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: 20
9
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Personally, I think WTC7's collapse remains totally inconsistent with a fire-induced collapse. To my layman's eye, it doesn't appear to share any of the telltale characteristics I would associate with one, such as gradual structural-deformation, asymmetrical and partial collapse, non-steel framing dismemberment, etc. In my view, NIST have only surmised events to fit the requirements of their hypothetical models and have neglected to check their surmises against directly observed reality. Such checks are either readily available already or else could become so with little effort on their part. But it appears they don't want to carry them out.


Pretty simple isn't it? I pretty much gave the same description of what a fire-induced collapse should look like. There is NO WAY to describe it specifically for the simple reason that it should be unpredictable. Basically: MESSY, and nowhere near free-fall speed...there would be very obvious resistance in each floor in a genuine fire-induced pancake collapse. I am even asked to clarify what I mean by "top-down". Well, that would mean that the penthouse hits the 46th floor, and then the 46th floor collapses onto the 45th floor, and then the 45th floor collapses onto the 44th floor, and so on and so forth. What we saw was the entire building going straight down as the bottom floors were being taken out and thereby providing no resistance. This would mean that ALL of the dozens and dozens of supporting columns have to be taken out at the same time. This ain't rocket science and it is not difficult language to comprehend. But you see, we're dealing with Obfuscation, Inc. trolling this forum. They want you to redefine, over-define, super-define, ultra-define, and otherwise dictate verbatim where each piece of the building should have fallen, and if one particle lands outside the footprint, well guess what, according to Trolls Inc? It could not have been a CD because it was not "perfect". These idiots should have their posts removed instead of being allowed to bait and goad the rest of us into warnings and penalty points.

I 've watched tons and tons of CD videos and I must say that WTC7 is one of the better ones you will ever see. It is not very often that buildings of that size are destroyed, and 7 was relatively young.
edit on 17-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


I see that you ignore that internal collapse started 7 seconds before the outer shell collapsed. Your motto is if you can't see it it does not exist? How do you explain the penthouse falling down all in a sudden seven seconds before the rest goes?

If your only answer to this is that I am a troll, maybe you should exercise a bit of self reflection.


Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I 've watched tons and tons of CD videos and I must say that WTC7 is one of the better ones you will ever see. It is not very often that buildings of that size are destroyed, and 7 was relatively young.


If you ignore that it lacks loud bangs and flashes, and ignore the penthouse collapse, it indeed looks very similar to CD.
edit on 17-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


I see that you ignore that internal collapse started 7 seconds before the outer shell collapsed. Your motto is if you can't see it it does not exist? How do you explain the penthouse falling down all in a sudden seven seconds before the rest goes?

If your only answer to this is that I am a troll, maybe you should exercise a bit of self reflection.


Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I 've watched tons and tons of CD videos and I must say that WTC7 is one of the better ones you will ever see. It is not very often that buildings of that size are destroyed, and 7 was relatively young.


If you ignore that it lacks loud bangs and flashes, and ignore the penthouse collapse, it indeed looks very similar to CD.
edit on 17-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Yes indeed it does.

As for the Penthouse thing, we've been down this road already. What does the Penthouse collapse starting 7 seconds beforehand prove other than that is what was necessary to take down this particular building because of the way it was constructed? Haven't you watched any CD's at all? Can you not see that each one has its own unique pattern of collapse? You seem to be stuck on this penthouse no matter how many times it is shown to you that it is irrelevant. So what are you really trying to accomplish here?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Oh I forgot, you asked about the sounds. There are dozens of people who were there on the scene who said they heard the explosions. If we have videos with the sounds, the OSe'rs will say the sounds were added. If there are no sounds, the "truthers" will say that they were taken out. So if you were not there you are in no position to say there were no sounds, and even then you would be contradicting the people who were.

As for the flashes, most of the CD's we see have the windows taken out, and some even the facades, so that the flashes are easy to see. This building had none of that done, it was still completely intact. We have the squibs instead, clearly visible on all four sides from all different angles, and they all go in an upward direction in sequence.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


It completely destroys assertions like "This would mean that ALL of the dozens and dozens of supporting columns have to be taken out at the same time."

If the penthouse collapsed 7 seconds prior to the external building, it means that during this whole period, an internal collapse was going on. Which means an undefined number of support columns already lost their load capacity when the external building collapsed.

I see absolutely no reason why explosives can but fire can't weaken a building enough. I have never seen a good argument for this. All data and studies I have seen show that fires can weaken and deform the steel significantly.

I also have not seen any good arguments why a fire induced collapse can not look similar to a CD. In both cases key support members are taken out, and in both cases this results in a collapse. I does not seem unlikely to me at all that the end result may also look similar.

The argument that fire can not take out the columns all it once is wrong anyway. The columns can be taken out one by one over a longer time, while the building remains standing. At one moment, one of the remaining columns exceeds its load capacity, it will fail, its load is transferred, and a chain reaction occurs. Global collapse is the result. To me this seems to be a very reasonable explanation. I never seen any good counter argument for it.

Still, that isn't exactly what happened to WTC7, given there was an internal collapse. But it does seem that it happened to the towers.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Oh I forgot, you asked about the sounds. There are dozens of people who were there on the scene who said they heard the explosions. If we have videos with the sounds, the OSe'rs will say the sounds were added. If there are no sounds, the "truthers" will say that they were taken out. So if you were not there you are in no position to say there were no sounds, and even then you would be contradicting the people who were.


So what are you saying exactly? That the columns were taken down during the whole day? You are contradicting yourself here.

The original videos don't show flashes, and you don't hear charges going off. That is the fact you have to live with.


As for the flashes, most of the CD's we see have the windows taken out, and some even the facades, so that the flashes are easy to see. This building had none of that done, it was still completely intact. We have the squibs instead, clearly visible on all four sides from all different angles, and they all go in an upward direction in sequence.


A question, when explosives go off that show a clearly visible flash, do you think that windows nearby will survive? Shouldn't they blow out in a rather visual way?

The squibs have been been debunked already. It has been shown that the airspeed of the squibs accelerate over time. This means there is continuous pressure buildup, something that is not characteristic of an explosive, but is characteristic of a large volume decreasing in size (like for example the floors in a building).

You will also notice that in CD videos, the squibs always precede the collapse, while in the WTC towers the come after collapse is already well underway.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


It completely destroys assertions like "This would mean that ALL of the dozens and dozens of supporting columns have to be taken out at the same time."
No it doesn't, and this is the reason you can't come to grips with this being a CD. The supporting columns on the inside perimeter were obviously all taken out first before the outside columns. There must have been a structural reason for this.

As for fire vs, explosives, why don't you ask a CD expert why they waste so much money on explosives when they could just light fires?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


It completely destroys assertions like "This would mean that ALL of the dozens and dozens of supporting columns have to be taken out at the same time."
No it doesn't, and this is the reason you can't come to grips with this being a CD. The supporting columns on the inside perimeter were obviously all taken out first before the outside columns. There must have been a structural reason for this.

As for fire vs, explosives, why don't you ask a CD expert why they waste so much money on explosives when they could just light fires?


Can you not see what you just did there?

You say, "The supports were taken out simultaneously."

He says, "No, some supports failed first, and it took 5-7 seconds before the rest failed."

You say, "Well, the supports were taken out simultaneously at different times."

Do you know what the definition of simultaneously is?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
No it doesn't, and this is the reason you can't come to grips with this being a CD. The supporting columns on the inside perimeter were obviously all taken out first before the outside columns. There must have been a structural reason for this.


Yes, the reason was the fire. In my oppinion you are holding contradicting believes simultaniously. You believe that all columns were taken down all at once and you believe that the "columns on the inside perimeter" (not sure what columns you mean by that) were taken down first. So obviously, you also believe they were not taken down all at once.


As for fire vs, explosives, why don't you ask a CD expert why they waste so much money on explosives when they could just light fires?


You don't need to ask an explosive expert, but you can ask firemen, and safety and environmental organizations. You are breaking quite some laws and I think will be doing some jail time. But sure, I think many buildings can be taken down by setting them on fire.
edit on 17-5-2012 by -PLB- because: quotes



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
In my oppinion you are holding contradicting believes simultaniously. You believe that all columns were taken down all at once and you believe that the "columns on the inside perimeter" (not sure what columns you mean by that) were taken down first. So obviously, you also believe they were not taken down all at once.


You just cannot help obfuscating I see. No, not EVERY single column has to go at once, that is not how CD's are done, especially in a building this complex and immense. All the columns around the inside perimeter (ALL FOUR SIDES) that surrounds the elevators would have to go first, and it would have to be done from the bottom up in whatever sequence they deem necessary to bring about the desired collapse. THEN they would need to take out the outside columns (ALL FOUR SIDES) in the same way. This would allow the building to cave in on itself since the inside or core material was taken out or weakened first.

Get it? Or do I have to go from spoon-feeding back to formula?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
You just cannot help obfuscating I see. No, not EVERY single column has to go at once, that is not how CD's are done, especially in a building this complex and immense.


I am not trying to obfuscate, I am trying to clear up what you are saying. I am sorry that I interpreted "ALL of the dozens and dozens of supporting columns have to be taken out at the same time" as you saying that all columns had to be taken out at the same time. Thanks for clearing up that what you actually meant by it is that they were taken out in phases, and not all at once.


All the columns around the inside perimeter (ALL FOUR SIDES) that surrounds the elevators would have to go first, and it would have to be done from the bottom up in whatever sequence they deem necessary to bring about the desired collapse. THEN they would need to take out the outside columns (ALL FOUR SIDES) in the same way. This would allow the building to cave in on itself since the inside or core material was taken out or weakened first.

Get it? Or do I have to go from spoon-feeding back to formula?


Next time just refrain from writing down the exact opposite of what you mean to say, and all these extra posts are not necessary.

So, basically, you accept that the internal collapse started at least 7 seconds before the external collapse.

Yes/no?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 





Get it? Or do I have to go from spoon-feeding back to formula?


The objective is not to get it, but to obfuscate as you correctly stated. You have expressed yourself with clarity but PLB will fly off in another direction, beat that drum for a while, the rehash everything again with you.

You are dealing with a dilettante and a professional time waster.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


And along comes the person who refuses to answer simple questions and plays childish games instead. In one of my removed posts this behavior was already explained. One sect member comes in and tells the other sect member how evil the person objecting their shared believe is. The other sect member agrees and refrains from further conversation. Not because he does not know the answers to the questions he is asked, but because the evil person is not worth the time. I guess this post will be removed for the same reason, oh well,



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




And along comes the person who refuses to answer simple questions and plays childish games instead.


The childish games are what you do. Just to make things crystal clear to you, I will post what I want when I want. I be damned before I will allow anyone to bull-bait me.
edit on 17-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


You are indeed free to post whatever you like, you could for example choose to make your next post on topic and for example answer what you mean exactly with "in its own foot print" and explain why it is relevant. Or you could choose to provide evidence for your assertion that NIST forgot to model some important parts of WTC7. Or you can of course come with another completely of topic post that is about my person.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
MI5, and all the other people who are not trolling this forum... I think it's time to stop feeding them. They should be ignored. They don't do a very good job of even disguising what they do. It's obvious for all to see. These semantics and word games will never stop with them. They obviously are not interested in getting to the truth. They are only interested in suppressing it.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


So I take you are calling me a troll and ignore me? So this post became reality to the letter?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
THEN they would need to take out the outside columns (ALL FOUR SIDES) in the same way. This would allow the building to cave in on itself since the inside or core material was taken out or weakened first.



You have a problem here....

You "MIGHT" be able to fake your way around an explanation about how either explosive CD or (the nonexistant) thermxte CD could take out the core columns silently cuz you can "imagine" some sooper sekrit technology or noise suppression devices could have been used and kept from view.

However, the ext columns were visible to everyone..... ANY explosive CD would have been visible and undeniably LOUD. Any thermxte device would have been seen.

You have painted yourself into a corner. better off to realize that there would be no need to compromise ext columns once the core columns are removed. research unsupported column length and Euler's buckling and its effects before you proceed.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
You have a problem here....

You "MIGHT" be able to fake your way around an explanation about how either explosive CD or (the nonexistant) thermxte CD could take out the core columns silently cuz you can "imagine" some sooper sekrit technology or noise suppression devices could have been used and kept from view.

However, the ext columns were visible to everyone..... ANY explosive CD would have been visible and undeniably LOUD. Any thermxte device would have been seen.

You have painted yourself into a corner. better off to realize that there would be no need to compromise ext columns once the core columns are removed. research unsupported column length and Euler's buckling and its effects before you proceed.



I don't think so. We have the squibs, we have the broken windows, and as I said earlier, I don't care about the sound in these videos. Unless you were there whatever you say about the sounds is meaningless and couldn;t possibly be more irrelevant....

WTC Building 7 Explosions First Responder Craig Bartmer Interview

www.youtube.com...

New Building 7 Footage Showing Controlled Demolition

www.youtube.com...

Building 7: Experts Explain It Was Controlled Demolition
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
It was a controlled demolition. Anyone thinking otherwise is the real conspirator.


The End~



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join