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.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:56 PM
Chinese lanterns caused it to fall down.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by nutglow]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:03 PM

I call BS!!

Watch the video of the wireframe building collapse.

1) It does NOT collapse the way we see it collapse in the videos

2) They do NOT show the complete collapse. WHY NOT?

I want to see the ENTIRE collapse sequence.

EDIT: Their physics based model also seems highly suspect.

ALL The floors just collapsed at the same time??? WTF????

[edit on 21-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by BelowGovtThumbs
I was hoping we could discuss thermal expansion instead of beating the topic of building 7 to death... Lets discuss THERMAL EXPANSION, who has any feedback on this...

This is what happens from thermal expansion. But, for some reason the MSM told us the "steel melted".

[edit on 8/21/2008 by Griff]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:09 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I want to see the ENTIRE collapse sequence.

I was thinking the same thing. But, not being able to stomach anymore BS, I stopped at the video. Maybe the report has more.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Griff

[edit on 8/21/2008 by Griff]

Obviously this is not the link I copied. Wow. Whoever did that was clever. Let's try again.

Either I'm going crazy or there's something really messed up going on. Now, with the exact same search words, I can't find a single article about it?

This is the closest I can find.

Edit: Now I check my link again and it's back? Computer glitch?

[edit on 8/21/2008 by Griff]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:23 PM
I have never in my life heard such an insult to intelligent people before.

Why bother spending weeks placing charges, time and money on controlled demolitions? Lets just put a couple of floors on fire from now on...seems to work pretty well
Only in America they would come up with these scripts and people actually buy it.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:30 PM
This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever read!
I hope some one takes NIST to court, and prove they are covering up explosion that took those building down.
This is the best they could do in seven years.
They sold out to the corporate pigs and the corrupt Government what a *%#* shame!

[edit on 8/21/2008 by cashlink]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:39 PM
Man, I was going to post this article from AOL. Already beat me to it.

NIST is a government agency. Wonderful, that doesn't inspire much trust. I want the country back where we could actually trust our officials.

No we get the same type of junk explanations.

I mean really, if buildings are going to collapse, just do some thinking. Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say the steal melted and bent, end the building ended up collapsing. It's a little tough to stick with the symmetrical collapse with this type of theory. There should have been crap falling to the side, lot's of sloppyness. Sure, it was still messy, but far to "neat" of a collapse to throw out the idea of a controlled demolition.

Think about cooking on a stove top, and you move the skillet around on the heat source. It's uneven, right? You have to move the hamburgers to the hot side of the skillet so they can cook better. You would have to "try" to get such an even collapse.

So, we are supposed to believe planes flew into the buildings, at no perfect angle, and these fires burned evenly, just right, and we get this nice even collapse, for the most part. Now, we are supposed to believe burning debree from the trade centers came down on WTC7, then it collapsed in the same fashion?

Give me a break. We're talking a near perfect collapse that happened 3 times.

In my eyes a demolition specialist can't just be any dummy off the street. There's got to be training involved. There has got to be timing involved. I would say some of it may be more automated these days though with electronics, but still.

I mean people get there selves killed when they are doing a job, like cutting trees, and they don't cut the tree correctly. It could fall in the wrong direction and flatten you.


posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:40 PM
From the NIST report:

Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Enough Said!!!!

"rolls eyes"


posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:05 PM
The building FAILED and the media arent bothered, even though most of them work in sky scrapers!!!???

A paper fire could collapse your building yes within 7 seconds the building can be dust with plain old fire. A fire can now destroy a sky scraper like it couldn't before 2001.

The results of this investigation seem to be being taken seriously and I can see the science from testing sweet nothing pays off as the people (sheeple) buy it. Instead of there being thousands of unanswered questions and physical discrepencies from this one event being looked at together, there are actually thousands of anomoloies and discrepencies from a single event being seperated and no-one sees the problem with this? From top to bottom the 9/11 issue cannot be explained away so thats why you see it being fractured into topics that isolates all other glaring discrepencies while labelling conspiracy theorists insane! The entire mess points at our rulers and no-one else.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:09 PM
If I remember a quote correctly "The Explosive Theory" was not considered and was not allowed to be investigated, no funding for that ... "

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:34 PM
They did not investigate explosion. NIST claim they did not hear explosions.
So they didn’t feel the need to do a study on it .

Anything to avoid telling Americans the truth.
What a flipping joke!

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:49 PM
I saw the footage described below. Silverstein ADMITTED pulling WTC 7 on-air.

How much proof do people need that it was NOT brought down by fire? The footage is also in an Alex Jones documentary. Watch the documentaries if you haven't already.

"Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives."

I know, I know, the above quote comes from Prison Planet, but it's true. As I said, watch the documentaries and see for yourself.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Griff
Obviously this is not the link I copied. Wow. Whoever did that was clever. Let's try again.

Thanks for reminding me of the S.F. tanker fire, an incident that at the time had felt like an all too convenient didactic.

What a nice mental model for 911 after all!!

Notice the bridge deck supporting the tanker-truck did not collapse -after all those hours of (hot hot) fire on its deck - along with suffering the blow from the collapsing deck above!

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:53 PM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Thier saying diesel fuel may have melted and broght WTC7 down?

They didn't say that. Actually they stated just the opposite. Read the report or heck read the Q&A's.

Are you familiar with the NIST's ORIGINAL explanation of how WTC7 collapsed? It very much NEEDED diesle to make it happen AND it needed structural damage to a column supporting a transfer truss... none of which is included on this report and as a matter of fac tit is denied.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:55 PM

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
You're aware that the crash of the airliners into WTC1 & 2 resulted in massive damage to WTC7?

Massive? How massive? Massive is a relative term.

NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction.

If NIST could not verify the actual construction, then how do you know how massive the damage was?

It may have been massive damage for a weak construction. It may have been very little damage for a strong construction.

Let's look on the bright side - I'll be able to read a new fairytale to my children at night. Thanks, NIST!

Irrelevant as they now claim a DIFFERENT column is the cause. The "damage" from falling debris is excluded save starting common office fires.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by MasterRegal
I DEMAND that everyone in this thread post their credentials and qualifications regarding architecture and building collapse. Everyone here seems to act like they are experts, refuting the actual experts. Why? You don't trust the government, so you don't trust their findings. You already "know" what happened, so any other explanation must be false. The only evidence you have is the same evidence millions of people saw live on television. That's it. So, tell me why I should believe you over the official report.

You first champ. Many of us have been here a long time and have had our credentials verified. So before you jump on your pony please present why you have anything to present in either direction.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

Larry Silverstein admits wtc building 7 was demolished

i find it strange that all of the videos showing this are disappearing....

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

Page 4. Disclaimer # 4.

"NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction"

That was easy.

If they couldn't verify the construction, how did they do a structural analysis?


How the heck does anyone believe this tripe when the NIST admits they don;t even have the drawings, specs., etc? Griff, they 2 poters here fighting this are in fantasy land and that is why I left long ago.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:03 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Griff

You're aware that the crash of the airliners into WTC1 & 2 resulted in massive damage to WTC7?

Not according to the new report chief. But i you want an assesment of the REAL damage please see:

PLEASE read the report if you are going to "support" it because you are contradicting it.

new topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in