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.

 

WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
eyewitnesses report explosions. LOTS of witnesses. including firemen. (click me)



Wow, things exploding in a fire. bet thats never happened before!

Wow a rush of hot air comes out when a burning building collapses. Who'd a thunk it?




posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

where's the fire? (click me)





I count at least 33 perimeter columns SEVERED and a half dozen more that appear to be damaged. In addition it appears that at least three of the floor slabs are partially collapsed. and that is just by looking at the photograph. I'm quite sure that there is also significant damage to other structural members that we can not see in the photo.

That is quite a lot of damage. Are you willing to risk your structural engineer's license and state that it was impossible for this building to colapse?

[edit on 20-7-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

seismic spikes match eyewitness testimony. that is, first explosions, then towers fall. (click me)



Why do you keep bringing up that siemic spike hoax. It has already been thouroughly debunked several times over. If you ever bothered to even look at the seismic data you would see that the claim that there are spikes indicating explosions is not only baseless, but as far as I am concerned, it is deliberately deceptive.

That is right. someone is lying to you and it aint me.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog


19 boarding passes with the alleged hijacklers fingerprints

No one has addressed this. The fundamentals of the most notorious murder in history and no one can get their hands on this stuff. It's all "national security". They've shown us their pictures why not the boarding passes they all used to board the planes. My guess is they don't exist.

www.prisonplanet.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...

Is anyone going to address this are should we all continue to change the subject with each post?



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
What's your point. You don't have any evidence that the FBI doesn't have the boarding passes.

The FBI does not have the fingerprint of everybody in the world. (
yet
)



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Seriously? That's all you've got as a response? The burden is on the FBI my friend, if they will release the identities, why can't they produce any evidence that these guys were on those planes? Maybe it has something to do with not only looking stupid, but also looking like liars seeing as the FBI has admitted (see the BBC article) that many of the "hijackers'" identities are in doubt yet the commission hasn't touched it and everyone still refers to "the 19".

[edit on 20-7-2004 by roxdog]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Whats the point?
Are you missing the picture here Howard?
The names of the men the FBI says commited 911 turn out to be wrong.

Perhaps this will make sense to you....
Imagine the FBI had YOUR name on that list, and more than that, had your name and the names of 4 other people that you KNOW to be alive.
They have You and your buddies names and pictures, and they are telling the world that you did this crime.
But you and your buddies are still alive, and thus OBVIOUSLY could not have committed the crime.
Does the FBI even attempt to explain this anomoly?
Yes, they give the feeble excuse that "oh, well, the passports were stolen and the real hyjackers were using aliases."
Well then WHO WAS REALLY ON THE PLANES? Because the pictures and names provided by the FBI are CLEARLY and ADMITTEDLY NOT THE HYJACKERS.
WHo was on the planes??
Who?
Anybody?



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   
cms.firehouse.com...

By around noon, WTC 7 was determined unstable and interior operations ended. Operating forces to the east were hampered by the prevailing breeze from the west which obscured the building due to smoke and debris in the air. Because of this, many firefighters were unknowingly close to the building when it collapsed, some as close as 200'.

One of those firefighters (who I know intimately) KNOWS there was no demolition charges set off because the building came down rapidly without any prior sounds*(see below) at all. I can trust his word as if it were my own.

*"without any prior sounds" One possible explanation can be found in episode 18 from the second season of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show Titled: BANANA FORMULA I'll let you search that one out for yourself.

Rocky and Bullwinkle: Banana Formula:

Professor Bermuda Schwartz invents a silent explosive called Hushaboom. Boris, disguised as a fruit peddler, steals the formula and writes it inside a banana. Bullwinkle wants to buy the banana, and Boris, always ready to make a buck, sells it. Since Bullwinkle can remember everything he ever ate, all is not lost.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Hushaboom, I like it!





posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
weak weak weak.
So you pull a post off of a board to help support your claim?
Who is that guy that posted that? Why should I believe him? Because he backs up what you say? What are his credentials? Does he even exist?

Why dont you give me one, just one, example of a steel building collapsing from fire. Ask them there on your fireman board if it is common.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   


Well, when one floor gives way (due to the heat weakening the structure) and then it turns into a domino effect...that is exactly what happens.

That's what you/we've been told but there is nothing to support your hypothesis. The evidence was destroyed as soon as it was recovered. the "pancake theory" is laughable in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Antimyth
Why dont you give me one, just one, example of a steel building collapsing from fire. Ask them there on your fireman board if it is common.


No it is not common, but then again not too many steel buildings have burned for 7 hours after being structurally damaged by the collapse of two adjacent 100 story skyscrapers, have they?

A number of adjacent buildings were severely damaged by the adjacent tower collapse, a fact that you have consistently ignored.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog


Well, when one floor gives way (due to the heat weakening the structure) and then it turns into a domino effect...that is exactly what happens.

That's what you/we've been told but there is nothing to support your hypothesis. The evidence was destroyed as soon as it was recovered. the "pancake theory" is laughable in my opinion.



Well to paraphrase Antimyth:

Why should I believe (you)? What are (your) credentials? Does (you) even exist?

Well, what are your credentials? Are you a structural engineer? Are you an Architect? Are you a physicist? Please provide specific details on why the pancake theory is so laughable. Can you calculate the magnitude of the downward force that the top portion of the building exerted on the bottom portion of the building after falling ten feet?

Do you even know the difference between live loads and dead loads>? (I know you havent the faintest idea how to calculate them).

Out of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of professional civil and structural engineers, architects, professors, students, etc. out there, can you find any to support your theories? Im not talking about the certified kooks like Tom Bearden either, I am talking about sane rational people.

?????????



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   


Out of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of professional civil and structural engineers, architects, professors, students, etc. out there, can you find any to support your theories? Im not talking about the certified kooks like Tom Bearden either, I am talking about sane rational people.

So it's insane and irrational to believe that the "official" explanation is bunk? Because that the norm in history, right? Governments telling the truth and loving their people SO much. It's funny, the university in New Mexico (their name escapes me) that studies bombs and terrorism and such (explosions on planes, etc...), released articles soon after 9/11 saying the collapse due to fire alone was impossible (also, they were not asked to study the 9/11 ruins). Fire Engineering Monthly called the investigation a "half baked farce" and the editor in chief wrote an editorial calling for a "call to action" due to the impossibility of the fire causing the towers to collapse. The links have been posted and I've only been here a week. Try reading them.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by roxdog]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark




I count at least 33 perimeter columns SEVERED and a half dozen more that appear to be damaged. In addition it appears that at least three of the floor slabs are partially collapsed.
That is quite a lot of damage. Are you willing to risk your structural engineer's license and state that it was impossible for this building to colapse?

[edit on 20-7-2004 by HowardRoark]


that hole is the obvious weak point of the building. that side(that the plane passed through) of the building is obviously weaker than the side largerly untouched by the initial shock and fireball(which as is shown on the site, mostly burned OUTSIDE the building. there was NO INFERNO to further weaken the structure.
that lady standing there, and the transcripts from the firemen, clearly illustrate that there was NO INTENSE HEAT, or TEMPATURE.
if, indeed, structural weakness caused the collapse, that tower should have leaned over towards the big whole.
the seismic spikes have been LOUDLY DEBUNKED. i see the spikes on the chart. they're big spikes. however, 'debunk' is just a word like 'libertarian' or 'kook' or 'you suck', which is used to steer the mind away from even the possibility that it might be true. maybe swamp gas made the towers fall? looks now like it might have been iran. maybe it was YOU, howard roark, fictional celebrated architect guy who blew up his own building, because he was frustrated by the establishment!
'debunking' is the job of an army of (semi)intelligence agents. it is hilarious to listen 'debunkers' loudly proclaim they have 'debunked' something.
you nit pick at details, and try and obfuscate the whole. you should know by now that it doesn't work on me. telling me 'fire burns stuff' in big words, does not change the fact that the official reported conditions on the affected floors(ie. blast furnace heat), and the actual conditions(fire under control, and people directly above, below, and ON the floors, feeling no more than a balmy breeze) don't match. it does not change, the riechstag(sp?) fire, operation northwoods, WTC7, prescott bush/nazi connection, george bush/saddam cia connection, bin laden/GWB connection, hinckley/bush sr. connection, the war on freedom, the boozing 'fundamentalist muslim pilots', the 'magic passport', the molten underground, the lack of investigation, the destroyed evidence, the dancing israelis, how the president saw the first plane hit the tower, the surviving 'hijackers', the difficulty of actually flying a plane into a tower(not something an amateur could not do), the stand down order, the plane that carried the bin ladens out of the country when no other planes were allowed to fly, etc.

and the ONE firemen who felt he HAD to mention there were 'no explosions', reminds me of a certain lucky reporter who rocketed to success after telling people the head 'clearly' rocked forward from the 'majic bullet'. forget about what all the other firemen said, before the GAG ORDER came down.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
No, it is insane and irrational to believe that the hundreds of thousands of people with the requisite training, experience and knowledge that have studied the collapse and that have come to a common consensus on the mechanisms of the collapse are wrong and that you, with no formal training in engineering, physics or architecture somehow now more than they do.

I am sorry if that is a bit insulting, but it is true.

Your belief that the collapse of the buildings was some how deliberately caused is not based on any scintilla of fact whatsoever. It is totally based on your belief in underlying conspiracies. You believe in the conspiracy first and then cast about looking for evidence to support your theories. When the evidence does not pan out, Whoa, its another conspiracy.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   


No, it is insane and irrational to believe that the hundreds of thousands of people with the requisite training, experience and knowledge that have studied the collapse and that have come to a common consensus on the mechanisms of the collapse are wrong and that you, with no formal training in engineering, physics or architecture somehow now more than they do.

Any sources? No one studied the wreckage, not even the govt. so who exactly are you referring to?



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   


How many columns were cut and how many floor slabs were taken out by the impact?

What is the role of the floor slab in supporting the building/






What percentage has the yield strength of the steel lost at 1300 degrees F?

What part of this dont you understand?






[edit on 20-7-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Yeah if it was just one anomaly then it might be 'debunkable', but the fact is that there are just tooooooooooooooooooo many problems with the official story.
I love how the 'debunkers' cling to their completely unfounded belief in the official story.
Debunker "they would never think of doing anything like that"
Me "have you seen northwoods?"
Debunker "Fire brought those buildings down"
Me "Can you give me an example in history when fire has brought down a steel building?"
Debunker "Terrorists were flying those planes"
Me "How come almost half of them are still alive?"



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   


You believe in the conspiracy first and then cast about looking for evidence to support your theories

This couln't be more false. It's the obvious anaomlies and the silence by the "establishment" on the subjects that leads many people to believe that there is a conspiracy. You do know what that word means, right?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join