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: 20
71
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer




Anyone still believing that fire brought that building down is lost in confusion. All the evidence points straight to controlled demolition. ALL of it! All the video, all the photos, all the audio, all the documents, all the witness testimonies, and all the events that transpired after 9/11 in the Middle East.


Tell you what,

Debunk this thread point by point then come back and tell us how "all the evidence points straight to a controlled demolition".


TELL YOU WHAT, READ MY SIGNATURE LINKS, below, prove them wrong, if you can ! You can't.!
Those links explain to you all you wrote in that huge OP, as not trust worthy at all.




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
This fellow makes a few interesting observations about the NIST report...



That picture of Sunder first put me on the wrong foot, but after you asked why no answer came on it, I at last viewed it, luckily for me. That is a solid piece of research from this Scottish speaking person. Hat's off for this man.!

I also posted already on the ridiculousness of that NIST steel expansion argument.(Search ATS : LaBTop Tyndall )
It meant that all the very long steel beam/girder lengths must have been heated evenly, up to the by NIST desired temperatures, to even let it expand a few inches at both ends. And, they were PROPERLY INSULATED against fire, for over two hours at least retention time. And those office fires we saw in the sparse WTC 7 videos, were hopping from one office to the next, causing a row of about 6 offices at one time to burn for about max. 30 minutes, then they went down by lack of material to burn anymore.
I posted a link to an A&E article that explained that those girders and beams seats were much better and sturdier connected to column 79 than the NIST researchers opted for.
NIST made clearly huge mistakes in their WTC 7 Final Report. Which was btw not written by them, but by an outside source, hired by NIST, with strong ties to the defense industry. NIST is able to blame them in the end, when cornered like this video does, and the findings about the real dimensions of the beam/girder seats on column 79 by A&E.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com... The 8th Search-link.
I used "LaBTop Protec" in the ATS Search, the magnifying glass at the top right of each ATS page w.indow, and found it in 0.38 seconds. The 8th and 4th links.
I advice ALL fresh 9/11 doubters to read and suck up all the priceless information I gave you in that page 6, it will open your eyes even wider for the clearly fascist influences your US society is under, for so many decades already. It's my last signature-link now, SEISMIC.

The Protec and Blanchard info is fully in there to find. But READ and COMPREHEND ALL my posts I wrote there, in that page 6, for your own peace of mind.
From then on, you can sieve out the plants from the sincerely distracted trusters.
In my opinion, cardinalfan is sincerely aroused by 9/11, but he lacks willingness to really deeply investigate his truster sources, so he can weed out tales from facts.

You fresh 9/11 doubters should really do the same, and when you find a truster's fact to be indeed a fact, admit it in writing that you agree here. Be better and more honest than the trusters who rarely or never do that.
That will greatly help the real historic record to be accepted by both sides.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
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.


If you would be trying to be an honest researcher, you would now look up the rest of the photos taken by that NYPD chopper pilot, which clearly show that the NIST report photo was one out of a sequence of several others, which others clearly showed MUCH less damage than in the NIST photo, which shows a thin upward smoke cloud as if it was a cut-out.

I still am not sure if someone doctored that NIST photo, but the other photos show only three floor corners damaged by a Vierendeel exterior column triplet. And it goes not deeper than the office depth. That is no really dangerous structural damage at all, and NIST decided they could not further use that photo to trump up the real WTC 7 impact damage by a collapsing WTC1N.
At last, in their Final Report, they admitted that the WTC1N impact damage by some pieces of it, was not the cause of the WTC 7 collapse, much later in the afternoon.

But we have the phone-boot explosion video, a huge thunderclap sound. No transformer exploding, all electricity was cut much earlier already by city officials in WTC 7. No gas leaks, gas was cut off very early already.
And we have all these videos of TV stations where reporters cover multiple explosions during the day, every 20 minutes or so. They were clearly cutting beams and columns inside WTC 7 all day, and finished it off with one huge TB gaseous explosion in the lower floors, which removed all resistance in those floors, and thus the 2.25 seconds of free fall occurred, as admitted by NIST, who also wrote that 32.5 meters of free fall occurred at those lower floors.

It took so long to finish WTC 7 off, because they had to be absolutely sure that no one did video film the actual explosion at those lower few floors. They first checked for any film crews or private camera holders. After that, they just had to use their usual doubt sowing at the main stream outlets, for the next years.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
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.


I remember seeing a guy who worked in 7 and when he was in the lobby, there wasn't any fire above and he was injured when bombs went off below him. but he got out.
But he is dead now.
Can water put bombs and explosives into a "dud" or a "fizzle" mode?
edit on 24-2-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

You make it sound as if everyone is running from little Ole you. Somehow I don't think so.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: samkent
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.


I remember seeing a guy who worked in 7 and when he was in the lobby, there wasn't any fire above and he was injured when bombs went off below him. but he got out.
But he is dead now.
Can water put bombs and explosives into a "dud" or a "fizzle" mode?


I love how all of these nameless mystery witnesses with claims of bombs always pop up in truther threads, lol. Never any links or documents, just baseless assertions that *some guy* was there and that guy heard or saw *something* that totally and completely would break this open...but now they're gone. My, how convenient. And contrary to denying ignorance.
edit on 24-2-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The rest of the NYPD chopper photos do not show the base of WTC 7 where FDNY reported the heaviest damage. A reply to: LaBTop



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop




It took so long to finish WTC 7 off, because they had to be absolutely sure that no one did video film the actual explosion at those lower few floors. They first checked for any film crews or private camera holders. After that, they just had to use their usual doubt sowing at the main stream outlets, for the next years.

And just how could they know that there was no one in a near by building looking out a window with a video camera?
Who were these people going from building to building looking for videographers?

And who are these people sowing doubt for the next few years ?

And yet no one has talked after 13 plus years ?
Every one of them was paid enough hush money to stay silent ?
Get real.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
This isn't a point. This is a discussion question. There were two groups that did official reports to my knowledge, FEMA and NIST. If the FEMA report was considered a criminal investigation then the NIST report wouldn't have been necessary for them to use so I'm going to assume it wasn't one.NIST only does reports to my knowledge to establish any safety concerns and make industry recommendations. Until I know more, I kind of have to conclude that there was never then technically a criminal investigation into the collapse at all. NIST seems to be the report argued most and yet it specifically says it had no steel or samples to base their findings on and only use a computer model that they haven't released due to national security reasons. They mention one other alternative to natural collapse, explosives, but dismiss it as "highly unlikely" based solely on the assumption it would have taken a lot of explosives and would have been too much work. Let's just say everything in that report is 100% true and the building fell exactly as they say it did. Even if it is, to me arguing the science is an issue, but not the biggest. If a collapse directly related to the biggest attack on American soil in history was never subject to a proper criminal investigation then it's not that unreasonable to demand a follow up. Thoughts? samkent




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt



Thoughts? samkent

They have videos of the planes hitting 1&2.
They have witnesses of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Only a very small handful of 'in the know' people say 'it ain't so' .
You can't silence everyone.
You can't silence every expert on the planet.


This is just another 2012 .
Another Nibiru.
An internet infection.
This conspiracy goes away when you turn off the internet.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

I afraid you'll have to get used to these sort of non-answers on this forum. For what it's worth, I don't think there was any sort of criminal investigation into wtc7. The FEMA report was basically axed, and this NIST report was only done to placate the growing number of questions about the collapse...a purely political response.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Sure they have all that. Not even close to what I was asking about. Plus, all that would still not answer how building 7 fell. Are you aware that not everyone is out there saying the government did everything? The hijackers could very well have done all the damage you just mentioned and 97% of the official story could be true. building 7 could have collapsed naturally and 100% of the officially story could be true, and still that wouldn't answer why there was never a criminal investigation into this collapse. Do you have any thoughts on that specifically? a reply to: samkent



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Yeah. I'm already seeing that. Sometimes I'm even just looking for confirmation of the official story side of things to concede it's truth and they still avoid it and reply with unrelated generalities. And I guess unless I hear otherwise from someone else I'll have to conclude there was no criminal investigation. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a poor interpretation of the facts on my part. to: Flatcoat



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
The funniest aspect of these threads are the one-sided application of the necessity of evidence/proof. The proof backing the OS is non-existent by design, but this doesn't bother the OS-supporters in the slightest.


- Why was ALL the material evidence of all three collapsed WTC buildings immediately shipped overseas and destroyed, despite this being an unforgivably egregious breach of protocol during a crime investigation? Because they already knew what happened so no need to investigate! Amiright?!

- Why did the government confiscate all video evidence around the area of the Pentagon? Why haven't they shown any of these videos (aside from the few frames showing "something" hitting the Pentagon...you have to take their word for it that it was an airplane because it's absolutely not clear from the video)? Because NONE of these videos showed ANYTHING! Obviously, or they would have shown us!

- Why haven't they released any airport videos of ANY of the hijackers actually boarding any of the crashed planes? One video of two guys getting on a previous connecting flight from that morning all they've shown. Again, this evidence MUST exist if the OS is true.

- Where's the proof that flight 93 buried itself in Shanksville? They told us they extracted 95% of the plane from underground, but once again provide no proof other than their own infallible word...

- Why were none of the planes intercepted? Simple incompetence of course! Duh!


Sure, you can contrive paragraphs of unlikely but theoretically possible answers to all these questions, but there is also a singular simple alternative which answers these questions and every other head-scratching aspect of that day: they (the government) are LYING about and covering up what actually happened.

The government has provided NO evidence or proof for a number of assertions made in the OS. You literally have to take their words for it that this evidence/proof even exists. They even went so far as to destroy all the physical evidence from the towers. Then they confiscated all video evidence of planes near the Pentagon and of the hijackers even existing and refused to show any of it. Then they (potus and vp) testified in private and not under oath. Then they deliberately fought against a commission even being formed to investigate the crime of the century. No matter how you cut it, this is not the behavior of honest people who have nothing to hide. You're free to believe what you will, but demanding proof/evidence from people questioning the OS, which is itself a theory with absolutely NO proof/evidence supporting it, is the height of trolling.

To all skeptics of the embarrassing OS, I highly recommend you quit feeding these trolls. There's nothing to be gained by engaging with someone who (after being introduced to the growing conspiracy) genuinely believes such a story as the OS, and even less to be gained by engaging with the obvious alternative...



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anthem0
The funniest aspect of these threads are the one-sided application of the necessity of evidence/proof. The proof backing the OS is non-existent by design, but this doesn't bother the OS-supporters in the slightest.


- Why was ALL the material evidence of all three collapsed WTC buildings immediately shipped overseas and destroyed, despite this being an unforgivably egregious breach of protocol during a crime investigation? Because they already knew what happened so no need to investigate! Amiright?!

- Why did the government confiscate all video evidence around the area of the Pentagon? Why haven't they shown any of these videos (aside from the few frames showing "something" hitting the Pentagon...you have to take their word for it that it was an airplane because it's absolutely not clear from the video)? Because NONE of these videos showed ANYTHING! Obviously, or they would have shown us!

- Why haven't they released any airport videos of ANY of the hijackers actually boarding any of the crashed planes? One video of two guys getting on a previous connecting flight from that morning all they've shown. Again, this evidence MUST exist if the OS is true.

- Where's the proof that flight 93 buried itself in Shanksville? They told us they extracted 95% of the plane from underground, but once again provide no proof other than their own infallible word...

- Why were none of the planes intercepted? Simple incompetence of course! Duh!


Sure, you can contrive paragraphs of unlikely but theoretically possible answers to all these questions, but there is also a singular simple alternative which answers these questions and every other head-scratching aspect of that day: they (the government) are LYING about and covering up what actually happened.

The government has provided NO evidence or proof for a number of assertions made in the OS. You literally have to take their words for it that this evidence/proof even exists. They even went so far as to destroy all the physical evidence from the towers. Then they confiscated all video evidence of planes near the Pentagon and of the hijackers even existing and refused to show any of it. Then they (potus and vp) testified in private and not under oath. Then they deliberately fought against a commission even being formed to investigate the crime of the century. No matter how you cut it, this is not the behavior of honest people who have nothing to hide. You're free to believe what you will, but demanding proof/evidence from people questioning the OS, which is itself a theory with absolutely NO proof/evidence supporting it, is the height of trolling.

To all skeptics of the embarrassing OS, I highly recommend you quit feeding these trolls. There's nothing to be gained by engaging with someone who (after being introduced to the growing conspiracy) genuinely believes such a story as the OS, and even less to be gained by engaging with the obvious alternative...


Argument of first fallacy. You have no proof that the evidence "is missing by design." That is hand waving in addition to initial fallacy. Nice try, fail.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Anthem0

No, the funny part is just how little you actually know about the facts.

Your first point "All the material was immeadiately shipped overseas and destroyed" Does not even begin to resemble reality. First, the last of the debris was not removed from the site until Memorial Day weekend 2002. Second, it was all taken to one of four landfills where it was gone through by investigators/search teams. Third, it did not all go overseas.

Your second point "Government confiscate all video evidence around the area of the Pentagon" They did not. They had 12 videos from the Pentagon and the area around it. ALL the videos have been released at this point.

Your third point "they haven't released airport video" You are assuming that such video exists, in 2001, not a tremendous amount of video surveillance at the gates of the airports.

Your fourth point "proof that Flight 93 hit the ground in Shanksville" Just how many people are you willing to accuse of lying over the mess they found? Not to mention Nevin Lambert who LIVED close enough that he witnessed Flight 93 slam into the ground.

Your fifth point " Why were none of the planes intercepted?" We did not know it was an attack until the SECOND airliner hit the Towers. Flight 77 popped back up too late for any alert aircraft to get to it, only Flight 93, delayed as it was had a chance of being intercepted. And there were F-16s over DC waiting for it to show up.

There has been more evidence provided that I can enumerate in a post on ATS, people like you, are unwilling to accept anything that does not agree with the crap you have read on conspiracy sites.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I'm not going to go into too much detail, but let's play the game. It'll greatly help your cause for sure. Can you provide a link to these 12 pentagon videos or proof that they were released? Also, proof that they were released by the government? This would be a a huge breakthrough if you could do thatreply to: cardinalfan0596



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I'll play this game with you exactly once. And no more.


originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Anthem0

Your first point "All the material was immeadiately shipped overseas and destroyed" Does not even begin to resemble reality. First, the last of the debris was not removed from the site until Memorial Day weekend 2002. Second, it was all taken to one of four landfills where it was gone through by investigators/search teams. Third, it did not all go overseas.


Yes or no: Was the debris from the 3 collapsed WTC buildings "officially" tested for exotic accelerants/explosive residue? If no, then you're proving my point for me, and I accept your concession. The PROOF was destroyed, deliberately and illegally. This was a crime after all, and destroying or otherwise "burying" the evidence, thus preventing it from being properly analyzed, is illegal and screams of something fishy. Feel free to disagree if it pleases you.

If yes, then what were the "official" results? We both know it wasn't, but I added this option for completionist's sake.


Your second point "Government confiscate all video evidence around the area of the Pentagon" They did not. They had 12 videos from the Pentagon and the area around it. ALL the videos have been released at this point.


Shameless, flat out lie. Not only is the 12 number arbitrary and completely fallacious, but not a single video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon even exists. Show me the proof these 12 videos that have been released showing PROOF of a plane hitting the Pentagon, and I'll gladly concede. Since we both you know won't (rather, can't), I won't hold my breath...

And once again, you're tacitly conceding the point I was making... There is NO PROOF that a plane hit the Pentagon, and to assert that such an event took place is to be blindly taking the word of the government, since they've provided no proof that ever happened.


Your third point "they haven't released airport video" You are assuming that such video exists, in 2001, not a tremendous amount of video surveillance at the gates of the airports.


So once again, you're conceding the point I was making, which is that the government has provided NO PROOF that the terrorists were even aboard the airplanes. To assume they were ever on board is to simply take their word for it.

Are you seeing how this works?


Your fourth point "proof that Flight 93 hit the ground in Shanksville" Just how many people are you willing to accuse of lying over the mess they found? Not to mention Nevin Lambert who LIVED close enough that he witnessed Flight 93 slam into the ground.


ROFL. This is how this works, eh? Government claims to have recovered 95% (I believe) of the plane from UNDERGROUND in Shanksville. Where is the proof of this?

Also, since desperate appeals to emotion are your thing, how many people are you willing to accuse of lying over explosions in the lower levels of WTC pre-crash and pre-collapse? Not to mention the mayor of Shanksville who said there was no plane crash in Shanksville. But I guess Nevin Lambert is credible but the mayor of Shanksville isn't, nor are the hundreds of firemen and citizens who attest to hearing explosions @ the towers.

I understand you haven't specifically contended there were no explosions @ WTC, so can I assume you agree with my assessment her that if Nevin Lambert is credible, then so must be the mayor and the people @ WTC who hearad explosions? Are you capable of that level of consistency?


Your fifth point " Why were none of the planes intercepted?" We did not know it was an attack until the SECOND airliner hit the Towers. Flight 77 popped back up too late for any alert aircraft to get to it, only Flight 93, delayed as it was had a chance of being intercepted. And there were F-16s over DC waiting for it to show up.


Nice attempt at a strawman. When we knew we were under attack is irrelevant. They knew exactly when the planes went off course. Unless you're suggesting that it was responsible of "us" to wait until we KNEW we were under attack before scrambling interceptors.

But of course it's just incompetence. I understand.


There has been more evidence provided that I can enumerate in a post on ATS, people like you, are unwilling to accept anything that does not agree with the crap you have read on conspiracy sites.


ROFL @ More evidence? What evidence did you present in your post? Nevin Lambert's expert testimony? Seriously, what evidence did you even attempt to present. You deliberately missed the entire point of my post and tried a lazy blanket debunking, unknowingly conceding to every point I was making...namely that the government has provided no proof that any aspects of the OS are even true. To believe the OS is to do so entirely due to blind trust in the word of the authority, and not because that authority has provided PROOF to corroborate their theory. In fact, the authority has done much to willfully obstruct providing proof (such as destroying material evidence of the towers and withholding videos).

Do you disagree with that assessment, and if so why?

If you don't address that point (you know, the actual point I'm making about the one-sided application of proof), then I will immediately cease all feeding.
edit on 25-2-2015 by Anthem0 because: formatting



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
accidental double post
edit on 25-2-2015 by Anthem0 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join