What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

reply to post by RipCurl


Are these graphics supposed to represent what happened to WTC7 according to NIST, or are they not?

Yeah and your point?

That's their modeling showing what was happening to the building.


Can you provide your modeling of he building that refutes their report?



[edit on 30-11-2009 by RipCurl]

Originally posted by RipCurl
Yeah and your point?

That's their modeling showing what was happening to the building.

Have you seen that magnitude of deformation of that building in any collapse videos or photographs? Would you care to post some that validate that modeling, to demonstrate that it is an accurate representation?


Do you see a match with these?

yes... highly compressed videos that do not show the details as they happened.

Pleaes provide links to the raw video footage, and not from partially obstructed views.

The south side view is only used by 911 truth movement members as a means to say "hey SEE! it didn't happen like they said"

yet photos and images from the North side, shows damage and the deformation happening.

reply to post by RipCurl


Okay, well you are the one claiming that you can see such deformations in videos, so post the videos that show them. I have seen plenty of videos of WTC7 collapsing, not just the animated gifs above.

it should be obvious to anyone reading this, now, that ripcurl is either blind, or is a disinfo agent working for the NWO.
the gifs that bsbray posted are small, yes, but the full size videos show the exact same thing. ruler straight edges descending at near freefall (and absolute freefall for 2.28 seconds). there is no info being lost in this little gifs, because even a little gif can do STRAIGHT quite well.
the exterior of wtc 7 was not deformed or twisted AT ALL. not from the north side, south side, east side or west side.
only the dull imagination of a disinfo could ignore the hard evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

look at them, people! they are the purveyors of newspeak and doublethink.
they can point at a square and call it a circle, and say, "you're psycho if you can't see the circle".

and, that is pretty much their whole game.
pathetic that it works so well.

Originally posted by billybob
it should be obvious to anyone reading this, now, that ripcurl is either blind, or is a disinfo agent working for the NWO.

I just asked in my last post, but I am not expecting RipCurl to even attempt to show a match. He/she has already responded numerous times on other threads but still hasn't come back to this one to respond to my request.

The jury is still out for me, as to what is up with this guy/girl. But anyway I am not impressed so far, that's for sure.

Originally posted by billybob
it should be obvious to anyone reading this, now, that ripcurl is either blind, or is a disinfo agent working for the NWO.

yup when people ask you to provide proof, you go with the Ad Hom attacks.

Im not blind. Im definitely not a disnifo agent and there is no such thing as an NWO.

Please provide the RAW footage of the collapse and not compressed video footage manipulated by the truth movement.

Originally posted by RipCurl
yup when people ask you to provide proof, you go with the Ad Hom attacks.

I just asked you for proof of your beliefs in another thread and all you did was try to shift your own burden of proof onto me.

Hypocrite.

Please provide the RAW footage of the collapse and not compressed video footage manipulated by the truth movement.

You're just going to see the same exact damned thing. Why don't YOU post a video that actually SHOWS that kind of deformation that NIST asserts? Because every video that I post that doesn't show it, you're just going to claim something is wrong with it, I'm sure.

"What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?"

the question is now:- What evidence would accept to prove your countries integrity should they ever divulge the truth?

reply to post by RipCurl


why should i provide it? it's all over the place. EASY PEASY to find.
your demands for this and that are weak. this isn't jref, dude.
the wtc7 descent show NO deformation anything like the NIST's HORRIBLE simulation.
you can say it's ad him to call you blind and a disinfo, but, the fact is, you are blatantly, willfully ignoring what your eyes are telling you. and that either makes you blind or a disinfo. i don;t really think that's ad hom.
luckily, no one who see this thread will have the same problem.

you can't help someone see who is only pretending to be blind.

also, get it straight in you records. i'm not interested in debating with YOU. i'm only interested in disseminating truth, and i thank you for helping with your negative examples of what observation, research and science are all about.

ANYONE who looks at the videos of wtc7 falling, and then looks at the NIST's (embarrassing simulation) will easily see the truth of the matter.

the NIST's sim has fault lines (3) running HORIZONTALLY across the building.
the only fault line was a VERTICAL one, the "kink". the NIST building is all twisted and would look just as twisted in a tiny gif. shall i shrink it for you?

anyway. you keep digging yourself deeper, errr, ...typing your awesome arguments. it shows you for what you are, and if you think anyone other than your buddies at the propaganda office will believe you've convinced any rational readers of anything, then, HAHAHAHA!!!!

reply to post by bsbray11


OK. Somehow this thread has become about building 7 it seems.
And they are mentioning videos of it´s collapse.
But somehow the videos shown are only the "final" part of collapse.
And people talk and talk about these 8 seconds or so, but the collapse of building 7 took a lot more time.
If you have enough patience as to look at this video:
(WARNING.- It´s from a "debunkers" website.)

www.youtube.com...

You will notice something I have said before. The collapse is a lot longer, because first the left part (from were it is seen) of the penthouse crumbles and the building seems to "hold" for a moment, and then the rest of the collapse comes.
We have to consider that most probably the inside of the structure was suffering all kinds of damage for those breef seconds.
And if we time it, the start of collapse is at 03:03 into the clip, and we stop seeing the roof line behind other buildings at 03:17.
So, that´s at least 14 seconds that it took that building to collapse.
It´s there in video evidence.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by rush969]

Originally posted by impressme

Anyway, it doesn’t matter what evidences that we presented about 911

That is exactly the problem, you have not presented any evidence, just conspiracy theories that do not fit the facts.

yet there are some people on ATS that are delighted that the truth is suppressed.

Actually, the only ones trying to suppress the truth are the conspiracy theorists!

Originally posted by rush969
OK. Somehow this thread has become about building 7 it seems.
And they are mentioning videos of it´s collapse.
But somehow the videos shown are only the "final" part of collapse.

You mean the beginning of the global collapse?

And people talk and talk about these 8 seconds or so, but the collapse of building 7 took a lot more time.

I know physics isn't your strong suit, but what you are referring to is actually completely irrelevant to anything we were talking about, and is also irrelevant to WTC7 free-fall. NIST used to avoid admitting it free-fell by starting the clock way before the global collapse like you are trying to do now, but then they scrapped that and just admitted that WTC7 did free-fall for at least a significant portion of its global collapse. But how long it free-fell doesn't matter, either. If you think how long it free-falls matters at all, then you obviously don't remember why you are trying to debunk free-fall in the first place. Ie why it is "bad" for your particular beliefs.

You will notice something I have said before. The collapse is a lot longer, because first the left part (from were it is seen) of the penthouse crumbles and the building seems to "hold" for a moment, and then the rest of the collapse comes.

You know it's really something, that you think you are showing me something I've never seen before. Thanks but I'm a few years ahead of you on that one. See above.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You're just going to see the same exact damned thing. Why don't YOU post a video that actually SHOWS that kind of deformation that NIST asserts? Because every video that I post that doesn't show it, you're just going to claim something is wrong with it, I'm sure.

Truthers just want to ask for evidence so they can cry "no proof." Evidence, documentation, testimony has been presented and shown over and over again. If it's sufficient it either has to be either dismissed as "OS", ignored or re-edited.

Otherwise they the Truther has to admit he's been conned into accepting conspiracy stories for which no evidence actually exist.

Truther motto "If you can't Google up a Youtube video of it - it never happened."

Like the endlessly shown 'instant collapse' taken from a longer broadcast piece.

wtc.nist.gov/comments08/josephNobleswtc7comments.pdf

A section of this footage is in wide circulation on the Internet, and is used by alternate theorists to pretend that the collapse of WTC 7 took only 7 seconds. However, they only show the last 7 seconds where the exterior followed the rest of the interior columns.

This video is so iconic among alternate theorists that the wider availability of the full collapse video from CBS would help demonstrate their fantasies perhaps even to themselves. The sight of the east penthouse collapsing into the building, the building’s shudder, the breaking windows as the debris falls inside, and the clear east-west collapse of the screen wail and west penthouse is a clear visual antidote to the poison created in the truncated footage out there.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


I was asking for a video that corroborates/verifies NIST's computer model of WTC7 collapsing.

If you can't post a video that shows the same kind of deformation, like Rip Curl apparently thinks exists, then yes, of course we are going to say you don't have one. I have probably seen every WTC7 collapse video in public domain and I have never seen the deformations NIST suggests.

If you were really "skeptical" you would realize NIST just produced a bad model. But instead you are just cheerleading for a side of a game to you, so it hardly matters to you whether or not you can support your or anyone else's claims.



Btw nice way to continue on with a straw man by introducing even more straw man arguments. Who was it that was arguing that WTC7 collapsed in 7 seconds again? Not me, probably no one here, because you are apparently not competent with keeping along with the discussion. WTC7 did free-fall, but that wasn't the topic of the discussion, even though you apparently don't understand what free-fall implies anyway. Not my problem when you get your education from the internet and are too paranoid to trust the physics we try to explain to you and too apathetic to look it up and understand it yourself. I have had the classes. WTC7 free-falling is an instantaneous energy problem, not a coyote and road-runner problem where you take work done before and after and try to say it was done during the free-fall period when it obviously wasn't. You probably don't even understand how kinetic energy relates to acceleration so I'm just wasting words against a know-it-all, as always.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was asking for a video that corroborates/verifies NIST's computer model of WTC7 collapsing.

If you can't post a video that shows the same kind of deformation, like Rip Curl apparently thinks exists, then yes, of course we are going to say you don't have one. I have probably seen every WTC7 collapse video in public domain and I have never seen the deformations NIST suggests.

If you were really "skeptical" you would realize NIST just produced a bad model. But instead you are just cheerleading for a side of a game to you, so it hardly matters to you whether or not you can support your or anyone else's claims

I have had the classes. WTC7 free-falling is an instantaneous energy problem, not a coyote and road-runner problem where you take work done before and after and try to say it was done during the free-fall period when it obviously wasn't. You probably don't even understand how kinetic energy

I understand the science I took in University, the vast amount I have read and worked with since. I also understand when people think a little knowledge of some science qualifies them to comment knowledgeably on anything scientific because they have some concepts and jargon down.

You don't and probably never will comprehend those graphics. You just want to see a freeze frame showing exactly what is graphically depicted.

The deformation pattern reconstructed would not show up on video in a single frame or field. Not every rapid structural modification would be simultaneous.

What you're seeing represented is what would have taken place between position A and position B. Like in cel animation where there are key frames and the in-between movements are inferred.

Hard to explain if you've never seen the process in stop motion photography. Don't know if you've seen a drop in water isolated. For a fraction of a second it produces an floral pattern invisible to the naked eye and most cameras.

What is evident is how WTC 7 went through internal transformation that became wildly accelerated just before it totally collapsed.

Don't know it was already mentioned. I recall it described an inward directed 'implosion' type collapse.

Evidence and testimony confirm. The shuddering and moaning of the building before the end.

I expect you'll hold onto the lack of fully satisfying video or photographic evidence to cling to your hope for a controlled demolition or whatever.









[edit on 14-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by dereks

Anyway, it doesn’t matter what evidences that we presented about 911

That is exactly the problem, you have not presented any evidence, just conspiracy theories that do not fit the facts.

I would like to know what pg on this thread that I made that statement?

You sir, are not allowed to take quotes from other ATS threads and use it against them in another thread. read the ATS T&C handbook.

Pg4

Some of you who believe in the OS fairytale can continue to believe in your fairytale I don’t care. I don’t need to prove anything to people who have chose to be ignorant and stay ignorant. I have not seen so many people who refuse to use the resource’s of the internet to do some real research.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by bsbray11

You mean the beginning of the global collapse?

No. I mean the final part of the collapse.
I would say the process is divided into two parts.
The first part is the collapse of the part of the penthouse that corresponds aproximately to the column that failed first as NIST showed in their diagnosis. (This is the part not shown by "truthers" and the sites that support the demolition argument.)
This is a big LIE, because they show the final few seconds of the collapse, the part that makes it look more like demolition, and they don´t show what had been happening a while before. Don´t even mention all the cracking, bulging, tilting, leaning, that was going on and has been documented extensively.

I know physics isn't your strong suit, but what you are referring to is actually completely irrelevant to anything we were talking about, and is also irrelevant to WTC7 free-fall.

Sorry but I disagree. It is VERY RELEVANT because there was a process going on in the building for HOURS, that was transforming the structure and took it beyond it´s designed resistance causing it to fail.

NIST used to avoid admitting it free-fell by starting the clock way before the global collapse like you are trying to do now, but then they scrapped that and just admitted that WTC7 did free-fall for at least a significant portion of its global collapse.

This is were I also disagree with you. You say "a significant portion of it´s global collapse". Can you please provide the MEASURE of the acceptable portion of free fall that a sky scraper structure is ALLOWED to have???
To me, the portion of FREE FALL of the part of structure that suffers it.
IS NEGLECTABLE.
Please provide the regulatory refference or published accepted refference that tells us all, what the acceptable limit is for this condition.

Please show us the refference. Legal, or from engineering manuals, that will provide us the accepted limit for partial free fall of a part of the structure of a skyscraper.

You know it's really something, that you think you are showing me something I've never seen before. Thanks but I'm a few years ahead of you on that one. See above.

I don´t assume to be showing you something you haven´t seen.
Why would I do that?? I´m just trying to contribute points that I believe to be important. That´s all.

Originally posted by mmiichael
You don't and probably never will comprehend those graphics. You just want to see a freeze frame showing exactly what is graphically depicted.

The deformation pattern reconstructed would not show up on video in a single frame or field. Not every rapid structural modification would be simultaneous.

So in other words you are admitting that those graphics are not accurate visual representations of what was happening to WTC7 according to all available videos.

Be as condescending and as arrogant as you want, that's all I wanted to hear.

What else in NIST's report is inaccurate and misleading?