Invitation to post for lurkers

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
No one ever knows exactly how a building will collapse. There was no precedence for any of the circumstances on 9/11. Have you forgotten that?


Actually yes we do know how a building will collapse when not rigged with explosives, it will not collapse completely and mostly land in it's own footprint. We KNOW it takes a lot of work to get a building to collapse that way.

You seem to be unable to grasp that fact.

There is plenty of precedence for steel framed building fires, and plenty of known physical facts that contradict what you claim.

There is no precedence for a steel framed building collapsing into it's own footprint from fire, thus no one could have made that claim before it happened. No one on Gods Earth could have made the claim that the building was going to collapse into it's own footprint, no professional would do that. They either meant the building was at risk of localised collapses, or someone who new the building was going to be completely collapsed leaked that info to reduce the risk of more deaths.

No one could have predicted a complete collapse, period. So obviously they didn't mean what you want to think they did.



So all the people expecting it to collapse were just pretending they were expecting a collapse? The collapse perimeter was imaginary?

You're making a point that makes no sense, ANOK. You're saying that they couldn't have predicted that the building would collapse completely and into its footprint (it didn't land completely in its footprint anyway), and that's not even relevant! When you expect a building to collapse, it doesn't matter if it collapses in, out, left, or right. The point is that it will collapse, and that the fact that they don't know exactly how is why they set up such a large perimeter!




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
So all the people expecting it to collapse were just pretending they were expecting a collapse? The collapse perimeter was imaginary?


Did you read what I said. I answered this question.


You're making a point that makes no sense, ANOK. You're saying that they couldn't have predicted that the building would collapse completely and into its footprint (it didn't land completely in its footprint anyway), and that's not even relevant! When you expect a building to collapse, it doesn't matter if it collapses in, out, left, or right. The point is that it will collapse, and that the fact that they don't know exactly how is why they set up such a large perimeter!


Yes it did land in it's own footprint. How many times does this have to be explained. If you can see the outer walls folded in on top of the rest of the collapsed building, that is in its own footprint.

The whole point of implosion demolition is to get the outer walls to fold inwards. In a natural collapse the walls would fall down and out, path of least resistance.

You can never ever predict a building will completely collapse into its own footprint from fire because it simply doesn't happen that way, never has and never will. How can you predict something that normally doesn't happen?

There is no way to even be 100% sure a controlled demolition will collapse the way they want it to, that is why the set up such a large perimeter!

You really should go learn a little about demolitions and physics.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You ask me how anyone could predict the collapse the way it happened, but no one predicted it would happen that way. I don't see the point you are arguing.

Also, the walls are not clearly folded in. To me, it looks like one wall is laid over the rubble, which makes sense considering that the building fell toward the south, damaged all sorts of stuff while also hitting things on the other three sides. That doesn't sound very controlled to me, but hey, you can use your imagination all you want.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 




So all the people expecting it to collapse were just pretending they were expecting a collapse? The collapse perimeter was imaginary?


Are you seriously having trouble understanding this?

Look a building in Brooklyn partially collapsed and the surrounding buildings were evacuated... Does that mean they expected the building to totally destroy itself all the way to the ground in a matter of seconds? Why else would they establish a collapse perimeter and evacuate the surrounding buildings...?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





You ask me how anyone could predict the collapse the way it happened, but no one predicted it would happen that way. I don't see the point you are arguing.


The point is that when firefighters say that WTC 7 had visible damage and was in danger of collapsing it does not mean what you think it means. Buildings do not completely collapse due to partial damage and fire. Very simple and was explained to you many many times before even with testimony saying that nobody thought a total or complete or a global collapse was anticipated by FDNY. Some one (unnamed) from the OEM passed down the idea that building 7 was going to collapse. Probably the same person Silverstien was on the phone with. You can actually hear it on the dispatch tapes.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink
snip


I don't follow the OS but im still here... Why do you think I'm not banned yet?

 
edit on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:51:53 -0500 by JacKatMtn because: removed quote from actioned post



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Juanxlink
 


I've been here eight years and until recently posted mostly in the 911 forum, I obviously have not been banned either.

The majority of the OS supporters here right now are previously banned members.

It's not what you believe, it's how you conduct yourself that gets you banned.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
You know how hard it is to solve a cold case file? This is a cold case already. That's how it's set up from the very start. The people who are "in the know" are all marked for death. After the event they are all slowly killed off. Leaving only a very very small amount that are "in the know". Plus the so called killing off of the supposed terrorist element that they claim did the event. So in total it's all white washed. Know one will ever know who really did it or why. The only thing we know for sure is it was the false flag to go invade Afgan to get there poppies and lithium. And then Iraq to get there oil. And to invade the you-es to implement a hidden form of martial law; body scanners at airports, TSA checkpoints everywhere, invade the locals and harrasss them in anyway possible. so investigating again is pointless. What we should do is learn from it and be on guard. That's all you can do.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Invitation to think for lurkers:


Let me explain something.

Take the thread from the other day about the police officer punching that woman in the mouth for throwing water on him. Turns out a CLOSER EXAMINATION of the video clip revealed that in fact she wasn't the one throwing the water.


Now why is this important and relevant as it concerns 9/11? I will tell you.

Back when 9/11 happened I was home watching CNN. I watched it pretty much all day and half the next. Somewhere in there I saw the Naudet clip of the miraculously captured "first hit" a good dozen times.

But back then I was like the few members in that other thread who just went with the SEEMINGLY OBVIOUS idea from glancing at the clip that it was the woman throwing the water and so there you have it. Right?

Meaning, I looked at the Naudet clip on the TV casually and thought "Oh well, it's CRAZY how they were there to capture that!" And like that was the end of it.

Fast forward to almost a year ago. From just after 9/11 till about a year ago I never even looked at that Naudet clip again, but when I did finally examine it again MORE CLOSELY, I saw something I didn't see the first time.

I saw something that is CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.

And it remains impossible and will be until the end of time (and even beyond).

I'm not going to go into what that is here, anyone interested in what I'm going on about is welcome to check out my last 20 posts or so, anything with a picture/graphic in it etc.

Basically I wrote a bunch of paragraphs explaining what I point out is impossible and I'm not really sure doing so more than a dozen times is even very useful or effective. I look at all the back an forth about collapses and footprints and whatnot and I hardly follow those paragraphs from others myself!


So I thought it would be good and might be cool to sort of do it up in poster form, something so OBVIOUS, so BLATANT that anyone who only viewed the Naudet clip casually would immediately snap out of it and REALIZE who really threw the water.

Try and answer the question... no really TRY.

Then check out some of my other posts and see if you agree with me. What is pictured (and shown in the single screen capture) is impossible if we are to believe the official story account that a Boeing 767-200 went head first into that tower and the Naudet clip is the only film of it caught in the act of entering.

That's not what it would look like at any point if the story was true.

I'd like to encourage a couple of things with this post.

1. To encourage people to quit typing up endless ponderous paragraphs (that nobody may even read) and to start adding a cool graphic or picture or animated gif to illustrate your arguments as well. Just give it a shot, I myself find it amusing and creative.

2. To encourage a new fresh closer examination of every bit of 9/11 evidence and video. Who knows what you might find or REALIZE.



Cheers



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


I'm sure that what im about to ask has been discussed here before but honestly I never paid any attention to it.

Can you briefly explain to me what does it mean if the video if faked? Were there anything that flew into the building at all? Was it a plane just not the one they say? Or was it missile?

Basically what I don't understand is what exactly does it change besides that it's a fake video? I can believe that it's fake since most of the OS is fake I just don't get get why it matters because there is so much of other things that disproves the OS. Unless you're saying that there were nothing flying into the buildings at all because if you are that would mean that all of the people who heard and saw planes with their own eyes and ears were tripping on drugs or something like that.
edit on 10-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia
 




So all the people expecting it to collapse were just pretending they were expecting a collapse? The collapse perimeter was imaginary?


Are you seriously having trouble understanding this?

Look a building in Brooklyn partially collapsed and the surrounding buildings were evacuated... Does that mean they expected the building to totally destroy itself all the way to the ground in a matter of seconds? Why else would they establish a collapse perimeter and evacuate the surrounding buildings...?


No, it doesn't mean that they expected it to "totally destroy itself all the way to the ground in a matter of seconds." It means that they don't know how the building will collapse, because collapses are unpredictable. You are saying that the building collapse was impossible because in hindsight it doesn't seem that likely. Nothing is ever likely until it happens.

Just so you remember, no building ever sustained damage and fire like WTC 7 did. Read this one more time for comprehension. Damage and fire. Not just fire. Damage. Good, now that I've helped you see what factor might contribute to an unexpected result, we can maybe move on?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Just so you remember, no building ever sustained damage and fire like WTC 7 did. Read this one more time for comprehension. Damage and fire. Not just fire. Damage. Good, now that I've helped you see what factor might contribute to an unexpected result, we can maybe move on?


What do you mean no building sustained damage and fire like building 7 ? Many buildings sustained more damage and longer fires but they didnt collapse entirely. What was so special about it's damage and fire?

I already moved on some time a go, but you seem to be stuck and confused about it.



H
Nothing is ever likely until it happens.


That's not true.... We know that if you don't try to put out a fire it will likely burn until only the steel frame is left standing. We also know that if one side of a skyscraper is completely intact it cannot collapse at the same speed as the side which is damaged. And as many firefighters said on 9/11 a partial collapse in the damaged area was likely to happen at some point. and we know that if a building is setup to be imploded it will collapse like building 7 did.
edit on 10-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
We also know that if one side of a skyscraper is completely intact it cannot collapse at the same speed as the side which is damaged.


There are no videos of the South side of the WTC 7 during the collapse. Where are you getting this info from?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

I don't follow the OS but im still here... Why do you think I'm not banned yet?


Because you are one heckofa guy.



Seriously, I really mean that.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
We also know that if one side of a skyscraper is completely intact it cannot collapse at the same speed as the side which is damaged.


There are no videos of the South side of the WTC 7 during the collapse. Where are you getting this info from?



Yes of course you need to see video footage of the south side.... But unfortunately I do not know where to get that footage... You wanna know what else i couldn't find? I couldn't find anybody who saw the south side collapsing before the north side.

Bu I did find this and it Looks like your heroes from NIST are saying that the interior collapsed before the outer shell collapsed..

Please pay attention to this video...




edit on 10-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


There are very distinct differences between the demolitions and WTC 7. Can you not see them? The simulation was meant to simulate the initialization of collapse minus the external facade of the structure. That's why you see the extreme deformation, but the main collapse mechanism is the same.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by maxella1
 


There are very distinct differences between the demolitions and WTC 7. Can you not see them? The simulation was meant to simulate the initialization of collapse minus the external facade of the structure. That's why you see the extreme deformation, but the main collapse mechanism is the same.



Now that explains it... thank you !



But you have to admit that it's pretty funny that NIST couldn't ever trick their own computer program to make it look like WTC 7 collapse....



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by maxella1

I don't follow the OS but im still here... Why do you think I'm not banned yet?


Because you are one heckofa guy.



Seriously, I really mean that.



I believe you



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Possibly. The last discussion on that topic I can recall was entirely over what eyewitnesses were saying about WTC 7. It ignored what eyewitnesses were saying about the towers (I.E. NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the columns at the WTC impact areas were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse). Was that you?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you want to talk about NYPD helicopter pilots you should first actually read what they were saying..


NYPD aviation did not foresee the collapse of the South Tower, though at 9:55 a.m., four minutes before the collapse, a helicopter pilot radioed that a large piece of the South Tower looked like it was about to fall. Immediately after the collapse of the South Tower, a helicopter pilot radioed that news. This transmission was followed by others, beginning at 10:08 a.m., warning that the North Tower might collapse, beginning at 10:08, 18 minutes before the building fell. These calls reinforced the urgency of the NYPD’s evacuation of the area.


For some reason there's no mention of any glowing red column at the impact area.


You really should have done 30 seconds of googling to find this fact:


Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."

Seconds later, another pilot reported: "I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building."

sites.google.com...

You should also read up on the accounts from inside the towers, and the reports of structural integrity loss.




Exactly... You say that the are not talking about explosives even though they use words like bombs and secondary explosions. And I'm saying that when firefighters say that buildings had fires and damage they are not talking about a complete collapse possibility.


Ah yes, because in 9/11 Truth world, the use of "sounds like", "looks like", "felt like", are all defacto admissions and proof that bombs/secondary explosives were there. Also using initial reports on an event that is obviously a terrorist attack, and basing your story on people's first impressions and assumptions is the wrong way to go. Apparently, some people never heard of explosions happening in a massive fire. Go figure.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant