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's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
No harm intended. Cameron, you are a great debater, I give you that. But, you did say that you are not one way or the other, yet, when anyone states their opinion in a anti-establishment way, you are the first one to jump on them!

Anyways, good stuff. Love this site!! Time for FOOTBALL!!!!!




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Define Shill

Answer below.


Originally posted by texaspike
But, you did say that you are not one way or the other, yet, when anyone states their opinion in a anti-establishment way, you are the first one to jump on them!



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Alright, let's chill this thread out. Decorum folks.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Thich ~
Im not sure why your all worked up. Geeesh dude! First off WT7 is STILL under investigation and HOPEFULLY we wil get some much needed answers soon.

I have read the FIRST link you sent. I can't TOTALY DEBUNK anything. Neither CAN YOU of the NIST or of the MANY Engineers that have studied it. If we could...there wouldn't be a conspiracy at all.
However, Winston Smith makes claims without using lots of the evidence that was presented to other engineers and NIST. ie: there are SEVERAL photographs that show additional damage to WT7 that he leaves out. If you would like I can post them for you.

Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer was stated as saying "As I approached, I came down and saw the big hubbub going on around Building 7. I walked around it, I saw a hole, I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though. There was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any creaking or any indication that it was going to come down."
This refutes testimony from SEVERAL firefighters that were there INCLUDING the photographer Steve Spack. (where Mr. Winston got some of his photos) Who is telling the truth? IS someone lying?

Bottom line, the NIST report on WTC7 is STILL being investigated. We are not graced with the amount of evidence they have. The amount of smoke in the videos and photgraphs hampers the investigation process.
I think we can all agree that to refute any explination on the collapse/destruction of WTC7 would be innapropriate. There are just too many "what if's" on both sides. Even NIST didn't say "this is for certain what happened."

Anyway...sorry I can't "debunk" you. I will read your next site you posted. Sorry this took so long, but I did have to have lunch





[edit on 26-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Please chill out, folks. Don't attack the poster, attack the points.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Thich ~
I can't TOTALY DEBUNK anything. Neither CAN YOU of the NIST or of the MANY Engineers that have studied it. If we could...there wouldn't be a conspiracy at all.
However, Winston Smith makes claims without using lots of the evidence that was presented to other engineers and NIST. ie: there are SEVERAL photographs that show additional damage to WT7 that he leaves out. If you would like I can post them for you.


Why dont you go ahead and do that for me..



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I've read the FIRST link you sent. I can't TOTALY DEBUNK anything. Neither CAN YOU of the NIST or of the MANY Engineers that have studied it. If we could...there wouldn't be a conspiracy at all.

I think we can all agree that to refute any explination on the collapse/destruction of WTC7 would be innapropriate. There are just too many "what if's" on both sides. Even NIST didn't say "this is for certain what happened."


I think the funnest thing about this site, other than the research of course, is the debating that goes on! When it comes to 9/11, I personally don't think we will find out the tangible truths for some time to come. The 9/11 Report was so vague and left so much to still ponder, that it can only make a great arguement for now.

Perhaps, in 20 years, we can open up the archives and find some good stuff out!! Unless they send all the documents over to the Vatican to hide....oops, another topic!!




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Fur cryin' out loud Dick, WATCH THIS PICTURE:

Now you tell me that NIST report is still not finished, well of course it isn't because they just can't find a decent explanation as to how the terrorists and planes did this to the picture above. Look at that picture, will ya, what do you see in there? How much like controlled demolition does that look to you.
NIST and FEMA will keep playing like they don't really know how WTC7 feel. they will keep on skating around the issues, they will do whatever it takes, together with your media to put up a smoke screen in front of the fact that that building feel down via controlled demolition.

Now keep bringing in "reports" and "official sources" and "expert comments" but all that that is doing is steering you away from the pure simple logic that this picture draws you to:


[edit on 26-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
To reemphasize, the 20 story gash and damage to WTC really is completely irrelevant.

Listen, why do we have controlled demolition companies that take many months of careful and precise planning to correctly demolish a building when we can simply throw some random debris at a building or create a large 20 story gash in just a few minutes, start some random fires and let the building take care of itself and it wall fall neatly and symetrically down into its own footprint, completely unaided and within a few hours?

Surely, we don't need controlled demolitions! They are conning us all and wasting months of our time! Why bother with controlled demolitions that takes months of planning, and sufficient weakening to the structures main supports by up to 99% when we could simply fly a large plane into the side of it and it will take care of itself about an hour later?! What a waste of time controlled demolitions are! They should be out of a job by now.

Its a pretty simple concept to grab.. Believing random fires and random damage could create a symetrical collapse of this nature is a bit like expecting a chimp to paint the mona lisa.


[edit on 26-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Thich... I am new here and don't have much space to post pictures. Here is one:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Check out the amount of debris at the base of WTC7 and the destruction all around.

I know there is a similar picture on Winstons site...this one is much lower and shows a somewhat large debris area.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Thich... I am new here and don't have much space to post pictures. Here is one:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Check out the amount of debris at the base of WTC7 and the destruction all around.

I know there is a similar picture on Winstons site...this one is much lower and shows a somewhat large debris area.


Please point us to where it is you see WTC7 in this picture. I don't have a clue where this photo took place.
Now let me show you a picture that shows the damage on the South side of WTC7, here it is:
judi.kw.nl...
Now notice how all the damage was on one side, the towers side of course but yet, the building didn't topple over on that side, instead it feel down completely vertical, it almost looked as if it was sinking in the ground, falling in all of a sudden.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Your Image:


Images Shown in Article:

To big so has to link:
www.studyof911.com...








Notice how much more damage this shows compared to your dust cloud???





So, show me something I haven't seen already.


[edit on 11/26/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 11/26/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Even if the damage was extensive on that side, even if all that smoke was coming from the WTC7, the building would have toppled over on that side instead of collapsing neatly onto itself like a perfect controlled demolition job.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The damage wasnt that bad for the building to collapse, so the story is bunk already..



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
The damage wasnt that bad for the building to collapse, so the story is bunk already..

And even if it were that bad (which we both know it wasn't) then the building would have toppled over, not sink down so vertically.
All the NIST-FEMA-FBI b.s. can not explain away how the building collapsed in this manner.
Box cutter terrorists could not have done this and that's why they don't address it in the media.


[edit on 26-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
With WTC 7 if the damage extended into the inner support structure area (which it didn't) then WHY didn't the tower collapse when it was first comprimised ?

Also noting that WTC 7 was damaged from 1 side only IF the building had collapsed due to that damage and/or fire it SURELY would started a collapse on the damaged and SURELY not a uniformly and symetrical in appearance. Look at OKC and you see only one side collapsed where the explosives initiated damage.

Also CF you have yet to address why/how Giuliani received warning that the WTC 1,2 were going to collapse ........ there is ZERO reference to anyone EVER even milding surmizing they would collapse before hand. But somehow Giuliani got the warning.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Boniman,

Could you give a reference for the source on Giuliani being warned. I'm trying to establish the timeline for when it is reported he was told this.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
The damage wasnt that bad for the building to collapse, so the story is bunk already..


Thich... come on, you seem pretty smart. Thats all you have? You can't "bunk" a story by looking at pictures ALONE.
The picture I sent was not on the Winston site.. like i said it was SIMILAR...yet being lower you could see quite a bit of debris.

To everyone else waiting for responses from me on their topics....sorry...I have to get payroll done here, get out of here by 3 and the kickoff against the Bears is @ 4 ! If I have time I will try to get back on



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Quick....

I think you should read some of my posts.... I told you ..and others...SEVERAL TIMES.. I am still looking for the data. I was searching for Transponder information...my GUESS was...that the several seconds difference between the Seismic activity and the FAA loss from Radar was the time it took for the transponder to become completely destroyed. I was also told flight 11 didnt have theirs on....So... as I get the info.. i wll pass it along to you... in the mean time..like i said in the LAST post to you...I AGREE ... there is some discrepancies with the time...That does not by ANYWAY PROVE explosives.

Thanks


Established time discrepancy between seismic and radar per the government...
Eyewitnesses to explosions...
And you're intellectually dishonest.

So don't bother posting further to me cause I won't waste anymore time with you, Mr. Shill.

Adios!


“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.studyof911.com...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross, Scholars for 9/11 Truth: www.st911.org...

The US Government, incriminated by its own facts, the perfect evidence—how ironic.
Summary:
News Tip: A real 9/11 smoking gun…that no one can debunk (these are facts, not theory).
Airplane “Impact” Times: Incriminating Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity

The official times for plane "impact" [precise to the second] as declared by the US Government, from both the 9/11 Commission and from NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), are different and yet both are true and accurate times. What can this factual contradiction mean? Looking exclusively at WTC1, there is found an indisputable causal link:

One World Trade, September 11, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11 “impact” time:
8:46:30 UTC, per LDEO seismic data (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
8:46:40 UTC, per FAA last primary radar contact (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)

Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event that occurred 10 seconds before the actual air crash?
A- The only possibility is huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses at the time.
Q- Who caused these explosions before the plane hit?

Notes:
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the earlier seismic time (which had been attributed in error by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, originally in 2001 as plane “impact”).
In 2005, NIST avoided addressing the 9/11 Commission’s later time for the aircraft’s actual impact.
Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST avoided addressing the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the sub-basements before the plane crashed.

Summary:
This precision data has yet to be refuted. It is from the two highest governmental entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11. Both declared these times as accurate, and in doing so corroborate William Rodriguez and the many eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. This is indicting evidence of governmental coverup, and thus implication of complicity.

Demand a new, truly independent, criminal investigation of 9/11, this time a real one.
Justice waits...[and there is no statute of time limitation on murder]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Note also that when Giuliani testified at the 9//1 commssion he had a completely different story of events that never mentioned any warnings.video.google.ca... liani

[edit on 26-11-2006 by Boniman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join