Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


WTC 7 was hit......fatally hit, as it turned out, b falling debris from WTC 1. [***] This blow was part of the destabilizing effect that served to comprise structural integrity. The un-contained fires did the rest.

This is not difficult to research, if one cares to check out ALL of the sources on it.


Blah blah blah, cried the sheep


You honestly expect me to believe that nonsense? I've re-watched the collapse of WTC7 hundreds of times. I've been exposed to the official story countless times because that is all that the mainstream media bleats about.

Unfortunately I just wasn't raised to fall for BS. There was NO catastrophic damage to WTC7 from the other buildings, just a few office fires. Somehow these offices fires managed to simultaneously cause catastrophic failure to the support structure of the building which lead to a total collapse from free standing in less than 18 seconds?

Pure tripe, that explanation is.


Too often, the lies and bluster and bravado that spew from the so-called "9/11 truth movement"


Truth movement? I'm just somebody employing (un)common sense.

And I'm not a structural engineer, but I am somebody who studies geopolitics. I've studied the political situation in the US, about what they were willing to do to justify a military campaign in the middle east. What happened on 9/11 was fully within their capability to carry out. The blinding nationalist support for the government after the attacks was exactly what they wanted.

And WTC7 wasn't the only dubious incident that happened on that day either. Dancing arabs, anyone? Filmed the first WTC building getting hit, got caught by police driving vans loaded with explosives, turned out to be mossad agents dressed as arabs?
edit on 27-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


So I suppose you think all the firefighters who testified about the South-Side damage were lying? Your entire premise relies on the building essentially having no damage. You're wrong, and anyone willing to look at the facts without a biased "truth" lens can see it.

At least play Devil's Advocate. The different perspective might open your eyes a little bit to the evidence that you are blatantly ignoring right now.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


So I suppose you think all the firefighters who testified about the South-Side damage were lying? Your entire premise relies on the building essentially having no damage. You're wrong, and anyone willing to look at the facts without a biased "truth" lens can see it.

At least play Devil's Advocate. The different perspective might open your eyes a little bit to the evidence that you are blatantly ignoring right now.


I never said no damage. I said no catastrophic damage. "Some" damage would collaborate my point even more, considering that "some" damage wouldn't take the whole building down in a unified manner.

And if there was such serious damage to WTC7, where's the evidence? Are there pictures, or just some words?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


So I suppose you think all the firefighters who testified about the South-Side damage were lying? Your entire premise relies on the building essentially having no damage. You're wrong, and anyone willing to look at the facts without a biased "truth" lens can see it.

At least play Devil's Advocate. The different perspective might open your eyes a little bit to the evidence that you are blatantly ignoring right now.


I never said no damage. I said no catastrophic damage. "Some" damage would collaborate my point even more, considering that "some" damage wouldn't take the whole building down in a unified manner.

And if there was such serious damage to WTC7, where's the evidence? Are there pictures, or just some words?


So you are now saying that you are an expert in damage assessment? Please, go on.

There was clearly a large amount of damage, and a lot of fire, and a fair amount of time coupled with that. That's three separate risk factors, and all at once.

Also, yes, there are some pictures. Why I should go out of my way to post them again after I finally cleaned out my signature, I don't know. Surely you can do the same research I did, and locate these pictures of WTC 7 burning early on with damage to its south side. Or, perhaps you are only interested in your truth, not the unbiased truth.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I'm not an expert, but in a scenario like 9/11, one has to act like a jury member and choose whether to believe the official story holds water or not. Here are some unexplained questions.

1. 9/11 references in films before 9/11. Too many for me to consider it a coincidence.

2. Why is bin-Laden not wanted for 9/11 by the FBI?

3. Why wasn't President Bush immediately rushed out of the school to safety by the Secret Service?

4. $2.3 trillion were accounted for in Pentagon funds the day before 9/11 and the housing for the transaction records were conveniently destroyed during the Pentagon attack.

5. How did Hani Hanjour expertly fly a 757 into the side of the Pentagon (rather than straight down) when he could barely fly a light plane?

6. Why was the steel immediately shipped to Asia before investigation?

7. Pancake theory doesn't make sense as there is no change in acceleration of the collapse. What should've happened was acceleration, deceleration as the top floors hit resistance, repeat.

8. Where is the supposed "pile driver" when the south tower's top tipped over and disintegrated in mid-air? The north tower had the same style of collapse even though its top didn't tip over.

9. NIST admitted that WTC 7 collapsed at a free-fall speed for 2.2 seconds. This can't happen without all the resistance of the columns disappearing at the same time.

10. Why do 220+ military and intelligence experts, 1,500+ architects and engineers, 250+ pilots and aviation experts, 400+ professors, and 400+ medical professionals question 9/11? See patriotsquestion911.com...

There are dozens of other serious questions about 9/11. There is plenty more to this story than meets the eye.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Supernatural because: Adding more content and general revising.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


You still haven't addressed the point I raised on page 3 in response to an earlier post of yours.

In brief, if the perps went to so much trouble to disguise the alleged cd's of WTC 1 & 2, by flying planes into them, why was no attempt made to disguise the alleged cd of WTC 7 ?

It was only by chance that debris from the North Tower inflicted damage, set fires, and cut off the water supply ; it couldn't have been part of the planning.

So, if it was a cd, are we to assume that the plan was to just blow it up as it stood with no attempt at disguise ?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I never said no damage. I said no catastrophic damage. "Some" damage would collaborate my point even more, considering that "some" damage wouldn't take the whole building down in a unified manner.

And if there was such serious damage to WTC7, where's the evidence? Are there pictures, or just some words?


I love this double standard of Truthers. When firefighters or someone in authority or anyone says something that does not agree with their beliefs, its just words, that mean nothing without pictures.

But when those same ones say something that sounds like their beliefs, it is automatic God' word and nothing can stand up and fight it. Like now.

I provided first hand accounts of firefighters and engineers and people that saw the damage done to the WTC7 and the progressively worsening condition of WTC7 right up to collapse, and its just words to you. But I'm willing to bet that to you, when they mention anything exploding, it is defacto proof and evidence of foul play and demolitions, therefore inside job. No "if" "and" or ""but"s about it.

Why do truthers do that?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

I love this double standard of Truthers. When firefighters or someone in authority or anyone says something that does not agree with their beliefs, its just words, that mean nothing without pictures.

I provided first hand accounts of firefighters

I have linked Firefighters hearing, ans SURVIVING the explosions in the lobby that occurred long after impact.

Why do OS peeps Lie ?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


It's not lying. They said the ceiling exploded and collapsed above them, almost as if a building was collapsing above them. An explosion does not equal an explosive demolition charge. Just thought I'd help clear that up.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


It's not lying. They said the ceiling exploded and collapsed above them, almost as if a building was collapsing above them. An explosion does not equal an explosive demolition charge. Just thought I'd help clear that up.

You must be hard of hearing, he never said Almost as if a building was collapsing... You did.
"3 explosions"
"we can in long after the fire started"
"secondary explosions"
"you people don't understand, any ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS CAN EXPLODE"
what causes explosions, but explosions.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


They were describing the SOUND and FEEL of a 110 story building crashing DOWN on them while in the lobby. How would you describe a 110 story building crashing down on you?

Apparently you are not familiar with human behavior and how they describe and react to extraordinary occurrences.

The firefighter talking about the smaller buildings exploding, knows that this is a terrorist attack, and is behaving as if it was a bombing, because up till then, a majority of terrorist attacks involved explosives and blowing up buildings. You are having a hard time understanding the mindset of people pre-9/11 and post-9/11.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Also, its too bad we dont know which building they were in which collapsed. We have footage from the North Tower when the South Tower came down, and no explosions happened next door in the lobby prior to collapse.

They were describing the collapse, plain and simple. Do you honestly believe that the walls, columns, the entire lobby, was rigged to blow up? Come now.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Ok how much damage do you want ?

Capt Chris Boyle FDNY


So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

.


20 story gash in south face, debris falling off building, building not "straight" and creaking

Fred Marsilla FDNY


At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY


Whole corner of building missing....

Chief Thomas McCarthy FDNY


I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in.



7 to 10 floors unsupported....

Richard Rotanz New York City OEM


Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,¿ he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."

He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."


Elevator car ejected from shaft, 10-15 floors on fire, building creaking


Is that enough damage for you?

Add to that water mains cut by collapse disabling sprinklers and building standpipes. No water for fire fighting

Combine that with fires (remember 10-15 floors on fire?)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by CallYourBluff
BUILDING 7 WAS DEMOLOISHED WITH EXPLOSIVES
There is no way in hell that building fell due to the shock from the towers. There really is no common sense in this world anymore. OP you are the dumb rock.


Well, that is very persuasive. Pity you can't spell demolished though.

Wow thats all you have, a simple mistake in my spelling and no im not a truther , im just not a dumb brainwashed yank that won't see what the of the world can so plainly see. NDAA,SOPA,PIPA,FEMA CAMPS,SADAM,BIN LADEN,GADDAFI ECT......Not possible without fake BS false flags, 911 being the start.
edit on 27-1-2012 by CallYourBluff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


You still haven't addressed the point I raised on page 3 in response to an earlier post of yours.

In brief, if the perps went to so much trouble to disguise the alleged cd's of WTC 1 & 2, by flying planes into them, why was no attempt made to disguise the alleged cd of WTC 7 ?

It was only by chance that debris from the North Tower inflicted damage, set fires, and cut off the water supply ; it couldn't have been part of the planning.

So, if it was a cd, are we to assume that the plan was to just blow it up as it stood with no attempt at disguise ?



I never addressed your question because it doesn't really make sense and seem rather rediculous. Why would they go through the trouble of launching planes into the towers if they were already rigged? Do I really need to answer this?


thedman-
And those are words of people in on it, words from the official establishment report... right? In my opinion, the whole basis of truth is compromised, so why would I pay attention to what the skeptical group in all of this has to say?
edit on 27-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CallYourBluff
NDAA,SOPA,PIPA,FEMA CAMPS,SADAM,BIN LADEN,GADDAFI ECT......Not possible without fake BS false flags, 911 being the start.
edit on 27-1-2012 by CallYourBluff because: (no reason given)

Funny you guys made fun of this guys Spelling.

But this is the MOST intelligent post I've seen since I have been on ATS , in any Forum.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


thedman-
And those are words of people in on it, words from the official establishment report... right? In my opinion, the whole basis of truth is compromised, so why would I pay attention to what the skeptical group in all of this has to say?
edit on 27-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)


What better way to avoid the facts by handwaving them away and claiming everyone that says anything that is against your deep beliefs is in on it. Bravo!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


thedman-
And those are words of people in on it, words from the official establishment report... right? In my opinion, the whole basis of truth is compromised, so why would I pay attention to what the skeptical group in all of this has to say?
edit on 27-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)


What better way to avoid the facts by handwaving them away and claiming everyone that says anything that is against your deep beliefs is in on it. Bravo!


When the facts are compromised, then it is wise to avoid them all together to avoid being tainted.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I never addressed your question because it doesn't really make sense and seem rather rediculous. Why would they go through the trouble of launching planes into the towers if they were already rigged? Do I really need to answer this?


Would you agree that the planes were sufficient to destroy WTC1 and 2 and all the rest were collateral damage?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Right! So the FDNY is in on the conspiracy....?

Now that we know you are delusional explains a lot......






top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join