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.

 

WTC - Controlled Demo Admission by Fox News

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
The reporter says the building came down in SILENCE

this video seems to disprove that

www.youtube.com...

I hear at least 2 explosions.


In addition, the reporter is blanketing the statement by saying "never have I heard anyone accuse the U.S. Government..."

no one says the US government anymore, as that is a false generalization meant to make critics look like unAmerican traitors.

www.whodidit.org...

[edit on 11-5-2010 by filosophia]




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I have thought the EXACT same thing since I watched the towers collapse. This was of course WAY before there was any proof!! If every day people can figure this out, why can't the supposed smart types in office? I know that a LOT of people were involved in the conspiracy but not ALL of our government had a hand in it. There had to be some that wouldn't have been ok with it and were left out of the loop. So where are they now with all this proof in their faces????



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well its obvious that you havent seen very much then. Based on the testimony of the people that were standing next to it that day and on the limited photos of the south side the building was going to have to come down. And it is quite clear that the men and women who were there that day, thought it would be coming down all by itself with no additional help required.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
But the conspiracy theorems (facts) have been denied for so long that now even if Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush came out and admitted in national media they and their handlers orchestrated it all.... a majority of people would be totally ok with it.

In other words most would not give it much thought and if they did they wouldn't do anything about it.

Joseph Goebbels + propaganda + wild technology = It really works better than before.

The show V on Tuesday nights
SoBe drinks
Nike Commercials
Geico

Lets just say it is getting to be a real pain operating in the shadows of secrecy.

I do admit it is rather funny how the knowledge of this info gets you assigned some fun surveillance on the ground, in the air, and in cyberspace.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by superluminal11]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Wow, are they psychic?

How did they know it was coming down?

What signs did they have that showed a steel framed building would fall
for the first time ever from a source not even capable of such a task?

Who were these people?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Evidence is weak? Let's see what I have off the top of my head:

Blah blah blah


I'm talking about the "evidence " presented in this thread.

Your other stuff's largely rubbish as well, but that's another topic. As well you know.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


What on earth are you on about?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Firefighters who were on hand at building seven have talked at length about how they expected it to come down. They talk of "creaking", "huge fires", a "gaping hole" in the building. Chief Hayden says he was "pretty sure WTC 7 was going to collapse". Chief Cruthers speaks of his "concern that it might collapse". Chief Nigro concurs.

Of course they're probably all in on it.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Where is your evidence to support that fire could have knocked the building
down in a controlled demo like fashion?

How do office fires produce pyroclastic flow?

How do office fires blow out floors and trap people in stair wells?

How do office fires create molten metal?

How do office fires produce iron microsphere that attach themselves
to red/gray chips in a DSC test?


Care to answer any/all of these coincidental[i/] phenomenon?

[edit on 11-5-2010 by turbofan]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


No. They've been answered elsewhere.

It's incredibly tiresome that you continually change the subject. Perhaps you could address my (on topic) remarks. Or even the answer which I provided to your question, which you've simply decided to ignore.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Certainly, after you address the questions on the previous page that you
initially ignored.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


What are you talking about? You didn't ask any questions. You made a series of off topic assertions designed to allow you not to engage with the point of the thread.


Edit to add

Furthermore - I didn't ignore them. I just pointed out that they were "OT".

[edit on 11-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Let me post it here since you've missed it three times now:


Sorry, what was your "strong" evidence again?


So... what is your evidence to suggest some small office fires
can bring down a steel core building in a controlled demo like fashion?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Based on the testimony of the people that were standing next to it that day and on the limited photos of the south side the building was going to have to come down.


Get it straight. There were also people that day who say the South face and said there was NO WAY the whole building could have came down like it did from that damage. NYPD officer Craig Bartmer provides one such testimony. Did you include his testimony? No. You also don't explain how firefighters could have predicted an unprecedented structural failure, that had never happened before.

They may have been expecting a local collapse in the immediate vicinity of where something had impacted the building, but even freaking NIST tells you goons that this damage would have been insignificant to the whole building coming down. So what use is it arguing that the firefighters knew it was coming down, based on reasoning that NIST has refuted?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I can't be doing with this. Do you really not understand that you are changing the subject? That you are avoiding the topic of the thread?

I'm not going to bother rehashing a load of arguments that have been done to death elsewhere. If you want to discuss the article and what I consider its negligible value as evidence for what the OP suggests then feel free to reply.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   


Nice answer!


I started this thread and it's about C.D. of WTC7. We are discussing
C.D. of WTC 7. Imagine that.

You engaged in a debate with me, now finish it off...unless you just
like to believe lies without any sort of justification?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Where is your evidence to support that fire could have knocked the building
down in a controlled demo like fashion?


Where is your evidence of bombs going off. Therm*te being painted on columns?


How do office fires produce pyroclastic flow?


WTC was a Volcano? They actually found tephra at Ground Zero?? WOW Tino... that's amazing. I saw a movie like this...who was it Tommy Lee Jones and Anne Hache?

Classic! This is better than the Rob Balsamo stuff!!



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by turbofan
Where is your evidence to support that fire could have knocked the building
down in a controlled demo like fashion?


Where is your evidence of bombs going off.


That's the best evidence you have to support the theory that fire brought WTC7 down?

No wonder you support the NIST report. You haven't read it or don't understand it anyway.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Come on Six, are you really that ignorant of the video(audio) sounds
of explosions, Barry Jennings interview, the hundreds of FIRE FIGHTERS,
the on-site witnesses, the radio transmissions of FIRE FIGHTERS, the
video testimony of molten steel, the scientific paper from Harrit and the gang?

So you think that pyroclastic flow happens from fire, or high pressre from
falling objects?

Can you show me a video, or credible source (photo perhaps)...which
is documented that indicates pyroclastic flow from falling objects, or
burning objects (other than a volcano, or explosive)?

Here is a picture of what DUST resembles:


Here is the other "stuff":


Not many people understand the difference. Do you?

While you're at it, try to find me a video of the WTC7 falling that has any
significant 'fire'. I know of three perspectives that show nothing.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Okay. Since you keep avoiding the issue and changing the subject I'll take that to mean that

-- you cannot support the veracity of the source you put in the OP

-- you have no answer to the quotes from the firemen I posted above (on your request, you should note)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join