It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by jazz10

This company is very significant indeed and i have done my own digging and it suprises me that no one has even mentioned it. It has a global connection.
I dont have 100% proof which is obvious, but if I was to give you the name would you dig? because this one company has its fingers in many pies.

It sounds like you have zero proof.
It's really bad that you want others to try to find some connection to some unknown company.

Did you ever wonder why truthers have gone nowhere in ten years??

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by dayve

I'm gonna make a wild guess that you didn't have any family killed on that day, am I right? Because If you did, you would care and you would want justice. Children lost their mothers and fathers. People's lives were changed forever, and you spew out some crap that people are done mourning so who cares. I didn't even have family killed that day and I want justice. People's lives are important, and you just shrug it off like it's no big deal. Let me put it to you this way. What if someone came to your house and murdered your whole family, but the guy who did it gets away with it? So you would mourn a while and then shrug it off likes it no big deal. NO you wouldn't. You would want justice.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Xtrozero

Where did you come up with that wisdom?
Everybody here knows by now, that WTC 7 was a bottom up implosion.
While WTC 1 and 2 were top down implosions.

NOPE - not everyone.

And they were all bottom up implosions.

The weight of the floors above the plane impact zones collapsing triggered a harmonica effect so that the towers came down. But it was the floors above the impacts. Bottom up.

Same with the top floors of WTC7. The floor above the weak point collapsed and the weight carried it to the ground. Bottom up.

And all of you guys caiming the blast out from the windows being proof of a demolision need only take a paper bag, inflate it and clap your hands together with the bag between them. The air will escape through the weakest point(s). Do it with a dust bag from a vacuum cleaner and you can see the effect more clearly.

Well I guess, but it is all the same in the weight of the upper floors started the collapse and after a few floors the energy was too great for the rest that within a few floor there was almost zero resistance as the floors collapsed. We see this with the North tower being hit first but falling second due to the lesser weight from the hit around the 92 to 98 floors. Where the south tower was hit around the 78 to 84 floors and came down first.

Building 7 falling, what 6 hours later is anyone's guess as to where the fires caused the structure to weaken and then also collapse.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by rival
The boom before the collapse of WTC7 is hard to refute. It is easily heard, though the boom (heard)
could have been unrelated to WTC7. However the symmetrical collapse of the roof line of building 7
indicates a global failure below...a catastrophic failure.

Bottom line....

BOOM is heard

Penthouse collapses (interior core columns break and fall away from supporting interior structure)

Global exterior collapse without expected resistance from friction (indicating
expected resistance from lower floor structures is non-existent for first 2.3 seconds)


Most naive sheep will continue to graze and slumber under the watchful eye of their sheperd--
willfully, and happily ignorant...

Others that back the official account will continue to defend and ridicule, firm in their conviction that
only terrorists from abroad would "do such a thing" and requiring extraordinary "proof" to the

I will continue to believe the WTC7 collapse was controlled and executed by some means other
than what is posited by the official explanation of exterior damage and fire.

edit on 28-2-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)

If you believe that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition can you give me an idea of what you think the perps plan must have been.

The collapses of the Towers, also alleged by some to be cd's, were disguised by planes being flown into them and for the collapses to initiate from the impact points.

But there would appear to have been no provision to disguise a cd of WTC 7. It was pure chance that falling debris from WTC 1 damaged WTC 7, started fires and cut off the water. Couldn't have been part of a plan, so what was the plan ? Just to blow it up as it stood ? Seem likely to you ?

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

you are wrong.
wtc7 outploded.
it was an outplosion job.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by samkent
Did you ever wonder why truthers have gone nowhere in ten years??

there are too many sheeples... and not enough shepherds.
edit on 28-2-2012 by psyop911 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:14 AM
Of course it was imploded .
What silly person living in a bubble wouldn't think so?
Fantastic work OP.
Oh wait, hmm lots of silly people still I guess.
Imploded for sure.
Blackwater ?
edit on 28-2-2012 by sealing because: Info add

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:26 AM
Labtop, thank you for continuing to research and keep this subject alive.

My own personal view, based on the speed and symmetry of the collapse, the dustification of massive amounts of concrete as well as furniture, etc (almost nothing was found in the ruins, there should have been thousands of crushed chairs, room dividers, desks, filing cabinets, computers) and the persistent very high heat in the basements is that the only thing that explains the collapse of all three towers is small scale tactical nuclear devices. Thermate was probably also involved but may simply have been in place and then not exploded correctly, or was used as an adjunct.

The amount of excess energy needed to produce the observed results far exceeds a fire + gravitic collapse. Labtop references it when he mentioned 'plasma'; it is my understanding that no conventional explosive produces a plasma state, only nuclear devices can.

The 'why' is another matter and one that we will probably never know but it has nothing to do with hijacked planes, religious fundamentalists (they are just the most recent boogieman, as Von Braun predicted) but Ben Fulford's recent statements may point the way. (Were trillions of dollars in payments due to Japan from the Federal Reserve on 09/12/2001, and was the gold stored in the basement of one of the towers?)

To the people doing the 'could care less, give it up already' line of commentary: wow. just wow.
Asking anyone to 'prove it' at this date, and with the amount of lies upon lies told about that day is an impossibility. The coverup was in full swing within minutes of the event although the holes in the story were there for anyone looking. We can only present hypotheticals at this point but the effort must be made or we have no right to call ourselves a civilized society.
edit on 28-2-2012 by signalfire because: mistype

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by signalfire
The amount of excess energy needed to produce the observed results far exceeds a fire + gravitic collapse.

Based on what research did you determine this exactly? (this is a rhetorical question. We all know there are only a bunch of laymen or self proclaimed experts making these assertion, with absolutely nothing to back it up).
edit on 28-2-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by signalfire

The 'why' is another matter and one that we will probably never know.....

C'mon. You're speculating on everything else - give us a little hint on why "they" would think it necessary to ignite a thermonuclear device to make a building collapse. You've got to have some ideas. I'm dying to hear them.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by GenRadek

Please take the time to contemplate on a few things here.

There were videos showing people who said they stood on the perimeter line 4 blocks away from the WTC 7, who heard a man's Walkie Talkie in his hand loudly counting down, then the tower came down.

You mean the erroneous report about the countdown signal heard over the radios heard by a Red Cross worker? Yeah, LaBTop, I'm not sure if you were under a rock for the last few years, but that was debunked years ago. Surprised you havent come across that fact during your un-relenting search for truth. It was even addressed here on ATS.

Don't you think that all the rescuers anywhere near WTC 7 would not start to shout through their radios to get out of there, when they also heard that count down? We commoners can be stupid at times, but not that stupid that we do not start to run when we hear a countdown in a time and place like that.

Sure, but how can those same workers standing around next to the WTC7 building miss a massive blast that is somehow picked up seismic stations miles away, and allegedly heard on a camera prior to collapse, and they only notice somethings wrong when the building is coming down on them and people are screaming for them to run away? Were they deaf from the powerful blast?

That's what this man also did, in his first reaction on the radio shouting, and then the booming started, and you and me know for sure that "the first cut is the deepest" as in that famous song.

So you believe that you, can stand next to a building, minding your own business, hearing nothing out of the ordinary, when all of a sudden a massive blast can rip through it, and you dont even flinch or blink, or even notice anything is amiss, until people around you tell you to run away for no reason (to you) and only then do you take a look back and see an entire 47 story building is coming down on top of you, and yet, completely miss the blast that sets it in motion? That is very hard to believe. If I am standing next to a building, and something explodes inside of it, I am going to notice it especially if I am RIGHT FRAKING NEXT TO IT, and THAT will get my attention to turn around and look. I mean really? He just missed it? Didnt even bother mentioning it later that first he heard a loud kaboom which got his attention to look at the building next to him, and that it took people on the radio to get his attention? What the hell was he doing? Sitting on his thumb with his headphones on? Come on. No one can stand there and ignore a massive blast in a building which causes it to go down, I dont care how much you twist and turn.

And every right minded 9/11 conspiracy planner knows that after that first boom, he does not have to worry anymore about further booms, since those can be explained away by simply stating "you damn fool, of course you heard a lot of booms, what else would you hear when a 47 story steel building comes down in a gravitational collapse! "

But how did he forget the first boom? I mean seriously. Nothing phases him until he gets warned on radio to run and only then does he notice, "Hey a building is coming down on me! I'd better run!" And no one else mentions hearing this massive blast prior to collapse. Only, we sat around waited, and there it fell.

And you know what, that first huge seismic peak can however not be argued away......And it was definitely 2 to 3 seconds before anything moved in that building, recorded on video or camera.
And no, it can't be a natural occurring event such as the snapping of ONE simple column nr 79 as NIST tries to convince us of, that would have been just a tiny peak on that seismogram, see what the global collapse did on that seismogram! When all its HUGE columns and crossbeams snapped, like we could see in the aftermath photos of the smoking heap of rubble left over of WTC 7.

Sure it can. Maybe it was caused by the building's internal collapse? And no, you cannot claim, as others have pointed out, pinpoint the time of the seismic signal when even the actual professionals say it is a + - 3 seconds error margin. So your theory is flawed.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

There is thus also my seismogram showing you irrefutably (yes, I know you get nervous from such a stiff word) a huge seismic pack of peaks, 2 to 3 seconds (see the relative error remark) before in Manhattan anything moved up, along or inside that huge 47 stories steel based building.

But there is that pesky error margin which YOU also cannot ignore.

Only 2 to 3 seconds later we see on that Cianca photo and in the NIST video, that the eastern penthouse roof line starts to sag down, which was the first irrefutable evidence that something had occurred in that building.
I hope you understand by now that that not linked to or source-named piece of info you posted ( but I know his name, Bartlett or something like that) logically must give a bended explanation of the real events, as can be seen in my irrefutable WTC 7 seismogram, which is basically a HUGE bunch of irrefutable facts you can not dance around enough to let it disappear.
My evidence outshouts yours.

Excuse me, where was that massive blast before the Penthouse started to collapse? Anyone on the ground mention it? Nope. Anyone picked it up on video? Nope. Does any firefighter mention hearing a massive blast prior to any movements of WTC7? No. Only you. Craig Bartmer, NYPD, stood right next to it, and only noticed something was wrong when the radio exploded with warnings. Where was the blast that should have gotten his attention first? Remember, when things go kaboom, they make a noise. My evidence requires common sense. You should try it sometime.

So lets keep it to a somewhat memory-misinterpreting officer of the law (not unusual in the USA and elsewhere) who can not do anything else than admitting that he mixed up his memory a tad bit, the moment he will be confronted with my irrefutable evidence in the form of a LDEO certified seismogram, accepted by the whole global community of seismologists as a fact.

Ah yes,
when one states something that is in line with the conspiracy, he is mistaken, memory-misinterpretation, etc. When one person states that he heard a radio countdown, then he is 100% correct. The ol double standard.

A last word on the matter. We may assume that the planners intended to let that building come to rest in such a neat constellation, and thus planted many explosive charges (be it HE or TB or both) which explain the row of booms this officer heard while fleeing.
This also indicates that it must have been bankers or such who had the reigns in hand, and not the military part of the conspiracy, since in that case they would have gone on with their business in a much rougher manner than we now have seen.

Ok and this last bit just made me really laugh. And can I ask you, how were they suppose to blow up WTC7, willy-nilly if it hadnt been hit by the debris of the WTCs? Youd think someone would notice a fine building just blowing up without warning, after nothing happened to it? Give me a break. So, how were they going to explain this away?

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:59 PM
LaBTop, I think it is important for this 9/11 truth to come out. In fact if this were to be proven and by some miracle would get media attention or otherwise be distributed to the common man, unwarranted wars and much other corruption would naturally come to surface and the rude awakening that is necessary for the whole world would gradually happen..

I had given up on the subject long ago since I thought it was impossible to get conclusive evidence, but it seems to me that your research might be the smoking gun, which I believe to be the sole reason you, and research like yours have been given the silent treatment.

This is why it is my belief that the ones responsible for the 9/11 attack, whoever they actually are, are also behind (or atleast affiliated to) the ones actively doing the cover up. The government is clearly involved, at the very least they used the situation to invade Iraq. Some have even been killed because of the cover up right after 9/11.

I do not wish to spook you, but it is better to be safe than sorry right? They do not want the information to come out and based on the information you provided you may even be in danger, but then again I do think there are too many truthers at this point for them to control. At least to me, hacking your computer to destroy your research seems more likely the work of a government agency than some lone mad hacker.

Data recovery is possible so long as the data has not been overwritten, even after deletion. If they were sloppy they did not do this. It is extemely important to use the medium you saved it on as little as possible until you try and recover the files. Just use the Recovery guide here:

It might be a good idea to use another computer for your research or do a reinstall of your current computer after backing your files up. This is because your computer might be compromized. At he very least do some virus and malware scans but there are no guarantees they will find the possible "trojan horse".

Everyone using Windows should at least use a Firewall, antivirus, antimalware, have different strong passwords for different sites and back up their files. Here are some excellent free programs and guides that might help you beef up your cyber security,:

Password policy




Anonymous on the net

For other pointers on cybersecurity, this thread has good info:

Also, when not backing up store backup in a secure location, and not connected to computer. Good luck.
edit on 28-2-2012 by anno141 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:02 PM
Gen, I successfully managed to effortlessly ignore your last two pages of meaningless drivel, and it took mere seconds. You're wasting your time. Your agenda is obvious to the most casual observer.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by signalfire

Notice anything numb nutz.....?

This building is Verizon Telephone at 140 West Street - right across narrow alley (Washington Street) from

Why are most of the windows still intact...?

So if explosions powerful enough to take down WTC 7 went off right next to Verizon why are windows still

Why was there no "collateral damage" to Verizon building - only damage suffered was debris from collapse of
WTC 1 and later debris from collapse of WTC 7 striking it.....

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by dillweed
Gen, I successfully managed to effortlessly ignore your last two pages of meaningless drivel, and it took mere seconds. You're wasting your time. Your agenda is obvious to the most casual observer.

Thats fine by me, I hope that sand pouring into your ears is mighty comforting. I hope the blood isnt rushing to your head too much.

Embracing ignorance, well done dill

edit on 2/28/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

This post in page 14 by "magicrat", in the "PBS broadcast etc" thread, is one of the best counterarguments regarding the WTC 7 collapse, I've seen lately, against the relentless personal and non-factual attacks by JREFers :


GenRadek, as usual it's an opponent who offers the best ammunition to shoot down his own arguments. You offered this link in the same "PBS broadcast etc" thread : The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid.

I'm impressed by your lack of insight regarding the total inconsistency between the collapse effects of the Windsor Tower, which was engulfed in flames during the whole night and next morning, and the three WTC Towers collapses.

The steel and partially concrete Windsor Tower developed as a chaotic fire.
Just as the steel and extremely partially concrete WTC Towers at first.

However, the WTC Towers collapsed suddenly, over a few seconds, while the Windsor Tower showed us how a natural fire developed, and how its partial collapse developed over many hours, instead of a few seconds. As a true chaotic event would develop, when left untouched.

Table 2 summarizes the estimated time frame for the structural collapses of the Windsor Tower. I have added the text part of Table 1 (Fire Development) in italics to show the whole time-frame as depicted in both tables :

Table 2 Estimated time frame of collapses (NILIM 2005)
Time Collapse Situation / Fire Development
23:00 Fire started at the 21st Floor
23:05 ~ 23:20
After receiving a fire signal, the security guards went to the 21st floor and attempting to fight the fire before giving up
23:21 Fire brigade was called
23:25 Fire brigade arrived
23:30 Fire brigade started to fight the fire (news report)
00:00 All floors above the 21st floor were in fire (news report)
00:30 Fire brigade retreated and adopted a defensive position, preventing fire spread to adjacent buildings
02:00 Fire spread below the 17th floor
02:15 Chunks of facade started falling off (news report)
03:30 Fire spread below 16th floor, crossing over the upper technical floor
04:00 Floors at upper level collapsed (news report)
05:30 Fire spread below the 12th floor (news report)
08:30 Fire spread below the 4th floor
13:30 Fire was under controlled
17:00 Fire brigade declared the put out of the fire (news report)

1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

The publisher, the University of Manchester's structural fire engineering dept also came out with this report :
World Trade Center Towers Collapse, New York (11 Sep 2001).
It however only discusses the WTC 1 and 2 fires, the WTC 7 fire is not added.


To all those stubborn JREFers above :

I have given you all the necessary means to find all the answers you so "friendly" ask for.
Normally one gives his "References" at the end of each research paper, and my references can be easily found through the ATS Search function I advised you at the first page already, to use, with the search terms I also gave.

It's about two month of reading, when you have nothing else at hand.
I am certainly not getting tricked again, me doing the repeated digging for you.
That's your main goal, to get us so busy with being your slave-worker, that we can't do any more new groundbreaking research.

I see all of you just typing quick 1 minute posts, then lean back to wait and see if I am so stupid to get trapped in that old trick, digging up those old threads and posts which normally cost me hours of precious time.
And repost them with some additions for new viewpoints or discoveries.

No, I am waiting to get access again to my stored drawings and photos here, and then I will open up a new thread with all the old wisdom posted in it again, for later reference.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by thedman

Did you even look at the image you posted? Most of the windows in that building are boarded up, and gone. You can't say that there is no damage to the windows, and show a picture of all boarded up windows?

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:26 PM
By the way, I am quite flabbergasted that also the ones who have given me their unconditionally support, seemingly did not take the time to follow my advice to use "SEARCH" here in ATS with these words :

To counter all : LaBTop seismic

To counter -PLB- : LaBTop thermobaric

To counter thedman : LaBTop PROTEC
(that was a decisive exchange, never heard of that PROTEC director posting here anymore, nor on the Internet)

You can have a field day with the annoying JREFers, by reading all my years-old rebuttals of the same JREFers for the same arguments they try to come up with again. And repost them.
That gives me valuable time to work on my research, instead of wasting my precious time again on them.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Wow, talk about going OT.

I was talking about how nobody at the base, even standing next to WTC& heard anything was amiss, until the building started coming down. You purposely tiptoe around this FACT and try to tap dance away and come up with some other BS to cover up this very large hole in your theory. And sorry, magicrat's response, well, comes up short, just like yours, and has no bearing on what I said about the lack of a loud detonation being heard at the base of WTC7 PRIOR to collapse. None.

But I find it funny how you bring up Windsor, and your lack of reading comprehension (which I find stunningly 99% of Truthers lack) , makes for a most enjoyable debunking of your lame attempt to debunk a fact.

Windsor Tower:
1. ) Fire started @ 23:00 (which is 11:00PM)
2. ) Fire spreads to all floors above 12th floor by 00:00 (12:00AM) 1 Hour from ignition without airplanes crashing or jet fuel, or anything flammable being added
3. ) First collapses start at the 21st floor. 01:29. Time from fire ignition: 2 hours 29 minutes
4. ) Collapses continue through 03:35

So, collapses of the building began two hours after ignition. Steel only structure collapsed within 2 1/2 hours. Now what was different? Gee, that giant concrete core and the large concrete technical floor. That is all that saved the building from total collapse. WTC7 did not have a core like this. WTC1 and 2 did not have a core like Windsor's either.

Sorry LaBTop, but for all your huffing and puffing, you barely managed to make a leaf rustle. And you have shown conclusively that a steel only stucture can fail from fire alone within 2 1/2 hours of fire ignition. No planes inside, no impact damage. Just a regular office fire.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in