It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC 7 revisited...

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:34 AM

Your link is no good. The video was removed.

Oh.. and he heard ONE clap of thunder? How many do you typically hear during a CD?

Considering this would be the largest building ever CD'd, I would think you would hear more.

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
1. The story from hundreds of Engineers that have exhausted many hypothisis's, looked at many possibilities...(and continue to do so) including blast hypothisis. Who ALSO will not release a report until they have looked at EVERY possible scenario.


2. The hypothisis from paranoid Google and Youtube jockeys who claim that because the building "looked like a controlled demolition," it was in fact one. This conclusion was made even though:

So, which category do you lump pootie, Valhall and I in? We are engineers who have exhausted many hypothesis's, looked at many possibilities (and continue to do so) including blast hypothesis.

I bet you still lump us into number 2 just because we don't agree with your agenda though.

a. No reports of explosions just prior to collapse.

Not paying attention again I see. LaBTop just posted a quote right above yours.

b. No seismic data to support the theory.

Again. Prove LaBTop wrong. Bring any siesmologist you want to the table. Prove him wrong before you start spouting this crap as fact.

c. Hundreds of firemen were standing around for hours (after the copllaspe zone was initiated)and not one claimed to have heard explosions.

WHAT? Where the hell have you been? Again, not paying attention? There a plenty videos with the actual explosions in them.

d. Ct'ers refusal to believe the MANY eyewitness accounts to those that WERE on the scene and saw the building leaning, heard it groaning, and were witness to the many fires and severe damage that was done to the building.

Debunkers refusal to believe MANY eyewitness accounts that WERE on the scene and heard explosions and felt them before the buildings collapsed. Or even the many videos with explosions in them.

e. Although holding strong to their CD theory, have yet to provide ANY proof at all to support the claim.

Although holding strong to the official reports, have yet to provide ANY proof at all to support their claim. And NIST's own experimental data contradicts ALL official reports. Yet, you still say they have been peer reviewed when no one but them have access to the construction documents. Typical.

f. With the CD theory, not one resonable explanation as to how this building was configured to have a controlled demolition.

Again. Not paying attention? It is mine and every engineer's on this forum opinion that the core was taken out first. Even NIST and FEMA agree. One, two or three bombs could have done that. Since you believe plane impact damage and fires alone could have done it...i.e. no explosives at all, how can you think that just ONE additional explosive couldn't do it?

Please answer that last question because I'm really getting sick of hearing this from you.

How can you believe that 0 explosives could bring it down and then turn around and say it would take thousands of pounds of TNT to do the same thing?

Seriously think about that. Please.

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:17 PM
Good stuff there Griff, looks like you have scared them off...

Still no one has really refuted my claim in the OP. So is the 'smoke from building 7' bs now thoroughly de-bunked?

So those of you who claim to be here to learn truth, while spreading the lies, have nothing to say? So if the truth contradicts what you are claiming you just ignore and move on? Doesn't sound much like a desire for the truth to me. In fact it looks incredibly like the opposite...

[edit on 14/8/2007 by ANOK]

new topics
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in