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.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by slugger9787
No Dave you really are not all ears, for an explaination that does not involve SD weapons, armies of agents, or humans in a mile raidus being dums as a sack of hammers, so do not even shame yourself by claiming to be listening.
Up until now, that's 100% what the conspiracy people have put forward.
Originally posted by ohhwataloser
How bout e) a select small group of sinister people plant explosives that are not fully understood. Bringing all 3 towers down on their own footprint by demolition means that is not fully understood. Controling flow of information of any evidence of the above, by means that are not fully understood.
got anything against that theory?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It'd be one thing if you said the attack was real but Bush allowed it to happen to fulful his own agenda, ...
Originally posted by slugger9787
Take a look for yourself. Michael Hess, clearly visible, is stuck in the building. This corroborates the story they told that on the way down trying to evacuate the building, an explosion occurred inside of the building which trapped them. The stairway, where the explosion occurred, blew out the last floors in the stairwell. Barry Jennings gave an exclusive interview with Loose Change creator Dylan Avery where Barry stated that when he was finally found by firefighters, they stepped over dead bodies in the lobby on their way out. After the video publicly aired, Barry Jennings mysteriously died just before the BBC aired a piece about World Trade Center Building 7...
Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by GoodOlDave
You just convinced me, so I do not need to explain.
If the building WTC7 was evacuatd,
where did the bodies appear to have come from?
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by slugger9787
You just convinced me, so I do not need to explain.
If the building WTC7 was evacuatd,
where did the bodies appear to have come from?
Barry Jennings later retracted his story about the bodies and Michael Hess has never said there were any.
How do you explain this?
Originally posted by jprophet420
How do you explain this?
Because you speculated at several points instead of using the information given. You did so in an attempt to prove the information given was wrong.
That is not objective research, that is starting out with a preconceived notion and the intent to prove something wrong.
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Aw, jeez, not this crap AGAIN!!
The explosions that caused damage in WTC7 "had to have" been from the WTC1 debris damage just like WTC7's collapse in general was "necessarily" due to the debris, right "Dave"?
But no wait -- every time I ask you to prove these kinds of garbage statements you make, that make no sense at all when you look at the details, you start ranting even more!
Put up or shut up, "Dave."
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
How about answering MY question for a change- you conspiracy people keep using the tired "no other skyscraper in history ever fell from a fire".
Dude, is this some kind of weird children's game you're playing? I already posted THREE TIMES the chain of events from the WTC 1 collapse to the damage from the falling wreckage starting fires and taking out the power grid to NIST's explanation of how the fires caued the collapse, I even included the page numbers in the NIST report, and I even posted photos of WTC steel that showed NO explosive damage.
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
The "chain of events" from WTC1's collapse to WTC7's collapse does not prove, anywhere, what brought down WTC7, even according to NIST. It's a cute story NIST made up for people who are too lazy to check the facts behind it. Yes WTC7 was hit by debris, but NIST also says it didn't cause significant damage and are only GUESSING when they say that it's what caused the fires. This is the conclusion you come to when you look at what "proof" they have offered, ie none.
So then for you to say the debris necessarily brought down WTC7, means that you actually have some kind of proof from logical deduction, which is a lie because you obviously don't, and nothing you are posting is truly logical. I might remind you that logical fallacies are, by definition, not logical. And neither are piles upon piles of them.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Please show where I ever said the NIST report was actually "scientific proof" or else withdraw it for the lie it is.
The irrefutable fact is that WTC 7 stood perfectly fine for several decades, and only collapsed after WTC 1 wreckage crash down on it. If you are denying this then you are lying through your teeth. To therefore say there is no corelation is being blind.