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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 14
135
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

That's why Flight 93 was headed towards DC. It was aimed for NYC. Riiiiight.




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Show me the study with regards to the complete collapse of the core-columns and I will keep my mouth shut. There is nothing to discuss if you can't, which you don't. As there is none.

Move on, nothing to see here.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Xcathdra

Show me the study with regards to the complete collapse of the core-columns and I will keep my mouth shut. There is nothing to discuss if you can't, which you don't. As there is none.

Move on, nothing to see here.


It has been shown. You refuse to accept it.

twin towers
edit on 1-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: PublicOpinion

A wwII bomber and 707 cant be compared to the aorcrafts in question or their speeds on impact.

In the scenarios you mention the aircraft are considered to be traveling at normal speed with a level hit coupled with a flight crew that would be trying to avoid and not intentionally crash at high speed.


Yes yes we all know the line

When looking into 9/11 NOTHING can be compared

Not other planes not other buildings not other fires not other collapses

9/11 must be studied in a vacuum (in order for the os to makes sense)

Gtfo with that nonsense
edit on am720153109America/ChicagoWed, 01 Jul 2015 09:44:45 -0500_7000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Anyone that believes jet fuel caused building 7 to collapse I have a space bridge to the moon to sell you at a discount price.


Nobody believes that. You've also misunderstood what happened. Carry on though.


I wouldnt be suprised if many did believe that nonsense. Americans will believe anything, you say it we will believe it!
1/4th of my fellow Americans believe the sun goes around the earth, I dont expect too much from the people of my country. That way im not very dissapointed with the people. They arent the brightest, nor the sharpest, but they may be the coolest which may mean something to someone somewhere just not here LOL.






You made that claim. Don't go blaming 25% of your countrymen for your ignorance. You. Nobody else.


Edit
It occurs to me that you may be making the point I'm making. If you are saying jet fuel wasn't solely responsible then I apologise for my harsh language. If you have a reasoned and rational excuse that accounts for structures and materials and actual proper science then I apologise.
edit on 1-7-2015 by scottyirnbru because: May have misunderstood the point.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

We only got as far as the 'engine core.'

WRONG TYPE OF ENGINE!



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Show me where I did refuse to look at your facts? Don't be disingenuous just because you can't find anything. On which page of the NIST-report can we find this study regarding the core-collapse?

PS: leave me alone with your 'debunker'-blogs.
edit on 1-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: debunked



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Then show me a comparison.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The core collapsed. The building design had no reinforced core. Check the link as well as impact section.

ETA no i dont think i will leave u alone. Dismissing info that doesnt support the bs conspiracy theory is the problem.
edit on 1-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut




Gtfo with that nonsense



Hahaha, reading my thoughts? Shhh... must be a magician, maybe even a heretic. Build the bonfire!!!




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Another_Nut




Gtfo with that nonsense



Hahaha, reading my thoughts? Shhh... must be a magician, maybe even a heretic. Build the bonfire!!!



Ah yes the typical "you cant refute the facts so you attack the poster" method.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




The core collapsed. The building design had no reinforced core.


Yeah I know. The structural engineers where nuts and they didn't built the towers like they ought to do.

Nice claim, no evidence so far. Conspiracy-theorist, you want us to believe they intended to kill us all with a crappy building? You don't happen to have a real source for this, do you? Skunk-works would be fine for your theory, but I couldn't care less.
edit on 1-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

My link used the nist report.

Like i said... so desperate to believe the comspiracy you intentionally ignore facts that dont support your theory.

Oh well.. you can lead a horse to water....



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't care what this 'debunkers' use, I don't give them my clicks. On which page of the NIST-report may I find the study regarding the core now? Call me a horse again and I show you how to ride.



Ah yes the typical "you cant refute the facts so you attack the poster" method.


Actually I did attack the poster who said you were writing nonsense. And he was right, that's why we need a bonfire now - just another heretic on board. You will need lots of jet-fuel now, take care.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: blondegiraffe

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

Wouldn't hurt to also check out other buildings that have been struck by aircraft and the damages they suffered.



so i did that the other day, because i was interested in the small plane that crashed into that family's house in massachusetts. and there are a lot of small planes that have crashed into regular houses. maybe i am nuts, but you figure that houses are not made with steel columns, so they should probably suffer more damage than the Towers, even though they are being hit by a small plane rather than commercial jet. i guess you can say maybe the fires in the Towers were more out of control because firefighters couldn't get up there to fight them. but even with the gaping holes in the side of the Towers, they looked so stable. i think they all were controlled. but 7 especially. it was not structurally sound, so they demolished it to make sure it wouldn't go down unexpectedly and injure more people. hope i did the quote thing right, never done it before.

no they weren't there were some firefighter that reached the 78th floor and had a plan to put the fires out based on the fact the fires were not out of control and rescue survivors until the secondary explosions went off.


For months, senior officials believed that firefighters had gone no higher than about the 50th floor in each tower, well below most damage. The transmissions from Chief Palmer and others reveal a startling achievement: firefighters in the south tower actually reached a floor struck by the second hijacked airplane. Once they got there, they had a coherent plan for putting out the fires they could see and helping victims who survived.



About 14 or 15 minutes before the south tower collapsed, a group of people who had survived the plane's impact began their descent from the 78th floor. As they departed, Chief Palmer sent word to Chief Edward Geraghty that a group of 10 people, with a number of injuries, were heading to an elevator on the 41st floor. That elevator was the only one working after the plane hit. On its last trip down, however, the car became stuck in the shaft. Inside the elevator was a firefighter from Ladder 15, who reported that he was trying to break open the walls. It is not clear whether the group of 10 had reached that elevator before it left the 41st floor but those who listened to the tape said it was most unlikely that they had enough time to escape, by the elevator or by stairs.


lost voices of firefighters



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


I suggest YOU listen again he said they decided to PULL not PULL IT , it was to PULL firemen etc away from the building!

Also the claims by FETZER with a PH d IN PHILOSOPHY
just fkn
what does he know about construction not a lot going by his STUPID CLAIMS!

The concrete in the towers was 4.5 " thick on the tin sheeting it was FLOORING GRADE not structural also the dust cloud was NOT just concrete as HE implied , it was concrete, sheetrock (thousands of m2), paint,the sprayed on fire protection, vermiculite from behind cladding panels,dust from uncleaned areas and even GLASS.

Also his CLAIM that the TOWERS were brought done only by fire is false because as we know the Towers had structural damage then increased thermal loading due to the heat.

The above is yet ANOTHER classic example of a truther looking at each event in isolation.

He should obviously stick to Philosophy



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

You decided to call me truther, then I decide to call you a liar.

It looks like a controlled demo and he said they pulled it. He didn't say to pull them (the firemen) of, did he?
Listen again:



You know the difference, my dear weapon of mass deflection. Do you?
And by the way... did you see the missing study regarding the core-collapse of those two WTC-buildings?

edit on 1-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: sticky fingers



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I keep hearing this argument about how the towers were "so damaged by the planes impact".

Fine. Okay. Simple question. WTC 1 was hit on the 92nd to 98th floors. How did that plane crash bring down the other 91 floors? How did ALL of the center columns fail.. for 91 floors?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: thorfourwinds
a reply to: waypastvne

We only got as far as the 'engine core.'

WRONG TYPE OF ENGINE!



The engine found on Church and Murray was a JT9D-7R4D which is the correct engine. Do you have any evidence that proves otherwise.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: redtic
a reply to: Shadow Herder

So, Mr Silverstein, in the middle of an interview on 9/11, for which I assume he knows he's being filmed, "lets slip" the fact that he ordered the controlled demolition of WTC7 and was complicit in the perpetration .



This man witnessed it in person as well. He says that Larry Silverstein says " Building 7 was a controlled demoltion". The building was damaged. So damaged and for safety reasons they brought it down. There was no water available and the WTC 7 was evacuated by 10am.


OK, so we have a, what I assume to be, well educated businessman openly and casually admitting during a documentary that he committed a rather serious crime and some other somewhat random person providing second-hand hearsay many years later that he heard said businessman saying it was a controlled demolition. That's solid proof if I've ever heard it. So does all common sense, ration thought and reason fly out the window when you are trying to fit evidence to something you believe? In many ways, or at least in this way, conspiracy theory is often like a religion.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join