It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Mystery Solved about building collapse, what do you think?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:32 PM
a reply to: babybunnies

Actually several news outlets called the collapse of wt7 before it happened, and its very interresting why a building like that
wich was enhanced structurally before the incident to house safety vaults crumbeled like NO other building had done until that very day, if thats not interresting enough then what is? all the other questionmarks are interresting too but are not what is supposed to be discussed in this thread.
keeping focus on this can help instead of dragging the 1000 or so other strange happenings that day into the discussion.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:40 PM
I, personally, still hold on to belief that the WTC towers should have been constructed out of the paper material used in one of supposed found passports of supposed hijackers.

Many lives were lost that day, domestic and abroad, and we - in my opinion - should critically analyze the events that happened on September 11th, as well as the days and weeks prior, as well as the legislation and movements that occurred for several years afterwards, many to this day, rather than attempt to block alternative theories - yes, theories - and discussion, which is often the rhetoric held.

And many should visit this:

If you are the one making the claim, provide your citations and/or references.

Also, claiming that you cannot be disproven, is therefore not valid proof.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: gazzerman

There never was any mystery to me.
What I found suspicious was the story being told, how much evidence was shipped off before the first investigator arrived to find the first bits of flesh.

And the pentagon footage scrapped for cgi shenigans! C'mon.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:23 PM
a reply to: loveguy

Well I would say that it all makes sense if you look at it from both angles.

The first is the official story, lie about the way it collapsed to protect the knowledge that all buildings are rigged with a fail safe to protect them from data getting into the wrong hands so that people are not aware that perhaps many builds have a vulnerability if the fail safes were to be made aware. Then just to make sure, you take all the scrap and ship it off because there is a chance that some top secret data could still be lurking about. Percentage chance of this being the true story pretty high I would say.

The second, its an inside job, they rigged it up specifically for an event and too it down to hide various illegal dealings and the many other reasons detailed to death on here. Percentage chance of this is still up there based on so much weird stuff going on but, I would say if the building had a fail safe like I am suggesting then that fail safe could have been used to perpetuate the whole story where we find ourselves today.

Its simply a case of the building having always been rigged for a fail safe and what the real reason was for using it that day. The official story is not true but my point being that it does not have to be a conspiracy for the reasons it was pulled.

I just believe these and many others have a fail safe. How and why it was used is the real question but for another thread perhaps but its also been discussed to death.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:54 PM
a reply to: GBP/JPY

I agree with you, no fire brought that building down. That was impossible.

The fact is WTC 7 was brought down by use of demolition.

Evidence for the Explosive
Demolition of World Trade Center,
Building 7 on 9/11

Speed of Collapse

WTC7 descended at free-fall acceleration over 2 seconds for a distance of
over 100 feet – at least eight stories.

“A High Temperature Corrosion Attack”
and Molten Iron/Steel: Undeniable
Evidence of Thermitic Incendiaries

Did the Dog Eat Their Homework?
NIST Withheld Crucial Evidence

Had officials taken all the relevant evidence into account and provided
a superficially coherent explanation, it would at least make sense to
entertain the idea that, 1) fire might have acted in ways that it had never
acted before, 2) modern structural steel might have acted in ways that it
had never acted before, and 3) that this all just happened to occur on a day
when terrorists did something they had never done before. Yet, officials have
not taken all the relevant evidence into account and they have not provided
even a superficially coherent explanation.

Hot Spots With Extreme Temperatures

Measured by USGS/NASA
USGS used NASA thermal imaging of the surface of the WTC
rubble pile to document hot spots with extreme temperatures of
almost 1,400°F. These temperatures, too, are hotter than most
office fires produce. And there were no fires on the surface of the
WTC7 pile following the collapses.
The detected surface temperatures indicate much higher
temperatures deep in the pile, which persisted for several
weeks despite the continuous spraying of millions of gallons of
water onto Ground Zero – so much water that one worker
described the result as “a giant lake.” Thermite contains its
own source of oxygen and burns just as well under water.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:40 PM

originally posted by: Curious69
a reply to: gazzerman

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

Maybe so, that does not mean to say, had they know the right way to target it then it could have been worse or even if that building is on their emergency list rigged up for such a situation in the first place. There are literally thousands of gov buildings I am sure it would likely be anything with very sensitive information in it, if my theory is correct.

The point presented is that some lies are told because they have to be told to protect other interests but in this instance could be seen as part of a bigger conspiracy. I think that there are many parts to 9/11 and they all do not need to go into one story.

In one instance it is possible that many events on 9/11 were an inside job however what also took place in WTC-7 was a safety measure to protect data from a potential breech. But combined together can force us once again to look in the wrong direction. There are many who put all their eggs in one basket based on their findings of WTC-7, if my theory is correct that would be a bad decision.

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 10:48 PM
a reply to: gazzerman

im not here to disbute your theory, from so much footage its obvious that explosives were used in taking down all 3 buildings dont know about pentagon because from the most survailed building in the world we have only 1 clip with a lousy framerate. my comment was pointed to the ignorant troll that goes by the name hellobruce.
The buildings were clearly rigged before the event, but when the 2 towers are taking in acccount with your theory it does not match up unless they were government buildings too.
But we are always told to follow the money, and every building hit held major evidence about the missing billions on the
budget at the time, i would say that billions of $ are a good reason to what happened, i just wonder where/what the 4'th plane were ment for, clearly it did not reach its target(or maybe it/something did?)
Whatever the truth we are up against people with real power and not cave dwellers from the middle east.

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:35 AM
a reply to: hellobruce

Wikipedia is not always true. Any one can add info to wikipedia true or not true. Try looking at for the hurricane on 10th sept 2001 called hurricane Erin. Only silly liars could believe it was not an inside job. Don't blame the truthers.
edit on 2-11-2015 by Cloudbuster because: Spelling duh

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:46 AM

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

May I as you why you said that please?
I asked for that post to be removed because it was not on topic, it was simply a 1hr 40m video from youtube, with no additional comments from the user, it did not mention a time in the video for us to look at and was simply an eyewitness account video. If even a single comment as a reference to the thread was on there I would not have done that.

This forum is a great resource with great people in it, it can only be as good as the people in it and that means that we take responsibility for what we do on here. The post was NOT relevant at all.

Now I am curious about your response that to me can only be in my mind one of TWO things

1. You saw a post deleted got all paranoid that someone was trying to hide something and decided to make a post about it.

2. You are lying to get a response from others on here.

Anyway you got SEVEN stars so far for that post from people on here, which in either way you look at it is unjustified and dishonest. You have give 7 people a false perspective on here of what has happened. (very disrespectful to those people)

I would have a large amount of respect for you if you replied and gave us the truth behind this, otherwise you deserve zero respect from anyone on here.

If you care about anyone on here and this forum you would probably be showing your true colors with your next move.

I think it is everyone's duty on here to hold each other responsible for their actions, it stops wild untrue conspiracies and puts things into perspective.

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:48 AM
a reply to: Cloudbuster

Well seeing as he values wiki so much: Hurricane Erin

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:52 AM
a reply to: gazzerman

It was still more relevant than the stupid 'why has this got stars and flags' post.

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:57 AM
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I disagree, his was a question, even though he clearly did not elaborate on his thoughts.

The other was just a video with no reference, no points just a eyewitness account of what happened that day for 1hr 40m.

I also called him out on it asking him to elaborate but he did not.

I agree though that response like that should be marked/removed if they have insufficient details of why they have that opinion. However I can read that in 1 second and move on, a long video takes people away from a subject and down a rabbit hole before they realize it was not related to the topic they showed interest in to begin with.

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:09 AM
a reply to: Cloudbuster

Wikipedia is not always true. Any one can add info to wikipedia true or not true. Try looking at for the hurricane on 10th sept 2001 called hurricane Erin. Only silly liars could believe it was not an inside job. Don't blame the truthers.

Hurricane ERIN was 1000 miles out in the Atlantic on 9/11

Closest it can to land was when passed 100 miles from Bermuda

Only the most deluded can believe it had anything to do with 9/11.......

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:27 AM
Explosive failsafe? ? That's the most cheap excuse to come with..blahh

Soon the twin towers are also excused by this so called failsafe .

I wouldn't buy this as US citizen. .

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:59 AM
Things that make me think it is likely an inside job include the fact that even thou all three buildings had, for the most part, similar initial structural damage. The comparable amounts of damage and their locations differ. Yet visually, they all fell nearly exactly the same. They all [a] fell at near free-fall speed into their own footprint [c] without first showing metal fatigue [d] have video evidence of 'camera shaking' explosions and white smoke near the base 10 seconds or so before collapsing (WTC I and II) [e] and were completely destroyed.
I've worked in many steel structure buildings in my 40 years as a Journeyman Electrician. And from the info, spec and pics I've seen of the WTC complex/buildings in regards to the inner core, floors and outer wall construction, etc. You could've dropped 4 planes and an AIRPORT on each of those buildings and not caused that kind of damage. To think that the WTC's steel shell, the rolled iron I-beams and box columns, etc are just going to bend, snap, pull apart or fly away without serious resistance or, after an hour, melt or become weak from an office material fire, shows a lack of intelligence and common sense that is hard to accept. Your oven's walls are nowhere close to a box column's thickness or density. But after being subjected to many hours of 350 - 400+ degree heat, it still hasn't melted, right? It never will. For an hour you could hold a blow-torch on an I-beam without damaging it.
Other thoughts on this, if I may... The first thing I saw that sent up a red flag for me was, while watching a live news report from here in So Cal at maybe 1PM PST/4PM NY time on the day of the attack. A news cameraman was filming activity on the NY streets from a high vantage point near the WTC. He happened to catch a line of dump trucks headed toward the complex. Like 50 of them or MORE. First of all, I knew they were way out of sequence and shouldn't be there due to the pending criminal investigation. But also, NONE of the people needed for coordinating, ordering and implementing an expensive, organized cleanup program of that size were available to work on that. Besides, there's procedures that have to be followed. Things take planning, money and approval. That all takes time. NO WAY someone made that happen in 3 hours. No way.
Another dead giveaway? The 400%+ increase in the Purchase of Put Options involving the airline company's involved.
The denial of any and all high ranking NYFD personnel involved in the 9/11 attacks of ever discussing 'pulling' WTC7 with Larry Silverstein. One said "We're in the business of saving buildings. Not destroying them".
I personally believe that ol' Larry was told what was going to happen, and almost exposed the entire operation. I believe those involved informed Larry about the plan a few months previous to the 9/11/01 date. They had to. Being that he was the new owner. He was likely compensated for the building, and for the part he played, and probably just told to be himself and stay out of the way. And nothing else was needed from him. But I think soon after he was told about the event he put together his own greedy plan to capitalize on the operation by, without approval from the event planners, he purchased insurance policies for the complex with specific clauses regarding increased benefits for the buildings if they were damaged/destroyed by terrorist activity. Oh, yeah... obviously nothing suspicious there.
Last thing... United Flight #175 that flew into the 2nd tower. All media released of that plane shows it clearly having a polished aluminum-split fuselage (I won't even mention the extra equipment obviously attached to the underside), when #175 DID NOT HAVE a split fuselage. It had a smooth, uniform fuselage underside that should've been blue in color. That alone not only cannot be explained, it's reason enough and the evidence clear enough, to warrant a complete investigation from an outside source.
edit on 11/2/2015 by mrscary3721 because: misspelled word

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 07:03 AM
a reply to: gazzerman

So because the CIA had an office there they must also have explosives wired as a fail safe system? Ummmm no. I really doubt that's the case.

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 07:59 AM
hellobruce you are either a Troll looking for attention or to lazy to do a simple search if any of that info confuses you. Blind SHeep

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 08:00 AM
a reply to: gazzerman

Neither of the things in your mind are correct.

I wondered why someone could just leave a snarky response wondering why your OP was worthy of S&Fs, when that is clearly not the topic of your OP, after I saw two comments disappear for being 'off-topic' that were actually discussing the subject.

Geez. Talk about paranoid.

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 08:03 AM
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Thank you!

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 08:09 AM

originally posted by: babybunnies

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?

Actually there were five of the feckers, they were very naughty boys, and they are seen near the end of this clip, however listen to the whole clip for all of the event, what transpired in the aftermath, and US government's responses...or rather the lack of them.
Actually, I'm rather surprised that Hellobruce wasn't aware of these guys, but there you go.

As for the dosh you might try the foreign soldier who was trying to stop someone filming him, and could say little except, "Nothing informations" he will be in this video about WTC7. Elsewhere you will here firemen say that the building is, "about to blow up"

It's all so very interesting stuff!

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in