Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
It is alleged that WTC 7 was, along with WTC 1&2, wired for demolition pre-9/11.

However, WTC 1&2, were hit by planes which might obscure any controlled demolition. But no such obscuring provision was made for WTC 7 which was 355 feet from WTC 1. It was by chance that debris from WTC 1 damaged and started fires in WTC 7 and cut off water supplies. This could not have been planned for.

The idea that WTC 7 was going to be demolished willy nilly in the cold light of day is absurd. Similarly absurd is the idea sometimes put forward that the purpose of destroying WTC 7 was to hide secrets contained therein. Is blowing up somewhere and distributing stuff over half Manhattan the optimum way of dealing with secrets ?

Is it not obvious that WTC 7 was collateral damage flowing from the terrorist attacks on WTC 1&2 ?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Alfie1]



+26 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
It fell down by a button click.


+16 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The minute you or anyone can explain to me, how building 7 fell straight to the ground WITH NO RESISTANCE, i'll believe the original story.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Yea, nooo !

Dont think so at all..



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
The minute you or anyone can explain to me, how building 7 fell straight to the ground WITH NO RESISTANCE, i'll believe the original story.


Buildings tend to fall DOWN do they not ? Where do you get the no resistance from ?

Do you think the plan was to cd the building whatever ?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
The minute you or anyone can explain to me, how building 7 fell straight to the ground WITH NO RESISTANCE, i'll believe the original story.


Im with this guy .. although im not expert or have an knowledge bout collapsing buildings. The videos ive seen show the building going stright down. If WTC7 was hit by parts of the world trade surely it would mean that part of the WTC towers would of had to take out all of WTC7 supports at the same time. If not i would persume that WTC7 build would of either curmbled away or topples over

but what do i know



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Who do you think you are Alfie ?
Coming in here and trying to show common sense .

How dare you , to even assume that is welcome in a 9/11 thread !



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
ITT:

Alfie hitting head on the most firmly-held Truther principle.

That the implications of a suggestion are unimportant and there's no point looking into them as long as something has been "proved" to the satisfaction of the respondent.


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Yes there are a few troubling questions...
How come the collapse of BLDG 7 was announced PRIOR to its demise by a fair while...
What did the owner refer to when he said the decision was made to PULL the building?
Why did it fall so quickly and completely if it fell by fire/debris damage, one would expect some form of non symetrical collapse?yet it fell into its own footprint.
Water was available in sufficient quantities by utlising the fire boats in the river just adjacent to the building,more than enough could have been pumped.
9/11 WAS an inside job......i couldnt have been accomplished if it werent.
A few other relevant questions....
Where are the huge jet engines(2) which should have definately survived the pentagon attack?(they couldnt have been destroyed as they weigh toins and are 8 ft in dia.)
we only saw one piddlingly small engine rotor part recovered.
Where are all the suitcases and luggage, tail assembly,etc... that should have strewn the pentagon lawn?
The truth is there are so many holes in the official theory that it can never explain the reality of what occured.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Man, common sense threads are on the rise today. S&F for you for bringing in a little truth to the truthers.

And for those talking about it falling straight down....what tends to happen to a structure when the base of said structure is compromised? If one part of the upper structure shifts, it'll take the rest down with it; not crumble or topple.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePeaceMaker

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
The minute you or anyone can explain to me, how building 7 fell straight to the ground WITH NO RESISTANCE, i'll believe the original story.


Im with this guy .. although im not expert or have an knowledge bout collapsing buildings. The videos ive seen show the building going stright down. If WTC7 was hit by parts of the world trade surely it would mean that part of the WTC towers would of had to take out all of WTC7 supports at the same time. If not i would persume that WTC7 build would of either curmbled away or topples over

but what do i know


Have a read of the discrete NIST report on WTC 7. Fires, started by debris from WTC 1 and burning uncontrolled for hours, brought the building down. If you know different please let us know.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
Man, common sense threads are on the rise today. S&F for you for bringing in a little truth to the truthers.

And for those talking about it falling straight down....what tends to happen to a structure when the base of said structure is compromised? If one part of the upper structure shifts, it'll take the rest down with it; not crumble or topple.


Feel free to show us a video of another building falling flat in its footprint, with no resistance, and without explosives. Or can you?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
Man, common sense threads are on the rise today. S&F for you for bringing in a little truth to the truthers.

And for those talking about it falling straight down....what tends to happen to a structure when the base of said structure is compromised? If one part of the upper structure shifts, it'll take the rest down with it; not crumble or topple.


Feel free to show us a video of another building falling flat in its footprint, with no resistance, and without explosives. Or can you?


Show me a video that has two gigantic skyscrapers plummet, burning, to the ground less than 500 feet from a smaller building and I'll be happy oblige.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
Man, common sense threads are on the rise today. S&F for you for bringing in a little truth to the truthers.

And for those talking about it falling straight down....what tends to happen to a structure when the base of said structure is compromised? If one part of the upper structure shifts, it'll take the rest down with it; not crumble or topple.


Feel free to show us a video of another building falling flat in its footprint, with no resistance, and without explosives. Or can you?


Show me a video that has two gigantic skyscrapers plummet, burning, to the ground less than 500 feet from a smaller building and I'll be happy oblige.


???? You're just describing 9-11?


+19 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   


This image always speaks volumes. Notice building 3 did not collapse, look at it's placement compared to building 1 an 2.

People actually think building 7 caught on fire from debris and burnt to the ground? It's laughable that people would be so gullible.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


A significant section of the Delft School of Architecture collapsed pretty much like that after a fire in 2008.

There was an explosion before it came down, a collapse wave, rubble projected outwards, what Truthers call "dustification".

I guess Dick Cheney really hates Dutch architecture students.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
9/11 WAS an inside job......i couldnt have been accomplished if it werent.
A few other relevant questions....
Where are the huge jet engines(2) which should have definately survived the pentagon attack?(they couldnt have been destroyed as they weigh toins and are 8 ft in dia.)
we only saw one piddlingly small engine rotor part recovered.
Where are all the suitcases and luggage, tail assembly,etc... that should have strewn the pentagon lawn?
The truth is there are so many holes in the official theory that it can never explain the reality of what occured.


Let me refer you to this for your answer:



Source

[edit on 1-9-2010 by KILL_DOGG]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Obvious termite infestation. Nothing to see here.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Watching videos is wayyyy too expensive on my system...i pay through the nose for megabytes....
Please encapsulate the video for me so i know what yer getting at.
by the way, a colonel, and one of the victims in the pentagon attack
claims to have smelled cordite while exiting the building....suspected a missle attack.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join