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: 17
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath




Sure, I can give you a definition. 99% of all rubble falls inside the footprint. Note that I just made this up. It is not "my" definition, just "a" definition, as I personally never use the term, so don't have a personal definition.


You already gave a definition then turned around and disassociated yourself from it. You claim to have made it up, so what else have you "made up". Which of your other statements are made up?

How can we believe what you say when you make things up by your admittance?



This is getting weirder and weirder. I clearly state that I do not use the term, and do not have a definition for it, and still you keep asking me to define the term.


You are having another perception "problem" again. There is nothing weird here, I am merely chatting with you on your terms.



What do you want me to do? Make up a definition?

Try and read this slowly: I do not have a definition for the term, as I don't use it.

Read it again a couple of times, let it sink in, and try to understand what it means.


Nobody is asking you to invent a definition, I am only asking you to define what you think "collapse in its foot print" is.

There are words and phrases in the English language you and I know but never use. We can define them. Just because you do not use a word, it does not mean it is washed out from your mind.



As for "specific kinds of details", you are hilarious. Asking for (any) evidence to support a certain claim is called "specific kinds of details". Right.


This is an example of your perception deficit problem. You also have selective memory; I said you are "entirely reliant on the specificity of all kinds of details to which you give equal weight".

Basically you are unable to distinguish between the relevant and irrelevant and it is for this reason that you need to provide a definition of what you think "collapsing on its foot print" means so that you can have an explanation that caters to you special needs.



It is people like you who make debating with truthers worthwhile



This is an example of an irrelevant point. Do you see what I mean?
edit on 13-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 



BTW, you forgot to provide any tangible argument as to why WTC7 fell so easily with minimal damage, and the Marriott Hotel still stood after immense damage?!



Marriott WTC 3



Only reason this section survived was because it was reinforced by steel cage following 1993 bombing

Bomb went off directly below and severely damaged the Marriott (then known as Vista Hotel)

Here is series of pictures of Marriott - WTC 3

First shows building after it was tomahawked in half by collapse of South Tower

Second is what was left after North Tower crushed it flat.....

911research.wtc7.net...

All in all your statement is a lie......



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
A building can be said to have collapsed into its own footprint if, following collapse, all of the buildings pieces neglecting dust and tiny fragments come to rest within the previous perimeter of the outer walls, including any courtyards or similarly enclosed outdoor spaces.

There's a plain english definition for you.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Forgot to add that I'm eagerly awaiting details on the discrepancies between Building 7 and Nist's computer model of same.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
You already gave a definition then turned around and disassociated yourself from it. You claim to have made it up, so what else have you "made up". Which of your other statements are made up?


Notice that unlike you, I am very clear in things like this. When I make things up, I write it down so it is clear beyond any doubt to anyone.



How can we believe what you say when you make things up by your admittance?


Because I am 100% honest about it.


You are having another perception "problem" again. There is nothing weird here, I am merely chatting with you on your terms.


If it were my terms, you would have just answered my extremely simply question pages ago. Instead we are playing your little game. Which I play because its funny.


Nobody is asking you to invent a definition, I am only asking you to define what you think "collapse in its foot print" is.


That would mean I would have to guess. All while you can probably clear this up in a single sentence. Why this game?


There are words and phrases in the English language you and I know but never use. We can define them. Just because you do not use a word, it does not mean it is washed out from your mind.


Good. Your next lesson will be about context. Look up that term and see what it means for the meaning of words.


This is an example of your perception deficit problem. You also have selective memory; I said you are "entirely reliant on the specificity of all kinds of details to which you give equal weight".

Basically you are unable to distinguish between the relevant and irrelevant and it is for this reason that you need to provide a definition of what you think "collapsing on its foot print" means so that you can have an explanation that caters to you special needs.


I need a definition because truthers mean all kind of different things with it. Again, this is completely independent of my person as a whole.


This is an example of an irrelevant point. Do you see what I mean?


Not really. Asking for any evidence at all or asking for definition of words that according to truthers mean something significant is as relevant as it gets. That you single out a single sentence in my post to show how I bring up irrelevant point pretty much proves that the rest must be pretty much relevant.

Continue your disingenuous game. Its still funny.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

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)


What I am saying is that evidence does not lie and there has never been such an occurrence of steel structured skyscrapers collapsing in such a manner and on the day that this happened 3, I repeat 3 TIMES I strongly believe that the investigation teams should have conducted meticulous research with the evidence e.g. collapse rubble- instead what we had was the metal was sent overseas and melted down as scrap. Again answer the question- Have you ever seen a steel structured building fall in the manner of WTC7 due solely to fires? If so please reference it.

p.s. I am curios to see what sort of close minded circular logic you will use to defend the undefendable- which is there never has been such an event unless some sort of planning was done in advance.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
What I am saying is that evidence does not lie and there has never been such an occurrence of steel structured skyscrapers collapsing in such a manner and on the day that this happened 3, I repeat 3 TIMES I strongly believe that the investigation teams should have conducted meticulous research with the evidence e.g. collapse rubble- instead what we had was the metal was sent overseas and melted down as scrap. Again answer the question- Have you ever seen a steel structured building fall in the manner of WTC7 due solely to fires? If so please reference it.

p.s. I am curios to see what sort of close minded circular logic you will use to defend the undefendable- which is there never has been such an event unless some sort of planning was done in advance.


Has there ever been a circumstance like 9/11 in the history of the world? No? Then why are you expecting it to act like regular fires when there was structural damage accompanied by fire that has never happened before in the history of the world? There is no precedent, so it won't act like a previous event.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
What I am saying is that evidence does not lie and there has never been such an occurrence of steel structured skyscrapers collapsing in such a manner and on the day that this happened 3, I repeat 3 TIMES I strongly believe that the investigation teams should have conducted meticulous research with the evidence e.g. collapse rubble- instead what we had was the metal was sent overseas and melted down as scrap. Again answer the question- Have you ever seen a steel structured building fall in the manner of WTC7 due solely to fires? If so please reference it.

p.s. I am curios to see what sort of close minded circular logic you will use to defend the undefendable- which is there never has been such an event unless some sort of planning was done in advance.


Has there ever been a circumstance like 9/11 in the history of the world? No? Then why are you expecting it to act like regular fires when there was structural damage accompanied by fire that has never happened before in the history of the world? There is no precedent, so it won't act like a previous event.


So the fact that there was never a 9/11 style attack explains as to how WTC7 fell in the manner that it did??.... these are not facts my friend, it seems like you are basing your counter argument off of beliefs instead of concrete facts that you can reference. Feel free to try again this time use actual evidence instead of presumptions.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 



What I am saying is that evidence does not lie and there has never been such an occurrence of steel structured skyscrapers collapsing in such a manner and on the day that this happened 3, I repeat 3 TIMES

Can you please provide a link to the database of all structural failures of all buildings in the history of the modern world so that we may all confirm your affirmative statement?

I strongly believe that the investigation teams should have conducted meticulous research with the evidence e.g. collapse rubble- instead what we had was the metal was sent overseas and melted down as scrap.

No it wasn't. There still plenty right here. In fact, almost every State has sections of the building as part of memorials.

Again answer the question- Have you ever seen a steel structured building fall in the manner of WTC7 due solely to fires? If so please reference it.

Soon as you provide that database!

p.s. I am curios to see what sort of close minded circular logic you will use to defend the undefendable- which is there never has been such an event unless some sort of planning was done in advance.

Its based on the real unusual logic that realizes that things need to happen first before they can happen again. Also noting that singular events often have singular results.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
So the fact that there was never a 9/11 style attack explains as to how WTC7 fell in the manner that it did??.... these are not facts my friend, it seems like you are basing your counter argument off of beliefs instead of concrete facts that you can reference. Feel free to try again this time use actual evidence instead of presumptions.


That fact that no building has ever sustained the type of damage WTC 7 did means that you cannot predict what the building will do based off of previous events. If you try to compare it to other fires, it will fail for not factoring in the damage. If you compare it to controlled demos, it will fail for not factoring in the fire AND the damage.

You are not basing anything off concrete facts, instead focusing on similarities in other, completely different events. That's called assuming. You are assuming everything and not using evidence at all. And you have the gall to say I'm using presumptions...



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
So the fact that there was never a 9/11 style attack explains as to how WTC7 fell in the manner that it did??.... these are not facts my friend, it seems like you are basing your counter argument off of beliefs instead of concrete facts that you can reference. Feel free to try again this time use actual evidence instead of presumptions.


That fact that no building has ever sustained the type of damage WTC 7 did means that you cannot predict what the building will do based off of previous events. If you try to compare it to other fires, it will fail for not factoring in the damage. If you compare it to controlled demos, it will fail for not factoring in the fire AND the damage.

You are not basing anything off concrete facts, instead focusing on similarities in other, completely different events. That's called assuming. You are assuming everything and not using evidence at all. And you have the gall to say I'm using presumptions...


No other building has ever sustained the damage that WTC7 did? I believe the claim by NIST is that WTC7 collapsed due to "severe structural damage due to intense fires" yet they still could not explain why the building fell in the manner in which it did! do you mean to say there has never been other steel structured buildings that have had intense fires? Again you refrain from using any evidence or previous occurrences to verify your claim that WTC7 was not an anomaly... try FACTS next time



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
No other building has ever sustained the damage that WTC7 did? I believe the claim by NIST is that WTC7 collapsed due to "severe structural damage due to intense fires" yet they still could not explain why the building fell in the manner in which it did! do you mean to say there has never been other steel structured buildings that have had intense fires? Again you refrain from using any evidence or previous occurrences to verify your claim that WTC7 was not an anomaly... try FACTS next time


There you go, changing the goal posts to stay ignorant. This is why I hate arguing with you guys. You don't have a single logical bone in your body, so-to-speak, when it comes to 9/11.

Edit: I mean, seriously. I could reference that they modeled the collapse both with and without damage, and it didn't look like the collapse until they modeled it with the structural damage. Have you not seen their report?
edit on 14-5-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 



What I am saying is that evidence does not lie and there has never been such an occurrence of steel structured skyscrapers collapsing in such a manner and on the day that this happened 3, I repeat 3 TIMES

Can you please provide a link to the database of all structural failures of all buildings in the history of the modern world so that we may all confirm your affirmative statement?

I strongly believe that the investigation teams should have conducted meticulous research with the evidence e.g. collapse rubble- instead what we had was the metal was sent overseas and melted down as scrap.

No it wasn't. There still plenty right here. In fact, almost every State has sections of the building as part of memorials.

Again answer the question- Have you ever seen a steel structured building fall in the manner of WTC7 due solely to fires? If so please reference it.

Soon as you provide that database!

p.s. I am curios to see what sort of close minded circular logic you will use to defend the undefendable- which is there never has been such an event unless some sort of planning was done in advance.

Its based on the real unusual logic that realizes that things need to happen first before they can happen again. Also noting that singular events often have singular results.


From my short time posting here I have learned that you are one of the more childish and unreasonable posters so I will not address any of your ridiculous claims/demands.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
From my short time posting here I have learned that you are one of the more childish and unreasonable posters so I will not address any of your ridiculous claims/demands.


Ad hominem: refusing to debate someone by discrediting their character instead of their argument. You're not winning many points here, friend.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
No other building has ever sustained the damage that WTC7 did? I believe the claim by NIST is that WTC7 collapsed due to "severe structural damage due to intense fires" yet they still could not explain why the building fell in the manner in which it did! do you mean to say there has never been other steel structured buildings that have had intense fires? Again you refrain from using any evidence or previous occurrences to verify your claim that WTC7 was not an anomaly... try FACTS next time


There you go, changing the goal posts to stay ignorant. This is why I hate arguing with you guys. You don't have a single logical bone in your body, so-to-speak, when it comes to 9/11.

Edit: I mean, seriously. I could reference that they modeled the collapse both with and without damage, and it didn't look like the collapse until they modeled it with the structural damage. Have you not seen their report?
edit on 14-5-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)


I did see the NIST report, you know the one that took years to come up with, the one that didnt match the actual collapse of WTC7...if you are going to debate the subject at least use facts.

I believe you responded to my post first, thus initiating our debate- yet you have failed to answer the question to my original post. Tell me of any other building composed of a steel core that has collapsed in the manner in which WTC7 did. Note; claiming that there is no previous event due to this being the first such attack does not constitute evidence.

As for not replying to Hooper- I have had the privilege of debating with him before. He does not use fact's or logic to counter arguments, more or less a waste of my time... you seem to have some reasoning so I continue to reply to your comments



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 



From my short time posting here I have learned that you are one of the more childish and unreasonable posters so I will not address any of your ridiculous claims/demands.

So you have nothing then, right? No database of building collapses that we can all look at, no proof that all the steel was shipped out for scrap.

Thought so.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

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


Although a shame that such a marvellously free thinking mind can't answer my last post on the point. Or indeed perhaps grasp it.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 



From my short time posting here I have learned that you are one of the more childish and unreasonable posters so I will not address any of your ridiculous claims/demands.

So you have nothing then, right? No database of building collapses that we can all look at, no proof that all the steel was shipped out for scrap.

Thought so.



So you have abrogated your right to question the government on 9/11. Never mind how steel framed structures collapsed from fire for the first time in history, have you not demanded to know why the US and around the WTC was lousy with mossad agents/furniture moving labourers (



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath


Stop messing around and get to the point of providing your definition of "collapsing on its foot print". It is a very important matter for you so let us examine what you mean.


Interesting that you're quite happy to make demands on others, but when someone asks you to source an assertion you've made - indeed an assertion that is central to your argument - you feel quite comfortable not bothering.

Face it, you've been caught out and you're trying not to look silly. It isn't really working.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath


Stop messing around and get to the point of providing your definition of "collapsing on its foot print". It is a very important matter for you so let us examine what you mean.


Interesting that you're quite happy to make demands on others, but when someone asks you to source an assertion you've made - indeed an assertion that is central to your argument - you feel quite comfortable not bothering.

Face it, you've been caught out and you're trying not to look silly. It isn't really working.


This is an ongoing conversation about his definitions. You, however, are demanding explanations on 9/11 from an ordinary person who is not accountable to you.

You seem not distinguish between who is responsible for 9/11 and who is responsible for his own understanding of a term. You seem confused.

You think I have been caught out? Caught about what?




top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join