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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 68
17
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

If you consider post collapse pics, and how the rubble landed, especially the outer walls, it is obvious the building did not lean at all but was completely vertical.


We're discussing the state of the building before the collapse, ANOK, which, I hope we can all agree is a separate subject from the way the rubble landed. We can get into this some other time.


Actually it is not ......... the way the rubble landed tells you an awful lot about how the building came down.

Exterior walls on top of the pile = implosion.




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Dr
Sweet, so you know how far the building was leaning??
I call BS because the firemen had to set up a transit to see anything.
They couldn't have know what the level was before that to check it against.
Well unless you have the measurments yourself good doctor, you got squat.
The only structual damage was caused to the internal superstructure attested to by Barry Jennings. Ka BOOM
pop.pop.pop, ljb


Do you have an inkling of how a transit works? Any at all?

A transit measures not only if it is out of plumb, but also any movement that is imperceptible to the naked eye. WTC7 was experiencing something called "creep". A slow but steady failure that was being caused by the fires and the damage. The building was slowly collapsing. Ah I can hear your braining popping and sizzling right now, as you try to comprehend what I just said. Yes, the building was slowly collapsing and failing. Steel was softening. Connections were loosening. Welds failing. Beams compressing and losing structural integrity. Have you gone and checked on those links I posted for you and others to read about how steel behaves in fires? The transit was being used to measure this slow collapse and movement. Firefighters use transits at other fires too, to keep an eye in case a collapse is possible. Hell, ask thedman. I'm sure he can fill you in on the use of transits in certain fire situations.

If you still dont understand what a transit does, check out seismology. They measure earthquake zones and fault lines with transits. The transit records any movement on the fault line, be it slow and small, or massive and quick. If there is more rapid movement, an alarm may be triggered.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


One question -- why would you build a bullet / bomb proof bunker in such a weak building ? one of the three weakest steel structures in the world ?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
Exterior walls on top of the pile = implosion.


Got a cite for that, or did you get that "fact" from ATS truthers? Anyway, its wrong. please describe a collapse of a tall building that does not conclude with some of the outside walls on top.

I won't hold my breath.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


How do you know if it was visibly out of plum or not if you did not see it yourself and have seen no evidence other than quotes from firemen ?


Great question.

Answer: I have no reason to believe that the firefighers were lying. I could understand if it were alleged that they misremembered some detail of the fire or what time something happened, but making up a whole series of events? Yeesh.

Do you have any evidence that they are deliberately lying or are confused?


Not everyone with a badge and a hose tells the truth ..... and there is plenty of other firemen who believe they were lied to , who witnessed moulten steel , who were in the towers when explosions were tearing the walls down , who are not at the top of the chain , and are ignored by the MSM and people who can not think for themselves and atleast hear both sides of the story before standing firm in the B.S corner.

There is also a - fire fighters for 911 truth -

So , do you have any evidence that they were not deliberately lying or confused ?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Woah woah woah, back up the "Ignorance Train" this minute. Who said there was a "bomb-proof bullet proof bunker" in the WTC7???
Oh you mean the windows for the OEM - Office of Emergency Management? Do you even know what an emergency command center is? It was never a "bunker" but it was given that moniker by the media.

And who said it was weak? I never did. Son, you really need to start educating yourself on the facts. Start with the links I provided earlier, then read NIST's report on WTC7. Can you perhaps tell me the standard fire rating of fireproofing for steel structures. Let us start there. Then tell me how long WTC7 was burning.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

..... and there is plenty of other firemen who believe they were lied to

Can you cite a source for this info? How many is "plenty"? Did they say they think they were lied to, or are you inferring this? What exactly do they believe they were lied to about? Do they believe they were lied to by the FDNY officers who assessed the damage to WTC7 and anticipated its collapse? Do they believe WTC 7 was demolished with explosives?


There is also a - fire fighters for 911 truth -

Seems to be a fire fighter from Seattle named Erik. He wrote a petition and has a purported 91 verified fire fighter signatures on it, nation-wide.


So , do you have any evidence that they were not deliberately lying or confused ?


You rely heavily on what's know as an appeal to ignorance or an argument from ignorance.
You should look it up.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some[2] to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:

- If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.

- If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true (therein lies the fallacy).

To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false.). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.


Related fallacies that truthers like (quoted also from the above article):

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

- P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
- It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)

Arguments from self-knowing take the form:

- If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
- If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.

In practice these arguments are often fallacious and rely on the veracity of the supporting premise. For example the argument that If I had just sat on a wild porcupine then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore I did not just sit on a wild porcupine is probably not a fallacy and depends entirely on the veracity of the leading proposition that supports it.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Demigodly



WTF you talking about? Yea, it's an open/shut case. Proven without a shadow of a doubt. Carry on. Baaabaaaa I don't give a rat's a$$ what you believe. You talk in circles.


Clever stuff.

No wonder the "Truth" is progressing in leaps and bounds.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Demigodly



WTF you talking about? Yea, it's an open/shut case. Proven without a shadow of a doubt. Carry on. Baaabaaaa I don't give a rat's a$$ what you believe. You talk in circles.


Clever stuff.

No wonder the "Truth" is progressing in leaps and bounds.




Some more overwhelming evidence..

i33.tinypic.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Demigodly


And why would American citizens sit idly by as this regime takes hold and exact these drastic measures?


Instead of going on the internet and getting all hot under the collar about it?

Beats me.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Demigodly



Some more overwhelming evidence..

i33.tinypic.com...


You're exactly what the Truth movement needs. You've got no evidence, and when shown that you just say that you don't care. A brilliant mind at work. With you on the case we'll never get those FEMA camps up and running.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Demigodly


And why would American citizens sit idly by as this regime takes hold and exact these drastic measures?


Instead of going on the internet and getting all hot under the collar about it?

Beats me.



I don't live in the U.S of A$$es



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
Your last post is just a wall of babble , star hunting much ?


This is part of what Furvus wrote:





i.e. veteran firefighter (who is secretly a controlled demolitions expert and Illuminati penetration of the FDNY) calls Larry Silverstein (who is secretly an Illuminatus) to ask permission to blow up his building (which they were going to do anyway because they packed it full of explosives and set it on fire). Larry gives the coded go word (which is actually a well-known demolition phrase [that no one ever heard before 2004]), waits for everyone to think the building was not demolished, then announces to everyone on TV it was demolished, thus completing the secretest covert op ever.


Can you show how your story, with its apparently bullet-proof physics, does not require all of this to be the case? Because from where I'm sitting it all seems pretty watertight. And makes the Truther argument for what went down (forgive the pun) look incredibly stupid.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Demigodly



I don't live in the U.S of A$$es


Oh, that's okay then. That means you can just sit on the internet instead of doing anything.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Demigodly



Some more overwhelming evidence..

i33.tinypic.com...


You're exactly what the Truth movement needs. You've got no evidence, and when shown that you just say that you don't care. A brilliant mind at work. With you on the case we'll never get those FEMA camps up and running.




Whatever evidence I produce will simply be dismissed, so drop the pretense. If you haven't noticed by now, everyone has made up their minds a long time ago, so you can carry on pretending like you're having a rational, unbiased, and openminded discussion, but I know better.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
So speaking to me like i am a child is not seen as ignorant ? oh , i suppose it`s because I'm one of those crazy truthers who obviously has no education , doesn't know a thing about controlled demolition , or construction , and has a problem spelling his own name
.... yeah , that seems fine.

I actually think it is very disgusting and extremely disrespectful how you strange little OSers come on here to create arguments with people over something as serious as "9/11".

I`m still waiting for this evidence of extreme structural damage to tower 7 .....



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Can you show how your story, with its apparently bullet-proof physics, does not require all of this to be the case? Because from where I'm sitting it all seems pretty watertight. And makes the Truther argument for what went down (forgive the pun) look incredibly stupid.


Seems water tight does it ? want to go back and quote the posts that confirm i believe the dribble he wrote ?

If you have been taking any notice at all from your plastic bubble in fairy land ..... you will already know what i believe happened , so why are you all making a point of asking me over and over ?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
i believe that most of you delusional OSers are paid shills anyway so it wouldn`t make any difference if i "accuse" you of being one or not.


Sadly (for them), I really think most of them aren't. They do it for free. They've been indoctrinated that way. It's the subconscious mind of the brainwashed Zombie lobotomized American. Keep those beers, chips, football, and American Idol coming, and keep Bill O'Reilly on my boob tube shouting down all these conspiracy wack jobs and all is right with the world.

The problem for the truth movement is that there are indeed a rather large percentage of "conspiracy theorists" who are way over the top, imagining that *everyone* is "in on it". This is a very ignorant and paranoid world view, and it gives these paid/unpaid programmed lemmings plenty of ammunition for their own extreme brand of utter lunacy, as you see here on this thread.
edit on 11-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

Not everyone with a badge and a hose tells the truth ..... and there is plenty of other firemen who believe they were lied to , who witnessed moulten steel , who were in the towers when explosions were tearing the walls down , who are not at the top of the chain , and are ignored by the MSM and people who can not think for themselves and atleast hear both sides of the story before standing firm in the B.S corner.

There is also a - fire fighters for 911 truth -

So , do you have any evidence that they were not deliberately lying or confused ?



You are once again proving your ignorance. First of all there is a Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth. Can you please tell me how many in that movement were FDNY on 9/11? Last I check there were ZERO.

Evidence to prove a negative? You are not good at this.... at all.




top topics



 
17
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join