Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ANOK

 

"But bro your thread started out supporting pancake collapse lol. Now you've been proven wrong you've finally woke up to the fact you were supporting nonsense in the first place? Problem is the new NIST theory that you've finally discovered is also nonsense, and has been discussed many times here."

Anok,
I've come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time here, and a waste of your talent. This feller doesn't want learn anything. In an issue like 9/11 some people only want to take sides, rather than delve into anomalies that are outside the comfort zone. There is even a debate going on about the whereabouts of the WTC steel, crime scene evidence, the vast majority of which, went to China. That is a major issue on its own, it and the er, "Businessmen" who were in charge of the deal.

I stated time and time again that unlike a truther I can admit that when I am wrong therefore enlightening my intelligence. I already said that I believed the pancake theory until I recently researched the NIST report. If you look DOWN on me for changing my story because I found out I was wrong and learned the truth, then just shows that even if you learned the truth you wouldn't change your opinion because you look down upon it. Classic truther nonsense.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
The only poll I found that SPECIFICALLY mentioned an inside job was the Scripps Howard Poll, and only 36% believe it to be true (that includes people that think the government just "let it happen" with no direct involvement as well). Looks like most people still believe Islamic terrorists did this by themselves.

where was the poll taken?

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
And for the poster who mentioned how witnesses heard explosions therefore providing evidence of explosive devices, that is very unlikely. Big office building carry countless of flammable/explosive material in them, and when a raging fire comes in contact with them there is no doubt would cause an explosion. Plus like I said before a controlled demolition happen in a matter of seconds, yet there were eye witnesses hearing explosions that were many minutes apart.

Your gonna call brave men and women,fireman,police,good simaritans, all liars? These people risked their lives to save human lives, some of them went in the buildings,willing to offer up their own lives to save a father or a mother,a son to someone, a daughter.These are noble souls and juat like that you deem them liars? Too stupid to tell the difference between the fire and obvious explosions? Who are you to pass them off as less insightful than you?? THEY WERE THERE! Were you?? I bleed for mothers and the children and the fathers now struggling not only to make sense of their loss but to struggle on providing for their babies! These people you say simply didn't hear what they said they heard,that were there and did decide to speak up instead of keeping quiet like the majority,they are noble and honorable.How dare you. Your just a little worm. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm glad you can't erase your comment. That way you can't shy away from your own comments or pretend you never said it. You did,I saw it. Your a wretch and I hope you think about the fathers who aren't here today to celebrate Fathers Day with the rest of us because of the events you so boldly claim against overwhelming evidence that our government was complicit in.

Originally posted by ohhwataloser

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
The only poll I found that SPECIFICALLY mentioned an inside job was the Scripps Howard Poll, and only 36% believe it to be true (that includes people that think the government just "let it happen" with no direct involvement as well). Looks like most people still believe Islamic terrorists did this by themselves.

where was the poll taken?

lmgtfy.com...

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
And for the poster who mentioned how witnesses heard explosions therefore providing evidence of explosive devices, that is very unlikely. Big office building carry countless of flammable/explosive material in them, and when a raging fire comes in contact with them there is no doubt would cause an explosion. Plus like I said before a controlled demolition happen in a matter of seconds, yet there were eye witnesses hearing explosions that were many minutes apart.

Your gonna call brave men and women,fireman,police,good simaritans, all liars? These people risked their lives to save human lives, some of them went in the buildings,willing to offer up their own lives to save a father or a mother,a son to someone, a daughter.These are noble souls and juat like that you deem them liars? Too stupid to tell the difference between the fire and obvious explosions? Who are you to pass them off as less insightful than you?? THEY WERE THERE! Were you?? I bleed for mothers and the children and the fathers now struggling not only to make sense of their loss but to struggle on providing for their babies! These people you say simply didn't hear what they said they heard,that were there and did decide to speak up instead of keeping quiet like the majority,they are noble and honorable.How dare you. Your just a little worm. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm glad you can't erase your comment. That way you can't shy away from your own comments or pretend you never said it. You did,I saw it. Your a wretch and I hope you think about the fathers who aren't here today to celebrate Fathers Day with the rest of us because of the events you so boldly claim against overwhelming evidence that our government was complicit in.

So are you going to call brave men and women,fireman,police,good samaritans that DON'T believe the conspiracy theories liars (especially when there's a way higher percentage of them)? Neither of us can have it both ways, but all evidence supports the majority backing up the claim of no inside job.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
No witnesses said they thought the explosions were explosives thats's just your opinion, some even came forward saying they were upset that conspiracy theorists would twist their words to fit their claim... but you present facts? Nice try lol

When the fireman in this video says that "this ain't done yet, any one of these buildings could explode", he is talking about explosives. What else could he be talking about?

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

no I'm calling you one. Sounds like you'll say anything just to be RIGHT. Your like my four year old but atleast he's got a good excuse. What's yours?

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
No witnesses said they thought the explosions were explosives thats's just your opinion, some even came forward saying they were upset that conspiracy theorists would twist their words to fit their claim... but you present facts? Nice try lol

When the fireman in this video says that "this ain't done yet, any one of these buildings could explode", he is talking about explosives. What else could he be talking about?

So the tight elite causing the most elaborate hoax in the history of America, let fire fighters, reporters, and witness know of their plains to take down the building in a controlled demolition, just to have them blow the lid about it on national TV, and these people never even bother to mention a conspiracy going down in the first place? Get Real! I want the # you're having lol

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


no they sold out those police and firemen,they don't care that we have fragments of truth because all in all its not enough to threaten them. This wasn't a prank it was mass murder AND YOUR DEFENDING IT-BITTERLY! Stop using truther like an insult,I'd rather question paper thin theories then be a stupid little sheep so stooped in O.S. propaganda that I look foolish expressing outdated theories and only changing them (conveniently might I add) as it suits my ego. Yeah-thats you Skeptic-BS'r.

Not sure if this has been posted on ATS, but here is a good article about how a single column failure could result in the collapse of the entire WTC 7 building. Because it was built over top of the existing Con Ed electrical sub-station, there was a very unorthodox design to the columns.

StructureMag.org

This sequence of events, with roof elements sinking into a building with an intact façade, suggests an interior failure. An interior failure would explain the appearance of a "controlled" collapse with a relatively small debris field, as seen with WTC 7.
The sequence of final collapse can be interpreted using knowledge of the building’s framing from existing plans. For instance, the observed collapse of the east penthouse may signify a failure in a line of columns on the east side of the building (columns 76-81). In particular, interior columns 79, 80 and 81 were located directly below the east penthouse and supported relatively large tributary areas.

I'm not an engineer, but I've always believed there was more than enough damage to bring the buildings down without the use of explosives.
One question I would like to ask the CDers, is where are the visible flashes and shockwaves associated with explosives? I see none in any of the videos.

Also, I remember seeing a video of witnesses in the lobby hearing explosions, unfortunately the sound was from the people jumping out to their deaths and slamming on the lobby roof. Not sure if I can find that video again.

Edit - Found one video:
Youtube Vid

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
And for the poster who mentioned how witnesses heard explosions therefore providing evidence of explosive devices, that is very unlikely. Big office building carry countless of flammable/explosive material in them, and when a raging fire comes in contact with them there is no doubt would cause an explosion. Plus like I said before a controlled demolition happen in a matter of seconds, yet there were eye witnesses hearing explosions that were many minutes apart.

Your gonna call brave men and women,fireman,police,good simaritans, all liars? These people risked their lives to save human lives, some of them went in the buildings,willing to offer up their own lives to save a father or a mother,a son to someone, a daughter.These are noble souls and juat like that you deem them liars? Too stupid to tell the difference between the fire and obvious explosions? Who are you to pass them off as less insightful than you?? THEY WERE THERE! Were you?? I bleed for mothers and the children and the fathers now struggling not only to make sense of their loss but to struggle on providing for their babies! These people you say simply didn't hear what they said they heard,that were there and did decide to speak up instead of keeping quiet like the majority,they are noble and honorable.How dare you. Your just a little worm. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm glad you can't erase your comment. That way you can't shy away from your own comments or pretend you never said it. You did,I saw it. Your a wretch and I hope you think about the fathers who aren't here today to celebrate Fathers Day with the rest of us because of the events you so boldly claim against overwhelming evidence that our government was complicit in.

So are you going to call brave men and women,fireman,police,good samaritans that DON'T believe the conspiracy theories liars (especially when there's a way higher percentage of them)? Neither of us can have it both ways, but all evidence supports the majority backing up the claim of no inside job.

edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)

what evidence have you shown in 30+ pages of you being a immature kid? polls that can be manipulated? line drawings? photos you used windows draw app on? I showed you to cite things remember who your talking to. You and your marathon quotes are in themselves examples of your point. Blah Blah Blah. Thats all you got, you have NOTHING substantial to stand on and if you did more posters would be telling me how wrong I am,how off base my assertions are. You have less allies on your side because in this instance the numbers are not on your side. Except those stupid poles you actually believe are not toyed with. Stop being a stubborn immature brat and grow up.

You believe in a debunked nutty conspiracy theory and tell me to grow up? How funny

Mod-Note:

Cut down on the personal attacks. Discuss the topic, not the poster.

Thank you.

Originally posted by gaparke
Not sure if this has been posted on ATS, but here is a good article about how a single column failure could result in the collapse of the entire WTC 7 building. Because it was built over top of the existing Con Ed electrical sub-station, there was a very unorthodox design to the columns.

StructureMag.org

This sequence of events, with roof elements sinking into a building with an intact façade, suggests an interior failure. An interior failure would explain the appearance of a "controlled" collapse with a relatively small debris field, as seen with WTC 7.
The sequence of final collapse can be interpreted using knowledge of the building’s framing from existing plans. For instance, the observed collapse of the east penthouse may signify a failure in a line of columns on the east side of the building (columns 76-81). In particular, interior columns 79, 80 and 81 were located directly below the east penthouse and supported relatively large tributary areas.

I'm not an engineer, but I've always believed there was more than enough damage to bring the buildings down without the use of explosives.
One question I would like to ask the CDers, is where are the visible flashes and shockwaves associated with explosives? I see none in any of the videos.

Also, I remember seeing a video of witnesses in the lobby hearing explosions, unfortunately the sound was from the people jumping out to their deaths and slamming on the lobby roof. Not sure if I can find that video again.

Great post.

reply to post by gaparke


You can say what you want but look at all the details and just mash them up with what your saying was known before hand about how stable 7 was. The culprits of it would have known this info too before you would even think to look for it. They did their homework and if you think all these things your saying are flaws in the integrity of 7 are legit reasons for a collapse then your playing into their hand. This wasn't a impulsive job they got most of it right but things like this can't just go off perfectly so there are things that stick out,they can't control everything so we do have things to work off of.

reply to post by gaparke


You can say what you want but look at all the details and just mash them up with what your saying was known before hand about how stable 7 was. The culprits of it would have known this info too before you would even think to look for it. They did their homework and if you think all these things your saying are flaws in the integrity of 7 are legit reasons for a collapse then your playing into their hand. This wasn't a impulsive job they got most of it right but things like this can't just go off perfectly so there are things that stick out,they can't control everything so we do have things to work off of.

reply to post by gaparke


You can say what you want but look at all the details and just mash them up with what your saying was known before hand about how stable 7 was. The culprits of it would have known this info too before you would even think to look for it. They did their homework and if you think all these things your saying are flaws in the integrity of 7 are legit reasons for a collapse then your playing into their hand. This wasn't a impulsive job they got most of it right but things like this can't just go off perfectly so there are things that stick out,they can't control everything so we do have things to work off of.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
reply to post by gaparke

 

You can say what you want but look at all the details and just mash them up with what your saying was known before hand about how stable 7 was. The culprits of it would have known this info too before you would even think to look for it. They did their homework and if you think all these things your saying are flaws in the integrity of 7 are legit reasons for a collapse then your playing into their hand. This wasn't a impulsive job they got most of it right but things like this can't just go off perfectly so there are things that stick out,they can't control everything so we do have things to work off of.

I am definitely not playing in their hands. The real question should not be how these buildings came and whether or not explosives are involved. It should be who was in control of the planes.
I believe it was an Israeli Mossad operation using real hijackers as pasties and maybe the planes were remote controlled. I also have no problem believing certain key government individuals were involved or had prior knowledge.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

I stated time and time again that unlike a truther I can admit that when I am wrong therefore enlightening my intelligence. I already said that I believed the pancake theory until I recently researched the NIST report. If you look DOWN on me for changing my story because I found out I was wrong and learned the truth, then just shows that even if you learned the truth you wouldn't change your opinion because you look down upon it. Classic truther nonsense.

Look people, this guy is obviously going to stick to his beliefs. He has hit the limit of his own personal enlightenment and intelligence. He is a believer (of his own theories) but he is NOT a skeptic (although he uses the word in his username!) This horse has been beat to death already. Scientific evidence is not going to change his mind. I am very surprised that so many people continue to feed his pleasure of denial. Many have not read through all of the pages in this thread. Let him continue to believe in his twisted laughable arguments while he drinks more NIST cool-aid. He is like some people who will not change in their beliefs in the Qu'ran or the Bible. The NIST document is rooted in him. He is entitled to his opinionated beliefs for entertainment. He has demonstrated the inability to respect other peoples' opinions supported with EMPIRICAL scientific evidence, aka PROOF.

Go ahead SkepticAndBeliever, argue your beliefs some more, I know you cannot resist having the last word. You are like a radio entertainer (Phil Hendrie - AM KFI-640) I like to listen to who calls people on the telephone just to get a rise. You have been entertaining but I am now bored with your continued insults and sarcasm towards people who try to debate you on an intellectual level. The evidence speaks for itself. I don't know that a judge and/or a jury, let alone a congressional committee, could make an informed intelligent decision based on a new investigation with all of the evidence used in so many ways to confuse them and obfuscate the truth as you have demonstrated.