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.

 

one question for truthers?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
This has always puzzled me. If WTC 7 was demolished, why weren't explosions heard?


Check out this video.
www.youtube.com...




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dino1989
 


How is this you tube video any different than the others refuting it? Show me something from a reputable source.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Hmmm... good question. Maybe the thermite/thermate that is rumored to have been used burns through as opposed to blows out the columns?? I'm no explosives specialist, I'm just throwing out an option.

In argument, this quote makes it sound like there were explosions:


9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was... well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." [197kB wma download]

Source

And the video you posted loses credibility in my eyes when the narrator calls people who oppose his point of view names (i.e. cowards... I honestly couldn't listen to it all due to such ignorant comments. Name calling gets you no where) and says that the others speak BS (easy claim, where's the proof?).

I look forward to hear other more educated answers



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeyBones
 


Sometimes people are called cowards and liars because they are....cowards and liars.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dino1989
 


Who is telling you there were no explosives heard? or are you just saying that you did not hear any explosives?

Let me ask you another question, if you do not think that building was demolished, how do you think it was brought down?

By the way, I have always hated the term Truthers. I am more of a "Concerned American".


edit on 14-6-2011 by TheInterceptor because: added video

edit on 14-6-2011 by TheInterceptor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
My thoughts are, if you're going to "mask" it, then you would use explosives/incendiaries/whatever that wouldn't make big bangs.

Sure, the internal might have been imploding, but the outer structure still came down in about 6 seconds.

But, if this building WAS brought down by fire alone (and fire that couldn't be seen in those videos, or much smoke for that matter), then the building owner should be suing the pants off the original builders for horrible planning and workmanship, because I haven't heard of too many skyscrapers that fall from fires. They must have made the building out of cardboard.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

I can only retort with sometimes people are called liars and cowards when they are not. Now we are in the same place as we were before you made your comment...


edit on 14-6-2011 by MikeyBones because: added "as"

edit on 14-6-2011 by MikeyBones because: I can't get anything right! It reads better now



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheInterceptor




The sound in that video happened about seven hours before world trade centre 7 collapsed. Where are the explosions we should hear moments before the collapse if it was a controlled demolition. extra DIV



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Oh really? Why? I would think that if you wanted to make it apear to have fallen do to prior damage that you would not want explosives bieng heard as the building was falling, but prior to it. But I guess it has to happen the same way it happens in a typical old fashioned controlled demolision or it didnt happen that way at all right? is that your argument now?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dino1989
 


Building 7 was demolished, there is no disagreement about that. But, why do you believe that it had to be done using conventional means? We're not dealing with anything conventional here. Knuckleheads excluded, nobody believes that fire caused that 47 story building to collapse straight down, so don't be surprised when we find that the cause of it's collapse turns out to be something very unconventional. Something that's never been used before.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheInterceptor
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Oh really?

Yes really


Why?


Because thats the way the real world really works Truther.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheInterceptor
reply to post by dino1989
 


Who is telling you there were no explosives heard? or are you just saying that you did not hear any explosives?

Let me ask you another question, if you do not think that building was demolished, how do you think it was brought down?

By the way, I have always hated the term Truthers. I am more of a "Concerned American".


edit on 14-6-2011 by TheInterceptor because: added video

edit on 14-6-2011 by TheInterceptor because: (no reason given)


um..haarp?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by dino1989
 


Building 7 was demolished, there is no disagreement about that. But, why do you believe that it had to be done using conventional means? We're not dealing with anything conventional here. Knuckleheads excluded, nobody believes that fire caused that 47 story building to collapse straight down, so don't be surprised when we find that the cause of it's collapse turns out to be something very unconventional. Something that's never been used before.


So it was blown up with something with something that blows up seven hours before it falls ?

What would that be ?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by dino1989
 


Building 7 was demolished, there is no disagreement about that. But, why do you believe that it had to be done using conventional means? We're not dealing with anything conventional here. Knuckleheads excluded, nobody believes that fire caused that 47 story building to collapse straight down, so don't be surprised when we find that the cause of it's collapse turns out to be something very unconventional. Something that's never been used before.


So it was blown up with something with something that blows up seven hours before it falls ?

What would that be ?


Your right, if something blows up in a building it has to fall right away. How did you say the towers fell again? Becarefull, you are dangerously close to deviating from the OS.

So what was that explosion in the video then? You clearly know first hand that it had nothing to do with 7 comming down right.


Eh never mind. I am done talking to children for today.
edit on 14-6-2011 by TheInterceptor because: bored of explaining why the sky is blue



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Regardless of whether explosives were heard (there are witnesses they say they did hear explosives), a building can not land in its own footprint from an unnatural collapse.



Note the outer walls being on top of the collapsed building. Now watch this vid and see what happens to the walls when it collapses...



Notice the outer wall fall outwards, the path of least resistance. That was a small building, now imagine WTC 7 a 47 story building mimicking a controlled implosion demolition, impossible.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Regardless of whether explosives were heard (there are witnesses they say they did hear explosives), a building can not land in its own footprint from an unnatural collapse.



Note the outer walls being on top of the collapsed building. Now watch this vid and see what happens to the walls when it collapses...



Now watch this vid and see what happens to the walls when it collapses..



You will see that the wall tilts to the South in the final seconds of the collapse and the North wall lands on top of the WTC7 debris pile.

Doesn't that kind of explain why the North wall is on top of the pile in your photo ?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Doesn't that kind of explain why the North wall is on top of the pile in your photo ?


Indeed. Thats a significant distinction. ANOK presents this (many times now) as "the exterior walls" being on top of the debris pile. A trivial amount of study reveals that only some fragments of some walls are on top of the debris pile, which is different.

What are we supposed to expect? that the building turns itself inside out on the way down, and the floor trusses and internal structure lands on top? That the structure will fold up neatly like an accordion into its own footprint with the roof remaining atop the neatly squared off rubble pile? Any way a proportionally tall building collapses is bound to wind up with some of the perimeter structure (such as there is) on the top of the debris pile, controlled demolition or no.

And this repeated phrase, "inside it's own footprint" that demolition proponents like to use is really getting old. At what point does massive structural fragments falling outside the building footprint render that characterization false? Visibly in this case, the structure fell across all four adjacent streets, hard to say because of smoke, but it could be a majority of the structure fell outside the building footprint.

It's reached a point of looking at black and calling it white, in my view.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed

Building 7 was demolished, there is no disagreement about that.


Fire Chief at the scene Daniel Nigro would beg to differ:

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheInterceptor

Who is telling you there were no explosives heard? or are you just saying that you did not hear any explosives?


I'm pretty sure the OP meant that explosions in series, that you get just prior to a collapse in a controlled demolition were not heard in the videos.

Of course there is high likely hood of explosions to occur when fires are left to rage in working buildings such as those at the World Trade Centre complex......so the odd explosion doesn't really point to controlled demolition.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join