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.
Originally posted by Danbones
ah yes
we will just ignore the squib vids too
www.youtube.com...edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
who am i gonna believe?
your silly snide desperate insinuations
or my lying eyes?edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by surfstev
if your presupposition is that it was CD, then I guess one way or another it has to be CD.
Originally posted by surfstev
If you want to confuse common sense with presupposition than I can not debate you. All I'm saying is that anyone with any degree of common sense pretty much understands that those three buildings did not collapse as a result of being hit by those two air planes.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Flatcoat
Apparently. They predicted those buildings could collapse after visual inspection, and they did. Unless of course you think that the NYFD was in on your conspiracy and had foreknowledge of the collapse.edit on 25-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Originally posted by Danbones
ah yes
we will just ignore the squib vids too
www.youtube.com...edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
who am i gonna believe?
your silly snide desperate insinuations
or my lying eyes?edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
I love how truthers use words the wrong way, from pyroclastic clouds to squibs.
Squibs are used in movies, they are a little bit bigger than firecrackers, it would take billions of them to bring down a building.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by lunarasparagus
Wow Lunar guess whole FDNY was involved in it - right ....?
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by surfstev
If you want to confuse common sense with presupposition than I can not debate you. All I'm saying is that anyone with any degree of common sense pretty much understands that those three buildings did not collapse as a result of being hit by those two air planes.
Likewise, if you confuse physics with your common sense, then I can not debate you.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Flatcoat
You are tiring. I already showed how your argument is a logical fallacy. If you don't get it, too bad. Your argument that you require to know the exact cause of collapse in order to be able to predict collapse is absurd.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by surfstev
It was a top down collapse.
The "squibs" you think you are seeing are windows being blown out by the pressure of the upper floors compressing the air in the lower floors. And the blast you think you are seeing is just debris coming out with the air.
Where do you think the air went?
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by surfstev
For starters, the NIST report. (Don't handwave, if you have issues with it, explain which they are. Don't post a link to some truther site).
Do you have anything believable that shows it is not the truth? Something that shows, using physics, that it is wrong? Can you come with some kind of alternative explanation for for example the observed inward bowing of the external columns of the towers?
I expect you don't have anything to show as I have asked this to numerous of truthers. If this is the case either just admit it or don't bother replying. If you do, then show me! It can be a link to a PDF.
Originally posted by surfstev
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by surfstev
It was a top down collapse.
The "squibs" you think you are seeing are windows being blown out by the pressure of the upper floors compressing the air in the lower floors. And the blast you think you are seeing is just debris coming out with the air.
Where do you think the air went?
Of course it was a top down collapse. Please show me how an air plane hitting in the middle can cause a top down collapse? Please explain the lack of evidence to support your theory and that there isn't any sort of model or demonstration you can produce. Only silly illustrations.
Originally posted by lunarasparagus
1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)
2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)
Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)
3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)
Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)
4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)
5) Fire Engineering magazine: "FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire--the other two had collapsed earlier that day." ("World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by surfstev
For starters, you should believe it because of the tens of thousands of engineers (the people who actually are educated to know this stuff, unlike architects) that are supporting it. You can look up the organizations that were involved with the NIST report on Wikipedia.
But I see that you don't really have any actual objection, just the usual "I read on a conspiracy site it was junk and I choose to believe that". By the way, there actually are some credible objections. For example the ones by Quintire. He actually made a scale model of a WTC floor and set it on fire. He concluded that NIST was wrong in saying that the fire protection required to be dislodged for the collapse to initiate. Of course this is all not much in favor of the truther position so you probably never heard of it.