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.


250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by zerbot565

I posted a link in this thread to several videos taken of WTC 7 that day.

The firemen were pulled away from WTC 7 because it was rather appearant to the people on the scene that WTC 7 was most likely going to come down too.

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:37 PM
reply to

5#pid3932883" target="_blank" class="postlink">post by Jeff Riff


Actually this is to you and Billybob both. Research my posts, when I have a website that I can post to show what I am saying, I do. For Mr. DeMartini, it was one of the dozen or so documentaries that were on TV back in September. They were interviewing some of the survivors from that day.

People...The Marriott, which was right next the the trade center suffered 10X the damage that WTC 7 did.

Yes, it was heavily damaged by the collapse of the towers.

That building did not collapse. Show me evidence that the damage to WTC 7 was remotely comprable to that. you cant because it was NOT. There is nothing you can post that is going to show that WTC 7 should have collapsed due to fire and structural want to talk about speculation? Saying WTC 7 suffered enough damage from the collapse of 1 and 2, plus resulting damage, is just a lie

However, this is where you start making assumptions. The Marriott was hit and part of it was basically driven to the ground under chunks of the tower that hit it (btw, this also shows the "they fell in their footprints" story is a bunch of BS) For WTC 7, it was hit around the 30th floor by columns of WTC 1, these columns didnt just bounce off, they carved out a section of WTC7 and by the time they were finished, they had penetrated 20-30 into the center of WTC 7. This left a lot of building standing over the hole where its support USED to be. The way the Marriott was hit, there wasnt a section of the building with nothing below it anymore.

If you bother to watch ANY of the videos Ive posted or read any of the FULL statements from FDNY members, you will realize just how badly WTC 7 was damaged. Massive fires on quite a few floors, the heat from which was causing windows on other floors to blow out, which suggests quite a bit of heat was traveling the structure for what, 6 or 7 hours, before the building finally collapsed....not that hard to see why it came down.

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by zerbot565

no building hit wtc 7

Blatantly FALSE

Then please show us a building hitting WTC 7. Otherwise, the statement by another poster is not necessarily false, until you prove it false by certified photo and/or video.

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by OrionStars

You are kidding right? As many times as videos, pictures, and firemen interviews have been posted on ATS, you STILL dont understand that WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1 as it collapsed?

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are kidding right? As many times as videos, pictures, and firemen interviews have been posted on ATS, you STILL dont understand that WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1 as it collapsed?

We understand it was hit by debris. What we are asking for is proof that the damage was enough to cause a symmetrical failure of the entire building. Your videos of "damage" show a clear vertical gash between columns. Columns are what hold buildings up. So, how did damaged floors bring a building down again?

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OrionStars

You are kidding right? As many times as videos, pictures, and firemen interviews have been posted on ATS, you STILL dont understand that WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1 as it collapsed?

I gave no implication I was kidding. I have seen or heard no one else, including those you mention, but you claim any building fell on WTC 7. Your lone claim leaves it up you to prove it did. Did you mean a building or something else?

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:05 PM
There were multiple buildings that were hit by the two towers. They did not fall...
This is not going to cause building 7 to collapse

Especially when this did not cause this building to collapse:

please tell me what made building 7 fall...... fire?? doubtful. Look at this fire...

There was no global me how the fire to 7 was worse. Then look at the damage to 7 as compared to the me how the damage to 7 was worse...If you think I am trying to deceive, then provide more damning evidence. Show me the me the fire...

I am going to guess that you cant

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 12:53 AM
well, swampfox, if you can't provide a link or a more solid reference, it is just heresay.
how do we know you're not remembering wrong, or just making it up, for that matter?

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by billybob

exactly....but I have a feeling that you are just going to get told "you obviously havent read my last few posts, or else you would have seen......."

please reference where you get your info swampfox...I am still waiting for the SUPPOSED reports if Martini concerned about the collapse

[edit on 27-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 05:10 AM
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Thanks for the interesting link,

This is the smaller, 400x300 pixel ATS fitting version of my screenshot from the Steve Spak video, "Clip 1, Upper floors" downloadable at 9/11 :

This is the 1024x768 more detailed version of that screenshot.

I don't see that infamous dark band cut-out from the south face of WTC 7 by debris from WTC 1, "reportedly" causing the collapse of WTC 7 after it also burned a few hours at a few partial floors.

I have explained in another thread already, that the vertical dark band seen in that CBS video taken from far away, the other side of the Hudson river, is a normal video anomaly seen often when the camera man is using the upper possible enlargement features of his camera. You get shades of black super imposed when you also superimpose News reel bands in the same footage, as was and is normal practice in US news-television footage.

This dark band is the holy grail of WTC 7 debunkers.
Did it ever occur to them, that such a carved out vertical band, like a cut in butter, is in reality not possible, since we are dealing with 47 floor beams running horizontally which would shear LOTS of construction material away when severed in such a manner. The resulting vertical cut would have been one with very messy sides.

The North tower's radio tower mast ended up half laying diagonally in the WTC 1 footprint, so don't come up with that one, impossible, to have caused a CLEAN CUT slice of that size in WTC 7's south face.

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:57 AM
The, uh, dark band on WTC 7 isnt my holy grail. The interviews with the firemen who were there and the videos of the building are.

You can read this too if you like

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by OrionStars

Then you havent bothered to read the sites that have been posted by myself and others on ATS.

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by Jeff Riff

And I explained to you how come the Marriott did not completely collapse.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Didn't I explain to you in an other thread, that this is a prime example of "riding on the waves of to be expected government contracts", and that Protec NEVER EVER publicized ANY of these hand-held seismic devices graphs presumably recorded on the day of 9/11.

And that they are blatantly wrong when they say :

Clarification posted 8/25/06 A Protec Comment addressing Assertion #2 has been modified from “an extended duration pancake effect down to the ground” to “an extended duration pancake-like effect down to the ground”. As many are aware – and as we go on to explain later in Assertion #2 – the buildings did not actually “pancake”. Our use of the word is not intended to be taken literally, rather it is used to represent a general visual description that helps readers conceptualize the more advanced points that follow.

Their admission afterwards, that the three WTC collapses were not "pancake" collapses, but "pancake-like" collapses, is still a farce. They were not, and not at all to be precise.
Look at their own photograph of the aftermath of a REAL pancake collapse :

It's the last photo in that bar, "Emergency Response". is their page on "vibration monitoring".
They write you can "Click below to see representative vibration monitoring projects", but you CAN'T !
Not one of their following mentioned 6 projects can be clicked.

This whole piece is one big chunk of personal opinion with no researchable references whatsoever.
The only two links provided are pure advertisement for their own websites :
They were blatantly licking the heels of eventual future government and corporation contractors.

Clarification posted 9/3/06 :
In attempting to simplify technical references, we described vibration monitoring activities in a manner that could benefit from further clarification to provide context and minimize confusion. As our report states, Protec was engaged in vibration monitoring activities on private construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11. Because these portable field seismographs were not physically installed and manned on the Ground Zero site, we do not feel it is appropriate, nor scientifically possible, to categorically state that data from these monitors alone can specifically prove or disprove the existence of an explosive catalyst. In general, portable field seismographs are far less technologically advanced than permanently installed instrumentation such as the monitors at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, which is why we chose to comment in detail on the Columbia University data before commenting on the Protec data. For example, the Columbia seismographs can pinpoint a relatively accurate geographic location for a vibration event, (i.e., “this event likely occurred at or near Ground Zero”), whereas portable field seismographs do not possess this capability. However, that said, the fact that the Protec monitors were activated and recording does appear to have some value in that they did not record vibration spikes that could be even remotely associated with explosive events during the timeframe in question. Therefore, our specific clarification reads as follows; a) The Columbia University vibration waveforms recorded on 9/11 do not appear to indicate that explosives were used, b) To the contrary, our interpretation of these waveforms – and the interpretation of many other experts – is that they clearly indicate explosives were not used, and c) Protec’s vibration data recorded during the same timeframe, while far less specific, does not show any vibration events that contradict the data recorded by Columbia University. To this end, clarifying text modifications, not affecting our original conclusions, have been made to Protec Experience Point #1, Protec Comment to Assertion #4, and Protec Comment to Assertion #7, Point #3.

Now start reading my thesis again, see my thread page 8 again (and the other one mentioned in my thread) :
-- I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007) -- :

and try to scientifically counter my arguments again. I haven't seen you do that, at all, in my thread.
Feel free to give it another try.

This is btw the other thread by Damocles mentioned in my thread :
-- Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited. -- :

where I have posted extensively on the 9/11 seismic subject.

I repeat my invitation to try to challenge my thesis that for all three 9/11 WTC collapses, the seismic evidence shows clear pre-collapse events, which can only be reasonably explained by explosions.
Especially in the case of WTC 7, where it is so blatantly clear, that NOBODY EVER has been able to counter my arguments. That's why WTC 7 is the core-argument of my thesis.
Feel free to give it a try.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:56 PM
Ahh yes....the vast government conspiracy rears its head at Protec as well.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Then you havent bothered to read the sites that have been posted by myself and others on ATS.

Yes, I have, and did not agree with them. In some discussions, I stated as such and validated why I did not agree. That is not the same as not reading them.

I have to make many comparisons in order to properly evaluate and analyze both sides of any dissention. Then I have to do other study to know who is most probably telling the truth and who is not, when there is little to no physical proof available. Do you do any of that type of in-depth analysis? I have done that for over 6 years directly related to 9/11. And years before that when not related 9/11.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:04 PM

Sorry, but there are no spikes that would indicate explosive devices were used.

Appearantly this guy doesnt believe the 'demolition' theory either...

Explosives used to demolish steel are called ‘linear-shape charges,” says Bill Moore, of Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., and former president of the National Demolition Association from 2003-2005. “They cut steel like a hot knife through butter and leave a very distinctive looking cut plus a copper residue. Just putting explosives on a piece of steel would do nothing unless the amount was huge. That huge amount would have blown out every window in Manhattan from the sound pressure.”

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:17 PM
In reviewing the following, could Mr. Brandenburg have some sort of financial incentive over any other to state what he did? And from where might that financial incentive come, considering the dates being discussed in the article? Work must have been really slow since 9/11/2001 for the demolition industry. Then along came Afghanistan and Iraq compliments of the Bush administration:

"Publication: Construction & Demolition Recycling
Publication Date: 01-MAR-04
Format: Online - approximately 2507 words
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Turley, William

For most demolition contractors, the early portion of 2003 started as slowly as a diesel engine on a cold January morning, but by the second half of the year, that engine started humming, and now 2004 promises to be the best year ever for some companies.

And well it should be, as the demolition industry is an early bellwether for the economy, which has been coming back strong in recent months. Notes William Moore, Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., Chicago, and incoming president of the National Association of Demolition Contractors (NADC), "Our industry is the first to be hit by a slowdown, and the first to pick up in a recovery. Now with the stock market and everything else going up, our industry is going up."


Further north in the stare in the Fresno area, the prediction is about the same, according to Jeff Kroeker of Kroeker Demolition & Recycling. "2003 was a very good year, at least the middle and second half of it. Military work slowed down because they went in another direction, toward Iraq. But we are seeing action in all sectors--commercial, industrial, residential and renovation."

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:28 PM
reply to post by OrionStars

I see you have taken up Killtown's methods. Make a statement that is completely unrelated to the subject at hand as if its proof of a conspiracy.

Your post has absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:17 PM
I was not the one introducing Mr. Brandenburg into the discussion. However, what I posted is relevant to 9/11/2001, in response to the one who did.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in