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.

 

WTC 7, Let's Disassociate it from 9/11?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Jason88
 


I'm hoping I'm not off topic here.

I don't see how dissassociating one of the events of 911 from 911 is even a rational approach.
Jason, my young man, how is it you can buy the OS as being the truth ? You sure seem to be a savy youngster.
This is not a plea for you to change your mind in anyway, it's just that I've been impressed with your intelligence
on a number of different issues in the past and. Well, it seems your ability of discernment has failed you demonstrably on these events ie. You believe something to be truth coming from people who I'm positive you know to be constant psychopathic liars. Or perhaps I'm wrong about that. Even in the face of massive evidence that they are lying. How is this to be unconflicting and uncontradicting for me in my limited understanding of you. Lil help here?
edit on 24-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Thank you for the kind words, something rare in this forum.
I do agree those who produced the 9/11 story are most likely constant psychopathic liars, but I think truths are sprinkled throughout the story for it to work, to be believed by those who wish to trust people in power.

I know tons of research has been done on WTC 7, though I'd like to see future research conducted if the building were to have fallen on say, September 10, 2001. My rational is that if we're to ever get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, we need to treat this event as separate and investigate that way. I know that's hard as WTC 7 suffered collateral damage from the Twin Towers, but that's not was caused it to collapse.

Once we agree to treat the event that way, we can start to look at where the psychopathic liars practiced the demolition, where items were sourced from to create the demolition, and the motivations behind destroying this building.

Take that fresh knowledge, then reapply it all the other events of that day. I have my own theories, but I'm not ready to share them yet, not until I (and hopefully ATS) have the best understanding of WTC 7.

Edit to add: I am in no way discounting the hard work of others in trying to solve the awful mystery of 9/11, my goal is to freshen it and maybe come at it from a new angle.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


I see.......

Well once again I'm impressed. SnF



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I've got a tip for all demolition companies. Nevermind going in there with a bunch of expensive explosives. Hell no, just go in there with about 1000$ worth of gasoline, spread it across 4 or 5 floors and then just light the match. I guarantee that if you let it burn for 7 or 8 hours, it's coming down into it's own footprint. It's just sooooo much easier, guys!!!



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


Oh, now I am curious. Just what you think was used to make it collapse.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


I hope you realize that those failed collapses are nothing like any of the collapsed buildings on 9/11.

Whatever happened to scrutiny in finding stuff that's almost the same? It's like when something seems to support you, it doesn't matter if they are apples and oranges; you'll compare them. But damn it, when it is against your preconceived ideas, every little difference is so game-changing that you can't even consider it!

Edit: As per the topic, sorry for the off-topic bit, no, WTC 7 shouldn't be separated.

I wish members would stop bringing it up in literally every 9/11 thread, because most of those threads are not about 7. They're about other things. Talking about building 7 when discussing the pentagon or the towers specifically makes no sense.

But yeah. If it wasn't for WTC 1 collapsing debris on WTC 7, I don't think it would have collapsed. It just seems crazy to think that there could have been successful demolition charges that survived the impact damage to the building AND the near 7 hour fire.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Early poll results. I'm sure the numbers will go up throughout the day and tomorrow.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I have ideas but I'm not ready to share yet, I want to really understand WTC 7 better then I'll present my conclusion to ATS.

reply to post by Varemia
 


But yeah. If it wasn't for WTC 1 collapsing debris on WTC 7, I don't think it would have collapsed. It just seems crazy to think that there could have been successful demolition charges that survived the impact damage to the building AND the near 7 hour fire.


That's a solid point, please vote.

Edit to add: I'm not abandoning this thread, I have stuff to do today so will be offline for a few hours.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


There is nothing to understand. WTC7 suffered severe damage from WTC 1's collapse and fell several hours later from said damage and the ensuing fires.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Jason88
 


There is nothing to understand. WTC7 suffered severe damage from WTC 1's collapse and fell several hours later from said damage and the ensuing fires.


Yep. Suffered "severe" damage from WTC 1 and collapsed at near free fall speed in its own footprint later. LOL...really?

I'll do my best not to come across as assholish as I'm feeling but......REALLY???

And you are whom? your credentials are what? You've been involved in the research and have something to add how?
edit on 24-9-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)


I gather "Pull it" is a term you are well familiar with?
edit on 24-9-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


I think it your thread is actually usefull for those interested in this topic. I am approaching this from a critical reasoning standpoint. Approaching such complex problems & issues can often be attempted using some sort of mosaic theory. In doing so, it is sometimes usefull to "divorce" an element of particular importance and critically analyze it in isolation.

After approaching your post in isolation, there is likely something to be learned. Perhaps something that could not be identified treating all events of 9/11 simultaneously. It is possible that such "nuggets" can then be applied to the overall issue -- providing further insight.

Aside from reading a book by Jim Marrs and tons of press coverage, I am by no means an expert in this matter. I do, however, think that your approach is usefull. However, as a community, it only works if people are willing (for even a moment) to remove any assumptions about the "entire event" and focus solely on building 7.

By no means to I assert that other theories of the "whole problem" are irrelevent. Sometimes its simply usefull to take a step back. Critical analysis of this "piece of the puzzle" could potentially provide insights that can be applied to the overall system. I applaud your approach and will be watching this thread.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 





Again, all good lies have truth in them. I feel most certain of all events that day that Building 7 is most definitely one of the lies. I'd like to get to the heart of that lie first, as I think it's the most obvious, then use that knowledge to apply to other events in an effort to locate all the lies.


With all due respect, Jason, I don't know where you're coming from. If you don't think the "heart of the lies" relating to Building 7 have not been pretty much determined after 10 years of investigative efforts on the part of untold scores of people, then I submit you have much more to research to do on your own before creating a thread like this that leaves the impression this is some new approach that will break the case wide open.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Jason88
 


There is nothing to understand. WTC7 suffered severe damage from WTC 1's collapse and fell several hours later from said damage and the ensuing fires.


Yep. Suffered "severe" damage from WTC 1 and collapsed at near free fall speed in its own footprint later. LOL...really?

I'll do my best not to come across as assholish as I'm feeling but......REALLY???

And you are whom? your credentials are what? You've been involved in the research and have something to add how?
edit on 24-9-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)


I gather "Pull it" is a term you are well familiar with?
edit on 24-9-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)





Gee, don't go to any trouble for little ole me.

Who am I?

Just someone who has read the reports from that day and listened to the words of the men and women of the FDNY who were there that day and saw firsthand the condition of WTC 7.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
WTC7 suffered severe damage from WTC 1's collapse and fell several hours later from said damage and the ensuing fires.

This is completely false. Where did you get this information? This sounds like it was manufactured misinformation.

From NIST:

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The debris from WTC 1 did little damage to WTC 7 and was not the cause of collapse of WTC 7 according to NIST. The cause of collapse of WTC 7 was office fires alone, not damage from being struck by WTC 1. If you're going to peddle the official conspiracy theory, you might want to get your facts straight.





There is a gash in between two outer steel columns, which are intact. The rest of the damage is cosmetic. Please stop peddling mis/disinformation that WTC 7 was "heavily" or "severely" damaged from the falling debris of WTC 1. NIST and images prove that concoction to be false.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


There are only 22 stories of the building present on that photo, and only about half of the side at that, which is partially obscured by smoke.

How the hell did you make the determination that the damage was cosmetic?

The firefighters saw bulging in the building, and kept hearing creaking and such. They were worried the building would collapse for hours.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Coming late to the party?

I honestly could care less about what you think. I've never claimed that the NIST report was 100% accurate and I don't think it is. There was not, is not, and never will be enough data about the series of events that les to the collapse of WTC7 for anyone to make anything other than an educated guess.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
this is the fairest video i've seen yet on the wtc7 collapse, very interestingly put together..






posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
this is purportedly the second tallest building to be brought down by demolition.....look and see if you see any resemblance to the twin towers.....




these are some other videos that look alot like wtc7












posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
oops double post
edit on 24-9-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Not really. The entire building came down as a unit, and there were audible explosions as well as visible explosions multiple times.

The towers did not do any of that. Even WTC 7 didn't collapse all at once. A quarter of the building collapsed internally before the whole thing came down.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I wanna know why the Truthers think the Government went through the trouble of planting explosives in a empty building. You think after the towers there would be no need to blow up an empty building in which the majority of the population doesn't care about or even know. I see them come up with some what reasonable explanations to the Towers and pentagon. Not building 7 though, even though its supposedly their smoking gun.

It caught on fire, the fire went uncontrolled for 7 hours. No conspiracy involved. The firefights ignored it because they were to busy dealing with the Towers and evacuation.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join