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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
So they "pulled it" is that what you are saying? The BBC broadcasted it before it happened, because eveyone was so sure the building was going to fall? Even though it had never happened in history, where a steel frame structure, not hit by an airplane, had suddenly and totally collapsed.


edit on 22-5-2017 by Jchristopher5 because: Removed insult




posted on May, 22 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5


The BBC broadcasted it before it happened, because eveyone was so sure the building was going to fall?

Wait, i just found my tinfoil hat, how could i have missed this?
The BBC, and presumably other major news outlets, were being fed news from a source that had connections to whoever was responsible for the planned demolition of Building 7. Building 7's demolition missed its scheduled time and went off 20 minutes late. The informant, for whatever reason wasn't updated, or didn't update the BBC soon enough to avoid a goof. To bury this, the BBC "lost" the footage years later. Just so plausible!




Even though it had never happened in history, where a steel frame structure, not hit by an airplane, had suddenly and totally collapsed.
Your truther talking point is past it's expirty date.
Plasco building

Have you even read the building 7 report? Or delved into the Aeigis Insurance vs Building 7 lawsuit?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

They BBC reports was just confused on the state of WTC 7 and the reports on its collapse. As mentioned and proven, it was already reported that WTC 7 was showing signs it would collapse and in danger of collapsing.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Well, you made the claim that I was uneducated simpleton about 9/11, so since you are an expert tell me?

Are you saying authorities genuinely expected the building to collapse? If so, why? Less well-built buildings, in countries where the building standards & materials are much lower, have burned for several times as long as building 7 and not collapsed.

The official story, as far as I know, says that building 7 colllapsed due to office fires. I am not in possession of any official evidence indicating that they expected the building to fall at free fall for 2.3 seconds no less, from these fires. Once can find examples of buildings that burned for not only much longer, but with much greater intensity, and burned to a metal shell. But neve, ever and a building fell that rapidly unless it was being demolished.

Do you deny all evidence of melted steel and explosions? Are you of the mind that Barry Jennings was a liar? Or that the scores of firefighters who claimed explosions, or the several on record saying they saw melted steel are all liars?

I am convinced the official story is a lie. It doesn't mean I know everything, but I know enough that I know it's a lie. Plus, I know the goverment has been proven to lie to us countless times, so it's not a reach for an educated, informed person to suspect a coverup.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

If you want an honest debate. Provide the quote of the entire "pull it" speech. The context might surprise you?

Were the firefighters part of the WTC 7 conspiracy, but not the towers? So?

They towers really were brought down by inward bowing and collapse. No implosion.

Or the firefighters sit in silence knowing WTC 7 was rigid to blow? While the truth movement alleges a murderous government rigid the towers to blow, and the government was responsible for the deaths of scores of firefighters in the towers? The firefighters just sit in silence in response to the murder of their bothers and sisters by an alleged murderous government?

By the way, how did the botched reporting on the toxicity of WTC dust work out for the EPA and the government?
edit on 22-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jchristopher5

If you want an honest debate. Provide the quote of the entire "pull it" speech. The context might surprise you?

Were the firefighters part of the WTC 7 conspiracy, but not the towers? So?

They towers really were brought down by inward bowing and collapse. No implosion.

Or the firefighters sit in silence knowing WTC 7 was rigid to blow? While the truth movement alleges a murderous government rigid the towers to blow, and the government was responsible for the deaths of scores of firefighters in the towers? The firefighters just sit in silence in response to the murder of their bothers and sisters by an alleged murderous government?

By the way, how did the botched reporting on the toxicity of WTC dust work out for the EPA and the government?

I don't want to get into "pull it". Only Silverstein knows what he meant. I only referenced it because this other poster said that I was an amateur for not knowing it was common knowledge that Building 7 was going to collapse, at or near free fall.

Smart money would have thought it impossible, since it had never happened in history.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5



Are you saying authorities genuinely expected the building to collapse? If so, why?
Yes. The structural deformation was visible, the building was shifting.
Link




The official story, as far as I know, says that building 7 colllapsed due to office fires. I am not in possession of any official evidence
You will be if you click the link and read the report.
Link



edit on 22-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Never happen? Good logic?

Hear of the oil rig fires and overpass fires that lead to collapse?

Iran shocked by deadly fire, collapse of Tehran high-rise (w/video)
www.tampabay.com...

For WTC implosion to be true.

All buildings alone would be the first successful implosion of a steel structure over 500 ft? All three in the same day?

The twin towers, the first top down implosion of a high rise steel structure greater than 50 stories. Twice in one day.

For thermite, the first successful implosion using thermite which is relatively slow to burn with inconsistent burn times in a steel structure. Twice in one day in conjunction with the first successful top down implosion that requires precise timing.

If it never happened, must be impossible.

High rise buildings that survived fires used considerably more concrete and mid trusse supports the WTC buildings.

Thanks for not understanding the facts of the WTC
edit on 22-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 22-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 22-5-2017 by neutronflux because: I know the 50 stories was an important part



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Oil rig fires are a good example, while the steel doesn't melt, it does soften leading to structural collapse.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Funny when you ask to have the full "pull it" speech quoted, the subject changes?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The government was 5/5 (or was it 6/6?) on moon landings so, I think they could figure out how to demolish three buildings with the right brainpower.

Seriously, your counter argument is weak. Never before had a steel-framed building collapsed into its footprint in such a way. Show another example please. Show me one building that EVER collapsed like building 7 did. Just one.
edit on 22-5-2017 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

It's not funny at all. I didn't quote "pull it" as a point of evidence, I was making a reply to the other poster about the fore-knowledge of its collapse. In sort of a sarcastic way, I was asking him if it was pulled.

I am aware the "Silverstein pull it" conspiracy argument is less than bullet-proof.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: neutronflux

The government was 5/5 (or was it 6/6) on moon landings so, I think they could figure out how to blow up three buildings with the right brainpower.

Seriously, your counter argument is weak. Never before had a steel-framed building collapsed into its footprint in such a way. Show another example please. Show me one building then EVER collapsed like building 7 did. Just one.


Have you come across this ever?

Give it five minutes of your time.
Link



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Really. You just used the logic if it never happened it couldn't happen. And I linked to a high rise steel structure that collapse due to the changes in structural integrity by fire?

It takes a crew of about 12 people almost a month of preparing a building of modest size for implosion. That is ripping out walls and interference and putting charges directly on the columns. Much less putting walls back together to hide the charges. Ever seen a building prepared for CD? The thousands of feet of cable running through the structure like spaghetti? The number of tarps and barrels filled with water to keep shrapnel from escaping, deadening the sound to 140 db, and limiting the shock wave to prevent damage to neighboring buildings and windows.

So the government hid all that and was never discovered. You know bomb sniffing dogs were stationed at the WTC.

And you have no proof of an over pressure even that could cut steel. And WTC implosion is based on events that never happen before. Which has been argued it makes it impossible on 9/11?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: neutronflux

The government was 5/5 (or was it 6/6) on moon landings so, I think they could figure out how to blow up three buildings with the right brainpower.

Seriously, your counter argument is weak. Never before had a steel-framed building collapsed into its footprint in such a way. Show another example please. Show me one building then EVER collapsed like building 7 did. Just one.


Have you come across this ever?

Give it five minutes of your time.
Link
Sorry, but it looks like a propaganda piece.

Demolition expert Danny Jowenko saw it MUCH differently.

Danny Jowenko tribute

As I predicted a couple of pages ago, with another poster, we could do this all night long and neither one of us will change our minds. It's pointless at some point.
edit on 22-5-2017 by Jchristopher5 because: Spelling



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Also forgot drilling and filling concrete supports with explosives in implosion prep work.

And there still is no evidence of an over pressure event at the WTC that resulted in a pressure wave capable of cutting steel.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5


Ok. Name the type of explosives used at WTC 1, and how many separate charges needed to get the top down implosion. Remembering to make the claims of the truth movement true to have the resistance of each floor removed to achieve the observed collapse speed. One charge per floor? Six charges per floor?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I have no idea. What did I possibly say to indicate I was an expert, in any way, on demolishing sky scrapers?

Danny Jowenko was convinced that 7 was demolished. "No doubt" he said, before he knew if was building 7.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5




Sorry, but it looks like a propaganda piece.

How would you know if you don't read it? Closeminded much?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
I read the summary answers.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join