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: 8
71
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Jchristopher5

You are good at cherry picking what you answer.

Just like you are at cherry picking the facts that fit your agenda.

I am still waiting for your response about what I showed you regarding the collapse of building 7..........



Okay, I watched your video. It is still a controlled demolition. The only difference is your video starts the clock sooner. Once it starts falling, it still falls at free fall velocity for 2.25 seconds.

Your video does not to change the truth, and that truth is that the OS is flawed and a lie.




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

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I am not mocking, (cant watch the video yet) do any of these videos explain how people managed to rig it for demo?



since everything I have seen and read requires a pretty invasive procedure to rig a building to drop?



I really am looking for an explanation.. if I can find one I will certainly take a second look.





Why on earth do you think someone would video themselves commiting a crime like rigging a building to fall, its criminal and would be pretty stupid to video yourself commiting a crime like this.

Just think about the question your asking for a moment, would you yourself film yourself breaking the law and then post it on youtube?


Maybe you should think about YOUR question for a minute. Why on Earth would anyone EVER try and carry out a demolition in front of literally tens of millions of witnesses and then insist that it was an act of terrorism when engineers and experts could clearly debunk it IMMEDIATELY? Gee, maybe because that never happened? Maybe because it was NOT a controlled demolition, lol? Just saying...


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, your premise is quite flawed. Building 7 is clearly a controlled demoltion, for the reasons already mentioned. If you want to continue to believe that our lying government is being honest, THIS TIME, despite all the proven lies, then that is your choice.

For me, I have reached the inescapable conclusion (the only logical conclusion) that it was demolished.


Clearly a demolition, eh? Where is the evidence? The explosive residue? The evidence that the building was wired in any way at all? Because all I see you doing is wallowing in ignorance by flailing your arms and screaming repeatedly that because you do not understand what you saw, there must be a conspiracy. Seriously, you have no evidence at all to back your assertion. Saying "clearly" does not make it so. Again, you have ZERO EVIDENCE. NONE.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I am not mocking, (cant watch the video yet) do any of these videos explain how people managed to rig it for demo?



since everything I have seen and read requires a pretty invasive procedure to rig a building to drop?



I really am looking for an explanation.. if I can find one I will certainly take a second look.





Why on earth do you think someone would video themselves commiting a crime like rigging a building to fall, its criminal and would be pretty stupid to video yourself commiting a crime like this.

Just think about the question your asking for a moment, would you yourself film yourself breaking the law and then post it on youtube?


Maybe you should think about YOUR question for a minute. Why on Earth would anyone EVER try and carry out a demolition in front of literally tens of millions of witnesses and then insist that it was an act of terrorism when engineers and experts could clearly debunk it IMMEDIATELY? Gee, maybe because that never happened? Maybe because it was NOT a controlled demolition, lol? Just saying...


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, your premise is quite flawed. Building 7 is clearly a controlled demoltion, for the reasons already mentioned. If you want to continue to believe that our lying government is being honest, THIS TIME, despite all the proven lies, then that is your choice.

For me, I have reached the inescapable conclusion (the only logical conclusion) that it was demolished.


Clearly a demolition, eh? Where is the evidence? The explosive residue? The evidence that the building was wired in any way at all? Because all I see you doing is wallowing in ignorance by flailing your arms and screaming repeatedly that because you do not understand what you saw, there must be a conspiracy. Seriously, you have no evidence at all to back your assertion. Saying "clearly" does not make it so. Again, you have ZERO EVIDENCE. NONE.


WRONG. I assume you are confusing evidence with proof, or you are being obstinate. There is plenty of evidence. It has been reviewed extensively is this very thread.
edit on 17-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Read your own thread much?

Ok, I will make it perfectly clear, again.

This is the post and question I was talking about.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the question repeated.


If you even watched the videos, what caused all the widows below the penthouse collapse to deform as that structure fell through the building? Explosives? Only on the left side of the building?


I will even re post the video for you.


And please explain where this next video is wrong in their evaluation of the events you saw in the video posted above.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And please explain where this next video is wrong in their evaluation of the events you saw in the video posted above.





I know that some people point out that no steel framed building has every collapsed due to fire even after burning for a day, but the narrator explains that it's the only tower in history to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours.

I think this is case closed. Mods you can close the 911 forum, mystery solved.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And please explain where this next video is wrong in their evaluation of the events you saw in the video posted above.





I know that some people point out that no steel framed building has every collapsed due to fire even after burning for a day, but the narrator explains that it's the only tower in history to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours.

I think this is case closed. Mods you can close the 911 forum, mystery solved.

I am tired of tangling with you debunkers, whatever your motivations might be. This video proves nothing to me,just as the evidence we have presented somehow proves nothing to the many of you who swarm on every 9/11 post in this forum, like flies to honey. It's the same ones, thread after thread. You all seem to use similar tactics, use the same tired talking points, and calling "truthers" names seems to be a common theme. I am done for this evening. If someone wants to entertain you folks for a while then that is great. We are getting no where.

Many of us "truthers" have came to this opinion with hundreds of hours of research, and in spite of the MSM and government would have you believe. I have posted as to why you can't trust what the government says, but it falls on deaf ears with the debunking crowd. You trust the governemnt, at their word, seemingly unconditionally.

Your minds are made up already, or there is something else motivating you. No matter, I am done for now.
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 @ 07:31 PM
link   
hey guys, brand new to this site. thought id throw my 2 cents in being as im am training to be an engineer(only 17 so don't go too bat-# crazy if you disagree) I cannot understand how anybody could possibly think that wtc 7 collapsed due to heat. first off i'd like to point out that steel doesn't just buckle in on itself and cause a uniform free fall collapse, not without some serious heat ranging in the 1000's of degrees at least 2000 probably 3000 and nothing that burns that hot was anywhere near the building. hell even the supposed fire that was in the main 2 buildings was probably only 1000-1500c. also the building collapse itself was weird. because say it did collapse from heat then the fires would of had to have been lit at the perfect points in the structure near simultaneously. my final point is that of people attempting to debunk the termite theory. you evidently know very little of the way thermite works and steel beams can be easily sliced open with a thermite box cutter. don't mention myth busters that episode was an atrocious waste of thermite. so my conclusion is a controlled demolition. don't know why or by whom and i don't think i will ever know. not sure if i "offended" anyone but i've said my piece



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ibelievethemsm
Since you are in training.
What temperature does it require to reduce the strength by 25%?
If the beam is overloaded at the time ?????



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I agree with the OP, building 7 is what lead me to question the OS in 2006, I didn't even know about building 7 until then.

Buildings on fire just don't collapse like that.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33



Buildings on fire just don't collapse like that.

Other building were not constructed the same way.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
The only way for 911 to be an inside job is for hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved in the plot and the cover up that followed. The sheer amount of people involved would need to be enormous.
The global warming crowd says that getting that many people to agree to lie is impossible.


That is untrue. You would only need one person to know all of the details and micromanage the rest, just like the Apollo missions. It is possible many would have their suspicions, and many have spoken out. Mostly the people on the scene (firefighters and police officers), but still, the people who knew a great deal also recieved enormous payouts (defense contractors, lawyers, oil indistrialists, insurance fraud scum, and some insiders on Wall St.).

Why would someone speak out when it made them a great deal of money? While offering them a neverending war to continue to profit on? Plus, they knew waht attrocities were coming in advance and did nothing to stop them, therefore, they have no remorse for the loss of life since it padded their pockets with fiat dough.

As you probably are already aware as well, any micromanaged military peon will not speak out against their military as well. Plus, they would have to admit they had a role in the part, and who wants to be the first to come out and say that they were responsible for remotley flying the planes in to the towers? They also had several drills planned that day, so they could have easily been running a real life drill and not even know it was taking place.

There are so many inconsistencies with the 9/11 data that it is not even conspiracy anymore. Oh wait, a drivers license from a hijacker was found at the scene, which proves they did it. Those indestructable laminate papers are so hard to destroy in explosions. Or is it true that, lol, one threw it out the cockpit window right before it collided? Let alone, how did they fly these planes? I'm sure you are aware that the reported pilots were unable to fly a Sesna safely, yet they have such precision with these aircraft not even similar to a Sesna. BS is coursing through the rotted and rusted veins of the reported myth. There is less proof for the real story than the "conspiracy," but I guess it's nice to feel safe believing the government for every claim.



In the month prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, unusual trading activity involving American and United Airlines stock was noted by market analysts who at the time had no idea what to make of it. Wildly unusual discrepancies in the put and call ratio — 25 to 100 times normal — were reportedly observed in stock options of the two airlines. In one case, Bloomberg's Trade Book electronic trading system identified option volume in UAL (parent of United Airlines) on 16 August 2001 that was 36 times higher than usual. (Options are wagers that the price of a 100-share block of a particular stock will rise or fall by a certain date. "Puts" are "shorts" — bets the stock price will fall. "Calls" are bets the price will rise. Thus, one who has reason to believe a particular company is about to suffer a terrible reversal of fortune would purchase "puts" against that entity's stock.) But it was during the final few trading days (the market closes on weekends) that the most unusual variances in activity occurred. Bloomberg data showed that on 6 September 2001, the Thursday before that black Tuesday, put-option volume in UAL stock was nearly 100 times higher than normal: 2,000 options versus 27 on the previous day. On 6 and 7 September 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange handled 4,744 put options for United Airlines' stock, translating into 474,000 shares, compared with just 396 call options, or 39,600 shares. On a day that the put-to-call ratio would normally have been expected to be roughly 1:1 (no negative news stories about United had broken), it was instead 12:1. On 10 September 2001, another uneventful news day, American Airlines' option volume was 4,516 puts and 748 calls, a ratio of 6:1 on yet another day when by rights these options should have been trading even. No other airline stocks were affected; only United and American were shorted in this fashion. Accelerated investments speculating a downturn in the value of Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch (two New York investment firms severely damaged by the World Trade Center attack) were also observed. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ibelievethemsm
hey guys, brand new to this site. thought id throw my 2 cents in being as im am training to be an engineer(only 17 so don't go too bat-# crazy if you disagree) I cannot understand how anybody could possibly think that wtc 7 collapsed due to heat. first off i'd like to point out that steel doesn't just buckle in on itself and cause a uniform free fall collapse, not without some serious heat ranging in the 1000's of degrees at least 2000 probably 3000 and nothing that burns that hot was anywhere near the building. hell even the supposed fire that was in the main 2 buildings was probably only 1000-1500c. also the building collapse itself was weird. because say it did collapse from heat then the fires would of had to have been lit at the perfect points in the structure near simultaneously. my final point is that of people attempting to debunk the termite theory. you evidently know very little of the way thermite works and steel beams can be easily sliced open with a thermite box cutter. don't mention myth busters that episode was an atrocious waste of thermite. so my conclusion is a controlled demolition. don't know why or by whom and i don't think i will ever know. not sure if i "offended" anyone but i've said my piece


That is exactly the point being made by the OP, so kudos. In the history of all steel buildings, never has one been brough down by a fire alone. The engineers whom constructed the towers even stated they built them to withstand planes crashing into them. Being that the planes hit the top portion of the buildings, the fires would have little effect on the base structure, especially that which is many feet underground. So there should have IMHO been more of a toppling effect to the tops of the towers, and not falling straight down into themselves.

And do not worry about offending someone, some will be offended at onepoint or another, but more will not like what you say, and will attempt to prove you wrong, but most will respect what you say if you have a valid point as to why you said it.
Keep on Keeping on, use your engineering smarts to your advantage.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And please explain where this next video is wrong in their evaluation of the events you saw in the video posted above.





I know that some people point out that no steel framed building has every collapsed due to fire even after burning for a day, but the narrator explains that it's the only tower in history to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours.

I think this is case closed. Mods you can close the 911 forum, mystery solved.


LOL, nice post. I'm glad these videos proved everything for me, now I can relive all the glory of truthiness Brian Williams gave the world and turn the MSM News back on.

It''s amazing how a fire on such a tall and important building could go uncontrolled for 7 hours with hundreds of firefighters on the scene. But hey, lets spray the buildings that are already collapsed and not the one still standing and on fire. Also amazing how the sprinkler systems managed to not at least control it a little. Maybe that was the day they were shut off due to purging and maintenance



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I am of the opinion that there is more to the story than we know. However I believe there is a fallacy in your logic.

You can't unfortunately say If A then B.

If building 7 was demolished then the Twin Towers must have been demolished as well. It just doesn't work like that.

I hope you don't resort to lumping me in a group and instead try to address this fallacy.

Also if you don't like being called a truther, maybe lay off calling people a debunker. These things go both ways man, give others the same respect you would like. Just a suggestion.
edit on 2/17/2015 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Just curious if you know of any NIST published video explaining what happened to WTC 6?

In particular, what would make it look like a crater?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Agreed brother. As a jaded and frustrated 13-years-long "truther", I think you've got a great point. The whole debate surrounding 9/11 has gotten out of hand, too many collateral factors have been raised (real and imagined) that complicate the whole drama beyond the point of coherence. We need to keep this "movement" (for lack of a better word) simple and focused on the strong & obvious evidence that we already have, and worry about all other conjectures at a point when it is reasonably rational and productive to.

From the start of the 'movement' up until the present moment, all the noise surrounding this very important issue has been ultimately counter-productive to the efforts of the "Truth" movement. Let's bring it back to the basics again, so that people who are brave enough to face the facts of this tragic and traitorous attack on human life & freedom can do so without cause for confusion.

A+



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheAnarchist
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Agreed brother. As a jaded and frustrated 13-years-long "truther", I think you've got a great point. The whole debate surrounding 9/11 has gotten out of hand, too many collateral factors have been raised (real and imagined) that complicate the whole drama beyond the point of coherence. We need to keep this "movement" (for lack of a better word) simple and focused on the strong & obvious evidence that we already have, and worry about all other conjectures at a point when it is reasonably rational and productive to.

From the start of the 'movement' up until the present moment, all the noise surrounding this very important issue has been ultimately counter-productive to the efforts of the "Truth" movement. Let's bring it back to the basics again, so that people who are brave enough to face the facts of this tragic and traitorous attack on human life & freedom can do so without cause for confusion.

A+


Great post, and thank you.

I will step carefully here, but I feel compelled to make a point. If you are a reasonably smart person, and you study the Building 7 official story vs. the facts, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that the OS is not a lie. It is so clearly a lie, yet you have these OS folks arguing endlessly. 8 pages so far in this thread alone.

It leaves me to one of several conclussions regarding these posters, specific to building 7', the last of which I will leave for everyone to come up with on their own:

1. The posters are politically-motivated right wingers whom protect the Bush administration as if their party's life depended on it.
2. They implicitly trust their government (in spite of the evidence which says they shouldn't) and can't imagine they would ever try to harm us.
3. They have never really studied the facts or read anthing outside the OS.

Unfortunately, I think most of these posters are in the unmentioned category 4. Since I can't even type that one without a warning or worse, I will leave it to everyone's imagination. It is the only thing that makes sense.

I really don't know how they sleep at night. You can take anything you want from me, almost, but you can never have my soul.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So either you were not watching the news at all that day, or you forgot. Because EVERY news channel showed 7's collapse.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So either you were not watching the news at all that day, or you forgot. Because EVERY news channel showed 7's collapse.



Yep, that day at least. Even before it happened!

Dan Rather even famously remarked how it looked "well placed dynamite" for the "third time today". Yet, it was shown little past that day, and people like Dan Rather seemed to swallow the OS and never investigated further, in spite of the obvious, which he pointed out when watching the live footage, before he could be programmed.

I am quite positive they were told to forget about it (Mockingbird) as it was, and always will be, problematic to the OS.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Well, let me respond..

1. Nope. Not even close.
2. Nope. Not even close.
3. Nope. Not even close. If anything your posts prove that you never look at anything outside of your conspiracy ideas...like, oh, the FACTS. There is page after page after page of facts and evidence that has been pointed out to you, and yet, you refuse to accept anything.

So, again.....

1.The NIST report, was an educated guess, based on limited photos of the building and the reports of the FDNY (and one, that a lot of us do not necessarily agree with)
2.The FDNY, reported heavy damage to 7, that pieces of it were falling off all afternoon, that they were measuring a slow movement to the South, and that, in their opinion, 7 was going to fall, all by itself.
3. The FDNY Chief has said on NUMEROUS occasions that "pulling it" refers to him pulling his men and women OUT of the area.
4. No evidence of demolition charges in the debris.
5. No visual evidence of the thousands of explosions that would have been present had the building been rigged.
6. No AUDIO evidence of the thousands of explosions that would have been present had the building been rigged.
7. No seismograph evidence of the thousands of explosions that would have been present had the building been rigged.

And yet, you still cling to "It was demolished" Larry Silverstein said "Pull it" ......etc......




top topics



 
71
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join