Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What about the WTC 1 Spire?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by purplemer
 

If you are a Judy Wood fan you might want to watch her in those YT videos.
She comes across as certifiable. IMO



No I am not a Judy Wood fan. I linked to her web site because she mentions the Hutchingsons effect and 911. It is the only way to explain the collapse of the buildings and all the strange effects. Like cars a way off from the building catching on fire and having damaged metal or the collapsing spire on the tower that turns to dust. Most of those building went into the air they did not land on the ground. This is not correct for a building collapse.




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So how do you think that is mechanical force. Would you like to explain to me why thousands Architects & Engineers disagree and say this cannot happen by mechanical force and please give me your credentials of expertise.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
A few things about 9/11 bother me

1. Even though the shuttle challengers data recorders were found in 86 . The black boxes from the wtc planes are missing( and presumed destroyed) even though they did not have the entire building fall on them.
2. Wtc 7 . Old saying . Where there's smoke there's fire. But where there is no smoke there is no fire.
3. The biggest and hardest to explain. The spires. (BOTH OF THEM)

I guess those are my top 3

now I was an o.s. Believer for four years. now i have more questions than answers.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1BornPatriot
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Ha ha - your so full of it - core columns, ha ha ha ha --- if it were a pan cake collapse 0000hhhh, where are the pan cakes >??? and if the building collapsed - where are those core columns > ? ha ha ha ha .... geez, thanks for the lesson in phantom physics. what has it been now .... 6 years or better you have been spewing the same ole dribble ??? -- I guess your assigned to disprove 911 was not an inside job -- all the time your proving it was.
edit on 8-12-2012 by 1BornPatriot because: (no reason given)


Well I see you and Dave have a past lol. The truth is 90% of the time i dont look at who is writing something. I try to merit each post individually. I can only name 3 member right off the top of my head lol four with Dave.

Now i wont even say it was an "inside job" . Once you get past the unsettling notion that black tech was in operation the questions become much more complex.

Like maybe whoever did this just told the u.s. It was gonna happen and to deal with it. I think this explains why no other countries have come out against the o.s. .they would be next .



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 




"Lol I must say I love the fact that you and Dave have 2 different stories. Dave says it's everywhere . You say it right on top. "


The great bulk of the core columns should have wound up on the top of the rubble, of course including all of those that remained standing for a few seconds after the buildings collapsed around them, but of course not all of the core columns were standing after the main collapse. a significant number should be intermixed with the trusses and perimeter wall steel.

I'm not sure there's a substantial disagreement between me and Dave.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 




1. Even though the shuttle challengers data recorders were found in 86 . The black boxes from the wtc planes are missing( and presumed destroyed) even though they did not have the entire building fall on them.
2. Wtc 7 . Old saying . Where there's smoke there's fire. But where there is no smoke there is no fire.
3. The biggest and hardest to explain. The spires. (BOTH OF THEM)


Oh my goodness.
Have you ever bothered to look for the answers???
1.There were several black boxes found, but not all of them.
2.There many pictures and videos of the fires and hugh smoke comming out of the building.
3.There was only one spire (antenna) on one building.

But you won't find any of it on conspiracy websites. Because it shatters the conspiracy and ruins a cash cow for many proponents.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Another_Nut
 




1. Even though the shuttle challengers data recorders were found in 86 . The black boxes from the wtc planes are missing( and presumed destroyed) even though they did not have the entire building fall on them.
2. Wtc 7 . Old saying . Where there's smoke there's fire. But where there is no smoke there is no fire.
3. The biggest and hardest to explain. The spires. (BOTH OF THEM)


Oh my goodness.
Have you ever bothered to look for the answers???
1.There were several black boxes found, but not all of them.
2.There many pictures and videos of the fires and hugh smoke comming out of the building.
3.There was only one spire (antenna) on one building.

But you won't find any of it on conspiracy websites. Because it shatters the conspiracy and ruins a cash cow for many proponents.


This is why I hate this forum noone actually cares. Just bashing and people throwing out garbage

1 . They found 4 of 8 do your homework. Both in shanksville . 2 at pentagon though one was "damaged" beyond usability. None were found at the wtc( though there are rumors they were found and hidden)
2. Video of wtc 7 as shown in many vids including it coming down shows no smoke.
3.you have no clue what you are talking about .there were 2 spires .maybe READ THIS THREAD before you post

If you have nothing to add please go away. I dont want this to be "that kind" of thread.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   


2. Video of wtc 7 as shown in many vids including it coming down shows no smoke.
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


This is BS.







These are from the first page of google video search results all three show a huge plume of smoke coming from WTC7 before it collapsed. How can it possibly be that there was no smoke?

How could anybody possibly come to that conclusion given abundant evidence to the contrary? What a weird discussion we're having.
edit on 12/8/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: formatting



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


before I go on remember I will am using my phone so bear with me till I get to computer.

Ok first off I don't know how you can watch those videos and truthfully say that was due to fire.
Second I think a lot of that smoke was from the wtc site and we are having perspective problems. what does the "damaged " side look like? As you can tell only one side was damaged. Ever seen what a failed demo looks like when only one side goes? They fall over sideways.

Its called path of least resistance and in any building that path is not straight down.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 





Second I think a lot of that smoke was from the wtc site and we are having perspective problems.


just post a video of the collapse that shows this to be true, and I'll have a look. Thanks.

Until then, I'll stick with the multiple angles of video that we actually have, all of which appear to show smoke coming from WTC7.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Another_Nut
 





Second I think a lot of that smoke was from the wtc site and we are having perspective problems.


just post a video of the collapse that shows this to be true, and I'll have a look. Thanks.

Until then, I'll stick with the multiple angles of video that we actually have, all of which appear to show smoke coming from WTC7.


What multiple angles? All the vids and pics I can find all show that one side?

If you can find either from the south side I would love to see them . Im looking for them right now but can't seem to find any.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


Just post some pictures or video evidence or links to the same. Until then, you're just blowing smoke, just like WTC7


I'm not googling anything else for you today.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Why are you all arguing about smoke?

Fire can not cause a 47 story steel framed building to fall into it's own footprint.

Damage to one side can not cause a 47 story steel framed building to fall into it's own footprint.

It's sad that some people still try to claim WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint from fire.

edit on 12/8/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Why are you all arguing about smoke?

Fire can not cause a 47 story steel framed building to fall into it's own footprint.

Damage to one side can not cause a 47 story steel framed building to fall into it's own footprint.

It's sad that some people still try to claim WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint from fire.

edit on 12/8/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


WHY?

because I am out there everyday trying to wake people up! And every person who starts to needs to find a safe place to discuss why they think it smells

If I wake up a person today they have to find this out . You have to hit the same bases everyday just like a teacher uses the same syllabus every year.

Because everyday the students new. Everyday the new students has to be brought up to speed.

EVERYDAY I try to wake someone up. And if you are too then going over wtc7 Everyday is never a problem
edit on 9-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


I hear ya mate. I guess my comment was more directed at the OS supporters who endlessly argue on and on about stuff that is irrelevant to the big picture. It's a tactic often used to distract from the relevant.

WTC7 could have been completely covered in a smoke screen, it wouldn't mean it collapsed into its footprint from fire.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
There's another thread on here that I think points to some possibilities of how it may have happened.


WTC destruction. The leftover candidates. Pro and contra arguments.
Quite a bit of info.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Another_Nut
 





Second I think a lot of that smoke was from the wtc site and we are having perspective problems.


just post a video of the collapse that shows this to be true, and I'll have a look. Thanks.

Until then, I'll stick with the multiple angles of video that we actually have, all of which appear to show smoke coming from WTC7.


What multiple angles? All the vids and pics I can find all show that one side?

If you can find either from the south side I would love to see them . Im looking for them right now but can't seem to find any.


This clip gives a pretty good idea of the incredible amount of smoke belching from the south face of WTC 7 from top to bottom :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


And these pics show that your smoke makes no difference to the big picture...







If it had collapsed from fire you would not be able to see the outer walls. The only way they could end up on top of the collapsed building is from an implosion demolition.

This was WTC 7...



See how tall it is compared to it's footprint? How did the majority of that all land in it's own footprint from an uncontrolled collapse?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join