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: 7
160
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: smurfy

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,





Ah, I was waiting for him to be mentioned! Thanks


Once again, there's a lot of convenient editing and manipulation going on here.

In actual fact, he says that he's guessing about the cause of the collapse, and he was shown the footage from the point AFTER the penthouse had collapsed - which is a common tactic of the "truther", because to show that footage of the penthouse collapsing into the building (with no explosions) destroys their argument that the building collapsed free fall.

Ultimately, it looks as though he was presented with a bs video, manipulated to give a certain narrative, and came to a conclusion based on what he saw, just as you all have done.

He is not committed at all to this belief when he's told it happened on the same day, but he's one of those figures the truthers like to cling to for some validation by a professional.
edit on 28-7-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I try to keep and open mind. For one, thousands of people lost their lives that day, and their families changed forever, not only because they lost their loved ones but they lost their loved ones in a violent incident orcestrated by satan. Matters little if it was an inside job, or by the Islam radicals, there was evil behind it.

Anywho, things still aren't right with 9/11. I keep an open mind and I stay on the fence, but this picture below is the first in 14 years that has given me an "aha" moment. MAYBE, just maybe, these delicate towers really did fall by themselves unassisted:

Unsure of date, but this beautiful photograph was taken when the towers were still being worked on.
i.imgur.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Yeah bro,

You show me ANY evidence that a plane crashed in Shanksville, PA on that day.. A wing, a seat, a piece of luggage, even just ONE body, a leg, an arm, or any other piece that couldn't be easily confused with, I dunno, a small part from a missile.. You show me evidence other than what the Israeli owned American media fed us...

..and I've got a bridge to sell you

EVERY ground based plane crash leaves OBVIOUS, common sense based observable evidence.. Go take a look, do a little research, please. Find me a case of a disintegrated commercial airliner crash in a field.. Then question why we'd be lied to about it?

Building 7... Well, you could drop a commercial airliner directly on top of it from 1,000 feet and it still not going to collapse. Much less, ENTIRELY. Much less, IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT.. Much less, in less than 10 seconds..

America is definitely screwed, and if this is the amount of collective common sense we have left as a populace, than we may just deserve what is coming to us, for believing what our corrupt government and compromised media masters feed us. I don't truly mean that, I always hope for the best for all of humanity, but my gosh..

Cheers.

edit on 28-7-2015 by johnofsecrets because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: soekvg
MAYBE, just maybe, these delicate towers really did fall by themselves unassisted:

Unsure of date, but this beautiful photograph was taken when the towers were still being worked on.
i.imgur.com...


That is an amazing and beautiful photo.

But, they certainly didn't fall all by themselves unassisted, they fell after two jets slammed into them, and after a period of time where the steel beams were subjected to extreme temperatures which then caused those beams to bend and ultimately fail.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: smurfy

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,





Ah, I was waiting for him to be mentioned! Thanks


Once again, there's a lot of convenient editing and manipulation going on here.

In actual fact, he says that he's guessing about the cause of the collapse, and he was shown the footage from the point AFTER the penthouse had collapsed - which is a common tactic of the "truther", because to show that footage of the penthouse collapsing into the building (with no explosions) destroys their argument that the building collapsed free fall.

Ultimately, it looks as though he was presented with a bs video, manipulated to give a certain narrative, and came to a conclusion based on what he saw, just as you all have done.

He is not committed at all to this belief when he's told it happened on the same day, but he's one of those figures the truthers like to cling to for some validation by a professional.


Your'e trying to hard, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Like I said he never changed his mind,




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
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...




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.

Tell me mine doesn't have a better ring to it?



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnofsecrets
You show me ANY evidence that a plane crashed in Shanksville, PA on that day.. A wing, a seat, a piece of luggage, even just ONE body, a leg, an arm, or any other piece that couldn't be easily confused with, I dunno, a small part from a missile.. You show me evidence other than what the Israeli owned American media fed us...


There was a wealth of evidence laying all over and around the crater in the ground, there are numerous reports from witnesses there on the day and those who had to deal with the evidence.

The claim that there was no debris at that site is bs manufactured by the conspiracy theorist who seems to want to pretend that Flight 93 was a "smoking gun".




originally posted by: johnofsecrets
EVERY ground based plane crash leaves OBVIOUS, common sense based observable evidence.. Go take a look, do a little research, please. Find me a case of a disintegrated commercial airliner crash in a field.. Then question why we'd be lied to about it?


911review.com...

As you can see, it entirely plausible that the plane mostly disintegrated on impact. Still, there was actually a wealth of evidence and scorched Human remains at the site of 93, you just refuse to accept the truth and instead insist that the conspiracy theorists (who were not there and did not have to deal with any part of the investigation) are all-knowing gurus of the "truth".


originally posted by: johnofsecrets
Building 7... Well, you could drop a commercial airliner directly on top of it from 1,000 feet and it still not going to collapse. Much less, ENTIRELY. Much less, IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT.. Much less, in less than 10 seconds..


Absolute nonsense.
But thanks for destroying any credibility you might have believed you had before that statement.


originally posted by: johnofsecrets
America is definitely screwed, and if this is the amount of collective common sense we have left as a populace, than we may just deserve what is coming to us, for believing what our corrupt government and compromised media masters feed us. I don't truly mean that, I always hope for the best for all of humanity, but my gosh..


You know, I could say the same thing about the people who believe in a massive elaborate conspiracy rather than the actual science and evidence right in front of your face.
While you claim that we have all been deluded by a media and government conspiracy, you most certainly have been deluded by conspiracy theory propaganda.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

I don't need to try too hard.
If he did stick by his assertions, then his assertions are incorrect, and they are probably incorrect because he was shown the same biased and manipulated media you have seen.

The guy could believe whatever he wants to believe, I am still going to believe the actual science, rather than one mans opinion. I don't care what his position is, what he believes, what he thinks happened on that day, the SCIENCE speaks for itself.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
How many people do you have to hear say, "There were bombs in the towers"?


So I'm supposed to accept opinions and ignore evidence?
How many people have said on record that there bombs in the towers?
Are you referring to the firefighters on the day who thought the best way to explain the collapse of the building was to compare it to a controlled demolition? That was actually a good comparison, but they made that comparison based on what they had SEEN of the collapse, not on any evidence of their being any explosions within either building.

How about the man in the basement who said he heard explosions beneath him, but fails to comprehend the fact that buildings collapsed from the impact point DOWN? Why would there need to be explosions in the sub basement of these buildings when they collapsed from the impact point down to the ground?

And how exactly did these masterminds manage to predict (magic presumably) where these planes would hit, and start their "explosions" from that exact point in each tower? And why would they also then do it out of time, so that the tower hit first was the second one to fall?

So many questions, but I know you won't answer any of them.


originally posted by: randyvs
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,


Because the OS is based on real science and actual evidence, not YouTube rants, manipulated video clips and photos taken out of context.


originally posted by: randyvs
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.


It only looks like a lie because you've swallowed every bit of conspiracy bs that's been shoved in your face while refusing to do any scientific analysis of these events for yourself.
edit on 28-7-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




Because the OS is based on real science and actual evidence, not YouTube rants, manipulated video clips and photos taken out of context.


How does one take a photo out of context?
Or do you care to rephrase that?

The fire wasn't hot enough. Not to even phase the core vert columns in
the least bit, period.
edit on Rpm72815v53201500000033 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Because the OS is based on real science and actual evidence...


You're a good man Rocker but gullible...


These people, it turns out, are operating from what I called The Gullible Mind. It is a psychological processing malfunction that filters out information based on its source rather than its integrity. People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in governments, institutions, mainstream news networks, doctors, scientists or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.

But how does this work inside their heads? It's an interesting process. Gullible Mind people do believe it is possible for a government (or institution) to lie; but they believe that governments, institutions and doctors choose NOT to lie even when it would serve their own self interests to do so. Follow this carefully, because this is the fascinating part. These Gullible Mind people effectively believe that even though a government official could lie about something, they would never actually do so.

The gullible mind explained



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: CALGARIAN
Yes, this was def FINALLY resolved... back in 2001.
The MASSIVE amount of fire debris that crushed the side of the building caused it to collapse.

WHY (or who) would have planted explosives in WTC7? lol.



You must be thinking of WTC-6 which was, incidentally, right next to Tower 1. It was hit with flaming debris when the (insert noun describing belief here) hit WTC-1. WTC-7 on the other hand, was over 120 meters (~400 feet) away. WTC-6, while hit with burning debris on its roof, was still mostly standing afterward until FEMA demolished it after its investigation which didn't include documenting WTC-6 (full of government offices). WTC-7 had a lot of high profile bank, stock and loan information, the destruction of which a lot of people stood to profit from.

Now, physics and logic would denote that the majority of the debris from WTC-1 being hit would have rained down fairly close, hitting WTC-6, which was 8 stories tall. But believing that WTC-7 was hit by the same debris around 400 feet away, or according to the other story, that a building that collapsed into its own footprint (WTC-1) somehow ejected ground-level debris (couldn't eject much sky level debris if it collapsed into its own footprint which is why demolition crews use that method) through a building (WTC-6) that was both in the way and still standing afterwards despite the fact that it would have to have been hit by the same debris and, being smaller, burned first. Nope. Too far fetched for me at least. Explosive demolition seems to be the simpler answer.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Because the OS is based on real science and actual evidence, not YouTube rants, manipulated video clips and photos taken out of context.

NIST have said that the building came down at freefall speed for 2 seconds - and admit that this does not add up, that this is an anomally.
Freefall will only happen in a planned demolition.
Many anomalies (miracles) happened that day.



edit on 28-7-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Because the OS is based on real science and actual evidence...


You're a good man Rocker but gullible...


These people, it turns out, are operating from what I called The Gullible Mind. It is a psychological processing malfunction that filters out information based on its source rather than its integrity. People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in governments, institutions, mainstream news networks, doctors, scientists or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.

But how does this work inside their heads? It's an interesting process. Gullible Mind people do believe it is possible for a government (or institution) to lie; but they believe that governments, institutions and doctors choose NOT to lie even when it would serve their own self interests to do so. Follow this carefully, because this is the fascinating part. These Gullible Mind people effectively believe that even though a government official could lie about something, they would never actually do so.

The gullible mind explained


I'm still waiting to see the science proving and alternative theory...

Deliver it here when you're ready.

Oh wait, you can't, because it doesn't exist.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Rocker. re read my post about th e"pull it" comment. i SAID they meant PULL OUT THE FIREFIGHTERS. youre not understanding what ive been saying it seems. ALso A demo charge would explain th eexplosive that was heard right? It dont have to be a big blow out the windows explosion to blow up a already damaged support beam.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Rocker2013

Rocker. re read my post about th e"pull it" comment. i SAID they meant PULL OUT THE FIREFIGHTERS. youre not understanding what ive been saying it seems. ALso A demo charge would explain th eexplosive that was heard right? It dont have to be a big blow out the windows explosion to blow up a already damaged support beam.


So you agree that the term was meant to describe the act of pulling out the fire crews, but you still believe this was a deliberate detonation?

I really can't understand how anyone believes that, I really can't. There is absolutely no evidence for it at all, while there's plenty of evidence for that building having collapsed due to damage and fire.

I know that no one is going to be able to offer any evidence for their belief that explosives were used in any aspect of this, because that evidence just doesn't exist.

The only logical alternative is that people who did believe that use their logical brains to come to the same conclusion everyone else has when doing the same.

If you do not have any evidence to support a particular theory,
While you have plenty of evidence to support another theory,
Which theory should the logical mind support?



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Nice post !



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
How does one take a photo out of context?


Context: Aluminium melts at 660C, the cladding of the building was Aluminium, as was much of the body of both planes, as presumably was much of the office furniture within those offices. Therefore the molten metal seen in images is molten Aluminum.
Conspiracy theory (out of context): Aluminium doesn't glow orange when molten (which is factually wrong, btw).

Context: Steel girders were cut diagonally by crews on site.
Conspiracy theory (out of context): Steel girders were "cut" diagonally during the collapse using "Thermite"

Context: Photographer took a picture through the rubble on the ground showing orange light, reflecting his flashlight
Conspiracy theory (out of context): It's molten steel proving that the steel was destroyed using "Thermite"

Context: The the penthouse of WTC7 collapsed first, as the inner floors collapsed, followed seconds later by the experior facade of the building
Conspiracy theory (out of context): Start of that video is never shown by theorists, cutting out entirely the penthouse collapse and the light visible through the windows, therefore giving the "impression" that the entire building collapsed in one instance.


originally posted by: randyvs
The fire wasn't hot enough. Not to even phase the core vert columns in
the least bit, period.


Jet fuel burns at a temperature of 1500°F
Steel looses about half of its strength at 1202°F (note that it fails to varying points prior to this, depending on the load upon that specific example)

So, you are absolutely, fundamentally, scientifically wrong, PERIOD.

edit on 28-7-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Rocker2013

Because the OS is based on real science and actual evidence, not YouTube rants, manipulated video clips and photos taken out of context.

NIST have said that the building came down at freefall speed for 2 seconds - and admit that this does not add up, that this is an anomally.
Freefall will only happen in a planned demolition.
Many anomalies (miracles) happened that day.




Yes, for the tops of those buildings falling, when there was no longer any support beneath them as they collapsed onto the floors beneath.

Now please tell me about all the supposed "miracles" that you think happened that day.

edit on 28-7-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Rocker2013

Because the OS is based on real science and actual evidence, not YouTube rants, manipulated video clips and photos taken out of context.

NIST have said that the building came down at freefall speed for 2 seconds - and admit that this does not add up, that this is an anomally.
Freefall will only happen in a planned demolition.
Many anomalies (miracles) happened that day.


Can I ask, have you actually read the findings of the NIST report, or do you entirely rely on YouTube videos of people actually lying about what that report says?




11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A). As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.” In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join