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.

 

Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court, March 2015

page: 5
117
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Watching the building go into a freefall like that is exactly what a controlled demolition looks like....... if it was a controlled demolition


Except for the man months of work required to wire a building up, with no one noticing the tonnes of explosives or km of wire, or the holes bashed in the walls, then there are the silent explosives that they used, as no one heard tonnes of explosives going off, then they also used blast free explosives, as no one saw windows being blown out by the tonnes of explosives used...

Also they would have found all of those tonnes of explosives and km of wire if they could not have set it off, as the only reason it collapsed was it was severely damaged by the collapse of WTC1 and the fires...

Also how do you explain the building leaning and the FDNY having a transit on the building watching it lean.... this is before your magical explosives were set off, remember....

So when you look at the claim it was wired and fired for demolition you really see what a silly idea that was!



Absolutely true if you want to bring the building down in a perfectly controlled manner minimising the debris field and having the building collapse in such a way that makes the clean up easier and more efficient. Now how much planning and prep would be required to bring the building down in a not so perfect demolition where you don't need to take into consideration the surrounding structures and size of the debris field?




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: oddnutz
Now how much planning and prep would be required to bring the building down in a not so perfect demolition where you don't need to take into consideration the surrounding structures and size of the debris field?


About the same length of time - remember all the "explosives" were hidden,and all the wires were also hidden....



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
And yet, once again, not one single shred of proof that explosives were used.

The first page of this thread is filled with members claims of obvious 'demolition' and again something called nano thermite…

Its an acceptable term in the fold, one that requires little scientific proof, because the mere mention of the term causes ignorant people to shudder.

Awww, the must have been how they did it.

Confirmed!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I wouldn't be too surprised if the group that took over the plane that hit the pentagon was meant for building 7.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ObjectZero
I wouldn't be too surprised if the group that took over the plane that hit the pentagon was meant for building 7.


Well, they do look identical, and are right next door to each other.... so the hijackers just got confused and hit the wrong building!

Truthers constantly surprise you, every time they make a silly statement (like explosives at the WTC) you do not think they can get any sillier, but along comes another one with a even sillier statement!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
And yet, once again, not one single shred of proof that explosives were used.


The evidence?

The evidence is by watching the video of Building 7 collapse. It collapsed at free fall speed. Steel structured buildings do not collapse at free fall speed due to being hit by debris or by office fires. That is a fact and still is, otherwise two thousand proffesional architects and engineers wouldn't have signed a petition for a new investigation.

You cannot argue against the law of physics.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology
The evidence?

The evidence is by watching the video of Building 7 collapse.


So no evidence of explosives at all....

No blast wave from explosives going off - check.
no windows being blown out by the blast - check.
no one in the building noticing tonnes of explosives - check.
no one in the building noticing km of wire to wire the explosives up - check.
no one in the building noticing holes knocked in the walls for the explosives - check.
no one in the building noticing all the men carrying the tonnes of explosives, the km of wire into the building - check.
no one in the building noticing men knocking holes in the walls for the explosives - check.
no one in the building noticing even noticing egg timers on the walls - check.
no one during the clean up noticing the km of wire used, the hundreds of blasting caps used, the explosives that did not go off - check.
no one during the cleanup noticed the damage done by the tonnes of explosives - check.

But by watching a video you know explosives were used....



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Debunkology

Heres some more "evidence" for you, Newton.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

But, weren't there testimonies of people saying that they heard explosions before the building collapsed?

Also, you don't need that many explosives. All you need is a couple of explosives that would damage the foundations of a building enough for it to go down...

In my opinion, I don't know how can a building collapse due to fire on a couple of floors and a plane wrecks that hit the upper levels of building.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Most of them couldn't describe what they see in this pic…




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: hellobruce

But, weren't there testimonies of people saying that they heard explosions before the building collapsed? o


They heard loud noises, as expected after a plane hits a building with large fires....


Also, you don't need that many explosives. All you need is a couple of explosives that would damage the foundations of a building enough for it to go down...


Except if you had watched a video of the buildings collapsing you would have seen none of the collapses started at the foundations....



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hellobruce

Most of them couldn't describe what they see in this pic…



As you can clearly see it would be so easy for people working in the building to miss....



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Debunkology
The evidence?

The evidence is by watching the video of Building 7 collapse.


So no evidence of explosives at all....

No blast wave from explosives going off - check.
no windows being blown out by the blast - check.
no one in the building noticing tonnes of explosives - check.
no one in the building noticing km of wire to wire the explosives up - check.
no one in the building noticing holes knocked in the walls for the explosives - check.
no one in the building noticing all the men carrying the tonnes of explosives, the km of wire into the building - check.
no one in the building noticing men knocking holes in the walls for the explosives - check.
no one in the building noticing even noticing egg timers on the walls - check.
no one during the clean up noticing the km of wire used, the hundreds of blasting caps used, the explosives that did not go off - check.
no one during the cleanup noticed the damage done by the tonnes of explosives - check.

But by watching a video you know explosives were used....



Interesting, just by watching a video of Building 7 collapse you gather......

no one in the building noticing "insert whatever crap you want to say".....

Very funny.

Yet you say all that and fail to notice one important thing.

A 47 storey steel structured building fell within it's own footprint at free-fall-speed.

That is a fact, rather than "no one noticing". There were people who did notice strange things on 9/11 ironically. A guy who worked in the building noticed that security was down for days, which he said was unbelievable at the time. One example.

Like I said. You cannot argue against the laws of physics. Otherwise 2 and half thousand architects and engineers wouldn't have signed a petition asking for a proper independent investigation.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I suggest you watch this video....

www.c-span.org.../washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


As you can clearly see it would be so easy for people working in the building to miss….

Must be they did all that work the morning of 911 (rolls eyes).

I'd like to also see any pics of leftover shock tube. Would be hard to miss, all brightly color-coded as it is…

Controlled 'footy print' demo requires it.

and even if they could produce that evidence, so what? The conclusion that the government used 911 to start wars the world over is a forgone conclusion.

Burying ones head in the rubble is the distraction. The ostriches with their heads buried are the real shills. (did I really just use that word).
edit on 20-3-2015 by intrptr because: image



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology
A 47 storey steel structured building fell within it's own footprint


More nonsense from you, it did not fall into its own footprint, that is just a truther lie. How do you explain the damage to

When the first 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.[52] .... The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center,


so it did not collapse "into its own footprint like you claimed.

also

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might cave to one side or "collapse".[38] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building and issued uncertain reports about damage in the basement


so your "explosives" caused a bulge, also caused the building to creak....


at free-fall-speed.



From collapse timing measurements taken from a video of the north face of the building, NIST observed that the building's exterior facade fell at free fall acceleration through a distance of approximately 8 stories (32 meters, or 105 feet), noting "the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent."[82] The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[31]


that was the exterior face falling at free fall speed....


That is a fact,


No it is not, as I just showed. Just more truther made up stories, without valid sources!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology
I suggest you watch this video....


This video better shows Gage's con


edit on 20-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hellobruce


As you can clearly see it would be so easy for people working in the building to miss….

Must be they did all that work the morning of 911 (rolls eyes).



Scott Forbes (A Brit) worked at the South Tower before 9/11. He said three weeks prior to 9/11 he was given notice that there would be a power down on the Saturday and Sunday before 9/11. This was unprecedented. All systems down.

He given interviews about this and it's there on youtube to see.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology
Scott Forbes (A Brit) worked at the South Tower before 9/11. He said three weeks prior to 9/11 he was given notice that there would be a power down on the Saturday and Sunday before 9/11. This was unprecedented. All systems down.


That may have been his floor, but not for the whole building....

www.911myths.com...


#1, the most commonly used claims - power completely down across the building, many engineers coming in and out of the building - are sourced only to a Scott Forbes.



Even Forbes' own claims seem less definitive in other interviews: GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor? SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...


so for his floor....
also


Forbes tells us “the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001” (see point 5 below), yet it appears it was still business as usual for visitors heading to the top of the tower.


check the ticket out....


#4, even if all this were true, it still only provided access to half of one tower. What about the North Tower? WTC7? No mention of "power downs" there.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Debunkology

I believe you. Thats when they did the structural analysis. You must understand that rigging a building with explosives to collapse is an extremely invasive, time consuming, major project.

it is impossible to hide that 'in the walls'.

But if you want "impact" look at the planes. Short of a nuke, hella biggest guided missile, ever.



new topics

top topics



 
117
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join