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.

 

Which FDNY called Larry?

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
No gaping holes here:

Looks like mostly cosmetic damage to me.


Oh, good GOD, stop it already. That building to the right of the WTC 7 in that photo is the Verizon building, which was to the west of WTC 7. We know it's the Verizon building becuase it has a distinctive step-pyramid jagged looking top on it. This means YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHEN ALL THE DAMAGE WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE. Of *course* there won't be any damage to the side you're looking at.

You have NO credibility whatsoever, BoneZ. NONE.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


That is a SOUTH SIDE image of WTC7. Sorry if it further shows facts that go against your beliefs, but it is shown in the following NBC video:

video.google.ca...

You're going to have to accept the evidence sooner or later, but right now you make yourself look like an absolute fool while not having done ANY research and have the nerve to call others "uncredible". You should probably take a break and regroup.

Make sure you have your bearings straight when viewing the video before you come up in this thread again and start spewing disinfo that that's the north side of WTC7.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
By the time it became obvious that WTC 7 was goign to fall

What time was that? How did they determine that? Who made that call? Who called Larry, Dave?


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
WTC 7 had been smashed and had raging fires, and it was obvious its collapse was imminent, but they really had no idea when.

Completely contradictory to the NIST report.

NIST stated that 7 suffered some damage, none of it that compromised the structure.

NIST concluded that 7 fell because Column 79 failed. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that something which happened within a few seconds or so, according to NIST?

How can the collapse be imminent if it took over seven hours for Column 79 to fail?

I don't read in the NIST report that 7 was in danger of falling. In fact it was never in danger of falling until Column 79 failed, according to NIST.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That is a SOUTH SIDE image of WTC7. Sorry if it further shows facts that go against your beliefs, but it is shown in the following NBC video:


Nope. If that was the South side then the building with the pyramid top would have to be WTC 5, and WTC 5 had a flat roof. I can see right away the buildings behind WTC7 is either WTC 5 or WTC 6. Besides, I know full well there's only one reason why you're insisting the photo is the south side- that stupid conspiracy web site you got that photo from is telling you that it's the south side and you can't admit the crap they're feeding you is false.

You know what's flabbergasting is that you're so much in Love with your Conspiracy stories that you're even contradicting all the *other* truthers here. They're quoting eyewitness Barry Jennings who said, and I quote:

"Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone."

So even the people who were in the building said the building was smashed, and all the other truthers here accept that. However, I am under no illusion the fact will make any more difference with you than anything else I posted here did.

So, I wish you well in your endeavor. It's obvious that you're not someone who's genuinely interested in the truth. You're someone who uses these conspiracy stories to fill some inner need you have to believe they're real, so north will become south, lies become the truth, and innocent bystanders Caught up in a disaster become secret agents in a never ending chain of Conspiracies. No matter what I, eyewitnesses, Logic, or colonel sanders tells you, you're still going to keep drinking your Kool-Aid.

Go ahead and get the last word in, if such things matter to you. You have no credibility whatsoever so any further discussions will be a waste of my time and yours.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Did you even watch the video I posted? It's a wide-angle view of Manhattan. Then they zoom all the way in to WTC7 and if you were even the slightest bit oriented to know where the towers were, you would know they zoomed in on the south side of WTC7.

Right now, you're either blatantly lying, or your denial has you so enveloped and blind that you're completely ignoring the glaring facts that are staring you in the face. Either way, you probably should stop wasting your time here and go talk to "someone".

[edit on 7-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't read in the NIST report that 7 was in danger of falling. In fact it was never in danger of falling until Column 79 failed, according to NIST.


Hmmm. Seeing that WTC 7 did in fact fall, that puts the notion that "it was never in danger of falling" to bed right there. Column 79 failing just happened to be the coup de gras that made the danger into a reality.

You will note that there were *other* buildings I.E. WTC 5 that were so smashed up by falling debris that they were likewise in danger of falling, to the point where they declared entry to be off limits even during the cleanup. They were only a few failed columns away from falling themselves, too.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You will note that there were *other* buildings I.E. WTC 5 that were so smashed up by falling debris that they were likewise in danger of falling

Of course they were in danger of falling, they were severely damaged:

WTC4:




WTC5:




WTC6:




As I've shown in an image and supporting video, WTC7 had only minimal damage which was mostly cosmetic:

South side:




North side:




Roof:




So, WTC's 4, 5 and 6 all sustained heavy to severe damage and all still stood, WTC's 1, 2, and 7 sustained minor damage and all collapsed? The overwhelming evidence shows that WTC's 1, 2 and 7 were all brought down with explosives despite the minimal damage.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Since I've proven "Good ol'"Dave wrong, his silence is deafening. Anything to say for yourself Dave? The video and photographic evidence (as usual) disproves the official story.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join