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.

 

Mystery Solved about building collapse, what do you think?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
OK, so I have wanted to post this for years, but never got around to it. I thought about it from day one.

The article below from the NYT makes things very clear to me, the US learnt its lessons in the past to protect its buildings and always have a fail safe, either way you look at it, inside job or real etc... it would be insane to believe that in the event of a compromise of a CIA office that they would not have a means to destroy all the secret docs. So was the building covered in some sort of explosive fail safe materials, it almost seems crazy to me that it would not be. Now the chances are this is also the case on hundreds if not thousands of CIA type buildings everywhere. Would they come out and tell people that the building could be compromised so we are going to "pull" it? NO they would not, this would imply that many others are rigged the same way in case of an emergency, this could expose potential weak spots for terrorists or your everyday freedom fighter to target.

This makes it clear and simple why WTC-7 came down and why we won't get the truth about its collapse.

However what stems from that is the real reason for pulling it, which leads back to all the questions asked on this subject matter. You either go down the building was in danger of being compromised or you choose that there was an ulterior motive, i.e. destruction of evidence on many matters.

What say you ATS




The recovery of secret documents and other records from the New York station should follow well-rehearsed procedures laid out by the agency after the Iranian takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The revolutionaries took over the embassy so rapidly that the C.I.A. station was not able to effectively destroy all of its documents, and the Iranians were later able to piece together shredded agency reports. Since that disaster, the agency has emphasized rigorous training and drills among its employees on how to quickly and effectively destroy and dispose of important documents in emergencies.

As a result, a C.I.A. station today should be able to protect most of its secrets even in the middle of a catastrophic disaster like the Sept. 11 attacks, said one former agency official. ''If it was well run, there shouldn't be too much paper around,'' the former official said.


NYT Source




posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: gazzerman
explosive fail safe materials, it almost seems crazy to me that it would not be.


Actually what is crazy would be covering a building with explosives!


This makes it clear and simple why WTC-7 came down


It came down due to severe damage and unchecked fires!


and why we won't get the truth about its collapse.


We already have the truth!



''If it was well run, there shouldn't be too much paper around,'' the former official said.


So do not keep masses of paper around, that is all they are saying, nothing about explosive covered buildings!



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Covering a building with explosives wouldn't guarantee that all the papers were destroyed. You'd have to make sure no one gets to examine the rubble and debris as well. If you could heat filing cabinets to over 300F, then paper would spontaneously combust.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Yes the NIST report showed that the breaking of 1 column in the building caused the whole thing to collapse, so with that in mind and the fact that it must have been constructed worse than a african mudhut there would be no need to rig the whole building.
And as we have seen in so many cases fire and partial damage brings down hirises as elegantly as any pro demolition crew could,please move on nothing to see here, right!
I smell a pawn.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Both of you assume that we are talking about regular explosives, we simply don't know what tech is available and what could be used to ensure a high percentage of destruction.

Also, your comments make no sense at the end hellobruce, of course there is no mention? If there was a mention then there would be no debate? The point is very clear that there are measure in place to protect these buildings/offices. Based on that it would not be far fetched to believe that they were pulled in "some way" to protect the contents.

The title of the post is a question hence the question mark.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Curious69




constructed worse than a african mudhut


Maybe that is the fail safe, thus informing the public would make other gov buildings vulnerable to attack, hence the additional lies on the official story.
edit on 4pm304304America/ChicagoSun, 01 Nov 2015 16:29:48 -060011pm11 by gazzerman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: gazzerman
The point is very clear that there are measure in place to protect these buildings/offices.


Yes, and as stated those measures are "do not keep masses of paper around"!



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Again I am not sure we are talking in full sentences to get our points across haha, the article in the NYT is not referring to 9/11 its talking about 1979 and other dates where there were papers laying around, thus better measures have been put in place to prevent that. Any other papers we may have seen floating around that day possibly may not be related to any CIA info based on new techniques but paperwork from the many regular offices that were also in the building.
edit on 4pm304304America/ChicagoSun, 01 Nov 2015 16:42:17 -060011pm11 by gazzerman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Actually Ray Bradbury taught us that the auto-ignition temperature of paper is 451 degrees Fahrenheit.


If a building or office were wired with some type of incendiary explosives, then most paper would be irrecoverably destroyed. I would think that most digital data would be destroyed as well.

-dex



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
How is this s&f worthy?



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
How is this s&f worthy?


First off does everything have to be?

Second, If it has been discussed before I would genuinely love to see that thread.

Third, some people star or flag something to remind them to read things later.

Fourth, I think that adding a few more descriptive words to your post is a progressive way to make this forum different from others online, I genuinly would like to hear your thoughts on why you feel the way you do. i.e. this thread is a waste of time and is not s&f worthy because....[Your reason why which also contributes to making this forum awesome and not just 5 word replies with no value] All points of view welcome, as this thread was posted as a question.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Curious69
a reply to: hellobruce

Yes the NIST report showed that the breaking of 1 column in the building caused the whole thing to collapse, so with that in mind and the fact that it must have been constructed worse than a african mudhut there would be no need to rig the whole building.


Had to laugh at that
In any case though, the article is not retrospective, but written in November 2001, and all any newshound is going to get is porkies of one kind or another...and Wow! it even says there somewhere that the CIA and FBI worked there in close liason, while we have since been told officially, no one of those two agencies told the other 'NUTTING' while putting the blame on W.J. Clinton.
Sadly, I guess the NYT story was disinformation to take away attention from all the goodies that went missing below ground.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The only reason WTC 7 is of interest isn't because it collapsed, or the reasons for the collapse. It's because the BBC reported that it had collapsed at least a full hour before it did.

Go back and review the BBC report from the day. They report that WTC 7 has collapsed, but it's clearly standing in the background.

My other biggest questions surrounding 9/11 are

1) What happened to the two MOSSAD agents that were captured in New York shortly after the planes hit the towers
2) What happened to the HUNDREDS of TONS of silver that were being stored at the WTC basement that were never recovered?
3) Why has footage of planes approaching The Pentagon never been released, but footage of every other plane was?
4) Why were the Saudi Royal family allowed to fly home, despite a worldwide flight ban being in place?
5) What happened to the massive hurricane that was supposed hot hit New York on 9/12 ? There was a Category 4 hurrincane offshore on 9/10, with storm warnings in place across the North East USA. On 9/11, we got clear blue skies in every video.
6) What happened to the investigation into the $2 TRILLION in missing funds from the Pentagon budget? There was supposed to be a hearing starting 9/12, and it never got started. It was conveniently forgotten after the events of 9/11

9/11 was one of those events that if it happened in a TV Show, it would be used to wrap up many different out of control story lines.

And that's exactly what it was used for in the United States.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
How is this s&f worthy?


How is this 'on-topic' while other comments that were actually relevant to the subject were removed?

That's my question.




posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell



You'd have to make sure no one gets to examine the rubble and debris as well.


well they kinda did make sure no one examined the steel from the buildings. they trucked it all to one special site, and just certain people the government chose got to examine it, then sold it as scrap to china. all except for i forgot how many thousands of pounds that is the bow of a navy ship now. that there always made me wonder.

not saying that the U.S. government did it, but there are many who were in it, that knew who did and who paid for it.

and it wasn't just a bunch of cave dwellers that hated the U.S..




edit on 1-11-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: gazzerman

The building bombed by timothy mcweigh was if i recall right a government building wich took heavy damage without collapsing.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Did you guys know I'm a structures man....a commercial mid-rise and high-rise man....I know structures....
a fire didn't bring it down....honest...hey, let's tell the truth here.....!!



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
They report that WTC 7 has collapsed, but it's clearly standing in the background.


The NYFD knew it waas going to collapse, they even had a transit on it to monitor it. Also how many people could have identified WTC from a picture before 9/11?


1) What happened to the two MOSSAD agents that were captured in New York shortly after the planes hit the towers


What "Mossad agents" exactly?


2) What happened to the HUNDREDS of TONS of silver that were being stored at the WTC basement that were never recovered?


What makes you claim it was never recovered?


3) Why has footage of planes approaching The Pentagon never been released, but footage of every other plane was?


what camera would have been filming that? Please show us this footage of "every other plane"!
place?


5) What happened to the massive hurricane that was supposed hot hit New York on 9/12 ?


Exactly what hurricane was that?
en.wikipedia.org...


6) What happened to the investigation into the $2 TRILLION in missing funds from the Pentagon budget?


What missing $2b trillion? Only silly truthers claim that money was missing.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join