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.

 

New 9/11(NY) footage, taken by Steve Vigilante, released last month(Warning Graphic Language)

page: 14
68
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Varemia
WTC 7 did not have superficial damage


It did according to NIST.


The side of WTC 7 was impacted by serious debris from the tower collapse.


If by "serious" you mean "insignificant" then you're right in line with the official story.

Don't tell me you're a conspiracy theorist too?


The structure was not compromised by the debris, but the report clearly says that the water-lines were damaged. This is a significant detail, no?


edit on 15-9-2010 by Varemia because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Well look again, clerly more than 2 windows. It is around 1:56/1:57. Some thing appears to happen on many impact floors. Did tht area already start collapsing in itself?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 



Quote
Narrator: This, that building's never gonna be the same again. How could (it?)
Other guy: How do you bring that building down?
Narrator: I, you can't. You gotta implode it.
Other guy: You can't even implode it. It's too high. You gotta dismantle it from the top.


BINGO...there it is You gotta impload it then the truth comes out
(You cant even implode it you have to dismantle it)
Yet all the experts dont tell the truth....you have to dismantle it,,,No controlled demolition could recreate it thus pointing to something other than conventional demolition methods




edit on 15-9-2010 by superluminal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Section31

could you please post a link where you say you read that the WTC complex was designed to collapse during an earthquake?????????



Thats quite ridiculous in my opinion, and, well, if you believe that then i would respectfully suggest you have no room to question other peoples credibility......



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
The structure was not compromised by the debris, but the report clearly says that the water-lines were damaged. This is a significant detail, no?


Maybe for the firefighters, but not for collapsing the entire structure. Even NIST is very clear that the debris impact damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of WTC7, except for allegedly starting the fires as they claim.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Varemia
The structure was not compromised by the debris, but the report clearly says that the water-lines were damaged. This is a significant detail, no?


Maybe for the firefighters, but not for collapsing the entire structure. Even NIST is very clear that the debris impact damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of WTC7, except for allegedly starting the fires as they claim.


What evidence do you have to support your doubt in what caused the collapse of WTC 7? It sounds like the only thing supporting your doubt is the personal opinion reinforcing your opinion with doubt rhetoric.

The proposed damage and collapse after fire theory has a lot of support from a lot of people. The only ones that doubt it have no evidential support. The firefighters saw floors bowing out of the building hours before it fell. This means the structure was failing in those places, and possibly others.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
You asked for WTC 7 evidence....


Try this:


www.youtube.com...

I like this one too...

www.youtube.com...

They are only 2 minutes or so long....and they seem to contradict what you say about "evidential support"....

Let me know what you think ......


edit on 15-9-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)




edit on 15-9-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)




edit on 15-9-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
What evidence do you have to support your doubt in what caused the collapse of WTC 7?


How much time do you have?

-- NIST could only offer a hypothesis, like their other reports, and don't claim proof of anything to begin with.
-- They never analyzed a single piece of steel from the building during that investigation.
-- They don't explain how free-fall acceleration was possible while the building was allegedly undergoing a "progressive collapse" simultaneously which necessarily requires the falling mass to do physical work.
-- All four corners of the building drop within a fraction of a second of each other on collapse initiation, meaning four independent areas of the structure were compromised instantly, something that has only been achieved with controlled demolitions historically.
-- NIST even claims this was a "new phenomenon" that caused WTC7 to collapse, their back-handed way of admitting only controlled demolitions have done this historically.
-- Witnesses reported explosions coming from the building, and inside the building.
-- Explosions were recorded in videos in the vicinity of the building after tower collapses.
-- Seismic events were captured after both tower collapses in 15 minute intervals matching witness reported of explosions every 15 minutes coming from the building.
-- WTC7 leaned so little, and sank so straightly down upon itself, that despite being a 47-story tall building it barely hit surrounding buildings after it came down. Another hallmark of controlled demolition.
-- WTC7 did not lean significantly and its debris spilled into all 4 surrounding streets, which were literally only a sidewalk away from it.
-- No other steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire in the history of the world.
-- NYPD Craig Bartmer reported explosions coming from the building while it was "collapsing."
-- The amount of fire in the building compared to many other historic skyscraper fires was pathetic.
-- The fuel tanks people often blame for catching on fire and causing collapse had most of their fuel recovered after its collapse according to FEMA.

I could go on and on but it still wouldn't change your mind, because that's not why you're here.

I realize you can make plenty of excuses for all of these things, but you have to realize the difference between a baseless excuse and a proven fact. NIST's hypothesis, is not even a proven a fact. So what other excuses can you possibly hope to prove to me? They are just excuses, while I am telling you hard facts.



The proposed damage and collapse after fire theory has a lot of support from a lot of people.


If you mean a lot of people want to believe that, sure.

If you mean it has a lot of scientific evidence, that is not correct.



The firefighters saw floors bowing out of the building hours before it fell. This means the structure was failing in those places, and possibly others.


Where the debris damage occurred they saw this. I should reiterate that NIST said this same damage was insignificant to the global collapse.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I mentioned in my last post that the media created two camps of opinions. Yeah i was right.

Don't you people see that you are being used. This whole thing is a set up. The media gives the public a story. And the public divides it self into two groups. One group is supporting the official story and the other is against it.

The government is leaning on the people who support the official story. So that the people who argue against the official story have no chance in hell to prove anything. And the people who support the official story can lean against the government for not doing a damn thing.

We can argue this event to death, and still we wont debunk anything. Because the supporters of the official story can argue the hell out of this until the real facts are presented.

The only way we are going to get to the bottom of this, is if both camps unite and demand a official investigation that both sides can agree on. There is no other way to debunk this properly.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The media has NOT created two opinions, only ONE.

These two groups you are referring to are,, on one side people that see the evidences that were NOT shown on mainstream media and clearly connect the dots, and the other side with people that MUST have faith in there governments and that only outsiders would cause harm.

One group is awake to the world, and the other one, watches the nightly news , and proclaims it as truth, even though saying they know the government lies, and that things are bull#, but its "apparent to them" when that is actually the case, and this case just isn't one of em, isn't that right debunkers !...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by spy66
 


The media has NOT created two opinions, only ONE.

These two groups you are referring to are,, on one side people that see the evidences that were NOT shown on mainstream media and clearly connect the dots, and the other side with people that MUST have faith in there governments and that only outsiders would cause harm.

One group is awake to the world, and the other one, watches the nightly news , and proclaims it as truth, even though saying they know the government lies, and that things are bull#, but its "apparent to them" when that is actually the case, and this case just isn't one of em, isn't that right debunkers !...


Well ain't that two groups? The media don't have to argue both sides to get the ball rolling. They just have to argue one source. And they have been doing that with great persistence to.

By being very very persistent to one view, one source they have created to camps that are now arguing against each other. Look at this site its very clear.






edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


Some things were a bit iffy... regardless reliving that point in my life was unecessary. I was kinda of pissed off that everyone just watched the building burn instad of actually do something but I guess that's the way people some people are in The City.

People died right in front of us. Instead of directing our pain and anger to the Middle East, let's leave them alone and make sure something like 911 never happens again over here.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Not sure what argument you are referring too, you cannot argue with that which is not represented.

Stating what they say facts are , is an argument ??

They do not state anything else, so where is this "argument".



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by spy66
 


Not sure what argument you are referring too, you cannot argue with that which is not represented.

Stating what they say facts are , is an argument ??

They do not state anything else, so where is this "argument".


Jesse's Christ lol.

I know you dont know, because you dont pay attention. Just forget it, this is obviously not for you.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by spy66
 


The media has NOT created two opinions, only ONE.

These two groups you are referring to are,, on one side people that see the evidences that were NOT shown on mainstream media and clearly connect the dots, and the other side with people that MUST have faith in there governments and that only outsiders would cause harm.

One group is awake to the world, and the other one, watches the nightly news , and proclaims it as truth, even though saying they know the government lies, and that things are bull#, but its "apparent to them" when that is actually the case, and this case just isn't one of em, isn't that right debunkers !...


Hmmm, I watch the nightly news, read the paper, read online news sources, read alternative media and I am pretty sure that I am not asleep. I still believe this was done as the media said it had though, I have seen more evidence for the terrorist theory than the false flag. Still not sure of the Israel involvement thought... that's what really stumps me.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
Still not sure of the Israel involvement thought... that's what really stumps me.


There was no Israeli involvement - that is just a false claim by jew haters.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
Still not sure of the Israel involvement thought... that's what really stumps me.


There was no Israeli involvement - that is just a false claim by jew haters.


To say there was none is a huge claim, maybe evidence suggest that there is none or there is little evidence. But nope I haven't seen many mainstream people or media attempt to debunk that. But most of the alex jones loose change junk I have seen debunked.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Mossad agents admitted on camera to being in NY on 9/11 to "document the event"....which implicates them because nobody supposedly knew it was going to happen, yet they were there to document it....

Its 41 seconds long....




Google Video Link



Does this make me a "jew hater" dereks??

Personally I see myself as more a State Sponsored Murder-hater, but you seem to think , with your ridiculous sweeping generalisations, you know better.


edit on 16-9-2010 by benoni because: A quick word with dereks...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni


the video does not work...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
Still not sure of the Israel involvement thought... that's what really stumps me.


There was no Israeli involvement - that is just a false claim by jew haters.



Again with the jew haters , why is that Dereks? Why does any person that suggests Mossad foreknowledge or involvement a "jew hater"? This seems nothing more than a bad assumption , at best. Are people that think the Mossad was involved with the Dubai hit "jew haters"? Their own motto is "by way of deception, thou shalt do war".

Please give us all a break with the broken record player, debunker playbook comments about being a jew hater anytime the Mossad is brought up. Soon you guys will be calling everyone "American haters" just because we question the CIA...oh wait you already do that.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join