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 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

page: 16
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Your right, there is very little damage to surrounding buildings considering World Trade Center 7 was over 46 stories tall and was only a few meters away especially when the official story said the building fell chaotically without controlled demoltions 6-7 hours after wtc1,2 were pulled.

In some pictures you can see firemen fighting fires from the 3 story of the closet building.

Obvious Controlled Demoltions used in all towers especially World Trade center 7.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Great video. All must watch.




Side note- Dont expect intelligent replies from some of these users. They really bare a grudge against the truth. I recommend research this all yourself and dont be stupid enough to except answers from one forum.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Excellent find Ivan. I concur in the recommendation that everyone take the ten minutes to watch it. It gets better and better as you watch. I had never seen this vid before. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   


Obvious Controlled Demoltions and a professional one at that.

Look how close wtc7's rubble pile is to the other building, mostly, look how 50 stories turns to 2.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
The only thing of value in Afghanistan is poppy seeds.


And a new oil pipeline to pump all that newly aquired oil from Iraq. They have to steal it somehow.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana



Nice picture. Look at the two columns sticking out of the pile. Nice diagonal cuts there. But, I'm sure I'll hear that for some reason they had to torch cut those columns at an angle when it's far cheaper, easier and more controllable to torch cut straight across.


[edit on 4/16/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 4/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


that is proof conclusive right there, but it won't stop certain people from denying what is obvious at this point.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Here is some rare pics















posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Comsence2075
 


Don't let them get to you. The name-calling, the charges of "de-railing", the accusations of being a paid disinformation agent (!!!) are all emotional reactions because your asking questions they don't want to answer.

When you discuss the so-called "facts" of the matter, they think you are discussing them. They simply do not recognize the difference between ideas and themselves. The reason for this is 9-11 isn't about the truth or even 9-11.

It's about them and how they see themselves as masters over information only they have the cunning, intelligence and wisdom to see. Of course, there isn't anything mystical to comprehend except their logic flow.

It's really this simple: if the "evidence" was as obvious as so-called truth seekers like to portray, this wouldn't be a discussion for niche message boards.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Look at the glass windows on the neighboring building on that bottom pic... why no broken glass? thats just amazing



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
It's really this simple: if the "evidence" was as obvious as so-called truth seekers like to portray, this wouldn't be a discussion for niche message boards.


The same could be said of the lack of evidence to support your theory.

Again, I'll ask of ONE time in history other than 9/11 that something like this has happened (buildings just comming apart at the seams).

[edit on 4/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Your answer is a bunch of OT psychobabble. Really.

Why don't you get over yourself and reply with something of substance, not that drivel?

Like where is that NIST report on WTC 7, 6+ years later?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


It's also completely on-target. Got to you a little, eh? Found my remarks to be close enough to the mark that you felt compelled to challenge my assertions?

That's twice in two threads.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I see your point and appreciate your response. I would argue your contention is a straw man.

I would contend that your argument is based on the assumption (or liberty) that both arguments have equal evidence. They don't. Nobody, with a straight face, can make the argument that evidence of a grand, sweeping conspiracy is the same as the evidence that does not support that theory.

As before, are there inconsistencies, things not witnessed or seen before, things outside of everyday norms? Absolutely! In any horrible event like 9-11 there are going to be voids, inconsistencies, things that “don’t add up”, mistakes, incorrect analysis, etc. There is no doubt of this.

The problem for me, and remains, is the ay the so-called truth movement completely dismisses the massive, overwhelming and nearly complete evidence that does exist and instead focuses on inconsistencies and then portrays those inconsistencies as the average or the norm. It’s patently dishonest to do so. To engage in that, in my opinion, is to engage in propaganda.

Some examples of the “serious” research that you (might) consider ‘evidence’:

Mini-nukes. Holograms. Doppler sound effect machines. CIA execution squads. MOSAD. Taking years to wire the WTCs with explosives (thermite!!!!) and never being noticed by……anyone. No plane at the Flight 93 crash site. Faked cell phone calls from all of the planes. Claims the hijackers are still alive. Puffs of smoke circled in MS paint “proving’ so-called squibs were used (never mind the person claiming that doesn’t even know what a ‘squib’ is or how it’s used. Ditto for so-called thermite). Faked live TV to the world. The planes were remote controlled. The transmissions from the planes were actually fake transmissions from the CIA. Claims of free-fall speed collapses that still circulate even though if the claimants had done a simple wrist-watch timing of You Tube videos this would prove to be false. Pentagon fly-over, not an impact. Of course the impact was seen by hundreds, but oddly…….not a single person saw the plane actually fly over the Pentagon. Cruise missiles were used, not planes. Explosive ‘pods’ under the aircraft that impacted the WTCs. Firemen lighting fires to cover evidence of…..something. All Jewish people getting forewarning of the attack. Interchange that Israelis. WTC 7 was brought down by explosives without a single shred of evidence, from literally anyone, other than “it looked like one, therefore it was a controlled demo”. CIA "coordination centers"...oh yeah, housed in WTC 7 and that's why it was 'demolished'.

The comedy that comes out of the so-called ‘truth movement’ is too good to pass up. I will continue to comment on the overall craziness of this for profit sham – much to the chagrin of truthers at ATS.

The way to shut me up? Stop being such a consistent source of new material. Do actual research. Stop trying to pass off pure propaganda as ‘research’. Stop Googling semi-information and trying to pass that off as something to be taken seriously. Stop living in the voids and inconsistencies and recognize, and deal with, the other 99.5% of the available information. Stop trying to pass off conjecture and speculation as fact. Be willing to admit your theory is just that, a theory. Admit the weaknesses in your arguments.

There might be a real conspiracy (was flight 93 shot down? I think so, but that’s pure speculation) in 9-11 but, thanks to the pathetic nonsense that the so-called truth movement engages in, we will never know.

As always, this is my opinion.

P.S. I don’t know that the building came apart at the seams. I don't know of any information that makes that assertion. Secondly, I don't know of another two 110 story buildings being brought down by two 110 ton (plus) aircraft, full of fuel causing massive damage to the surrounding buildings thereby causing the structural failure of some of the surrounding buildings.

Can you find one example of this in the past?

[edit on 17-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Those pictures above just say it all, look at the columns, look at the pile, the undamaged parts of the building right near by.

To me this is not even a question at this point.

When you factor all things together, you have a strong circumstantial case for arguing that Bldg-7 was a "job". Thats it. Buildings don't normally do that, even under extreme damage (unless a CIA office is inside
...



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 



And that's totally on point. If that's your opinion, that's great! No issue there! If you choose to believe that WTC was brought down by a CD, then that's 110% your perogative.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


What assertions? Your reply above to Griff shows you haven't got a clue.

What proof, as well?

That building lost all structural integrity--all structural integrity--and collapsed into a heap in 7 seconds.

Enough said. Your posts are full of hot air.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
What about the fact that the building fell QUICKER than it would have had you dropped a ball from its roof at the same exact second? As we all know, air moving and compressing against air causes resistance. Floors falling onto floors causes resistance... With each increment of resistance, the building would fall incrementaly SLOWER, not faster.

There is ABSOLUTELY no explaination for this OTHER than the premise posited by the OP. Period.

If you have an explaination for that, id love to hear it.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Grock]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
As before, are there inconsistencies, things not witnessed or seen before, things outside of everyday norms? Absolutely! In any horrible event like 9-11 there are going to be voids, inconsistencies, things that “don’t add up”, mistakes, incorrect analysis, etc. There is no doubt of this.


And the only reason there are voids, inconsistencies, things that don't add up, etc. is because most of the evidence was either shipped off or placed under security.

A lot of these theories would be put to rest if the information was actually available to more than just the select few who get to tell the rest of the world what happened.


The problem for me, and remains, is the ay the so-called truth movement completely dismisses the massive, overwhelming and nearly complete evidence that does exist and instead focuses on inconsistencies and then portrays those inconsistencies as the average or the norm. It’s patently dishonest to do so. To engage in that, in my opinion, is to engage in propaganda.


And where would you have the "truth movement" look? The rock-solid evidence? Or to the inconsistencies that DO exist?


Some examples of the “serious” research that you (might) consider ‘evidence’:


Most of your list IMO are straw men perpetuated by people to muddy the waters and make people think that the real questions are just as asinine. But, I'll touch on one.


Claims of free-fall speed collapses that still circulate even though if the claimants had done a simple wrist-watch timing of You Tube videos this would prove to be false.


You might want to look into who is actually claiming free-fall speeds.


Allegation: Other conspiracy theorists have claimed that the fact that the towers collapsed at near a "free fall" rate indicates that explosives were needed to cause this rapid a rate of collapse.

Facts: This allegation ignores the fact that the enormous weight of the top portions of the towers completely overwhelmed the carrying capacity of the floors beneath them, which is what caused the towers to collapse at very close to a "free fall" rate. NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers states:

The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass .... The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that ....

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall .... As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows ....


usinfo.state.gov...


Stop trying to pass off conjecture and speculation as fact. Be willing to admit your theory is just that, a theory. Admit the weaknesses in your arguments.


Again. "Pot, you do know you are also black, correct?"


There might be a real conspiracy (was flight 93 shot down? I think so, but that’s pure speculation) in 9-11 but, thanks to the pathetic nonsense that the so-called truth movement engages in, we will never know.


Are you sure it's the "truth movement" who started those stupid theories?


P.S. I don’t know that the building came apart at the seams. I don't know of any information that makes that assertion.


The debris pile would be a good place to start. If it didn't fall apart at the seams, then there'd be a bigger debris pile IMO.


thereby causing the structural failure of some of the surrounding buildings.


Don't you mean "just one" surrounding building? The others were brought down intentionally later.


Can you find one example of this in the past?


No, but there is plenty of data of how steel reacts. It's called "materials science". Maybe a class would help?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Grock
 


You're claiming the building fell faster than terminal velocity? Not snit, an honest question before I respond.

Also, as always, a burden of proof reversal. If you're making a claim, you need to provide evidence that your claim is true.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join