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.
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?
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?
The following shows the back of building 7, just prior to it's perfect CD collapse:
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?
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.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Building 7 collapsed and no airplane hit it. It just went down onto its own foot print.
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 Broadwayedit on 6-5-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)
“Now that you know it is fake, it means that the (real) evidence points to the fact no charges went off.”.
When a building is taken down with charges, the resistance is not reduced to zero.
he core answer is because that is how the laws of physics work
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.
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...
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Please do not call me a liar.
Building 7 did not fall sideways
It fell onto its on footprint
and it is a fact
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 about George Bush and Dick Chaney putting on frogman suits and blowing up the levees in Louisiana. Start talking about that.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
Again, the burden of proof is at the people making the claims.
Thermite kind of destroys the argument that all supports were destroyed simultaneously.
“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”.
NIST's hypothesis is non-testable without the proper resources, even if they release their 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.
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