Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I was laughing at your post about someone bringing up the plane.

You said lmfaooo and we know what the F stands for, you're real mature (sarcasm)

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
It was funny. As far as doing research..I suggest you read up on some from the past three years. If you had, you would have never brought up the "pancake" collapse.

One of your specialities, to twist words around.

I was referring to the building falling onto it's own footprints. The term pancake is just to describe the way the building reacted, it's not related to NIST or any official story terms.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What your missing also is that the building was designed to take the impact of a plane that was LOST in fog...etc. Where they would not be traveling at grgeat speeds. A terroist attack was NOT taken into consideration when the towers were built, and the effects of the jet fule on the buildings were not taken into consideration either.

No, what you are missing is that the way the building was designed, the center core columns are not in the front facade of the building and therefor the individual area of the impact of the plane is not highly transfered onto the center core in the middle of the building. Just like a pencil piercing through a spider web in terms of transferring impact to the overall infrastructure.

Oh and you mean the jet fuel that mostly blew up outside the towers?

Originally posted by selfless
You said lmfaooo and we know what the F stands for, you're real mature (sarcasm)

Selfless,
If i offended you with my Acronym, i apologize. I was going to get a red flag for spelling someones name wrong earlier.

One of your specialities, to twist words around.

I was referring to the building falling onto it's own footprints. The term pancake is just to describe the way the building reacted, it's not related to NIST or any official story terms.

You used the term twice in one post. Most would assume you meant PANCAKE since you said it twice.

No, what you are missing is that the way the building was designed, the center core columns are not in the front facade of the building and therefor the individual area of the impact of the plane is not highly transfered onto the center core in the middle of the building. Just like a pencil piercing through a spider web in terms of transferring impact to the overall infrastructure.

Oh and you mean the jet fuel that mostly blew up outside the towers?

Have you even read the NIST report? If so, please tell me WHY they said the building collapsed. And do you know that the estimates that NIST and FEMA have stated was that 30-40%of the fuel burned off in the fireball.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Selfless,
If i offended you with my Acronym, i apologize. I was going to get a red flag for spelling someones name wrong earlier.

Simply pointing it out because i don't think it belongs on a message board.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You used the term twice in one post. Most would assume you meant PANCAKE since you said it twice.

I could have used the word telescoped. It's just a word to describe the reaction of the building and the manner in which it collapsed.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Have you even read the NIST report? If so, please tell me WHY they said the building collapsed. And do you know that the estimates that NIST and FEMA have stated was that 30-40%of the fuel burned off in the fireball.

So you still believe that a plane crash and jet fuel for 1 hour brought down the building? If you answer yes then I suggest we stop this argument right here because it's not gonna go anywhere. Because I don't believe that for a second and no government corporate report will make me change my mind on my perception of the laws of physics and the events that took place on 911.

For me there are too many inconsistencies with the laws of physics and common sense to believe the official story, and that's my opinion at the time and it's not likely to change from the things I have seen and the things i perceive.

Since this is never gonna end, I'm ending it now.

Take care.

Selfless,

Please provide me with evidence that the collapse was a CD. Then please provide me with a peer reviewed paper explaining why the NIST report is inacurate.

You cant...so yes i agree, i will no longer debate facts with someone that refuses to even look at them.

Take care

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by jprophet420

i hate to put the ball in your corner (no i dont) but i have never seen any footage of wtc7 engulfed in flames, I have never heard of any, and i have never heard of any mentioned in threads on ATS.

That's because there isn't any. The whole place was evacuated so much of the building was not able to be seen. That's why we rely on the many people who were actually down there and could see what was going on.

I have seen several videos of the building and it was not engulfed in flames. i even posted the defenition of engulfed. the building would have to have near 100% of the surface area contained in flame. nothing like that has ever been seen to my knowledge.while i agree that just becasue i never saw a video of the building engulfed in flames does not mean it didnt happen, the fact is that i did see a video of it NOT engulfed in flames, and did NOT have exterior burn marks over 100% of the surface. those are pretty good indicators that it was in fact not engulfed in flames.

I try to post links and back facts, but more and more it just seems people ask for links out of nothing short of spite. recently i have made references to videos posted within the same thread (in the OP) and been asked repeatedly to link. this is just absurd.

And you have been told repeatedly why there is no link. You guys are trying to imply that if something isn't caught on film it doesn't exist. But this is because you know the hundreds of firefighters testimonies proves beyond any doubt that there was major damage and fires.

i am specifically refering to a thread which had 5 clips of interest in the thread. the only way someone could not have known what i was referencing was if they didnt watch the video in the original post. yes, i was debating what was contained in the clips. yes i was asked to link to them, and yes the clips did and do exist

i assume that when i debate what happened on 911 here on ATS, that there is a certain amount of 'we already covered this' present. i will glady help a 'noob' on either side but to tell me that the quote is wrong but not post a source... please give me more respect than that, or put me on ignore. i dont care about points pr ratings, i care about what really happened. thank you.

I don't even remember what you are referencing to. But I do remember someone directly misquoted Larry, so perhaps that was you. In that case there is no need for a source, you can just go back to where you got your quote and see. Show others the respect you want to get.

i quoted the man almost verbatim, then verbatim with a link. you posted your opinion

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Selfless,

Please provide me with evidence that the collapse was a CD. Then please provide me with a peer reviewed paper explaining why the NIST report is inacurate.

You cant...so yes i agree, i will no longer debate facts with someone that refuses to even look at them.

Take care

on the other hand, when you star posting peer reviewed papers that back the NIST report, let us know.

well let me ask, for those that think it was a cd, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

loose change?

i just looks like the cd's youve seen on tv?

or have any of you actually done some research and traiing in explosives and can draw on that to point out how it was a cd?

cuz if anyones got demo training id love to compare notes, maybe im missing something.

cuz ive actually done the demo calculations and know how much ordinance it would have taken and it just doesnt seem plausable.

im not being sarcastic here but i'd like to see you answer. i know my answer sounded a bit 'pulled out of.. ahem.. thin air'. the article i had just read stated that .13 lbs of thermite/# of steel would be required to sufficiently weaken the joints. 100million tons of steel = at least 1.3 million tons of thermite. thats a bit much. you dont really have to show your work but it would be nice. thanks.

well the problems with this are many, the first being that ive ALWAYS claimed that my expertise was in standard conventional explosives and their use. thermite is considered by the military to be an incindiary. we used it to start fires or to disable equipment (artillery, tanks, vehicles etc)

the next problem with it is you have to specify if the thermite was just kind of thrown around in an attempt to weaken the whole structure by heating it OR are we putting it into a "cutter" configuration (which no one has been able to reproduce) and applying it directly to the core columns.

IF someone was able to make it act like a cutter then you dont have to weaken the millions of tons of steel you only have to apply it to the area youre cutting, which means youd have to figure out how fast it would melt a small area (comparativly) and then apply enough to that area to burn that long, but again, the problem is getting it to cut horizontally.

IF someone could figure out an efficient way to make it cut beams/columns horizontally id GUESS that it would take considerably less than a million tons.

but this is all speculation im pulling out of...um, yeah, thin air.

hope that at least helped

If you're saying .13 pounds of thermite to every pound of steel then it isn't it every pound of steel to be cut?

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're saying .13 pounds of thermite to every pound of steel then it isn't it every pound of steel to be cut?

heh bsb was able to say in a sentence what i tried to say in several paragraphs, heh

but he's exactly right, you'd only be looking at the cross section of steel where you wanted to make your cut, not the whole column.

which of course means that IF you can overcome the horizontal cutting issue it wouldnt take but a few lbs of thermate per column.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

You cant...so yes i agree

If you choose to take government and corporate reports to heart and believe them, that is your decision.

But to claim official story reports as facts is not facts, it's only your opinion.(They have lied to you all your life and continue to do so.)

And it's also why I dismiss your false claims (According to my opinion)

So we can agree to disagree then.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
i will no longer debate facts with someone that refuses to even look at them.

That is exactly why I decided to not talk to you about it anymore. Because you think your opinion on what happened are facts just because it coexists with the official reports.(The propaganda machine)

Take care now.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Selfless,

Please provide me with evidence that the collapse was a CD. Then please provide me with a peer reviewed paper explaining why the NIST report is inacurate.

You cant...so yes i agree, i will no longer debate facts with someone that refuses to even look at them.

Take care

on the other hand, when you star (sic) posting peer reviewed papers that back the NIST report, let us know.

Having no apparent experience in logical discourse you can be forgiven for such a comment, but the writer who asks you to provide a reasonable refutation of the NIST report is on solid footing and you walked off the pier long ago.

NIST, and others, have provided voluminous evidence to explain why the aircraft crashing into the buildings led to their collapse. This evidence is supported by independent investigators from a diverse background including acedemia and industry, government and private. The argument must start there. Listening to the CT crowd, one would think that the those on the side of NIST, et al. have no basis in which to even speak on this matter. They totally disregard the sheer volume of good work done by the investigators, many who have years of training and experience in investigating all manner of engineering calamities, which has stood up to the most critical review from people who also have years and entire lifetimes of experience in this field.

On the other hand, the CT crowd has been shown repeatedly, in any number of neutral forums, to rely on false evidence, mistaken understanding of simply physical principles, unqualified investigators and unfortunately a few truly delusional individuals to support their case. I've yet to see one of these people provide a verifiable curriculum vitae that would lead me to trust any of their assertions.

You cannot simply prop up any old fairytale (controlled demolition or whatever) and then shout to the world "Prove me wrong!" But of course, that is the conspiracy theorists stock in trade, so I'm tilting at windmills thinking that any of you will stop.

BTW, here is a link to a scholarly article showing the method and reason for the WTCs collapse. It's much If you can deal with the math you will see it supports the NIST report in detail.

www.debunking911.com...


F-Dog

Originally posted by Flyingdog5000
NIST, and others, have provided voluminous evidence to explain why the aircraft crashing into the buildings led to their collapse.

Can you link me to one study showing that sagging trusses could have significantly deflected the outer columns? This is NIST's key assertion but they never bothered to test it. I wonder if anyone else has, or whether you're just talking out of your ass.

I'd also like to see tests or modeling that show any other form of significant deflection from heating in which load redistribution would become impossible or where such large steel members could become sufficiently heated within such a short span of time. This would also qualify as evidence in favor of the "official story", if it exists, but I can tell you right now that it does not.


The only thing going for these people is the shadow of evidence, that they give the impression that they have evidence, mostly just by asserting their authority as an agency of various engineers. This has nothing to do with the actual testing and science.

Now that I ask you to show me the two specific items above, that represent key points in NIST's argument, I want to see whether or not this evidence actually exists.

And another thing, all you guys waving around the NIST report and the 9-11 comissions findings are relying on little more than a selective examination of evidence. Anybody can take and selectively examine the evidence to arrive at any conclusion they want. The biggest problem i have with both of those documents and the subsequent pseudo-science that followed by other publications and experts is that they haven't considered ALL of the evidence. Hell the Firefighters were barred from testifying during the 9-11 commission's hearings, for example. Your president wouldn't speak to them under oath. Another example is the fact that the NIST report fails to mention anything about the Bomb Sniffing Dogs being pulled off the Job. Another example, "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." I don't recall seeing the name Tim Osman in anything official, or, why were John O'neil's investigations railroaded? Odigo? CIA Meeting with Osama in Dubai? Just a few questions of many.
They took what they wanted and made what they needed out of it and discarded anything which might conflict with a conclusion that was carved in stone long before the events took place IMO. That's why there was a commission, and not an investigation.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Flyingdog5000
NIST, and others, have provided voluminous evidence to explain why the aircraft crashing into the buildings led to their collapse.

Can you link me to one study showing that sagging trusses could have significantly deflected the outer columns? This is NIST's key assertion but they never bothered to test it. I wonder if anyone else has, or whether you're just talking out of your ass.

I'd also like to see tests or modeling that show any other form of significant deflection from heating in which load redistribution would become impossible or where such large steel members could become sufficiently heated within such a short span of time. This would also qualify as evidence in favor of the "official story", if it exists, but I can tell you right now that it does not.


The only thing going for these people is the shadow of evidence, that they give the impression that they have evidence, mostly just by asserting their authority as an agency of various engineers. This has nothing to do with the actual testing and science.

Now that I ask you to show me the two specific items above, that represent key points in NIST's argument, I want to see whether or not this evidence actually exists.

The video evidence of the instant before the first building collapsed shows the columns deforming, so I would say that, yes, I can show you evidence of their deforming. You still haven't shown a single iota of evidence to show that the NIST report is wrong. Merely saying that its full of boloney doesn't make it so. As far as modeling of that goes, the cited paper goes into some detail of that very thing.

What exactly do you mean by "shadow of the evidence", or "testing and evidence"? What do you mean by "asserting their authority as an agency of various engineers"? Who else should you look to for forensic analysis of such a catastophe, a discredited pseudo-academic who was sacked from BYU? (Did you also happen to review his work on cold fusion or Mormon archaeology? Scintillating.) A group of amateurs who have a pre-conceived notion that the gov't is out to get you, so anything they say has to be false? A psychic perhaps?

These people who wrote the report and who have collectively hundreds, if not thousands, of years of experience in the investigation of such things, have in many cases been subject to sworn testimony. If all you can do is say they are liars, then, once again, prove it! Prove which of their studied assertions are false, don't just throw the whole thing out as preposterous because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived conspiracy theory. Take it apart piece by piece and provide evidence that each of their assertions are wrong. You in the CT crowd continue to cast derision on the evidence, yet have provided no robust evidence to counter it.

Like a lawyer trying to defend a poor case, who has no evidence to support him, all you can do is try to discredit the evidence that shows the holes in your own case. So far, you've been doing it rather poorly.


F-Dog

It's not really what's in the NIST report, it's what they left out that is the problem. For example, the tilt and rotation of the top of the South Tower and how it defied physics if there was no other energy acting on it other than gravity.

Originally posted by jprophet420


i quoted the man almost verbatim, then verbatim with a link. you posted your opinion

"We made the decision to 'pull' the building..."

That was YOUR quote" Now here is the REAL quote:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

THEY made the decision. There's no WE in there.

Either you are using fraud sources or you are trying to mislead people here by altering quotes. And nice of you to write everythig ese off as "opinion". How do you explain your quote now?

Originally posted by twitchy
Another example is the fact that the NIST report fails to mention anything about the Bomb Sniffing Dogs being pulled off the Job. Another example, "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." I don't recall seeing the name Tim Osman in anything official, or, why were John O'neil's investigations railroaded? Odigo? CIA Meeting with Osama in Dubai? Just a few questions of many.
They took what they wanted and made what they needed out of it and discarded anything which might conflict with a conclusion that was carved in stone long before the events took place IMO. That's why there was a commission, and not an investigation.

Well for one thing, the NIST report would have no business talking about bomb sniffing dogs. But more importantly there were not bomb sniffing dogs there to be removed. In the previous weeks they had gotten a report of a bomb scare so they brought dogs in to search the place. They found nothing and the dogs went back home.

What is this classified information you are talking about? Not much of an argument if you can't talk about the argument no?

The other stuff like Odigo and CIA meetings with Bin Laden are not really substantiated or verifiable. And the Odigo one isn't even an issue, it's just something that was overspun to make it sound like a conspiracy.

There was most certainly an investigation. It was done by the Federal Bureau of *Investigation*. The 9/11 commission was simply to assess what went wrong and make suggestions of how we could prevent it from happening in the future.


Someone else mentioned that they did not test the sagging of the trusses, but they most certainly did.

the whole title of this thread is, "proof of a negative", which is of course, impossible.

although it doesn't say, "proof", 'evidence of a negative' is essentially the same. the only way to have evidence of something not happening, is to have proof of what did happen.

NIST's theories are not even close to proof.

you've got to see the hilarious new flash animation starring the head NISTian pope, mr. s.s.sunder.

www.pbs.org...

i'm going to start a thread on this.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by billybob]