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.

 

PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

page: 10
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


But there is a point to it. It was a fed building, CIA FBI prescense, also bunker for the mayor...also where they kept the GOLD. I would also wonder about the insurance, possibly had to tie in to be completely covered for claim to be as substancial, just a guess. Funny how it was across the street and was affected the same as the buildings 1 & 2, yet the brick Verizon building next door was unharmed. Still questioning this event is like beating a dead criminal with a stick to get answers to questions evidence overwhelmingly asnwers for you. Besides why would anyone block an investigation of a crime unless it contained evidence connecting you or your cronies to it?

MD




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MentalData
reply to post by -PLB-
 


But there is a point to it. It was a fed building, CIA FBI prescense, also bunker for the mayor...also where they kept the GOLD.


But why does that mean you would blow it up? If I wanted to hide sensitive stuff I wouldn't demolish the building and risk material being found in the clean up. And I assume you mean they meant to steal the gold. What gold robbery has ever involved the complete destruction of the building housing the bullion?

Admittedly one might say that the demo would disguise the robbery, but that seems like driving your car off a cliff in order to disguise a scratch on the bumper.



I would also wonder about the insurance, possibly had to tie in to be completely covered for claim to be as substancial, just a guess.


See my post about insurance above. Why did the companies pay out if there's any chance of foul play? Why didn't they at least withhold and investigate? And are the heads of insurance companies the only financial fatcats NOT in on this?




Funny how it was across the street and was affected the same as the buildings 1 & 2, yet the brick Verizon building next door was unharmed.


It wasn't! It just didn't catch fire.


Besides why would anyone block an investigation of a crime unless it contained evidence connecting you or your cronies to it?

MD


Because they are worried that their negligence will come to light?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Those who said it was fire cant explain how fire got from WTC to WTC7 so quickly and still be able to destroy it so violently. Many of you do not know that there were where some of the three letter agencies operating there at the time it was taken down.


The building itself was home to several three letter agencies. Their vacant offices were destroyed completely.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


insurance companies would have to pay, official story stands as proof of terrorist attack. The impossibility of the whole event means nothing after feds tell you that is what happened. And I mentioned the gold not saying it was hijacked, but I have a nausiating feeling the attack diverted the attention of the massive theft taking place underground..What a tactic that would be...9/11 was the greatest heist in world history, the numbers are in the trillions...

put options on airlines
billions in pentagon budget money missing(Rumsfeld)
GOLD
no-bid contracts in Iraq
Iraq war billions(prob trillions) for private defense contractors(military indust. complex)
Afganistan profits
Iraq oil money
looted ancient babylonian museum artifacts
list is endless really....

Also the New York Fed reserve building with Gold reserves is just blocks away, lots of confusion that day...

After all Ron Paul wants to have our Gold reserves audited as well..I wonder why?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Also I'm sure Saddam had enormous wealth, dictator of the greatest oil reserve in the world(or one of them),
it sure wasn't making its way back to the people..

And off topic to think we killed him, I see him as involved in this whole thing as much as anyone else. Them Bushes sure do love them middle eastern boys, they had ties to all of them...

9/11 was world psycological warfare and still is..Neocons got right what Hitler got wrong and in the end its always money and power..always will be...Power says what happened to WTC7 or anything else for that matter...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


OK, I'm looking at the floors all staying kind of put will the demolition is collapsing the building... it looks like WTC 7 to me.

I think you could take these various videos and mix in WTC 7 to a random selection of people, and NONE of them would think; "Oh, that was fire." If they saw one example of a controlled demolition, then WTC 7 would not stand out to them in the least.

This comment was priceless;



If there's anything we know about fire, it's that it burns perfectly symmetrically.


I was looking for the /sarcasm tag after that. In a furnace, you can KIND OF even out the heat if you have a conducting plate between. But fire is about the most chaotic substance we deal with. You start a fire in the middle of a uniform room with no air currents -- not one expert in 10 could consistently tell you which path it would take.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


The collapse of WTC 7 may look similar to a cd if you do a few things. Cut out the penthouse falling in. Don't show the damage and smoke pouring out of the south side. Don't have any sound so no one can tell there are no demolition detonations. Ignore the fact that the FDNY anticipated collapse for hours. All the things which are routinely done to mislead.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Every time I've seen clips from Deniars, I see a few samples of the WTC 7 covered with smoke, dust and debris.

But when you see these multi-angles here, where the building is not obscured, it sure looks like the fires are not that big a deal.

The gashes on the side, which allegedly are from the curtain wall of WTC 1 (and I think it's possible), don't look that severe to me, and in the case of a NORMAL office structure, the load bearing is on the interior of the structure -- not the exterior. Besides, the trajectory to get the 5 ton curtain wall shards to get to building 7 are going to have to pop them over WTC 6 at a steep and highly arced angle. I think this is possible that the cantilevered joints might have "flicked" curtain wall out.

Demolitions and pancake collapses don't produce explosive projectiles unless something is odd.

The NIST at first created models and said the WTC 7 took more time to fall than the other towers. Later video evidence was uncovered and showed "FREE FALL SPEED."

>> NOTE: Free fall speed is not the same as "dropped like a rock" -- it's the speed that we see in demolitions which also don't fall QUITE AS FAST as a dropped rock. Each level impacts the next and a charge goes off to allow gravity to help in the collapse.

However, a pancake collapse is going to take around a second or more per floor as the energy needs to be transferred. So a 48 story building will take around 48 seconds (at least).

>> When I see a building, where the windows and levels are not breaking up BELOW the rupture, it looks like there is no resistance. It looks like a demolition.

Ed Asner's professional voice however, isn't what convinces me. I've gotten used to professional sounding programs selling me crap for years now. What convinces me is looking at a building being demolished and then looking at what happened on 9/11. They look the same to me.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
9:47 into the clip, Firemen were talking about "molten steel, like you were in a foundry, running down..."

I also see that clip of the orange-yellow metal being pulled out of the wreckage. There is no way in God's green earth or the laws of physics that jet fuel or normal office materials can explain molten steel hours later. Also -- there is nothing ELSE it could be but molten metal and we know from physics of light what the temperature of any metal is that is glowing when heated.

There is no WIGGLE ROOM here folks.
Hours after the fire, the bright orange to yellow color of the molten steel is approximately; 1500 to 1700 degrees fahrenheit.

Compare that to a few firemen talking about the building dangerously leaning and about to collapse -- but when I look at this VERY CLEAR VIDEO from many angles, there isn't any leaning.

I sure hear a lot of people TELLING ME, that there was a huge gouge in the side (it gets more cavernous as the stories drone on), and I HEAR people telling me that a lot of firemen were saying it was going to collapse by fire.

But I actually get sound from the day of the even that talks about explosions and detonations. I've actually HEARD from the firemen, more people saying "demolition" than saying it was falling over.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


The collapse of WTC 7 may look similar to a cd if you do a few things. Cut out the penthouse falling in. Don't show the damage and smoke pouring out of the south side. Don't have any sound so no one can tell there are no demolition detonations. Ignore the fact that the FDNY anticipated collapse for hours. All the things which are routinely done to mislead.


If shaped charges and nano-thermite are used there ARE NO SOUNDS of demolition that would be audible. The most you would get is a sound like a fire cracker as an explosive charge fired a copper plate into an iBeam to cut it.

Whatever is happening on the OTHER side of the building doesn't really matter in this case -- because if it were that much more destroyed, the building would have fallen into the area that was most destroyed. It doesn't make sense that from one angle, it looks exactly like a free-fall demolition and on the other side, that we cannot see because of dust, it's magically different.

The Penthouse structure I noticed going down before everything else in this video. That's consistent with the slump of the building -- which would be the most internal structures being destroyed first. The penthouse was probably jerked inward by this initial event. That's ABSOLUTELY consistent with a demolition as well.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Those who said it was fire cant explain how fire got from WTC to WTC7 so quickly and still be able to destroy it so violently. Many of you do not know that there were where some of the three letter agencies operating there at the time it was taken down.


The building itself was home to several three letter agencies. Their vacant offices were destroyed completely.


It was ASLO home to the ENRON investigation and an investigation into fraudulent Federal Notes by the Bush family themselves. Both trials were about to close against these two groups and BOTH trials were scrapped because of it.

Something like $17 Billion in Federal Notes for the Bush family, if I remember correctly.


>> The SCENARIO here, is that plane that went down because passengers got involved, missed it's target, and it would be EMBARRASSING to have investigators find all the demolition material in the building -- much less the evidence against ENRON and BushCo come to a verdict.


Had a plane struck WTC 7, the proof of demolition other than physics, would be a tougher sell.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


So, how did they make sure that when the plane missed, the building would burn for hours? How did they prevent the charges from being destroyed or going off by these fires? Your theory gets a 1 out of 10 on the making sense scale.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Here's an MIT engineer explaining the structural physics involved LINK

Note that much of the site was cleared BEFORE FEMA investigated, and a lot of evidence was gathered by visiting land fills.

The Jet Fuel would have burned up in 15 minutes.
Black smoke is an example of an inefficient (cooler) fire.
Fire Shutters DID function and shut off air flow to internal fires.

As I've mentioned before, and MIT Prof echoes; the 47 vertical supports of the core were not hit by fire, and should have still been standing.

>> When I try and Debunk the Government theory -- I try and ONLY pull from the best evidence they present. However, there isn't much untainted evidence, and a lot of the 9/11 saga is pretty crazy as far as the chain of events goes.

This PBS special, and presentations like the one from MIT engineers should be what people consider when trying to make up their mind -- NOT someone's theory about big foot or drone aircraft. Whether or not drone aircraft were used -- we don't have good evidence on the planes either way to decide. Best to stick with the Big Stuff before trying to prove what we have little evidence to figure out.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


So, how did they make sure that when the plane missed, the building would burn for hours? How did they prevent the charges from being destroyed or going off by these fires? Your theory gets a 1 out of 10 on the making sense scale.



Having a fire burn for hours is no big deal.

As firemen have said, they saw MOLTEN STEEL running down in places within the building. Whatever is melting the steel might cause fires. Or someone could have just run in during the chaos or had already been in the building.

C4 and other charges are designed NOT to be set off by fire -- they use an electrical charges. Perhaps some did go off, but not enough to start the collapse -- and those "explosive sounds" that firemen heard were a few of these charges going off prematurely. Note: firemen would have prior experience and probably would not be reporting the popping sounds of light bulbs as explosions.

These office fires would be burning material in the floors, and would likely NOT be effecting the structure. Charges could be wrapped in some insulating material and be perfectly fine until detonation or unless under a direct flame for many minutes.

The thing is, if someone managed to prime these buildings for demolition -- a fire is a pretty easy task.

If I were planning the WTC collapse, and I were a demolitions expert, I would be anticipating fires, firemen, and people around the building having video cameras, so I would be making sure charges didn't go off before it was time.

>> Nothing I'm saying is science fiction, or in the least bit difficult. You have electrical-based charges with an insulator around them, and if a few go off, it's no big deal.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
WTC7 is a smoking gun, but there are plenty of other issues with the official story.

Here are some of my favorites, stop me if you have already debunked it... Oh, and go watch the video "In Plane Sight"


The Pentagon, no plane found, no 4 big honk'n engines (only one little one like a cruise missile motor), no luggage, no wings, no tail, nothing identifiable as a commercial aircraft. Go look at the photos, videos...

Hole in the building is too small to be an airplane.


The Pentagon, no video showing an airplane, looks kinda like a missile trail.


The Pentagon, Flight path of plane does not match where the lamp poles were knocked over or which side of the street the planes were seen by witnesses. Flight path indicated by lamp poles is considered nearly impossible for an amateur pilot. There is a great video about this on you-tube.


New York, Airplane has a big funny thing on the underside, like an external fuel tank. Witnesses saw a grey windowless military plane, not an airliner.


Phone calls from the aircraft. I have experimented with turning on my phone at altitude to see if I get any bars, there is no way in &#($* any of those calls came from planes in flight. No workie...


Ok, last call for debunkers? None? Ok, have a great week. I wish I did not know about this.




edit on 17-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Somebody mentioned the china contracting to recycle the steel?

Logistically, from the time the towers evaporated into dust on September 11, 2001;
When was the first load shipped out? How many days? Were the piles of molten metal still active?

When the facts come, they will be in Chinese ya'all.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


It might be useful to find out how long it normally takes to set up to ship a load of scrap steel to China, and then see if it is longer than it took them on 911.

Might show that it would have had to have been set up before 911?


edit on 1/17/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


A slight problem with your theory that the destruction of WTC 7 resulted in the scrapping of an ENRON trial is that there was an ENRON trial :-

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


A slight problem with your theory that the destruction of WTC 7 resulted in the scrapping of an ENRON trial is that there was an ENRON trial :-

www.msnbc.msn.com...



I'm talking about their SEC filings. Without it a lot of executives got off the hook. Only a token few at ENRON got any time.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Here's an MIT engineer explaining the structural physics involved LINK

.


The supposed MIT engineer you have linked to, Jeff King, is not an MIT engineer at all. He obtained a degree in biology and electrical engineering from MIT in 1974 but for the best part of the last 30 years has been a family physician. He therefore has no relevant qualifications to spout about the WTC.

It is ironic that you probably cast a jaundiced eye on Martin Bazant who really is an MIT engineer.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join