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.

 

They are now saying that WTC 7

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Building 2 BIG!!!

Building 7 SMALL!!!

Big building fall on small building.

Small building fall down.




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
........................Your ignorance is painful for me to observe. Why don't you do some research? No building fell on top of WTC 7. In fact, you can even watch the video of 7 collapsing if you want. There are no holes in it or pieces of debris all over it before it falls down. For the love......



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
There were two airplanes that hit WTC #1 and #2, these building caught fire and then collapsed....

Building 7 also caught fire... it then collapsed also...

there were no bombs, missiles, etc....


why start another thread on this subject anyway.... there are already hundreds of them here...

LET IT GO PEOPLE>>>>>



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Building 2 BIG!!!

Building 7 SMALL!!!

Big building fall on small building.

Small building fall down.



amen and amen brother.... I'm glad to see that someone else finally gets it too




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
For the love......


Jesus. Ok, so our own military deliberately fired a missile into the building just to prove a point. Just like they shot a Tomahawk at the Pentagon, right?

So what are you going to do about it?

I can hear it now...

"Oh, my God, Bill! Building 1 and 2 are down, but they completely missed 7!!! We better fire off a couple of missiles just to make sure... Like I always say, if you want a job done right, ya gotta do it yourself!"

What, exactly then, are you trying to say? I, myself, am leaning toward the SIMPLE TRUTH!



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Why is there always the two extremes: people who blindly swear that the government is telling the truth, and those who create hugely ellaborate conspiracies. I opt for the grey area in the middle.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
earthtone is on the track.

On this and other conspiracy 'appearing' events it seems WE polarize. Either one way or the other.

Back up- we know what ended up occuring. There are some decent photos out there. There are also some doctored highly suspicious photos.

Personally, I believe that two aircraft slammed into the towers- force and burning fuel weakened the towers. Thousands of people died in the resulting destruction of the WTC. I watched on CNN just after the first airplane hit.

Bldg. 7, according to this source was imploded by the building owner because it was dangerous. I realize this is rense and highly suspect to begin with. Global Research gives a slightly different view of Bldg. 7. If 7 were imploded- big deal. That is done whenever a large building becomes dangerous and can't be brought down another way. Doesn't mean a thing- except why is there so much controversy?


This is the WTC conspiracy- why the controversy?

A decent conspiracy page.

Here's an even better description of LARGE pieces of WTC2 falling on building 7 (AKA WTC3).

A good civil engineer collection of WTC.

Again, this is the WTC conspiracy- why the controversy?

In real life (off the net) I have worked lots of whistle blower complainants. Something that strikes me on many of them is the absolute lengths people in high places will go to to cover up often small wrongs. Why not just admit someone made a mistake and go on?

Here's a Supreme Court case that I personally was involved in. Hundreds of thousands, possible a million dollars were spent by the government to cover up a small mistake. All the government would have had to do in the beginning was re-do its actions ( a one-hour interview) and there could have been no law suit. Typical to many government officials, NASA tried to deny and deny. It made no sense at the time and still doesn't.

Much of WTC is the same way. Why our government goes to extraordinary lengths to deny the truth is not because of some new conspiracy, the conspiracy is why in the first place! WTC, Pentagon, etc. This is the same mentality that took us into Iraq, that allowed the USS Cole to be attacked continuously (I was in the carrier group) to send the USS Pueblo into North Korean waters- unarmed (virtually).

Back to the point of this thread- I believe there is a cover-up just simply because our government is involved. Why all the photos of planes with belly tanks and stuff? Good question- how about disinformation?

Disinformation- putting out red-herring to obscure the truth.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
For the love......


Jesus. Ok, so our own military deliberately fired a missile into the building just to prove a point. Just like they shot a Tomahawk at the Pentagon, right?

So what are you going to do about it?

I can hear it now...

"Oh, my God, Bill! Building 1 and 2 are down, but they completely missed 7!!! We better fire off a couple of missiles just to make sure... Like I always say, if you want a job done right, ya gotta do it yourself!"

What, exactly then, are you trying to say? I, myself, am leaning toward the SIMPLE TRUTH!


What I am saying is that you are dead wrong when you said the towers fell down on top of building 7. I'm SAYING that steel buildings don't collapse and implode because there are some FIRES burning on a few floors in it. There was NO jet that smashed into 7, therefore no jet fuel. Therefore, the excuse used for the collapse of 1 and 2 can't apply to 7. And YET it still collapses. Watch the video of the collapse if you want. It's there for anyone to see if they wish. And no one said anything about a missile hitting 7. There is no evidence of that, so don't put words in the mouths of those not buying the official story.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
Are you sure this isn't a movie of 9/11. Because it would be quite a coincidence if WTC 7 fell down on the same day. Whether it was an attack or a demolition I think that has to be coincedential (Can't spell that word) . You would think I would have heard about it though. It seems like no one has heard about it.



No it was not a movie it was a documentary and the WTC 7 came down sometime between 5 and 6pm on the September 11, 2001. I had always thought they brought it down on purpose due to it being so unstable after the attack but now they are saying it came down due to fire caused by flying debris, two different stories got my attention, also something that got my attention is this website, it is a website that is applying science to uncover the truth about 911, its physics911.org...



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
You guys dont remember the fallout when the buildings fell...the dusk and steel and everything else in the air blew out windows all around...and left holes in buildings adjacent to the towers...if you guys seen how close 7 was to the other two...then you'd know why it fell...hell...the hotel in front of the tower (which is huge) was tipping slightly and for a while thought to be in danger of collapsing...and its a hell of alot further away the 7 was....



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
You guys dont remember the fallout when the buildings fell...the dusk and steel and everything else in the air blew out windows all around...and left holes in buildings adjacent to the towers...if you guys seen how close 7 was to the other two...then you'd know why it fell...hell...the hotel in front of the tower (which is huge) was tipping slightly and for a while thought to be in danger of collapsing...and its a hell of alot further away the 7 was....


Ironically, never before 9/11/01 in history has a steel building even partially collapsed from a fire. Neither has any since. These sentences was taken from the website I posted above on WTC7 collapse. You know it is much more comforting to believe that we were attacked and that is the end of it but the problem with that is the glaring facts like the first two sentences I just posted.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
You know its interesting you people some in here and start saying will this is what really happened, as in what we seen on TV.. But in actuallity you have not showed us proof on how 4 buildings on 9/11 could have possibly fell due to the fact that it was on fire for such short time, and as said before there where fires in other highrises that lasted way more ours than the WTC incident and are still standing today.

If I remember right the fire I am refering to is a 50 story building in philly that burned 18 hrs and 3 firefighters died in it, but yet it never fell.

Also a tad but of facts.
Steel melts at 3200 or so defrees F meaning it had to be hot as hell for a long period of them in them buildings for them to fall. the pancake theory has been proved to be wrong.
Tipical jetfuel burns at its highest at 1800f meaning there is no way in hell that the building could have come down due to heat.
Facts, more of them.

There are recording radio messages between FDNY as I stated earlier that they did state before and as the buildings came down that there were bombs going off in the building. Also they state the fores are not hot enough to cause any serious damage structurely.

I am wondering where all this proof is that the fires caused the buildings to fall, any real scientist architect and physis will tell you its virtually impossible for the fire/planes and such to take down those buildings.

Now onto actual collapse.

Now as a building falls we count in what i stated earlier also. The falling bodys properties I guess you call it.

now in actual reality if the buildings fell on thier own that would make them fall around 9.2 or so seconds. WTC 1 fell at 8.2 seconds and WTC 2 fell at 10.2 seconds or so. now that leaves us with the question of this...
WHat made them buildings fall at such speed/radio to make them turn metal, concrete, and such into pulverized dust. in really when a building just falls it does not do that. UNLESS there are some type of high exsplosives related to the fall of the builings such as C4 TNT and so on.

NOw my question for you people who believe this crap the govt is throwing us, is to prove it actually is going like they say instead of just coming in here and trashing the people who know facts. its simple link us to something that says the towers fell cause they did they way they did. its simple reseach, stop being lazy and mouthing off.

and as for eye witnesses everything is flawed even eye witness accounts.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
A fire and having a fully gased plane crashing are two TOTALLY different things...



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
A fire and having a fully gased plane crashing are two TOTALLY different things...


Psssst! Let them just restate what they read on some websites that sell their conspiracy t-shirts along with the "scandal truth!".
As if any of those has a scientific approach to it.

It seems they really believe that all scientists who claimed there were no bombs at all, have been bought to lie *sigh!* - they prefer to believe yahoo.com/~lamer1921needsmoney/ pages



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I prefer the truth and it is obviously not being told, the Bush administration did not even want to form a panel to look into what happened at all. One of the two things that has never made sense is if you count the passenger list and the amount of people supposed to be lost on the planes they don't match, the numbers don't add up, why? That ahould be a simple enough question to answer but yet it has never been answered? Not one reporter has ever brought it up. Another one, cell phones don't work over an altitude of 8,000 feet, what about all the calls made from cell phones, the 911 commission says that the calls were made from cell phones and the phones on the planes, now of course it is very possible that the calls were made from the phones on the planes but many passengers stated they were using their cell phones and also some of the calls like the one made from a bathroom had to have been made from a cell phone. Below you will find who are the scientists on www.physics.org


The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE)
The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven consists of scientists and engineers who have been analyzing the events of September 11, 2001 with a view to developing further information about the alleged terror attacks.

With very few exceptions, the findings of the Panel point to massive deception by the Bush White House and official organs of the US military organization.

The media, as far as we can determine, have been completely taken in by the White House scenario and continue to struggle to make it all fit together.

Membership on the S.P.I.N.E. Panel is determined by professional status and area.

Current Members include:

Walter E. Davis Social & Human Health Theorist Member
A. K. Dewdney Mathematician, Computer Scientist, Biologist Member
John DiNardo Physics Teacher Member
Derrick Grimmer Physicist Member
Jim Hoffman Physician, Engineering Background Member
Eric Huffschmid Software Developer Member
Joseph D. Keith Aeronautical Engineer Member
Tim Howells Computer Scientist Member
Jerry Longspaugh Aeronautical Engineer Member
Scott Loughrey Computer Programmer Member
Brad Molineux Cellphone Engineer Member
Sid Walker Webmaster & Editor Member




[edit on 6-9-2004 by goose]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
A fire and having a fully gased plane crashing are two TOTALLY different things...


Really!? Good! Then you should agree with the others of us that building 7 shouldn't have collapsed because of a freaking fire in it! Because what happened to 1 and 2, and then to building 7 ARE different like you say. No fully gassed plane hit 7. Hey, I challenge you to find any instance or example in history of a documented occasion when a reinforced steel building collapses demolition style because of a fire! I DARE you. If you can't, then your argument doesn't have much credibility.

And I love it how someone said that the fallout of the collapse of 1 and 2 caused (OH NO!) the WINDOWS to break in 7. So what?! As if that helps your explanation AT ALL. Very amusing though. You could break every friggin window in a building and it won't make it fall down. And about the holes.........Again, WATCH the collapse of building 7. Do any of you see any HOLES in the building? Hmmm?


oui

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I didn't bother to read page 2, but I did read page 1...

These missle, and bomb theories are outrageous.

My brother is an NYPD cop, and a US Marine. He was there under the towers when both planes hit the buildings. He helped people evacuate, his squad car was parked so close it was crushed under the rubble of the falling buildings. He saw both planes HIT the building. No launching of missles, or dropping of bombs.

My father, who is now retired, worked in the city VERY CLOSE to the WTC during 9/11. He watched both planes hit the towers from the building he was in. HE SAW NO MISSLES, OR BOMBS DROPPED... on a more important side note... my father is a retired USAF veteran. He has over 26 years experiance flying aircraft in peacetime, and wartime operations. MY FATHER IS A WALKING ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AIRCRAFT... FLYING IS HIS LIFE, IT IS HIS PASSION, HE SAYS IT IS HIS REASON FOR LIVING. He still continues to fly to this day. He saw no bombs, or missles dropped, and I'll take his -experianced- word over anyones, anyday.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by oui]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Not only was there a fire, but two buildings each on the order of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of tons a piece just fell down right next to building 7. Just the effects of that much mass crashing to the ground could have been well enough to damage nearby structures. It wouldn't surprise if I looked and found that several of the nearby buildings suffered structural damage and had to be repaired.

If I was a small building, and those two monsters fell right next to me, I'd probably fall down too.

My point is, sure the fire isn't the only factor that brought building 7 down, but something did. I think the simplest explanation is that it got broken. What I'm wondering is what the conclusion that people are trying to draw here? Is someone trying to say that it was our own government again, because that is paraniod and delusional, not to mention old and tired.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by oui
I didn't bother to read page 2, but I did read page 1...

These missle, and bomb theories are outrageous.

My brother is an NYPD cop, and a US Marine. He was there under the towers when both planes hit the buildings. He helped people evacuate, his squad car was parked so close it was crushed under the rubble of the falling buildings. He saw both planes HIT the building. No launching of missles, or dropping of bombs.

My father, who is now retired, worked in the city VERY CLOSE to the WTC during 9/11. He watched both planes hit the towers from the building he was in. HE SAW NO MISSLES, OR BOMBS DROPPED... on a more important side note... my father is a retired USAF veteran. He has over 26 years experiance flying aircraft in peacetime, and wartime operations. MY FATHER IS A WALKING ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AIRCRAFT... FLYING IS HIS LIFE, IT IS HIS PASSION, HE SAYS IT IS HIS REASON FOR LIVING. He still continues to fly to this day. He saw no bombs, or missles dropped, and I'll take his -experianced- word over anyones, anyday.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by oui]


First of all, that's very cool of your family that they were there doing what they did. But I think you misunderstood what we were talking about. No one is disputing that planes flew into the towers. That is a given. We all saw them hit the buildings. Also, no one is saying that bombs or missiles were dropped.

What the contention is, is that the buildings didn't collapse just because of the planes. Yes, they hit, but that wouldn't be the cause of collapsing 1 and 2, let alone 7. Why is this thought? Well, because there were multiple reports of witnesses, civilians and firefighters both, that bombs were going off in and around the towers. And no, this is NOT referring to the planes hitting, or the actual collapse. There is evidence that bombs were going off inside the towers, which is the MAIN factor of why the towers fell. There is video you can look at that shows small explosions going off in the tower as it was falling. They go off below the actual level of collapse.

So, actually, I don't disagree with anything you said. No bombs were dropped on the buildings, planes surely did hit the towers, and I believe you 100% about your family being on scene.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Not only was there a fire, but two buildings each on the order of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of tons a piece just fell down right next to building 7. Just the effects of that much mass crashing to the ground could have been well enough to damage nearby structures. It wouldn't surprise if I looked and found that several of the nearby buildings suffered structural damage and had to be repaired.

If I was a small building, and those two monsters fell right next to me, I'd probably fall down too.

My point is, sure the fire isn't the only factor that brought building 7 down, but something did. I think the simplest explanation is that it got broken. What I'm wondering is what the conclusion that people are trying to draw here? Is someone trying to say that it was our own government again, because that is paraniod and delusional, not to mention old and tired.


Ok, the fact that you don't think that the fire was the only factor is nice to hear. And your above post is an explanation that makes more sense. Those buildings falling down no doubt was a tremendous force, and could have weakened the structure. It most likely did. But I would not expect to see building 7 fall THE WAY it did if it were damaged. It imploded on itself. It came down pulverized, steel structure and all. It just smacks of detonations. If it came down because of the fall-out of 1 and 2, would it have come down in such a manner? I would think it would topple more, and the steel frame wouldn't just crumble apart. The other materials of the building may, but not the steel. This is one factor, among some others about building 7 which makes me question the validity of the story.

And, I'm concerned about your statement that suspecting our government of these things is paranoid and delusional. I beg to differ. Do you think that our government, not even one or a few parts or people, are above or incapable of corruption? Do you think that the lessons that history tells us of people with power and governments who oppress ceases to exist and doesn't apply when it comes to our nation?

You should read some of Jefferson's writings, in addition to other founding fathers. They come right out and say that revolution every so often is required to keep the government from turning into something that we don't want. Even with the framework of THIS special government, they still expected that subsequent generations would have to deal with a corrupted government, and restore it back to the way it was. And then do it again after so much time passes. Were our founding fathers paranoid? Or were they not naive? Were they delusional, or observant of how the world works? Was Eisenhower delusional when he warned the people in his farewell address about the military industrial complex and that we must do something about some of the things that were happening within our government?

On a last not, I urge you to read something called The Northwoods document. If you do read it, maybe you won't think the government is so above acts of evil or deception. Maybe you won't think any longer that people who are suspicious and distrustful of our government are paranoid. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join