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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 6
160
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Yet you believe, among other things I'm sure, that there was a crashed airliner at the pentagon and in PA, that there was no molten metal at WTC, and that the damage observed was caused by office fires and gravity.

Gullible much?




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flesh699
Lol WTC 7 was two blocks away from the towers.


Factually wrong.
WTC7 was one building away from WTC1.


originally posted by: Flesh699
NO other buildings collapsed from "falling debris" besides that one.


Factually wrong.
The Marriott Hotel was cut IN HALF by the initial collapse of WTC1.
Prior to that collapse, firefighters climbed to the top of the Marriott Hotel and found the landing gear of the first plane, had landed on that roof, along with a lot of other debris and bodies of victims.


originally posted by: Flesh699
For MASSIVE amount of debris falling, I don't understand the magic of it skipping two city blocks and magically drilling WTC 7 at a perfect point to make it collapse.


As pointed out, it didn't "magically" do anything.
The planes impacted those buildings with tremendous force, and those buildings fell with even more force. Even in the video of the second impact you can clearly see large pieces of the plane/building being ejected from the structure. This was hundreds of feet up in the air, and easily meant that debris could easily be distributed over a large area. Again, this was before the collapse of those towers, and there was damage all around the complex.

We know that debris WAS ejected from the buildings over a large area, as seen by the damage to the various vehicles and other buildings all around the WTC complex both before and after the collapse of those towers.

In one video you can even clearly see a car engulfed in flames, caused by the initial impact of those buildings.


originally posted by: Flesh699
The real world doesn't work that way. There's very good reason when any news special speaks of 9/11 they DO NOT bring up Tower 7, at all. It defies common sense, and flies in the face of anyone with a brain between the eyeballs.


The world does work that way, the world DID work that way on that very day, for millions of people to see.

I have seen WTC7 mentioned repeatedly in various documentaries and special reports about the events of that day, but I can understand why some might not given that it was somewhat inconsequential to the massive devastation and loss of life in other parts of this event.

The only people who seem to think this is any way suspicious are those who insist that WTC7 is some kind of "smoking gun", when clearly everything about what happened to that building and the reasons for it collapsing have been thoroughly explained over and over and over again.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Yet you believe, among other things I'm sure, that there was a crashed airliner at the pentagon and in PA


Yes, unless you have EVIDENCE to prove otherwise.
And this evidence also needs to take into account the thousands of friends, family members and colleagues of those who were on the planes, the planes you seem to think never existed.

Please tell me where those people are, or explain to me how the big bad gubment can "manufacture" thousands of imaginary people - people who also happen to attend memorials at these locations to remember the people they lost on those planes every year.


originally posted by: Salander
that there was no molten metal at WTC


Yes, there was molten metal falling from one of the towers, or at least that's what it appears to be.
Here's the problem though, that's Aluminium, not molten steel.
The only reason people seem to think it's molten steel is that some conspiracy theorist once claimed that molten Aluminium doesn't glow orange. That's actually a blatant lie, it certainly does glow orange, and it does so at the same range of temperature the fires in those buildings were estimated to be!


originally posted by: Salander
and that the damage observed was caused by office fires and gravity.


The damage was caused by two jet liners loaded with fuel slamming into those towers.
The fire and the damage to the CORE STRUCTURE of that building led to its collapse.
The floors in that building were NOT designed to withstand those forces, no matter how many times you people want to gloss over that reality.
When you have 10,000 tonnes of steel and concrete landing on a steel and concrete floor only designed to hold up 1,000 tonnes, it will collapse!


originally posted by: Salander
Gullible much?


Yes, you really are.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
actually wt7 was a controlled demo after the firemen left the building. Remember the phrase"pull it"? They were telling them pull the fire support out to allow for the demo by blowing the main supports.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Flesh699
Lol WTC 7 was two blocks away from the towers.


Factually wrong.
WTC7 was one building away from WTC1.



You may want to check your own facts.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
actually wt7 was a controlled demo after the firemen left the building. Remember the phrase"pull it"? They were telling them pull the fire support out to allow for the demo by blowing the main supports.


Are you actually going to offer any evidence for this belief, or just state your conspiracy theory as being entirely true and expect all to just accept it?



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
There is no doubt that many of you truly believe what you believe, and it's almost understandable that you would do so when the information you have been given has been presented in the way it has, with so little to presented to combat it.

However, there is a scientific explanation for everything, and reaching further and further into the realms of fiction to support something that has been disproved is not logical.

An intelligent person changes their beliefs or opinions when given new information. Weaving another level of fiction into your beliefs to maintain the thing now proven to be wrong is not the behaviour of an intelligent person seeking the truth.

You cannot claim to want to know the truth when you absolutely reject the evidence and continue to repeat the same things over and over again, when they have clearly been debunked.

I'm still waiting to see the evidence for what you believe



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

So who should I believe....you or these guys?

patriotsquestion911.com...

What are your credentials?



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
So.. if that building had not received initial damage from the towers, and they had supposedly pre-wired this building for demolition.. what where they going to do? Still destroy it? Or were they just sort of hoping it would receive some damage, so they could then destroy it? Seems like a very weak plan. But not much less weak than the other ridiculous ideas I've heard, such as... people knocked down light poles near the Pentagon to make it look like the plane (which apparently did not exist.. or was a military plane.. or was a rocket) had cut them down.

What is ironic is that there are multiple "explanations" of what "really happened," in regards to 9/11 - and they are all supposedly rock-solid and thoroughly and exhaustively researched. Yet obviously they are not all correct. How many sleuthing individuals or groups for example, came up with completely different stories for the different events of that day? And they are all so very sure they are correct.

So what did happen at the Pentagon? No plane? Military jet? Explosion? Flyby? Kind of hard to take folks seriously when they come up with so many alternate "facts" about the events that day.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




You, on the other hand, believe a fanciful tale of what happened because you distrust those telling you. That's it, that's all, even in the face of all the actual evidence, and even when you can offer absolutely no scientific information to support your claim and discredit the science already offered to support what actually happened, you will actively believe the most unlikely theories, instead of the proven events - because you have "suspicions".


Yes, completely unfounded suspicions.



So how is it you can defend these, what clearly amount to
nothing more than high dollar criminals and murderers with
such diligence? As if they're totally innocent? How many people
do you have to hear say, "There were bombs in the towers"?

I don't understand how you can think the OS is even worth
defending. You just expect people to believe what they're
told is the truth, even tho it has never in history
looked more like lie? In fact if it were the truth? No way
would it look so much like BS to so many.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: yuppa
actually wt7 was a controlled demo after the firemen left the building. Remember the phrase"pull it"? They were telling them pull the fire support out to allow for the demo by blowing the main supports.


Are you actually going to offer any evidence for this belief, or just state your conspiracy theory as being entirely true and expect all to just accept it?


HAve you seen a controlled demo? I assume yes. Have you seen one with just the supports blew out alone? It looks a little different and its rougher. Wt7's supports were already compromised and it didnt take much to bring it down. There was a audio recording of the men in charge saying "pull it" referring to the firemen trying to save the building. You can google this yourself.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
There are some extremely childish people om this thread highjacking it with pictures of flying cats and the like. This is a serious discussion forum not a kids playground. Those claiming that there are no experts on the thruthers side are making # up. Couple months ago close to me at the Delft (Netherlands) technical university there was a conference on 9/11. An university that on its level is among the best in the world. First ridiculed and almost banned because 'unscientific' they still did it and it was filled to the brim. People that were sceptical of the thruthers were asked to ask their critical questions to the ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND SCIENTISTS there. Needless to say, the only haters left were the ones that did not attend and did not ask questions. Its funny to see the same type of people here claiming everyone questioning the official story is crazy and or stupid, ignoring the fact that they too arent experts. Great thread by the way.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: Rocker2013



This cat?
It must be true!


originally posted by: In4ormant
It was the stealth drone cats


originally posted by: In4ormant
They have be militarized!!! Haliburton!!! FEMA! PTA!


Someone PLEASE start the flying cat conspiracy thread. I'm just too lazy. We can make all kinds of connections


originally posted by: In4ormant

What are you even doing here mate? You're beyond ridiculous and obviously just here to derail, so buzz off and let the adults talk if you're not mature enough to participate. You posted the dead horse meme in the last 9/11 thread too yet here you are.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

Its hard to give a solid explanation because the us gov. destroyed a lot of evidence and confiscated a massive amount of camera footage, only releasing a single 3 frame video of a blurry black thing striking the pentagon. Why they wont release more eventhough there are many calls for it is ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Rocker2013

So who should I believe....you or these guys?

patriotsquestion911.com...

What are your credentials?


Ah, lets have a look, shall we?

The page states the following:



More than 1,400 engineers and architects have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11.


Note a couple of things here? 1,400 people have criticized the report. That doesn't mean they have submitted themselves to being "truthers" and deny what happened that day, it says they CRITICIZED the report, meaning they said something critical of the report, that could be anything from criticizing the time it took to publish it to complaining about a grammatical error.

And to support this further, it then ADMITS that ONLY "several" out of 1,400 of those people actually believe your conspiracy theory!

Did you fail completely to read your own source?

Only several out of 1,400 people listed there as being Engineers and Architects for "truth" actually believes the conspiracy you claim they all believe!

And lets take a look at one of the leading lights of the group, shall we?

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect - The American Institute of Architects is an open organization with a paid membership, has disowned him and others. Fellow architects have refused to work with him.



The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.


Source

The AIA has had to repeatedly reject their involvement with any "truther" movement, after these people kept standing on podiums with their logo on it giving the impression that their theories were being endorsed by this organization.

So, do I trust the many hundreds upon thousands of architects and engineers who DON'T believe the bs, and trust the scientific findings supported by all available information, or do I believe a tiny bunch of radicals (only several amongst 1,400 named people) who seem to believe everything from space lazers being responsible to a new form of silent explosive being used (without leaving any evidence, and while bringing all those buildings down in a fashion entirely consistent with all recognized science)?

Yeah, I think I know who I trust more.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

So you now claim that because the FBI faced criticism for not being able to stop a bombing, this means you have reason to suspect that they murdered 3,000 people using a new silent form of explosive which leaves no trace, after flying two passenger jets into the towers, and then demolishing a building they didn't need to demolish (again using a new form of silent explosives which leave no trace)...

And all because they wanted to create a pretext for war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The FBI, wanting an excuse to go to war...

So basically, when all of your supposed "evidence" is debunked, you then resort to saying "yeah, well why should we trust them!?"

And that's supposed to convince us all that these people murdered 3,000 innocent people in the most elaborate and implausible false flag attack the world has ever witnessed...



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
I remember hearing a longer version of Sliverstein speaking about this many years ago.


Pull it implies there are already mechanisms in place to collapse the building. Question is did the fire chief know or did Silverstein just word it that way cause it seemed to me it was his (silverstein's) suggestion

you tube

Apologies, tried to embed but has been a few years and guess things have changed.



Here's your video.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
HAve you seen a controlled demo? I assume yes.


Yes I have, have you?


originally posted by: yuppa
Have you seen one with just the supports blew out alone? It looks a little different and its rougher.


I can't say I've bothered to investigate the various differing forms of demolition using explosives, but then I've never needed to.
The fact remains, there were no detonations in that building or around that building, nor any other buildings in New York on that day.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this, the witnesses there didn't hear these supposed detonations, we cannot hear them in the videos, we cannot see evidence of them in the videos.


originally posted by: yuppa
Wt7's supports were already compromised and it didnt take much to bring it down.


Exactly! Are you finally admitting that WT7 was damaged and its structure weakened by debris and fire?
Good, then we're finally getting somewhere!
Indeed the building was significantly damaged and weakened by the fire raging out of control at the most vulnerable side of that building.

Yes, it collapsed not because of magical silent detonations secretly planted within the building before the event, nor placed there during the event. It collapsed because the supporting structure of that building was significantly damaged.


originally posted by: yuppa
There was a audio recording of the men in charge saying "pull it" referring to the firemen trying to save the building. You can google this yourself.


No, factually wrong yet again.
There are two instances of this term being used in relation to 9/11.
One was from Silverstein in a documentary where he was explaining that "pull it" meant to remove the firefighters from the building and stop attempts to save it from collapse. They knew that the building was extremely dangerous and he no longer wanted people to risk their lives trying to save that building.

The second instance was from the cleaning up of the WTC site in DECEMBER of that year, and it was with the workers attempting to bring down the remains of BUILDING 6, not WTC7, and the use of "pull it" was referring to the CABLES they were using to PULL DOWN the remains of that building.

Alex Jones did a nice little bit of manipulation on that one, first making the entirely fictitious claim that "pull it" said by Silverstein was about demolition with explosives, then using his own bs misrepresenting the second use of the term without pointing out that they were actually using CABLES to take down WTC6 three months after the attacks.
edit on 28-7-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: mymojo
Im a civil engineer, and havr a PE in New York.

Yes, WTC 7 came down by controlled demolition, and the towers came down by advanced nuclear weaponry..

Please google RICH SHERIDAN APFN 911

Thanks.


If you're a civil engineer and you believe that was a controlled demolition, then you need to be fired and replaced with someone who understands SCIENCE.

Just like all those "architects" who fail to understand the weakening point of steel, or the method of construction used in the towers, or the time line of the collapse of WT7 - they should all be fired too because such a ridiculous belief and refusal to accept reality calls into question their competence in their field.

But, I don't believe for one moment that you are actually a civil engineer.

This guy, Danny Jowenko R.I.P. was adamant about WTC7 being a controlled explosion demolition, and he was an expert, and no, contrary to some disinfo individuals output, he never changed his mind,




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I have to say guys, my opinions on the whole "truther" movement have been changed during the course of this thread.

I did start out thinking that those who believed the conspiracy were deluded and befuddled, but now I honestly believe that most of you only believe what you believe because you've believed something said in a YouTube video, and not bothered to look at any alternative explanation for yourself.

This information is all freely available out there, all these aspects have been repeatedly debunked and explained, but while you keep telling us to go and Google things and accept them as being true, you haven't been doing any research on your own to get a scientific understanding of what actually happened.

You tell me to go and Google something, I do, and then I find just as many scientific and logical explanations for what happened amongst your links supporting your theory. So, assuming you have Googled these things too, why are you actively refusing the scientific explanations for these events, based in actual evidence, and instead choosing the conspiracy theory presented to you with no evidence, no scientific reasoning, and extremely biased and manipulated media?



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join