WTC7 Flashes - Pics Inside

Originally posted by iamcpc
That's why I want to have unified theories so that one can be invesitgated

You won't get unified theories from the Truth Movement. Their whole approach is inimical to that because they base their arguments on finding (usually weak) scraps of evidence that appear to disagree with what they call the "Official Story". If you actually try and hang all their stuff together it doesn't often make much sense.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

reply to post by turbofan


turbo, this is very lame stuff but typical of what truthers now desperately serve up at this late stage.

We tend to forget , because of the horror, that 9/11 was in fact a beautiful day weatherwise. Clear blue skies in New York and strong sunshine. Even in your low grade vid we can still see strong sunshine on WTC 7 even though it is past 5 pm. All your vid captures are one or two flashes as glass or other debris are expelled from the collapsing building and reflect the sunlight.

There is zero seismographic or video with sound evidence to support the contention they are detonations. And what are they doing at the top of the building anyway ?

reply to post by theability


Be careful with the lying accusations. There are lots of people out here with "engineer" in their title that are not graduate engineers and not PE's.

I said 245 bridges and buildings. Not just bridges. You really should read things a little more carefully.

In the end, with regard to explosives, demolition and construction - well I've been there and done that. That's why these claims are just soooo funny. It's like watching children argue about how tall the Easter Bunny is. Just a riot. Squibs, flashes, countdowns, thermite, all in all, not a clue.

reply to post by hooper


How do I need to be careful? Lying isn't appreciated, anyone who reads your posting history would understand your not being truthful one bit!

You have stated many times to me even your not an EXPERT, but now a few weeks later you are?

Come on I bet that is a huge violation of being on ATS!

You just might be an engineer, but "You have said multiple times you have no experience."

So again I state: Your crediability is ZERO!

Misleading the 911 forum of all places.

The nice thing about posting history, is after awhile you can't erase it!

Amazing....



[edit on 14-5-2010 by theability]

reply to post by Alfie1


Glass? Sunshine?

So the first flash shown is a piece of glass that suspends itself in mid air
for a period of time and then waits before it allows the sun to reflect upon it?

Oh, and the flash from the Dan Rather video is pretty funny too...because
that side of the building is shadowed from the sun!


GL's are funny, and they now think glass can freeze in mid air while the
building drops toward earth. You guys are a complete was of my f'ing
time. that's why I thankfully don't spend much time debating disinfo
perps like you.

Thanks to those that have a free mind, and an honest outlook on these
events to help find the truth and spread it to those needing more evidence
to see how much scum resides in the US government.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Hello, BTW good find, long time standing that we have a new look at the WTC 7 collapse. You might find that alot of people that post in the 9/11 forums are not interesterd in truth, moreso hiding it, as we see they do every thing they can to make sure their version fo the story is right, even if they have to lie.

Great thread S&F!

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Glass? Sunshine?

So the first flash shown is a piece of glass that suspends itself in mid air
for a period of time and then waits before it allows the sun to reflect upon it?

Oh, and the flash from the Dan Rather video is pretty funny too...because
that side of the building is shadowed from the sun!

GL's are funny, and they now think glass can freeze in mid air while the
building drops toward earth. You guys are a complete was of my f'ing
time. that's why I thankfully don't spend much time debating disinfo
perps like you.

Thanks to those that have a free mind, and an honest outlook on these
events to help find the truth and spread it to those needing more evidence
to see how much scum resides in the US government.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by turbofan]

Now now turbo. It's not my fault you are reduced to trying to see something in 3rd rate youtube vids.

And how was this supposed controlled demolition of WTC 7 going to have been covered up ? No planes hit it as truthers endlessly point out without realising that that means the perps had not arranged any cover for it. It was by chance that debris from WTC 1 hit WTC 7 and started fires. So what was the original plan ? just to blow it up with the world watching ? Sound likely ?

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by hooper

 

So again I state: Your crediability is ZERO!


[edit on 14-5-2010 by theability]

I agree. I'm here on the forum and I can just as easily say that I'm the queen of England, a demolition and explosives expert, I have a phd if physics and engineering and I destroyed the WTC towers with magical lazer beams. If you want an expert's view then look it up. If you're an expert and you're on this forum then link me to your source!

If someone on here is an EXPERT then i'll read their published article in the The Journal of Explosives Engineering or on the MIT website or the Perdue website or on the website of the demolition company that they work for on in a book or article they wrote.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by turbofan

 

All your vid captures are one or two flashes as glass or other debris are expelled from the collapsing building and reflect the sunlight.

Do you have an expert source that you can cite or is that your 100% un expert opinion?

reply to post by iamcpc

I agree. I'm here on the forum and I can just as easily say that I'm the queen of England, a demolition and explosives expert, I have a phd if physics and engineering and I destroyed the WTC towers with magical lazer beams. If you want an expert's view then look it up. If you're an expert and you're on this forum then link me to your source!

If someone on here is an EXPERT then i'll read their published article in the The Journal of Explosives Engineering or on the MIT website or the Perdue website or on the website of the demolition company that they work for on in a book or article they wrote.

Awesome reply!

This was what I was getting at, if this guy is such an expert and an engineer, then by all means publish some findings!

Why is it that in the 911 forum we aren't holding people to the material they post?

Many Engineers have made their own findings public, by publishing them right?

It irks me that individuals that have been posting that they aren't an expert all the sudden have all the expertise that is required to debunk anything.

Which is all to convenient for me!

So shouldn't we say to these people PROVE IT!

reply to post by hooper


Well MR ENGINEER publish your own report and findings, which any engineer can do.

Since your EXPERTISE is way beyond what is needed you say to make the case, why don't you show us the ability you say you poses in explosive demolitions, with a history of destroying 245 buildings and bridges, it shouldn't take long to put together such a paper, heck you should have it all in memory!

Ohh yes make sure to include some citations and facts in your report also.

Till then I still have you listed in my ZERO CREDIABILITY arena.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your paper.

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by turbofan

 

All your vid captures are one or two flashes as glass or other debris are expelled from the collapsing building and reflect the sunlight.

Do you have an expert source that you can cite or is that your 100% un expert opinion?

I doubt that too many experts have considered it necessary to make a serious study of turbo's vid.

I put it forward as a far more probable explanation than cd detonations which are not supported by seismographic , video with sound or any other evidence.

Nor does the scenario of cd of WTC 7 make any sense.

Originally posted by theability


Well MR ENGINEER publish your own report and findings, which any engineer can do.

....snip.....
Ohh yes make sure to include some citations and facts in your report also.

...snip....
I won't hold my breath waiting for your paper.

Well, interesting you should say that. There have been MANY peer reviewed and published papers regarding the collapse of the towers.

Funny, not one truther paper has been concerning the towers collapses that support the CD fantasy.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by iamcpc

 

1. Why is it that in the 911 forum we aren't holding people to the material they post?

2. Many Engineers have made their own findings public, by publishing them right?


3. So shouldn't we say to these people PROVE IT!

1. Because 80% of the WTC info out there is unscientific unexpert opinion or quotes taken out of context.

2. I've found teams of engineers who have made their own findings public.

3. I wish it was that simple when there are experts and scientist who disagree. You can have 29538723985798 experts and scientists all say the same thing. They can all say the WTC towers were demolished with thermite (or with 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplanes and fire). It won't prove anything just offer evidence and expert opinion.

The only way to prove to someone that the WTC were or were not demolished is to put them in a time machine and go back 90 days before the attacks and let them spend 10 hours a day, per day, investigating all of the WTC towers for demolition equipment all through all three buildings every single day. Then on the day of the attacks give them a fireproof, airplaneproof, collapseproof, smokeproof bubble and put them inside of the twin towers at the point of impact with the plans and the point of failure of the building and let them see if the demolition equipment was there at the exact second the collapses started.

That is why calling for another investigation is utterly pointless. Were the first 5* (I highly doubt i've discovered every invesitagtion about the WTC collapses and i'm sure there are more so don't tear me apart for throwing this number out there) investigations not enough? No amount of investigations in the world will change the fact that there have been published experts who think the WTC towers were demolished and published experts who think the WTC were not demolished.

*if you want i'll links to the perdu, MIT investigations. THen there was FEMA's report, NIST's report and investigative work of Steven E. Jones.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by Six Sigma

Well, interesting you should say that. There have been MANY peer reviewed and published papers regarding the collapse of the towers.

Funny, not one truther paper has been concerning the towers collapses that support the CD fantasy.

Sigma your post shows you haven't read the thread at all.

Hooper now claims out of the blue to be some EXPLOSIVES DEMOLITIONS expert. Yet a few weeks ago he said he had no expertise. I was asking him to publish his findings about 911, which anyone with his STATED credientials can do!

Why don't you re-read the thread and see how it flowed.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by theability


Not one truther paper has been concerning the towers collapses that support the CD fantasy.

Can you cite your source for this information or is it 100% you un-expert opionion?

former professor Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
(some could consider a physics professor a physics expert)

In the first paragrah in his published paper:

"I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. "

Source:

web.archive.org...://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Making a statement like "Not one truther paper has been concerning the towers collapses that support the CD fantasy." has to be a horrible source because I only had to provide one "truther paper" to debunk it.

CITE YOUR SOURCE

Originally posted by theability
Why don't you re-read the thread and see how it flowed.

Oh, I read it. You were asking him to publish a paper. I was simply making it a point to show you that truthers have failed to publish a single peer reviewed paper in almost 9 years that supports their theory. (spare me the Jones vanity journal publication)

I apologize if I strayed off topic.

reply to post by Six Sigma


Sigma Six...I have nothing left to say to you. You like all the other debunkers say the same exact things over and over...nothing!

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by theability
Why don't you re-read the thread and see how it flowed.

Oh, I read it. You were asking him to publish a paper. I was simply making it a point to show you that truthers have failed to publish a single peer reviewed paper in almost 9 years that supports their theory. (spare me the Jones vanity journal publication)

Do you have a source for this information? Have you heard of the architect Richard Gage?

en.wikipedia.org...(architect)

He has published peer reviewed papers in the last 9 years that support his theory. He even started a website AE911Truth.org which he uses to publish his evidence and recent events.

Source:
en.wikipedia.org...(architect)
en.wikipedia.org...

You can't deny the fact that there are experts, not one or two or thee but a decent amount, who believe that it's possible that the WTC towers were demolished.


Yet again I have to ask the question (again) do you have an expert source or is is the statement "truthers have failed to publish a single peer reviewed paper in almost 9 years that supports their theory" 100% your un-expert opinion?

If you are going to reply please cite your expert source saying truthers have failed to publish a single peer reviewed paper in almost 9 years that supports their theory or leave the 100% un-expert opinions out of the discussion.

reply to post by iamcpc


Would you give me sources to Richard Gage's peer reviewed papers since 9/11 please ?