It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
My experience is very similar to yours, it was seven that changed my mind.
a reply to: scottyirnbru
The way I see it and it is an opinion, is that the plan was to crash 2 jets into each building; tower 1 & 2. The fact they fell was incidental, the fact Building 7 was pulled is a mystery to me also but either out of desperation or something else it was.
Why would they do this?
I've heard all the same stories you've had and in complete honesty, don't believe anyone has nailed it to date. The best strategic planners tend to roll with the punches and exploit situation on a real time basis. At times I am an acting project manager being an architect, I find myself doing this to my advantage, on job sites nearly every day.
I don't have all the answers or am even trying to say I do, but the fact that that one little thing, building 7 was demolished, leads me down a path that makes me scrutinize the whole event. I don't think a missile hit the pentagon and I don't think the USA was involved in this, I stray to believe they let it happen for their own agenda gain but at the last minute a contingency plan went into action that caused a mistake or two to be made.
I hope in the future we can all see the truth in this matter and if I am wrong I will be the first to acknowledge it. But given so much is at stake here, I mean ALL of our futures, our families, our children, everything we grew up loving and believing to be true, makes me keep looking.
a reply to: devilhunter69
The Pentagon uses a different type of defense system, one similar to Langley, in which they don't consider an outside event a threat to any great degree. There are other measures in place, the video systems in this case were only used for documentation, not security. On the inside a whole other world existed and the closer to the center the more checkpoints one would have to navigate. A redundancy system on steroids on top of all the underground stuff we don't know about makes it the most secure building in the country. To bad they didn't have a missile defense system in place at the time. . . you can guess they do now though!
As for Building 7 it was without a shadow of a doubt in my mind deliberately demolished with a 'plug and play' demolition setup. Federal building not open to public scrutiny, everything was in place to accept explosives well in advance to Sept. 11. From the videos I've seen they kept everyone out until they snapped in place the explosives to pre-wired systems. Made a cut here and there and 'boom'! (directional explosives or thermite would of been invaluable here, if they used it) I even remember from the jaded History Channel Movie they play every 9/11 they had a security guard in the lobby after the first tower fell, WTF, why would they need that for? A 110 story building just fell next door to you with another on it's way, but he needed to stand guard and watch the lobby in Building 7, Yeah right!
If it took 10 minutes to set one explosive charge(24 core columns), 1 guy = 4 hours or 2 guys = 2 hours plus cutting time which by looking at the plan only needed to be done to about 6 columns on the perimeter(I'd have to look at the collapse of Bld. 7 again to see how it fell to make a better determination). What I'm trying to say is 3-4 guys could have done this if there was existing access to steel columns and demolition wiring system already in place in about 6 hrs, with time to spare.
The fact that some part of the building was damaged would mean that location would have collapsed downward. Look at the video this didn't happen, the building failed at ground level on all sides, by all columns interior and exterior, at the same exact time.
Can we just agree to disagree on this?
Convincing the masses is not a job I wanted, yet I find myself arguing this issue
look at how all the shills have managed to slap the term "truther" to anyone who questions the offical story.
There is a multitude of firefighter and police reports, direct statements, that the building was sagging, twisting, shedding cladding and shattering windows before itggave way. I have watched the same videos as you, I've seen the exact same things. I've read the police and fire fighter statements.
originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA
They aren't too tall for anything. You dismantle how you build. Strip building out, remove lift shaft cap, install tower crane, design climbing shutter (like lift shaft shutter but in reverse), lower from floor to floor dismantling as you go. Concrete out, steel out, descend, repeat. It wouldn't be easy but it's entirely possible.
The Singer Building, New York City
Height: 612 feet, 47 stories
Demolished: 1968 – to make way for One Liberty Plaza.
Interesting fact: For a very brief period, the Singer Building was the tallest building in the world, until 1909 when it was surpassed by the Metropolitan Life Tower.
I did not realize there was so much to this conspiracy. To be honest, I lean to a vast conspiracy, involving factions within the United States, and abroad, particularly Saudi Arabia.