It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are absolutely correct , 9/11 was totally unprecedented . Just because something has never happened does not mean that it can never happen .
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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.
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) ?
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 .
To properly predict when a large building like WTC7 is going to collapse, I think an inspection of the structure from the interior as well as the exterior is vital. And to my knowledge, no such interior inspection of WTC7 was conducted on 9/11, since firefighters obviously had more pressing concerns with search and rescue efforts at WTC1 and WTC2
Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,¿ he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire." He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us. "There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."
What you are doing is basically saying that the evidence can't be right because there is no way that explosives could have been planted before 9/11. That is basically fitting the evidence to a pre-concieved notion or theory, as opposed to allowing the evidence to dictate the theory and this is the very anti-thesis of objectivity. It allows your own personal biases or world-view to taint the evidence. The above quote basically proves that you aren't looking at this objectively and instead, you are allowing certain biases to mold your opinion.
Originally posted by DIDtm
Regarding the testimony and reliability witness of the 'taxi driver'.
Wasnt he proved to be lying in an interview with him? He stated the cab was actually in a different spot than what the pictures taken of both the cab and him have shown.
And then when he DIDnt realize he was still being recorded he made claims to what is believed to be a conspiracy theory? The powers of 'they'.
So, you want to use this guy as a reliable witness with what he was caught lying about?
What makes you think that if one guy is lying, than the other is not?
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Get a grip Dave..
It's just a site, not real life dude..Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they are hold equal weight..
It's almost like your life revolves around proving the OS, though it does seem you are losing..
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't know anything about that, but this is probably more crap coming from those damned fool conspiracy web site bickering over something idiotic like his cab being five feet away from the spot he said it was. After all, everyone knows that after he saw the plane fly over the highway and strike the Pengon that it was his responsibility to grab a tape measure and note the precise distance his cab was from every local landmark in order to placate you conspiracy poeple.
Indulge me. Where did this "he was proven to be lying" bit coming from?
What do you mean by, "what is 'believed to be' a conspiracy theory"? Who believes this, other than you conspiracy people who insist the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy anyway?
Because a) he was physically there when the plane struck the Pentagon, b) his account coordinates with the accounts of all the other people who were physically there, and c) after you conspiracy people have been caught lying red handed yourself from your "no interceptors were scrambled", "there were no fires in WTC 7", "the hijackers were all illiterate cavemen" etc etc etc claims I'll want proof from you even if you said night was dark.
Originally posted by thedman
You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us. "There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."
It was on south face of WTC 7 - right where the debris from WTC 1 slashed open the building and scooped out a
huge gouge in that side
To the contrary , that is not what I am "basically saying" at all . What I am "basically saying" , is that out of all the thousands of posts I have read here , I have yet to come across a post or a thread , that shows conclusive "evidence" of explosives being placed in WTC7 , or even the towers , for that matter .
Originally posted by DIDtm
Sure Dave. Here is a link to the interview with him
If you havent seen the documentary, you should watch it. There are many EYE WITNESS accounts of which direction the plane actually came from. But then again...these eyewitness' probably dont matter to you, since they conflict with the official story.
This has been your claim since day one, I am sure. And that is fine. But you are using the testimony of someone who does believe in a larger conspiracy. I guess you can pick and choose what testimony to believe from certain witnesses.
No evidence huh? I guess Fire Chief Hayden was hallucinating then right, or lying? Or the photo and video of the gash shown on live TV as the WTC7 burned was also faked?
Even when its literally right under your nose, it's not there. I guess you just don't want it to be there.
But sorry, no matter how hard you shut your eyes and plug your ears and shout, "No evidence!", its still going to be there, the 800lb gorilla in the room.
That gash was there, and seen and reported by firefighters. It's funny how you cling to any firefighter account that mentions a loud noise sounded like a "bomb" or "boom" as PROOF!!! of explosives, but when they mention something you don't like, (ie a large gash, bulging of the building, leaning, tilting, sounds of structural failure, etc) you ignore it.