Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

what made building 7 collapse?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 




But what are they denying? That demolition charges were placed in WTC 7? If so, who planted them? CIA?


I had the answer to that question I wouldn't be here.

I just know this, not mentioning WTC 7 is them not being able to explain it, so don't include it, then we don't have to answer for it, in this report.

make sense?





posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by kiwasabi
 




But what are they denying? That demolition charges were placed in WTC 7? If so, who planted them? CIA?


I had the answer to that question I wouldn't be here.

I just know this, not mentioning WTC 7 is them not being able to explain it, so don't include it, then we don't have to answer for it, in this report.

make sense?



I'm guessing Marvin Bush is thought to have planted the detonations while doing the 1 billion dollar renovation of the towers? How much evidence is there to implicate him?

whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


Evidence to implicate him? No 9/11 trial will go forward, there was law passed to make sure of that, patriot act 101 right?

as for who is who, I don't know.

I know the mold doesn't fit the pieces though, and that is what I focus on!






posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
The mold doesn't fit the sandwich? Huh?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So let me get this straight.
The demolition teams ran into a building, with explosives, det cords, etc, that was looking like this:


Burning out of control across multiple floors like this:


Leaning and tilting as witnessed by NUMEROUS firefighters like him:


And they managed to do this, without anyone seeing them, without getting burned, injured, or killed in the towering inferno, who's structural integrity was rapidly failing, all done within what, 2-3 hours? And somehow they managed to even fireproof the det-cords, the demo charges, and even SILENCE them? WoW!





It could not have happened REMISNE. There is just no possibel way other than otherworldly assistance to pull off something so dangerous so covertly. Those demolition crews were there to keep an eye on the building and be ready to offer assistance to when it would have been safe to enter the site for S&R.


[edit on 4/8/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I think the explosive charges are a red herring by the government.

I do think there was something similar in WTC7, though, but something that slowly burned and melted the steel. This would explain the bending, creaking, and warping of the building.

I'm still interested in hearing what people think about Marvin Bush's involvement.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
You might be interested in this new video by dprjones in regards to the WTC 7 collapse. I found it rational and fairly interesting, but I know it's cause much rage among some members. You can make of his analysis what you will.



This guys fine and good with his charts and so forth.

With logic, I can prove that I have no nose. If someone punches me in the middle of my face, the thing "that isn't there" is still going to bleed and hurt.

Case in point as to why the buildings are so "weird" in that they fell so quickly (after being built so marvelously) see this link.

This building burned from Monday until Tuesday....and didnt fall.

www.nytimes.com...

The argument will go "well, the WTC 1 and 2 had jet fuel". fine.
wtc7 DIDNT!

Just sayin.

it really doesnt make a rats ass. We that do believe are unlikely to be swayed any more than those that believe the govt. story.

In the ugly end, one of us will be vindicated. Kinda like JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcom's murders. the truth WILL come out...eventually.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That, or it ain't THEIR job to go into burning buildings with explosives.


Sorry but fires were not the big and not on all floors as prove by the EPS's revovery of the fuel in the tanks.


Buildings, I will add, that had been cleared of FFers


Thanks for admitting the building had been cleared of firemen.


1-The FFers believe that 7 will collapse soon.


They believe it might collapse, no time line of when.


2-They clear a collapse zone.


Yes, and then there is a video of hard hat workers inside that collaspe zone stating the building is comming down now, or it will blow up.


3-They put their heads together and decide that it's best to demo the building to prevent colateral damage.


The fire commander has the authority to bring down a building in an emergency.


4-They then say F this, we ain't going in there, it might collapse on us.


No source for this, just your theory / fantasy.


5-They decide to ignore their training and put civilians into the danger zone.


No source for this, just your theory / fantasy.


6-So they decide to send in Controlled Demolitions to do it. (since THEY ain't union)


Well the demo teams were there for some reason.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
Ummmm I think there is one thing you all seem to be overlooking, and correct me if I am wrong but does it not take days to rig a building with explosives for a demolition ? Seems to me there was only a few hours once the decission was made...so ummm I guess it would have to have been already wired would it not.....


It takse days under normal conditions. But 9/11 was not normal conditions, it was an emergency.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Only one lying here is YOU for making up nonsense and claimind its the truth!


Sorry but i have facts and evidence to support what i post.

Do you have any facts and evidence to debate what i post?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So let me get this straight.
The demolition teams ran into a building, with explosives, det cords, etc, that was looking like this:


Lets get some facts straght.

1. I did not say they had to use exploves. There are other ways to bring down an already unstable building.

2. Its been proven that the fires were not that big and not on the lower floors at that time.

3. There is no time line of when the building or if the building would actually collapse, it was just a theory that it would.








[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


Bad video, with one redeeming point; I might be willing to change my mind on the collapse speed, but need to check a few things first. But everything else he says is gently spoken rubbish.

I have never really liked the term controlled demolition but use it because it's what everyone uses. But in reality, the first 2 towers were definitely un-controlled demolitions, as they had little control over the spewing debris.

And another point and this really aggravates me about these people. Because they are patent liars and know it. Tower 7 didn't "evaporate: into nothing, nor did the twins. The debris pile was 7 stories high above street level and also below the street levels for about 6-8 stories. This is not an evaporating building.

Lets take a look at the World Trade Center;



As everyone can see, the building is mostly empty space and open air.
How big should the debris pile be? I am not sure. The reason they might have been smaller then expected was the pulverization of the cement in the buildings.

I know this wasn't the theme of his video, but he did say something about the debris pile which bothered me, which those who preach energy weapons always falsely use. They make the absurd claims that the buildings disintegrated. And that the piles of rubble had huge portions of the buildings missing because of evaporation from energy weapons. This is a lie. And I believe an intentional one.

What this guy in the video did, is find one mistake that Avery & many others made about the speed of the free fall collapse, and then used this one single mistake to try and fill peoples ears with lies. I am not sure and would need to watch it again, but I think that's the only truthful thing he says in the entire video, and I even need to check that before I believe him, because according to his own words;

"If one thing that they tell you about 9/11 is wrong, then how many other things they say are wrong..." (from memory)

Using his own logic, his entire video is total crap and intentional lying, and because I caught him once, everything else he says must be a lie as well. The man who narrated this video has no real integrity.

Cheers-
Phil














[edit on 9-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Still couldnt change the time it would take to set all the explosives /detonators etc to make it drop like it did , no matter how much of an emergency it was.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
Still couldnt change the time it would take to set all the explosives /detonators etc to make it drop like it did , no matter how much of an emergency it was.



For one it does change the time a lot. On a normal demolition they take the time to protect other buildings and so on.

Second, as stated several times, they did not need to set explosives, or if they did they did need a lot of explosives to bring down an already unstable building.



[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Reevster
Still couldnt change the time it would take to set all the explosives /detonators etc to make it drop like it did , no matter how much of an emergency it was.



For one it does change the time a lot. On a normal demolition they take the time to protect other buildings and so on.

Second, as stated several times, they did not need to set explosives, or if they did they did need a lot of explosives to bring down an already unstable building.



[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]



Still not buying it, if it was so easy and quick to drop a building neatly into its own footprint as with wtc 7 in a few hours then I guess the demo companys are way overpaid as they take days if not weeks to set up demo on other buildings.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
For one it does change the time a lot. On a normal demolition they take the time to protect other buildings and so on.


So, with that statement, you are saying they did not take precautions to protect other buildings. Didn't you say earlier that they were concerned about fires jumping buildings?


So, a fire jumping to a building is more dangerous that a 40+ story building possibly collapsing on it?


I'm not following your logic, Roger...



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


The mold doesn't fit the pieces, is like an explanation that makes no sense right?

If the mold or form is a square and they say the pieces are round spheres then obviously something is wrong.

Make sense in regard to wtc 7?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So, with that statement, you are saying they did not take precautions to protect other buildings. Didn't you say earlier that they were concerned about fires jumping buildings?


They did protect other buildings by bringing the building straight down. If it would have collapsed on its own it would fell towards the side that was damaged and casued more damage to other buildings.


So, a fire jumping to a building is more dangerous that a 40+ story building possibly collapsing on it?


Well if you knew more about what was going on that day would you know that they were running out of water to fight fires.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

...but I should let people read it at source.

The source again, in case anyone missed it.

Great find, again...and thanks!



Thanks, Weedwhacker! That is a perfect post.

The link Roger posted disproves his own statements. Seems odd that he would post evidence that contradicts his own statements.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

They did protect other buildings by bringing the building straight down. If it would have collapsed on its own it would fell towards the side that was damaged and casued more damage to other buildings.



Please re-read assertion #2 at the site you posted earlier:

www.jod911.com...

Your own link disproves your statement.






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join