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: 6
71
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5




Yet, what we have is exactly that. Many architects and engineers have stepped forward, risking jobs and reputations, to say exactly that: it was clearly a controlled demolition.




So they are they also demolition experts and work in demolitions to risk their jobs in that?

Not sure how a architect giving his opinion of what they think the collapse looks like risks their ability to work in other architectural projects.

How many is many compared to how many have a differing opinion?




So, your premise is quite flawed. Building 7 is clearly a controlled demoltion, for the reasons already mentioned


Yes its very clear to some, it used to be quite clear to me as well however the more information I came across and many others that fell for Building ,1 , and 7 were brought down by fire alone arguments has shown me that ones clarity of seeing things is very easily manipulated.




If you want to continue to believe that our lying government is being honest, THIS TIME, despite all the proven lies, leading to the inescapable conclusion (the only logical conclusion) that it was demolished, then have at it.



You have used this type of reply to few that have no mention of their belief in the official story or the government for the matter at hand,

Do you always create fantasies to justify that you are right in your own head?


Any questions that ask you to think or maybe research the claims you are making are lead with 'well if you believe the Government bla bla bla.......'

In this thread that you authored please find one poster that says they believe what the government is saying directly and quote, if you cant, please stop assuming questions that are asked of you or others in this thread you assume are in support of the official line as a whole are when so far what I have read its questions to make you think and not parrot what YouTube and so many before you have to support other theories that are simply claims based on inconsistencies and ignorance of what people are actually saying.

Look at what you wrote to Jaffo




If you want to continue to believe that our lying government is being honest



You got that from their reply to formoftheland?


Yeah now get it why its the only logical conclusion that it was a demolished as in a planned demolition with explosives set in your opinion if that is what you have concluded.

The only way a person that says they look for truth in matters and are researching of what happened on 9/11 and concludes this shows how much they have researched,




posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Which part of people get excited, confused and say inaccurate things on days like that do you not get? Hell, we were told that they were going to shut down our interstate interchanges that day...that they were stopping the oil/gas pipelines.....that Air Force One was a target....people say things that are flat out wrong on days like that.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: one4all

The Mayor, had nothing to do with it. Nor does he have the power to unilaterally order the destruction of a building.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

It's their only defence against anyone that doesn't agree with them, they can't even begin to comprehend that someone may not believe all aspects of the official story and yet somehow not agree with them on everything.
Nor can they understand how anyone could not agree and yet somehow not be a 'shill' or 'government agent'.

Fact is, I don't agree with a lot of the truther ideas for a variety of reasons which range from anything like 'actually going outside' to having a University level Physics background. Which is why I can understand how someone with a low level of Physics would get confused by over simplifying it. But try and explain it and they just parrot from the truther cheat sheet and convince themselves they're superior to you because they're not mainstream in their ideas, any of them. Got bored having anything serious to say about 10 years ago now and can only just about bear to poke my head in and laugh occasionally, mixed with tears of sadness and despair while the real questions go unanswered and unasked.
edit on 17-2-2015 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

So all the engineers who say that it was indeed very possible for WTC 7 to collapse due to the damage it suffered and the raging fires within it are wrong? Interesting.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Is the OP claiming the BBC were in on a 9/11 conspiracy?......

No, not necessarily. I was stating a fact, it was reported on the BBC before it collapsed, with the building in the background.

I don't know exactly what to ascertain from that fact, but it is the least important of the points that I referenced. Typical "OS" style to pick the one aspect of something that you want to poke holes in.


I find it interesting that the entire premise of your thread is to focus solely on Building 7 as a basis for why the entire 9/11 incident is a government created lie, but then when someone debating with you civilly questions an aspect of your Building 7 facts, you tell them oh that's typical trying to focus on one aspect to poke holes in.

You are quite literally doing the exact same thing that you are preaching against.

OP: I believe this one incident to be a lie because I feel like I can make the strongest case against it, which means if this is a lie, the whole event is a lie.

Rebuttal from other member: But some of your facts used in making your assertions are not correct, therefore your entire argument must be incorrect.

OP: Typical sheep mentality poking holes in arguments to try and invalidate it.

I'm pretty new here but I can't possibly be the only one that sees this flawed logic can I?



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
This is to all of the debunkers that responded above, and on the last post of the previous page.

Yes, I am quite convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt that Building 7 was demolished. You can post 1,000 word(y) essays to the contrary, but it doesn't change my view. Why do you think architects and engineers, and yes demolition experts, who aren't being paid for their opinion, have spoken out that it's an obvious demolition? The smart choice is to shut up or nod with the official story. It takes guts for these professionals to speak out.

As far as our government lying, you folks are incredible. I shouldn't to prove to you that the CIA is involved in global drug trafficking (despite many denials), for example. It's a well established fact. I shouldn't have to remind you about MK Ultra, which was real despite more than a decade of denial. I shouldn't have to remind you about Operation Mockingbird, which despite official denials, was proven many years after the program was initiated.

The evidence is overwhelming that our government has been crooked and has decieived us for many years. Your "fingers in the ear" denial changes nothing. Yes, Building 7 was demolished. Those of us who have studied the facts know that. People who have studied our government are very aware of the history of lies and deception. Yet, people like you continue to try to distort the truth, and convince people otherwise.

edit on 17-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

"Clearly its a demolition"

1. No detonation wiring found
2. No remains of detonation charges found in the debris (and yes, they DO leave behind debris)
3. No tenants of WTC 7 reporting wiring running through their offices.
4. No tenants of WTC 7 reporting finding their office walls torn apart.
5. No tenants of WTC 7 reporting any power downs....unexplained closures of stairwells.....
6. No seismograph evidence of the thousands of demolition charges that would have been needed to bring down a 47 story building.
7. No visual evidence of the thousands of charges going off.
8. No evidence of "micronukes" or any OTHER type of demolition


What we do have
1. FDNY reporting heavy damage to 7.
2. FDNY reporting that pieces of 7 were falling off all afternoon.
3. Visual evidence of windows on floors that were NOT on fire shattering...indicating the steel structure is under stress.
4. FDNY reporting that there was a measurable shifting taking place in the building...indicating it is slowly failing.
5. FDNY clearing a collapse zone because they are pretty sure it is going to fall.


What you have

1. A Video of a building collapsing that shows no signs of the thousands of demolition charges going off.


Yep, that is an open and shut case.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



There is no logical explanation for building 7 to collapse like it did when it did, other than a controlled demolition period.
I think the point is people want to believe the offical story even if it refutes physics and common sense. The key is they want to believe it. Its called being willfully ignorant of the truth being presented.


Why do those claiming demolition of WTC7 always post the EDITED SHORT videos of the building collapse??

EVERY clip of the collapse you posted is propaganda to perpetuate a certain agenda. If you are honestly looking for TRUTH, look at all the information.

This FULL collapse video shows the penthouse collapse, and if you care to see it, the penthouse falling through the left side of the building as the left inner core completely collapses seconds before the outer global collapse initiates.

But this is unwanted information by many that need to cling to illusions in order to keep their agenda intact.
Watch, notice the deformation of the windows as the penthouse structure falls THROUGH the building.


What you just saw in UNEDITED video above, if you are honest with yourself, was the inner core failure followed by global collapse.
This next video explains in video and simulation what you saw above.


The only legit conspiracy I have seen in going on 14 yrs is the Saudi connection.


edit on 2 17 2015 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: daftpink


They announced say five/ten minutes early to the media outlets that the building was coming down.

Why bother 'announcing' to the media of all places ahead of time that anything at all was going to happen?

How would they go about that, by phone? Radio? Commo on every level was clogged on 911.



I already explained why I think they released the news early - did you read that part of my post? (I know it was a long post).

Was comms down on every level? I am not so sure but prove me wrong. If that is true then perhaphs there is a mole in teh BBC who was breifed to annouce it at a certain time in the uk - maybe thats why it only came through to the bbc. There are many whys as to why
but not knowing the WHY doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

I have just re-read your post, forgive me , comms on 911 were clogged. Well yes, but the government don't communicate with media establishments via 911! There are direct lines to these places. And other forms of communication do exisit. Are you meaning the date 9/11 or the emergency number?
Anyway, email wasn't clogged. And believe me (I'm a computer security student) there are many ways for the gov't to get their message to the media in a crisis when normal communication lines are clogged- these systems are in place so that emergencuy broadcasts can still be relayed to the public via the gov't and then the media.

The fact still remains they knew the building was going to be pulled down but blame this on damage from the towers. How, even if it was that significantly damaged (which it wasn't - photo evidence exisits) could they know that it was about to collapse? It's a pretty rare and unheard of occurance for a building hardly damaged to fall down due to small internal fires. I don't think anyone could have guessed at that, not enough to make a statement that it was about to coem down/was down.

What's your thoughts on it? Do you disagree with the possibility that it was a planned attack? (to some extent at least with reference to building 7).



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Building 7 is the ONLY part of 9/11 where I can see both sides of the discussion and entertain alternative theories or agendas. As far as I'm concerned there is no other part of any 9/11 related conspiracy that holds water.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Building 7 is the ONLY part of 9/11 where I can see both sides of the discussion and entertain alternative theories or agendas. As far as I'm concerned there is no other part of any 9/11 related conspiracy that holds water.

Just to be clear, you acknowledge the official story on Building 7 is a lie, but you think they are telling us the truth about everything else? That seems a bit unlikley to me.

But I appreciate your comments.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Building 7 is the ONLY part of 9/11 where I can see both sides of the discussion and entertain alternative theories or agendas. As far as I'm concerned there is no other part of any 9/11 related conspiracy that holds water.


Food for thought?



And of course Shanksville, where for the first time in history a passenger plane crashed with no debris.
edit on -216002015-02-17T12:04:19-06:000000001928201519022015Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:04:19 -0600 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montsta

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Is the OP claiming the BBC were in on a 9/11 conspiracy?......

No, not necessarily. I was stating a fact, it was reported on the BBC before it collapsed, with the building in the background.

I don't know exactly what to ascertain from that fact, but it is the least important of the points that I referenced. Typical "OS" style to pick the one aspect of something that you want to poke holes in.




You are quite literally doing the exact same thing that you are preaching against.

OP: I believe this one incident to be a lie because I feel like I can make the strongest case against it, which means if this is a lie, the whole event is a lie.

Rebuttal from other member: But some of your facts used in making your assertions are not correct, therefore your entire argument must be incorrect.

OP: Typical sheep mentality poking holes in arguments to try and invalidate it.

I'm pretty new here but I can't possibly be the only one that sees this flawed logic can I?


It is the same thing in EVERY 9/11 thread. Like clockwork it devolves into the same crap every time.

That is why I asked earlier if he had any NEW evidence.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Building 7 is the ONLY part of 9/11 where I can see both sides of the discussion and entertain alternative theories or agendas. As far as I'm concerned there is no other part of any 9/11 related conspiracy that holds water.


Food for thought?



And of course Shanksville, where for the first time in history a passenger plane crashed with no debris.

Come on, you know the story. The 757 with a 150'ish wingspan slammed into the Pentagon at 500 MPH. The wings were vaporized, without so much as cracking a single pane of glass.

Yet, the DNA of the passengers was somehow recovered, and the front of the "plane" was able to penetrate three walls, and force an opening to the inner courtyard.

How many times do these "debunkers" have to explain it?

Text Blue

edit on 17-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And the engines, the most indestructable part of the plane, they seem to have disappeared


Oh, oh and all the professional pilots, who not just criticizing the abilities of the alleged pilots, also stated that it was impossible to carry out the maneuvers at those heights without braking apart, strange indeed.
edit on -216002015-02-17T12:35:25-06:00u2528201525022015Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:35:25 -0600 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5


…the front of the "plane" was able to penetrate three walls, and force an opening to the inner courtyard.

Just wondering, what else could do all that?



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

All strange, but if you read the debunkers on this site it's all quite logical.

Queue cardsfan and his compadres in 3...2...1....



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jchristopher5


…the front of the "plane" was able to penetrate three walls, and force an opening to the inner courtyard.

Just wondering, what else could do all that?




A missile. What's your theory?

If I am wrong I apologize, but aren't you an OS guy? The wonderful official story that even its co-chairs and committee members said was "set up to fail", "politically motivated", "only the first draft in history", and "underfunded."

edit on 17-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: daftpink


What's your thoughts on it? Do you disagree with the possibility that it was a planned attack? (to some extent at least with reference to building 7).



So yah, 911 was planned and promoted as an attack on America to further the goals of world conquest.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join