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 FOIA Released WTC 7 Audio/Video Reveals Controlled Demoltion.

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecritta

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I turned up my speakers 100%. Did Richard Gage wire this building with his own "Hush-A-Bombs?"

Where are the booms?

Compare the OP video to this one: (Again)



Liar caught out again here are your BOOMS right here in this video note how this video
directly supports and corroborates Kevin Pc Padden's Testimony especially the part
where he speaks about and describes hearing the BOOM BOOM sound right before
the building comes down i guess this video proves Kevin Mc Padden is not lying after
all it corroborates his account, this proves the building was imploded you cant escape
it give it up already NIST has just proven how guilty they are by releasing edited video's of
wtc 7 coming down with no sound at all and all a sudden they release one with sound
which reveals the signature sound of an inevitable controlled implosion.

Rising Waves Blow WTC7 East Penthouse - buildingwhat.org

www.youtube.com...

Have fun dee bunking this video i wonder what pathetic nonsense you will spew out now.


And yet, none of those telltale BOOMS are heard immediatly before 7WTC collapses. Imagine that. Rising waves? WTh is that?




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by hooper
 
That's just it, I don't know what could cause someone to put in question their honor. Only a liar or a complete idiot would defend the official story. Because I don't believe you are an idiot, don't you have any sense of self worth? Have you no honor, man?



It is the unrepentent arrogance and zealous self rightiousness of the attitude displayed by this above post which tells us right away that the truther movement is less of a movement based upon honest research and more of a quasi-religious order bent on converting all others to their own theology. Swap "defend the official story" with "refuse to listen to God's truth" and the context of the sentence still remains the same as it did before.

Little wonder why these conspiracy claims they're spinning are so extensive and are of such a fantastical nature that they border on the supernatural. At least their version of a pillar of fire has an laser machine in outer space to explain it



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There you debunkers go again..... not debunking anything...... just wasting characters on screen........


Wtc7 came down in a controlled manner. Eyewitnesses and experts all agree that it was brought down on purpose ain a controlled demolition fashion. I recommend you people not aware of WTC 7 to investigate on multiple sites and not just truther sites. Gather all the info you can and make up your own mind and when you realize that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition come to know that you are not alone. Welcome to the new world.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
How people can still disagree that WTC7 was probably not a controlled demolition is honestly dismaying to me. I can't see why people don't unanimously agree and why there are so many people who espouse NIST's theory which has never been empirically proven or tested. Sometimes when I visit this forum and read debunkers posts it feels as if I have somehow slipped into an alternative universe where the laws of physics and common sense are subtly different to the ones I know and understand. I know from experience that I have never seen a building collapse like WTC7 unless it was demolished. I know that this observation of my mine will be deemed meaningless by debunkers though, because just because it's never happened before, it doesn't mean it can't. Just because I've never walked through a wall, it doesn't mean I can't. After all, Quantum Physics tells me it isn't impossible. Strange sh*t just happens sometimes and buildings spontaneously implode. It's rare. But it happens.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
One fact that the "truthers" forget pushing their silly conspiracy theories is the fire department knew WTC 7 was going to collapse, that is why the pulled all firefighters out of it. They saw the damage and the building starting to bulge.

Another report talks of damage that suggested collapse was a real possibility: ...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. graphics8.nytimes.com... Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe: The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. www.cooperativeresearch.org... Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. www.firehouse.com...

or do the "hush a boom" silent explosives also cause buildings to bulge hours before they collapse?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
So let me get this straight, Fire Chiefs decide to remove all their personal from a steel building after witnessing 1st hand what had happened to two steel buildings earlier in the day, this proves what exactly?. (apart from the laws of physics and structures built to withstand planes hitting them and the respective fires, had been bent beyond belief and this could be a case of building number 3 following suit so let`s get our men the f&^k out of there).

Nothing to see here.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Excellent Tread man, Has anyone gone over that 5Tb torrent of new footage?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
So let me get this straight, Fire Chiefs decide to remove all their personal from a steel building after witnessing 1st hand what had happened to two steel buildings earlier in the day, this proves what exactly?. (apart from the laws of physics and structures built to withstand planes hitting them and the respective fires, had been bent beyond belief and this could be a case of building number 3 following suit so let`s get our men the f&^k out of there).

Nothing to see here.


You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the situation. Fire personnel were withdrawn in the afternoon because it was obvious that WTC 7 was becoming progressively more unstable.

Here is a firefighter describing it :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Seventh
So let me get this straight, Fire Chiefs decide to remove all their personal from a steel building after witnessing 1st hand what had happened to two steel buildings earlier in the day, this proves what exactly?. (apart from the laws of physics and structures built to withstand planes hitting them and the respective fires, had been bent beyond belief and this could be a case of building number 3 following suit so let`s get our men the f&^k out of there).

Nothing to see here.


You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the situation. Fire personnel were withdrawn in the afternoon because it was obvious that WTC 7 was becoming progressively more unstable.

Here is a firefighter describing it :-

www.youtube.com...


Not to mention the lack of water to put ON the fire in 7WTC.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


explosion at the bottom! In to its own footprint collapse! almost an 8 degree tilt as it crumbled into dust(NOT BY FIRE) into its own footprint AND at a free fall like speed!
WOW this almost reminds me of somthing...hmmmmm 3 buildings, SEPT 11th.............OW YA 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


The debunkers are staying clear of threads like this and are collectively bumping and propagating the no planer threads. Go figure.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


The debunkers are staying clear of threads like this and are collectively bumping and propagating the no planer threads. Go figure.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


I am quite happy to debate this thread but no-one has posted on it in days and my last point hasn't been countered. Which is that firefighters long anticipated the collapse of WTC 7 that afternoon as here :-

www.youtube.com...

Which hardly squares with a cd.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Which hardly squares with a cd.


Why not? The building could have been rigged well in advanced. Besides the point. If you think that because you didnt hear the ongoing booms before a classic demolition that it wasnt a controlled demolition?

Witnesses heard booms all day before the collapse just like in a classic demo there is usually a boom boom boom boom boom boom boom,,,,then a pause.... then..... BOOOOM!....... collapse. The pauses and blasts were spread out throughout the day.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Why didnt the WTC 1,2,7 fall over like these buildings?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



The pauses and blasts were spread out throughout the day


Thats nice. Unfortunately, however, you cannot "spread out" gravity through the day.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Why didnt the WTC 1,2,7 fall over like these buildings?


Different buildings, in different circumstances yielding different outcomes?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Definition: Recurring in scattered and irregular or unpredictable instances.


So you're contending that the fires in Building 7 kept going out and starting bak up again? Instance is a reference to time. Sorry, not buying it. You've shown no proof that the fires extinguished before the building collapsed. And are you still maintaining that outcome must always compliment the cause?


Come off it mate, talk about being contrary for the sake of it!

You know exactly what the OP means by 'sporadic' fires...if not, i'd suggest avoiding posts that make you appear to be a buffoon, and go and read a dictionary definition for the word 'sporadic'.

Arguing for the sake of it is not going to get you or anyone else at the truth of this matter, unless you're more interested in obfuscation, then by all means ask again what the OP means by sporadic fires..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 



Come off it mate, talk about being contrary for the sake of it!

So you say. I am just taking issue with the proposition as put forth by the poster. I think that is the idea here.


You know exactly what the OP means by 'sporadic' fires...if not, i'd suggest avoiding posts that make you appear to be a buffoon, and go and read a dictionary definition for the word 'sporadic'.

No, I do not know exactly what the OP means. Word usage is important in a written medium. The first definition of sporadic is time. I want to know if the poster is postulating that fires went out and started back up again, not at all impossible in a large complex building fire.


Arguing for the sake of it is not going to get you or anyone else at the truth of this matter, unless you're more interested in obfuscation, then by all means ask again what the OP means by sporadic fires..

I always love that whenever I challenge someone's word usage I am accused of obfuscation or "nitpicking". This basically tells me that I touched a nerve.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There you debunkers go again..... not debunking anything...... just wasting characters on screen........


Wtc7 came down in a controlled manner. Eyewitnesses and experts all agree that it was brought down on purpose ain a controlled demolition fashion. I recommend you people not aware of WTC 7 to investigate on multiple sites and not just truther sites. Gather all the info you can and make up your own mind and when you realize that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition come to know that you are not alone. Welcome to the new world.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't mind, but Silverstein himself said they pulled the building...how the hell can debunkers claim this was brought down by small, localised and 'sporadic' fires? Half of the idiots claiming these small fires brought this building down, are probably the same idiots claiming that alternative energy devices cannot work because they break the laws of physics!

Ironic or what?

Most of these 'debunkers' on ATS and elsewhere are not debunkers in the classic sense, they are instead probably immature, bored, Walter Mitty type characters who prefer to argue rather than discover. A true debunker will offer evidence to contradict what is being offered as proof by the person they are posting to...most of them do not.


edit on 7/2/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Not 'touching' a nerve matey, getting on peoples nerves is probably more appropriate.

Look, i'll make it easy for you, considering you appear to be afflicted with extreme pedanticism.

Sporadic;

1.
spo·rad·ic/spəˈradik/
Adjective: Occurring at irregular intervals or only in a few places; scattered or isolated. More »
Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

Once again, just so there is zero chance of you legitimately failing to comprehend..

*Occurring at irregular intervals or only in a few places; scattered or isolated*

Now...we've identified what the OP meant by using the easily comprehensible word 'sporadic', he meant that small, localised, scattered fires here and there in the building...sporadic in their frequency...get it now?

OK.

Now perhaps we can get back to what the video actually means, rather than for some peculiar reason, focusing on a single word from the OP.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join