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.

 

August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

page: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
There were no explosives.

(waves Jedi hand over keyboard)

But seriously, there WERE no explosives. Why? Because, dear friends, we used THERMITE. Much more efficient and foolproof. Especially when you set it up and remote control it.

Dear readers, it is the desire of the evil doers to move you from the subject that:

PROOF OF EXPLOSIVES = PROOF OF SUBVERTED US ELEMENTS

when really it is

BUILDING PULLED = PROOF OF SUBVERTED US ELEMENTS

Do not confuse the two. As long as the building was brought down by those who carry out such a thing, it was brought down. In fact, the NIST is 110% correct - it failed due to fire.

Guess what? The sprinkler system was DISABLED by an explosives charge, all planned, all known in advance to disable the sprinkers in WTC7. Also, please note:

-> thermite leaves slag, and can raise steel to temperatures high enough to melt it (slag)
-> what was found in certain hot spots in WTC 1 and 2? (slag)

Please learn to connect the dots. Its right in front of you, and this is not a UFO where someone needs to stick a picture, an alien, and a DNA sample in front of you with 3 independent scientists agreeing that it is a UFO.

This is common freaking sense.




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Computer models are almost never exact matches for real life for a couple of reasons:

1. The data fed into the model can be incomplete
2. The model itself may be too low on detail (not enough elements in a finite element model)

You have apparently "proven" that the model is a bad match for what happened. The same can be said about Wednesday's weather prediction, and it does not make the case for an artificially modified weather conspiracy.

How does that lead to the conclusion that explosives were used? Here is the kind of evidence that would support the presence of explosives: Actual explosive materials found, witness testimony of suspicious people installing something mysterious in the building, the sound of a blast sequence (kaboom, kaboom, kaboom several times in perfect timing) chemical traces of the explosives themselves found on some debris, the appearance of new extensive wiring in the building that could not be accounted for in the days leading up to the event.

The installation of explosives itself would have been a major maintenance project taking either a long time or a lot of people, not just jack bauer sneaking in at midnight. And if explosives would have been used there would have been a very high risk window of time where they could have been set off accidentally by radio interference or other malfunctions, so the installation could not have happened for several years without a tremendous risk.

So, should this evidence be there, then it would make a very strong case.

But so far, the evidence I have seen is the assessment of individuals that believe the collapse "looks" like a controlled one. Because each building of that height is more or less unique in design, and because so few unaided collapses of buildings of that scale have ever taken place, I am not sure that we have enough data to know what a purely thermal collapse was supposed to look like in order to make such an informed comparison. Even if we had this data, it would just be statistical in nature and somewhat imperfect.

-rrr



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Still think that WTC 7 (the 3rd building that fell that day in NY) wasn't brought down by explosives? WTC 7 was several blocks away from the twin towers by the way. The following building was RIGHT NEXT TO THE TWIN TOWERS ON 9/11 AND SUSTAINED DAMAGE AS WELL. Another smoking gun.

Message from sender:
This was on the NY Times I get by e-mail yeasterday. Isn't it strange that it is costing 132 million dollars to disassemble this condemned 41 story building one to two floors at a time which was closest to the twin towers on 9-11 and was on fire? They had it torn down to 26 floors in 2007 and it still didn't collapse after an 18 hour fire. Isn't it strange that the F.D. always empanels a team to study problems that might have contributed to the death of firemen, but not on 9-11? Click Related to see more. This coincides with the impossible pancake collapse explanation coming out on bldg.7. Hurray for Richard Gage.

NY Times article:
Linky



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Computer models are almost never exact matches for real life for a couple of reasons:

1. The data fed into the model can be incomplete
2. The model itself may be too low on detail (not enough elements in a finite element model)

-rrr


ok, so what you are saying is that they have no evidence to support what they are saying either. just a fancy report and an incomplete, inaccurate model.
what happens when you stack the actual evidence 7 years out for either side of this argument.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Some on your list were "in on it". While others were simply following orders and doing their jobs. So what's your point?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Still think that WTC 7 (the 3rd building that fell that day in NY) wasn't brought down by explosives? WTC 7 was several blocks away from the twin towers by the way.


Several blocks away? Umm, right.
upload.wikimedia.org...

Unless your WTC7 was standing for Wu Tang Club #7 or something


[edit on 22-8-2008 by gavron]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Unless your WTC7 was standing for Wu Tang Club #7 or something



How tall were the towers?

Building 7 was right at the far peremeter of the towers.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

How does that lead to the conclusion that explosives were used?

Because it rasies more questions than it answers for starters. If you really want me to get into specifics I will.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
There'd be sounds of explosions from WTC7. And they'd be loud if explosives were used right? Somebody send this to NIST.

www.youtube.com...

Debate that.......



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   


Still think that WTC 7 (the 3rd building that fell that day in NY) wasn't brought down by explosives? WTC 7 was several blocks away from the twin towers by the way. The following building was RIGHT NEXT TO THE TWIN TOWERS ON 9/11 AND SUSTAINED DAMAGE AS WELL. Another smoking gun.


Several blocks ??? Must have trouble reading a map - WTC 7 was
350 ft (just over football field) from WTC 1 (North Tower). Debris
from collapse of WTC 1 struck #7 and inflicted what turned out
to be mortal damage, starting the fires which doomed it.

Building you are referring to is 130 Liberty St aka Deutsche Bank




The 40-story building was damaged by the collapse of 2 World Trade Center (South Tower) in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The collapse of 2 World Trade Center tore a 24-story gash into the facade and destroyed the entire interior of the building. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterwards, this was eventually cleaned up but it was decided that the 42 story ruin was to be taken down. After the 9/11 attacks, netting that had the appearance of a black burial shroud was placed around the remains of the building. The bank maintained that the building could not be restored to habitable condition, while its insurers sought to treat the incident as recoverable damage rather than a total loss. Work on the building was deferred for over two years during which the condition of the building deteriorated.





Bankers Trust: September 11th

Bankers Trust was in debris field of collapsing tower #2.
Sustained substantial damage from falling debris.
Load bearing column removed from 18th down to 8th floor.
No fires, and no progressive collapse.



Sounds like took quite a beating

Operative words are "NO FIRES" - despite massive structural damage
no fires were started despite masive structural damage. This is what
saved the building from collapsing on 9/11



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Funny thing about that so called damage to building 7. Firemen that were in the building reported some damage to only 10 floors, 10-18.

You guys might want to read up on things before posting.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You guys might want to read up on things before posting.


Agreed. You might want to read what was on the floors affected by the damage, before posting. It only makes you look silly.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by dariousg
 


refute what NIST presented today with evidence.

If not, all you have is an opinion. PERIOD.

I would suggest it is simply THEIR opinion ( theory) . NO PROOF ! YOU can not defend their theory anymore readily then they can. If one choses to believe a government that has proven time and again they are untrustworthy simply state so ! ' I, ThroatYogurt , believe it is true if 'they' say it is true. ' Then folks wouldn't have to bother responding to your constant support of this inane babble.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You guys might want to read up on things before posting.

Agreed. You might want to read what was on the floors affected by the damage, before posting. It only makes you look silly.

Let me ESTIMATE, just like NIST did... office furniture and supplies?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Agreed. You might want to read what was on the floors affected by the damage, before posting. It only makes you look silly.


Well since you seen to know everything why don't you tell us.

Oh by the way nice way to try to aviod admitting their was only 10 floors damaged. You cannot keep from showing how immature you are can you?




[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


You have to admit, NIST did a poor job showing what happened to WTC7.
I believe the Government lawyers told them what evidents that they could use and not use. My opinion is it’s not really NIST that is covering up the evidents but the Government.
I believe the Government said to NIST here is the evidents, so make something believable out of it. In addition, do not look into anything else that could have happened.
That is my opinion anyway.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Then there's the plant in the audience who was miraculously the next reporter to ask questions starting off by saying something to the effect of "no matter what you say there will still be people who don't believe",.......I mean it's freakin' laughable!

Peace



exactly my thoughts, the audience was most likely cherry picked from a list too. Notice the empty seats?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
It's a blatant lie or just total ignorance when Shayman Sunder says there were no witness testimony of explosives. WHAT?! We have 500 testimonies from firefighters and a large percentage of them talk about massive ground shaking explosions. I guess they don't count though, right?

FIREFIGHTER WITNESSES ACCOUNT ON 9-11 WTC EXPLOSIONS & BOMBS!!



uk.youtube.com...

NIST should be ashamed.

MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses testimonies of EXPLOSIONS


www.youtube.com...

9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses





[edit on 23-8-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Is there not another building between WT7 and WT1 or WT2. My question is.Is it possible that something from WT1 or WT2 could hit WT7? Or is that not possible . Sorry for my English.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
The latest NIST report has been debunked by the fact of another NIST report stating they failed to recover and steel from building 7 for testing.

Why does NIST post contridicting reports?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join