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: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


A very, very, very good point. Examine the damage and 'paths' of damage... that alone should tell you alot.




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i showed you a picture of a gaping hole where WTC1 fell into it, with no beams in the hole, meaning they were breached.


I've seen this picture many times. It doesn't prove anything but there was a gash on the facade. I don't know how you can say that the beams were breached and missing from a grainy online video that you can't see much of. There's also the point of the beams running in the north-south direction that would be bracing the columns that the gash just so happened to completely miss. Because unless the debris was able to majically go through the columns without damaging them, we can certainly say that the beams running in that direction would have been missed or had minimal damage. Giving the columns bracing in that direction.


regarding sounds heard in your last post, thermite is a plausible theory (as are many such as fuel and oil tanks) but it falls apart because when WTC7 fell, there were NO explosions. so there would be no thermite sounds either.


You misunderstand what I was saying. Say there was thermite placed on bracing beams. Fires break out and some of the thermite gets hot enough to ignite and thus explodes. Some of the explosions that were heard. This has nothing to do with the timed ignition of the remaining thermite to bring down the building. Of which would not explode and there is your scenario that fits exactly what could have happened. Notice I said could.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
Are these 'debunkers' for real? Im having a difficult time believing that you actually believe in your 'no explosives' arguement. Are you just glossing over the facts and fitting things into your mind in a comfy manner so you wont be scared of big brother? I seriously dont get it.



What I don't get is why people get so touchy, so quick around here...Are these debunkers for real? Brainwashed? I don't understand why people come to a forum like this of all places to argue why they are 100% correct, and nobody else is without using phrases like "my opinion," "I think" etc.

I am not a, "debunker," nor was I saying anybody here was correct or not. What I was doing was simply asking questions that have bothered me about these theories that nobody has been able to answer for me.

I would not have signed up at ATS if I was, "brainwashed." I am a critical thinker, I ask questions, and do research before I jump to believing any theory. I have realized it is very easy to fall into believing a theory if you don't ask questions and really think...that's all.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 



Now show me the "gapping hole" left on the NORTH TOWER by the SOUTH TOWERS collapse. The SOUTH TOWER was much, much close to the NORTH TOWER and hurled huge steel beams right at the NORTH TOWER.

So, exactly where are the huge gapping holes? Not saying there wasn't *ANY" damage, but something consistent with what your showing regarding building 7.

this was in my thread on this issue here
www.abovetopsecret.com...


dont speculate that because one building fell one way the other would have fallen EXACTLY THE SAME DIRECTION. especially since the two buildings were off center from each other in regards to facing WTC7. this pictures shows clearly it was falling into WTC7:




ONCE AGAIN, THIS SHOWS AT LEAST 13 STORIES SCOOPED OUT IN THE DIRECT CENTER OF THE BUILDING WITH ALL CROSS BEAMS BREACHED.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
arghhhh double post.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


see my thread, I showed a picture that showed a huge amount of the SOUTH THOWER falling right at the NORTH TOWER.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i showed you a picture of a gaping hole where WTC1 fell into it, with no beams in the hole, meaning they were breached.


I've seen this picture many times. It doesn't prove anything but there was a gash on the facade. I don't know how you can say that the beams were breached and missing from a grainy online video that you can't see much of. There's also the point of the beams running in the north-south direction that would be bracing the columns that the gash just so happened to completely miss. Because unless the debris was able to majically go through the columns without damaging them, we can certainly say that the beams running in that direction would have been missed or had minimal damage. Giving the columns bracing in that direction.


regarding sounds heard in your last post, thermite is a plausible theory (as are many such as fuel and oil tanks) but it falls apart because when WTC7 fell, there were NO explosions. so there would be no thermite sounds either.






if you fail to notice that all the cross beams were cut out in those stories than i cant help you. sorry but its more plausible, and agreed on by structural engineers, then anything you have put forward, which is nothing.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


see my thread, I showed a picture that showed a huge amount of the SOUTH THOWER falling right at the NORTH TOWER.


but that has nothing to do with WTC7, clearly WTC1 fell into WTC7.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
IF anyone doesn't believe the SOUTH TOWER had huge amounts of debris fly at the NORTH TOWER, one only has to look at this picture here:



Clearly there is enough building debris flying at the Tower, and clearly since the NORTH TOWER is much closer we would expect to see consistent "gapping holes".

Yet we do not see this.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


see my thread, I showed a picture that showed a huge amount of the SOUTH THOWER falling right at the NORTH TOWER.


but that has nothing to do with WTC7, clearly WTC1 fell into WTC7.


My point stands.

*IF* Building 7 was so damaged from Towers that were over 300ft away, then the NORTH TOWER which was right next to the SOUTH TOWER should show consistent damage.

It does not show this.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
IF anyone doesn't believe the SOUTH TOWER had huge amounts of debris fly at the NORTH TOWER, one only has to look at this picture here:



Clearly there is enough building debris flying at the Tower, and clearly since the NORTH TOWER is much closer we would expect to see consistent "gapping holes".

Yet we do not see this.


it doesnt matter, WTC7 had damage due to WTC1, regardless of what damage NORTH did TO SOUTH. you cant debunk the fact that WTC7 had 13 storied damaged down the middle, with crossbeams breached.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Also keep in mind according to the STAR WITNESS-(OSAMA BIN LADEN) OF THE GOV- the Terrorists didn't know the plan till right before they boarded the planes! So using that we can conclude that they didn't plant any bombs! Unless the Gov wants to back away from what OSAMA says? Which of course puts the whole confession into jeopardy, which leads to a lot of problems for the official side at that point.


Just as a side note. Who's to say that it was just one faction of operatives? Don't forget the dancing Israelis and the truck they were in that had explosive rsidue found.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
IF anyone doesn't believe the SOUTH TOWER had huge amounts of debris fly at the NORTH TOWER, one only has to look at this picture here:



Clearly there is enough building debris flying at the Tower, and clearly since the NORTH TOWER is much closer we would expect to see consistent "gapping holes".

Yet we do not see this.


it doesnt matter, WTC7 had damage due to WTC1, regardless of what damage NORTH did TO SOUTH. you cant debunk the fact that WTC7 had 13 storied damaged down the middle, with crossbeams breached.




[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by talisman
Also keep in mind according to the STAR WITNESS-(OSAMA BIN LADEN) OF THE GOV- the Terrorists didn't know the plan till right before they boarded the planes! So using that we can conclude that they didn't plant any bombs! Unless the Gov wants to back away from what OSAMA says? Which of course puts the whole confession into jeopardy, which leads to a lot of problems for the official side at that point.


Just as a side note. Who's to say that it was just one faction of operatives? Don't forget the dancing Israelis and the truck they were in that had explosive rsidue found.



The key here is "good reason" to conclude as opposed to "bona fide" proof. If we take the official account on what happened and this tape of Bin Laden is supposedly the "smoking gun" then for him to have left out "explosives" if used would be very unusual.

This is supposedly his *bragging" and "bravado", why would he leave out such a fact?

So with good reason I conclude that the Bin Laden tape can't be trusted. It is impossible to believe that the hijackers were only told before they boarded the planes.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


But then you showing the tower debris falling into building 7 is just as moot. You can't argue it is from the debris. The damage might have come from something else.

It is inconsistent to argue for such damage, but to ignore the *LACK* of damage left on a closer building.

*IF* there is such damage at such a far distance. Then why has the NORTH TOWER been left with only minor damage and no gapping holes?

[edit on 8-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by talisman
Also keep in mind according to the STAR WITNESS-(OSAMA BIN LADEN) OF THE GOV- the Terrorists didn't know the plan till right before they boarded the planes! So using that we can conclude that they didn't plant any bombs! Unless the Gov wants to back away from what OSAMA says? Which of course puts the whole confession into jeopardy, which leads to a lot of problems for the official side at that point.


Just as a side note. Who's to say that it was just one faction of operatives? Don't forget the dancing Israelis and the truck they were in that had explosive rsidue found.



The key here is "good reason" to conclude as opposed to "bona fide" proof. If we take the official account on what happened and this tape of Bin Laden is supposedly the "smoking gun" then for him to have left out "explosives" if used would be very unusual.

This is supposedly his *bragging" and "bravado", why would he leave out such a fact?

So with good reason I conclude that the Bin Laden tape can't be trusted. It is impossible to believe that the hijackers were only told before they boarded the planes.



the key here is not to change the subject and notice how 13 stories are scooped out down the middle and the closest edge you see is BENT INWARDS TOWARD THE CENTER.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


And you can't prove that it came from the Towers collapse.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


But then you showing the tower debris falling into building 7 is just as moot. You can't argue it is from the debris. The damage might have come from something else.

It is inconsistent to argue for such damage, but to ignore the *LACK* of damage left on a closer building.

*IF* there is such damage at such a far distance. Then why has the NORTH TOWER been left with only minor damage and no gapping holes?

[edit on 8-4-2008 by talisman]



its not a moot point, you are talking about two different building falling into each other. they were different distances, positions and they are built differently. if the north tower was shaped like WTC7 and was built like WTC7 youd have a point, but its not the same building. and you have nothing scientific to say the beams from both buildings would fall the same in the first place. the damage on the NORTH and SOUTH towers were on different levels from each other, giving evidence they would not fall the same.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


And you can't prove that it came from the Towers collapse.


LMAO. SO HOW DID IT GET THERE? its shown in video.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


And you can't prove that it came from the Towers collapse.


LMAO. SO HOW DID IT GET THERE? its shown in video.


Its not shown in the video. We see building debris falling toward building 7, just as we do as the SOUTH TOWER falls into the NORTH TOWER.

After that, it is conjecture.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join