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.

 

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

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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)

Conclusion...

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
contrary

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 ?


Alfie1, I have corrected Prof Jones WTC 7 photo he had added to his first online paper in 2005 or 6, he was shortly active here at ATS. He called it an afternoon photo, but I told him it was in fact a photo taken in the late morning, since you could see a sharp shadow in that photo, and as you could know, I was the first one to introduce "sun-shadow clocking" at the 9/11 discussion forums, years ago already.
It was a photo from about 11:00 a.m.
In that photo stood a sunlit WTC 7 its east facade and SOUTH facade, and there was no smoke of any importance to be seen on that SOUTH facade. Thus, no excessive burning at that time.
They needed about an hour to come up with a new reason why WTC 7 would eventually collapse.

Now take Flight 93, meant to fly into WTC 7 so it seems, after WTC 1 and 2 were effectively taken down.
Look up the exact times the South and the North Towers were collapsed, and compare that to the time-stamped flight path of Flight 93, easily to be found online. Notice the time of the sharp turn northeast wards just a few minutes before the plane started its strange flight behavior, ending in an impact with the ground. That last straight piece of flight path aims exactly to New York, and not anymore to Reagan Airport Washington.
It interacts with the second tower collapse.

Some have contemplated that the hijackers were in contact with a ground based associate, who told them that the last of the 2 WTC Towers was at last downed at 10:28:31 a.m., and the Pentagon was already hit at 09:38 a.m., so the plane could at last switch to manual flight again, and steer towards New York, on its way to WTC 7, one of the two ultimate goals.
Together with the accounting offices and the ONI offices (Naval Intelligence) in the west wing of the Pentagon, these two were the end game objects to be obliterated at all costs, so it seems.
That associate was not a real friend of them, of course. They only thought so. He knew better.

Then the passengers revolted, ending in a change of plans, since Flight 93 was now lost.
And look it up, that was about the time that the heavy south facade burning in WTC 7 started : the new plan in effect.

I still think that these planes were all rigged with simple remotely controlled mechanical means and could be overtaken in the last crucial seconds. Also convenient to falsify just their last seconds in the FDR's ......
At the click of a remotely controlled switch, the rudder, flaps, ailerons etc were locked on the intended target and a pilot lost steering control in the last crucial seconds only.

Those pilot-patsies never intended to hit those targets, they were told to fly just past/over them to send a signal to the US that landmarks could be taken out at will. Then land and start the well known up to then, standard negotiation process.
The look on those faces in their last seconds?

Will this keep you busy posting for some time, my dear friends at JREF?
Then you can fill up this thread again with useless drivel, as intended by the guys behind all your patriotic drumming. Who regulate your social networking.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by signalfire
 


Notice anything numb nutz.....?

newscenter.verizon.com...

This building is Verizon Telephone at 140 West Street - right across narrow alley (Washington Street) from
WTC7

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
there?

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.....


So apparently calling people 'numb nutz' on this board is considered respectful?

If someone could let me know how to 'ignore' certain posters on this board permanently, that would be wonderful. There are some impossibly rude people here, and some really good, honest, insightful posters. Unfortunately the AHs outnumber the people interested in real discussion.

But to answer your question, a nuclear device (these are quite small, meant to take out single buildings) can be calibrated to whatever size and energy needed. It would have been a simple matter to put a few in each building in critical spots and take the building down at the speed seen.

There are several clues in the wreakage; the lack of intact anything like office furniture; the spectacular warping of massive steel beams, the fact that many bodies were never found, not even in pieces, the force required to send steel beams out horizontally many hundreds of feet, pieces of bodies found on rooftops many hundreds of feet away, but most of all the heat in the basement; sustained heat for four months so hot steel glowed red and burst into flames when removed from the deep basement. No amount of spent kerosene or 'air pockets' or even thermate accounts for that. Solve that and you've got your answers.

And to another rude commenter up above; I don't have to give you my qualifications, you refuse to believe them when offered, why bother? This forum is like talking to a bunch of rude children yelling 'prove it'! rather than people who want to exchange ideas.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Labtop, I agree that the planes were remote controlled. It is my understanding that all commercial planes are equipped with remote control capabilities (ostensibly in case of pilot illness or catastrophic circumstance); those planes were hijacked alright, but not by a bunch of Saudi nationals. I have my doubts any were even on the planes since the initial flight manifests as published the first day didn't include their names.

In my mind, I've solved the mystery of 'how' pretty well. I leave the matter of 'why' to others. I doubt we will ever know for sure but 'how' sure leads us to more interesting questions.

Another comment to the sociopathic children who are ruining this board and this particular thread with your comments: maybe to some of us, it's just a juicy mystery. It also has massive political, governance, and economic implications. More false flags are coming, it's only a matter of time. After you've lived through a few, you start to get angry, especially when you see a million more people die for no reason after every one.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Making up fantasies about explosives that make no sound and show no visual effect is not "countering". Its called being delusional.

To the complaining truther reading this, have you noticed how LaBTop has not provided any source to support his fantasy claims? Since truthers like to question everything, start questioning why this is the case Oh right, I am cherry picking



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Yes, lets ignore all critical questions and rational requests for evidence, embrace ignorance!

Some posts ago I asked for a source for his assertion that it is well known that explosives create much larger seismologic waves than a collapsing building. (1)No answer. I also asked for a demonstration of those explosives that make (2)no sound, (3)don't show a blast wave, but do result in rumbling, and I asked how those explosives can be used to demolish a building. (4)No answer.

If you think this is cherry picking, then you have issues with reality. Asking for evidence of claims is not cherry picking, it is how reality is discriminated from fantasy. Its also very hypocrite to accuse people of cherry picking and at the same time announce that we should question everything. So "everything" is just the things you are comfortable with to be questioning and all things that endanger your position should be left alone right? "Question everything, except my pet theory as I am always right.". No thanks, I rather question everything, especially far out theories truthers come with.

Honest answers and trutherism do no go well together. Thruthers make up answers that have no basis in reality. Like those explosive with (5)no sound of (6)blast wave taking down a building. Its pure fantasy.



This is another filthy sneaky manner they operate in, changing my words and post them in such a manner as if it were obvious that it were my words. Which they were not.

Moderator appeal by me for this kind of filthy behavior.This is what I hate the most, willfully lying to win the debate, what a sneaky coward.

Hunt his (-PLB-) straight-out sneaky and filthy LIES (search the six ( ) and go look up what I really wrote/answered). This was what I really wrote and answered them :

(1)GO SEARCH ATS: LABTOP SEISMIC.
(2)LOW FREQUENCY SOUND. (5)
(3) DISK SHAPED BLAST FRONT. (6)
(4)GO SEARCH ATS: LABTOP THERMOBARICS.

Note also that they do not address my seismogram, but act as if I did not include the error margin.
You can find it mentioned in there TWO times, left bottom, and in the thin blue line center bottom, Alfie1.

And Alfie1, the sloppy reader you so obvious are, has totally missed the fat black line in my graph, which shows you how NIST was wriggling to avoid to confront me on that Cianca photo.
They added in 2006 an extra 5 seconds to all video and photo material from NIST, but did not realize that that placed the Cianca time stamp even further away from the first huge peaks, about 7 to 8 seconds later ! ! !

You just proved to me you have no clue how to read a simple seismic graph, just as all your "friends".



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
STOP the Personal Sniping and address the TOPIC.


edit on Tue Feb 28 2012 by Jbird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


What you are doing is cherry picking. Who cares about the exact wording. The point is, you claim that explosives exists that do not leave any trace on video or audio record, yet are capable of taking down a building. You completely fail to provide a source to support this claim. You don't even make it even slightly plausible that such explosives exist. Instead you complain about very small details.

The reason you use this tactic is because these explosives you talk about are completely made up. They do not exist in reality so you can not show a demonstration of them in action, nor provide any source that confirms your claims.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Do what I said you to do, don't keep teasing. SEARCH ATS for references. Use "LaBTop thermobarics".
Nice videos, colored drawings, stories, facts, calculations, what more can you ask for?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Maybe we should hunt down all the videos
of 40+ story building collapsing from fire
and then videos of 40+ story buildings being demolished
and compare.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


You again miss the quintessence, general.
Windsor was a chaotic fire with a chaotic hours long partial collapsing of floors and sagging and buckling of columns and beams, that took hours to slowly develop on many floors.

WTC was also a chaotic fire, however with one distinct difference :
That sudden total global collapse. Hot mass falling through all the cold mass under it. Not avoiding it, but falling straight through it.

And that's what is unbelievable, but when you introduce any kind of explosives, it suddenly makes sense.

And when you try to secretly demolish a building, your first concern is to keep it secret. To let it look like a normal gravitational collapse. Muffle the initiating sounds and drown them in the noise of hundreds of crazy loud sirens, and hide/camouflage the flashes. After that, all noise will be explained as a normal gravitational collapse.
It's just the first second of cuts, that needs full camouflage attention. After that, yes, then really gravity takes over. But they wanted a neat demo, so they added a lot more charges, to force the buildings as much as possible into their own footprints.

In the case of WTC 7 :
Take away about 14 stories worth of vertical beams with thermobaric cutter charges, which leave only a vague gas trail, which is gone in seconds. There are ThB's, which are placed inside huge boxed-off thick steel columns, and are capable of shattering the steel like crystal.

As can be seen in the Chandler videos, that creates 2.3 seconds time of free-fall of the above structure of the building, through that 14 stories gap you just created inside, out of sight for video and photo cameras.
These columns are deep inside the building, and surrounded by all the still intact and present rooms and dividers. When you also order all rescue personnel away from the building at least an hour before collapse occurs, there's little left anymore to worry about that first cutting charge its low frequency footprint.
Btw, very little light or flash to be seen either.

Later you sprinkle a few stories on the Internet by seemingly honest officials, who say that they were standing beside the same building, and heard nothing while they saw the top of the building coming down on them.
First, how the heck did he manage to still stand there, when EVERYBODY was ordered out long ago already.
Second, how can a building start to come down with no sound at all? Of course there was an immense rumble, in both cases. Either natural collapse, or aided collapse. And you know what?

A thermobaric sounds like a deep rumbling noise.
And leaves no traces of importance.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Or in other words, you have nothing concrete to show for and try send me on a wild goose hunt in order to avoid the confrontation with inconvenient questions. Do you seriously think I am going to waste my time reading through your post history in the hope I find what I asked for? All while you should be able to post what I requested in a matter of seconds, given it actually exists. Which of course it doesn't as it is made up.

The thing that amazes me most is that you must somehow realize it is fantasy. It seems you are consciously choosing a tactic which enables you to avoid answering any question you don't like. Just tell the person to use search and voilà, you got rid of the nasty questions.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


Read the opening post of the thread I already two times referred to in here (PBS Broadcast etc) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and then view the video in it from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
They did exactly that, and you see no difference for the same height of buildings, one known demo, and WTC 7.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Or in other words, you have nothing concrete to show for and try send me on a wild goose hunt in order to avoid the confrontation with inconvenient questions. Do you seriously think I am going to waste my time reading through your post history in the hope I find what I asked for? All while you should be able to post what I requested in a matter of seconds, given it actually exists. Which of course it doesn't as it is made up.

The thing that amazes me most is that you must somehow realize it is fantasy. It seems you are consciously choosing a tactic which enables you to avoid answering any question you don't like. Just tell the person to use search and voilà, you got rid of the nasty questions.


You really make yourself completely ridiculous.
It took me 0.013 second to find all you ask for. Pages and pages of my threads and posts on the subject.

Every serious researcher in all science circles knows one thing :
When you want to expand on the work of others, you need to read their original work and their Reference lists first.
When you have ever done any kind of serious scientific research, that is the first massive task to perform, before you can even start to duplicate and expand on your predecessors hard work first.

Or, in your case, are eager to find evidence to refute the research done by others. You really have to read it first then, if you are so eager to prove me wrong.

It is by now clear to all moderators and administrators of this board, what your objective is at this board.
Keeping me busy. No serious attempt ever by you to come up with your own research.
You have in 6 pages only typed fast text windows, and are trying to force me to spend my valuable research time on your idiotic order, to provide you with my already saved work here, in the form of links on a silver platter.
Which can be found in 0.013 second.

Are you a minor with no life experience at all maybe? Then I understand to not waste valuable time on you anymore.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

Originally posted by -PLB-
It seems you are consciously choosing a tactic which enables you to avoid answering any question you don't like. Just tell the person to use search and voilà, you got rid of the nasty questions.


You really make yourself completely ridiculous.
It took me 0.013 second to find all you ask for. Pages and pages of my threads and posts on the subject.

Then you should have done us the courtesy of linking to this material, like a good OP.


Originally posted by LaBTopEvery serious researcher in all science circles knows one thing :
When you want to expand on the work of others, you need to read their original work and their Reference lists first.
When you have ever done any kind of serious scientific research, that is the first massive task to perform, before you can even start to duplicate and expand on your predecessors hard work first.

Let's be clear. 1. You are not a scientist or researcher you are a message board poster on ATS. 2. Nobody is trying to base their research off of your threads. It's you who's seeking attention and discussion by starting a thread. If you want people to read something post it, quote it, link it, embed it, whatever. It's on you to provide the material.

Originally posted by LaBTopIt is by now clear to all moderators and administrators of this board, what your objective is at this board.
Keeping me busy.

This is an internet message board. If you've got better things to do, quit posting. Then you won't be "kept busy".



Originally posted by LaBTop
You have in 6 pages only typed fast text windows, and are trying to force me to spend my valuable research time on your idiotic order, to provide you with my already saved work here, in the form of links on a silver platter.
Which can be found in 0.013 second.

A good OP would post links to material he wants people to read. If it's so easy to find, and you know where it is, then do us all a favor and link to it so we can read it.

It's one thing to accuse people of hacking your passwords and computer, but to demand that people go look things up that you wrote yourself, because you want them to read them??!! That's over the line.


Originally posted by LaBTopAre you a minor with no life experience at all maybe? Then I understand to not waste valuable time on you anymore.


Like I said, if you don't want to waste your time on an internet message board, you have a funny way of showing it. Quit insulting the posters, and post links or quotes of the material that you want people to read or consider. If that's asking too much then maybe you should go pro like Richard Gage and make a bit of money off your stonewalling and whining.


edit on 2/28/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: grammar



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Sorry LaBTop.
My sarcasm didn't translate,
as I'm with you on this.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by signalfire
 



Labtop, I agree that the planes were remote controlled. It is my understanding that all commercial planes are equipped with remote control capabilities (ostensibly in case of pilot illness or catastrophic circumstance); those planes were hijacked alright, but not by a bunch of Saudi nationals. I have my doubts any were even on the planes since the initial flight manifests as published the first day didn't include their names.


That is news to all airline pilot poster5s , PROUDBIRD & REHEAT, who have commented repeatedly on the
topic

Airliners DO NOT HAVE REMOTE CONTROL CAPABILITY

Making up nonsense to support your fantasies....?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


How much time did it cost you to write that somewhat insulting post?

It took me and everybody else 0.012 and 0.013 seconds to pull up all the reading material this guy is asking for.
I have it open in two windows ( a few more, since I am reading it, nostalgia rules).

I gave all the necessary discussing material in the OP.
Nobody of you OS followers even comes close to seriously addressing that subject's material.

All you only can is bitch-on for 6 pages now (TWO DAYS), spoil a huge amount of our time, while you would have had all your answers and material in 0.013 sec max.

Instead of wasting our time, you could have read by now all my links :
LaBTop seismic : About 305 results (0.13 seconds)
LaBTop thermobaric : About 54 results (0.12 seconds)

Dense is the right description for such behavior.
Since you keep asking me for one link, while I gave you in page 1 already the instructions how to use a search-link to ALL of my links.
You people are not interested in 9/11 research, you want to quarrel and bitch online.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by signalfire
 



Labtop, I agree that the planes were remote controlled. It is my understanding that all commercial planes are equipped with remote control capabilities (ostensibly in case of pilot illness or catastrophic circumstance); those planes were hijacked alright, but not by a bunch of Saudi nationals. I have my doubts any were even on the planes since the initial flight manifests as published the first day didn't include their names.


That is news to all airline pilot poster5s , PROUDBIRD & REHEAT, who have commented repeatedly on the
topic

Airliners DO NOT HAVE REMOTE CONTROL CAPABILITY

Making up nonsense to support your fantasies....?



Fantasy of remote piloting aircraft?

Am I dreaming this?:


In April 2001 the unmanned aircraft Global Hawk flew from Edwards AFB in the US to Australia non-stop and unrefuelled. This is the longest point-to-point flight ever undertaken by an unmanned aircraft, and took 23 hours and 23 minutes


en.wikipedia.org...






new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join