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.

 

9/11 Museum’s Biggest Oversight: No Mention of WTC Building 7

page: 7
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale


No the omitting of WTC-7 from the memorial is di=one for a simple reason. To carry on the lie by impacting on the minds and hearts of Americans.

Basically, the destruction of WTC-7 which is obviously explosives is the KEY to WTC 1 and 2.

The more they ignore WTC-7 the more the public does too!




posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dorrell
a reply to: InhaleExhale


No the omitting of WTC-7 from the memorial is di=one for a simple reason. To carry on the lie by impacting on the minds and hearts of Americans.

Basically, the destruction of WTC-7 which is obviously explosives is the KEY to WTC 1 and 2.

The more they ignore WTC-7 the more the public does too!




I really have no idea what you are saying here and how it pertains to my post.


(post by xxCRM114xx removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   
They are trying to control the narrative they buried WTC 7 in the timeline knowing that it can be easily missed.If you want to make any inconvenient facts disappear just hide them in plain sight.
edit on 033030p://0726 by mike dangerously because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RocksFromSpace

That's easy it wasn't a target the Towers were targeted , the Pentagon was targeted, WTC 7 was a victim of the North Tower collapse other buildings were as well.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




WTC 7 was a victim of the North Tower collapse other buildings were as well.


so...seems all you do is troll the 9-11 threads and LIE huh...


NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


the 2005 NIST found that did not occur....

why do you do that?

seems this is all to cover-up complicity within a Gov. organization.....seems the memorial is tailored to duhbunking sites rather than to actual facts.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
lies lies lies lies!



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually, it IS a platform from which to argue a conspiracy theory.

It is a platform to argue the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Rather, it is a memorial to that theory, a blatant reinforcement of a story that cannot be true.

It's sad that way.




posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: wmd_2008




WTC 7 was a victim of the North Tower collapse other buildings were as well.


so...seems all you do is troll the 9-11 threads and LIE huh...


NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


the 2005 NIST found that did not occur....

why do you do that?

seems this is all to cover-up complicity within a Gov. organization.....seems the memorial is tailored to duhbunking sites rather than to actual facts.


Did I say it was only the DAMAGE from the collapse NO!!! also I don't just post on 9/11 threads UNLIKE ALL YOUR POSTS & THREADS


Threads

Posts



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




also I don't just post on 9/11 threads UNLIKE ALL YOUR POSTS & THREADS


well.....I do.....that is the only reason I am here.

so how bout we focus on the ATTEMPT to discredit me by what I post, NOT where I post...mr duhbunker.

so, do ya think they omitted WTC7 because of the "brand new never before seen physics phenomenon" the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims fell it?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
do ya think they omitted WTC7


Just stop and think about it, the reason they omitted it is exactly the same reason they omitted the other buildings that were destroyed, like WTC3 & 6 etc.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
do ya think they omitted WTC7


Just stop and think about it, the reason they omitted it is exactly the same reason they omitted the other buildings that were destroyed, like WTC3 & 6 etc.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




Just stop and think about it, the reason they omitted it is exactly the same reason they omitted the other buildings that were destroyed, like WTC3 & 6 etc.


WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 did NOT collapse like the other three, did they... despite being in the direct path of tons of free falling structural debris.

WTC5 burnt for a couple days....NO COLLAPSE.


HEY!...just STOP to think about this......WTC 7 occurred global unified acceleration EQUAL to gravity within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse, from a 2008 claimed NEW scientific phenomenon called "Low Temp Thermal Expansion".....


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing


a first time event in the history of building.....why is this NOT in the memorial as a 9-11 oddity?

or the authors mentioned for the Nobel Prize in Physics for this Discovery of NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN science that ONLY occurred on 9-11.....



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
why is this NOT in the memorial


As I said, if you stopped to think for once you would realise the answer - but you seem unwilling to do that!
edit on 14-6-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




As I said, if youstopped to think for once you would realise the answer - but you seem unwilling to do that!


hey...knock off the pathetic 'WHY'gning and use ALL the bells and whistles this forum has to offer against me and PROVE YOURSELF RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I have to give credit where credit is due. The guys that pulled off this job had some serious cajones. Anyone who believes or supports the "official story" has a very large screw loose.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
Anyone who believes or supports the "official story" has a very large screw loose.


As opposed to the truthers who believe in mini nuclear weapons, nano nano thermite, holographic planes, hush a boom explosives, beam weapons from space etc. etc!



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




As opposed to the truthers who believe in mini nuclear weapons, nano nano thermite, holographic planes, hush a boom explosives, beam weapons from space etc. etc!


so, by OBSERVING your posting style....seems yer just trolling here...basically LYING about my intent.

ME, as a 'truther', is ASKING questions and DEMANDING the supporting EVIDENCE of the already IN-PLACE claims PUSHED as truth, I do not mention ANYTHING you just did.....so how bout we just focus on the FACTS and SCIENCE.

simply PROVE the official claim that FIRE alone did all this work...

be the FIRST on your block!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   


simply PROVE the official claim that FIRE alone did all this work...

You are one of a few dozen people on the internet that believe in a 911 conspiracy.

All these notable people and so called experts who tout conspiracy have major flaws to their credibility.
Some make their living directly from their claims . Gage and others
Some want to keep their names in the news like the Kardashians. Ventura and others.
And a few make global claims based on one their one local experience.

And yet after 13 years not one piece of evidence that one of these shark lawyers can take to court.
You would think out of the thousands of lawyers who advertise on tv for 'wrongful death' clients you could find a handfull who could get Richard Gage to testify in support of his client.
If thay can sue for a hot cup of coffee at MCd's they could parade Dr Judy Woods before a judge and wave her book.
Or march that lone fireman to the witness stand who saw things differently than the hundreds of other firemen.

Face it you have no PROOF of this grand conspiracy you believe in.
Your belief is no different than the Sunni/Shiite belief in their own brand of religion.
None of which is based in provable facts.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

If you watch the documentary Loose Change it can explain a lot of these very basic things for you. There were 2 people working in WTC 7 that day(other than firefighters) and one of them explains that he heard many different explosions over a period of 2 hours or so.

After interviewing and talking about it, saying how the answers he was given were unacceptable, he died of unknown causes.

Hmmm nothing strange about that.

In the NIST report they stated that there were no reports of any explosions. Maybe they should have interviewed the 2 people actually working in there at the time? Who were on TV right after they were rescued on 9/11?

Nooo..why would they? They weren't looking for answers on it. They were looking to tie up loose ends by killing him instead when he started talking.

The world is easily fooled. Especially when it comes to emotionally charged events. Just look at Tania Head as an example...

She wasn't even a 9/11 victim, had never even been in the WTC, and was in a different country when it happened. Despite this, she was the president of the WTC Survivors network of 2000 people, and fooled them for 6 years.

If people are that stupid and gullible, especially when it comes to emotionally charged events, fooling them with the events of 9/11 is child's play.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join