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.

 

As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
only two points and a question at this time...plus a few observations...

point 1...

"Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper."

we knew this. so revered "federal agency" who uses computer models that were so wrong about global warming (snort) has validated the point the "truthers" and "CTers" have been making all along, right? okay, so now will all the people who argued this to the countrary, please concede and sit down now. you are dismissed from the game.

point 2...so. this appears to be a shambles and a sham and almost a joke. the question that remains is WHY. is this a tying up of loose ends by someone along the lines of the anthrax debacle? or something more? diversion? distraction? from what?

my comments are based solely on the press conference and the media "reports" i've read so far, and i want to be very clear about this. i just watched part of the press conference and the way three cable "news" sources reported it. nothing new here folks, move along.

what this is is the guberment saying again "it's this way because we said so." on a side note, they could have picked a more convincing spokesperson. feeble. he didn't even sound like he believed himself. and i have to ask...did all these reporters really think they were breaking some kind of fantastic story here? how very disappointing.

this has all the earmarks of a spin campaign of some sort. funny how all of a sudden the conspiracy theory about wtc7 is in the forefront when most of these people (press and feds) for seven years would barely even acknowledge the existence of the theories and the questions unless the issue was forced and forced hard.

i remain skeptical. pardon me if i don't get on the bandwagon because some "federal agency" and the press told me to. but anyone who needs to to be able to sleep at night? you go right ahead and believe them. that
s your prerogative....




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Once the election is over and the House and the Senate take even more of a gain in Democrat majority %, you'll see the ENTIRE 911 issue brought to full and open investigation. Americans will take back America. The Mossad and the Saudis and the corporations that leech off America and have infiltrated the Pentagon are going to be in deep resolute pain when they are brought to justice. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of Angry America's vengeance when this issue comes to justice!



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
When these WTC Building 7 threads where down below the headlines, I was thinking, "Man these really need to be healine news" So thanks to everyone who posted and flagged in order to get these to the top.

Like I mentioned previously I watched the NIST Press Conference last night and there were paramount issues. The scientist/spokesman for NIST was eloquent in the way he delivered his theories, and persuasive especially when he uttered the words "The collapse of building 7 is no longer a mystery, it came down due to thermal expansion plain and simple."

The best question was the only unanswered question and that was by a reporter from InfoWars.com. He referenced the fact that NIST did no testing for Thermite on the beams, and also kept badgering the spokesman about the bare references to Thermal Expansion. (I.E. You could have replaced the words "thermal expansion" with explosion, controlled demolition, what have you, and his theories and sentences wouldn't have lost any meaning, thats how "bare" his references were to thermal expansion.

He was also asked how the building fell in less than 8 seconds due to thermal expansion, when the only way we (as in this civilized society) knew of to bring a building down that fast is controlled demolition. His only answer was to point to the chart a few more times and stammer the words "thermal expansion"

It is my opinion as an average American that they buried this Press Conference for a reason, thats why we didn't see it all over MSM last night, just on CSPAN and thats why Bill O'reiley, Lou Dobbs or anyone else won't cover it today.

This press conference was so poorly put together I found it entertaining, something like watching a horrible movie that you just can't turn off. I am going to post this in the other WTC 7 Thermal Expansion thread, Thank you for your time,

peace and love



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I have a question for everyone that believes that WTC7 was taken down by a controlled demolition. I am not saying it was or not I really do not know.

If 9/11 was an inside job and our own government attacked it's own people why would they need to bring down WTC7 in such a manor that it created suspicion? The job done on WTC1 and 2 was convincing enough for most people why make it obvious and bring down WTC7 with a controlled demolition? I am just not sure what the motive behind it would be other than maybe to destroy evidence of a conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
I have a question for everyone that believes that WTC7 was taken down by a controlled demolition. I am not saying it was or not I really do not know.

If 9/11 was an inside job and our own government attacked it's own people why would they need to bring down WTC7 in such a manor that it created suspicion? The job done on WTC1 and 2 was convincing enough for most people why make it obvious and bring down WTC7 with a controlled demolition? I am just not sure what the motive behind it would be other than maybe to destroy evidence of a conspiracy.


is the area taken up by the WTC7 building now being built on again?..whats being done with the site?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I don't think the US govt decided they were going to bring down the towers in a manner to cause suspicion. There were planes on the Television for everyone to see. That alone quelled much of the American skepticism. A more relevant question might be, Why is there so much suspicion about 9/11 and the govt's involvement? If you have no opinion on it, I suggest you watch the NIST Press Conference. I do not have a link for it as I watched it directly on CSPAN, but good luck!

Peace and Love



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

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


if the WTC collapsed from the basement up

we would have witnessed it as doing so

we witnessed the building collapsing upon its self fromt he point of impact and up

that section collapsed on everything beneath it and brought everything tumbling down

i really wish people would WATCH the videos

you can see where it starts to collapse

and its no where near the basement.


But... The basement was weakened - by explosives.

And... If you have computer controlled charges you can start your collapse most anywhere. And... In a "normal" CD, they often weaken the base initially, and then implode the upper floors, top to bottom. At lease as I have been led to believe.

I have been led to believe that all three buildings exhibited classic signs of "normal" CD.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BelowGovtThumbs
I don't think the US govt decided they were going to bring down the towers in a manner to cause suspicion. There were planes on the Television for everyone to see. That alone quelled much of the American skepticism. A more relevant question might be, Why is there so much suspicion about 9/11 and the govt's involvement? If you have no opinion on it, I suggest you watch the NIST Press Conference. I do not have a link for it as I watched it directly on CSPAN, but good luck!

Peace and Love


There were, by much evidence, CG planes on the telly. There is a shot of one of the "hits," with no plane, and then another of virtually the same view (might have been the same view) and voila! A plane comes in just before the "hit." In both there is barely detectable something else coning in from a different angle.

As for why there is so much suspicion...

1. The many "coincidences,"

2. The VP insisting that "orders still stood" to do nothing as something approached the Pentagon,

3. The "Pres" and VP refusing to testify under oath,

4. The "Pres" and VP refusing to testify without each other,

5. The swift roundup of local video around the Pentagon by the FBI - never to be released,

6. Computer models that support the OCT (Official Conspracy Theory) must be stretched to absurdity, yet explosives/incendiaries plus a directed energy weapon easily can be modeled to explain what happened,

7. We are told that something that had never happened in history to high-rise buildings from fire happened three times on one day,

8. The reluctance to have ANY investigation, with one finally begrudged at 14 months,

9. A small load of "evidence" was handed over for forensics to play with (no real forensics was done for the scene of the worst crime in American history),

10. A tail-end's worth of gold disappeared,

11. Evidence in many cases was eliminated, including Enron,

12. Vast amounts of data were ignored in final reports,

I could go on. For those who still cling to the OCT, wake up. To those who know better and are here to ridicule any view but the OCT, may the Universe deal with you appropriately.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
I have a question for everyone that believes that WTC7 was taken down by a controlled demolition. I am not saying it was or not I really do not know.

If 9/11 was an inside job and our own government attacked it's own people why would they need to bring down WTC7 in such a manor that it created suspicion? The job done on WTC1 and 2 was convincing enough for most people why make it obvious and bring down WTC7 with a controlled demolition? I am just not sure what the motive behind it would be other than maybe to destroy evidence of a conspiracy.


Simple. Enron.

Amongst others.

They figured they could get rid of a lot of annoying details in one fell swoop.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Because somebody actually put jet fuel in the building to bring it down.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
How come this "thermal expansion" is new?

How was this the only building in history of buildings to go down with "thermal expansion"?

My guess is, there were thousands of building fires prior to this event. No thermal expansion there........

How can they lie to us and not have a uprising.

Who else is PISSED OFF???????

This is utter BS, to the highest most corrupt degree!



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Here is the CNN video report link.

Not surprisingly they are still calling us "conspiracy theorists".

From Raw Story:


"It has been a mystery since 9/11," said CNN's Deborah Feyerick in a Friday report. "Why did World Trade Center building seven collapse nearly seven hours after the twin towers fell?

"Was it diesel fuel in the building? Or planted explosives, a controlled demolition of government offices as conspiracy theorists allege in films like Loose Change?"

No, says Dr. Shyam Sunder, who directed NIST's team of researchers in the investigation. Fire triggered a "new phenomenon" -- thermal expansion of structural steel, which caused a cascade of collapsing floors, ultimately bringing the building down symmetrically, into its own footprint.

"This is the first time that we're aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall has collapsed primarilly due to fire," said Dr. Sunder during Thursday's NIST press conference. Had the city's water mane not been cut, and WTC 7's sprinkler systems been active, the building may still stand, he said.

Still, said CNN, conspiracy theorists are "not swayed" by the report, though the news channel failed to provide any reason why some still cling to differing opinions of WTC 7's collapse.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Lucky Larry Silverstein took this opportunity to speak out using a spokesperson:

From OpEd News:



A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.
"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Wow, I mean WOW!!! I can't believe this guy.

This is the level of malevolence were dealing with here. The part about dishonoring the people, WOW!

Peace


[edit on 22-8-2008 by Dr Love]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Thought I would add this compilation video of WTC 7.




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
LOL I didnt even need this, 9/11 went out the window when a building
that wasnt even hit or on fire colapsed. Broken windows bring down buildings now?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Here is the CNN video report link.


This video is coming up as some medical stuff..

I cant find the actual video on there so post it if you get a chance.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Also, I'm not sure where the the hijacked plane which was overtaken by passengers was intended to go, but it could have been tower 7. Maybe when the plane fell short it's target the 'EVIL' orchestrators where put in a precarious position and had to make a rash on the spot decision to explode them anyway. I dunno just a thought.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I thought this might be helpful in assessing NIST's report.

This is FEMA's Limited Metallurgical Examination of recovered structural steel from WTC 7 and WTC 1 & 2.

Link to FEMA.

The summary states that the thinning of the steel by a "high temperature corrosion due to oxidation and sulfidation".

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."


No need to investigate that right??? The steel "vaporized" from a common office fire!



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Misfit
 


Watch some videos and you see that some buildings were hit from debris while others were not. Photographic evidence suggests that not every building was hit by debris in the vicinity of the Twin Towers. Theres nothing wrong with that. The collapse of the Twin Towers shows that debris can go pretty far, even to the WTC7. Some of the buildings were next to it, but that is based on their location. Does every building have to be destroyed because they are like 500 yards within ground zero? If I threw a grenade in the center of 20 men, does that guaranteed that everyone of them would be dead from shrapnel? Does it depend on where fragments hit? If you are next to a grenade, that means you are automatically dead?




top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join