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.

 

Visible explosives 7 wtc

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
It's hard for the debunkers to concede, because any 'expert' that disagrees with them is a conspiracy nut or a kook. Anyone that believes that there is a possibility that criminal elements of our government could kill their fellow citizens for political gain is a kook - never mind 5000+ years of history, clearly contradicting their narrow worldview.

Modern Steel-frame buildings do not undergo catastrophic collapse, unless they are demolished with explosives - PERIOD. It’s never happened before, under any circumstance, other than controlled demolition. Those are the facts.




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I'm conscious of the fact that this thread is at very severe risk of going the way of almost all 9/11 threads these days and turning into a personal slanging match and largely covering rehashed topics which have been debated to kingdom come many times over which is why I tend not to get involved in them much these days. However, two quick points:

1. On the basis of what has been posted here the "redundancy" argument holds no significant water whatsoever. Silverstein says in the quote above,


"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need..."


Silverstein is saying that all that redundancy was built in to allow significant furrther modifications such as taking floors out without compromising the building's strength. He then goes on to say that Salomon DID take floors out. So whilst these actions did not compromise the building due to Silverstein's foresight he is NOT saying that the building ended up significantly stronger than it started out because it was subsequently weakened again by the remodelling.

Now, maybe the net effect was an overall gain in building strength, I don't know, and no one on here has posted any information to suggest that they do. So, does anyone have any better information or is this just a meaningless argument based on out of context remarks?

2. Some pages back I asked a question which no one has attempted to answer. Simply, if it was a controlled demolition why did the perpetrators put such effort into effecting such a beautiful symetrical collapse when a complete mess of an affair with the building falling all over the place would apparently have looked so much more convincing? Why would they draw such attention to themselves?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
2. Some pages back I asked a question which no one has attempted to answer. Simply, if it was a controlled demolition why did the perpetrators put such effort into effecting such a beautiful symetrical collapse when a complete mess of an affair with the building falling all over the place would apparently have looked so much more convincing? Why would they draw such attention to themselves?


Possibly because "they" didn't think much of it after what had happened that day. Most of the news was focussed on WTC 1 & 2, the pentagon and Shanksville. 95% of Americans don't even know about WTC 7. "They" pretty much got away with it being nice and clean.

Also, according to most official people that argue about the footprint collapse, the building didn't fall exactly into it's footprint. So, which is it? Did it or didn't it fall into it's footprint?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffPossibly because "they" didn't think much of it after what had happened that day.


But the building has to have been prepped days or weeks in advance at a time when the public notice it, (the WTC 7 collapse), would attract couldn't be guessed at. Nobody could have guessed at the strangely muted reporting of the Building 7 collapse in advance, after so much meticulous planning it's just not a risk that anyone in their right minds was going to take and more importantly, not a risk they needed to take.


So, which is it? Did it or didn't it fall into it's footprint?


Technically, no it didn't as bits of it did spread out but hey, I'm not the one saying it did. If we're suddenly going to agree that it didn't fall in a surprisingly tidy way after all then one of the most commonly used arguments in favour of a controlled demolition has just gone west hasn't it?

[edit on 6-3-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
TimelessTest,

Let's look at it a different way. If you are planning the destruction of the towers and 7, how would you have made 7 fall?

Over onto other buildings that are not insured against terrorist attacks like Larry's buildings?

Or straight down even though it "might" look like a conventional demolition?

I'd go for number 2, especially knowing that I can obstruct justice by selling the steel to China and cleaning it up as soon as possible (even while there still might be survivors in the towers).

On a side note: It would be interesting to know which buildings in the area were insured against a terror attack. Was it only Larry's buildings?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Let's look at it a different way. If you are planning the destruction of the towers and 7, how would you have made 7 fall?


That depends entirely on how I want it to look. Assuming I want it to look like a terrorist attack I would make every effort not to make it not look like a demolition. If what you hypothesise is true then why would I make it look like a CD? It should be easier to make it look uncontrolled.

Taking time and effort to bring it down tidily makes no sense whatsoever.


Over onto other buildings that are not insured against terrorist attacks like Larry's buildings?

You appear to be suggesting that not only did Silverstein have control over how the collapse of his buildings looked but also that he cared about how the destruction of other buildings looked. If you want to preach a conspiracy then why would someone risk the whole deal, (after killing thousands of innocents), to protect uninsured property? Sorry, it just doesn't make the slightest sense. It's like the "pull it" quote, does anybody seriously think that either Silverstein or the fire chief were in a position to make that call there and then on the day (assuming that you think "pull it" means demolish it which, frankly, is one hell of a leap of faith).


On a side note: It would be interesting to know which buildings in the area were insured against a terror attack. Was it only Larry's buildings?


I wouldn't find it to be of the slightest interest. My factory is insured against terrorism, not because I am thinking of torching the place but because I want to be in business next week. That's what insurance is for, the nightmare scenario.

Sorry to be dismissive but this is a classic case of choosing the evidence to fit the desired solution rather than the other way around.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by Griff
Let's look at it a different way. If you are planning the destruction of the towers and 7, how would you have made 7 fall?

That depends entirely on how I want it to look. Assuming I want it to look like a terrorist attack I would make every effort not to make it not look like a demolition. If what you hypothesise is true then why would I make it look like a CD? It should be easier to make it look uncontrolled.

Taking time and effort to bring it down tidily makes no sense whatsoever.


There are so many loose ends to 9/11 it's not funny. Thats EXACTLY why there's such a raging conspiracy forum here and why the internet is full of 9/11 sites--because they were so arrogant or sloppy when they did the job.

To my mind it was like any other contracted job--the demo pros came in and did their work--they took pride in it and did a great job--a near perfect collapse--but maybe with 20/20 hindsight that wasn't what should have been done.

Just like the BBC live report that it was gone when it was still there. Didn't think it completely through, Murphy's law. The traitors were human after all.

Makes complete sense to me. Hey, that's life--even when you're executing unprecedented terror. You hope the shock is enough to hide all the telling details--Hell, many of them fly in the face of simple logic to any educated mind. But MOST people don't know enough and don't look too deep. That was surely on their side for years, until recently, when the weight of evidence started to really pile up.

The wheels are coming off 9/11, and that's what really scares me, they've now got to double down, just like in Iraq with Iran. Hide the last mess with an even bigger shocker.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by gottago]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Taking time and effort to bring it down tidily makes no sense whatsoever.


Not if you want the clean up to be nice and tidy. Think about what documents were in 7. Do you think "they" wanted all those documents to land in nearby buildings and be read?


does anybody seriously think that either Silverstein or the fire chief were in a position to make that call there and then on the day (assuming that you think "pull it" means demolish it which, frankly, is one hell of a leap of faith).


I don't believe the "pull it" quote means CD.


I wouldn't find it to be of the slightest interest. My factory is insured against terrorism, not because I am thinking of torching the place but because I want to be in business next week. That's what insurance is for, the nightmare scenario.


Would you mind mentioning the type of factory? Thanks.


Sorry to be dismissive but this is a classic case of choosing the evidence to fit the desired solution rather than the other way around.


What evidence am I choosing? That the building fell into it's footprint? That's pretty much fact.

Bottom line. If you are going to blow up a building that has classified documents (documents some theorise is the reason for the demolition to begin with) you are not going to have it explode onto the streets and adjacent buildings. The only way they COULD do it was by felling the building straight down. That way, you don't loose your precious documents. Is that a better answer for you?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Amazing find. This one is going to pretty tough to debunk. I can understand people saying that it is just the pressure of the collapsing floors, but it shouldnt be happening from the bottom up, as well as before the building has started to fall.

This whole 911 story is about to blow up in the face of the govt real soon.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffI don't believe the "pull it" quote means CD.[/qoute]

Good, very wise.


Would you mind mentioning the type of factory? Thanks.

We make very dull passive components.


What evidence am I choosing? That the building fell into it's footprint? That's pretty much fact.


Sorry, that was a generic comment rather than one aimed at you in particular Griff but I get very irritated by the "into its own footprint" comment. That's lazy stuff and a gross over simplification.


Bottom line. If you are going to blow up a building that has classified documents (documents some theorise is the reason for the demolition to begin with) you are not going to have it explode onto the streets and adjacent buildings...

...That way, you don't loose your precious documents. Is that a better answer for you?


No, it's a rubbish answer. If you honestly believe that this was all about destroying documents don't you think there were easier ways of doing it than everything we saw on 9/11?

[edit on 6-3-2007 by timeless test]

[edit on 6-3-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Can any of the deniers cite one example of a modern steel-frame building that has undergone a catastrophic, symmetrical collapse, before or since 9/11 - under ANY circumstance?

Anyone?

Bueller?
Bueller?

I didn't think so. Either these deniers are CENTCOM agents, or they are deluded fools. The debate truly is over. The Enemy is the Government - it always has been.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The Mc Cormic convention center in Chicago collapsed due to fire alone... With no widespead structural damage caused by falling towers as was seen in WTC7.

In fact I believe the Mc Cormic fell faster than WTC 7 did. A lot faster.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
To my mind it was like any other contracted job--the demo pros came in and did their work--they took pride in it and did a great job--a near perfect collapse--but maybe with 20/20 hindsight that wasn't what should have been done.


Yep, you can almost hear them walking away from a job well done saying "you mean you didn't want it to look like that?"

If you honestly believe this was an inside job then it was done with massive resources, enormous planning and zero morals, but nobody thought about how it may look in retrospect. Sorry, that is simply not good enough.


Just like the BBC live report that it was gone when it was still there. Didn't think it completely through, Murphy's law. The traitors were human after all.


Or maybe they were just after a scoop in a horribly confused news environment or is that far too rational an explanation?


Makes complete sense to me.

If you are serious please get some therapy. See, now I'm being drawn into the silly stuff. Right, I've said all I need to on this thread and anything else will be from the "did, didn't" school of debate so I am officialy off this thread.

Please play nicely.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Yep, you can almost hear them walking away from a job well done saying "you mean you didn't want it to look like that?"

If you honestly believe this was an inside job then it was done with massive resources, enormous planning and zero morals, but nobody thought about how it may look in retrospect. Sorry, that is simply not good enough.



So WTC7 couldn't have been demolished because it looked too much like a demolition, and that's just too obvious to have been an inside job.




[edit on 6-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11So WTC7 couldn't have been demolished because it looked too much like a demolition, and that's just too obvious to be true.


Ahhhh, so it was the old double bluff trick, now I see...

C'mon bsb, I honestly believe you are much better than that. Seriously, I would be interested to hear your view on why they fell into such a naive trap.

(Damn, and I was not going to carry on with this...)

[edit on 6-3-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   


The Mc Cormic convention center in Chicago collapsed due to fire alone...no widespead structural damage as was seen in WTC7.


interesting but utterly ludicrous, in that: it was not a skyscraper, not of modern steel-frame construction and did not suffer a symetrical collapse.

Try again.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
It's plausible deniability. The people that organized these events were probably not very analytical people, pouring over every detail from a technical standpoint to find the most efficient, solid psy-op that could be pulled off to start the "war on terror", without leaving any evidence behind for the relatively small group of more technically-inclined people to notice. Instead, they were careful enough for things not to be too obvious for the great masses, and the evidence for this is that there has been a critical backlash to the official story, but it has not been widespread enough to actually halt the events that are taking place in the Mid-East right now.

"They" took a calculated risk, and got away with it (thus far), but I disagree with your assumption that this was all overseen by a very analytical 'technical staff', including considerations like psychology and sociology, all just trying to pull off an event that can't possibly be contradicted when carefully analyzed. It can be contradicted. Realize this. Bush made a speech to the UN immediately after 9/11, saying to ignore any conspiracy theories that may pop up. Seriously, he said that. That one's just too obvious too, isn't it?

Like I said, it was a calculated risk, and they calculated it pretty accurately from what I'm seeing so far.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack



The Mc Cormic convention center in Chicago collapsed due to fire alone...no widespead structural damage as was seen in WTC7.


interesting but utterly ludicrous, in that: it was not a skyscraper, not of modern steel-frame construction and did not suffer a symetrical collapse.

Try again.


Mc Cormick:

The Steel trusses failed due to fires alone. In 30 minutes. What you can gleen from this? Steel buildings are not impervious to fire; especially uncontrolled fire, and there are steel stuctures that have fallen due to this problem in the past.

It is simple really....you won't see what you don't want to see.

I was waiting for WTC 7 to collapse all day on 9/11/2001. Everyone in my office was. We were glued to the News that day.

Now several years later "9/11 Truth seekers" act as if it was some big Surprize and that 95% of the nation didn't even KNOW about WTC 7. What a load of crapola!. I_am_sorry. It didn't go down that way. It just didn't.

Here watch this..I am sure there are more of these out there.

msnbc.com...

What is important in the "live on 9/11" footage is how the building collapsing was not a surprize AT ALL. It wasn't! Remember that. Don't incorrectly re-learn that.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by bsbray11So WTC7 couldn't have been demolished because it looked too much like a demolition, and that's just too obvious to be true.


Ahhhh, so it was the old double bluff trick, now I see...

C'mon bsb, I honestly believe you are much better than that. Seriously, I would be interested to hear your view on why they fell into such a naive trap.


Let's get real here fella, and also let's cut the Karl Rove lizard-brain mock-them-so-they-shut-up bull#.

In the immortal words of Cheech and Chong, if it looks like dog sh*t, smells like dog sh*t and tastes like dog sh*t, it IS dog sh*t.

So don't step in it.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
The Steel trusses failed due to fires alone. In 30 minutes.


If that's what happened then how come they didn't fail in 30 minutes when NIST tested them in a lab? Remember that they did this test also to steel with no fireproofing.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join