It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:50 AM
reply to post by dereks

Originally posted by dereks
you really should listen to what truthers are saying, they claim Larry Silverstein told the fire fighters to demolish WTC 7 with explosives....

Do you realise those pictures you posted are supposed to show proof a beam weapon from space was used to destroy the WTC buildings?

Believe me, I read just about everything to do with this subject and am aware of what the truth seekers say. I'm also aware of what various sites promote and in this case, despite the rather wacky beam weapon theory, the photographs are still valid. That site seems to have the best collection of photographs to be found anywhere which is why I keep it close to hand.


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:50 AM
This is your proof positive, because you said so?

The argument is rediculous. The way that building fell was textbook demolition. The center of the building started to collapse first, ensuring it would fall in its own footprint. Its amazing that the fire took out the center beams first, and then the sides soon after at the same time, ensuring a perfect fall. Seriously, are you kidding?

Why wouldnt they bring it down in the daytime if americans are stupid enough to believe that enough of the debris made it around other standing buildings to cause a bad enough fire to cause a collapse like that.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:00 AM
There is an excellent video by Richard Gage that goes into what a controlled demolition looks like, earthquake, fire, bombs, etc. (The aftermath as well as the collapse).

He also provides pictures and stories of buildings that literally burned for DAYS and not only did they not fall, but they certainly didn't fall in a demolition style.

A video I saw or an article I read talks about how "Reporters tend to tell the truth before being told to do otherwise." You can hear reporters describing the towers falling 'as if it were a controlled demolition' on the day of the attacks. After being instructed, they changed their tune.

Another good example of that was on a Coast to Coast broadcast I was listening to probably 5 years ago. One of the reporters who was on site first at the Pentagon was describing the wreckage - or lack of wreckage - at the scene. He was even using phrases such as, "You would expect to see engines, wreckage, etc" - then they played an audio clip of an interview with him either days/weeks/months later (I forget, heard this years ago) and he *completely* changed his story to, "Oh yes, I saw all this wreckage with engines, seats, etc"

Not to mention there are only two Skyscrapers in known history to collapse from fire in such a fashion - before or since - and they were the twin towers.

When I began researching and learning about this years ago, it was reality shaking for me and took time to come to terms with it. I'm wondering if those who are adamantly opposed to 9/11 are simply so overwhelmed with the possibility that we are being lied to, controlled and manipulated, that they would prefer to keep their sheltered world view in order to prevent complete mental collapse.

Something else I find funny are the thousands of scientists, physicists and engineers who agree that what happened is impossible; yet laymen continue to pound away at the keyboard saying that these trained professionals are completely wrong and have no idea what they are talking about.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:20 AM
Thank you for responses. Various of them have been about how WTC 7 collapsed but I really wanted to get away from that because it has been done to death elsewhere. What I intended this thread to be about were the overall circumstances at the WTC complex on 9/11 which I think are too often ignored in favour of superficial impressions as to how WTC 7 collapsed.

I have been taken to task for using "proof" in the thread title which I think is a bit rich given the plethora of truther titles like :- PROOF that Building 7 etc, Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture etc, Thermite proven ! etc, US cameraman has proof etc which are apparently ok.

I do suggest that consideration of all the circumstances at the WTC on 9/11 produces such a weight of circumstantial evidence that it amounts to proof that there was no cd at WTC 7.

There is of course no narrative that truthers agree on but the following seems to be a fairly common view :- On the morning of 9/11 WTC 1,2 & 7 had been prepared for controlled demolition ( Despite not a soul or dog noticing anything ) It is alleged that in the course of the day all 3 buildings were brought down by cd. Truthers are often fond of pointing out that the Towers were hit by planes and WTC 7 wasn't as though that is an argument of strength but I suggest that it is a weakness that destroys the hypothesis .

If the Towers were destroyed by cd the perps went to superhuman lengths to disguise it. Not only did the plan call for planes to be flown into them but the buildings were wired so ingeniously that, despite the damage and fire resulting from the plane crashes, it was possible to initiate collapse from the points of impact.

It was natural that the perps would pay so much attention to detail because political and physical death would follow exposure.

However, turning to WTC 7, it is apparent that no arrangements had been made to disguise its cd. By pure luck, for them, debris from WTC 1 hit 7, started fires and cut off the water. So disguise happened by unplanned chance.

It is this aspect that I would really appreciate someone addressing. Why the incredible care supposed to have been lavished on the Towers to conceal cd compared to zero for WTC 7. I submit that it is impossible to believe clever perps, with vast resources, were prepared to just cd WTC 7 as it stood there pristine and untouched.

Some truthers obviously appreciate this weakness in their position because I see from time to time attempts to suggest UA 93, which went down near Shanksville, was destined for WTC 7. However, I haven't seen anyone try and push this very hard, and rightly so, because there is the insuperable difficulty that , having started at New York, it was making a bee-line for Washington when it crashed.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:39 AM

Originally posted by JohnJasper

There's no simularity whatsoever with WTC 7.

It's in your interest to say that, but what I wrote remains true:

It exhibited a loud explosion. The portion that came down - a large annexe - fell extremely fast. There was a collapse wave, "dustification". In that sense it is similar. And all the "evidence" for demolition that Truthers think they see in that stuff is replicated. And therefore false.


It's just not that remarkable that there isn't an exactly congruent collapse like WTC7 somewhere previously. Look at the way it was built. Consider the circumstances of the fire.

This remains true as well. A fire of this nature in a building of this kind is an extremely rare event. It's a simple misunderstanding of probability to suggest that there should be lots of congruent examples.

And why are you so keen to believe the fairy tale nonsense about how weak the buildings were built? Are you confusing NY with Haiti?

I didn't say "they" were "weak". I said that WTC 7 in particular was built in an unusual manner that contributed to its collapse. This is not in doubt, and it's the reason why NIST made a number of recommendations (subsequently passed into law) about building design in the wake of the disaster.

I've never heard anyone suggest, much less myself, that the fire fighters were in on this.

I have. You must not have read particularly widely.

But I notice you avoid my question. Why did the firemen think it was about to come down?

Next you'll start disappearing truth seekers or sending round the CIA death-squads.

What rubbish.

But you inadvertently raise an interesting point. If the all-powerful neocon cabal can murder with impunity, silence thousands of professionals from a variety of fields, and prevent even a single leak from their operation, then why can't they bump off a few Truthers? If you really have found the smoking gun, then why aren't more of you dead? Surely the powers that be must be scrambling, terrified, desperate to silence you all?

And finally, check out this aerial photo of WTC 7 post-collapse. Maybe not a perfect controlled demolition but not far from it. Notice how the buildings to either side of it are in such good shape. Check out other photos of those two buildings and you'll see that they were hardly nicked. It's a shame that WTC 7 was so unlucky

So if something looks like something else, then it must be that thing? How would you like the building to have collapsed?

Ignoring the fact that your photos are cherry picked, and that the collapse was far less tidy than you imply, this isn't prima facie evidence of anything.

PS: I've got to get ready for this week's Truther meeting where we dream up more lies to tell. Tomorrow it's the Atheist meeting where we dream up more lies about how Christianity and all other religion is just a scam to control people. Saturday, I'm attending the "Too-Big-To-Fail" Banks Appreciation Society annual meeting.

[edit to realign text]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by JohnJasper]

Funny stuff. You should do this for a living.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:22 AM
Thankyou OP after years of personal research and understanding now that you have come on to this site and posted your thread I can now put my feet up as your opening post proves without doubt that building 7 fell due to the fact that it wasn't stable. Thankyou.

One question Did anyone profit from the felling of WTC7

[edit on 2-9-2010 by franspeakfree]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Cataka
There is an excellent video by Richard Gage that goes into what a controlled demolition looks like,

Yes, we have all seen it many times before

And this is the high standard the "truthers" use as evidence....

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by JohnJasper

" I've never heard anyone suggest, much less myself, that the fire fighters were in on this. "

Sorry to burst your bubble but , this has indeed been put forth in numerous 9/11 posts , by truthers .

And , don't get your knickers in a wad and start the name calling , as I never directed that post at you personally .

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:28 AM
Im not being funny but you can see the explosions, the windows smash out, take a look for yourself, about 16 17 seconds, draw your own conclusion, dont let the news or conspirators draw you in.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by Alfie1

I have proof that alfie1 will be in for a rude awakening, someday, when all truth is laid out. Oh... wait, I don't have proof, I have an opinion, and thats it.

Good thing I didn't start a thread claiming I have proof. Whew...

But I bet alfie1 has mission accomplished, whether or not he works for his own ego or an agency of some sort.

Your logic is off, man. Your argument can't seriously be, that because the people behind this isn't speculative and manipulative enough, and downright don't care about other people or their lives enough to do it, then they didn't do it. Then no crime against humanity would ever take place.


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by stirling

What did the owner refer to when he said the decision was made to PULL the building?

Exactly, precisely what I was going to say. If I have to go find the video with the owner stating that Bldg 7 was already pre-wired for demolition, I will.

After the towers fell he was advised of the damage to his building, and decided to "Pull it"

I would imagine all of the stuff he wanted saved was already taken out.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:26 AM
I think you have to rely on your intelligence and with what you you can see on the videos,well basically "COMMON SENSE" that high rise buildings don't just turn to dust and "FALL DOWN" due to small fires.that is all we can go by BECAUSE THEY WON'T RELEASE ALL THE EVIDENCE!!Why is that?They had many many years to put this plan into play,I also think when the first bombing happened it was a dress rehearsal.It's amazing what you can find if you commit to really researching this subject

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:29 AM
WTC 1/2 were pre rigged I thought because it would cost far too much to deal with the asbestos.

To add, here's some good B7 footage, chilling as it may be.

Perfect demo, oh yea, I forgot, I'm not supposed to think such ignorant things.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by depth om]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by dereks
You and I know NIST were never proven a fraud. I don’t need to provide you the evidence you know were it is. What ever I give you, you will reject it as most people who support the truther fairytales. When one is in total denial and hand waves everything and always justifies the truthers with their uninformed opinions, this is a recognizable fact. That’s why no one takes the truthers seriously.

It is quite common for many truthers to be rude, as you have just demonstrated.

So which truther conspiracy theory is the flavour of the month today?
hologram airplanes?
Pod carrying aircraft firing missiles?
hush a boom explosives that make no sound placed in location by ninja's?
super nano thermite that looks and acts exactly like paint?
Beam weapons from outer space?
mini nuclear weapons?
The Jews did it?

Remember, all the above and more are conspiracy theories put forward by truthers...

You know, I havent seen the old "bombs in the basement" story in a long time. And that Janitor that just kept building his tall tales. Whatever happened to that? Or is that still on the "truther wheel" and its going to rotate back onto the threads within the next month or so? (or maybe because I mentioned it, maybe it will show up sooner!
Also I miss the pod people. And the hushabooms!

[edit on 9/2/2010 by GenRadek]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by impressme

So which of the OS fairytale, fantasy is your flavor of the year today?
Jet fuel melting steel in less than an hour?

When did that happen? I dont recall NIST/FEMA/ANYONE say that. Jet fuel melting steel?? Nope. Softening yes, melting no. But guess who did start that claptrap garbage? TRUTHERS! One of your own, and you swallowed it hook, line, sinker, and fishing pole! And you still run with that garbage! Strike one for you!

Typical office fires brought down the WTC at freefall speed?

Typical office fires? As opposed to?? Oh wait, did you forget that large 767 that slammed into the building? You know, where a 767 crashed and burned inside an office building? Yeah that happens ALL the time and the buildings always survive right?? Oh yes and other office buildings also burn nonstop for 6-7 hours without a drop of water to fight it, and survive. Windsor Tower came out ok right? Especially its steel supported sections? Oops!
Strike two!

19 unidentifiable hijackers using stolen identities who where allegedly vaporized on impact with a billion tons of WTC debris on top of them and the FBI identified the hijackers with their “supper duper DNA magic machine”?

Huh. Then how is it that AQ, the Middle East, Palestinians, Hamas, Al Jazeera, had all their names, families, pictures, etc up almost immediately after 9/11, proclaiming what great jihadist soldiers of Allah they were, and praising their families? Oh sorry, I guess they left that part out in those "truther" websites!
Oh, also, have you ever read a report of a violent airplane crash where the passengers' passports, IDs, shoes, actually survived a terrible crash of no survivors? Gee its like you automatically shut off your brain to believe the nonsense of the TM. Oh and finding DNA from human hamburger is not a new thing. Take a look back through other just as violent airline crashes and see how many people wer emanaged to be ID through DNA, even though there were only fragments. Sorry impressme, but its like you are losing a grip on reality. Strike Three! You're out! But hey lets keep going!

Perhaps, you still believe in Barbra Olsen phony phone calls that the FBI finally said never happened?

FBI said no such thing. And why is it that the FBI DID say that many calls did get through?

Perhaps, you still believe WTC 7 just fell down at freefall all by it’s self, leaving each building on each side of it undamaged?

Freefall speed? You mean 13+ seconds for a 47 story building to collapse is considered freefall?
I wonder how reality works in your neck of the woods.
OH! And what happened to Fritterman Hall? The Verizon Building? The Post Office? I didnt know that the Post Office's "EXTENSIVE DAMAGE" actually means undamaged! I was not aware that Friterman Hall being destroyed means, UNDAMAGED.
Are you for real impressme? And your little cheerleaders with the stars. Talk about sheep!

Perhaps, many of the OS believers still believe they really see a huge Boeing 757 slamming into the Pentagon in the only video that was released by the pentagon?

Ah yes and we are to ignore the multitude of eyewitnesses (INCLUDING THOSE USED BY CIT
) that ALL saw a 757 slam into the Pentagon, or had the plane skim over their cars, fly right over their heads, come right at them, and watched it plow head on into the Pentagon.
Oh good googa mooga, impressme, you are a laugh riot.

You don’t believe the 911 Commissioners, when they admitted they lied in the 911 commission report?

Do you even know what the 911 Commission Report was for? Oh you mean how the agencies were all playing a game of "Cover your ass" when it became obvious that SOMEBODY dropped the ball with the intel mishandling, miles of red tape, bureaucratic BS, inter-agency infighting, no coop between the agencies. I'm sure those invloved will be most happy to stand up and admit, oops! We [snip]! Our bad!

Bin laden did 911?

Did he do it? Did he fly the planes? Or was the head of the organization which provided cash, security, support, and the blessings to go and commit this act?

“Remember, all the above and more are conspiracy theories put forward by OS believers...”

No sorry, what you put up above is what the TM thinks the "OS" believes, even though its been shown that ALL of it is bred in the minds of the TM, not the so called "OS" which does not exist since not a single TMer can give us an accurate explanation of what the "OS" is.

So way to fail there impressme. I enjoyed this little game of target practice. Better luck next time. And bring a new script. That old one is too tattered to e of any more use.


Censor circumvention removed

[edit on 2/9/10 by masqua]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Tribble

Exactly, precisely what I was going to say. If I have to go find the video with the owner stating that Bldg 7 was already pre-wired for demolition, I will.

If you can find such a video I will give you 100 000 dollars.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:23 PM
What a neat and controversial way to get your flat count up.

Either way, WTC 7 looks horribly like a controlled demolition. The middle of the roof slumps in, and the thing falls gracefully in on its footprint. I would be surprised if you could even demolish a building by firing debris at it only twice, but for it to then cave into its footprint is really lucky if nothing else.

But then WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell neatly into their footprints at nicely terminal velocity, floors pancaking into eachother at near impossible speeds....

Either it was a controlled demolition, or the buildings were made badly. Obviously you can design a building and say "this thing is airline-strike proof" because you can be 99.999% certain no whackjob will fly a plane directly into your buildings. It is a vacuous notion to say any building is airliner proof as you cannot go about testing such claims either way. I guess the truth hurts a lot.

I am also disappointed that the whole 911 truth movement is surrounded by claims that to question 911 is to somehow devalue America. I know that America has always had a slightly glitchy patriotic bent right back to when they were minting George Washington's mug onto any flat object that stayed still long enough (to keep together disparate bands of settlers who otherwise would barely talk to eachother) and that by being a relatively new society compared to most you need to cling onto anything you can culturally... however to question something that was "an attack on Christian America" is surely healthy. Afterall 911 does have some bad points that were either the product of rushed investigation, a bad coverup or some other deeper more occult-lead danger that is hardly worth thinking about.

I do know that the 911 truth movement in the UK was severely devalued by the guy who came to run the shop down in England (who later claimed to be the son of God no less). I heard about this stuff 2nd hand from a great guy (who was trying to get me into Alan Watt's cutting in the matrix thing). It sounds a lot like the powers planted a complete stooge in the middle of the 911 truth movement to make sure he thing burnt out in a torrent of infighting, bad ego trips and general ridicule from the great brainwashed.

I was a happy member of the Edinburgh 911 truth movement for a while. I got stickers to stick around the place (most of which got vandalized), but the sheer level of infighting meant that I could see no truth would come out of anything.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Alfie1

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 ?

Please show just one example of a building on a no resistance fall all on its own. Please please please please please.
Besides if buildings tend to fall down then I want to know where the next oldest one is so I can start my insurance claim!
My proof it was done deliberately was Bush coming out later saying "We hit the Trifecta!" That is a horse race term for a big money windfall.
1) Insurances on all of those buildings
2) Successful block of all potential lawsuits from families of the dead
3) Stock market ching ching for the military industrial complex
Now go back and look again. Follow the money. Find out why if a defective building fell down all on its own (WW7 guys stay w/me) why no one is allowed to sue. If you were in that building wouldn't you sue?

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I have been searching for the interview for 2 hours now.
It was in 1 of 150 Google videos or just as many You tube videos.

This will take time- and also I do get your point.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by Alfie1

i have not the time to see if it has been mentioned properly already.

the BBC announced 20 minutes before the event that building 7 had collapsed.
that is undeniable historic proof that everything relating to the disasters on that day, ie the official explanation, is a total fabricated lie. anyone believing otherwise is not only gullible but brain dead.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in