Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whaler31
The insides of WTC7 started collapsing prior to the exterior shell collapsing, is that the information that explains it falling with zero resistance?


It explains it better than any CD claim. When a building is taken down with charges, the resistance is not reduced to zero. The charges only take out key supports, gravity does the rest. The charges do not take down all supports. That is a massive misconception from truthers.


The NIST report says that the collapse started at a specific column (column 79) This column was way off to the far side of the building, so why the uniform drop, and why didn't the rest of the undamaged columns cause at least an uneven collapse, or offer any resistance whatsoever?


Why not? You basically ask why things happen the way they happen. The core answer is because that is how the laws of physics work. Just because they don't happen the way our limited minds expect them to happen, does not mean a law was broken, or a dark conspiracy is going on. It just means that our minds are not suitable to fully grasp such complex events. Thinking otherwise demonstrates great arrogance and grandeur (which in my opinion is a key reason why CT's are attractive).



The following shows the back of building 7, just prior to it's perfect CD collapse:




From what I read, this video was specifically designed to demonstrate the gullibility, bias and blind sheep like behavior from truthers. No critical thinking or fact checking at all. Needless to say, the video is a fake.

Now answer this, you posted this video because you though it showed evidence of charges going of. Now that you know it is fake, it means that the (real) evidence points to the fact no charges went off. Else the original video would look indeed similar to the one you posted. What conclusion can you make from this? Do you think the absence of primary signs of CD is of any relevance?




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


So, you are too lazy to read page 2 and too lazy to do a 1 minute Google search. And ignore everything I write. You basically don't care about truth. Can you give me one reason why I should spoon feed you the information you want?


I read parts of page 2 but it is not my job to back up your claims. You have to refer to the details yourself. Merely telling me to look at page 2 in a generalised sort of way is ridicules.

Prove your point without ad hominems.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





It explains it better than any CD claim. When a building is taken down with charges, the resistance is not reduced to zero. The charges only take out key supports, gravity does the rest. The charges do not take down all supports. That is a massive misconception from truthers.


I think you are being obtuse here. You are cleverly imposing a nonsensical position on people who believe what they see with their own eyes. I am not sure what you mean by the term "truther".

No body claims that the use of charges instantly create free fall situations or reduce resistance to zero, only you.

Rational people are aware that charges prepare a building for collapse. The intention of demolition experts is to destroy load bearing junctions in stages until the final and central supporting structure is destroyed. Resistance is reduced to a minimum, not "zero", so that the collapse develops a momentum.

The fact is, irrespective of what your position is, Building 7 collapsed and no airplane hit it. It just went down onto its own foot print.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Building 7 collapsed and no airplane hit it. It just went down onto its own foot print.


Why do truthers post such blatant lies such as this?

WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because it damaged the Verizon building and Fiterman Hall at 30 W Broadway
edit on 6-5-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


That's right, no airplane hit WTC 7 just a falling skyscraper but we don't have to mention that :-


www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Building 7 collapsed and no airplane hit it. It just went down onto its own foot print.


Why do truthers post such blatant lies such as this?

WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because it damaged the Verizon building and Fiterman Hall at 30 W Broadway
edit on 6-5-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)


Please do not call me a liar. That is fighting talk.

Building 7 did not fall sideways, it fell straight downwards. It fell onto its on footprint and it is a fact irrespective of what caused it to collapse.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



“Now that you know it is fake, it means that the (real) evidence points to the fact no charges went off.”.

From my understanding, I believe it's true that there's no evidence of conventional charges going off although it's likely (as indicated by the molten steel) that WTC7 was probably destroyed unconventionally with thermate. But of course, this has been discussed to death on other threads on this forum hundreds and hundreds of times already.



When a building is taken down with charges, the resistance is not reduced to zero.

How do you claim to know these things? You state them as though they are matters-of-fact as if you know them without a shadow of doubt? Is that really so? Nevertheless, all supports, or virtually all of them, must have been removed to allow for free-fall acceleration. That's the point. And the chances of fire causing all columns to fail so catastrophically and with such synchronization is to quote FEMA and NIST a theory that only has a "low probability of occurrence". Perhaps if NIST had actually investigated the possibility of a controlled demolition instead of prejudgementally assuming it collapsed from fire, they might have conceived a theory with a higher probability instead, eh?



he core answer is because that is how the laws of physics work

Fine, let's have it here. I'll start the ball rolling, shall I? What reality-checks have you applied to your theory? Have you done that? Have you tested NIST's hypothesis for yourself to see if it is probable, let alone possible and if it accords with established physics? Or are you just wallowing in make-believe that you have no intention of getting out of? Since NIST have refused to release their primary data for independent scrutiny, how can you claim to know that the theory NIST is propagating is true? You can't. If your position was really well-founded in your knowledge of science and physics, you would be able to justify it rationally on scientific grounds. But you cannot do that, as you have already shown to everyone on this forum every time you hit the 'submit' button.



rom what I read, this video was specifically designed to demonstrate the gullibility, bias and blind sheep like behavior from truthers. No critical thinking or fact checking at all. Needless to say, the video is a fake.

Us, gullible? With 'no critical thinking?' Gosh, really? Isn't it always the way that self-ignorant people see in others what they are doing secretly themselves? The truth is that your experts at NIST are not doing any real science at all but are only playing computer-games and pretending to the world that this pantomime is genuine science. And gullible people like you who don't know any real science themselves believe them and become what you have become - crusaders for a cause that they do not understand. What a dark and delusional path you have committed yourself to following. 'When the blind are led by the blind, they all fall into the pit.' Haven't you ever come across that saying before?
edit on 6-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


That's right, no airplane hit WTC 7 just a falling skyscraper but we don't have to mention that :-


www.youtube.com...


No falling skyscraper hit building 7. You are overstating your case and you video link is a duff. An enormous dust and asbestos cloud and facade panels ejected onto Building 7. Only a few windows were broken.

In your video, the flank wall was circled in red to emphasize where the dust cloud touched it.

Here is a video, a close up of the flank wall, seconds before the collapse showing only few broken windows to the top floor.

The implications of the 9/11 horror being a self inflicted act of terrorism is devastatingly serious. The state control apparatus will not permit serious discussion of this crime on MSN and many otherwise good Americans cannot face the reality of what their government did and actively work to disrupt discourse.

It horrifies me too, even-though I am not an American and I always believed America to be the good guy.



Irrational debunkers are always easy to disprove.
edit on 6-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: spelling



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Please do not call me a liar.


Then stop posting lies, the WTC buildings did not fall into their own footprints...


Building 7 did not fall sideways


Why would you expect any building to fall sideways?

That silly statement shows you know nothing at all about building design or construction!


It fell onto its on footprint


No, that is just a truther lie


and it is a fact


No, it is a lie - how did the Verizon building and Fiterman Hall get damaged then?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
OH MY GOD MAN, LET IT GOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! At least move on to something more up to date. What about George Bush and Dick Chaney putting on frogman suits and blowing up the levees in Louisiana. Start talking about that.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 



"Only a few windows were broken"; are you being serious ?

So why would the firefighter here at 1.22 say "look at the hole in that building" ?

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 



"Only a few windows were broken"; are you being serious ?

So why would the firefighter here at 1.22 say "look at the hole in that building" ?

www.youtube.com...



What hole? I looked at your video and I saw a small number of broken windows, a fire on a lower floor and a lot of dust from where the twin towers collapsed.

I get sick and tired with debunkers posting duff videos as evidence.

I think you are only after disrupting discourse. You post nonsense, issue ad hominems and cite nothing as proof.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by D1Useek
 





What about George Bush and Dick Chaney putting on frogman suits and blowing up the levees in Louisiana. Start talking about that.


You broached the subject so why don't you enlighten us?

It is strictly your invention so please proceed with your tinfoilhatism



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
I think you are being obtuse here. You are cleverly imposing a nonsensical position on people who believe what they see with their own eyes. I am not sure what you mean by the term "truther".

No body claims that the use of charges instantly create free fall situations or reduce resistance to zero, only you.


Welcome to the internet. You must have missed it, but "free fall blah blah" is one of the most prominent truther argument for CD.

With truthers I mean the people who oppose the official account and blame (part of) the government. Usually these people believe the buildings were taken down with CD, but there are also quite some people who believe the buildings were fake, there were space beams, nukes etc.


Rational people are aware that charges prepare a building for collapse. The intention of demolition experts is to destroy load bearing junctions in stages until the final and central supporting structure is destroyed. Resistance is reduced to a minimum, not "zero", so that the collapse develops a momentum.


Correct. But then again, most truthers are not rational, and they think that CD means zero resistance means free fall. Therefore free fall proves CD. It is indeed a flawed line of reasoning.


The fact is, irrespective of what your position is, Building 7 collapsed and no airplane hit it. It just went down onto its own foot print.


"Own foot print" is another of those truther arguments, but when asked to specify what it means there is always a vague response. Can you define "Own footprint"? How much of the building is allowed to fall outside it? How much do you expect to fall outside it from a collapse due to fire and why?
edit on 6-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
From my understanding, I believe it's true that there's no evidence of conventional charges going off although it's likely (as indicated by the molten steel) that WTC7 was probably destroyed unconventionally with thermate. But of course, this has been discussed to death on other threads on this forum hundreds and hundreds of times already.


Thermite kind of destroys the argument that all supports were destroyed simultaneously. The reason thermite was made up as alternative is because it kind of behaves exactly like fire, and a collapse caused by thermite would basically follow the same phases. With the main difference that thermite is very likely to leave evidence, which is not known to exist.


How do you claim to know these things? You state them as though they are matters-of-fact as if you know them without a shadow of doubt? Is that really so? Nevertheless, all supports, or virtually all of them, must have been removed to allow for free-fall acceleration. That's the point. And the chances of fire causing all columns to fail so catastrophically and with such synchronization is to quote FEMA and NIST a theory that only has a "low probability of occurrence". Perhaps if NIST had actually investigated the possibility of a controlled demolition instead of prejudgementally assuming it collapsed from fire, they might have conceived a theory with a higher probability instead, eh?


I know these things because I have read a thing or two about the subject. But you are much better off asking demolition experts. Email and ask them.

Anyway, you are reversing the burden of proof. It is rather hard to prove a negative. I can not prove that there is no CD where free fall is reached. However, since you are claiming that free fall is a characteristic of CD, it should not be hard to show me a case where a building collapse using explosives indeed reaches free fall.



Fine, let's have it here. I'll start the ball rolling, shall I? What reality-checks have you applied to your theory? Have you done that? Have you tested NIST's hypothesis for yourself to see if it is probable, let alone possible and if it accords with established physics? Or are you just wallowing in make-believe that you have no intention of getting out of? Since NIST have refused to release their primary data for independent scrutiny, how can you claim to know that the theory NIST is propagating is true? You can't. If your position was really well-founded in your knowledge of science and physics, you would be able to justify it rationally on scientific grounds. But you cannot do that, as you have already shown to everyone on this forum every time you hit the 'submit' button.


NIST's hypothesis is non-testable without the proper resources, even if they release their models. We will have to trust they have done their job correctly, or not of course. But there isn't really a reason for me not to trust them. I have yet to see a good argument.

I will never claim that NIST theory is 100% correct. But even if they are wrong, it still does not mean CD. Again, the burden of proof is at the people making the claims. If you claim CD, prove it. Ignorance or incredulity is not proof.


Us, gullible? With 'no critical thinking?' Gosh, really? Isn't it always the way that self-ignorant people see in others what they are doing secretly themselves? The truth is that your experts at NIST are not doing any real science at all but are only playing computer-games and pretending to the world that this pantomime is genuine science. And gullible people like you who don't know any real science themselves believe them and become what you have become - crusaders for a cause that they do not understand. What a dark and delusional path you have committed yourself to following. 'When the blind are led by the blind, they all fall into the pit.' Haven't you ever come across that saying before?
edit on 6-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)


I am not making those accusations. I am just telling you what the motivations of the creator of that fake video were (I may even be wrong). It is up to each individual to determine what you posting that video as if it was real means for your critical thinking skills. My personal opinion is that they are lacking, but note that this is just my opinion.
edit on 6-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 



"Only a few windows were broken"; are you being serious ?

So why would the firefighter here at 1.22 say "look at the hole in that building" ?

www.youtube.com...



What hole? I looked at your video and I saw a small number of broken windows, a fire on a lower floor and a lot of dust from where the twin towers collapsed.

I get sick and tired with debunkers posting duff videos as evidence.

I think you are only after disrupting discourse. You post nonsense, issue ad hominems and cite nothing as proof.


I suspect you weren't there but others, senior firefighters, were. Captain Chris Boyle for example "there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in that building." :-

www.oocities.org...

To try and pretend that the only damage suffered by WTC 7 was a few broken windows is ludicrous.

Btw, please point out my ad homs to you.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



Again, the burden of proof is at the people making the claims.

If you think this then you have misconceived the nature of the scientific method. The scientific position is intrinsically skeptical by default and the total burden of proof lies with the advocates of each and every new proposition. The idea that a steel-framed building can collapse globally and suddenly from nothing but fire is indeed a new proposition that's never happened in the history of the real-world before. That's why the burden of proof rests with NIST. Not us



Thermite kind of destroys the argument that all supports were destroyed simultaneously.

I would direct you to the video below showing an experiment with crude equipment showing that thermate in relatively small quantities is capable of cutting through steel with speed.





“However, since you are claiming that free fall is a characteristic of CD, it should not be hard to show me a case where a building collapse using explosives indeed reaches free fall”.

Sorry, but I'm not going off on a wild-goose chase. You are the one who stated categorically that controlled demolitions do not collapse at free-fall without providing a scratch of evidence to support your claim. I didn't make the claim. You did. Don't throw it back at me.



NIST's hypothesis is non-testable without the proper resources, even if they release their models.

What resources do you think one requires in order to test the veracity of NIST's models?



I will never claim that NIST theory is 100% correct. But even if they are wrong, it still does not mean CD. Again, the burden of proof is at the people making the claims. If you claim CD, prove it. Ignorance or incredulity is not proof.

You haven't even addressed my challenge! You disappoint me. You are someone who has made a career out of denigrating dissenters to the 9/11 official story dogma, yet you demonstrate a complete inability to justify it when challenged to do so. Oh well, I expected as much.
edit on 6-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

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



Again, the burden of proof is at the people making the claims.

If you think this then you have misconceived the nature of the scientific method.


LOL. Reality check... internet debates do not adhere to the "scientific method", nor should they.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 



LOL. Reality check... internet debates do not adhere to the "scientific method", nor should they

Why shouldn't they? This is a scientific issue. Why should this discussion not "adhere" to the scientific method? That is the sort of thing that a creationist might say to put themselves into an epistemological safe-zone. Seems rather silly to me.
edit on 6-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


I note that you are still clinging to the thermite/thermate theory but have you seen this recent report by Dr James Millette, member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences :-

dl.dropbox.com...





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join