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.

 

Evidence of demolition company at 9/11

page: 7
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Emerys

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: lambros56
a reply to: Mianeye


There`s also lots of armchair experts........
who believe two planes caused three skyscrapers to disappear....without any evidence.



The collapses look nothing like a controlled demolition and every statement I've heard from the truthers can be easily debunked with a basic application of common sense.


Are you kidding me?? IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION! Then you've clearly never watched videos of controlled demolitions. Watch some. YouTube has them. It's not difficult.

Every single "truther" question. Answer me this, explain to me how people with no expert flying skills could accomplish these attacks with more skill than most pilots today? Not a factual statement. This lie is only spread by truthers.


Kieran Daly, the editor of the Internet publication Air Transport Intelligence, said, "Flying an aircraft into a building is not as simple as it appears." He said the hijackers "would have needed some experience to have been able to steer the planes into the World Trade Centre." [10] Robin Lloyd compared the targets of the WTC towers to "narrow runways tipped vertically." From "switching off the autopilot," the hijackers "would have to know how to control the aircraft and be able to find the target," he said. Lloyd said that "rag-trousered terrorists with no flying experience could not have hit" the Twin Towers. Robin Lloyd disqualified his own statement when he used the term "rag-trousered." They were well-trained and intelligent. Stereotypes are dangerous.




posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: ugmold
I giving you proof that those little office fires didn't bring down a 47 Story steel structure building (Gillianni's Command .


Just because you choose to take bits and pieces of the story to form your own opinion does not make it valid. Try understanding what actually happened to building 7 first and you might start believing the story. Clearly, you don't have a clue if you think "little office fires" brought the building down. Stop believing other people's version of what happened and do a little research.


So glad you asked. Now the odd thing is that WTC7 is the furthest away of all the buildings in the complex to the Twin Towers, if you look at an aerial view you will see the devastation of the surrounding buildings which were hit by far more debris than WTC7. Building 6 is hollowed out in the middle? But none of them collapsed.

Your Argument is weak, like the Official Narrative.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MrNeo
I think you will find that facts and real world construction experience holds no water on a conspiracy site.

You might as well walk onto Vatican Square and ask for proof of god.
Believing in a conspiracy is more of a religion. You have to have faith and facts be damed.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Bilk22

So you missed the reports of the bulge spotted between floors 10-13 then?

They even thought the Marriott was going to collapse.


There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


www.firehouse.com...



Could this be what the gentleman on PBS meant when he said they decided to "pull the building" as in "pull people out" instead of "demolish it" That is one of the smoking guns 9/11 truthers talk about. Just curious, as sometimes people use poor tense in conversations. Calling the people "it" instead of "them".



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Wolfenz
there is No Way they Could Free Fall practically into it own footprint


None of the collapsed buildings on 9/11 fell into their own footprint - how do you think all the other buildings there were damaged? Neither WTC 1 or 2 fell at free fall speed. Just watch them collapse you can clearly see that!


What are you on..

Of Course there would be Debris From them I already Know this ... They Did NOT Topple over to one side during the Descent Either. Nor Swayed Over. and for the Free Fall Show me a Uncontrolled ( NON- Demolition ) Building with the same type of material & "Near" Structured Design that Free Fall As Fast as it DID

And Do you Know what the Center ( Core )of the Towers Had .. for Reenforced Support ?




47 CORE Columns and Connect 238 Core Columns

you may want to Check Blue Prints to Construction Photos of the Towers .. Still Explain WTC 7 that Free Fall with no plane hitting it and Debris hitting it from the Towers that had Less Damage then the other WTC Buildings around the WTC Towers Those build took more Damage then WTC 7 yet still Stand ! tho later from the Aftermath were taken Down by a Demolition crew..

Here is !

WTC-3


Partially Collapsed by Debris yet still half of it is standing

WTC-4


WTC-5


Heavy Damage yet Still Standing

WTC- 6


WTC - 7



Yeah For Sure WTC 7 in the Middle Collapse Least Damge and Just Collapsed with the Most Debris Damage WTC 3, 4, 5, & 6 Didn't and wow Post Office Nor Verizon didn't get Hit To bad ! yet the Farthest Away Collapsed with lest Damage ... Yah Ok... LOL...




posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz
Well done Sir.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
you should really look into the construction companies that George Bush has relations with and the fireproofing that was done prior to 9/11 as this most likely was when they added NanoThermite explosive to the building to "blow it up" the plane was CGI based on Jesse Ventura.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold
Gee, where did the opposition go? lol



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: ugmold
Gee, where did the opposition go? lol


Tired of repeating ourselves if it's going to be ignored.

I posted clear evidence of the fire and damage to WTC 7 and it was ignored. Another poster references truther websites with pics showing NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL and he gets an "attaboy." You aren't willing to look at anything that disproves your idiotic theory. Why is it so hard to grasp that you can't say "building X didn't collapse so building Y and Z shouldn't have either." Each building had completely different construction and types of damage. You can't use different buildings as evidence of anything.

You're all incorrigible. People in denial typically are.
edit on 9/23/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
My whole point is, why was anyone tampering with evidence in the first place? They were quick to ship the steel columns off to China of all places. Or they used it to create commemorative battle ships. To me it sounds like a blatant destruction of evidence. No real investigation into these "events" ever took place. The culprits are in this country. Not in some mountain cave somewhere.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer
Yes and WTC7 was built more robust than the others because it housed Rudy Guliani's Command Center was highly fortified in a costly renovation. That is why you are being ignored. I don't need to use the word idiotic, it isn't necessary.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Awesome find! I hope someone with the time and resources investigates this further.. Could be a coincidence, or less likely a connection.. I stopped watching the video after 9 minutes without reading the OP.. So good job taking the time to really be thorough and pay attention to details like that... it's people like you who pave the way to learning the truth



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
The clean up crews were there before they were even hit. Clearly some of the workers knew they were coming down. The cover up is so painfully obvious, if you haven't figured it out yet, just save yourself the trouble and walk away. It's too late for you.

The truth is, there is a cover up behind a cover up. Thermite? That was just the icing on the cake. Literally. You have half the population that believes the official narrative, the other half who at least have the capacity to think for themselves and question it. It's just like politics. Divide them in half, let them tear at each others throats. It doesn't matter what they believe, so long as they don't know really happened.


Ladies and gentlemen, the WTC destruction was the result of the greatest energy weapon attack in modern history.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

And it happened again on September 13th 2014, 13 years after 911.

www.youtube.com...


There are no coincidences. There are only hidden truths for those with eyes to see. If you haven't seen it yet, just enjoy your life while you can. Ignore it if it comforts you. Whether you have an interest in the NWO or not, they most certainly have an interest in you.

And it's clear they're ready to make their move. It's clear they're ready to "strike".

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gh0stwalker



www.youtube.com...

Some people watch too man episodes of CSI and think they know how to analyze.
Other people are just plane delusional. (at best)

The simple fact is the conspiracy side has had 13 years to come up with evidence that will stand up to scrutiny. Nothing has come of their efforts.
Even the mighty ae911 drew a blank with their NYC billboard.

This poster is typical.
He was not there that day.
He has not examined the evidence first hand.
He is not an expert in anything related to 911.
And yet he is certain that someone used a magical weapon that does not exist.

I want to see evidence that doesn't involve Youttube.
Hell I'll settle for any evidence from a real expert.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.

When you keyboard warriors get cancer and are puking up blood are you going to Youtube or a practising specialist?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Gh0stwalker



www.youtube.com...

Some people watch too man episodes of CSI and think they know how to analyze.
Other people are just plane delusional. (at best)

The simple fact is the conspiracy side has had 13 years to come up with evidence that will stand up to scrutiny. Nothing has come of their efforts.
Even the mighty ae911 drew a blank with their NYC billboard.

This poster is typical.
He was not there that day.
He has not examined the evidence first hand.
He is not an expert in anything related to 911.
And yet he is certain that someone used a magical weapon that does not exist.

I want to see evidence that doesn't involve Youttube.
Hell I'll settle for any evidence from a real expert.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.

When you keyboard warriors get cancer and are puking up blood are you going to Youtube or a practising specialist?



Eyewitness video. and amateur video are some of the best possible ways to see what happened, since we cannot be there.

Just wondering, are you buying the story that Boeing 767 jet sank into the soft ground and disappeared in Shanksville, despite the fact that parts and debris were found 7 miles away?


I think over 2000 Architects and Engineers could perhaps be considered Experts.

(Where in the hell ddid all the stars come from for your post?)



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Gh0stwalker



www.youtube.com...

Some people watch too man episodes of CSI and think they know how to analyze.
Other people are just plane delusional. (at best)

The simple fact is the conspiracy side has had 13 years to come up with evidence that will stand up to scrutiny. Nothing has come of their efforts.
Even the mighty ae911 drew a blank with their NYC billboard.

This poster is typical.
He was not there that day.
He has not examined the evidence first hand.
He is not an expert in anything related to 911.
And yet he is certain that someone used a magical weapon that does not exist.

I want to see evidence that doesn't involve Youttube.
Hell I'll settle for any evidence from a real expert.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.

When you keyboard warriors get cancer and are puking up blood are you going to Youtube or a practising specialist?






He was not there that day.
- Were you?



He has not examined the evidence first hand.
Have you? the evidence that is not some paper you read.



He is not an expert in anything related to 911.
Are you an expert on Buildings having planes flown in to them? It covers so many fields I find it hard that you could be an expert on all things 9/11. Did you participate in the NIST report itself?




I want to see evidence that doesn't involve Youttube.
Think you mean Youtube. Are you saying Youtube has no truth at all on it? That's a conspiracy in itself you should make a thread.




Hell I'll settle for any evidence from a real expert. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Ah, so you've nothing to add but insults. I see.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ugmold



Eyewitness video. and amateur video are some of the best possible ways to see what happened, since we cannot be there.

Any first year law student would get all YT vids thrown out of court.




I think over 2000 Architects and Engineers could perhaps be considered Experts.

Look very closely at their BIO's.
Their testimony would not be allowed in court since most have no schooling or experience related to the events of 911.
There seems to be a lot of electrical engineers listed there.
Tell me what an electrical engineer knows more than the guy at the quick mart?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Taggart





He was not there that day.

- Were you?




He has not examined the evidence first hand.

Have you? the evidence that is not some paper you read.




He is not an expert in anything related to 911.

Are you an expert on Buildings having planes flown in to them? It covers so many fields I find it hard that you could be an expert on all things 9/11. Did you participate in the NIST report itself?





I want to see evidence that doesn't involve Youttube.

Think you mean Youtube. Are you saying Youtube has no truth at all on it? That's a conspiracy in itself you should make a thread.





Hell I'll settle for any evidence from a real expert. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Ah, so you've nothing to add but insults. I see.


After 13 years not one shred of proof that could be taken to court.
Doesn't that say something to you?

It's all YT this and YT that.
Plus a few 'for profit' websites.
At least of all are the TV pundants who are attempting to keep their names in the lime light.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
I think over 2000 Architects and Engineers could perhaps be considered Experts.


Experts at what exactly?

This is the standard of their research!



Well, there are over 1.5 million engineers and 222,000 architects in the USA, and only 2,000 support the truther nonsense!



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce



Well, there are over 1.5 million engineers and 222,000 architects in the USA, and only 2,000 support the truther nonsense!

Did you ever notice that Richard Gage never says what method was used to bring down the towers?
He never says what type of explosives were used.
He never says where the charges must have been placed.
He never says what method was used to set off the explosives.
He never says why no evidence of detonation has ever been found.

All he ever does is travel the country and collect money for conferences and DVD's.
I'll save you some money. "Somethings wrong! The building couldn't come down that way!"
At least snake oil salesmen sold you something with alcohol inside so you got a buzz.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join