It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should we just focus on Building 7?

page: 24
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:26 AM

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: TheBolt
""My two questions are: 1)are you 100% convinced that there is not even a possibility of there being types of explosives unknown to NIST investigators that they didn't consider and if so, ""

samkent : Explosives make loud noises. Watch and listen to any Youtube video of CD.
Nothing like that was heard.
That rules out explosives.
Even Labtops mystic super powerful explosives.

The famous phone-boot video of a huge explosion sound, one block north of WTC 7.
Then just listen to the huge explosives sounds in my signature links videos.

One is made by _BoneZ_, of the WTC1N collapse onset, where you clearly hear the cadence of the explosives going off, every few floors. He is an ATS moderator.

One is FOIA freed, with that huge low explosive rumbling sound, 2 seconds before the first sign of WTC 7 its eastern penthouse started to sink into the roof itself. Then you see 8 seconds later the whole building sink out of sight, but you hear no discernible sound of that collapsing, huge 47 stories high building crushing to the ground.

And you dare to tell me that you believe NIST, that explained that first huge rumble as column 79 failing.
ONE column failing under that eastern penthouse made that rumbling sound.???
And when all the other huge steel core columns and its girders and beams, and the exterior columns of that same building failed, we hear nothing of that in that same video.???

If you, or a reader, believe that column 79 fairy tale, there's no help nor hope for you.
That FOIA video, taken from the claws of NIST after many years of struggle, distinctively proves that the whole NIST WTC 7 fairytale is just that, a fairytale.

NIST has never explained what mechanism caused the instant failure of 32,5 meters height of lower floors in WTC 7 above the fifth floor. That means, the whole construction over a height of 7 to 8 floors high, failed all over the total surface of that stack of 7 to 8 floors.
While every scholar knows by heart, that when you measure a 2.25 seconds form of truly free fall in a building, that that implicates that all resistance is removed, INSTANTLY.

Only explosives do that, never ever can much slower failing steel under overloads do that. PERIOD.

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:28 AM
Blanchard, PR-man for PROTEC, my Feb.2013 post about him fading away after I challenged him here on ATS to produce those 9/11-seismograms from PROTEC's hand-held devices. After phoning PROTEC, I found out that they had conveniently lost all those 9/11-seismograms from their depositories, so basically, Blanchard was telling lies which he could not prove, and there are still trusters falling for his propaganda piece :

Huge Blanchard - PROTEC, and Basement Explosions explained, post :

Explanation by ATS member wecomeinpeace, of the seismic effects of explosives coupled to steel columns, either 300 meter high up, or at or under ground level, from 2006 already, and you trusters still keep REPEATEDLY spreading misinformation about PROTEC, 9 years later :

My Protec post a few pages back :

Proof of that still spreading of PROTEC misinformation :

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:32 AM
Tangled Webs - NIST and WTC7, a video posted by Flatcoat, only 5:17 minutes long :

Why are you not reacting on the real destructive to your truster ideas, posts?
Start with proving my below Signature links, wrong.

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 04:03 AM
OtherSideOfTheCoin, we have mutual respect, it seems.
I do have no problem with lots of official explanations of 9/11, however have some nagging pertinent discrepancies with them.
Let's see if we can convince each other bit by bit.
I am reading your ""Revisiting Word Trade Center 7"" thread, and read a lot well known truths, but also clear misunderstandings you inherited from Myths etc.
At least you also insert lots of links, which puts you in my favorite adversaries box.

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:44 AM
a reply to: TheBolt

Thanks for getting back to me.

Let me first start by pointing out that no matter what it is impossible to be 100% sure of anything, I cannot even be 100% sure that I actually exist outside of my own thoughts. Likewise while i am 99.9999999% sure that you are a real human being i cannot be 100% sure even if i see you and touch your face. Its this wired idea called Solopsism but its also off topic, all i want to do is point out to you that I can never be 100% sure of anything.

With that said lets get to your questions, both of which are good questions really.

1)are you 100% convinced that there is not even a possibility of there being types of explosives unknown to NIST investigators that they didn't consider and if so, why?

Ok, so when it comes to explosives I know that even with out testing for the actual explosives themselves its possible to rule out a number of the leading contenders for "how the did it". Most conventional explosives such as RXD can be ruled out because there is no obvious way they could have planted those bombs, prepped the buildings, rigged up the detonators and all the rest of it with out anyone noticing, then the explosion themselves would have been very loud one after another with lots of explosive flashes to be seen and it would smash out windows i the surrounding area. There is a lot more to it in debunking the idea of conventional explosives but that pretty much sums it up, its also why we can also discount stuff like TB charges and nukes.

Then if we look at some of the more out of the box stuff it also does not add up, thermite is something i have spent quite a bit of time researching and i have concluded that the research done by Jones et al does not stand up to tough scrutiny. There are also some ideas that the planes themselves were not actually planes but flying bombs or that they launched missiles into the buildings before the attacks, again utter nonsense. As is the "super space energy weapon".


Despite saying that I cannot say with any certainty that there does not exist some other method of destroying those buildings that has not been explored yet may have caused their collapse which may have supporting deviance yet to be uncovered. I do think that it is highly improbable that 14 years on we will ever come across such a method but if one does present itself it would be worthy of further research.

Basically though when i look at all of the theories proposed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as to how they would have went about demolishing these buildings i see problems. If you have any specific methods in mind please feel free to ask me to elaborate on them further.

2)I fully admit that as far as natural collapse the idea the present is plausible. But are you 100% convinced of natural collapse because you feel they proved it definitively or just because it's currently the highest probable cause? I really want to be convinced here

Like i have said before i cannot be 100% sure of anything, now when it comes to WTC-7 my attitude is that the narrative of the collapse as outlined by NIST is the one that is the highest probable cause, in the face of no other substantial theory as to how WTC-7 collapsed I am forced to stick with the NIST narrative which so far has wide scientific backing. There is nothing I or anyone else can say or do that will make anyone 100% sure that the building as NIST claim it did.

If you really want a percentage, I would say I am about 90% sure that the building collapsed as NIST say it did, I do have some doubts however, there are a few things to me that make me raise a eyebrow but its not enough to make me jump on the "It was thermite" band wagon.

I hope that answers your questions.

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:03 AM
Haha. I'm kind of glad you called it the thermite bandwagon and I don't mind talking about philosophy because that was possibly the purpose behind the questions. For someone who hasn't decided on anything yet it could seem as though there are only two camps and they both depend not on proof of their own beliefs but rejection of the other. If one doesn't choose to buy into the NIST explanation of the collapse then it's apparently assumed by some that by default that that person is on the thermite bandwagon. I've long since tried to point out that isn't the case but so far the only people that have responded to that are people who, when asked whether they only support the NIST report because there aren't any better options, instead of reflecting on the NIST report choose rather to attack and reiterate how ridiculous they feel the controlled demolition theory is. That led me to believe that they maybe only defaulted to the NIST report out of necessity. My opinion though is that generally it's either one or the other to most. In questioning the NIST report I like to also consider the possibility of, heaven forbid, a different sequence of damages and structural failures that may be different from what NIST said and stil wouldn't be controlled demolition. I was beginning to wonder if there was even one person out there who hadn't dug their heels in so much that if a third option were to arise they might pretend to consider it. I don't have a third option to present mind you, but that's why I specifically stated 100%. I don't need a number otherwise. 99% or lower would show you're at least open. reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:25 AM
Thank you guys for the great thread.

I dont know much about this topic especially the technical stuff and apologise if I seem underprepared.Please forgive the generic focus I have to use.

I am often reminded to think as far ahead of the curve as I can when considering the TT destruction.

The nano-thermite is there because it was used to destroy building 7 with permission,legal permission of the Mayor,this is the end-game for the thermite,they KNEW it would be found and they had an out,building 7,the Mayor did NOT say "pull it" on tape for nothing,it was a sleeper comment to be used and referenced later to cover things up.

You will find the nano-thermite and it WILL be military grade,and you WILL NOT be able to convince anyone that the lawfully administered destruction of building 7 in the context of city and national security did not in fact contaminate the Twin Towers site with this absolutely explainable nano-thermite,they are well prepared.

You need to get further ahead of the curve maybe,and ASSUME everything you are coming to in terms of what seem like naturally occuring conclusions is pre-determined and is simply bait.Once you do this then you can keep a focused mind and you can remain neutral until the entire story unfolds like it WANTS TO.The story wants to be told,all do,so simply look at the things preventing this from happening and you have the beginnings of your solution.

The thermite was a key part of the action,so it had to be "incorporated" into the story,,,,,so who and why?Who would go to the extremes of thermite and why?

Was it thermite originally destined for the TTs or was it thermite legally installed in a National Security priority building first....with the TTs loaded up later----is the thermite originally installed in building 7 from the same BATCH as the thermite later put into the TTs??----are there 2 different thermite sources old and one new????Did someone know some data they wanted destroyed was in building 7 and did they need to find way to "pull it" to safely and legally destroy evidence of something?Was the TT destruction just a decoy from the real criminals here?They obviously have layers of support in terms of blame,they can hang it all on the building owners for fraud,they can say the Mayor jumped the gun on building 7,they have lots of pre-positioned excuses if you can simply see them for what they are.The Mayor is the lynch-pin of everything.Once he admits he gave the order to destroy building 7 he validates the prescence of Military inputs and of thermite on the entire site.He wont do this until he is forced to at which point the bad guys will know what evidence is being used gainst them,they have layers they will sacrifice one at a time....they want to know what data is being accumulated against them so they sacrifice a layer when needed to gain intel. The connection between the Mayor and the Militry might be considered a National Security issue so beware when you investigate,do not sanction yourself as oppositon,they will be looking to do that for you if you get to close.

Remember ,someone KNEW building 7 was wired with thermite,legally,and they used this data to plan the destruction of the TT,without thermite close by in an EXPLAINABLE way....the plan does not fly so to speak.

So who knew about the thermite in building 7?
One HAD to know this data for the plan to evolve.

It was a 3 part game,these monkeys cannot think past 3 moves,they are obviously Neuro-typical and maxing themselves out which inevitably causes errors in process.

Con-jobs in order of how we are suppossed to absorb them.

#1....the bad terrorists attacked America.

if this is exposed....then.....

#2....the bad owners of the buildings were faced with 20 billion dollars in repairs and compensation due to shoddy workmanship and corner cutting and potential lawsuits on the original build so they organised an insurance fraud.

if this is exposed...then...

#3....sorry but I am not interested in taking things further....I dont even give it thought.But this doesnt mean others must stop here.

If you get to close you will be considered a threat to national security.

Be aware that when you get close they will be ready,dont forget that in the interests of National security an attack on the US by another Nation they want to keep hushed up wether or not it is a real attack would justify your silencing if you got close to exposing it,they could easily fabricate a connection like this to authorise domestic suppression actions.Keeping such an attack quiet to prevent further greater conflicts would be well within the conventions of National Security.Remember you live in a Country where you can be legally executed for threatening National Security.

It is all about PLAUSABILITY......they play it this way...the terrorists could not have co-ordinated the attacks so what volume of data was incorporated into the story in an unnatural way to support that they in fact COULD have pulled this off....from the top to the bottom.

Thermite COULD NOT have been naturally occuring in the Twin Towers wreckage from plane had pre-knowledge of the existance of thermite close to the towers?And WHO had authority to bring the thermite into the equation in an explainable PLAUSABLE manner,to "pull it"...what military contact worked with the Mayor to authorise the destruction of building 7 thereby supporting the next phases of the action?Dont forget they could also be prepared to say traces of thermite were on the other planes as well to show how 2 different signtures could show up in the thermite samples.They can manufcture any evidence they wish to but they must always maintain a fluid state of PLAUSABILITY,because they need you to make a DECISION for yourself,it is how they manipulate you into thinking you are making free will choices,they let you "feel" like you are in control by manipulating and orchestrating a series of small micro-decisions you make for yourself when you define something as being PLAUSABLE,then once you are in this trance the begin their dance.

They WILL sacrifice layers one by one if you pressure the right spots,these are DESIGNED find them and trip the alarms one by one.Each layer they sacrifice is simply an ALARM telling them you are one step closer to them.THEY will begin to take bigger and bigger remedial actions by sacrificing every layer to protect the top,these "layers" KNOW their value,they KNOW they are expendable,once enough of them know there is now a process in place which is going to pressure the operation to SACRIFICE THEM they will get wiggy and begin to run,so the sooner they know they are being pursued and will soon be given up the sooner they will try to break and run.Every time the group leadership feels a layer is going to break and run they will EXPEDITE THE PROCESS in that area for loss prevention reasons and will remove or give up that layer.

So yup,the thermite was there pre-action,in building 7,now make them say so...they will because this is just one layer of protection for the the process look for 2 different thermite signatures,one old one from the original wiring of building 7 and one from the newer batch installed in the Twin Towers.

There are likely old air filters all over the place holding the samples you want,in many many places,buildings everywhere,some of these filters are not replaced for many many years and the thermite will be easy to identify,now go find 2 different sources or batches and prove they were produced at different times so when you pressure the Mayor to fess up you will be ready for the next layer above him.I wonder how many places thermite is still found in? Bird nests...air filters...there must be a lot of places,layers of new concrete being lain for other buildings in the city close by that day.Who knows maybe there are 1000s of places,but you all need to find 2 seperate thermite signatures because they surely do exist.

edit on 1-3-2015 by one4all because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:35 AM
a reply to: one4all

This post almost reads like a parody of bad 9/11 conspiracies.

I know you have said that you are new to this but I think your post epitomizes the pitfalls of only reading about the conspiracy theories with out doing some fact checking.

Its quite a wordy post you have written, I am not going to go through it word by word but I will point out the main flaws in your assertions.

Firstly, the "mayor" did not say "pull it", I am assuming you have him mixed up with the owner of the WTC because the mayor said no such thing.

Thermite, has been debunked so many times (Link) But I would just love to know where you are getting your information on thermite from because even for a conspiracy theory it is pretty out of the box. (really where are you getting the $20 billion in repairs from?)

I think for possibly the first time there is just so much wrong with your post that I almost don't know where to start.

I am sorry i cannot be more positive but I really think you need to go away and spend quite a lot of time doing some serous research before you try to contribute to a debate on 9/11 again.

edit on 1-3-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: one4all I'm sorry too. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion this is a great thread because based on the rest of what you said all indications are that you didn't read any of it. This isn't coming from someone who necessarily supports the official story either. Believe me, the response you did get from that camp on a post such as yours was extremely cordial compared to what it could/should have been. I agree with the advice to do much more researching, and try to include a conspiracy debunking site or two into the fold as well.

posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 06:54 PM
NOOOO !! the talks about focusing on the mechanics of the collapse did so much damage to the movement, its not even funny.

Consider this, assume the attack was really done by saudis and all the buildings collapsed due to fire and damage, wouldnt the quality of the attack be the same if it turns out that elements within Saudi Arabia and ties to Saudi Arabia set the plan in motion on request of their long time partners in the US? It would still ultimately be treason if the intend originated from within the united states, but the job was outsourced.

Talking back and forth about the mechanics of the collapse did nothing but delay time on figuring out whodunit. The focus should be on the cashflow, who mit with whom, who was friendly with whom. And why Saudis of all people?

Inversly explosives by itself do not prove that the intend originated from within the US. Terrorists have been known for placing explosives before.
edit on 2-3-2015 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 21  22  23   >>

log in