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.
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?
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?
Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by DIDtm
Then do tell us, what are the NIST saying?
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!?
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.