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 7 proof positive no inside job

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


C4 would normally be used i'm pretty sure which needs and explosive device to set it of as shooting it and setting it on fire will not set the explosive on off as it needs pressure and heat to set it off. This is why C-4 is the safest explosive to use as it is very stable and wont have an accidental explosion. Found that all out in 5 minutes on the net maybe you should do the same




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
This post is being professionally trolled.... Created by mutli users, using confusion tactics. Look through and see for yourselves. The is OP is supplying his opinion as a fact. Should this not be in the grey area.
Soz peeps u r wasting your time on this thread, nothing substantial is being offered by the OP


Instead of making silly statements about "professionally trolled "; how about dealing with the point of the OP ? Should be a piece of cake for you if it has no substance.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK, you are just simply hung up on your impression of the collapse of WTC 7. You obviously don't care that NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers have other views.

As regards the point of this thread ; that the facts indicate that the perps (if there were such) planned for WTC 7 to be blown up without disguise you say " Maybe they were hoping no one would notice 7" and " other excuses would have been found ". You will not be surprised that I find that ultra lame. Are you seriously suggesting that the perps , you know the ones who faked phone calls, would just hope " no one would notice" in relation to a huge building ?

And what "other excuses" were the perps likely to have found for the collapse ?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK, you are just simply hung up on your impression of the collapse of WTC 7. You obviously don't care that NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers have other views.


Should I care about what NIST says, seriously?

OK prove to me that all four outer walls of a building can land ON TOP of its debris pile, in other words in its own footprint, from a natural collapse.

All you can do is talk and assume, and appeal to authority, you have offered nothing at all to dispute my claim.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
OK prove to me that all four outer walls of a building can land ON TOP of its debris pile, in other words in its own footprint, from a natural collapse.


Simply have a look at the collapse of WTC 7. The penthouse falls first, followed by the rest of the building as internal support collapses. No demolition was involved



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar


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


Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

911research.wtc7.net...


WTC 3 (also known as the World Trade Center Hotel, the Vista Hotel, and the Marriott Hotel) was almost completely destroyed as a result of the September 11 attacks due to debris from the collapse of the adjacent WTC 1 and WTC 2. This chapter describes the structural design and construction features of the building as well as details of its collapse.


DENY IGNORANCE.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
This post is being professionally trolled.... Created by mutli users, using confusion tactics. Look through and see for yourselves. The is OP is supplying his opinion as a fact. Should this not be in the grey area.
Soz peeps u r wasting your time on this thread, nothing substantial is being offered by the OP


Ah, the standard excuse of someone who can't refute someone else's argument.

And as for "professionally trolled," I need to know where I can pick up my check for all of MY contributions to ATS over the past 7 months. I've been accused of the same, and I haven't seen a penny yet.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Simply have a look at the collapse of WTC 7. The penthouse falls first, followed by the rest of the building as internal support collapses. No demolition was involved.

And that rules out a controlled demolition? *Insert Trumpet* In controlled demolitions, the core columns are removed first, i.e. the columns that were structurally supporting the penthouse, so ironically, the fact that the penthouse is seen collapsing seconds before the building itself comes down would support the idea of controlled demolition. If you're intent on believing a controlled demolition was impossible, and believe the official story, that it collapses exclusively due to office fire on half-a-dozen floors, then you have to adequately explain 1) how the building collapsed at freefall for 120 feet, the rate at which an object falls through thin air without any resistance (this freefall occurred during the same time within which roughly two thirds of the internal support structure was still intact) and 2) how did fire suddenly remove 120 feet of vertical support beams simultaneously to allow for the building to fall without any resistance? That's 120 feet of nearly 100 vertical support columns suddenly gone. Not weakened gradually by fire, but gone. Suddenly. The only thing that can do that, bar a miracle, is if the columns are forcibly removed ahead of time.


As regards the point of this thread ; that the facts indicate that the perps (if there were such) planned for WTC 7 to be blown up without disguise you say " Maybe they were hoping no one would notice 7" and " other excuses would have been found ". You will not be surprised that I find that ultra lame.

Nobody cares what you find "ultra lame". Can you back up your arguments with any evidence? Somehow, you've managed to drag your argument out for ten pages, and your argument essentially boils down to this: "WTC7 was probably not a controlled demolition because if it was a controlled demolition why did the perps blow it up without disguise?" It's a pointless question, because we don't know. How do you expect anyone to answer it without speculating wildly? For what it's worth though, I'll give it a go. First of all, maybe they knew that the falling rubble from WTC1 and 2 would structurally damage the building providing adequate "disguise". Second, WTC7 was excluded from the Commission Report and the majority of Americans still don't know anything about it. The people who carried out 9/11 probably have so much power and they rely so heavily on the ignorance of the unthinking general public they could probably demolish 100 buildings by controlled demolition tomorrow, blame it on terrorists and the public would lap it up and start calling for even tighter abridgements on their freedoms.


edit on 10-9-2010 by Nathan-D because: Typo



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So far we are up to 10 pages and the OP has not proved that 911 was not an inside job.
This is what I call a fantasy thread.


It is alleged that WTC 7 was, along with WTC 1&2, wired for demolition pre-9/11.


Alleged, is not a fact. The hard fact is, no one has any proof to how demolition was placed in the WTC, or what type of demolition was actually used.


However, WTC 1&2, were hit by planes which might obscure any controlled demolition.


How do you know this?


This could not have been planned for.


Again, this is your opinion, nothing more.


The idea that WTC 7 was going to be demolished willy nilly in the cold light of day is absurd.


What is absurd is you assuming that your opinions are fact, and naming your thread:

WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

Yet, you give no evidence to prove your opinions, you should change your thread title to:

My Opinions Are Evidence Of No Inside Job At WTC 7!



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Building 6 was in the path of debris.... explain that to me and I'll be satisfied



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by ANOK
OK prove to me that all four outer walls of a building can land ON TOP of its debris pile, in other words in its own footprint, from a natural collapse.


Simply have a look at the collapse of WTC 7. The penthouse falls first, followed by the rest of the building as internal support collapses. No demolition was involved


Read what I've said. You are describing a controlled demolition, not a natural collapse from fire. There is no way on this Earth that a natural collapse can perfectly time itself to allow itself to fall into its own footprint. I have shown why.

I'm not repeating why again when its already in this thread, and a few others, you've obviously seen it.

It takes more than just looking at the collapses, you have to understand what you are looking at.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Interesting theory that you suggest the perps may have planned for debris from WTC 1 to hit WTC 7. I haven't heard that before. However, I think that is something else which is so wildly improbable that it couldn't possibly be true. You have alleged perps, who are supposed to be so ultra careful in covering their tracks, putting their faith (and lives) in debris being ejected in just the way it did from a massively tall building which was going to be hit somewhere by a plane. It was essential for the debris to just wound WTC 7 and not bring it down straight away because, if that happened, the rubble would be full of undetonated charges . It was essential that elements of the debris should be such as to start fires in WTC 7 because NIST reports it was the fires that brought it down and not structural damage. It was essential for the debris to inflict damage on the water supplies because that was a major factor in the fires being unfought for hours. Perhaps truthers can come up with some demo experts who will say it is possible but it sounds like straw-grasping to me.

I don't understand your point about the Commission report not covering WTC 7. You should know that the report was never intended to be a comprehensive assessment of building damage but NIST has produced a seperate report dealing exclusively with WTC 7.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Alfie, your theory is akin the the magic bullet . When concrete is pulverized into dust, it is due to explosions, CD. All you are doing is throwing feces at the wall hoping it sticks.,Everything you assert goes against any and all common sense and you have a great gift for ignoring evidence to the contrary, dismissing it as a matter of course.

The funny thing about the deniers is there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support the governments version of events. Physics are suspended, coincidences numbering over 50 are discounted, addmission of the Mossad agents(the dancing Israeli's) stating on Israeli TV that they were there to document the event, the list goes on and on. You are a disinfo agent, no doubt, and a very transparent one at that.

The more time that goes by, the more evidence comes to light. More groups of pilots, engineers and military are banding together to expose this for what is was. Most of the evidence you assert is from the report and it is ludicrous. Thank you for wasting space on ATS.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Seeker63
 


Another post that doesn't address the issue. Do you believe that the supposed perps planned to blow up WTC 7 , as it stood, with the world and his wife watching ? Does that sound credible ?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

Perhaps truthers can come up with some demo experts who will say it is possible but it sounds like straw-grasping to me.

Appeal to authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. If I provided you with a controlled demolition expert saying that WTC7 was demolished (which there are, Google Danny Jowenko), would you suddenly open up your mind to the possibility of a controlled demolition? You shouldn't take what someone says at face value just because they're an expert (albeit it may give their view more credibility). You should do your own research and come to your own conclusions based on the available evidence.


It was essential for the debris to just wound WTC 7 and not bring it down straight away because, if that happened, the rubble would be full of undetonated charges.

It would be nigh-on impossible for a building that is damaged superficially to symmetrically and spontaneously fall "straight down" because for that to happen all the core and perimeter columns must be removed (preferentially within a spilt second of each other). Damage to the facade simply can't achieve that. It flies in the face of established physics.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
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]


I have a question. Did you ever happen to eat paint chips as a kid? Because this is a pile of CRAP! You have provided NO data to back up you're ridiculous claims . What is the point of this thread? To reinforce your denial and project it on others who know better? Get some kind of attention im guessing?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


C4 would normally be used i'm pretty sure which needs and explosive device to set it of as shooting it and setting it on fire will not set the explosive on off as it needs pressure and heat to set it off. This is why C-4 is the safest explosive to use as it is very stable and wont have an accidental explosion. Found that all out in 5 minutes on the net maybe you should do the same
Too bad CDers aren't more like you, otherwise they would stop saying such nonsense like "The steel didn't melt, therefore Controlled Demolition", or "The Buildings fell perfectly within their own footprints", or "The Buildings fell at freefall speeds". While they're at it, they could look up controlled demolition; Maybe then they'll finally realize that 3 or 4 flashes and 2 or 3 bangs does not a controlled demolition make.

On a side note, the pressure of the plane and the heat of the fire wouldn't have set the C-4's off? Really?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
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]


Or perhaps the Shanksville plane was suppose to hit WTC 7. But go ahead, keep ignoring all the evidence that points to a CD. Keep on trollin....



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
What would the differences have been for collapse by secret/silent demolition and collapse as proposed by NIST? Wouln't they have looked the same to the outside observer?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I dont see how any average person (someone not funded by the CIA) can even say this after all of the evidence out there... thermite explosive residue and ionized iron nano-spheres found in dust samples, endless eyewitness accounts, video evidence of explosions along with molten metal and lack of structural damage to WTC 7, the laws of physics preventing possibility of the official explanation, long list of coincidences leading up to 9/11, etc...

Please, if you really think that planes took those buildings down I urge you to do some research on your own ( like something other than corporate media telling you what to think) before you come to that conclusion and make such an ignorant post because as it stands you have no evidence of this and are just slowing the revolution down.

Some food for thought to get you started:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join