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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 27
46
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

They were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.




Prove it Truther. Give us a link.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist

They (bodies) were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.




Prove it Truther. Give us a link.


Watch the Barry Jennings uncut video, it's documented by him there!

I take it you've not seen that otherwise you would not be asking the question!?

It's in this thread, posted by member maxella, backtrack a couple of pages and enlighten yourself.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
9/11 First Responder - Interview with Craig Bartmer p2/3




NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.

I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.

TV is a powerful tool, hence why a lot of people did believe the OS, obviously that has changed since 2001, some people are still oblivious, such as the OS upholders in this thread, but a lot of people know it was an inside job based on all the evidence that is out there.

OS upholders, watch this video, you might learn something!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist

They (bodies) were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.




Prove it Truther. Give us a link.


Watch the Barry Jennings uncut video, it's documented by him there!

I take it you've not seen that otherwise you would not be asking the question!?

It's in this thread, posted by member maxella, backtrack a couple of pages and enlighten yourself.


Prove it Truther. Give us a video link and time.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.

I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.

How come it's ok to post Craig Bartmer, but when people post the firefighters that actually went around WTC7 and checked whether it was moving (and found that it was) are they ignored?

Surely you can't believe that the people responsible for the lives of the people on that site would be lying about this? I mean we even have photos of the damage. It seems crazy to me that you'd put so much faith in one account, but none whatsoever in another.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by Alfie1

You haven't searched very diligently because the Barry Jennings story has been dealt with many times and I personally have made various posts about it.


I have and didn't find any, please do link me up, I'd love to know what you wrote in them.



It is evident that you don't have much of a grasp of the story yourself because there was never any question of bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 when Barry Jennings arrived.


This remark makes no sense at all, you are just repeating what I said, so does that mean you have no grasp either? I think you know full well I have a very good grasp on this subject.

So as I stated, if the bodies were there upon Barry's arrival, do you care to tell me why they were dead? This was before any towers collapsed, and before any fires were started in WTC7? There was no reason for dead bodies at that stage!



The basic facts are that Barry Jennings went up to the OEM on the 23rd floor in an elevator with Michael Hess. They found the place deserted and in a phone call Barry was advised to get out. When they came to leave the elevator wouldn't function. This places the time as after 09.59 because the power was cut off at that time when the South Tower fell.

After scouting around, Michael Hess finds the stairs and they set off down. Their descent is prevented at 10.28 when debris from the collapsing North Tower rains down on WTC 7 and the stairwell is blocked.

They are rescued later and Barry gave an account of the firefightrers telling him not to look down and he had an impression of stepping over bodies in the lobby. Michael Hess has never referred to bodies and Barry later retracted his account emphasising he never saw any bodies.



So you are contradicting yourself, one minute you say bodies upon arrival, then you mould the story so the bodies occurred later. They were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.

Where are you getting these fictitious times from? Barry went in soon after the 'plane' impact, he clearly states he saw the towers were still standing before explosions went off, and he clearly states as firemen came to rescue him later, they ran off because the first tower collapsed!

You are making stuff up, Barry's account has been repeated on video a few times and on radio a few times, each time it's accurate, each time it's the same, he never retracts anything. Their is a BBC video that is heavily cut, but the uncut version reveals everything.


This is just a brief outline because you will find it dealt with in detail via search.


Oh, I have done plenty of research into Barry Jennings, don't worry about my knowledge on his account, and the very fact you are making stuff up shows you've either not done any homework yourself, or your trying to distort the real facts for some other reason? Barry Jennings knows what Barry Jennings saw, no one in the world can refute that.


I obviously didn't make myself clear. I am not aware of anyone, Barry included, claiming that there were bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 when he arrived. If you think you can substantiate it please provide a source

Barry appears to have made assumptions about the collapse of the Towers based on the actions of firefighters in the street but the evidence indicates that he never saw either collapse.

This is a clip showing Barry's clarification about "dead bodies" :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by kidtwist
NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.

I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.

How come it's ok to post Craig Bartmer, but when people post the firefighters that actually went around WTC7 and checked whether it was moving (and found that it was) are they ignored?


They are not ignored, your exaggerated opinion of what they meant is.

What they found, and what they said, has nothing to do with WTC 7 completely collapsing into its footprint, which is impossible from fire and asymmetrical damage.

Will this ever sink in or will you continue with your strawman?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
They are not ignored, your exaggerated opinion of what they meant is.

What they found, and what they said, has nothing to do with WTC 7 completely collapsing into its footprint, which is impossible from fire and asymmetrical damage.

Did they find fire? Did they find the building was moving? Did they find actual damage?

If you can answer those honestly, then sure I have no problem with what you're saying, but I imagine you deny at least one of the above?


Will this ever sink in or will you continue with your strawman?

That's not what a strawman is, so I have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1


I don't have to assume anything, they are saying it in plain English.


Well that's fine. It's just that some might have thought you were claiming that the only construction that could be put on that is that they were referring to explosives ; which of course doesn't follow.


You know very well that I never said that it could have been only explosives. I explain my opinion in THIS thread many times.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by plube
as the structure uses energy in the destruction of the lower and upper blocks simultaneously the collapse would fail to progress.....

I snipped most of your post to focus on this issue. This is not what physics dictates. Energy does not get 'used up'. It can be converted in terms of destruction, but there seems to be a critical misunderstanding here.

Where do you think Bazant introduces additional energy? Nothing in his paper is added other than the gravitational potential of the floors. Whether they're broken into rubble or fully intact, their momentum remains the same.


Energy is converted. Kinetic energy is converted to other energy such as heat, sound, forces needed for deformation etc. during the impacts.

When the Ke is converted to other energy it is gone, used up, unless another energy acts on the system to increase the Ke, i.e. explosives. If Ke is being lost then the collapse would slow down, as the resistance would be more than the energy available to overcome it.

Do you agree with this statement, 'by it's very design a building must be have more resistance in its structure than energy available to overcome that resistance'?

If you do, as you should, then where is that extra energy coming from? It's not the plane impacts or the fire because neither had an effect on the collapse itself, you can argue that they initiated the collapse, but initiation and the actual collapse were two different events. NIST chose to act as if the initiation was all that mattered and complete collapse was inevitable, they were challenged in this and thus we got Bazant's whitewash.

As already pointed out Bazants hypothesis is nonsense. 15 floors cannot crush 95 floors and stay in one piece, crushing itself later. Newtons laws of motion contradict that claim. Equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum is all you need to know to understand. If lower floors were being crush on impact then the upper floors would also be crushed during the impacts. The 15 floors would all be gone before they could crush 95 floors, and no 'dynamic loading' has nothing to do with it, equal opposite reaction applies to all colliding objects, and all colliding objects create a dynamic load. Those loads are taken into consideration when designing a building. It's something made up by shills in order to argue against known physics.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Energy is converted. Kinetic energy is converted to other energy such as heat, sound, forces needed for deformation etc. during the impacts.

When the Ke is converted to other energy it is gone, used up,

When it's used in breaking elements and heating, sure, that energy is gone for use in the next collision.

unless another energy acts on the system to increase the Ke, i.e. explosives.

I think you mean 'eg'. Breaking the next floor down from its supports would also increase the KE.


If Ke is being lost then the collapse would slow down, as the resistance would be more than the energy available to overcome it.

Agreed, what is the measured rate of acceleration? From that we can work out the force applied upwards.


Do you agree with this statement, 'by it's very design a building must be have more resistance in its structure than energy available to overcome that resistance'?

No this is nonsense. To support a static load, a building must exert a force equivalent to its weight (its dead load). Real buildings also have live load. The actual mass can vary greatly thanks to its geometry, it has no correlation to the energy available for fracturing columns. This can be made artificially low in any example building by not bracing the structure.


If you do, as you should, then where is that extra energy coming from? It's not the plane impacts or the fire because neither had an effect on the collapse itself, you can argue that they initiated the collapse, but initiation and the actual collapse were two different events. NIST chose to act as if the initiation was all that mattered and complete collapse was inevitable, they were challenged in this and thus we got Bazant's whitewash.

The extra energy comes from the fall between breaking the next foor and the impact with the floor after that. That 12 feet of space allows the rubble to be accelerated under gravity. Gravitational Potential Energy.


As already pointed out Bazants hypothesis is nonsense. 15 floors cannot crush 95 floors and stay in one piece, crushing itself later. Newtons laws of motion contradict that claim. Equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum is all you need to know to understand.

Please show the equations you use to prove this claim. Please do not call people 'shills'.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Did they find fire? Did they find the building was moving? Did they find actual damage?


Yes. I don't know. Yes.


If you can answer those honestly, then sure I have no problem with what you're saying, but I imagine you deny at least one of the above?


But none of those events can lead to a building completely collapsing into its footprint, no matter how you change the way you frame those points.


That's not what a strawman is, so I have no idea what you're talking about.


Yes it is. You are making an argument that you keep claiming is being ignored. That is a fallacy, and a misrepresentation of our position. We are not ignoring what the firefighters said, we are ignoring your interpenetration of the what they said, and the events in general. Maybe it's not a strawman, but it's something.



edit on 5/27/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



I've seen eyewitness accounts of explosions sure, but that's not exactly proof of explosives, especially when some of the 'explosions' people quote are bodies hitting the floor, or the collapse itself. I've never seen a video where it's clear there's actual explosions going on though. Feel free to link one!





I have no intention of insulting anyone with the terms I use, just trying to pick something that adequately describes whoever I am talking about.


I don't think it's insulting at all. The people have no choice other than theorize about this conspiracy because the authorities failed to investigate, and people like you trying to convince them that WTC 1 and 2 and 7 completely collapsed without any type of explosives even though you can see very clearly with your own eyes that something was used in addition to jets and fire, only give more reasons to start researching and theorizing. And for that you get kudos!


I don't even think that's accurate. Even on ATS, the proportion believing in a demolition conspiracy theory is barely above 50%:


Good, that means that at least half are using their brains and most likely waking up more people.



What is supposed to have caused them.


I don’t know because these firemen didn't clarify. But I do know that firefighters know the diffidence between secondary explosives used to kill first responders and potentially explosive house hold items or office supplies. What do you think caused them?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by kidtwist
NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.

I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.

How come it's ok to post Craig Bartmer, but when people post the firefighters that actually went around WTC7 and checked whether it was moving (and found that it was) are they ignored?

Surely you can't believe that the people responsible for the lives of the people on that site would be lying about this? I mean we even have photos of the damage. It seems crazy to me that you'd put so much faith in one account, but none whatsoever in another.


You really should try to read a little slower perhaps. Multiple times I have explained this issue. Try to pay attention.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



I obviously didn't make myself clear. I am not aware of anyone, Barry included, claiming that there were bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 when he arrived. If you think you can substantiate it please provide a source


Mr. Jennings said that he felt like he was stepping over PEOPLE. What do you suppose he was talking about?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
When it's used in breaking elements and heating, sure, that energy is gone for use in the next collision.


So where does the Ke increase again to continue crushing floors?


I think you mean 'eg'. Breaking the next floor down from its supports would also increase the KE.


No, e.g. means 'for example', i.e. mean 'that is'. Your attempt to question my intellect fails.


Agreed, what is the measured rate of acceleration? From that we can work out the force applied upwards.


Well not much for something only dropping about 10 feet. But you also need to know what a floors assembly weighs, how much force the connections could withstand, what the FoS was. Do you have that information?


No this is nonsense. To support a static load, a building must exert a force equivalent to its weight (its dead load). Real buildings also have live load. The actual mass can vary greatly thanks to its geometry, it has no correlation to the energy available for fracturing columns. This can be made artificially low in any example building by not bracing the structure.


So you're saying a building doesn't have more resistance to collapse than it has energy to collapse itself?

Have you ever heard of FoS?

Of course it correlates when it is you claiming the buildings collapsed from their own weight. Yes the mass can vary, but the design has to take all the mass, plus it live load over it's lifetime, into consideration.


The extra energy comes from the fall between breaking the next foor and the impact with the floor after that. That 12 feet of space allows the rubble to be accelerated under gravity. Gravitational Potential Energy.


But once again the impacts of floors reduces the Ke, it cannot be increased against resistance. Once resistance is met the Ke is not going to increase, but continually decrease. Ke might increase a small amount but not to same extent as before it hit resistance, Ke would be decreased with every impact.

Also you have to consider equal opposite reaction, not just the Ke. You also have to consider reality, not the fallacy that floors stayed within the footprint.

Sagging trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns, and floor assemblies were being ejected explosively during the collapses. Post collapse pics also prove this, because if what you claim is true there would be a stack of intact floors in the footprint.


Please show the equations you use to prove this claim. Please do not call people 'shills'.


I don't need equations to prove this, simple physics is enough. Where are your equations? Don't tell me what to do.

14. Demand complete solutions.
vigilantcitizen.com...

You don't need calculations, you just need to understand basic physics...


According to Newton's third law, for every action force there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Forces always come in pairs - known as "action-reaction force pairs."

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Forces always come in pairs. When floors impacted both impacting floors experience the same force. If one object is moving, and one stationary, the forces are still equal. If the moving object accelerates the forces on both objects increases. So there is no way on this Earth that the top block of floors could stay in one piece while crushing a larger block of floors. If you watch the collapses closely you can see the top section is being reduced at the same rate the bottom section is, all the top section floors were gone long before the collapse was complete.

Where did the energy come from to accelerate and complete the collapse?


edit on 5/27/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


well now your really grasping is this the tactic you're going with....

sorry not going to trail off in off topic discussions......and like i say....go through my posts...i have and will when appropriate quote Bazants paper......

and i used cried wolf perfectly....over and over this is what people do......

you see..It seems you're just going to go on a personal attack.....well no matter to me....fortunately i know exactly what i am.....and what i do for a living......that is partly why i am here in spurts and spells....it is because i work all over the world...ATS is not my life....it is something i do when not otherwise occupied.

I share knowledge...and i seek and learn things.....

good to see your in England......I too am here in England right now......

Bloody hot right now....lol

besides that.....I do apologize for seeming harsh....but hey your English you can handle it......thanks for the pissing match....and has there once been a reason here to quote Bazant....nope.....not one...but since your so up on Bazant.....here.


Except if you would have some truly new important points to raise in regard to what you call a "documentary", please take me out of your mailing list. I do not have time to waste. I have more serious projects to work on than the WTC, which has merely been a hobby for me.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.


now when he and greening did this first paper...they had it out there....get this......Within....48hrs

and you take the paper as god.

they made assumptions about what was inside and outside the foot prints......and not only that.....he was stated as saying that...get this...100% of the debris could fall outside the foot print and still collapse......

RED FLAG......if this was the case the there would be no mass what so ever to create crush down.

that quote was a discussion with Bazant and Ace Baker.

i don't know if you will get this....but all Bazants papers rely explicitly on the fact that the upper block remains in tact....all his calculations require that the mass (which has to be the case) maintains that mass in order to complete crush down....so therefore the debris has to remain within the footprint.



now you see the differential equation how the mass is the factor that remains throughout the equation in order to complete crush down....now this is an easy easy task.....LET m=0

guess what no progressive collapse.

now also for this to work in the real world....there cannot be any significant crush up till crush down occurs....but is this the observed ....guess what......



now you see how kind i am just for you.....I post right from his paper...his most important equations which fail....now all this can ONLY possibly apply to WTC-1 as the tilt in WTC 2" negates this equation right away.

in case you do not understand why....the centre of mass is now not over centre of structure...it has shifted with the tilt.....now THE ONLY way to stop that tilt...which did happen.....would be to remove all resistance below the fulcrum of the tilt....in other words....the contact point of the tilt......well surprise...how did that happen...please explain it to me....but you can't....i think you will go on another attack.

now the block drawing i showed in the original post where you tried to slash my integrity by misquoting me...was from guess where....since your so up on this.....BAZANTS paper......

now as we see in the photo...we have an upper block C.....but within 2sec of the collapse...the upper c has disintegrated....therefore...negating his equations.

The man did not even view the real world situation when he wrote this....he tried to get the scenario to fit the paper....he did not do an analysis on the real world occurrence....because if he had....he would have realized....guess what...he was wrong.

Also just as a side note...I did not go to university for english....I went for math,physics,....you know...ummmm....engineering.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
LET m=0.



And you in the very same post critique Bazant for not observing the real world event.

I love Truther Physics.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

When it's used in breaking elements and heating, sure, that energy is gone for use in the next collision.



i am going to make this simple for someone to understand.....fill your car with petrol.....drive till mt....what happens....?

the energy is used up is it not.....now to put more energy into the system.....fill the tank

Now the KE is transferred...or we will say for arguments sake....used up.... the only way to get more into the system is to raise the object and let the mass go again.....or...blow out all the resistance below said object so it can continue on it's downward travel.

Now if you bother to look through my posts...the only point i argue....is the progressive collapse....when some illogical statement comes along about fires...or planes i will voice an opinion of which i can be wrong.....but when it comes to Bazants paper...it was used completely to try to fool the average joe into believing the NIST report as they only mandated to proceed up to initiation and they needed Bazant to show progressive collapse mechanism at all costs....well it is not working.

now If you still choose to accept Bazants paper.not only in WTC 1but WTC 2 then my friend Exponent...you have been completely and utterly duped.

I think you might want to come on over to the darkside sometime.....as i see you do actually sit on the fence a bit.

edit on 033131p://f09Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by kidtwist
NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.

I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.


How come it's ok to post Craig Bartmer, but when people post the firefighters that actually went around WTC7 and checked whether it was moving (and found that it was) are they ignored?

Surely you can't believe that the people responsible for the lives of the people on that site would be lying about this? I mean we even have photos of the damage. It seems crazy to me that you'd put so much faith in one account, but none whatsoever in another.


Where are the videos of these firemen talking about the building moving? It's ok to post Craig Bartmer because I can post what I want and the video stands up, a load of dubious copy and paste quotes could be false, Craig Bartmer's video is real, tangible evidence.

As Barry Jennings states clearly in his uncut video, the explosion came from underneath him, well before the towers collapsed, and he states he went in there just after 9am, and that the explosion happened soon afterwards.

I don't put faith into one account I put faith in the many truthful accounts.. Here's another for you, I'll provide more as and when necessary..



Info about this video:
A former Air Force medic, Kevin McPadden was stationed just north of WTC-7 just before it fell, and actually heard the demolition countdown and explosions as the building started to fall.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join