yup ... indeed ..

Originally posted by zerozero00
[
And localized fires and falling debris caused this to happen

I still don't get the point you are trying to make, What I see in both videos is not explained with the OS

Foul play of some sort is the only answer as nature and physics hold their own under test and scrutiny

My logic can not see localized fires and falling debris as to the cause of a total collapse of this magnificent building....Regardless of "Freefall" or "Near Freefall" speeds........Just not possible!

They were not localized , read the fire fighters reports have you actually looked at what was said about the steel work for this building.

but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

That's just some indication of what the fire fighters said.

Report on collapse in Structures Magazine

www.structuremag.org...

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by hellobruce

 

The bomb sniffer dog argument is sort of absurd.

First of all, with most explosives, apparently they add a compound to it that gives it odor so security sniffers can detect it.

So therefore, the explosives (whatever type it may be), must have been constructed without the additional odor compound added in order to fool the sniffers.

That is just speculation but reveals how there are more twists to this than a mere forum discussion can reveal.

[[Citation needed|date=April 2013]] [/wiki]

Fitz

Go look it up. It is ambiguous and vague yes, but actually this type of information is generally classified secret by the US Govt for obvious reasons.

Just snoop around and you will find out what I am referring to (mostly in relation to plastic explosives I assume?).
I don't even know the name of the odor compound....

Your assertion; Google it yourself! Burden of proof's on you to be able to back it up, not on others to disprove anything that you may well have made up.

Fitz
"Denying ignorance since 2006"

I googled it for you! Look at the post above.

I see you edited your post. However, your own link makes a significant distinction between reality and your assertion, to whit:

"Its presence allows more reliable explosive detection." (Hilite added for effect)
So, even if this explosive was somehow manufactured by the ebildoers, all the lack of a taggent would've done is make its presence less noticeable. That might be meaningful if we were talking small quantities but when you're talking about tons upon tons of explosive, the tapdance is meaningless. And of course, explosives would've yielded something far more noticeable at the time: noise (and lots of it. far in excess of what was heard)

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Now congratulate yourself on how lazy you actually are.

Sorry if I don't feel like doing the work for you that you should've done in the first place.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
And imagine the million things you don't actually know and currently scoff at simply because you expect others to hold your hand.

Sorry but why're you getting snarky at me? Too often, I've seen 'truthers' make such-and-such an assertion without citation and when challenged, will not or cannot back up their assertion. Again, why does it fall to others to do your work for you?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I usually google people's claims before even bothering to ask for them to prove it.
Why cannot you?

For the reason stated above. I have better things to do with my time than chase other people's ghosts. Nobody (debunker or 'truther') should be burdened with disproving someone else's unsupported assertion. Ever. Your assertion? Burden of proof falls to you not others. To do otherwise is to be the lazy party in the equation.

Fitz

reply to post by wmd_2008


That entire report is admittedly a "collapse hypothesis", and it's apparently based on the NIST WTC 7 report, and a few other studies/reports.

How is that any better/different than all of the other dozens of hypothesis floating around that were derived from people reading these documents?

In a way these reports are like the Bible, it says the same thing for everyone, but how people interpret them is vastly different.

Since all you actually have are alternative hypothesis in favor of the plane collapse possibility, than we are actually stuck at a stalemate essentially because all we have here are competing hypothesis and scant evidence to rely upon in order to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Yep Indeed...911 debates are a quagmire.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

For the reason stated above. I have better things to do with my time than chase other people's ghosts. Nobody (debunker or 'truther') should be burdened with disproving someone else's unsupported assertion. Ever. Your assertion? Burden of proof falls to you not others. To do otherwise is to be the lazy party in the equation.

Fitz

Yes, better things to do like read an ATS thread, challenge people without actually looking into the topic yourself, and then claim it's their job to educate you?

So the better thing to do is "be lazy on a forum" vs "looking things up to learn first hand yourself".
I get it. I really do.

You know what would be a better use of your time actually? Looking something up first, rather than arguing pointlessly with someone about it for multiple posts. Talk about wastes of time, pot meet kettle.

Originally posted by darkstar57
reply to post by SpearMint

 

I read the NIST report on WTC7. to summarize, it said the following. between the 5th to 7th floor heat from fire weakened two columns, which then buckeled. the sideways motion then pulled the other columns, causing them also to buckle sideways and the building collapse.
the floors are 4 inchs of cement poured on 20 guage corrogated steel pans with cross members supporting the floor.
So the entire floor was pulled sideways causing the remaining columns to collapse.

If you disagree with this summary, please cite the NIST document. I have it. You must show why the collapse is straight down and symmetrical, while the explanation is asymmetrical and time dependent. e.g., columns do not bend at the speed of light...

The problem with this theory begins with not enough heat from an open flame to weaken steel to the symmetrical fall of the building, at gravitatioal acceleration. One would see the building fall toward the collapsed columns,if the NIST report were correct. then the rest follow. Does not happen.

I haven't said that it makes sense.

They were not localized , read the fire fighters reports have you actually looked at what was said about the steel work for this building.

but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

reply to post by wmd_2008



I see you take quotes out of context...Nasty tactic!

Full quote:

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

And this is it anyway?

This is all your evidence to prove Einstein and Newton wrong and a firefighter's opinion is oh so valid in regards to a never happened before in Physical history collapse of a steel framed structure?

also, the gouge in the side was cosmetic damage, no damage to the total structural integrity of the building could of been caused by this gouge....only fires on several floors reported by your source

You OS guys astound me

reply to post by muzzleflash


No stale mate. The explanation that does not required a large group of people to be guilty or implicit to mass murder without ever saying a word, and that is not filled with tons of unexplainable issues like not any tangible evidence for explosives, no audio or video evidence for explosives, no witnesses noticing explosives being installed etc. is the winner here. By far.

Please allow me to remind you of the following:

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.



Please be reminded that this forum is under heavy scrutiny.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

It really makes me want to cry that there are a whole lot of people out there that still believe the official (bull#) story. And how they are trying to claim that these buildings were exempt from the laws of physics.

Truly amazingly mind blowing.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Although I personally detest meme photos now after I have seen a bazillion of them (they were funny at first, sorta).

The point is that this thread is in itself ambiguous and indeterminate, but clearly it pertains at least loosely to the 911 events and conspiracy allegations surrounding them.

.

Four buildings on fire that didn't collapse and on that did , if YOU cant see what is the whole point of that picture then I don't see how the OP could have made it simpler for you !

Like you say it's difficult to prove things but what tends to happen is that anything documented as support for the OS is ignored and replaced with pseudo science and conspiracy cliches.

The OP inferred that if the buildings shown survived their fires WTC 7 should not have fallen, do you agree with that?

Do you agree that unless the construction/circumstance are the same you CAN'T assume that, do you agree with that.?

The OP had NO clue that the buildings are of different construction do you agree with that.?

Very often in these threads we same claims like this, the only steel buildings to collapse due to fire BUT it's not just due to fire is it!

We often see claims that office fires cant get hot enough to melt steel actually they can as shown by the cardington fire tests.



Someone on here told me that the steel for the WTC towers had been fire tested to 2400 degrees for several hours that gave me a laugh and when I posted the strength v temp graph for steel I got no reply I wonder why.

I don't really care what you think of my background in simple terms that anyone can understand

The Twin towers

Plane impact structural damage, damage to fire protection, fire damage and associated loadings on structure , loads above impact point caused failure, the HUGE dynamic loads destroyed the buildings ,the rest is history.

The South tower although hit second fell first but the it did have a far greater load above impact point!!!

Do you also know that engineers didn't have to take into consideration thermal loading on structural members because of fire that's only just changing now

Or that many countries had a look at construction codes for fire after 9/11.

WTC 7 Structural damage due to falling debris, fires on various floors an unfortunate steel design due to the open plan foyer 7 hours of fires and the rest is history.

No one here claims that these buildings broke the laws of physics it's just the fact that conspiracy sites claim that and people just want to believe them.

reply to post by wmd_2008

No one here claims that these buildings broke the laws of physics it's just the fact that conspiracy sites claim that and people just want to believe them.

No one here claims that these buildings broke the laws of physics?

What do you think I have been writing about over the last 6 pages

There is no need to be a scientist to know that these buildings broke the laws of physics....Common sense and logic.......

And that is before you even touch the many other discrepancies surrounding that whole sorry day

I think it is pretty clear that something rotten went on that day. I have trouble believing that building 7 went down simply due to fire unless it was the most poorly designed building in the world; which I doubt it was.

reply to post by Enemyc0mbatant

It really makes me want to cry that there are a whole lot of people out there that still believe the official (bull#) story.

But the OS is a single unified explaination.
The conspiracy side is a hodge podge of mutualy conflicting theories.

How can the public at large take the conspiracy movement seriously when on faction says it was thermite and another one says it was explosives?

One faction says no planes another says holograms still a third says military aircraft. And a fourth says the passengers were removed before impact.

Until this movement can come together they will be seen as fringe.

reply to post by freedomwv

I have trouble believing that building 7 went down simply due to fire unless it was the most poorly designed building in the world; which I doubt it was.

But it was.
That is why new buildings do not use designs close to the WTC designs.

Lessons learned.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Enemyc0mbatant

 

It really makes me want to cry that there are a whole lot of people out there that still believe the official (bull#) story.

But the OS is a single unified explaination.
The conspiracy side is a hodge podge of mutualy conflicting theories.

How can the public at large take the conspiracy movement seriously when on faction says it was thermite and another one says it was explosives?

One faction says no planes another says holograms still a third says military aircraft. And a fourth says the passengers were removed before impact.

Until this movement can come together they will be seen as fringe.

The OS is a unified explanation for an impossibility, it defies physics and is not an adequate reason for the collapse of buildings.....Hence

The truth "movement" as you refer to them as, is nothing more than a "Smoke and Mirrors" tactic, to be used as and when needed, your above post is an example of the rhetoric being used to confuse and ill inform

I don't subscribe to any group or "Movement" ......I subscribe to science and truth.

Originally posted by freedomwvI have trouble believing that building 7 went down simply due to fire

Not just fire:

but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors

...

WTC 7 Structural damage due to falling debris, fires on various floors an unfortunate steel design due to the open plan foyer 7 hours of fires and the rest is history.

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by freedomwvI have trouble believing that building 7 went down simply due to fire

Not just fire:

but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors

...

WTC 7 Structural damage due to falling debris, fires on various floors an unfortunate steel design due to the open plan foyer 7 hours of fires and the rest is history.

Ha, I don't get this post

For or against OS?

I've already pointed out that there is no evidence to prove the OS that can be posted onto this forum,
because it doesn't exist,
all the OS has is out of context quotes from firemen, Whom, with all due respects are not the brightest or most educated of people, I do mean that as no disrespect other than to point out that they are not qualified to tell anyone that WTC7 will collapse naturally, that would take a full structural survey carried out by a structural surveyor or engineer and I can tell you this building would take more than a day to asses

Anyway, No fireman can predict the collapse of a steel framed building like WTC7 because of the known damage we are all aware the building took
I have heard firemen on the day and I have read quotes from them since, A lot of what you hear spoken by them on the day regarding WTC7 is highly suspicious and not something that helps the OS in anyway

How I see it is the OS has very very little to offer in the way of evidence to back its self up with

There's nothing anyone can say to take away from the fact that the 911 story, as it is, is a complete utter stupid lie. It's HOGWASH and we all know it, even the ones "debunking" it like I once did.

It -IS- a LIE. Maybe for good reason, who knows. But.

-- IT --
-- IS --
-- A --
--LIE--

And no matter the implications, the reasons for it, how it all went down, it is an indisputable lie.
Now that we know this, let's move on. Much more ahead.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

In all honesty, what would be the point? The only steel-framed high-rises to ever collapse allegedly from fire, are the three on 911. You'd have nothing to compare them to.

Yes in "all honesty"....wouldn't that be better? To have the investigative reports of each, the damage sustained, the design, the compromised structural integrity with possible damage to it; a time frame of when the photographs were taken, etc, etc.

Those are all important if you want to have an intelligent discussion on the anomalies of WTC7 and why it came down as it did.

My post was to ask a question and all you can offer is "what would be the point?"

reply to post by zerozero00

The OS is a unified explanation for an impossibility, it defies physics and is not an adequate reason for the collapse of buildings.....Hence

It isn't an impossibility.
The lack of fire experts speaking out should tell you that.

I know, I know. The big bad government is silencing all the experts.
Prove it. Prove all the experts on the planet are under the control of the US government.