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.

 

Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 27
23
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Explain Bldg 7. That is the start, middle and end of the debate. If that ONE building can be explained by natural forces and occurrence through the events of that morning, then all the theories fall apart. If however, it cannot be explained as a cause/effect of two planes hitting Bldg 1 and 2, then it's all a load of crap. It's really that simple and that cut and dry.

So..... Explain Bldg 7.


I need you to come to parties with me dude, served!




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


www.youtube.com.../search/9/QNCRnlKfQXc

this video is another nail in the coffin. i would appreciate if you watched it.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by regularbonj

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Explain Bldg 7. That is the start, middle and end of the debate. If that ONE building can be explained by natural forces and occurrence through the events of that morning, then all the theories fall apart. If however, it cannot be explained as a cause/effect of two planes hitting Bldg 1 and 2, then it's all a load of crap. It's really that simple and that cut and dry.

So..... Explain Bldg 7.


I need you to come to parties with me dude, served!



I've explained building 7 countless times but w/e. Here are some more factual videos.

Building 7 Explained


Why There Is No Mention Of Building 7 in 911 Commission Report, Why should there be?


Radio Countdown Theory Debunked


No Early Report Of Collapse


Silverstein Quote Clearly Taken Out Of Context, Like He Would Rat Himself Out Anyway lol



It's pretty straight forward that all the conspiracies involving building 7 hold no weight.



edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



Every witness on the scene had a feeling it was going to collapse, fire fighters were pulled from the building because there was nothing they could do and they all knew it was coming down, therefore eliminating any reason to assume explosives were needed.


That is not true. You are exaggerating again, it was not (every witness) you have the nerve to insult all of us posters by embellishing your nonsense, and then claim that this what we are doing. ( pot calling kettle )


People that "believe" in this stuff just have social issues and want to be accepted in a cult sort of fashion. This is why whenever a theory gets debunked they stick to it and look for otheer outrages explanations because that false sense of involvement within the truther's social structure is what's most important to them, not the truth itself.


That is completely untrue; tell that to these people.


220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,400+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
400+ Medical Professionals

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

firefightersfor911truth.org...
www.lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com...
www.pilotsfor911truth.org...
911truth.org...
www.ae911truth.org...

So now you are a psychiatrist? All these credible people question the government reports and yet you want to lump everyone as wanting to be accepted in some kind of cult. Pathetic, if you ask me.



edit on 19-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever






If it defies physics and science then how come countless of NIST experts agree? And don't say they are being pushed by the government because the same thing was said about FEMA but they came up with the "pancake collapse" theory but that was proved false by the NIST report. You are saying the government is pushing two contradicting theories? No.


Here is a good quote I found:


"I've followed the truth movement since its beginning, and ever since then, I've asked this simple question: If you are so absolutely convinced that the government murdered thousands of your fellow citizens, why are you not revolting?

1) You either don't completely believe it, or

2) You are a coward.

#1 is the case for most conspiracy theorists. They love to proclaim what they believe and they say they believe it, but when it comes down to it, they really don't believe what they are saying."


I believe with all my heart that if you put a "truther" up against a poly graph it would come up a lie that he/she truly believed that a demolition team with hundreds of workers (that would have to be involved on the biggest conspiracy in history) spent weeks/months tearing down walls to get to columns without anyone knowing or spilling the beans to take down the towers in a controlled demolition roughly an hour after 2 hijacked planes hit it. I would bet everything I had it would come up a lie.


I don't need experts to tell me it wasn't a demolition job. I can see it was a demolition job for myself.

top to bottom no resisitance, record time any building has collapsed with out any assistance, numerous reports of explosions before collapse.

I'm telling you like I said. I could run 5 planes into any of the buildings 1, 2 or 7 and they wouldn't collapse.
edit on 19-6-2011 by MasterAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
the experts say it was a controlled demolition.

end of thread...?

demolition expert Danny Jowenko


Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. -- Civil and Structural Engineer


Richard Humenn P.E.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer


Jerry Lobdall, C.E. - Chemical Engineer : Physicist


Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist


Michael Donly, P.E. - Structural Engineer


Chemical Engineer Mark Basile.


Physicist Steven Jones




High-Rise Architect Robert McCoy

edit on 19-6-2011 by conar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar
the experts say it was a controlled demolition.

end of thread...?

demolition expert Danny Jowenko


Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. -- Civil and Structural Engineer


Richard Humenn P.E.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer


Jerry Lobdall, C.E. - Chemical Engineer : Physicist


Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist


Michael Donly, P.E. - Structural Engineer


Chemical Engineer Mark Basile.

edit on 19-6-2011 by conar because: (no reason given)




Crazy, nut, loon, nut crazy, loon, how about REAL experts that DON'T Believe in dumb conspiracy theories? Oh ya anyone who does is discredited instantly by real scientists. These people only back the Truth movement because real scientists have turned their backs on them due to their wrong claims.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician -- Loader



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Scott Grainger, FPE - Fire Protection Engineer



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Stephen Barasch - High-rise Architect



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
All those people are part of a "truth" movement which shows bias, show me one impartial expert not associated with any "movement" , they are all baised bunk scientists.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Tony Szamboti, M.E. - Mechanical Engineer



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Robert Podolski, Physicist, Engineer



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Plus here is a video debunking the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" doc.






posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
All those people are part of a "truth" movement which shows bias, show me one impartial expert not associated with any "movement" , they are all baised bunk scientists.


why would they put their reputation etc on the line, if they dont believe in what they are saying?




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
All those people are part of a "truth" movement which shows bias, show me one impartial expert not associated with any "movement" , they are all baised bunk scientists.


why would they put their reputation etc on the line, if they dont believe in what they are saying?




It doesn't matte if they believe it or not, it's bunk science and their claims do not add up. Peep the video I just posted debunking most of these peoples vital claims. These experts are laughable.


The tower's collapse don't closely resemble a controlled demo AT ALL
edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Here's another video showing how one of these "experts" from that documentary knows nothing about the truth and care nothing about finding it.




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by conar

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
All those people are part of a "truth" movement which shows bias, show me one impartial expert not associated with any "movement" , they are all baised bunk scientists.


why would they put their reputation etc on the line, if they dont believe in what they are saying?




It doesn't matte if they believe it or not, it's bunk science and their claims do not add up. Peep the video I just posted debunking most of these peoples vital claims. These experts are laughable.


The tower's collapse don't closely resemble a controlled demo AT ALL
edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


No, because a classic demo collapses slower than the WTC towers did.
When the building starts to fall, not counting pre-collapse penthouse collapse.
They overkilled the buildings.
So you see, the WTC demolitions were not classic. They used something new.
But you have to admit that the steel cant stop resisting the fall completely. Remember, NIST admitted free fall for a few seconds.
edit on 19-6-2011 by conar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
i'm STILL waiting for you to explain the molten metal and temperatures. its the whole crux of the issue, and the OS doesn't explain it. its a big hole in the theory.




top topics



 
23
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join