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: 63
160
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Question: Are all five hundred eyewitness lairs? If so I want to see your evidence? I will stay on this question until you answer it.




Let's just say that they were mistaken. Facts and evidence overrules conflicting eyewitnesses accounts. Case in point.


Mistaken? So you are saying they are all lairs?

Question: Where you there in NYC at the WTC on 911?




posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Now prove all the science is wrong from A&E?


That is very simple.



AE 911 Truth
KEY EVIDENCE

* Rapid onset of destruction,
* Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,


None of the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed nor even near free fall speed. Case in point, is this photo where debris is outpacing the collapse of this WTC building.

Photo: Proof WTC Buildng Not Falling at Free Fall Speed





* Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,


Question, How many of the 118 FDNY personnel have said the explosions they heard were from bombs? Now, let's continue with these videos.







* Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,


Have them explain why explosives failed to throw these steel columns anywhere.

Photo 1: WTC1 Steel Columns Standing in Huge Bomb Crater

Photo 2: Bombed Building Standing Without Walls

Photo 3: Bombed Building Remained Standing

Now, a science lesson for A&E. If explosives are not attached to a steel column, the blast waves will flow around the steel column like wind flowing around a flag pole.


* Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,


Have A&E explain what is generating the dust as these buildings collapse.





* Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”


A high school science book can provide an answer to that and it is simple. What is causing ejections from this building?

Photo: Verinage Demolition


* Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,


What caused this 21-story steel frame building to collapse? Hint: it had nothing to do with explosives.

Photo: 21-Story Steel Frame Building Collapse


* Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,


There was never pools of molten steel/iron. Now, another science lesson for A&E.



Iron Burns

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation.

That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

www.debunking911.com...




* Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,


Let's take a look at their evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams

Photo 1: A&E Evidence of thermite cuts on steel beams

Photo 2: A&E evidence of thermite cuts on steel beams

Photo 3: A&E evidence of thermite cuts on steel beams

Now, for the rest of the story and fast-forward to time line 1:20 in the video.



Seems to me that the folks at A&E were unaware of what I have just presented to them, which makes them nothing more than a group of armchair experts.

edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

No you missed the point in full...



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   


None of the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed nor even near free fall speed. Case in point, is this photo where debris is outpacing the collapse of this WTC building.


This is such a lame argument, so it did not fall at free fall but 95% of free fall whats the difference, they came down fast.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Mistaken? So you are saying they are all lairs?

Question: Where you there in NYC at the WTC on 911?


Still waiting for your answer?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



This is such a lame argument, so it did not fall at free fall but 95% of free fall whats the difference, they came down fast.


In this photo, it is evident that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the WTC collapse and since debris are outpacing the collapse of that building, then all it takes is common sense to understand that the building is not falling at free fall speed.

Photo: Proof, No Free Fall Speed Collapse
edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It is all very simple: They heard explosions, but nothing to do with explosives.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



Mistaken? So you are saying they are all lairs?

Question: Where you there in NYC at the WTC on 911?


Still waiting for your answer?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   


In this photo, it is evident that debris are outpacing the WTC collapse and since debris are outpacing the collapse of that building, then all it take is common sense that the building is not falling at free fall speed.


That pretty much what I said, again whats the difference, there is none, get that NONE..



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Still waiting for your answer?


Which answer?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



That pretty much what I said, again whats the difference, there is none, get that NONE.


Tht won't fly. Since the debris are striking the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above the gound, indicates the buildings are not falling at free fall speed..
edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Question: Where you there in NYC at the WTC on 911?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

No, I was not there at that time, but what does that have to do with anything?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   


Tht won't fly. Since the debris are striking the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above the gound, indicates the buildings are not falling at free fall speed..


Over 100 feet of building per second, free fall or not whats the difference........



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


No, I was not there at that time, but what does that have to do with anything?


Thank you for answering my question.

It has a lot to do with your "opinions" of what five hundred eyewitness saw and heard at the WTC on the morning of 911.

You where not there.

These people that were at the WTC are very credible people. What I am trying to understand is why you dismiss all these credible people testimonies, as if they were never there?

Are you aware that the FBI hid their 500 testimonies and the NYT sued the state of NY to release their statements?
The reason these testimonies where hidden was because they did not support the OS.


Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers


The collapses of the Twin Towers were witnessed firsthand by scores of people, most of them emergency responders. The majority of those accounts have been suppressed by the state for years. In August of 2005, the New York Times published the single largest and most authoritative body of eyewitness evidence yet assembled, as a result of winning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 1 Another body of evidence, which we have yet to examine, is a set of recordings of calls processed by the 911 system on the day of 9/11/01 and released in 2006.


911research.wtc7.net...

I find this information very damming, and it does not support what the media told us. However it does support the scientific evidences of demolition of the WTC doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Are you aware that the FBI hid their 500 testimonies and the NYT sued the state of NY to release their statements?


Let's take a look at those 500. At what times did they hear those explosions? Now, what evidence can you provide that the explosions they heard were the result of explosives?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Let's take a look at those 500. At what times did they hear those explosions? Now, what evidence can you provide that the explosions they heard were the result of explosives?



I don't know, why don't you write them all a letter and ask them.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

I think you missed this video, so here it is again and please point out the time it took for each of those buildings to collapse.




posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

That might be a bit time consuming, but we can take a look here.



August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in "several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn" on 9/11. He says they did not show the "spikes" that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

Blanchard also takes aim at the claim that Building 7 of the WTC was demolished, writing: "Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

www.implosionworld.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers


The collapses of the Twin Towers were witnessed firsthand by scores of people, most of them emergency responders. The majority of those accounts have been suppressed by the state for years. In August of 2005, the New York Times published the single largest and most authoritative body of eyewitness evidence yet assembled, as a result of winning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 1 Another body of evidence, which we have yet to examine, is a set of recordings of calls processed by the 911 system on the day of 9/11/01 and released in 2006.


911research.wtc7.net...

So are all these credible people lairs?

Question: Why would all these creditable people lie? I would like an answer to this question.
edit on 29-9-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join