

edit on 24/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Perhaps you are not aware, but the clip you posted of the firefighters, with one on the phone, is notorious for doubt about the sound. It is supposed to be an explosion at WTC 7 but there is clear evidence it was shot about 10.30 am :-

www.911myths.com...

So what has that got to do with collapse some 7 hours later ?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Actually it is quite common to prep a building for demolition, by taking out some of the supporting structures either with tools or explosives, before setting off the explosives that set in motion the controlled collapse of the building. Or do you think all those explosions were gas pipes and transformators? Did the buildings even use gas? If it had gas lines the fires would have been somewhat worse.

So all those explosions were non existend gas lines and a ton of transformators going off, nevermind the fact that a transformator explosions is not induced by fires. Multiple explosions were reported throughout WTC 1 and 2. On the basementlevels heavy detonations blew out the windows caused dead and injured. It couldnt have been gas, because there was no gas. How many explosions would you attribute to transformators?
edit on 24-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 





And even if partial collapse occurred, it would have remained partial and a partially damaged building would remain unless that building collapsed due to internal structural failure. In which case, the people inside died because of the builders or owners, failure .


You mean internal structural failure as in the floors gave way because they were only SUPPORTED AT EACH END and not in the middle?

And do you mean the builders failure as in no new buildings are allowed to be constructed in a similar fashion?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Actually it is quite common to prep a building for demolition, by taking out some of the supporting structures either with tools or explosives, before setting off the explosives that set in motion the controlled collapse of the building. Or do you think all those explosions were gas pipes and transformators? Did the buildings even use gas? If it had gas lines the fires would have been somewhat worse.

So all those explosions were non existend gas lines and a ton of transformators going off, nevermind the fact that a transformator explosions is not induced by fires. Multiple explosions were reported throughout WTC 1 and 2. On the basementlevels heavy detonations blew out the windows caused dead and injured. It couldnt have been gas, because there was no gas. How many explosions would you attribute to transformators?
edit on 24-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


I haven't said anything about transformers or gas lines. I just pointed out to you that your firefighters clip was shot about 10.30 am on 9/11. There are serious doubts about the authenticity of the sound of the explosion but, in any event, it is seven hours before the collapse of WTC 7. Can you show me any controlled demolition where the first detonation was 7 hours before the collapse ?

As regards explosions at lower levels of WTC 1 & 2 there is plenty of witness testimony to aviation fuel fireballs down the elevator shafts.

You say there were "multiple explosions" reported "throughout WTC 1 and 2 ". Well you haven't addressed the clip I posted of the video taken in the North Tower lobby as the South Tower collapsed :-

www.youtube.com...

At the beginning it is relatively quiet in the lobby. You can hear conversation; the fire chief is on his radio. Then the rumble starts, quietly at first but quickly increasing. If you think explosions were involved in that you are just plain ignoring the evidence of your own ears because that is what you want to do.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join