Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

page: 17
50
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I could if an airplane hit WTC7 -- did an airplane hit WTC 7?




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Bring it on! So somehow in all the steel frame buildings in the world WTC 7 was the first to have total symmetrical free fall collapse on the same day that two other steel frame buildings did as well.

Your only evidence is that since it hasn't happened before then it can't be proved to not have happened.

So you are saying "you can't prove a negative."

Obviously a negative can not be proven but it makes for a nice rhetorical argument on your part!

It's totally irrelevant.

Gee something happened that is totally unprecedented -- therefore it could not have happened by previous causes.

That is basic logic. Something new happened here yet you're arguing that what was "new" was the building designs of the trade centers.

So go ahead and prove that the trade centers were somehow designed to be vulnerable to fire.

It's already been proven that FEMA mispresented the design of the trade centers with their "pancake" model -- ignoring the central core.

edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)


edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by exponent
 


Bring it on! So somehow in all the steel frame buildings in the world WTC 7 was the first to have total symmetrical free fall collapse on the same day that two other steel frame buildings did as well.

WTC7s collapse was not symmetrical. On that day two aircraft were rammed into skyscrapers, that also had never happened before. The whole day was unprecedented.


Your only evidence is that since it hasn't happened before then it can't be proved to not have happened.

So you are saying "you can't prove a negative."

Obviously a negative can not be proven but it makes for a nice rhetorical argument on your part!

Thank you. It's not however irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that proving that a particular structure (which was designed specifically not to collapse fully) did not collapse does not prove that a totally different structure under totally different conditions would not collapse.


That is basic logic. Something new happened here yet you're arguing that what was "new" was the building designs of the trade centers.

So go ahead and prove that the trade centers were somehow designed to be vulnerable to fire.

It's already been proven that FEMA mispresented the design of the trade centers with their "pancake" model -- ignoring the central core.

Oh man, you've brought a rush of memories flooding back to me. That claim was the first ever claim that I debunked to do with 911


It was back on the old Loose Change forums, that I heard that FEMAs diagrams had misrepresented the steel involved, so I took an actual schematic diagram of the impact floors, scaled FEMAs diagram and found that actually it was totally false and the steel was the correct size.

As for proving their vulnerability to fire, that occupies several hundred pages and in fact a whole series of reports in the NIST report. It wouldn't be right summarising them in one short paragraph but I'll give it a go as long as you actually go read the documents when you have questions.

WTC 1 + 2 were particularly vulnerable to fire due to using sprayed foam as their only steel protection. Once this foam was compromised then they used very light and long trusses which could rapidly be heated and deformed. The lack of significant cross bracing and the length and vulnerability of these trusses is eventually what brought the buildings down.

WTC 7 was particularly vulnerable due to fire because it was built on top of another building with pre-existing foundations. As a result they had to use some non standard designs with larger columns and eccentric connections. When it was built they did not have the technology to simulate the effects of fire and the building and fire codes of the time reflected that. WTC7 was an extremely unlucky incident and with only a couple of changes (if debris did not hit it, and if water pumping was not compromised) it would have survived.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


This type of hyperbole about details is not an argument.

To say WTC 7 collapse "was not symmetrical" is a complete distraction about an irrelevant detail.

You're talking about precision versus accuracy. It is accurate to say WTC 7 was a symmetrical fall -- this is obvious just from watching it fall.



Now if you are ignoring reality on this basic fact then you've already proven yourself completely mind-controlled on 9/11.


For the towers to collapse the way we saw them collapse basically implies that the columns simply collapsed into themselves, they telescoped straight down. Ah steel keeps a lot of its structural integrity even when heated. Until you begin to approach the melting point you don't really see a catastrophic loss of strength and this is what we're talking about. We're talking about basically vertical box columns collapsing into themselves which implies a complete loss of mechanical strength.


Jeff King, MD, SB EE (MIT Science Baccalaureate in Biology and Electrical Engineering) – Family Practice Physician (27 years). Former Electrical Engineer (8 years).
edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You said you would provide evidence that WTC 7 was particularly vulnerable to fire.

Instead you are saying there were no "simulations of fire" when WTC 7 was built.

That is not evidence about WTC 7.

I'm still waiting.

I pointed out that the fire testing was of "old steel" buildings. That includes WTC 7 as an "old steel building."

Just because the tests are later does not mean they don't apply to older buildings.

Yet you are reversing this argument by saying since they're weren't tests when the building was built then it could have collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed due to fire.

You don't have any evidence for this.


Once this foam was compromised then they used very light and long trusses which could rapidly be heated and deformed. The lack of significant cross bracing and the length and vulnerability of these trusses is eventually what brought the buildings down.


Your lack of mentioning the core columns is quite interesting.
edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
This type of hyperbole about details is not an argument.

To say WTC 7 collapse "was not symmetrical" is a complete distraction about an irrelevant detail.

You're talking about precision versus accuracy. It is accurate to say WTC 7 was a symmetrical fall -- this is obvious just from watching it fall.

If it is an irrelevant detail, why is it that you insist you are correct? The initial failure in WTC7 was not symmetrical, the only symmetrical aspect was the final global collapse, which occurs many seconds after initial failures. It's important to note this fact as many people wish to ignore it.


Now if you are ignoring reality on this basic fact then you've already proven yourself completely mind-controlled on 9/11.

On the contrary, I have my own thoughts on 9/11 and have more than proven my knowledge of events that day.


You said you would provide evidence that WTC 7 was particularly vulnerable to fire.

Instead you are saying there were no "simulations of fire" when WTC 7 was built.

That is not evidence about WTC 7.

I'm still waiting.

Actually no I didn't, I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said is that you should read the NIST report but I would be polite enough to summarise it for you. You've thrown that politeness back in my face so I won't be doing it again. Please read the NIST report before participating in an informed debate.


Yet you are reversing this argument by saying since they're weren't tests when the building was built then it could have collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed due to fire.

You don't have any evidence for this.

The collapse was not at 'free fall speed'. It fell at free fall acceleration over only 8 storeys. If this is the rule for controlled demolition then please explain the 8 seconds previous to this where the penthouse was collapsing into the building. The evidence you're looking for is in the NIST report, where you apparently won't look.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Oh so now instead of your "not symmetric" fantasy -- you now live in the "initial collapse" versus "global collapse" fantasy?

Oh so it was "not symmetric" (fantasy) because of the "initial collapse" (fantasy).

Wow so what new fantasy can you add?

Here's the truth:

Initial collapse was the core columns being taken out by controlled demolition. That's exactly how a controlled demolition is done.

Do you have evidence of your unique fire vulnerability that suddenly caused the "initial collapse" of all the core columns?

Nope. Yet have there been controlled demolitions in the past that have taken out the core columns as "initial collapse"?

Yep.

So your fantasy once again proves the controlled demolition.

Symmetric collapse and "initial collapse" both equal controlled demolition.

O.K. so you're telling me to read the NIST report yet you refuse to provide evidence of how WTC 7 was vulnerable to fire.

You have said it is because there was a pre-existing foundation -- is that why there was molten steel burning in the foundation after the collapse of WTC 7?

Of course my question is facetious but you're the one to bring up the "pre-existing foundation" so I bring up molten steel fire in return.

Care to comment on the molten steel in the foundation of WTC 7?
edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You keep saying the evidence is in the NIST report - -then what is that evidence?

Go ahead and provide it!

I've already told you why your "initial collapse" happened -- that's exactly how a controlled demolition happens!!

So again we have controlled demolitions taking out the interior columns first.

Lots of evidence for that in the real world.

And you refer to the NIST report yet provide NO DETAILS -- NO EVIDENCE - and supposedly this amazing evidence is

"unique" and only applies to WTC 7 because it's a "special case."

O.K. if WTC 7 is so special -- then what's the EVIDENCE!!

C'mon -- bring it on!

Don't just say -- it's too important to summarize. haha.

It's so important you can't say what the evidence is!!

Hilarious.

Can Physics Rewrite History?

Notice how I'm providing specific evidence.

I typed out that Jeff King MIT quote.

I transcribed it from the youtube video.

So now it's your turn!

Provide some evidence.
edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Here's the truth:

Initial collapse was the core columns being taken out by controlled demolition. That's exactly how a controlled demolition is done.

How many controlled demolitions do you know of that let a whole section of the building collapse down internally before setting off the rest of the charges? Why would any controlled demolition do that?


Do you have evidence of your unique fire vulnerability that suddenly caused the "initial collapse" of all the core columns?

Nope. Yet have there been controlled demolitions in the past that have taken out the core columns as "initial collapse"?

Yep.

So your fantasy once again proves the controlled demolition.

If you think this is proof of controlled demolition then I don't know what to tell you. You don't actually have any evidence of any explosives or any explanation as to the mechanism behind the collapse. On the contrary there is plenty of evidence of the vulnerability, from the design to the simulation.

Are you really telling me that your only evidence is that there have been controlled demolitions in the past? Surely you have some actual tangible evidence considering you won't read the NIST report and don't know the first bits about the actual collapse.


You have said it is because there was a pre-existing foundation -- is that why there was molten steel burning in the foundation after the collapse of WTC 7?

There was no such thing, how many controlled demolitions do you know of with molten steel?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
You keep saying the evidence is in the NIST report - -then what is that evidence?

Go ahead and provide it!
...
And you refer to the NIST report yet provide NO DETAILS -- NO EVIDENCE

Are you really suggesting you won't read the NIST report and want someone else to read it for you? I will not do such a thing and you are required as part of any reasonable debate to read at least the executive summaries.

If you don't even know the basics of the 'official story' then how can you claim to know the truth? The answer is obviously that you already believe in a particular story despite never knowing the alternatives.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 






C'mon dude -- the Demolition Expert already said that WTC is a controlled demolition based on the interior columns getting taken out first.


DANNY JOWENKO: They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards.



That's specific evidence.

Now you're turn.

specific evidence
edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


No I'm saying that NIST did not consider the obvious - controlled demolition.

I'm providing specific evidence why it's a controlled demolition.

You keep saying that WTC 7 was "special" and vulnerable to fire and that it's all in the NIST report.

O.K. -- provide the evidence. It's up to you to prove that somehow WTC 7 goe against all common sense.

You have mentioned trusses but not core columns.

You have mentioned pre-existing foundation but not the molten steel in the foundations. Fire does not create molten steel unless there is enough combustible fuel for the fire.

Provide evidence that something in the buildings could create fire to cause molten steel. So now you're saying because it was molten steel that it's a fall -- a collapse -- and not a controlled demolition?

Do you really think a controlled demolition is a less likely explanation for molten steel then fire from materials in the building?

So now you just keep repeating that the evidence is in the NIST report and it's too important to summarize.

Hilarious.

edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


This is getting ridiculous. You are not posting evidence, you are posting youtube videos that have convinced you.

The NIST report is thousands upon thousands of pages. I cannot adequately summarise the sum of it in a 5000 character post. Why are you so opposed to reading a report? Is it that much to ask to read a report that details the most complex structural investigation ever undertaken (imho)?

I can answer your questions, but you are not asking from a position of being informed, you are asking that I summarise the entire multi year investigation for you. That I will not do.

Please come back once you've read at least the executive summaries and I will answer specific questions, but until then this is unproductive.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Well, the topic is the "9/11 Truth". What do you think the truth of 9/11 is? It could be many things: it could be the horror that our nation experienced on that day, it could be the effects the tragedy had on our spirit, our security, and our perceptions, it could be who was responsible, it could be the reason it happened, it could be the relationship and trust we have with our government and how that changed, it could be an example of how trauma changes the course of a civilization - the truth could be anything, be ABOUT anything, depending on how you look at it.

If you need suggestions for what to discuss about the "truth" of 9/11, if you really want my suggestion I'll give you a hint: use your imagination. I'm not here to share what I know, I want to learn what the "informed" members have to say on the subject. But apparently, I might not even get that, because we're stuck in a never-ending eddy in the stream of arguments.
edit on 23-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

No, but it had a building collapse into it. All three of those buildings were heavily damaged that day. Anyone who says it was JUST the fire or JUST the damage is moronic.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




You have posted lies so far.

You said it was not a symmetrical collapse.

You said there was a "initial collapse" and then a "global collapse."

Again that's all covered in the controlled demolition.

You said there was a pre-existing foundation but you have given no details as to how that caused the free fall collapse.

You said that the molten steel could not be caused by controlled demolition implying it was caused by the collapse.

How was molten steel caused by a building collapse? What was burning in the building to create molten steel?

I already asked this but you have not answered.

So far all you've done is a cover up of reality -- claiming it's not a symmetrical collapse and that it's not free fall because of a hidden "initial collapse." You're making up distractions about details that are not accurate.

So then your response is - just read the NIST report.

But if you have read the NIST report then why can't you provide evidence?

How do you know I have not read the NIST report?

Why should I think you've read the NIST report if you can't provide any details of its content?

So let's be clear -- if any information is on youtube then it doesn't count for you?

You self-censor anything on youtube?

Danny Jowenko's youtube interview is not real evidence for you?

I quoted the interview he did -- in written form -- it's the same words as on the video - only printed out.

Is that better for you -- the words need to be read instead of viewed in a video - do they now exist for you?

What other special needs do you have about what information you need to self-censor to create your own personal fantasy reality?




If you want more information you can search my previous posts as I have answered questions about these tests many times.


So is that it -- you just don't want to provide evidence because you've done it before?

Is there a word search for your previous posts? Nope. You're the one who posted the information -- so post a link to it -- post some evidence already!



That looks like charge detonations to me.
edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
You have posted lies so far.

No, I have not.


You said it was not a symmetrical collapse.

You said there was a "initial collapse" and then a "global collapse."

Again that's all covered in the controlled demolition.

So is it a lie or not? The fact is that there is an initial collapse, followed some seconds later by a global collapse.


You said there was a pre-existing foundation but you have given no details as to how that caused the free fall collapse.

Because it is contained within the NIST report and I did actually give a summary as to why.


You said that the molten steel could not be caused by controlled demolition implying it was caused by the collapse.

How was molten steel caused by a building collapse? What was burning in the building to create molten steel?

Molten steel was not created, it exists only as speculation. The most likely candidates for glowing flowing liquid in the towers are aluminium, lead and glass. No test was ever done to indicate molten steel was present in any significant quantity, no evidence exists of pools of solidified steel, and no temperature measurement indicates in excess of 1250°C.


So far all you've done is a cover up of reality -- claiming it's not a symmetrical collapse and that it's not free fall because of a hidden "initial collapse." You're making up distractions about details that are not accurate.

So then your response is - just read the NIST report.

But if you have read the NIST report then why can't you provide evidence?

I can, I summarised it for you before it became clear you weren't going to do your own research and wanted me to answer every one of your questions for you.


How do you know I have not read the NIST report?

Because you don't know basic things like the reason behind the collapse? If you know how NIST says the building collapsed, why would you be asking me?


Why should I think you've read the NIST report if you can't provide any details of its content?

Believe me or not, I've read every page more than once. I've been discussing 911 for around 7 years now and have heard every claim that's out there I think!


So let's be clear -- if any information is on youtube then it doesn't count for you?

Youtube videos can contain evidence sure, but investigations and analyses are long complicated affairs with lots of boring technical detail. The videos you linked were superficial and designed to convince those without adequate knowledge.


Danny Jowenko's youtube interview is not real evidence for you?

I quoted the interview he did -- in written form -- it's the same words as on the video - only printed out.

Is that better for you -- the words need to be read instead of viewed in a video - do they now exist for you?

You mistake the medium for the content. The opinion of one man who was presented with no facts other than the video of the building is not evidence of anything. He has to present his reasons and calculations to back his opinion before it has any weight. This is what is missing from most youtube videos.

So, do you want to admit to not having read the NIST report? I've told you what I have read and you don't seem to know very basic facts from it. I don't see why the dancing around.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Eyewitnesses report of molten steel.

Satellite temperature readings of temperatures not explainable otherwise.


"WTC7 has 24 core columns. Removing one column = no. 79 between floors 11/13 does not produce overload of adjacent two core columns (or perimeter wall columns). You can evidently continue to remove (adjacent) core columns at floors 11/13 to see when an adjacent core column becomes overloaded and will buckle by itself and then you should check it it means that further, adjacent columns just fail/buckle by themselves ... and how much of the load drops down (or out = does not contribute to further actuion) and how much is transmitted to still intact structure to assist further destruction. Or in other words - arranging local failures as suggested above will probably result in serious local failures, e.g. one part of the structure/tower collapses due to bottom supports having been removed and the load drops off the structure, while the remainder structure still stands." (Heiwa)


Yeah:


Thus to summarize: NIST’s collapse analysis discussed on pages 586 to 598 of NCSTAR 1-9, indicates that interior column buckling started at 15 seconds into the computer simulation and was complete at the 20 second mark; exterior column buckling started at 21.5 seconds and was complete within 2 seconds at the 23.5 second mark. Hence, the major kinetic energy production depicted in Figure 12-74, which starts at about 23 seconds of the computer simulation and peaks at 27.5 seconds, covers a time interval when, according to NIST: “the entire building moved downward as a single unit”. It is therefore very difficult to imagine how, during this phase of the global collapse of WTC 7, NIST is able to make a distinction between “attached” and “detached” steel and/or concrete structural elements in the chaos of a building undergoing self-destruction. Hopefully, one day, NIST will explain how it accomplished such a remarkable feat of scientific analysis; but until that day this feature of the NIST Final Report - the curious Figure 12-74 - will remain unverified and little more than an object of extreme skepticism and puzzlement.


So about that NIST report on WTC7

so what caused the extreme temperature fires in the foundation of WTC 7?


Whatever the mass of WTC7 is/was, it was safely carried by 24 inner columns and a much larger number of wall perimeter columns. According NIST WTC7 Final Report (20 November 2008) page 90: "WTC7 was prone (sic) to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed (sic). The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon removal (sic) of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building." So according NIST by removing one little part between floors 11/13 of an inner column (no. 79) remaining 23 inner columns and all wall perimeter columns fail simultaneously and the mass above the failures drop free fall. I wonder who or what removed the column 79 piece! Gravity does not remove steel columns. To remove a piece of a column you have to cut it in two places and then shift it out of the way. Did fire do that? Or thermal expansion? The NIST software to do the FEA and then to establish and analyse all structural failures and finally, to keep track of all loose parts flying around is a mystery. Does such software exist? In my view the software used to create the pictures in the report is the same that is used to design disaster films in Hollywood and to attempt to simulate such destructions.


How come NIST didn't consider controlled demolition when it so easily explains the collapse of WTC 7?

edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Your whole post answers nothing of what I put to you and contains barely 4 lines of your own original text. I am not about to continue typing out paragraphs to someone who is clearly just googling for things that they think support them and pasting them here.

Spend the time to do the research, it will take you some time and be confusing and difficult at many stages. That doesn't mean you can just defer the responsibility to other people that google finds.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


So in other words you have no evidence.

Thanks for that final confirmation.

Let's repeat the information you've shared so far with me.

1) WTC 7 was not a symmetrical collapse.

2) WTC 7 had a "hidden" aka "initial collapse" so it was not a free fall collapse.

3) WTC 7 has a pre-existing foundation and therefore the bldg collapsed.

Yep -- that's brilliant stuff dude.

You said you wanted NIST information but you would not provide it.

I provided it for you.

Now you claim I have not provided it. haha.

So your fantasies just keep building on themselves.

Now did you watch the Daniel Hopsicker documentary I provided?

I doubt it since anything on youtube is not evidence according to you.

So three of the hijackers were trained at flight schools owned by two Dutch that had the same German agent. Both Dutch flight schools were newly established and the three hijackers had come from U.S. military connections. The Rudy Deckker School was in a partnership with mafia-CIA connections galore.






new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join