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.

 

The Third Tower

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
9-11 Conspiracies


The Third Tower,



Please focus further replies and commentary on the Actual topic of discussion.


Thank You



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Look here is the thing, regardless of what you believe, we can all agree that the collapse of the building was unprecendented (if not, please cite). Furthermore, we can agree that there is at least some evidence of something other than what the official conspiracy theory explains (i.e. witness testimony), therefore everything should be considered, if not to rule it out. The very fact that certain scenarios are being officially ignored, is suspect in of itself, though regardless all scenarios and evidence should be considered in a transparent and truly independent inquiry.

If I walk outside in the morning and my car is wrecked, I'm going to consider all possibilities until I can gain further evidence. If someone comes along and tells me that they know for a fact that someone didn't wreck into my car, though given time they could come up with a theory (without considering the scenario of someone simply wrecking into my car), then they tell me that a never before experienced phenomenon is what wrecked my car. Would you not question why they didn't even consider the scenario that some drunk idiot just wrecked into my car? Would you automatically believe them about some kooky and unprecedented theory as to how my car was wrecked, especially when this person admits that they won't even consider the idea that someone simply drove into my vehicle?

Come on, no amount of ignorance in the world can blind people that bad, which is why I think a lot of opposition to even considering explosives is disingenuous, at best. Why oppose even considering such a likely scenario, even if you think it isn't likely at all, especially since the explanation given is completely unprecendented.


--airspoon



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Recent threads have been excellent, the symmetrical descent raises a lot of questions, you asked for counter evidence but I can't provide any of a building collapsing in this way unless you count controlled demolitions.

Thanks to the internet it's possible to do some citizen journalism and reach your own conclusion. If it were up to the MSM the issue would be totally avoided. Witness Geraldo Riveria talking about 7 recently because of the NYCCAN and ae911truth activism.

Remember (or rather think about) the Church's response to the idea the world was round. Some people will deny it up and down forever regardless of the evidence. I heard about a flat earth society which is still going although they seemed firmly tongue in cheek. It's easy to imagine in 50 years time we will look back at the defenders of the OS in a similar way. But it's not called Building What for no reason, people by and large are not aware of this aspect of the attack.

Peace

Keep up the great work, it seems best to avoid conspiracy and deal with science and things that are on the record but you did that with the 50 points thread.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Look here is the thing, regardless of what you believe, we can all agree that the collapse of the building was unprecendented (if not, please cite).


Agreed. EVERYTHING that happened that day was unprecedented. All the individual components happened individually (I.E. Islamic fundamentalists committing terrorist attacks, hijackings of passenger aircraft, using aircraft in suicide attacks, terrorist attacks on US soil, etc) but this is the first time everythign was put together all at once.



Furthermore, we can agree that there is at least some evidence of something other than what the official conspiracy theory explains (i.e. witness testimony),


You are being artfully duplicitous in this statement. There is evidence of at least something more to the story as far as on the gov't side (I.E. what they knew, what they did, how they responded, etc). There is no evidence there's anything more to the story as far as how the buildings themselves collapsed. We keep trying to point out exactly how the supposedly suspicious things you're cherry picking aren't suspicious at all but you're so hypnotized by your sexy sounding conspiracy stories that you don't want to listen. You just keep repeating the same debunked things over and over and say that *we* don't want to listen.


If I walk outside in the morning and my car is wrecked, I'm going to consider all possibilities until I can gain further evidence.


We both know this statement isn't true. If you see your car was wrecked in the morning, you're going to go through all the possibilities you know are possible. A drunk driver smashing into your car, the work of a vandal, someone even stealing your car and taking it for a disasterous joyride, things like that. You are NOT going to waste your time with the fantasia scenarios of laser beams from outer space, secret agents planting silent explosives all over your car that leave no trace, or that your car is really intact and you're really just seeing a hologram.



If someone comes along and tells me that they know for a fact that someone didn't wreck into my car, though given time they could come up with a theory (without considering the scenario of someone simply wrecking into my car), then they tell me that a never before experienced phenomenon is what wrecked my car. Would you not question why they didn't even consider the scenario that some drunk idiot just wrecked into my car?


The questioning part isn't the issue. The issue is when you get some idea into your head that makes no sense whatsoever, and you insist that's what happened despite all the police, investigators, and neighbors telling you that it was somethign else. It gets even worse when you start accusing all the police, investogators, and neighbors of being in collusion in some sinister coverup to trick you into believing something else. This isn't questioning. It's blind zealotry.


Come on, no amount of ignorance in the world can blind people that bad, which is why I think a lot of opposition to even considering explosives is disingenuous, at best.


You are overlooking the most obvious reason why people really and truly can be blinded that badly- faith based logic. People WANT to believe certain things are true becuase its the basis of their whole outlook on life, and it's why people want to believe the human species was created magically out of a clump of dirt, it's why people think they'll be given 72 virgins in heaven if they die while killing others in the name of God, and it's why people who think everything from the JFK assassination to the USS Liberty to area 51 to even the designs on the back of the dollar bill are all secret sinister conspiraces will see the 9/11 attack as being some secret sinister conspiracy too.


Why oppose even considering such a likely scenario, even if you think it isn't likely at all, especially since the explanation given is completely unprecendented.


Here's the most obvious reason- we oppose it when we know you're trying to lie to us to get us to believe what you yourself want to believe. We showed you aerial photos showing WTC 7 was within range of the fallout damage from WTC 1 wreckage, we gave you eyewitness accounts of people who were there who said the lobby was completely destroyed, and we even gave you a transcript from a fire fighter chief who said the wreckage destroyed the water supply to the fire suppression systems in WTC 7, that fires were burning out of control, and they were causing bulges in the side of the structure. In the face of the accumulating facts, your continuously clinging to this "it's completely unprecedented" excuse is becoming more and more unsatisfactory as a competent answer.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Again, you are the only one that mentions this crazy crap...Manybe some loony said it ages ago, maybe even a disinfo agent, who knows? But since then it's you that brings up these fantasies in every thread and more than once...
BTW, the attack on the Liberty is not a conspiracy, it's a well documented fact, even with pictures and videos..
Ohh, and as with you buldges with no proof other than testimony, the Liberty also has crew members still prepared to testify to the atrocities commited on that that...
The one YOUR government hides from it's people..
The government is more than capable and willing to hide the truth, as it is with 9/11..



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



Why oppose even considering such a likely scenario, even if you think it isn't likely at all, especially since the explanation given is completely unprecendented.


Good point . I totally agree with this statement .

My question is , why do scores of "truthers" oppose considering that WTC7 collapsed due to fires and damage that was incurred , even if they think it wasn't likely at all , especially since the explanation given (by those truthers) is completely unprecedented (that someone secretly rigged a building with explosives and no one noticed) ?

In order for this to have happened , we must consider all the possible scenarios .

1) The building was Pre-rigged with explosives , before 9/11 . This would mean that the demo crew rigged a 47-storey building with explosives and there is not one single shred of evidence for this happening .
Either the building was rigged during construction , and not one single individual questioned why the building was being fitted with explosives while it was being constructed , or , the building was rigged with explosives after construction was completed .

2) The building was rigged after construction was completed but before any tenants moved in . Again , this would mean that the demo crew spent weeks or months rigging the building and not one single individual questioned why and not one single individual has come forward with knowledge of it .

3) The building was rigged after tenants moved in and none of those tenants noticed a demo crew going about the business of placing explosives in strategic locations , over a period of weeks or months . Again , not one individual has come forward with knowledge of this . To be fair , what does a demo crew look like ? Surely , they didn't walk around with "Demo Crew" tatooed on their foreheads . Still , no one from the crew has come forward .

4) The building was rigged on 9/11 . This is the least likely scenario , for several obvious reasons . But , lets humor ourselves and look at this .
The "inside-jobbers" orchestrated the hijacking of four planes . They successfully crashed three of them into intended targets . The passengers on the fourth plane put up resistance and the terrorists crashed it into the ground . This now presents a problem because this plane was intended to crash into WTC7 . OMG ! Now , the "inside-jobbers" send a demo crew to WTC7 to rig it with explosives , because no plane is now going to crash into it , and after all , the whole point of staging this false-flag was to destroy WTC7 .
Yes , the sole purpose of crashing planes and killing 3,000-plus people , was to destroy WTC7 and the Enron files .
So now , they have to send a demo crew to WTC7 to finish what those idiot terrorists on flight 93 failed to do for them . The same idiot terrorists who got the same memo that the CIA sent to all the other terrorists on the other flights . The memo that told the terrorists that the United States of America needed their help in destroying some files , so that the guys from Enron wouldn't get into trouble . Yea , the memo that required the other terrorists to crash planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon , so that it wouldn't look so suspicious when flight 93 crashed into WTC7 . Yea , that memo . The same memo that thanks these terrorists , in advance , for killing 3,000 people as well as giving up their own lives to help the U.S. Government destroy a few files so that some of their buddies don't go to jail .

So , seeing that those idiot terrorists on flight 93 couldn't couldn't get the job done , the "inside-jobbers" now have to take care of it themselves , so that their Enron buddies don't go to jail .

So , the demo crew arrives on scene and enters a burning building , a building that has also been damaged by debris from WTC1 . This super-duper demo crew sets about rigging this 47-storey building , which is damaged and on fire . AND , in the space of just a few hours , they rig the building with enough explosives to bring it down . A job that normally would have taken weeks or months . Never mind the fact that ANYONE with a brain will see it looks like a controlled demolition and people will question why the building was brought down by CD . Yea , forget all of that , they must bring the building down at all costs , so their Enron buddies don't go to jail .

But , the really cool and fascinating thing about all of this is that this super-duper demo crew did this without ONE single firefighter , police officer , EMT , or other eyewitness seeing them do it . Isn't it simply amazing what a super-duper "inside-jobber" demo crew is capable of ?

OR ...

5) WTC7 was struck by some really heavy steel that crashed into it from WTC1 sparking fires and causing the eventual destruction of the building . Hmmm ...

Unprecedented ? Yes , I totally agree . Until 9/11 , terrorists had NEVER before hijacked commercial airliners and crashed them into very tall skyscrapers , thereby inflicting collateral damage to surrounding structures .

You are absolutely correct , 9/11 was totally unprecedented . Just because something has never happened does not mean that it can never happen . Do you agree with that statement ?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Thats just silly..If you believe the conspiracy theory then all three towers would have been rigged to blow prior to 9/11...The planes hitting them would just be the excuse for them falling..
So no crew had to sneak in a nd plant the explosives on the day if that is what happened..

What most , including myself, find hand to comprehend is how WTC7 fell..
If as some say, it suffered damage to one corner, then why did the collapse not start from that corner?
Instead it looked like the entire base of the building gave way at the same time..
That just doesn't make sense or fit in with the damage sustained..



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Again, you are the only one that mentions this crazy crap...Manybe some loony said it ages ago, maybe even a disinfo agent, who knows? But since then it's you that brings up these fantasies in every thread and more than once...


You must be new here. Every third posting here is from someone ranting that some secret cult or another snuck in and planted secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building in broad daylight without anyone noticing, as well as 10,000 secret disinformation agents spreading false facts, manufacturing fake aircraft wreckage, staging fake crash sites, and whatever. At least with the "lasers from outer space" claim the scenario's proponents don't need to slander everyone from the NYFD to the red cross to justify their claims.



BTW, the attack on the Liberty is not a conspiracy, it's a well documented fact, even with pictures and videos..Ohh, and as with you buldges with no proof other than testimony, the Liberty also has crew members still prepared to testify to the atrocities commited on that that...


That's not the point. The Isralis had plenty of firepower in the area so if they genuinely wanted to destroy the ship, they would have done it. For some reason that noone can really explain, the Israelis' *not* sinking the USS Liberty is supposed to be some sort of secret conspiracy to...well actually, I don't even know that. I keep asking and noone can aswner, except that it's all a conspiracy. Weird.

The moderator has already stepped in and reminded us that it's not germain, so I will say no more about it, except that I notice the people who subscribe to these 9/11 conspiracies always eem to subscribe to bunches of other conspiracies. Are you people genuinely trying to do any research or are you simply seeing everything through conspiracy colored glasses?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



You must be new here. Every third posting here is from someone ranting that some secret cult or another snuck in and planted secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building in broad daylight without anyone noticing, as well as 10,000 secret disinformation agents spreading false facts, manufacturing fake aircraft wreckage, staging fake crash sites, and whatever. At least with the "lasers from outer space" claim the scenario's proponents don't need to slander everyone from the NYFD to the red cross to justify their claims.

For someone that seems to demand proof that is one of the biggest lie I have seen here, unless ofcourse you are counting your posts as rantings.
The OP has some good points which have not been debunked by anything but insubstantiated comments with no proof other than testimony..
I would NOT expect anyone on that day to be in a fully clear state of mind having witnessed what they did..



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnteBellum
Wasn't it caught on video that someone or a couple of people said by mistake the building was 'pulled'?
I am an architect and in the industry this usually means demolished by force among other things. I don't remember when or where I heard it but this was pretty strange for me to hear because you can't setup a building to be demolished with charges in the amount of time that was given. So my only conclusion after seeing the video of it's collapse was that it fell the way they said it did or they had the building already set up with charges to fall before hand.


Even experts in demolition have agreed just by the visual evidence, WTC7 was a CD, let alone its a FACT the term PULL IT is associated with bringing down a "BUILDING" via controlled demo which is exactly the context of Larry's statement... the evidence is irrefutable and far outweighs any evidence or argument against.

WTC7 was a CD, period... and aside from witnesses testimony or the science and math that prove it was, the visual evidence of WTC7's collapse is all one needs as proof 9/11 was an inside job.


edit on 26-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueFalse
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


omg dave again.

Show me please one report of a fire fighter that talks about the 3 story bulge that the WTC 7 supposedly had. We have videos and pictures form all sides of the WTC and still i havent found ANY evidence to your "knowledge" of the bulge.

Your arguments are just ridicoulus. I could also say that Aliens from the Moon highjacked the planes and destroyed the WTCs and it would make as much sense as your story...



if you think the bulge theory is ridiculous and bizarre, you should see the theory some nutbag has been arguing about how WTC7 was prepped for a secret emergency DEMO in a FEW HOURS by demo teams who were there and by fire crews ordered by their commander to cut a FEW beams on only ONE FLOOR which caused/created the progressive global symmetrical collaps into its footprint at freefall.


and this guy (calling himself ULTIMA1) is dead serious.

so you tell me who someone is that can posit such a theory which to me is far more insane than the entire OS.

the bulge theory is beyond whacky, but this wtc7 emergency cd theory, gives new meaning to the term theory.




edit on 26-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

And why did the lobby look like King Kong would go through it? He was walking over corpses in the lobby, did you know that? How could there be dead bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 ?

No he didn't. He said he was told to not look down by the fire fighters rescuing him and he's presuming he was stepping over bodies. He never saw any actual bodies himself so it's those damned fool conspiracy web sites who are embellishing that bit. Besides, they have a pretty conclusive list of who died and where they died,
Really nice, your are going into the right direction, but there is still much research for you to do to find out that the OS is bs.

Oh, I guarantee there's still a lot more things to be discovered which will significantly change our understanding of what happened on 9/11...but that doesnt change the fact that it was a terrorist attack.


Why is it that you and most derbunkers can't explain why any explosions would have occurred INSIDE WTC7 while Barry was inside.... funny how you and OS supporters dodge this issue...actually its not funny, but does speak volumes for those who have done real research and seek truth.

and are you saying just because he didn't "see" bodies, that him saying they were bodies because HE KNEW WHAT BODIES FELT LIKE when he was stepping over, he was lying and doesn't have the intelligence to know what dead bodies feel like walking over? So he was just making an assumption even though he says it was in FACT bodies he was stepping over?
Sorry, but Mr Jennings was a very credible and intelligent eye witness. To imply he didn't know what he was stepping over even though he said HE DID KNOW, shows the level of denial some will go to defend and protect those who committed perhaps one of the most evil deeds in the history of the world.

its shameful

www.youtube.com...
edit on 26-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Do you have an explanation as to why WTC-7 was wired for demolition in the first place? A job like that takes allot of preparation. So why was it prepared for demolition?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AB173-1970
 



Do you have an explanation as to why WTC-7 was wired for demolition in the first place? A job like that takes allot of preparation. So why was it prepared for demolition?


That question and that line of reasoning is moot , until you or someone else has conclusively proven that WTC7 was indeed wired for demolition .

That's no different than asking us to explain why there is a colony of little green men who live on the sun .



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
For someone that seems to demand proof that is one of the biggest lie I have seen here, unless ofcourse you are counting your posts as rantings.
The OP has some good points which have not been debunked by anything but insubstantiated comments with no proof other than testimony..
I would NOT expect anyone on that day to be in a fully clear state of mind having witnessed what they did..


Dude, you ARE new here. Go back and look at the previous threads being posted here, and a good 75% of them are on how the towers were destroyed by secretly planted controlled demolitions, how it was something other that flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, and how everyone from a taxi driver in a cab out by the Pentagon to a fire fighter at WTC 7 are all involved in the coverup and spreading disinformation. If you're trying to insist they aren't then you will be lying, becuase when we see threads with titles like, "Thermite experiments and evidence summary" we know right away what they're discussing.

In case it hasn't dawned on you...and apparently it hasn't...I'm actually HELPING you here. If by some cartoon physics miracle you trusters actually do get your independent investigation into whether the buildings were brought down by secret explosives, hologram planes, or whatever, the very first thing they're going to throw at you is the very material I'm posting here. I'm posting eyewitness accounts and aerial photographs that show what was going on in WTC 7 and how it gives the NIST report on how WTC 7 fell at least some credibility. It's your responsibility to come up with a better response for why this is incorrect than simply repeating "it's unprecedented" over and over like a ten year old. If you can't even get past a nobody like me, then you're going to only wind up looking like a bunch of ignorant crackpots against the big boys.

Accept or ignore this at your own cost.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



In case it hasn't dawned on you...and apparently it hasn't...I'm actually HELPING you here.

A blind man could see what you are doing and it isn't helping me...
You just keep bringing up the whack job theories of laser and holograms to try and disscredit the OP.
YOU are the only one mentioning these crazy scenarios...
You just try to derail the thread..Instead of answering the facts which you seem to have little evidence against other than words.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by elnine
Even experts in demolition have agreed just by the visual evidence, WTC7 was a CD, let alone its a FACT the term PULL IT is associated with bringing down a "BUILDING" via controlled demo which is exactly the context of Larry's statement... the evidence is irrefutable and far outweighs any evidence or argument against.


This statetement has already crashed and burned. The term "pull it" was associated with demolishing a building WITH CABLES, as in how they demolished WTC 6. I learned that from your fellow conspiracy theorists here from that interview you people posted with the people at CDI. Besides, all you need to do is do a Google search on PULL IT, and you won't see even ONE, not ONE, association to any controlled demolitions experts as you would the phrase, "controlled demolitions". You WILL OTOH get trillions of hits on these damned fool conspiracy web sites trying to get people to believe, "pull it" means to destroy something by controlled demolitions"

The only evidence that's irerefutable is that these damned fool conspiracy web sites are poisoning the well and pushing rubbish to get people all paranoid over shadows....and that you're swallowing it all like it was gospel..



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



In case it hasn't dawned on you...and apparently it hasn't...I'm actually HELPING you here.

A blind man could see what you are doing and it isn't helping me...
You just keep bringing up the whack job theories of laser and holograms to try and disscredit the OP.
YOU are the only one mentioning these crazy scenarios...
You just try to derail the thread..Instead of answering the facts which you seem to have little evidence against other than words.


Look, I don't know what kind of weird game it is you're playing, but I really don't care. People really and truly are posting whackjob theories here like hordes of secret agents planting hidden controlled demolitions in broad daylight that nobody noticed and left no traces, and if you refuse to acknowledge that people are posting controlled demolitions theories here then I can't help you. Heck, this whole "the third tower" thread was made to promote the idea secret agents blew up WTC 7 with controlld demolitions for no reason.

Oh, and what evidence do any of us have access to "other than words"? Do you genuinely expect the FAA is going to mail you the flight recorder from flight 77 or let you into that hanger at JFK and allow you to hack off a piece of WTC steel to bring home as a souvenier? Sheesh, some people.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Here is another fact:
Fact, in 1993 the WTC was attacked by a Islamic fundamentalists with a truck bomb.

Now given that fact, does it not strike you as odd that government officials tasked with investigating would not even consider testing for explosive devices? Especially considering WTC7 was not hit by a plane!

That "fact" makes me suspicious of the entire official investigation. Not to mention the overwhelming video and eyewitness testimony of explosions at the scene.

How can 2 airplanes completely demolish 3 buildings symmetrically? Why didn't the top of WTC 2 continue in the path of least resistance as it initially toppled to one side?




top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join