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.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by LibertyCrazy
While I'm always open minded, I have to say I've never really "bought in to" the whole 9/11 inside job theory. Not because of lack of logic or evidence that contradicts the official story but simply because I strongly doubt the competence of anyone inside the gov't, or hell TPTB, to pull an event and plan of this magnitude off and maintain the security on the event that continues to this day.
So I've always kind of written off the occurrences of that day as being part of a perfect storm that created a series of unlikely, but not impossible, results.
That being said I simply can't reconcile what happened to WT7 as an unlikely but not impossible event. And the OP as someone who has been a passionate critic of the official story should not easily surrender their suspicion about these events until a even slightly plausible explanation for WT7 is developed and considered.
A plausible explanation I found is that WTC 7 was damaged by debris and was on fire, causing one main support to fail. The building was built on top of a Consolidated Edison power plant, and so the supports were not put in the most ideal places, structurally. The debris caused an 8 story hole in the corner, a 20 story hole near the bottom as described by firefighters, and at least a chunk off the roof as visible from pictures. Later on in the day, firefighters witnessed a 3 story bulge forming in the building, and the decision was made to pull them out of the area, creating a collapse zone. Then, the building began to collapse, penthouse first, as it was directly above the failed column. Then, the debris crashing down in the building caused the supports to buckle for 8 stories along with the damage to the corner, and then the building simply continued coming down.
But naturally, I will get attacked personally for this post and completely ignored, called crazy and such. That's ok. It makes sense to me and to many others, so who cares what some anonymous people on the internet think?
Originally posted by Gando702
Like I said, I respect everyone's beliefs. Building 7 is a different story. I think some people had a vested interest in seeing that building fall. But to me, WTC1&2 fell because of a perfect storm of structural damage, fire, weakening core columns and too much weight above the damaged floors that couldn't possibly be supported as the structure weakened.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
Ugggghhhh, it is getting so damn annoying having to debunk this crap over and over and over again. A few of the videos there are faked. They only came out at least 5-6 years AFTER 9/11. You refuse to believe that because you refuse to research all the information available on this site alone!
I couldn't hear ANY explosions happening before the collapse. All booms were during it, and the one video had fake audio of demolition-like booms. I showed you the original, but you don't want to hear it, I guess.
Adam continues, “I got chills just as I described it. They were way way out-gunned and they absolutely made it clear to Discovery they were not going to air this episode talking about how hackable this stuff was and Discovery backed way down, being a large corporation who depends upon the revenue of the advertisers. Uh, and now it’s on Discovery’s radar and they won’t let us go near it. So I’m sorry. It’s just one of those things, but man, that was.. Tory still gets a little white when he describes that phone conversation.”
I think you're right. Who in their right mind would one day decide, "I've learned all I need to about 9/11 and now I believe the official story". Huh? If that's true, then why would they come here trying to change everybody else's minds with the same lame explanations that we've heard from 9/12? They should just go about their lives blind to the reality that 9/11 is a big lie. They must be paid to try to "debunk" people's doubts, questions and suspicions. But they're failing at it miserably.
Originally posted by elg3cko
I'm genuinely considering all these "I was a truther" threads to be made by paid shills, a lot like the one who came on here a few months ago confessing his/her job in all this. It's also starting to remind me of born-agains.
Originally posted by balon0
There were no planes at 9/11/ Pentagon / Pennsylvania. PERIOD
Finding the passports/id of the terrorists pretty much gave it away that it was an inside job.
Common people. Wake up?
Originally posted by Calex1987
but yet there are tons of engineers who will look at you and go the fire wasnt hot enough to explain the molten steel pouring out of the side of the building jet fuel alone and office supplies do NOT burn hot enough to do what your saying its been proven....and they are the first steel structure's to actually "collapse" because of fire...please if your so inclined tell me why a building that burned for 18hours straight stayed standing...it must of went threw way more hell Considering it burnt for 18hours over what 54 mins? you say your wife is an architect.....well then even she could tell you she didnt know for a fact it would come down...or the fact she really thought it would since a fire has NEVER taken a steel structure down..... i would love to argue every point of your new found belief but it would be pointless...edit on 20-9-2011 by Calex1987 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrWendal
I'm afraid you just debunked your own previous statement.
First you say that because the pile burned for months, that is evidence that controlled demolition was not used because other controlled demolitions did not have a burning pile of rubble for months.
Now I agree and I think that is a fair point to make. Which caused me to ask you what would cause the pile to burn for months. Read your reply again....
Now your saying that buildings that are destroyed have the contents removed, and since the WTC did NOT have its contents removed, that these contents continued to burn and keep the fire going. So even by your own explanation, if it was a controlled demolition and the contents of the building were not removed, the pile would still burn. Therefor your assertion that the pile burning is proof that controlled demolition is impossible is false. Am I missing something here?
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Viking9019
So how did we get any oil by planning 911? How did anyone profit from oil due to 911.
I just don't see a money connection.