It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
You are starting to show glimpses of lacking reading comprehension or ability to think outside of what your government officials tell you.
I have stated before that I do not quote Silversteins "pull it" interview as evidence, there is much more damning evidence/facts that show prior knowledge/participation in the attacks and the fact that you say that IF it was controlled demolition it "could only have been rigged for demo on the date of 9/11" just shows your closed mindedness.
Your method of debate is reminiscent to that of an elementary school child, no facts used except for mind loops centered around your belief. Thank you for trying to put forth a valid debate but I think I will refrain from addressing your mind looped way of thinking.
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate
Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate
Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate
Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.
Yea its kind of sad that these people amounted to nothing in life and had to trade one of the greatest gifts given to humanity (free thinking critical mind) for a paycheck. Glad to see that there some of us here that will continue to seek the truth
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate
Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.
Yea its kind of sad that these people amounted to nothing in life and had to trade one of the greatest gifts given to humanity (free thinking critical mind) for a paycheck. Glad to see that there some of us here that will continue to seek the truth
Funny how you believe this when there is literally zero evidence for it. The only reasoning you can find is that because my and other "debunkers" have a different opinion, we must be liars. How very reasonable of you. How could it be possible that someone thinks differently?! They must be evil, receiving evil money for their evil deeds!
Really dude, get over your self-importance and return to the important things, like arguing the FACTS. All I ever see from the conspiracy theorists are baseless claims that are assumptions about impossibilities, and tons and tons of assumptions about bombs. Sometimes I hear stuff about the similarity in appearance of one thing versus another, but the differences are entirely ignored. None of you guys look into why they are different. You just think hollywood and go nuts.
I wish I was getting paid to do this, because then I would actually care to argue with you guys all the time. You know how many hiatus' I have gone on from this site, all because you guys drive me so crazy with your illogical and sometimes venomous remarks? I swear that some of you would like to find me and end my life, all because of your fervent faith in the conspiracy. That's not logic, and that's not healthy.
Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Back on topic, Just think for a second... fire doesnt cause buildings to implode and disintegrate into fine dust with minimal steel beams left behind. Fire causes buildings to incinerate leaving behind the main core of the building and only burning off the exterior of the structure.
If any of you OS'ers want to respond to this post I ask that you only ask one question. SHOW ME/REFERENCE A STEEL CORE SKYSCRAPER THAT HAS COLLAPSED IN THE SAME MANNER IN WHICH WTC7 COLLAPSED? And im not talking about a building falling apart due to fire while 1/3 of the main structure is left standing, I have seen those videos that supposedly "debunk" WTC7... as all of you know WTC7 fell down UNIFORMLY at NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS with minimal rubble falling outside of its footprint.
Any takers?
.....fire doesnt cause buildings to implode and disintegrate into fine dust with minimal steel beams left behind.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Can you show me a CD that is similar to WTC7?edit on 11-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by -PLB-
The Delft
Oh, come on. Let's have a moment of honesty. The Delft building does not collapse into its own footprint – it collapses partially and asymmetrically, not globally and symmetrically like WTC7, and neither was it steel-framed.
Below is the collapse of the Delft building. Compare it to the collapse of WTC7. They aren't the same. One collapses globally, the other one collapses partially, and remember according to NIST, WTC7 only had fires on about 8 floors, which leaves 39 floors untouched by fire, and yet, the building still comes down at free-fall acceleration into its own footprint. I think the phrase 'comparing apples and oranges' is appropriate here.
By reading the paper (or a substantial portion of it a few years back). NIST seem to be presenting their assumptions and conjectures as known facts, you see. What is the difference between them? As I see it, in practical terms assumptions and conjectures are ideas that you think could be true, whereas facts are what you know to be true because they have been confirmed by observation. By this criterion the NIST's report contains only assumptions and conjectures and no significant known facts. I know that is a sweeping judgment to make of it but I also know it to be true by my own direct observation, ie. by reading the paper itself. As I have pointed out before, NIST's evidence and conclusions are based entirely on the product of their computer-simulations, not the product of observation. So as far as I can see there is no real-world evidence in NIST's paper for a fire-induced collapse as you are claiming. If there is any in any other independent papers as you are claiming which substantiates NIST's findings, I would not know, as I have not read them.
Gordon Ross, David Chandler, Steven Jones, inter alia, I believe have submitted papers.
How interesting. What evidence within these papers has been convincing for you specifically?
For example, the scale recreation of a full floor of the WTC, which confirmed collapse. Also the mathematical models that conclude collapse convince me. And the lack of a proper rebuttal of those models.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by -PLB-
You take the expression, "collapse in on its footprint" to an nth degree of precision in order to quibble about detail.
...insisting upon a lie is a despicable act...
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
A timber framed house must have rigid members so a multi-story building like WTC 7 must have multiple rigid members on every floor...
.
.
.
WHERE ARE THE RIGID MEMBERS IN THE NIST MODEL?
You take the expression, "collapse in on its footprint" to an nth degree of precision in order to quibble about detail.
Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
You take the expression, "collapse in on its footprint" to an nth degree of precision in order to quibble about detail. When a building is demolished using implosion techniques, no one is expecting a building to transmute from one pile of bricks to another pile of bricks in an ordered and precise stack of brick, concrete blocks, steel columns, etc on the foot print. The objective is to have a contained pile of rubble close to the foot print of a building.
You are counting on pedantic-errors to measure the meaning of words to the letter to dismiss a clear and understandable meaning. You are a sophist and illogical is your argument because you are stuck with defending the indefensible. You, as an adherent of the neocon terrorist official line, attack concerned citizens, their perceptions, the laws of nature and technical evidence to ramrod your defense of a crime so outrageous, it beggars belief.
Really? Well the NIST model did not have a skin and rigid cross members between between columns and floors. So what else was left out in model in your considered assessment?
As for the mathematical models that have so convinced you, can you please explain where you actually saw the computations. Maybe NIST was good enough to publish the mathematics of the model parameters and, except for you, the planet missed the announcement.
The bottom line is that the NIST computer model that you herald with such authority bears no resemblance to the actual collapse of WTC 7.
Here is an example of rigid members in the form of bracings; where are they in the NIST models. A timber framed house must have rigid members so a multi-story building like WTC 7 must have multiple rigid members on every floor. Because of how the architect designed the fenestration, the rigid members would have been on stairwells and liftshafts. Merely pre-cutting rigid members in lift shafts would cause a sudden and catastrophic collapses if the foundations of the building was attacked, say with explosions to columns in the basement.
WHERE ARE THE RIGID MEMBERS IN THE NIST MODEL?
If you think you have a relevant point at all write a paper about it and get it published. That is how things are done in the real world. Not by creating Youtube videos or making baseless assertion on a conspiracy forum.