Good video on Building 7

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Actually I did watch the rest of it and it was quite informative, I do not know if accurate but interesting none the less.
I will watch almost any documentary, info type film as any information is good information, it just depends what you do with it, some needs to be filed away and some needs to go in the recycling bin.
I haven't decided where to put this info yet.
Thanks for the response though.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Actually I did watch the rest of it and it was quite informative, I do not know if accurate but interesting none the less.
I will watch almost any documentary, info type film as any information is good information, it just depends what you do with it, some needs to be filed away and some needs to go in the recycling bin.
I haven't decided where to put this info yet.

Thanks for the response though.

I watched about ten mins after posting but it was a bit long for me.

Just realised I've derailed my own thread

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh good GOD you can't be serious! Richard Gage is such a blatant phony that he's now editing the collapse of the penthouse of WTC 7 completely out of the video. He wants the collapse to look "symmetrical" so badly that he's even tampering with his own evidence to specifically make it look symmetrical. It's becoming clear that whenever something proves what Gage is saying is false, he doesn't even try to change his story to explain it. He simply pretends it doesn't exist.

I didn't watch the whole flick but I know full well Gage is probably also pretending the south side didn't fold in and collapse before the north side did (as per the NIST report) which was the whole reason why the penthouse collapsed before the north side did to begin with. Does he repeat the "there were only small fires in WTC 7" lie, too?

What cracks me up is that if anyone pushing the "official story" was caught pulling such a dishonest stunt like what Gage is pulling, the truthers would be all over them like a Catholic priest on a choir boy. PLEASE tell me you didn't send that con artist any money.

I would say Mr Gage is far more credible than all the nonsense the shills pump out.

The building fell symmetrically, this cannot be denied. Please show a video that proves otherwise.

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
reply to post by ANOK

 

Thats a pretty neet trick there! Falling into it own footprint THROUGH the most resistance (straight down)
Nah....Gravity and physic's took the day off on 9/11/01, they were to busy tryin to find them dern ole terroists

Hey there GoodOleDave or what your screen name implies G.O.D.
You are soo clever

How much do you get paid to sit on the 9/11 forums just waiting for a new thread?
All anyone has do to is look at your posting history and see thats its a wee bit lopp sided

I dont know how anyone can spend so much time on a conspiracy website that doesnt believe in conspiracies.

That would be like me spending the majority of my time on a dallas cowboys forum just to say how stupid they are and how the Texans are the best! get a real job G.O.D.

dont even bother with this guy, I was debating with him in another WTC7 thread one of his more stellar posts was congratulating Silverstein for having the building pulled claiming that he saved many lives, he later went back on his comments claiming that the building could not have been pulled because FDNY werent qualified to do it and that there was NO way that explosives could have been planted in advance.

The thing with people who stick to the original story is that they will do all they can to preserve there false perception of life,G.O.D. uses narrow minded thinking with circular logic in order to maintain this view. Cognitive dissonance is a bit*h.

A piece of string, or a chain, does not act in the same way as a beam, or truss, sagging from heat.

The first thing that happens to steel when heated is it expands. It's dimensions in all directions increases.

If a steel beam is pinned between two larger columns, which it cannot move, the steel cannot increase it's length so the beam sags. If the truss can't push the columns out, it can not also pull them in, it takes the same amount of force to do either. No extra weight was added that it wasn't designed to hold, no extra force was placed on the columns. Pushing down on a piece of string with your finger is adding extra weight, and force to what they're connected to. Also the string is not stretching like the steel would if extra weight was added, the extra weight would be taken up in more sagging, not by pulling in columns.

The OSers used to claim that the floor connections, 5/8th" and 1" bolts, were weak points, to explain how the floors could pancake. But of course if they were a weak point then they would have failed before they pulled in the massive columns. They contradict themselves.

Originally posted by ANOK
A piece of string, or a chain, does not act in the same way as a beam, or truss, sagging from heat.

The first thing that happens to steel when heated is it expands. It's dimensions in all directions increases.

If a steel beam is pinned between two larger columns, which it cannot move, the steel cannot increase it's length so the beam sags. If the truss can't push the columns out, it can not also pull them in, it takes the same amount of force to do either. No extra weight was added that it wasn't designed to hold, no extra force was placed on the columns. Pushing down on a piece of string with your finger is adding extra weight, and force to what they're connected to. Also the string is not stretching like the steel would if extra weight was added, the extra weight would be taken up in more sagging, not by pulling in columns.

The OSers used to claim that the floor connections, 5/8th" and 1" bolts, were weak points, to explain how the floors could pancake. But of course if they were a weak point then they would have failed before they pulled in the massive columns. They contradict themselves.

edit on 5/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Very good points! One only has to look at the video of WTC7 coming down to see how the pancake theory is full of ishh especially when the official report claims that fire's initiated the free fall collapse.

reply to post by ANOK


Good post, the OS 'fakers' also try to claim they used cheap weak concrete! Hahaha! It was a special mix designed to be very strong, certainly not designed to turn to dust in an instant!

The steel also had fireproofing, and there was no reason for it to reach the temperatures needed to melt it. They think they are dealing with uneducated fools!

Originally posted by 4hero
reply to post by ANOK

 

Good post, the OS 'fakers' also try to claim they used cheap weak concrete! Hahaha! It was a special mix designed to be very strong, certainly not designed to turn to dust in an instant!

Excuse me, lightweight concrete was used as floors in the WTC Towers. That is a FACT. The concrete did NOT turn into dust only. This is a FACT. However: when in such a chaotic collapse and crush, SOME concrete WILL release powder on fragmenting. What was seen ejecting was mostly the sheetrock and drywall used on every floor of the building. Was there some rushed concrete in this? Yes. I cannot believe that some people have a hard time understanding that when concrete get smashed and crushed, some of it is turned into powder.

The steel also had fireproofing, and there was no reason for it to reach the temperatures needed to melt it.

All of the steel had fireproofing? Sure most of it did, but some was subpar and even missing. Also, a lot of it on the impacted floors was knocked off. Subpaar fireproofing, impact, damage, fire, all worked together. Ah yes and our old friend gravity.

They think they are dealing with uneducated fools!

Well some of your commentary......................

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
'He simply pretends it doesn't exist. '- you mean like the 9/11 Commission completely ignoring the collapse of a 47 story skyscraper?

Excuse me? The 9/11 commission report wasn't set up to discuss why any of the buildings collapsed. They likewise didn't discuss why the roof caved in on WTC 6, nor did they discuss the gigantic crater in the roof of building 7. Guess what- the 9/11 commission report also didn't discuss the huge gouge in the Deutschebank building nor did they say a word about thay gigantic flag the Deutschebank building hung over the side to cover up the huge gouge. Do you really think that's a sign of some sinister secret conspiracy or could it be that maybe...just maybe...the collapse of WTC 7 OR the crater in the roof of WTC 5 OR the flag on the Deuteschebank building has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with documenting Al Qaida's plot to attack the US?

Richard Gage isn't the only guy talking, there are many experts in this video explaining that WTC7 fell in it's own footprint- how can you deny the symmetry of the collapse when it comes down all at the same time- you can see it literally with your own eyes

No, actually, you can't. This only shows the collapse from the NORTH side. It's only due to the propaganda from Gage that you're claiming the south side collapsed the same way that the north side did. Plus, none of these videos show the collapse of the penthouse six seconds before the rest of the building collapsed any more than your original did. So in short, you're trying to refute the claim you're pretending that the south side collapsed the same way as the north side (plus pretending the penthouse didn't collapse at all) by posting a montage of videos that pretend the south side collapsed the sameway as the north side (plus pretendimg the penthouse didn't colllapse at all), which is what I said in my very first post.

I invite you to prove me wrong- post a video showing the collase from the south side that proves the south side collapsed the same way as the north side. Gage shows no such thing, so I'm presuming there's some more tangible reason for your insisting on this other than from leprechauns whispering in your ear while you're asleep, RIGHT?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, I must have said that a trillion times, in regards to the 9/11CR and WTC7. But they just dont get it. They want answers and then ignore them when they are given. Just makes me believe they are NOT interested in the truth, or facts, or anything good, just anything that sounds like a good conspiracy and proves the evil NWO/Illuminotti/Jews/Zionists/Bildergberg/Rockefellers/Micky Mouse Club are out to get us all, and blew up the WTCs for (insert silly reason here).

How many times must it be repeated as to why WTC7 was not mentioned in the 9/11CR before it seeps in? I've seen thick skulls before, but this is just a new breed. Embracing ignorance is a new fad on ATS. Sad really

In other words the fact that the official report and mainstream media had little to no coverage of WTC 7 is not strange at all?

Oh I get it, it was such an unprecedented, horrible, chaotic, unforeseeable, (enter some form of sensationalism description here) that we should not think for ourselves and trust our own eyes. Instead lets listen to every report the government releases I mean after all they are the authority figure and always know whats right and its not like the military industrial complex had anything to gain from the 9/11 attacks.

Yes , it IS a good video O.P , S+F.

Seen parts of it before on the whole AEfor911truth vid , but i dont remember the alien stuff , haha.
The "O.S" Is see through now , they cant cover it up anymore , some times i think they dont even WANT to cover it up it`s that ******* obvious.

I`ve noticed that "the usual suspects" have built a little A.T.S "O.Ser" crew , aawwwww isnt that lovely

Originally posted by GenRadek


Excuse me, lightweight concrete was used as floors in the WTC Towers. That is a FACT. The concrete did NOT turn into dust only. This is a FACT. However: when in such a chaotic collapse and crush, SOME concrete WILL release powder on fragmenting. What was seen ejecting was mostly the sheetrock and drywall used on every floor of the building. Was there some rushed concrete in this? Yes. I cannot believe that some people have a hard time understanding that when concrete get smashed and crushed, some of it is turned into powder.

The steel also had fireproofing, and there was no reason for it to reach the temperatures needed to melt it.

All of the steel had fireproofing? Sure most of it did, but some was subpar and even missing. Also, a lot of it on the impacted floors was knocked off. Subpaar fireproofing, impact, damage, fire, all worked together. Ah yes and our old friend gravity.

They think they are dealing with uneducated fools!

Well some of your commentary......................

NO! I wont excuse you for your incompetence! They used a special mix of concrete that was designed with strength in mind! Where on earth have you got the idea of lightweight, weak concrete from?

How can you you say the the fireproofing was below par? There are videos of them applying fireproofing to the towers, and they did it to a very high safety standard! And you have the cheek to call people that have done their homework uneducated fools?

The whole 9/11 set-up was organised by fools, and the story is now being upheld by people with even less intelligence! You've been lazy with your research, you are guessing facts, making stuff up as you go along, either that or your brief has many holes in it, just like the OS.

Jeeez, I'd give up now if that is all you have to offer.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave, I must have said that a trillion times, in regards to the 9/11CR and WTC7. But they just dont get it. They want answers and then ignore them when they are given. Just makes me believe they are NOT interested in the truth, or facts, or anything good, just anything that sounds like a good conspiracy and proves the evil NWO/Illuminotti/Jews/Zionists/Bildergberg/Rockefellers/Micky Mouse Club are out to get us all, and blew up the WTCs for (insert silly reason here).

How many times must it be repeated as to why WTC7 was not mentioned in the 9/11CR before it seeps in? I've seen thick skulls before, but this is just a new breed. Embracing ignorance is a new fad on ATS. Sad really

edit on 5/15/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

Your aqnswers are weak and incompetent, when you provide some decent scientific evidence instead of wild, untrue notions then we might pay more attention.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
'He simply pretends it doesn't exist. '- you mean like the 9/11 Commission completely ignoring the collapse of a 47 story skyscraper?

Excuse me? The 9/11 commission report wasn't set up to discuss why any of the buildings collapsed. They likewise didn't discuss why the roof caved in on WTC 6, nor did they discuss the gigantic crater in the roof of building 7. Guess what- the 9/11 commission report also didn't discuss the huge gouge in the Deutschebank building nor did they say a word about thay gigantic flag the Deutschebank building hung over the side to cover up the huge gouge. Do you really think that's a sign of some sinister secret conspiracy or could it be that maybe...just maybe...the collapse of WTC 7 OR the crater in the roof of WTC 5 OR the flag on the Deuteschebank building has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with documenting Al Qaida's plot to attack the US?

Richard Gage isn't the only guy talking, there are many experts in this video explaining that WTC7 fell in it's own footprint- how can you deny the symmetry of the collapse when it comes down all at the same time- you can see it literally with your own eyes

No, actually, you can't. This only shows the collapse from the NORTH side. It's only due to the propaganda from Gage that you're claiming the south side collapsed the same way that the north side did. Plus, none of these videos show the collapse of the penthouse six seconds before the rest of the building collapsed any more than your original did. So in short, you're trying to refute the claim you're pretending that the south side collapsed the same way as the north side (plus pretending the penthouse didn't collapse at all) by posting a montage of videos that pretend the south side collapsed the sameway as the north side (plus pretendimg the penthouse didn't colllapse at all), which is what I said in my very first post.

I invite you to prove me wrong- post a video showing the collase from the south side that proves the south side collapsed the same way as the north side. Gage shows no such thing, so I'm presuming there's some more tangible reason for your insisting on this other than from leprechauns whispering in your ear while you're asleep, RIGHT?

ALL videos of WTC7 collapsing show that the entire building falls at the same time into it's own footprint.

If the south side never collapsed the same way as the north side then when the north side had collapsed- we'd still the south side standing, YOU DON'T SEE IT HOWEVER BECAUSE IT TOO HAS COLLAPSED.

LOL it's not hard to understand, WTC7 came down entirely in less than ten seconds, part, not all of the building was on fire.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Less than 10 seconds ? Have a look at a video of the complete collapse; not a truncated truther one without the east penthouse falling in. Time it yourself.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by 4hero




I am in tears from laughing so hard at your response. Excuse me, where have I been incorrect about what the 9/11 Commission Report was tasked to do?

And which ones persay? What exactly have I said that was considered "wild and untrue notions"? I was not aware that facts are now consider wild and untrue.

I have to wonder your age, or at least maturity level. This is not how I remember discussing things with ATS members in the past. I left this behavior behind long ago in grade school.

Also, in regards to the concrete, ever heard the term "Light but strong"? I'm guessing you havent. I never said anything about weak concrete. I stated that the WTC used a special light concrete mix that was still strong enough for its job, but not heavy and making construction harder to use. Lighter and less dense concrete is better for the construction that the denser heavier concrete. It is similar like in cars. Cars used to be heavy steel frames for its structure. But then they turned to lighter aluminum shells and such which were still strong and made the car lighter, but they are still not as strong as the heavy steel. Or like in the WTC. Instead of heavy steel I-beams supporting the floors, they used light-weight steel trusses. Sure they are strong enough for the job, and do the job as good as the heavy I-beam, but still, it is not as good for certain situations. Also, you may want to read up on the concrete and its smashing in the WTC here:

Concrete at the WTC

As to fireproofing: Link on ATS
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also firefighters do believe we are misled: fireproofing was shoddy. You want a conspiracy? How about crappy fireproofing?

Selling out the investigation

"Fireproofing" at the WTC

Now I just know you are going to ignore this. Or hand wave it away. Or say I bring nothing of value. But I guess cold hard facts are just not good enough to a conspiracy theorist Truther. At least I know that the mature and truely interested members of ATS will read this and learn something new or unexpected that was being held from them from other sources, or prefered not to be mentioned for fear of their charade falling apart..

reply to post by GenRadek


Also, 4hero,
I have yet to see you bring anything of value to the discussion, other than trolling, And you accuse me of not doing anything of value?

Originally posted by 4hero

How can you you say the the fireproofing was below par? There are videos of them applying fireproofing to the towers, and they did it to a very high safety standard! And you have the cheek to call people that have done their homework uneducated fools?

The nonasbestos fireproofing protecting some of the floors, including the floors impacted by the airplanes, was in some ways inferior to asbestos-containing fireproofing. The nonasbestos materials are less dense, less uniform, and less cohesive to the surface. Nonasbestos fireproofing materials were rushed into use, in some instances without the benefit of full-scale fire tests.

How is this for the term "subpaar" fireproofing?

Now, let us see what you have to say to counter this fact, besides your usual childish behavior.

The whole 9/11 set-up was organised by fools, and the story is now being upheld by people with even less intelligence! You've been lazy with your research, you are guessing facts, making stuff up as you go along, either that or your brief has many holes in it, just like the OS.

Jeeez, I'd give up now if that is all you have to offer.

Me lazy? Less intelligent? I've been down this road many times, and I know it by heart. But hey, you want facts, start reading the links I posted. it would be nice to get an intelligent response to the above facts, besides snide comments and insults.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by 4hero

 

I am in tears from laughing so hard at your response. Excuse me, where have I been incorrect about what the 9/11 Commission Report was tasked to do?

And which ones persay? What exactly have I said that was considered "wild and untrue notions"? I was not aware that facts are now consider wild and untrue.

I have to wonder your age, or at least maturity level. This is not how I remember discussing things with ATS members in the past. I left this behavior behind long ago in grade school.

Also, in regards to the concrete, ever heard the term "Light but strong"? I'm guessing you havent. I never said anything about weak concrete. I stated that the WTC used a special light concrete mix that was still strong enough for its job, but not heavy and making construction harder to use. Lighter and less dense concrete is better for the construction that the denser heavier concrete. It is similar like in cars. Cars used to be heavy steel frames for its structure. But then they turned to lighter aluminum shells and such which were still strong and made the car lighter, but they are still not as strong as the heavy steel. Or like in the WTC. Instead of heavy steel I-beams supporting the floors, they used light-weight steel trusses. Sure they are strong enough for the job, and do the job as good as the heavy I-beam, but still, it is not as good for certain situations. Also, you may want to read up on the concrete and its smashing in the WTC here:

Concrete at the WTC

As to fireproofing: Link on ATS
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also firefighters do believe we are misled: fireproofing was shoddy. You want a conspiracy? How about crappy fireproofing?

Selling out the investigation

"Fireproofing" at the WTC

Now I just know you are going to ignore this. Or hand wave it away. Or say I bring nothing of value. But I guess cold hard facts are just not good enough to a conspiracy theorist Truther. At least I know that the mature and truely interested members of ATS will read this and learn something new or unexpected that was being held from them from other sources, or prefered not to be mentioned for fear of their charade falling apart..

edit on 5/15/2012 by GenRadek because: new links

Yo shill tl:dr

Tired of you shills now, cannot be bothered to read your junk anymore I'm only interested in honest members now... You had your chance.