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.

 

Video of WTC 7 Burning! A Must See

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well if the building was so severly damged and all the floors gutted by fire it would not take a huge quantity of explosives. WTC 7 was evacuated several hours before so thier would have been no sneaking in under peoples noses.



Oh yea go into a building that the Fire guys new was dangerous and doomed. Sounds like a suicide mission to me. Maybe they were OBLs Arabs too




posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
In the first place I cannot see any body in the US being capable of planning the alleged conspiracy in all its permutations


But you can believe bin Laden and a rag-tag group of untrained arabs that never planned or carried out any thing even remotely similar to this COULD have pulled this off?

Let me make sure I understand this...

The CIA and the Dept. of Defense, with billion dollar budgets and thousands of professionally trained and experienced operatives could NOT pull off 9/11, but 20 or so untrained, inexperienced, arabs, with little or no support organization an minimal funding, COULD pull off 9/11?

Do you really think this makes any sense?


Yes does to me. In one scenario a bunch of guys flew some hijacked planes into some buildings.

In another scenario (I will have to generalise here a bit because there are so many conspiracy theories, which is by the way another reason I don't believe it, their ain't no winner). So some mysterious bodies planted explosives before or during the downing of the Towers. They then got some guys to fly aircraft into the Towers or used remote controlled planes or used holograms to simulate an aircraft strike. I loose interest now but basically there are so many parameters, people to avoid, keep quiet etc.
Yet I remind you that with all that organisation they forget not to give the scene a classic CD footprint.

The second scenario(s) are far too complicated, too many things to go wrong. From a country that gave the world "Blue on Blue" and other organisational ineptness I cannot and will not believe that they are capable of pulling it off.


Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota

So IMHO they had no need to demo the buildings, a bit of flame was enough!!


This conclusion is based on YOUR assumptions about why WTC7 would need to be destroyed. If the individuals working within the U.S. government were involved in any way they may have had their own reasons for wanting WTC7 to come down on 9/11.

Keep in mind that WTC7 was the home of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, SEC, and IRS to name just a few tennants.



Who worked there is irrelevant to me. 7 just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I make no assumptions that it needed to be destroyed. CTers think it did.



To All,
CTers of any type must have Captain Paranoia on the shoulder in the first place to "look for the truth". This immediately puts in place the selective evidence process.

Give it up guys, I think its got as far as it will get. A couple of generations ago CTers said there was something dodgy with President Kennedys exit from this realm. Maybe there was maybe there wasn't. We will never know. The only certainty is that someone somewhere is or will make money from it all. Just like this 911 Fable. Is that why you need to keep it going guys...a bit of money?

I watched a documentary last night in the UK. I don't know why? It was all the usual hash of selective statements and dodgy clips. I do try to see what you guys see but I don't see it as you. If that makes me a "sheeple" or mad so be it. All I know is that when we have all lived out our respective lives my viewpoint will be the same. Probably your viewpoint will remain the same. Difference will be that I would have got on and lived my life. The CTers will still be trying to convince people from their "zero point energy" powered wheelchairs or banged up under some mental health code still shouting "inside job".

A few thousand people lost their lives over this already. Don't waste yours guys


I await all the lovely graphics and juvenile insults that usually follow this kind of response.

Thank heavens for the Ignore Button



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimp
I'm sure the democrats who are wailing and beating their fists against their chests to make him look like even more of an idiot than he already does wouldn't expose him if there was any reason to do so.


Just a reminder... last year Mr. and Mrs. Clinton spent the 4th of July on holiday with Bush Sr. and his wife. And one democrat who WAS beating her fists against her chest was Cynthia McKinney, and shortly thereafter she was arrested by capital police for not showing her badge, and was subsequently run out of town.

And one republican who was beating his chest about discovering hard evidence of not just pre-knowledge, but of a cover-up by the 9/11 Commission, Curt Weldon, was put under federal investigation, and his daughter's offices were raided by the feds. Of course he lost the next election too.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by something smells
I personally doubt the CTers motives.


Soooo therefore you think there is some kind of a conspiracy going here. . . That makes you a CTer too!

Welcome.


I'm glad to see that you've also picked an appropos moniker for a CTer there Dr Freud.


Please feel free to continue on with your ranting, raveing and gesticulating wildly, and have a nice day in CTer land.


spelling

[edit on 19-2-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
GwionX

Firstly John Stockwell isn't just an ordinary person coming forward about what is going on, he has testified before Congress, was on 60 minutes, the CIA secret Wars are well documented.

He is clearly the highest ranking officer to go public and he has done this long before there was a World Wide Web that exists in the form it does today. It has nothing to do with the Internet.

He has said this for years.

He recieves no MONEY for his work, he was sued by the CIA because he was an agent he was supposed to clear the book through them in advance.

It isn't fiancial, it is purely because the man grew a conscience.

As for Gov killing their own citizens, do you think your Gov is the only Gov that doesn't do this?

Its everyone else all the time? Do you really think it is that simple?

Look up "The Association for Responsible Dissent" made up of former CIA officials, do you think they are just giving away their livelhoods and reputations for a lie?

What about Operation Northwoods, where the Joint Chiefs sat down and plotted either Killing Cubans at the high seas, starting a Terror campain in Washington, or blowing up a US Ship and blame it all on Cuba??

What about the Iranian leader Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh who was democratically elected and then overthrown by the US and the British in OPERATION AJAX??

No, Gov is evil has been through history and very few good people can change things.

If Gov could be trusted do you think we would have had World War 1, World War 2, Hiroshima, Negasaka, the KOREAN WAR, the VIETNAM WAR etc and etc and etc and etc..


That is not the result of just 'others' being bad, that is the direct result of 'we' and 'they' being bad.

These wars left MILLIONS DEAD, why should I believe that 3 thousand deaths would cause the Gov or CIA to be concerned? They are not concerned over the MILLIONS DEAD neither are they concerned about a less number.

Simply put, they don't care.

So, to believe that the CIA was somehow behind 9/11 does not suprise me at all.



[edit on 19-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
To All,
CTers of any type must have Captain Paranoia on the shoulder in the first place to "look for the truth". This immediately puts in place the selective evidence process.


To all,



Hip-o-crite

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
3. See statements above & below for good examples. . .



All I know is that when we have all lived out our respective lives my viewpoint will be the same. Probably your viewpoint will remain the same. Difference will be that I would have got on and lived my life. The CTers will still be trying to convince people from their "zero point energy" powered wheelchairs or banged up under some mental health code still shouting "inside job".


This statement below is the by far the best one of them all though dude! Cudos!



I await all the lovely graphics and juvenile insults that usually follow this kind of response.


Don't have any graphics, but I hope I have fulfilled your learned prediction and have responded in a manner befitting the juvenile statements you just spouted off.



Thank heavens for the Ignore Button


It is said that you should always take the finger that you point at everybody else in life & turn it around on yourself first to make sure there's nothing wrong with your own thinking. No offense, but I would highly suggest this practice for you TT. . .

Have a nice day!


2PacSade-



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
GwionX

Which is all the more reason why a *RANDOM* event would have less chance of success of a straight down collapse. She did mention in that interview that they did demolish the Oklahoma City Federal Building , they just had to be careful.

But that building(Oklahoma City Federal Building) was far more damaged then WTC7. In fact, the Oklahoma City Federal Building looked far more damaged then even the Towers.
But, it needed 'explosives' to finish it. That to me makes the Building 7 collapse by a random event ludicrous.

It is the same thing, it needed 'explosives' to finish the job. They did before, so people like them can do it again.

We can all agree that this building was far more damaged then bldg 7






Yet we are expected to believe that Building7 that had a *bunker* just fell straight down from some damage and fire.



[edit on 19-2-2007 by talisman]


Was this building on fire for hours without any firefighting operations at all? What is the design if this building? IS it the same as WTC7? Apples to Apples here kiddies.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I was just thinking about WTC 7 and a thought just occured to me.If there were explosive's rigged in this building how in the hell did they still function properly after all the damage and fire that the building just recieved?It may just be my opinion but doesn't it take some type of electrical power source to set off explosive device's and wouldn't they all be wired together in a series so they would ignite in a timely fashion?

My question is,if there were explosion's being set off would they need a power source to ignite them?

Was there electricity in WTC 7? I would assume every fuse in the building would of popped.

If there were explosive device's wouldn't the fire and damage destroy either the explosive devices themselve's or the wiring connecting them all?

It just seem's highly unlikely that an explosive set up would of functioned properly after all that damage and the fire.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Samblack]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Samblack]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
That is precisely what I have been saying SamBlack!!

If the explosives were set to bring down building 7 BEFORE the Towers fell...HOW COULD ANYONE know where the VERY REAL DAMAGE to WTC7 would be? Or how extensive?...ect..ect.

The Answer? No one could have predicted how , where, and what kind of damage would be inflicted on building 7 before the towers fell.

The RISK to any persons planning such an elaborate, unknown, and untested, series of events would have been so enormous that it is simply not a fesible scenario.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Was this building on fire for hours without any firefighting operations at all? What is the design if this building? IS it the same as WTC7? Apples to Apples here kiddies.


Cameron, you're answering the same question the "truthers" want to know too. Without any firefighting operations at all... then what firefighters were they pulling out of the building?

I know there are many anomolies regarding WTC7, but we are both asking the SAME question to prove different points.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Most explosives are actually pretty sturdy, and would stand both the fire and impact damage. And if the impacting debris was strong enough to do real damage, then you shouldn't have to worry about setting off an explosive there to compromise the structure anyway!

RDX-based explosives are pretty common with commercial jobs and they require heat and pressure to detonate. You can throw C4 into a fire and it won't go off.


Also, the charges would most likely be set off remotely, as this would be safest, and it is not very hard to do (especially for the military!). Instead of physically wiring them together, especially in series (potential nightmare, just as you suspect), the devices would've each had a digital detonating cap that waited for a particular signal before electrically detonating the device.

It's the same as the remote control for your TV, except instead of your TV receiving a particular signal from the remote and subsequently changing the channel, a detonator cap would receive a different signal and initiate a different set of events electronically. Specifically it would detonate the charge. And it would only do this upon receiving the proper signal, whenever that would be. Setting off charges at different times allows more control over the demolition, too, because then you can blow the charges floor-by-floor from the bottom up, or the top down, or however you'd like (this part is done with computer software by companies like CDI, if I'm not mistaken, but writing a program from scratch to do the job certainly isn't out of the question).


If you have people that know what they're doing, rigging a building like WTC7 would only be a matter of knowing the security people, and having the resources available. In the case of 9/11, the parties involved would've had perfect access to both.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Even if they were "remote control" devices how did they withstand the fire that was in this building? I highly doubt it,and if there were explosives why isn't there any audible evidence of this?I can fire my 12 gauge shotgun wich is rather silent compared to something like C4 and i can hear a shotgun blast from a mile away with no problem's.

The whole explosion thing is just to far fetched for me to believe,it would simply take to many people to pull this off.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Samblack]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
There were witnesses that reported explosions from WTC7, and at least one news anchor said that you could hear "secondary explosions" coming from the building every 20 minutes or so:

www.studyof911.com...


As far as how the detonator caps and all that survived, what did they have to survive? Do you know how little of WTC7's structure was actually affected by WTC1's collapse? All the charges had to survive, really, was the possibility of fire. And as I said, even C4 can withstand fire. Explosives are not automatically set off simply because they are exposed to a lot of heat; that's more Hollywood than science.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I was stating that the "remote control" devices would of melted not the C4.There'S enough footage of WTC7 that would of recorded any obvious audible explosion's and there were none.Explosion's are LOUD.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
C4 may be able to withstand fire..but the wires and detonation devices would melt like a cheap tent, or like a TV remote control would in a house fire ..thus rendering them inopperable to cause the c4 to explode.

This scenario would be too RISKY and quite frankly it is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Agree ^^^^^



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Bsbray...have you ever heard an electrical transformer blow?

BOOOM



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
I was stating that the "remote control" devices would of melted not the C4.



Really? So the explosives were fine, just their downfall was putting them in plastic containers, right?


It's called INSULATION guys. And there are no wires! It's all internal when it's remotely controlled.


And yes, and not only do they explode but they also catch fire and make very sooty messes. Not to mention, we would definitely know from the clean-up if a very large transformer had exploded.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
You are stretching...big-time.

I realize that it is hard , once you have put all of the research and footwork into something; you kinda gaurd that stuff you had to toil for as very relevant.

That is the trick.. the trick of mind-control.

That is how opportunists like Alex Jones have infiltrated your thought process...to serve their own political agendas.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
That is how opportunists like Alex Jones have infiltrated your thought process...to serve their own political agendas.


I don't listen to any of those guys. Not my cup of tea. Sorry.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join