PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bsbray11

 

www.structuremag.org...

Oh, this is for Preston, too, since I see he's joined in.

That little treatise for Single Point of Failure written in 2007 is totally worthless, because it does not deal with the 2.25 seconds of freefall proven by a high school physics teacher and finally agreed on by the NIST pseudo-geniuses in late 2008.

NIST has decided the 2.25 second freefall is equivalent to 8 floors removed from the structure, also removing the path of greatest resistance for 2.25 seconds of collapse. NIST has no clue how the 8 floors were removed. After the 2.25 second period of freefall, the building encountered resistance, crushing each floor in sequence until the 47th floor was gone.

Obviously only demolition explosives could remove the 8 floors, and if NIST is correct, then somebody rigged each of those 8 floors for demolition, shearing each of the 81 columns on each of the 8 floors. That equals 648 charges of whatever type rigged for demolition, and ensuring 2.25 seconds of freefall.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1c24e703af7d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Are you ready to argue Jones side of the Bentham paper? Jones found paint and nothing else.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Sorry, but Kevin R. Ryan in cahoots with Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin....once I saw his connention to those two, his credibility factor shot to zero minus.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


I just read through that, could you please point out where it actually says anything other than opinions and assumptions?

Some examples...

As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse....

Assumption, a building on fire is in danger of global collapse.

...It also was constructed differently, with a web column design...

Assumptions, a buildings design makes it more vulnerable to global collapse from fires.

There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.

This is just nonsense. An opinion with nothing to support it's claim. It does not account for lack of resistance, or even how the collapse initiated.
It sounds just like all the other baseless debunker arguments.

This is why you are lost when it comes to physics because your argument is based on this kind of article. One that appeals to your emotions, and makes claims that your intuition seems to like the sound of but doesn't actually tell us anything. Just a bunch of comments presented in a way that seems logical but again really doesn't tell us anything. It fails to address anything I've mentioned on here, unless you can point to something specific and we can discuss that.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

 

terry seems to be off, at the moment.

How can I help?

'No no, we are not professional OS defenders. We are just individals looking for the truth, not part of some goup bent on simply denying any truth no matter what. Oh, sorry my fellow debunker that you are directly addressing is not here, may I help you?'

Yeah, that is great. Am I the only one that had a flashback to every business they have ever been in when seeing that little statement?

If someone is asking pteridine something, why would another independand individual only looking for the truth step up to the counter to take their place? What has happened to the OS defenders lately? This is just getting sloppy.

General qustion to all concerned. This, so as not to seem to be addressing any particular individual.

Everyone who has NEVER stepped up and entered a conversation on an ATS board when a member has responded to another member, and you thought you might have something to contribute so you jump in, raise your hand now!

Thank you, very much.


Anyone???

Bueller????



[edit on 9 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Explosives WERE found. What are we talking about? The Chemistry teacher will deny it up and down till he's indignant, but they WERE found.

THERE IS PROOF OF DEMOLITION. PERIOD.

Alright, I am just downloading the pdf to look at now. Thanks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

 

Sorry, but Kevin R. Ryan in cahoots with Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin....once I saw his connention to those two, his credibility factor shot to zero minus.....

Oh yes that's classic!

I don't listen to either of them either, I have no need to get my opinions from other people, BUT you are just plain in denial.
Lalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you so I don't have to address anything you say, lalalalalalalala.....

You are too funny... Credibility? You talk about credibility? You just indirectly admitted not too long ago, twice I've seen, that you know nothing about what you were arguing about....

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I see that you have the same short circuit as BS Bray in your logic module. BS even said "impossible."What is simpler than "No evidence was found?" Was evidence found? No. Was evidence for CD specifically looked for? I don't know, but none was found.
You are claiming that since none was "looked for" it couldn't be found. No witnesses would say that a bunch of guys in black fatigues were seen with satchel charges because they weren't told to look for them. Video wouldn't pick up the rapid series of explosions from a CD because the tape wasn't designated as a CD discovery tape. Jones claimed ten tons of unburned fuse material. Where are the charges that never went off? Tons of charges with associated wiring, fuses, attachments, and blastng machines, and no one noticed.

reply to post by ANOK


Discussing, not 'arguing'.

Discussion.

Also, I do know how to read, and have followed along in many of these threads, reading not commenting. Following the discussions (which do devolve into 'arguments' at times).

Certasin names, such as Jones and Griffin (David Ray, not Peter) have a ring of familiarity, and I've already looked, by myself, into their writings and "works", and have dismessed them as irrelevant.

SO, I'm not coming into this from a vacuum, or from 'wonderland' or anything like that.

As yet, I've asked what I thought were pertinent questions about thermite/thermate/nano-thermite and as yet, do not get any direct answers, just links to the same ole', same ole' stuff that is put out by people who seem to have already been discredited. I should stop short of calling them 'crackpots'...although, history has shown in very few instances of former 'crackpots' who "bucked the system", so there's always a slim chance that they are really 'visionary'.

But, since nowadays we're talking about science, and it isn't the Dark Ages of religious dogmatism keeping these potential 'visionaries' down, then I think it's a fairly slim chance.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Kevin Ryan's paper in the "Journal of 911 Studies" is a real treat. Kevin fires up the fantasies of the true believers by making statements such as:
"These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction."
OK, Kevin. I want to demolish buildings in a deceptive way so I'll make sure everyone takes notice of a [somewhat] symmetrical collapse. I would never think of demolishing them in a fashion acceptable to the CTer's and deprive them of an axe to grind for the next 40 years. No, I think I'll go to all this pointless trouble and then completely negate my deceptiveness.
Right, Kevin, you've really got this figured out.

reply to post by weedwhacker


They say a picture is worth a thousand words or is that lies?

Thanks for posting this, it gets tedious sifting through all the muck to find the gems.

www.debunking911.com...

reply to post by pteridine


We've been over this.

I'm not sure what you're purpose on this forum is exactly, beyond sounding like a broken record.

reply to post by weedwhacker


This is called ad hominem. You don't read or check sources.

Sock P to the maximum.

reply to post by pteridine


The strength of his article in his description of the uses of nano-thermite by the military.

I'm not really interested in his conspiracy theories, even though you may be.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I see that you have the same short circuit as BS Bray in your logic module. BS even said "impossible."What is simpler than "No evidence was found?" Was evidence found? No. Was evidence for CD specifically looked for? I don't know, but none was found.
You are claiming that since none was "looked for" it couldn't be found. No witnesses would say that a bunch of guys in black fatigues were seen with satchel charges because they weren't told to look for them. Video wouldn't pick up the rapid series of explosions from a CD because the tape wasn't designated as a CD discovery tape. Jones claimed ten tons of unburned fuse material. Where are the charges that never went off? Tons of charges with associated wiring, fuses, attachments, and blastng machines, and no one noticed.

You are obviously just playing games with logic here. I asked a simple question and you not only can not answer it, you have to stretch and twist as much as you can to avoid even addressing it. Why do you even bother being here when you are not the least bit interested in serious discussion at all?

Let me make it even more simple for you.

Here is the only thing I want to know from you. If you do not want to just answer me, then just ignore me, OK?

How could any evidence of explosives be found if none was looked for?

How can you say there was none when you do not know?

Should I just put you on ignore or can you answer simple questions?

Note, that I have asked the same thing a handful of times now. You tell me why you would bother talking to someone you had to ask the same question of over and over and over and over.......

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


You claim Jones found evidence of "explosives." I have explained to you why his conclusions are faulty, yet you still claim that he found evidence of demolition materials. I wonder how you can make such a claim and thought that you would like to explain it.

reply to post by pteridine


You claim Jones found evidence of "paint." I have explained to you why your conclusions are faulty, yet you still claim that he found evidence of paint. I wonder how you can make such a claim and thought that you would like to explain it.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

How could any evidence of explosives be found if none was looked for?

You ask a rhetorical question while avoiding the facts.
No evidence found means no evidence found. That is all it means. Looking, not looking, accidentally stumbling across, deathbed confessions --- no evidence was found. That is the fact.
You say that I cannot state that no evidence was found because there might be some out there and no one looked. OK. There might be some out there. No one looked. No one was lucky enough to find unexpended CD charges. No one looked in the right place. No one came forward with any.
Bottom line: None was found. As of today, there is none.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ANOK

 

Discussing, not 'arguing'.

Symantecs.

That's all I have to say, please argue the point, not the meaning of irrelevant words. You want to read it as antagonistic, I just used the word to mean discussion/debate.

It's the first definition...

argument

Dictionary: ar·gu·ment (är'gyə-mənt) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

n.

1.
1. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.

www.answers.com...

You'll argue anything to avoid discussing the point...

[edit on 3/9/2010 by ANOK]