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.

 

Let us talk about the Smoking Gun: WTC7

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I think the reason expolsives had to be used is the fact that if the towers were left standing, they would have had to be demolished piece by piece. They would have never been able to get the proper permits to demo the buildings legally. There are probably many other reasons why the building had to be totally destroyed.

In any case, I think that the reasons are like a bunch of pages in a book. Read only one of them, and it may make sense, yet you may be left with questions. . . But read them all, and the whole story makes sense. . . And that is the rub of any investigation, finding all the pages of the book so the completed story now makes perfect sense.

Same goes for WTC 7. There are many pages that make up the whole story. . .




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat

What is odd, at the least, is the number of coincendences involved combined with the fact that the Bush administration is STILL politicizing the tragedy to fit their agenda

Spot on Firebat and whilst people argue and concentrate their energies to this type of discussion(not that i`m against it) no up roar is being heard or discussed or action being taken for the lies they told us all about WMD and the many more lives lost due those lies.All for what oil? global positioning with their huge monstrosity of an embassy in Iraq?


The fact that they're still putting their foot down, despite the overwhelming evidence that they were wrong, is very suspicious to me and proves to me that they were never interested in getting the real perps to begin with. Bush himself said he wasn't worried about Osama... then he denied he said it. Now, he's harping on Osama again.

Too true again pal,actually i watched a good doco last night where the (i think it was i taped the last half and will watch it again)Adviser of Security said Bush was`nt interested in going after UBL right from day one he wanted Iraq,Rumsfeld Powell etc told Bush the people would`nt buy it and that they should go for Afghanistan.

Explosives though would`nt have been necessary,and even if they wanted to they could have used the explosives without the need of planes and still blamed it on terrorists.Terrorists and Islamic extremists were to blame with out a doubt imo whether or not Bush and his cronies had their fingers in it as well,well it does make one wonder.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
I think the reason expolsives had to be used is the fact that if the towers were left standing, they would have had to be demolished piece by piece. They would have never been able to get the proper permits to demo the buildings legally. There are probably many other reasons why the building had to be totally destroyed.

Thanks for your theory and well worth thinking about,though in my mind does`nt sit very well,for one how does that type of set up for demolition take place whilst on fire and who would start thinking down those lines so quickly after the planes slammed into them?.

The doco i watched last night showed a close up of the floor that was hit by the planes as it gave way,there was nil zilch nothing to suggest there were explosives used.



[edit on 13-9-2006 by gps777]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Dutch television asked the demolition expert in holland his opinion about
the collapse of WTC7 and he concludes without doubt that it was a controlled
demolition.
Even after sifting through video's, illustrations showing 'supposedly doing damage'
he stands with his conclusion that it must have been CD no question.
And he just couldnt believe it came down the same day while the building was
on fire it would be impossible to place the explosives to do it. He has no
explanation for it.

www.jowenko.nl... is his website btw, this was posted on infowars as well:
www.infowars.com...

Another thing to take into concideration.
What if the towers did not fell, they would not have been able to 'cover' the 'collapse'
of WTC7. In other words, they would have to be sure/make sure the towers would
collapse.
How NIST tries to mislead people reading their report is a joke also:
www.aurose.net...
Illustration left = NIST explanation
Topright = groundplan available on wikipedia
Lowerright = WTC7 visible in the dustcloud..

They attempting to show that the collapse of wtc1/2 damaged wtc7 but yet they
leave these two OUT of the illustration lol... And mark WTC6 as "WTC Complex"...

[edit on 13-9-2006 by zren]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by zren

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by zren
the "WTC Complex" written on WTC6 with WTC7 at top of it.
The image top right comes from wikipedia's illustration depicting the WTC Complex
where you can clearly see that WTC6 is what they call "WTC Complex". The NIST
deliberately tried to mislead readers with this depiction because quite a few people
will probably assume that this "WTC Complex" is actually the WTC1 unless they
would look into maps of it.


"WTC Complex" is the term used to incorporate ALL of the WTC buildings together.


No sht sherlock but notice how they hide the WTC1 and 2 on the picture. Any mainstream
reader will not notice it. While they are 'correct' it is the WTC Complex, the building
they pasted the text on is WTC6 which stands BETWEEN 1 & 7. Misleading losers.


Why do you feel the need to respond with insults?

What you are trying to say in your post is unclear. I have reread it 4 times now and the only sense I can make of it is that you don't understand why they put "WTC Complex" in the spot they put it.

What was the point of your post?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   
The planes alone would not have had enough international impact to garner support for the forth coming war. This disaster did not really impact me here in Australia until I saw those buildings fall, until I realised not just how many innocent civilians had lost their lives, but how many emergency workers.
Watch a few home video's, even news videos with live commentary - people were shocked by the planes impact, concerned for those trapped within, but in every vid you can hear the shock, pain, and horror as witnesses gasp and begin to cry as they watch the first tower fall.
When we talk about 9/11 most people can still see those images in their minds, that was what impacted most upon our collective psyche. A plane crash is terrible, a deliberate attack is shocking, but the collapse of those buildings, instant death for thousands of innocents....well that leaves a mental scar, even for an Australian.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join