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: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





I suggest that scenario, especially given the care supposed to have been lavished on cover up of cd's of WTC 1 & 2, is simply not credible and should lead enquiring people to think more widely about whether WTC 7 was a


There really isn't anything to think about more widely. All you have to do is look at the building falling down. Everytime I do that, the words
controlled demolition just pop right into my head. Just the same way those
same words popped into my head on 911.

I never wanted those words to pop into my head. I can tell you why I think they did. Because it looks like a controled demolition.
If looks like a duck?

How many commercial buildings collapsed do to fire before 911 OP?
They broke the record three times in one day.

I don't know why I responded to this thread. Definetly ignorent on my
part.

Not that everyone who responded is also ignorent. I just get way to involved in this topic. To the point I wanna pick up my monitor and bounce it off the wall.
I don't see how anyone could be like OP except by choice.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by randyvs]




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





How many commercial buildings collapsed do to fire before 911 OP?
They broke the record three times in one day.



So how many buildings have been hit by large jet airkiners at 500 mph before?

How many buildings have a 110 story building fall on it?

See if you dont ignore the obvious facts it becomes easy....



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So, where is your "proof positive".

Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't see anything in your post to prove anything. All you've done is repeat the same tired excuse without actually offering any new thoughts or opinions, and without adequately answering the real issues around this event.

And in contrast, I see repeated video footage of a controlled demolition of a steel-structured building that was only damaged by fire on a few floors.

If you would indulge me, please offer your thoughts on the following...

1. Why did the owner state in an interview that he advised them to "Pull It", and consider that this is a generally used term in the demolition industry for controlled demolition.

2. Why is there video footage of a man wearing "Secret Service" on his vest in the building prior to the collapse?

3. Why do repeated eye witness reports state that they heard controlled explosions immediately before and during the collapse of WTC7?

4. Why did a Steel Structured building collapse within hours of the fires starting while other, older steel buildings have suffered catastrophic fire on numerous floors over sustained periods of time without even a risk of becoming close to collapse?

5. Why and how did a BBC news reporter LIVE ON AIR state that the building had collapsed while it could clearly be seen still standing, BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, directly over her shoulder?

6 Why were the fires in that building seen on various floors and on different sides of the building if it was caused by damage and debris from WTC1 & 2. And why did it then fall symmetrically downward, directly vertically. It would be pretty coincidental if that damage was so even as to cause a completely organized collapse wouldn't it. So, do you suggest that the debris somehow managed to simultaneously take out or weaken every single supporting beam in that building?

7 Please explain the speed of the collapse. Why is it that hundreds of professionals around the world have stated on record that the data shows a controlled collapse with low resistance. Why is the speed of the collapse of this building (and the collapse of WTC 1 & 2) faster than would be possible if it were a genuine structural collapse and there were resistance within.

Of course, I know you won't answer these questions because people can't seem to answer them. It still amazes me that people refuse to accept even that there are suspicious things about all of this from start to finish, even when the evidence is RIGHT THERE STARING THEM IN THE FACE.

I don't care what people believe about 9/11, but no sensible person can truly believe the official story nor can they deny that there are a lot of things that simply do not make sense.

More than 3,000 people died that day. And far too many Americans are willing to let it go without question even though it is CLEAR that there are many unanswered questions.
That is both shameful and sickening.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

The buildings didn't fall down from planes hitting them. That's why they were still there 1/2 an hour later.



See if you dont ignore the obvious facts it becomes easy....


I agree, don't ignore the obvious fact that it looks like a CD.
Doesn't it?

Just let us all see you put it in writing. I'll make it easy A or B?

A.It does look like a CD.

B. It doesn't look like a CD.

Choose either one and our debate is short lived.




How many buildings have a 110 story building fall on it?


Where is the evidence that WTC7 had a building fall on it?
It certainly isn't in that video of the CD.

OP has proof of nothing, because Bush made sure all the crime scene evidence was destroyed. Pronto.

This thread succeeds in one thing only, the deployment of ignorence.
Good job


detachedindividual



It still amazes me that people refuse to accept even that there are suspicious things about all of this from start to finish, even when the evidence is RIGHT THERE STARING THEM IN THE FACE.


It may be amazing for some , but I find absolutly unheard of.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



More than 3,000 people died that day. And far too many Americans are willing to let it go without question even though it is CLEAR that there are many unanswered questions.


Actually all you questions have either been answered or dismissed because they are not based in observable fact or are simply irresponsible hyperbole. Unfortunately, no one can force you to accept an answer or stop you from repeating groundless inquiries.


That is both shameful and sickening.


Yeah, right back at ya!



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
And so it goes on. Some people simply assert that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition because that's what it looked like to them ! Never mind the American Society of Civil Engineers , some 120,000 plus strong, doesn't agree with them

Many of those people also assert that the alleged perps were remarkably clever in covering their tracks e.g having planes flown into the Towers and initiating, no-one knows how , the collapses from the plane impact points, faking phone calls so that people believed they were speaking to their loved ones , perhaps faking the planes themselves, mocking up missiles to look like planes. The suggested ingenuity is endless and staggering.

And yet , despite all the alleged attention to detail of the perps which has resulted in no firm evidence arising in 9 years , some people seem to be quite happy going along with the idea that the perps just planned to blow up a huge building in the WTC complex. building 7, as it stood in full view of thousands of people and millions on tv.

You have to forget that WTC 7 was damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 because that happened by chance . What you are left with is WTC 7 standing there as bold as brass and it is alleged by some that the otherwise so careful perps just planned to blow it up.

I know I am repeating myself but that is because no-one is addressing the issue. Please point out where I am mistaken in deducing that, on the facts, it is being alleged that WTC 7 was to be blown up willy nilly without cover or disguise. I suggest this is so unlikely as to amount to proof that it can't be true.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


ok in this video you cleary see the cd


new video must see


ok demolition truck drive by at the end off the video lolol. ps who owns the manhattan demolition companie


i know the american cruse missile is photoshoped ok cool start this video at 1:20 and by the way can someone extract the pics of bin laden around the table fron this video and post them for me thx in advence

[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 


Reply to last video with Bin Laden at table:

Looks photoshoped to me. The one from behind could be real, but the one with his finger in the air look like a photo of him i already know. Like this:



Plus if he is making a point why is no one listening? None of them are looking at Bin Laden.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   


I love the total" inside" guilty look on Bush's face.


Yep if it looks like a duck?

[edit on 8-9-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Wow, thats very interesting
Are there any threads on this clip that I can read?

Cheers



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
here is a tib bit to chew on, look up the wtc 1993 gold transfer, then2001 wtc 7 gold recovered do you see what i see? missing gold?, from 1993 2001 no mention of gold transfers from wtc to any were, remember the fed res gold was stored in wtc 1 and 2 after the 1993 bombing the gold was transferred to wtc7 and why the different figures. just some thing to look at, dig deep you might find GOLD!



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


" You ignore the physical evidence because it doesn't fit with your viewpoint and because you can't fathom an acceptable motive or plot. "

See , this is where you are mistaken . The physical evidence actually supports my viewpoint . Furthermore , I can fathom several motives and plots . I entertained numerous motives and plots at one time . You see , I was a 'truther' myself , at one time .

I even proposed some theories of my very own .

But , the further I researched , the more I came to realize that my theories , as well as most that are posted on this site , are flawed and lacking and don't hold up to serious scrutiny .

With that in mind , don't just assume that I am a blind follower of what you refer to as the 'OS' .


So let me get this straight. You originally had doubts about the official story and went on a quest for the truth. Somewhere along the way, you discovered some evidence that convinced you that the OS was actually credible and acceptable as truth. You then systematically reviewed all the evidence/questions that previously justified your lack of faith in the OS and judged that none of it stood up to the 911 Commission's findings. I'm sure that you've detailed the evidence in the numerous posts that I've read of yours but please forgive me if that's gotten lost in the morass of posts from various members in the last 4 or more WTC threads.

I was shocked just yesterday to find a post where you were reviewing with open mind an interview about the micro nuke theory. Shocked because every other time I've seen a post by you, you've sounded like a typical debunker. For instance, this post:


Originally posted by okbmd
Wonder why not one single individual who helped prep the buildings while working for the demo company during those 'months of expensive planning and preparations' has ever come forth to tell the world that he helped prep the buildings ?

Did they kill everyone who worked for the demo company , or were they all evil government agents ?

You guys desperately need to get real .


Besides the futility of resorting to the "too big to keep quiet" argument, you've either not considered or have discounted that most of the people performing any demo work wouldn't necessarily know what they were actually doing and the one's who did might still wind up exterminated when no longer required whether or not they were CIA/Mossad/insert favorite intelligence service here.

To me this question is neither here nor there. The important evidence is that the 3 buildings collapsed in a manner that was if not impossible then at least improbable. If only one had done this, I could have written it off as an amazing fluke. 3 amazing flukes in one day stretches things too far.

Take that and start adding the expert and witness statements, the list of anomalies longer than your arm, the absolute control of any legal challenges through one judge and I'm left with only one conclusion. Government conspiracy.

Sure we don't know exactly who did it or how or why. In the absence of an independent investigation, we can only surmise while simultaneously pressing for said investigation. A lot of the evidence is gone but people can still be hung out to dry on obstructing justice charges and that could very well loosen tongues.

But in typical debunker style, you think that I "desperately need to get real." You believe that I should discard all of the hard evidence just like the commission did just because "they" couldn't keep everyone quiet.

It sounds as though you changed your opinion and then changed your spots!

(PS: I noticed that in your In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire post, you seemed to start off fairly well but got understandably irked by a certain member's sharp rebukes. I commend your thirst for knowledge and deplore anyone who cannot carry on a reasoned debate. Unfortunately there are people like that on both sides of this issue.)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK, I suggest it is important because if part of a theory ( cd of WTC 1,2&7 ) is not credible then it throws doubt on the whole theory.


No it doesn't. They are separate 'theories', one doesn't discount the others. If a building collapse mimics a controlled implosion exactly when it is finished (WTC7), then just because you can't hear, or see, or smell, explosives it doesn't discount the fact that the result of the collapse could only be achieved by a controlled demolition.


I think people consider the damage inflicted on WTC 7 by WTC 1 and dwell on that without considering that that only happened by chance. It couldn't have been part of the plan which, if it was a cd , was evidently just to blow the building up,as it stood, in broad daylight in the middle of New York.


Hmmm speculation, means less than evidence. Well they did blow the building in the middle of the day in New York. If there wasn't damage from WTC 1, other excuses would have been used. We all know the damage from 1 could not have had anything to do with a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint. You might be easily fooled by hollywood physics, but don't expect others to. Asymmetrical damage has never caused symmetrical collapses, due to many laws of physics including resistance. Resistance from undamaged structure causes structure to fall to the path of least resistance.


I suggest that scenario, especially given the care supposed to have been lavished on cover up of cd's of WTC 1 & 2, is simply not credible and should lead enquiring people to think more widely about whether WTC 7 was a cd.


Hmmm maybe you should take your own advice. Once more time WTC 7...



Now can you explain how all four walls could end up ON TOP of the debris pile from a natural collapse.
How does a natural collapse do what a controlled implosion demolition is designed to do and takes a lot of very carefully placed and timed 'explosives' for that to happen?

science.howstuffworks.com...

Again take your own advice and think more 'widely' about WTC 7...


edit on 9/8/2010 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
And so it goes on. Some people simply assert that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition because that's what it looked like to them !


No, wrong!

We assert it was a controlled implosion demolition because the final outcome of the collapse resulted in what a controlled implosion demolition is designed to do, all four outer walls ON TOP of the debris pile. In other words it landed in its own footprint...



science.howstuffworks.com...

Now quit ignoring this to continue with your fantasies about what 'truthers' believe and why.


edit on 9/8/2010 by ANOK because: spelling



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Watch his interview on Frontline. I believe you have no idea of fwhat you are talking about. Zero, zip, nada. Nevermind the 1270 engineers who have come together in unison saying all 3 were demolition. You are talking out of your backside friend.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
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 !


Some of you I really question your common sense. I don't even think you understand the term common sense.




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:59 AM
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
Yes, it's his opinion that blowing up WTC 7 with no other cover than being hit by random debris coming from WTC 1 is downright ridiculous.


Originally posted by Alfie1
Thanks again for further various responses but I was really hoping that members would address the situation at the WTC as I set out in the op.

WTC 7 is often quoted by truthers as a "smoking gun " proving controlled demolition but I suggest that, on the contrary, it in fact proves a gaping hole in truther theories.

What I think people need to do is to look back and consider what alleged perps must have planned if they rigged WTC 1, 2,&7. The obvious inference is that the intention was to bring down all 3 buildings on 9/11. So, how did they intend that to look ? Their lives were on the line so effective cover-up was essential. And indeed, for WTC 1 & 2 there was very elaborate cover-up. Planes flown into them and a cd so sophisticated that it could apparently be initiated from the plane impact points.

But then, as regards WTC 7 they evidently made no provision for cover-up at all. You have to forget about WTC 7 being hit by debris from WTC 1 because that happened by chance and could not have been part of the planning.

Therefore, if you believe WTC 7 was a cd, you have believe that the perps planned its demolition to go ahead as it stood there in perfect order and in sight of likely thousands of witnesses.

I suggest that this is so wildly improbable as to amount to reasonable proof that WTC 7 was not a cd. It was collateral damage from a terrorist attack on the Towers.
I agree. Also, the debris would have set off some of the explosives.


edit on 10-9-2010 by technical difficulties because: reply to Alfie



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 



Originally posted by technical difficulties
I agree. Also, the debris would have set off some of the explosives.


What are you basing that opinion on? I would be more inclined to think that they would have damaged the explosives preventing them from being ignited.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by KILL_DOGG
 


I think I know what everyone is saying here and obviously you still haven't caught on was the entire footprint of the building on fire or just one spot cause if it is one spot the whole building wouldn't have fallen all at the same time one side would have fallen and so on and son as it kept burning. This is why it doesn't make any sense but if you want to believe that it was all caused by fire go for it but the whole thing stinks.




top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join