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.

 

Should we just focus on Building 7?

page: 19
71
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith




But if it was for an ulterior motive I'm pretty sure the most likely thing is something we know happens, covering up 'cost saving' so the money can go elsewhere.

Is it that or that things were under engineered?

When you engineer fire protection for a building you ASSUME you will have water.
Has any one claimed any sky scraper is fire proof?
Or do they say it's fire rated for 'x' minutes so people can get out.

If NYFD had water I believe they would have saved 7.




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
No one denies fires anywhere. Everything else you just said about the collapse isn't just a certain amount of speculation. It's 100% speculation and a "best guess" about what happened. Your final statement is the one I hear most that really frustrates me more than anything:

" Yes there is a certain amount of speculation that went into the computer modeling for the collapse.
But there is zero proof to explosive charges being planted and set off.
I'll stick with the OS and computer model until someone PROVES explosives."

why??? If you don't believe explosives then don't. No problem. Why then is the alternative to take the official story by DEFAULT? It's ok to not know. It's ok to not believe either answer and simply conclude that until we know more, we can't say for sure. No one is going to think you're a conspiracy nut for saying that. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It doesn't have to be one or the other.



A reply to: samkent



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
This thread has turned into lunacy, there's a guy who doesn't even know what he's saying, there's a guy hawking a long winded essay of his opinion as something meaningful and there's people who have a selective reading problem when it comes to direct quotes contradicting what they've just said.

Simple fact on WTC7, an office fire no matter how long it burned for could not bring the building down, furthermore I even proved that steel from WTC7 had been decayed by as much as a half AND had ''the swiss cheese'' effect, IT IS IMPOSSIBILE that this was done by a regular office fire. See my above links.

Lastly, something else to consider in regards to WTC 1 & 2, do you think that after the planes had struck that all the New York hospitals waiting around to recieve casualties from the buildings done it without regard? They knew that it is common during building collapses for there to be bodies in the rubble, some may be crushed beyond recognition but there would be bodies.

Not on 9/11 though, of all the people in the towers most were obliterated and scattered over New York and they were still finding tiny pieces of remains months later, this is also not the result of office fire and there's no way the plane impacts could be responsible for it either.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Dp removed
edit on 23-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum
You missed all the times they stopped digging and stood by as a stretcher holding flag draped remains was carried away?



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Yes. One aerial photo of mostly smoke and part of another building that shows some damage but hard to say how much. The corner is just...not even visible in the picture. Also, if this is where the critical damage is, the very bottom corner of a building, wouldn't it stand to reason that everything resting on this corner would fall to one side as opposed to down the middle? Maybe you're right that progressively things could have happened to cause it, but then I'm also not going to watch a video of a building standing still with no activity and then watching it collapse in 10 seconds or whatever and just assume that things were happening progressively inside.
Now, obviously someone can interpret these photos differently than me. That's just my opinion.
While I still want to discuss things by the way, this doesn't mean I've forgotten that you accused me of creating a sick hoax earlier and have never proven it or apologized for it.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=19038579]TheBolt. Nope. You need to find the actual transcripts. YouTube does not count.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Zcustosmorum
You missed all the times they stopped digging and stood by as a stretcher holding flag draped remains was carried away?



I see you are desperately clinging to your belief that 9/11 happened just as we've been told, no doubt there may have been a few recognisable remains found but you are aware that thousands of remains still remain unidentified, right? Office fire and building collapse do not cause bodies to blow up.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum. No, but it does pulverized then into organic goo, and, those remains that got buried in the pile, were exposed to fires well in excess of that needed to incinerate them



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Zcustosmorum. No, but it does pulverized then into organic goo, and, those remains that got buried in the pile, were exposed to fires well in excess of that needed to incinerate them



Stop talking to me, you don't even have the decency to provide links to anything you say and that's when you're not contradicting yourself.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


You don't really pay that much attention do you? I have posted plenty of links, I just don't dance to your tune.
edit on 23-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Those aren't just regular youtube videos and you know it. Those are videos of news broadcasts so unless you think someone rigged several separate videos of dan rather, CNN, NYPD officers at a press conference, etc. all directly discussing the vans then I've done enough. If you do believe someone rigged every bit of the four links plus a news article I gave you then I wonder at how readily you accept everything the official story uses as evidence. You on the other hand have shown nothing on this issue. This is the last time I waste on typing about this to you. a reply to: cardinalfan0596



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt


Yeah, there was a van stopped that day. Yeah, the first report was possible explosives. Yeah, the media ran with that. What they didn't run with, was the second report that said, nope, no explosives. Then, a couple of anonymous assholes decided to hoax some radio calls and put it on a video, just like the false aerial video if the missile hitting the Pentagon, just like Michael Moore telling lies in his movie, just like the Loose Change boys lied/misrepresented facts, just like William Rodriguez now lies about HIS story
edit on 23-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


You don't really pay that much attention do you? I have posted plenty of links, I just don't dance to your tune.


Haha, not my tune, merely the facts of the day.

I don't know what tune you're dancing to but I struggle to make any sense of it



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum. I dance to the truth. You should try it.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Zcustosmorum. I dance to the truth. You should try it.



That's hilarious coming from someone that just writes stuff without even backing any of it up.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Funny, for someone who said they were done talking to me, you are still going.....

So, back to the original post, WTC 7 was heavily damaged and on fire. FDNY was positive it was going to collapse, so they got out of the way. Hours later, it collapsed.
edit on 23-2-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum



all the people in the towers most were obliterated and scattered over New York and they were still finding tiny pieces of remains months later, this is also not the result of office fire and there's no way the plane impacts could be responsible for it either.

Look at the boiling mess as the buildings came down.
I would expect everything to be ground into small pieces.
And such was the case.

How would you explain the lack of large remains (for the most part)?
How would you explain the lack of recognizable office furnishings?



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: LaBTop

Linking to your own PhD posts is not proof.
Protec, an actual company that deals in demolitions, studied the records and interviewed the witnesses. NOTHING they found suggested a demolition that day.


I have the same advice for you, cardinalfan0596.
You should also understand to avoid the whole heap of disinformation "facts" you were obviously reading from certain 9/11 sites, that were hoaxes that were proved as such, much earlier on already.
You then will be a 9/11 professional truster, at last.

I had a short but highly interesting quarrel with that guy Blanchard that wrote the PR pieces for Protec, here in this very forum at ATS.
He wrote that piece of disinformation that still floats around on the web. He's not a seismologist, he's not a professional demolition expert, he's a journalist for Protec.
After he wrote here that Protec had all these handhold seismograph's seismograms from their people in New York, that proved that there were no signs of any explosions on those, I phoned their offices and asked for copies of those. Since I knew that if they were genuine and existing, they could nothing else than indicate the same evidence I found in the LDEO seismogram from the WTC 7 collapse.

The answer I got was that "sadly enough", they lost ALL those seismograms from their handhold seismographs from the day of 9/11......
After I wrote that very suspicious answer in the thread here, where I was debating this PROTEC guy Blanchard here in the 9/11 forum, he disappeared, to be never heard from anymore, nor from Protec, on the whole WWW.

In short, your sources are also riddled with straight out lies.
And that PROTEC piece which is still getting pulled up by all the fresh 9/11 trusters, is PURE PROPAGANDA, in its finest and dirtiest form. Written by a PR guy, not at all a demolition expert, which impression he however tried to give all through that propaganda piece, which is still online.

And one obvious "smoking gun" fact is that NIST, after reading my StudyOf911 seismic proof that WTC 7 was an implosion, removed ALL their seismic articles from all their websites. Even with the Way-back Machine, you can't find back ANY former seismic NIST piece they had up, during that time. They erased ALL their seismic lies from the WWW.

That should give you an indication how deep the rotten stink goes...they can even force websites like that, to erase historic, once online, evidence....I'm sure they use the National Security crowbar all over again. To constantly protect the 9/11-handlers.
That should give you, 9/11-trusters, a new drive to look at 9/11, now from another angle.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheBolt
To your knowledge did they have any of the steel from building 7 to study or just from one and two towers? I've heard before that NIST didn't have any steel samples from 7 but that seems a bit much to believe.


Of course they did...
www.tms.org...


That's the famous FEMA Report article, first one after 9/11, which caused The N.Y. Times to ask for further investigation.

Which NIST never followed up on. NIST wrote they had not one piece of WTC 7 to study. It was already all shipped away when they started investigations.
It could be that they had 2 pieces of WTC 7 steel, as some poster ever wrote. That should then logically include that Biederman piece. It seems strange that Biederman should have disposed off, that highly interesting piece of evidence of some strange eutectic melting at WTC 7.
Still, NIST did not investigate it any further. STRANGE....




top topics



 
71
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join