Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 

Because they feel it wasnt an inside job. Just as we feel it was. Their argument isnt less valid until one way is proven




posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by kaya82
 

Because they feel it wasnt an inside job. Just as we feel it was. Their argument isnt less valid until one way is proven
im not suggesting it isnt valid. They are entitled to thier opinion. I believe it was an inside job but i dont feel the need to come on here daily talking about it. The evidence is there for all to see. They dont need me to tell them that.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 

We come on here talking about just as much as they do. I dont see how one is different than the other.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by kaya82
 

We come on here talking about just as much as they do. I dont see how one is different than the other.
the difference is IMO people who want to know the truth come on sites like this to gain more information regarding the events of that day (i know i do or use to) to try and reach a conclusion. The os'ers feel they already know the truth. It was what thier government told them. So why come on here? They are not searching for anything and i have seen a few of them say they get a laugh out of arguing with truthers which i find quite sickening to be honest.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
done the maths. does not compute. nice to see the usual OSers in attendance, as always.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Please, no more games


So says the biggest game player here...you are so full of it, no wonder your mind is boggled...I never asked for an example of Gage eliminating the penthouse sequence...I never said it was not eliminated in any of his presentations...I asked for you to ACKNOWLEDGE the FULL SEQUENCE was present in his documentary...

Everyone makes presentations that do NOT NECESSARILY include the full menu...the purpose of this is BREVITY, not an attempt to MISLEAD...think of commercials for upcoming documentaries...do they present the WHOLE THING? Of course not...

Once again, you need to go sit in a corner...I am done writing you directly...I have never seen such a bald faced pack of lies written here before...yet you are the one claiming a stance on the side of honesty...

The written record is clear...There is no OS...Those claiming to know what really happened that fateful day are LIARS and consort with LIARS...You have written a lie to cover your duplicitous behavior...Anyone can check the post I linked...I have asked you to acknowledge Gage presents the FULL COLLAPSE SEQUENCE and you cannot because of obstinate predilection...BE GONE AND GET THEE BEHIND ME!!!
edit on 20-3-2013 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 


Well for starters, you have no clue how Windsor tower was designed. What you have missed is that what is standing is the massive concrete core structure that was far more robust than WTC Towers or WTC7. That center part standing is the steel-reinforced concrete core with concrete columns, that kept the whole structure from collapsing. I can see you did not even bother reading the study. But that is fine, and no surprise as I expect that from the Truth Movement.

The entire structure was built around the concrete core with massive transfer floors made of concrete, connected to the columns. The steel structure was built around it and supported by steel columns. If you had bothered to even read the study you would have learned that the steel only structure collapsed within two and half hours. All that kept it from collapsing, was that massive concrete core and technical floor.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

So says the biggest game player here...you are so full of it, no wonder your mind is boggled...I never asked for an example of Gage eliminating the penthouse sequence...I never said it was not eliminated in any of his presentations...I asked for you to ACKNOWLEDGE the FULL SEQUENCE was present in his documentary...

Everyone makes presentations that do NOT NECESSARILY include the full menu...the purpose of this is BREVITY, not an attempt to MISLEAD...think of commercials for upcoming documentaries...do they present the WHOLE THING? Of course not...


That is without question the worst excuse I've seen on ATS yet...and I've seen a lot of them. I gave you not ONE, not TWO, but THREE examples how Gage is tampering with the evidence...and you claim it's for brevity?!? That might be true in the case of where the source had including irrelevent material but it is certainly NOT true when it's removing critical evidence showing how a building collapsed...particularly when it's being referenced in a discussion on how the building collapsed and specifically when he's showing this evidence to a demolitions professional to get his professional opinion.

...and of COURSE you're not going to ask for an example of Gage cutting off the penthouse sequence. It's blatantly obvious you're trying to cover it up to protect his credibility. You are getting desperate and we both know it.


Once again, you need to go sit in a corner...I am done writing you directly...I have never seen such a bald faced pack of lies written here before...yet you are the one claiming a stance on the side of honesty...


TRANSLATION- I know I am facing a grilling that will make my hero Gage look bad no matter how I proceed so I will feign personal indignation and storm off. It's unimaginable how anyone can say I'm lying with a straight face when there's not ONE, not TWO, but THREE concrete examples posted right here in front of everybody. What makes me wonder is, why do you even have such an unreasonable emotional response when it's Gage I'm criticizing and not you? You can insult Bush all you'd like and I wouldn't care. In fact I'd probably agree with you.

Since you've already bravely run away, I know you won't answer this but I will ask it anyway- why after more than ten years, has Gage never calculated out his own modelling on how WTC 7 collapsed? Out of all the conspiracy proponents he is the most uniquely trained AND funded AND has some thousand or so engineers he can ask to help him, and yet he can't even do so much as turn on a calculator. Until someone can provide a reasonable answer the de facto answer necessarily has to be that he knows he's lying and he can't make two plus two calculate out to equal five no matter how much video he snips off.
edit on 21-3-2013 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave I think the question he is asking you is "Is the full sequence present in Gage's documentary?" Is It?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by kaya82
 

Because they feel it wasnt an inside job. Just as we feel it was. Their argument isnt less valid until one way is proven


Well there's the rub, isn't it? The reason why you feel it was an inside job is specifically because a bunch of con artists running those damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing all sorts of outrageously bad information and suckered you into believing there's an inside job. The particular conspiracy people support simply depends on which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites they went to first. Just look at the wine list of conspiracies to choose from...

-secret controlled demolitions
-hologram planes
-missiles hitting the Pentagon
-Lasers from outer space
-Faked crash sites
-tactical nukes
-earthquake machines
-fake World Trade Center buildings
-The NY fire department blew up WTC 7
-The Jews blew up WTC 7
-the Illuminati blew up WTC 7
-the Masons blew up WTC 7

Obviously they can't all be right. You have no choice but to admit I have a point because the one thing that causes conspiracy proponents more umbrage than us critics is when someone proposing a theory conspiracy different from their own shows up...particularly the fringe ones. Claims like "the WTC were fake buildings" didn't spontaneously appear on their own- someone invented it and managed to sucker otherwise intelligent people into believing it by making up his own evidence to prove it.

You see the point I'm making, I trust.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave I think the question he is asking you is "Is the full sequence present in Gage's documentary?" Is It?


I cannot address it unless I see a specific example to know what context it was used in. Does Gage leave the penthouse collapse in a segment where he discusses the measurement of the collapse time? In every case I've seen, Gage intentionally cuts out the penthouse collapse to create an artificially short collapse time because the actual collapse began six seconds before the point that Gage claims it started. Does Gage leave the penthouse collapse in a segment where he discusses the symmetry of the collapse? In every case I've seen, he likewise cuts it off to artificially embellish his claim that the building collapsed symmetrically becuase leaving it in would show the south side fell completely differently than the way the north side did.

The fact still remains- whenever Gage snips the penthouse collapse off it's ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS when leaving it in would prove the exact opposite of what he was trying to claim. The guy even had the call of cutting it off when he showed his "proof" to that demolitions technician, which is deliberately leading the witness regardless of what pretty words you want to use to call it. If he left it in a segment somewhere without actually addressing its relevence then it's pretty disingenuous to say "he left it in" simply for the sake of saying he left it in.
edit on 21-3-2013 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, why do you always focus on the fringe claims that VERY rarely come up in these discussions?

How about these points...

- WTC 7 landed mostly in it's own footprint, proven by the debris distribution.
- Free fall speed of WTC 7, as admitted by NIST, after years of denial. ("Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)")
- WTC 1&2 vertically collapsed through path of most resistance, indicated by 360° distribution of debris.
- The tilting of the top sections, especially building 2, proving pancake-collapse did not happen.
- The obvious separate collapses of the top, and bottom sections, of WTC 1&2.
- Explosives clearly heard by fire fighters.
- Trusses can not pull in columns, physically impossible.
- The complete destruction of WTC 1&2 components, such as the steel floor pans.
- The complete lack of a full investigation.
- Larry admitting to 'pulling it'. (Your legs btw.)
- BBC, and others, reporting buildings collapsed that were still standing.
- This...."it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the inside and progressed up..." FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02) (not at the penthouse as you all claim)
- And this..."The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

That is a very small list of what you fail to address, other than attempt weak excuses before you move on.

edit on 3/21/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, why do you always focus on the fringe claims that VERY rarely come up in these discussions?

How about these points...


Have you read absolutely NOTHING of what I just posted? Ii's already been shown that most of these "points" have been completely invented by Gage and other conspiracy pushers and none of this even remotely refutes the fact that Gage IS tampering with the evidence he presents to sucker people into believing what he wants them to believe-

1) The actual collapse began six seconds before the point where Gage is claiming it began
2) The penthouse collapse shows the south side did not fall symmetrically the same way the north side did, which is the exact opposite of how Gage is claiming it fell
3) It is pointless to be quoting "fire fighters heard explosions" at the very moment of 9/11 when everyone was still running around in confusion becuase not a single firefighter who was there believes today those were bombs after ten years of reflection. We know that because Gage would be putting their testimony in his headlines.

Now, you're an intelligent fellow. I refuse to believe you're really arguing that, yeah, Gage was caught red handed tampering with the evidence, and yeah, Gage got his symmetric collapse theory all wrong, and yeah, Gage is quoting fire fighters out of context...but we should loyally believe everything else he says without question. I also find it incredible how you're complaining "there was no independent investigation" when Gage is uniquely qualified to conduct this very independent investigation and despite ten years passing he hasn't done it. Even calculating out where these supposed demolitions would have been planted in the building would go a long way toward making his case but he can't even do that much. At worst, it's because he knows he's lying through his teeth. At best, it's because he's lazy as hell.

I've already pointed out to that other poster that arguing about how WTC 1 and 2 fell does not change the fact that Gage has no credibility, so I will not rehash the same point here.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Anok doesn't even mention richard gage in his comment....yet you seem completely obsessed with slandering him.
How about you forget gage for a minute and answer the points Anok made in his comment.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
And no, most of these points have not been scientifically answered.

Not even by the commission appointed to answer them.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Anok doesn't even mention richard gage in his comment....yet you seem completely obsessed with slandering him.
How about you forget gage for a minute and answer the points Anok made in his comment.


I am not slandering Gage. I am pointing out concrete examples of Gage's dishonesty. If Gage does not appreciate the fact that I am pointing out examples of his dishonesty then he shouldn't be dishonest. It's not a trick question.

...and which point of Anok were you referring to? Do you mean the one where Anok repeats the "Pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" baloney that Alex Jones made up? Or, do you mean the one where Anok insists BBC reporters should be able to identify the proper names of buildings in other cities even though he can't do it himself? I asked him to tell me where THIS building is...



...and he's conspicuously avoiding answering the question. Can you?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You misunderstand me. I not getting into whether gage did or didn't leave something out of his video. The problem is that you seem to think that by attacking gage, you're vicariously debunking the entire truth movement. He is only a proponent, not the leader, spokesperson or guru. Many of the things he says, I'd already concluded before I'd even heard his name. So why not post a comment that doesn't include the words "Gage", "Sinister" or "Alien Lasers". That way we might be able to have a coherent discussion.
As for the photo, I have no idea..but that's not the point is it? I'm sure the woman had no idea which one was building seven either but that's irrelevant. She and other reporters were told that it had collapsed when clearly it hadn't. Mistaken identity just doesn't cut it as no other building collapsed that afternoon.
edit on 22-3-2013 by Flatcoat because: grammer



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


All of those points are based on ignorance, lies, or just plain stupidity created by Gage and his ilk. There is no scientific basis for any, I repeat, ANY of those points to begin with. It would be like asking how fast do fairies fly in comparison to pixies. how can someone scientifically answer that? Answer: You cannot. Its nonsense. THAT is why it is not being scientifically answered.

ANOK has so many errors in those points he posted, it would be foolish to try and answer them, because you cannot ask a flawed question and expect a correct answer, especially if the question itself is false.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
It is known that thermite/thermite cannot be used in a timed demolition. Cole's video isn't completely useless as it shows how long it takes to cut through the steel columns with thermate. Given the lack of explosive demolitions necessary to clear the floors of either tower in 200 milliseconds per floor or less, it must be concluded that the collapses were gravitational. Note that there is video of one core standing for some seconds after collapse of the outer columns until it, too succumbed to gravity.
Conspiracists are now reduced to figuring out how the collapse was initiated. The evidence of an airplane causing structural damage and setting building contents afire, weakening the steel, is the only visible cause of collapse initiation.
How did it otherwise happen?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Do you mean the one where Anok repeats the "Pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" baloney that Alex Jones made up? Or, do you mean the one where Anok insists BBC reporters should be able to identify the proper names of buildings in other cities even though he can't do it himself? I asked him to tell me where THIS building is......and he's conspicuously avoiding answering the question. Can you?


Alex Jones did not make up that term lol. To pull a building is old demolition slang from long before he was even born, still used by people who have been around that business for a long time, like Larry has.


pull down

(transitive) To demolish or destroy (a building etc.).


en.wiktionary.org...

'Pull it', meaning pull out the fire crew, is something OSers have made up to rationalise Larry's admission. Where is the proof that the term 'pull it' is used in the way you claim? And since when did a building owner have any say on the operation of fire fighters?

And not knowing the name of a building has NOTHING to do with a news station reading a press release too early.

How am I avoiding questions? When have you asked me a question? I notice you fail to address the difficult stuff.

Can you explain to me how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on columns that were designed to hold them, and had done since it's construction?

And BTW I have not read anything by Richard Gage, other than that what you, and others, point out. I don't have to have someone tell me what to think.

edit on 3/22/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join