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: 20
135
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
there is a massive beam, pointing rigidly into the air, then somehow it - pulverises.


No it does not, it simply drops and the dust from the collapse of South Tower that had settled on it remains in the air.


I fail to see how any other explanation other than 'additional energy' could have created this effect. Do you?


Yes, as it just drops why is there any need for additional energy?




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Kratos40

I believe that 100%. Nothing has been worth a damn since 911. Things rapidly went down hill all the way to 2008 when the economy had its own controlled demolition and crumbled into a pile of rubble and dust.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Voyager1



Nothing has been worth a damn since 911


Nothing?

en.wikipedia.org...

911 was the best excuse for military spending ever. All hail to the booming mil.-ind. complex, please!
edit on 3-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru




As I said, his thread is hilarious.


Actually it is. We have some folks here, who believe a single statement from a retired COD is somehow representative for the entire NYFD and we even have some very clever guys on board, who don't care about the premise of this thread and demand some 'answers' to their (completely off-topic) 'questions'. Is this the only 9/11-thread you have, did people make fun of you in all the others?

Well, you are not satisfied so far? What a pitty. That's hilarious indeed!
edit on 3-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: scottyirnbru




As I said, his thread is hilarious.


Actually it is. We have some folks here, who believe a single statement from a retired COD is somehow representative for the entire NYFD and we even have some very clever guys on board, who don't care about the premise of this thread and demand some 'answers' to their (completely off-topic) 'questions'. Is this the only 9/11-thread you have, did people make fun of you in all the others?

Well, you are not satisfied so far? What a pitty. That's hilarious indeed!


You agree with me?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: scottyirnbru




As I said, his thread is hilarious.


Actually it is. We have some folks here, who believe a single statement from a retired COD is somehow representative for the entire NYFD and we even have some very clever guys on board, who don't care about the premise of this thread and demand some 'answers' to their (completely off-topic) 'questions'. Is this the only 9/11-thread you have, did people make fun of you in all the others?

Well, you are not satisfied so far? What a pitty. That's hilarious indeed!


And yet the others have only an out of context youtube video. The thread started off with a person claiming that wtc7 was clearly a demolition job. It revolved around some youtube clips and quote from the owner. It ignores the obvious problem that this theory poses. Who planted these explosives to bring down the tower? When did they do? How many people needed to be involved? What would Silverstein have done if wtc7 hadn't been damaged by falling debris and caught fire?

Chuckle away mate.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Well, first, it is the FDNY. Second, he is acknowledged as the man who become the on scene commander that day. Third, there are several other statements by members of the FDNY affirming that. In otherwards, we STILL have more evidence and facts to back us up than the "supermen flew in and wired the building in record time" crowd have to back up their theories.



edit on 3-7-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: spelling fix



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru




It ignores the obvious problem that this theory poses


That's your take on it, mate. But it actually just throws up another question.

You just don't seem to realise the problems, the NIST-report quite obviously creates. The OT is bliss, I guess.
Now go ahead and show me the study regarding the complete destruction of the cores. That's one of those problems you 'somehow' forgot to mention so far.

Chuckle away, eh? Sure.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




we STILL have more evidence and facts


Nope, you don't. Where is the scientific study to explain the vanishing cores?
You folks actually think TNT and never imagined the use of more sophisticated charges.

State of the art, eh? Ask your retired COD if he knows something about military grade explosives, I think we might actually get somewhere if you would do so.

I can show you lots of videos full of NYFD-servicemen, who claimed to be witness to explosions. But ... who cares, you even try to marginalise all those statements.

Well.. ok then. I think I'm supposed to call that decency after all, eh?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The problem is when LARGE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS FAIL they make LOTS of noise add in the confusion and events of the day and guess what evey loud noise is called an explosion.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Um, no, WE understand that the NIST report has always been an educated guess. WTC 7 did not have data recorders, did not have sensors, there was nothing to show the exact sequence of events inside the building before/during the collapse. What they have are relatively few photos, some videos, and the witness testimony of the damage that the building had suffered. So, they studied that, and came up with the most likely theory, because to date, no one has found ANY evidence of ANY kind that would lead them to think there was any kind of demolition rig in the building.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Military grade explosives? Well, NOW you are starting to get into MY former career..... helping cause things to go boom. So, nope, even then no super duper top secret hush a boom explosives to do what you think happened that day exist.

Not to mention as WMD pointed out...hearing "boom" during a fire, does not mean there was a bomb. If you take the audio of a paint storage locker, a controlled detonation, and a steel structure giving way under stress, 99% of people are not going to be able to tell the difference. So yeah, firemen heard some explosions that day.....electrical panels, lighting, chemical storage, severed gas lines.....those are expected in every mass conflag. Still does not come NEAR the boom boom boom boom boom x1000 that you hear during a building controlled demolition.


edit on 3-7-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




WTC 7 did not have data recorders, did not have sensors, there was nothing to show the exact sequence of events inside the building before/during the collapse.


But your 'educated guess' suggests, that one column failed and thus the whole building collapsed as we have seen in the OP. That's what I would consider an epic fail, just like the lack of any study regarding the cores.

I see no reason to discuss this further. It's just hilarious.


edit on 3-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




So, nope, even then no super duper top secret hush a boom explosives to do what you think happened that day exist.


Sure. There never has been any thermite on this world.



firemen heard some explosions that day


... but all of you know what they've heard as you were there as well. Rabulisticly hilarious indeed.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Ah yes, the old standby, thermite. Epic fail on your part. For thinking thermite would be a good choice and that not really understanding the substance.

Actually yeah, I've talked to a few of the firefighters. They don't think there were bombs that day.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Hot Spots still smoldering taken from space October 8, 2001


Hot Spots


Notice all 3 buildings have similar heat signatures almost a month later, remember firemen working on the site saying they saw molten metal running weeks after.

Why is the WTC7 site just as hot as WTC 1 & 2 almost a month later ?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Fires in the bottom of the debris piles. Each building was full of burnable items of which, a lot ended up IN the bottom of the piles. And yes, I do remember statements being made about molten metals....plenty of aluminum, copper, zinc etc in the construction of the buildings and all of them melt at a relatively low temp. So yes, entirely possible to find molten metals that have an underground fire heating them. And no, thermite would not cause that.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




And no, thermite would not cause that.


You don't happen to have any proof for your claim, do you? Thought so...



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
No it does not, it simply drops and the dust from the collapse of South Tower that had settled on it remains in the air.


Sounds like a fair explanation. But check out these images again:



See how the beam seems to lean over to the left - where a bunch of other beams can be seen? So, if your theory was correct, wouldn't you not have expected to see that beam continue its 'fall' to the left? So, wouldn't you agree that the beam should show up in the next frame like a giant backslash, then falling over faster and faster and probably then ending up lying horizontally on the ground? Instead it magically disappears VERTICALLY. Also, where did the (much shorter, hence more resilient) beams to it's left go, actually? Did all these beams sink into the ground somehow?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I want to post something another ATS poster said



Something is really wrong, no doubt about it. At first I started really looking deep into 9/11 since all of these new rules had started because of that day, it seemed really quite shady to me. After very many long hours went in to researching it, I have concluded that there are WAY too many things about that day that don’t add up. Do I claim to know who was really behind it, or all the reasons why? No. But I can conclude that there are more questions than answers, and the 9/11 commission report and the government backed NIST did a piss poor job of explaining it. That’s just the entrance to the rabbit hole and doesn’t even require a “conspiracy theorist” to say it.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join