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.

 

Solid Debunking of WTC7 Theories

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
LOL this is about as much 'in it's own footprint' you'll ever get with any controlled demo of such a large building...



Next you'll be telling us black is white...




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Exactly Anok, and a lot of people do not seem to realize this, LOL.

It fell down in its footprint, that is very obvious.. indeed.

But there was significant fire damage, from the photos posted in the forum from a few weeks back of all that smoke (smoke = fire) within WTC 7. It only had to weaken some of the building partially to allow for a progressive collapse (i.e. bringing down the rest of the building).

Also, the "Squibs" seen up the side of WTC 7 as it is seen collapsing are windows breaking to an uneven structure and stress levels.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I apologize for them, doctorfungi...


To many of them (though plenty aren't like this), and most people, things are always linked to politics, and always a matter of black and white. In this case, either you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or you're a government-loving conservative authoritarian.

Except you don't believe in science. You can't choose. If you do, it's not science. Many people believe in the 9/11 conspiracy because they're told the facts are right, but haven't done the crunch time themselves or have the background to do so.

And no, I don't believe or disbelieve in anyone's story, things are simply too inconclusive. Nearly all conspiracy "theories" of how the towers collapsed (this relates to most 9/11 theories too) have been disproven or put into considerable doubt. However, the "official" story does indeed have parts which are pretty fishy. The point is, I don't see things one-dimensionally, and doing so is becoming a sheep that so many people here are "refusing" to become.


I don't have the time to read your document now, it's late, but I'll do so tomorrow.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Nearly all conspiracy "theories" of how the towers collapsed (this relates to most 9/11 theories too) have been disproven or put into considerable doubt.


Actualy no they haven't. All that's happened is those in denial have latched on to theories that only stand up because they keep repeating them, not because of any science...

Nobody has yet answered how this...



Became this...




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Doctor fungi where arth thou?

I have noticed a recurring theme with this user's posts, it is that dr.f
posts an attack minded thread on usually a 9/11 related topic, then sits back
and waits for the replies to start coming (and the ats pts to start adding up) while hardly ever making any further contributions to the original topic post.
This happened elsewhere where other users accused dr.f of trolling,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I then learned, thanks to thichHeaded that dr fungi stated on this site forums.randi.org...
that " This forum is actually quite intelligent unlike 90% of the populace at ATS. "

Hence I am wary of this users intentions.


Same here but to be quite frank, I don't give a flying rats behind what the intentions are as this users ilk is not fooling me and I suspect a lot of other people are not being fooled as well.




BSBrey

The damage to WTC7 was asymmetrical. The building itself was asymmetrical. Yet, for it to fall straight down, as should be OBVIOUS to anyone who thinks critically about this for two seconds, it would take all the columns supporting the building to fail at virtually the same instant. That doesn't happen randomly, or on its own. It never has. Never. Only with demolitions can support columns be cut down simultaneously like that, and they keep it going, too, so that it falls unresisted. That's what happened to WTC7. It's not complicated. What's complicated is how control is kept over us as citizens. Take the situation of the French before their revolution, and introduce to it modern technology for starters.


THANK you.


Dr Fungi and Howard Roarke.. Sometimes I wonder who you really are and who you work for but you are just spinning your wheels here.


BTW. believe it or not I have spent quite a bit of time reading this 'report' and I find it funny how it tries so desperately to try and descredit Alex Jones. Man, Alex must striking some "nerve" because this 'desperation' is getting more shrill and prolific. (All it's doing is adding positive exposure to Alex's camp)




[edit on 29-11-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
ANOK: correct me if I'm wrong. You've posted photos from two different angles ?



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   
I like how the fires were very very effective in compromising the structural integrity of a huge steel laced skyscraper. CAUSE LAUGH OUT LOUD, they're built to obviously fall to the will of office fires within an hour or two after a jet crashes into them.

Of course.

Why not.

How silly to think otherwise.

Laffus Out Loudus?



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
ANOK: correct me if I'm wrong. You've posted photos from two different angles ?


First pic is of the top tilting, the second pic is the building collapsing under the tilting top portion (not the best pic but you should get the point I was making).

Something other than the fires or planes impact, as this shows, was acting on the lower undamaged portion of the south tower. Bombs, nano-impacto-superburning-thermate, nano-nukes, death rays from the bush, who cares? Whatever it was it did the job, as this to me clearly shows...



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
^ Nobody going to tackle this question? Not in your NIST report?
You armchair engineering official story apologists haven't got an answer for this?

I have asked this question numerous times and still no one has touched it. Instead you focus on the details that no one can answer, and ignore the physics that show there had to be explosives of some kind in the building.

Folks there is an agenda going on here as obvious as stink on crap, keep the truth seekers bogged down with irrelevant arguments, that go nowhere to get the truth out.
When faced with facts that can't be reputed they suddenly become silent.


If I'd posted that thermo-superduperthermate-nuclear-steelburningacid had been used they would have been all over it...


Pretty obvious isn't it?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
To be honest with everyone here I've seen nothing but solid debunking of the government line since 9/11.

It's beyond a reasonable doubt for all the people willing to do the groundwork themselves. But sadly people don't. They just hide their head in the sand or what not.

It's plainly obvious at this point that the WTC was an inside job.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
It fell down in its footprint, that is very obvious.. indeed.

Yes indeed, it did fall down completely into it's own footprint. I have to tell you I have 3 different DVDs full of different controlled demolition jobs and for the life of me, I can't even find a single building that feel down as vertically as WTC7.
If it was a controlled demolition job, it was the BEST one, the most perfectly performed CD job I have ever seen.

But there was significant fire damage, from the photos posted in the forum from a few weeks back of all that smoke (smoke = fire) within WTC 7.

Where were the damage from falling debris?
I am guessing they happened on the South side of the building (the side facing the towers) because the North side on these following pictures show no debris damage whatsoever:


Of course you can see some isolated pockets of fires but nothing really important there. So where would be all that enormous debris damage and all that devastating fire damage?
If you look at all the pictures available, none of them show any significant fire/debris damage on the North side of the building right up to the moment when it crumbles:

But if you take the time to look and study carefully, you start to realize that all those raging fires and all that devastating damage done to the building is all on the South side, the side facing the towers. There are virtually no clear pictures of the damage to the South side, some say this is because the scene was restricted by FEMA thus no reporters were on that side to take pictures and videos. Never the less the following pictures show some damage done to the South side and possibly some fires as well. We only see a lot of smoke and it's not clear if that smoke comes solely from WTC7, but we'll assure so and we'll assume there were huge devastating fires on that side:


So I guess you and I completely agree up to now, right?
Almost no fires and no debris damage on the North side with all the damage done on the South side, right?

It only had to weaken some of the building partially to allow for a progressive collapse (i.e. bringing down the rest of the building).

Well, lets put what we've learned into practice, shall we?
A building with major damage all concentrated on one side. Well I assume the damage is major if it causes a building to collapse completely.
So just how do you explain that a building with damage ALL on one side can crumble down so completely and so vertically inside a record 7 seconds ... humm?
Now, let me ask you, how do you explain a building like that is going to crumble completely vertically into it's own footprint instead of toppling over to the damaged side?
This is what WTC7 should look like:



Also, the "Squibs" seen up the side of WTC 7 as it is seen collapsing are windows breaking to an uneven structure and stress levels.

Quite franckly, those wiggles on the side of the building could be anything, we just don't see clearly enough to describe exactly what that is. Anyone who claims that it is either squibs or windows scattering is by definition a "conspiracy theorist" because we just can't see exactly.
He sees squibs and you see windows breaking, it seems to me you both decide to see whatever you want to see, whatever suits your version of the story .... that is not very objective from either of you .... I say it's Bush waving out the window.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join