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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by patternfinder
reply to post by Varemia
 



ok, the little room at the top of the building is on the left side right? or am i wrong about that? it falls first, then you can watch the little roof top line start falling in succession towards the right of the building, then the rest of it is pulled down in asymetrical fashion, hence, one side to the other...left side, to the right side, i hope i spelled it out enough for you....


No, that literally made no sense.

The building collapsed. I'm not debating that. I just don't see how it is so indicative of demolitions. You can physically see where a column failed, and then the rest of the interior failing with the outside falling and crumpling in the direction of the damage.

Ok, well answer me this. How were charges unharmed by both the damage and the fire?



that's ok, i won't pick on you for not seeing it, but from what i gather, it takes a whole lot hotter of a temp than just regular fire to affect thermite and i know this for a fact because i made some myself one time as a science experiment and you can't light it with a regular fire,




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mcupobob
reply to post by patternfinder
 


What? Your video pretty much said the Silverstein did it and it was a inside job and he did for insurance. Did you read my post?

Another thing, during the court battle were Silverstein where he was trying to get his building covered under Terrorist attacks. If he was going to demo the buildings why didn't he get his buildings covered under Terrorist attacks beforehand so he didn't have to waste time and money going to court and dealing with insurance agencies?


He DID have the buildings insured for terrorist attacks.
The reason he went to court after the fact is since 2 planes each one of his buildings, he was suing the insurance companies, claiming that it should be looked at as 2 separate terrorist attacks.
Of which....he won.
He made out like a bandit, along with many others on that fateful day.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by DIDtm
 

Then do tell us, what are the NIST saying?


Oh...for the love of God.

I didnt have to go through my bookmarks to find it.
Bonez mentioned it IN THIS THREAD.

Have a look. And then make sure you apologize for not believing what the OS claims.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IT A LITTLE RESEARCH TO FIND THINGS>>>>>HERE IS WHAT NIST SAYS



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
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.

Audio, video, and dozens of witnesses say otherwise. And it's disrespectful to discount dozens of people because of your denial and ignorance.



Originally posted by Varemia
Even WTC 7 didn't collapse all at once. A quarter of the building collapsed internally before the whole thing came down.

Ah, yes, because you were standing inside the building witnessing what was and was not collapsing internally. Give me a friggin break, and stop with the unprovable misinformation. You have zero idea of what was or was not collapsing internally in WTC 7.



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



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC.."

Yeah, that's not a big contributor at all..



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
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.

Then make sure you add "in my opinion" to your posts since all you are doing is making an educated guess as well. And there's no possible way for you to prove that there was "severe" damage to WTC 7.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by DIDtm
 

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC.."

Yeah, that's not a big contributor at all..


WOW.

How can you not understand what NIST meant when they stated that WTC7 (Im paraphrasing here), was brought down because of fire and that the structural damage to the building itself had little to no effect of the collapse.

HEY...I wont blame you if you dont believe what the story you are defending says.
Its one step closer you are taking to admitting the entire story is a BS lie.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


It seems pretty inconsistent to believe building 7 is a lie and the rest is the truth. Why? It seems impossible to have building 7 be a cover up of something without serious preparation.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
It may be checkmate for the debunkers and purveyors of the official story to separate WTC7 from the towers.
Because of the clandestine tenants of 7 TPTB could simply say "yes 7 was prewired because of sensitive materials aboard and pulling was necessary." "No Americans were harmed by this action blah blah,state secrets,blah.
Trying to get the truth movement to wake up people after this is learned would be next to impossible.Because mass media Americans would only hear the periphery in their daily news cycle.They would hear," One of the world trade center complex buildings was prewired with demolition;that never fell into enemy hands and had no chance of going off accidentally, was brought down to protect State secrets & this is what the truth movement was confused about."



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Audio, video, and dozens of witnesses say otherwise. And it's disrespectful to discount dozens of people because of your denial and ignorance.


Sound of explosion is way different than being certain of explosives being used. Why, in the dozens of videos I have seen, have there been no explosive noises? The only noise even begins particularly after the towers begin collapsing.



Ah, yes, because you were standing inside the building witnessing what was and was not collapsing internally. Give me a friggin break, and stop with the unprovable misinformation. You have zero idea of what was or was not collapsing internally in WTC 7.


I take it you've just been ignoring every thread now. Well, I'll show it again. Look:



Yes, we cannot be 100% positive what was collapsing, but we can get a general idea. I can throw the same argument to you and say you cannot prove demolition. It is unprovable, as no evidence of the charges were found after the fact, there were no recorded explosive markers, and nobody has stepped forward who was a part of the demo plan after 10 years. Where is the evidence?



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



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by DIDtm
 

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC.."

Yeah, that's not a big contributor at all..


WOW.

How can you not understand what NIST meant when they stated that WTC7 (Im paraphrasing here), was brought down because of fire and that the structural damage to the building itself had little to no effect of the collapse.

HEY...I wont blame you if you dont believe what the story you are defending says.
Its one step closer you are taking to admitting the entire story is a BS lie.



You misunderstand (as it has been repeatedly misunderstood a hundred times). NIST said that the damage did not affect whether the building would collapse or not. What it affected was the collapse mechanics. The building fell straight down toward the south because of the damage, and the damage was what initiated the fires.

Please stop using these copy-paste truther remarks. I know you are an intelligent person, and seeing these arguments based on faulty data is ridiculous.

I swear, almost every post I make is not debating what happened. It's correcting incorrect data and facts.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ive been over this a number of times.

NIST states exactly what Bonez commented on that I linked to.

Should I really find it AGAIN in the NIST report to prove you wrong?
When I do...will you admit that the story you are defending is WRONG!?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
It may be checkmate for the debunkers and purveyors of the official story to separate WTC7 from the towers.
Because of the clandestine tenants of 7 TPTB could simply say "yes 7 was prewired because of sensitive materials aboard and pulling was necessary." "No Americans were harmed by this action blah blah,state secrets,blah.
Trying to get the truth movement to wake up people after this is learned would be next to impossible.Because mass media Americans would only hear the periphery in their daily news cycle.They would hear," One of the world trade center complex buildings was prewired with demolition;that never fell into enemy hands and had no chance of going off accidentally, was brought down to protect State secrets & this is what the truth movement was confused about."


I think you're spot on. And that's part of why I'd like to see it figured out before they drop this bombshell and obliterate any chance of finding other, more deadly truths.

ETA: This forum leans toward conspiracies, so please treat it as a debate and not a wrestling match. Good points all around though...
edit on 25-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If you want a better understanding of what you are TRYING to defend..why dont you read through this thread. Since you wont read the report itself you think is gospel.

Thread



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ive been over this a number of times.

NIST states exactly what Bonez commented on that I linked to.

Should I really find it AGAIN in the NIST report to prove you wrong?
When I do...will you admit that the story you are defending is WRONG!?


I know that NIST says that the collapse was caused by the fire. I just checked and they specifically say:


Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.


NIST's reports

Still, you have certainly seen the differences in their simulations when they factored in the damage and when they didn't. They say the damage didn't cause the collapse, but they never said it had no effect on how it collapsed after it began collapsing.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Awesome re-post of Airspoon's thread. Thanks for sharing.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join