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: 12
71
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Well your theory is that the building collapses by itself after 6 hours, so have a tiny firecracker in the building to satisfy your criteria. Easiest thing in the world.

Maybe you need to take out one column after the fire fatally weakens the structure? Maybe a half a stick of dynamite?

There is no sensible argument that you can produce that says that you need to have a clearly visible amount of explosives to have it done by explosives in addition to the fire, but that fire ALONE could do it no problem.

That is, unless your new argument is that some of the explosives magically healed the building too. Is that what you are arguing?


My theory is indeed that the building was weakened, and therefor you do not need any explosives. Truthers on the other hand argue that the building could not have weakened that much, and explosives are required to remove the resistance.

You are basically debunking your fellow truthers by saying that the heat weakened the building to such a degree that almost no explosives are required. Al you need to do it remove the "almost", and I welcome you to the land of the rational. You have absolutely nothing to support the notion that the heat was just too small, and only a very small explosive was required. You can as well argue that none was required. The only reason you don't is because you want there to be explosives.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Same reason why that would happen (if it would happen) when CD is used.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
The destruction of WTC7 was so obviously a controlled demolition that it's almost impossible to believe anyone could be stupid enough to genuinely believe it 'just collapsed'.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
The destruction of WTC7 was so obviously a controlled demolition that it's almost impossible to believe anyone could be stupid enough to genuinely believe it 'just collapsed'.


By 'anyone' you mean all the worlds demo experts?

Or do you mean the government is hushing every single demo expert in every country of the world?
One would have to expect Iran has their own demo experts. They would love nothing better than to poke a stick in the eye of the US. But somehow the US is hushing their experts as well.
What about experts in North Korea?
What about experts in Venezuela?

It's amazing how the US government is able quash independent people in rival countries. And yet they can't shut down dissent on websites like this.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MentalData
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


insurance companies would have to pay, official story stands as proof of terrorist attack.


You think the official story proves a terrorist attack??

I mean, I do, but I got the impression you didn't. And if you don't thinkit does why would the insurance companies? Are you more insightful than all the employees of a billion-dollar industry? No offence, but I doubt it.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
By 'anyone', I mean anyone.
You don't have to be a meteorologist to know when it's raining.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
The destruction of WTC7 was so obviously a controlled demolition that it's almost impossible to believe anyone could be stupid enough to genuinely believe it 'just collapsed'.


Why did the firemen on the scene think it would collapse? Why do they still have no trouble believing that it collapsed due to fire? Are they stupid?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
By 'anyone', I mean anyone.
You don't have to be a meteorologist to know when it's raining.


I had a shower this morning and it resembled rain. Therefore it must have been raining in my house!!!!

That's effectively what people are saying when they say that to them WTC7 "looked like a demolition" and therefore must have been one.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


That's a very good question TOS. Why did they think it would collapse when no comparable skyscraper had ever before collapsed, and their job was to rush into such buildings to rescue people with no fear that the building would suddenly collapse around them? Possibly, they'd gotten word from the organizers that what had never happened before was about to happen.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by aethron
 


Or possibly they were trained to look for signs that indicate that a building would collapse, and WTC7 showed these signs. But I guess that explanations would be a bit too rational and down to earth.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Lol, If no such buildings had ever before collapsed, how could they be trained in the signs that such a building would collapse?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Lol, If no such buildings had ever before been taken down with controlled demolition, how could you be trained in the signs that such a building is taken down with controlled demolition?

Oooh wait, you are a special kind of expert who just knows stuff like that, while firemen are ignorant, no?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


That's a very good question TOS. Why did they think it would collapse when no comparable skyscraper had ever before collapsed, and their job was to rush into such buildings to rescue people with no fear that the building would suddenly collapse around them? Possibly, they'd gotten word from the organizers that what had never happened before was about to happen.


Have you read their testimony? Particularly that of Hayden and Nigro? They make a plausible case for what they saw that day being a series of typical symptoms that building on the verge of collapse tend to exhibit. They have stuck to their story.

Fair enough, you think they are in on it. I consider this to be very unlikely.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Buildings such as WTC7 *have* been taken down by controlled demolition, and guess what? ...When the known controlled demolition is juxtaposed against the 'randomly collapsing WTC7', they are virtually identical. Check out the comparison on youtube if you don't believe me.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
If the whole NYFD was in on it doesn’t that negate the argument that it would only take a handful of people to wire three buildings with explosives? I mean if it’s ok for hundreds of fire fighters to know about it, what’s a few dozen people to wire the buildings?
If you think NY fire fighters would blindly follow the orders of their captains without so much as questioning their orders ten years later, you don’t know a thing about NY human nature.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by aethron
 




they are virtually identical.

Except for the penthouse collapsing 6 seconds earlier.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Of course the rank and file of NYFD were not in on it. Those heros were the sacrificial lambs. Condolences to the widows and children of those heros. We will not stop until the true murderers of your husband/father are outed.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Have attcahed a clip of the Madrid Tower burning in which you can see the top section collapse. It burned far worse and longer than WT7.

This building didnt crash down and pile drive the rest of the building to dust.

When a fireman says there is going to be a collapse it is becuse they are worried about the roof structure or the seciton on fire coming down. Or sections collapsing down into the area below. Not the entire building.

If you have a fire in the corner of a warehouse that becomes unstable due to the fire in that location, firefighters will pull out unless people are missing and fight it from a safe distance outside to avoid getting trapped.

About 2.25 you can see it start to collapse.








edit on 18-1-2012 by D8ncer because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-1-2012 by D8ncer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by aethron
 


Gosh, so how would firemen know what signs for collapse would look like. Hmm could it be that they got this knowledge by studying other buildings also? Wow, that would be clever.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by D8ncer
 


Oh great, we have another expert on building collapses and fires in the thread. Welcome.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join