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.

 

My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate


Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

You are starting to show glimpses of lacking reading comprehension or ability to think outside of what your government officials tell you.


Look who's talking. I have said many times already that I do NOT believe the "OS" as you call it, and yet you still cling to your "I believe everything my government officials tell me" theology like a security blanket because after a steady diet of the paranoid drivel Alex Jones and Richard Gage are feeding you it's inconceivable to you that anyone can possibly think the gov't is lying in a coverup AS WELL AS think these conspiracy accusations are rubbish.


I have stated before that I do not quote Silversteins "pull it" interview as evidence, there is much more damning evidence/facts that show prior knowledge/participation in the attacks and the fact that you say that IF it was controlled demolition it "could only have been rigged for demo on the date of 9/11" just shows your closed mindedness.


If you're referring to my "closed mindness" as my refusing to accept using the pitiful excuse of armies of omnipotent secret agents plotting to take over the world to patch up the holes in your conspiracy stories, then this isn't closed mindness. It's the unwillingness to accept make believe as at attempt to prove other make believe. In the world I live in, fire is pretty destructive stuff and doesn't give a flip whether the combustibles it's about to burn is part of a secret gov't conspiracy or not. What does fire do in the world you live in?


Your method of debate is reminiscent to that of an elementary school child, no facts used except for mind loops centered around your belief. Thank you for trying to put forth a valid debate but I think I will refrain from addressing your mind looped way of thinking.


Are you seriously suggesting that I need to provide facts to prove WTC 7 was on fire? I mean, really?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate


Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.


Yea its kind of sad that these people amounted to nothing in life and had to trade one of the greatest gifts given to humanity (free thinking critical mind) for a paycheck. Glad to see that there some of us here that will continue to seek the truth



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate


Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.


Ah yes, the "armies of sinister secret agents" excuse again. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "evidence" you're quoting having been debunked years ago and it has abolutely nothing to do with the fact you're not posting anything we haven't seen before because you're just repeating the paranoid drivel you're getting off those damned fool conspiracy websites. Nope nope nope noone is taking you seriously because of the armies of sinister secret agents. Of course.

I said it before and I'll say it again- if you can't even get your conspiracy claims past a bunch of nobodies like us then how do you expect to fare in these independent investigations you keep saying we need to have?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate


Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.


Yea its kind of sad that these people amounted to nothing in life and had to trade one of the greatest gifts given to humanity (free thinking critical mind) for a paycheck. Glad to see that there some of us here that will continue to seek the truth


Funny how you believe this when there is literally zero evidence for it. The only reasoning you can find is that because my and other "debunkers" have a different opinion, we must be liars. How very reasonable of you. How could it be possible that someone thinks differently?! They must be evil, receiving evil money for their evil deeds!

Really dude, get over your self-importance and return to the important things, like arguing the FACTS. All I ever see from the conspiracy theorists are baseless claims that are assumptions about impossibilities, and tons and tons of assumptions about bombs. Sometimes I hear stuff about the similarity in appearance of one thing versus another, but the differences are entirely ignored. None of you guys look into why they are different. You just think hollywood and go nuts.

I wish I was getting paid to do this, because then I would actually care to argue with you guys all the time. You know how many hiatus' I have gone on from this site, all because you guys drive me so crazy with your illogical and sometimes venomous remarks? I swear that some of you would like to find me and end my life, all because of your fervent faith in the conspiracy. That's not logic, and that's not healthy.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate


Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.


Yea its kind of sad that these people amounted to nothing in life and had to trade one of the greatest gifts given to humanity (free thinking critical mind) for a paycheck. Glad to see that there some of us here that will continue to seek the truth


Funny how you believe this when there is literally zero evidence for it. The only reasoning you can find is that because my and other "debunkers" have a different opinion, we must be liars. How very reasonable of you. How could it be possible that someone thinks differently?! They must be evil, receiving evil money for their evil deeds!

Really dude, get over your self-importance and return to the important things, like arguing the FACTS. All I ever see from the conspiracy theorists are baseless claims that are assumptions about impossibilities, and tons and tons of assumptions about bombs. Sometimes I hear stuff about the similarity in appearance of one thing versus another, but the differences are entirely ignored. None of you guys look into why they are different. You just think hollywood and go nuts.

I wish I was getting paid to do this, because then I would actually care to argue with you guys all the time. You know how many hiatus' I have gone on from this site, all because you guys drive me so crazy with your illogical and sometimes venomous remarks? I swear that some of you would like to find me and end my life, all because of your fervent faith in the conspiracy. That's not logic, and that's not healthy.


Yeah?? whatever...

Back on topic, Just think for a second... fire doesnt cause buildings to implode and disintegrate into fine dust with minimal steel beams left behind. Fire causes buildings to incinerate leaving behind the main core of the building and only burning off the exterior of the structure.

If any of you OS'ers want to respond to this post I ask that you only ask one question. SHOW ME/REFERENCE A STEEL CORE SKYSCRAPER THAT HAS COLLAPSED IN THE SAME MANNER IN WHICH WTC7 COLLAPSED? And im not talking about a building falling apart due to fire while 1/3 of the main structure is left standing, I have seen those videos that supposedly "debunk" WTC7... as all of you know WTC7 fell down UNIFORMLY at NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS with minimal rubble falling outside of its footprint.

Any takers?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Back on topic, Just think for a second... fire doesnt cause buildings to implode and disintegrate into fine dust with minimal steel beams left behind. Fire causes buildings to incinerate leaving behind the main core of the building and only burning off the exterior of the structure.


Baseless assertion coming from personal incredulity. The standard truther argument.



If any of you OS'ers want to respond to this post I ask that you only ask one question. SHOW ME/REFERENCE A STEEL CORE SKYSCRAPER THAT HAS COLLAPSED IN THE SAME MANNER IN WHICH WTC7 COLLAPSED? And im not talking about a building falling apart due to fire while 1/3 of the main structure is left standing, I have seen those videos that supposedly "debunk" WTC7... as all of you know WTC7 fell down UNIFORMLY at NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS with minimal rubble falling outside of its footprint.

Any takers?




What are you trying to say? That things can not happen when it has not happened before? How does that in any way support the truther conspiracy theories? Can you show me a CD that is similar to WTC7? No? Well then, shouldn't we apply the same argument then? Is the argument getting us anywhere? Not really.
edit on 11-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 



EXCEPT...none of this is true.... (you read it on a silly "conspiracy" website....just ADMIT it!!!)


.....fire doesnt cause buildings to implode and disintegrate into fine dust with minimal steel beams left behind.


Over and Over and Over, again....the "same" 'song-and-dance'....over and over again!!!

TRY to bring something "new" to the discussion...please!!!!


edit on Fri 11 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Can you show me a CD that is similar to WTC7?
edit on 11-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


If you take two videos of collapses, cut out many of the relevant parts of them, sync their speed, and remove the sound you indeed can get them to look similar.

But I was talking about reality, not highly manipulated videos made by people who have an interest in not showing the truth. Can you show me a video of a CD that has a complete absence of bangs and flashes, reaches free fall, and shows an internal collapse about 7 seconds before the outer shell goes? You can't? Well, then, according to this truther logic that something can not happen when there is no Youtube video of it, CD is out of the question.
edit on 11-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 


I love you nick name.

Just for that, I will issuing with stars until I stop laughing.

Genius!!!



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 


I don't really care about the commission report. I haven't even read it. If you look at the evidence, it is rather obvious that planes crashed into the WTC and made them collapse. There isn't a shred of evidence that supports a theory with any type of explosive or other wild theory from truthers.

I have absolutely no issue with blaming or accusing anyone within the government or other group of power. It only has to pass one condition, which is that I require strong evidence that supports such accusation. The circumstantial evidence the truth movement comes with is rubbish. Accusing unknown people in power with weak circumstantial evidence is not the way I operate. Making arguments from incredulity is neither.

I am ok with saying "I don't know" instead of saying that I have some instinctual primal knowledge which makes me an expert on building collapses (a feature most truthers think they posses). The science, which I understand to a degree that I can follow it, but not reproduce it, points in the direction that nothing impossible happened in the OS. That is only the case in the minds of a hand full of dissident engineers with no relevant (scientific) publications on the subject and a larger group of laymen truthers, whom opinions bears no relevance at all.

ps. sorry for the late response



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by -PLB-
 



The Delft

Oh, come on. Let's have a moment of honesty. The Delft building does not collapse into its own footprint – it collapses partially and asymmetrically, not globally and symmetrically like WTC7, and neither was it steel-framed.


So to you, in its own footprint is synonymous to symmetrically? If not, define "own footprint".

Did you know that WTC7 didn't collapse symmetrically either? That is just baseless assertion from truthers who look at a short youtube video and ignore all other evidence. They are being lied to, including you. Having a moment of honesty would include you admitting that.


Below is the collapse of the Delft building. Compare it to the collapse of WTC7. They aren't the same. One collapses globally, the other one collapses partially, and remember according to NIST, WTC7 only had fires on about 8 floors, which leaves 39 floors untouched by fire, and yet, the building still comes down at free-fall acceleration into its own footprint. I think the phrase 'comparing apples and oranges' is appropriate here.


Where did I say they are the same? In fact, didn't I say "None are of course exactly like the WTC"? Do you think that quote mining belongs in a "moment of honesty"? Why are you being dishonest? Aren't you a honest person that is interested in the truth?



By reading the paper (or a substantial portion of it a few years back). NIST seem to be presenting their assumptions and conjectures as known facts, you see. What is the difference between them? As I see it, in practical terms assumptions and conjectures are ideas that you think could be true, whereas facts are what you know to be true because they have been confirmed by observation. By this criterion the NIST's report contains only assumptions and conjectures and no significant known facts. I know that is a sweeping judgment to make of it but I also know it to be true by my own direct observation, ie. by reading the paper itself. As I have pointed out before, NIST's evidence and conclusions are based entirely on the product of their computer-simulations, not the product of observation. So as far as I can see there is no real-world evidence in NIST's paper for a fire-induced collapse as you are claiming. If there is any in any other independent papers as you are claiming which substantiates NIST's findings, I would not know, as I have not read them.


Flat out lies. The NIST reports contains many facts. Indeed, some parts are speculation, but this is because it is impossible to know for fact what happened in an historical event. The collapse of the WTC is not a repeatable scientific experiment, and thus should not be treated as such.

Also, their conclusions are largely based on observations. You are either flat out lying yourself (which I don't think so), or you have been lied to by some truther site. I can prove to you, beyond any doubt, that NIST bases a large part of their theory on photographic evidence. I can even point you to relevant page numbers. But I will only do so if you acknowledge that what you wrote here are indeed lies.


Gordon Ross, David Chandler, Steven Jones, inter alia, I believe have submitted papers.


So my suspicion is correct. That is not scientific literature.



How interesting. What evidence within these papers has been convincing for you specifically?


For example, the scale recreation of a full floor of the WTC, which confirmed collapse. Also the mathematical models that conclude collapse convince me. And the lack of a proper rebuttal of those models.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



You take the expression, "collapse in on its footprint" to an nth degree of precision in order to quibble about detail. When a building is demolished using implosion techniques, no one is expecting a building to transmute from one pile of bricks to another pile of bricks in an ordered and precise stack of brick, concrete blocks, steel columns, etc on the foot print. The objective is to have a contained pile of rubble close to the foot print of a building.

You are counting on pedantic-errors to measure the meaning of words to the letter to dismiss a clear and understandable meaning. You are a sophist and illogical is your argument because you are stuck with defending the indefensible. You, as an adherent of the neocon terrorist official line, attack concerned citizens, their perceptions, the laws of nature and technical evidence to ramrod your defense of a crime so outrageous, it beggars belief.




For example, the scale recreation of a full floor of the WTC, which confirmed collapse. Also the mathematical models that conclude collapse convince me. And the lack of a proper rebuttal of those models.


Really? Well the NIST model did not have a skin and rigid cross members between between columns and floors. So what else was left out in model in your considered assessment?

As for the mathematical models that have so convinced you, can you please explain where you actually saw the computations. Maybe NIST was good enough to publish the mathematics of the model parameters and, except for you, the planet missed the announcement.

The bottom line is that the NIST computer model that you herald with such authority bears no resemblance to the actual collapse of WTC 7.

Here is an example of rigid members in the form of bracings; where are they in the NIST models. A timber framed house must have rigid members so a multi-story building like WTC 7 must have multiple rigid members on every floor. Because of how the architect designed the fenestration, the rigid members would have been on stairwells and liftshafts. Merely pre-cutting rigid members in lift shafts would cause a sudden and catastrophic collapses if the foundations of the building was attacked, say with explosions to columns in the basement.



WHERE ARE THE RIGID MEMBERS IN THE NIST MODEL?



edit on 12-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by -PLB-
 



You take the expression, "collapse in on its footprint" to an nth degree of precision in order to quibble about detail.


No. What's going on here is that truthers have attempted to falsely use the phrase "collapse into its own footprint" to describe the 9/11 collapses for years starting with the twin towers and only later being applied to building 7, after it became too obviously false. They continute to use this language even though it is not even approximately correct. They do this because the phrase has been used many times to describe controlled demolitions and they would like to asssociate this with 9/11.

Let's be clear: insisting upon a lie is a despicable act, and once exposed, it should be acknowledged as false or misleading, and discarded. Instead many "truth" proponents have doubled down on fallac. There is no reason that "collapse into it's own footprint" needs to be used in this debate AT ALL.it's a rhetorical tic at this point -a sign that the author has read most of his information from 9/11 truth websites.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 





...insisting upon a lie is a despicable act...


Thanks for your considered rebuttal. It was devastating like an imploding skyscraper.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

A timber framed house must have rigid members so a multi-story building like WTC 7 must have multiple rigid members on every floor...
.
.
.
WHERE ARE THE RIGID MEMBERS IN THE NIST MODEL?


Seriously? You're saying that because a small wooden house requires "rigid members", therefore WTC 7 must have even more of them? I'm assuming that you mean diagonal braces as shown in your picture when you use the term rigid member.

There's an important difference between the two cases- one building is wooden and the other is steel!

It's entirely possible to construct a steel building without diagonal braces, by including moment resisting connections.

Do you have a good source for design info on WTC7?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 



You take the expression, "collapse in on its footprint" to an nth degree of precision in order to quibble about detail.


So when WTC 7 collapsed and fell across a 4 lane road (Barclay St) severely damaging the building there
(30 West Broadway - Fiterman Hall) it was collapsing in its "footprint" ?

For years the lunatic fringe has been claiming that since the building "collapsed in its own footprint" that was
"PROOF" that it was a controlled demolition......

Now that has been exposed as a lie - claim is well it SORT OF/KINDA collapsed in own footprint so must be
a controlled demolition?

In real controlled demolition the object is to confine the debris to original site - if not are heavily fined or sued for
any damage caused outside the perimeter



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
You take the expression, "collapse in on its footprint" to an nth degree of precision in order to quibble about detail. When a building is demolished using implosion techniques, no one is expecting a building to transmute from one pile of bricks to another pile of bricks in an ordered and precise stack of brick, concrete blocks, steel columns, etc on the foot print. The objective is to have a contained pile of rubble close to the foot print of a building.

You are counting on pedantic-errors to measure the meaning of words to the letter to dismiss a clear and understandable meaning. You are a sophist and illogical is your argument because you are stuck with defending the indefensible. You, as an adherent of the neocon terrorist official line, attack concerned citizens, their perceptions, the laws of nature and technical evidence to ramrod your defense of a crime so outrageous, it beggars belief.


I already pointed out the fact to you that "own footprint" is a loose truther term that can mean anything, depending what truther you talk to. This fact is completely independent of what I think the term means.

Why don't you give a definition, explain why you use that definition, and then demonstrate that WTC7 does, but the Delft building does not fit in that category.




Really? Well the NIST model did not have a skin and rigid cross members between between columns and floors. So what else was left out in model in your considered assessment?


Pay attention please, we were talking about non NIST scientific publications. Specifically, I was talking about a publication truthers have successfully been ignoring since it was published, for the reason that it does not fit their position on the collapse. Even though the lead scientists did the experiment to prove NIST wrong.


As for the mathematical models that have so convinced you, can you please explain where you actually saw the computations. Maybe NIST was good enough to publish the mathematics of the model parameters and, except for you, the planet missed the announcement.

The bottom line is that the NIST computer model that you herald with such authority bears no resemblance to the actual collapse of WTC 7.


As far as I know there isn't any (analytical) mathematical model for WTC7. You stating that NIST's computer model does not bear any resemblance is worth exactly nothing. Who cares what some anonymous person with no relevant education or publication on the subject thinks about it, based on gut feeling?


Here is an example of rigid members in the form of bracings; where are they in the NIST models. A timber framed house must have rigid members so a multi-story building like WTC 7 must have multiple rigid members on every floor. Because of how the architect designed the fenestration, the rigid members would have been on stairwells and liftshafts. Merely pre-cutting rigid members in lift shafts would cause a sudden and catastrophic collapses if the foundations of the building was attacked, say with explosions to columns in the basement.

WHERE ARE THE RIGID MEMBERS IN THE NIST MODEL?


If you think you have a relevant point at all write a paper about it and get it published. That is how things are done in the real world. Not by creating Youtube videos or making baseless assertion on a conspiracy forum.
edit on 12-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





If you think you have a relevant point at all write a paper about it and get it published. That is how things are done in the real world. Not by creating Youtube videos or making baseless assertion on a conspiracy forum.


In your planet, no comment is worth anything unless one is a published and I presume you mean in a peer reviewed journal.

That is is it. No more discourse, no more inquiry by the citizen, no more activism unless you are an expert in the specific field in which one is engaged in a debate as far as you are concerned.

You have shut the door and declared an arbitrary dogma.

By any definition you are a fanatic or are you one of those Pentagon internet propaganda monkeys?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join