Recent Implosion of the Amway Center Raises Further Doubts

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


No, you have to explain how a 47 story building could fall mostly into its own footprint, as evidenced by post collapse pics. Pics prove the collapse was vertical, and landed mostly in its own footprint. That is what matters.



That's all you got?


You continue to perseverate over the "mostly in it's own footprint". What about WTC 1 & 2? I believe the number outside the footprint was around 86%? So, am I to believe that these three buildings were prepared for demolition, covertly, so that the twin towers would implode outside their footprints in order to hit WTC-7 to start fires that would be used as an excuse to explain it destruction INSIDE it's own footprint?









posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Who collected the samples from you're so called proven theory?? It's pretty obvious to anyone with a semblance of intelligence that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition!! The 2nd largest CIA office east of Langley was in that building, FBI offices were in that building, command and control of NYC were in that building and you want us to believe it caught on fire and fell in it's own footprint!! How about the interview with Eric Mancow Mueller with Rumsfield who when asked about building 7 just said he didn't know anything about it! You'd think they'd get their story straight so he could've just said yes, came down from fire naturally, we had our people evacuated! Second largest CIA office east of Langley and he doesn't know about it! Connect the dots and you get what most of us know! Controlled demolition! Thermite?? Who knows?? Advanced technology is pretty obvious! Keep telling the dunce's of the world it was natural and nothing happened and a high percentage will likely believe the scumbag official story at some point of the brainwash, and enjoy carrying evil's banner of deceipt!!! The good people will pray for your lack of reasoning and integrity.

Extra flames cause the fire must have gotten so hot to collapse that building so fast. lolololololololololololololol! We need a puke button!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 

I'll start with your last point as that is quite telling and you raised it not me.

A paid poster.
Why else would you waste so much time repeatedly posting on a single subject?
Whether you really are a government shill getting paid for this couldn't interest me one iota but I think your posting history is at least quite questionable, along with others here.

As for Jones, I never mentioned him either. Sidestepping?

As for shelf life, that has nothing to do with the samples being taken after 1 month. I was thinking more contamination or rather dilution with other materials.
Plenty of other dust in a city can accumulate in a month.

As for debunking the report, why would I believe it? Well duh...because credible arguments were raised to the contrary and more credible than your thread with its repeated thrashing of the same old same old.

"You could make more money as a butcher, so don't you waste your time on me."
Frank Zappa, Cosmik Debris.

I won't even tell you what I think as I don't like wasting time, yours or mine. I just felt compelled to reply to the BS you are posting. You are not alone though, there are plenty of government believing people on this site who only partake in 9/11 OS threads. Hope you have fun believing what you want to though and I also hope you are right too. The evidence to the contrary raises many many doubts and where there's smoke, there's (non-building inducing collapsing) fire. Like I said, I really do hope you are right, but what if you aren't? And how do you know? I mean really really know? I can answer that one for you. You don't. It's an opinion, just like mine only I think my opinion in this case is more realistic than yours.

Governments are liars, get over it.

A good day to you Sir.
edit on 28/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Just a thought but If it was a controlled demolition then maybe the towers where ment to fall as the planes hit but something went wrong? If building 7 had fallen at the same time as the second tower people maybe wouldn't have thought it to be as suspect?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Its like saying there is no traffic in New York, because in an interview on a NY street with traffic in the background you do not hear it.

What I said before it all depends on how your equipment is set up. In this video you hear the explosions more clearly, you know what else you hear more clearly? The noise of the building collapsing.

We all agree that WTC 7 did collapse. I think we can all agree that a building collapsing makes some noise, not like explosions, but its noisy, well on the WTC 7 video you do not hear the building collapsing either, so the faintness of the noise must be due to the way the equipment was set up. You still can hear both in the WTC 7 videos, the explosions before the collapse, and the noise of the building coming down, albeight very faint.

EDIT: Well actually like in the second video, now imagine the equipment set up to record the audience in the vicinity, the building not being windowless and gutted and more objects in the way and you are there.


Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Six Sigma
All three clearly have very loud explosions followed by the collapse.


And as mentioned many times (but ignored by conspiracy theorists) in a controlled demolition there is an order to the explosions as well.
The building is not brought down in one big bang, but as heard very well in the videos here, the internal structure is taken out first by earlier explosions in a predefined order, before the building is finally taken down by the final explosions.



Indeed



Also its curious that the office of Crisis Management was evacuated shortly after a plane struck a building in your city, but I am just going to assume that the order was given to evacuate all of the WTC complex shortly after the first strike, unless somebody can show me it was otherwise.
edit on 28-3-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by swishrules
Who collected the samples from you're so called proven theory?? It's pretty obvious to anyone with a semblance of intelligence that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition!! The 2nd largest CIA office east of Langley was in that building, FBI offices were in that building, command and control of NYC were in that building and you want us to believe it caught on fire and fell in it's own footprint!! How about the interview with Eric Mancow Mueller with Rumsfield who when asked about building 7 just said he didn't know anything about it! You'd think they'd get their story straight so he could've just said yes, came down from fire naturally, we had our people evacuated! Second largest CIA office east of Langley and he doesn't know about it! Connect the dots and you get what most of us know!


WTC 7 was a pretty shady building





Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC

A secret office operated by the CIA was destroyed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting intelligence operations. The undercover station was in 7 World Trade Center, a smaller office tower that fell several hours after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, a U.S. government official said. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that immediately after the attack, a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers. It was not known whether the efforts were successful. A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the existence of the office, which was first reported in Sunday's editions of The New York Times. The New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which the Times did not identify. The station was a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the CIA after returning from overseas.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by swishrules
Who collected the samples from you're so called proven theory??


It's not mine and it isn't a "theory" it was proven as scientific fact. You have the link to the article on page 1 of this thread. I suggest you read it.



It's pretty obvious to anyone with a semblance of intelligence that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition!!


Proof?

Didn't think so.



Advanced technology is pretty obvious!


What kind of technology? Care to share with us your ideas, or is it a super duper gubbamint secret?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Why is a CIA office in WTC 7 a reason for it's destruction ? Wouldn't you naturally suppose the opposite ?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver

I'll start with your last point as that is quite telling and you raised it not me.

A paid poster.


You caught me! I post more on Sunday's ... NWO pay's time and a 1/2.


As for Jones, I never mentioned him either. Sidestepping?


Not directly you didn't. But you are the one that claimed to believe that the latest testing was debunked. I was simply giving you information that you may or may not have appreciated. Apparently, you are not interested in it.



As for shelf life, that has nothing to do with the samples being taken after 1 month. I was thinking more contamination or rather dilution with other materials.
Plenty of other dust in a city can accumulate in a month
.

I believe that the paper answers your concerns.


As for debunking the report, why would I believe it? Well duh...because credible arguments were raised to the contrary


Credible arguments? You said you believed it was debunked. I have heard no such thing. As a matter of fact, it is getting published in a properly peer reviewed paper and has already been presented at a conference.


and more credible than your thread with its repeated thrashing of the same old same old.


Same old same old what? FACTS? Sorry they upset you.




I won't even tell you what I think as I don't like wasting time, yours or mine. I just felt compelled to reply to the BS you are posting.


Care to point out where what I have posted is BS?



You are not alone though, there are plenty of government believing people on this site who only partake in 9/11 OS threads. Hope you have fun believing what you want to though and I also hope you are right too. The evidence to the contrary raises many many doubts and where there's smoke, there's (non-building inducing collapsing) fire. Like I said, I really do hope you are right, but what if you aren't? And how do you know? I mean really really know? I can answer that one for you. You don't. It's an opinion, just like mine only I think my opinion in this case is more realistic than yours.


The true evidence does not raise many doubts. It actually proves what happened on 9/11. Cherry picked evidence is what leads you to a government conspiracy. It's an opinion based on facts. Yours is based on 1/2 truths and speculations.


Governments are liars, get over it.


I agree... but I wont get over it.


A good day to you Sir.


And the same to you kind fella!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Do you not realise it is not what the collapse looks, or sounds like, but the final result?

Nope. Sorry. You're way off base there. Similar results may have many causes. And similar causes may have different results. You're mistaking reading tea leaves with science and logic.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Sorry but nothing you say trumps physical evidence.

Post collapse pics are evidence of implosion demolition, unless you can explain using physics how all four walls can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building?

Why didn't the walls fall outwards, as the rubble pushed against them, especially if it fell to the west as you all claim?

There is only one way for the outer walls to be on top of the rest of the collapsed building. It IS the definition of in its own footprint.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
That's all you got?


That is all that is needed, unless you can explain how all four walls can be on top of the rest of the collapsed building from a natural collapse.


You continue to perseverate over the "mostly in it's own footprint". What about WTC 1 & 2? I believe the number outside the footprint was around 86%? So, am I to believe that these three buildings were prepared for demolition, covertly, so that the twin towers would implode outside their footprints in order to hit WTC-7 to start fires that would be used as an excuse to explain it destruction INSIDE it's own footprint?


There is not evidence that the fire in WTC 7 was started by debris from the towers. If that had not happened they would have found another excuse to confuse you. Think about it, what debris would have still stayed on fore while being hurled into another building? Where is the evidence of these pieces of flaming debris?

But regardless WTC7 fires were not hot enough to cause steel to suddenly fail. Steel does not act like that in fire, it sags, it bends, it does not suddenly break.

The tallest building to ever be imploded was only 23 stories, because tall building are extremely difficult to implode. WTC 7, 47 stories tall, landed mostly in its own footprint, it could not have happened from fire.

LOL all you want, you are just showing your ignorance. I don't care about all your disbelief, the physical evidence points in only one direction, regardless of anything else. So how about actually addressing those physics problems, instead of ignoring and hand waving it away. None of your points does anything to clear up the physics problems.

When are you going to explain how the outer walls can fold in on top of the rest of the collapsed building from a fire induced collapse that leaned in one direction as it fell? Show me the evidence that points to that. (and not the video of the 'lean', because it only shows one wall which doesn't prove the whole building was leaning, only that the one wall was folding inwards, as evidenced by post collapse pics).

edit on 3/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



Do you not realise it is not what the collapse looks, or sounds like, but the final result?

Nope. Sorry. You're way off base there. Similar results may have many causes. And similar causes may have different results. You're mistaking reading tea leaves with science and logic.


Of course it is.

If the post collapse pics show the building is mostly in its own footprint, then unless you can prove that can happen from a fire induced collapse, it is proof of implosion demolition. Because the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building is the point of implosion demolition. That is how they put it mostly in its own footprint.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

That is all that is needed, unless you can explain how all four walls can be on top of the rest of the collapsed building from a natural collapse.


No, Mate, what is needed is for you to provide evidence that something other than massive fires caused the collapse.




There is not evidence that the fire in WTC 7 was started by debris from the towers. If that had not happened they would have found another excuse to confuse you. Think about it, what debris would have still stayed on fore while being hurled into another building? Where is the evidence of these pieces of flaming debris?


Are you kidding me? So, in addition to secret bombs being placed around the World Trade Center -7, there was someone running around setting fires??

WOW.... just WOW.


The tallest building to ever be imploded was only 23 stories, because tall building are extremely difficult to implode. WTC 7, 47 stories tall, landed mostly in its own footprint, it could not have happened from fire.


You are wrong. The Landmark Building was imploded in 2006 and that was 30 stories high. Also the JL Hudson Building was 25 stories high ( i believe) And yes, they take a lot of work. Yet you think this can be done secretly.

Have you ever been to NYC? Have you ever lived there? I used to work there assisting with building management and construction. I was actually overseeing the final stages of on of the tallest buildings around ground zero. I know how the NYC Unions work. You, do not. There are a tough bunch out there. I can assure you of that. What's the point you may ask. Have you ever tried to gain access to a hoistway in New York City? Do yourself a favor, write to Fred McCourt over at Local One. fmccourt@localoneiuec.com I believe he is the Business agent for that area of Manhattan. Ask him the possibility of someone wiring elevator shafts covertly for demolition in not one but three massive skyscrapers.

Then after you get laughed at from him, contact Jim Halpin over at WTC-7. I believe he is still the building manager there. Here is his number: 212-868-0007. Now, don't go and scare him away and ask him about demolitions. Ask him quite simply if he could be unaware of any type of construction going on in his building. I can tell you what his answer will be: NO- F-IN WAY. You see I have been doing this work for almost 20 years. The tallest building I was managing was a stone throws away from WTC-7. (about 54 stories) I can tell you, with 100% certainty that neither me or my staff or security staff would overlook a team of secret contractors installing bomb and detonators.





edit on 28-3-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-3-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Of course it is.

So if I see someone laying face down on the ground there can only be one reason for that condition and/or position?????

If the post collapse pics show the building is mostly in its own footprint, then unless you can prove that can happen from a fire induced collapse, it is proof of implosion demolition.

Huh? Really, do you actually read what you write? Mostly? What if is almost, but not mostly? Or just kind of? Or close to, but no cigar? Which one of those qualifiers disqualifies your disquieting logic?

Because the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building is the point of implosion demolition. That is how they put it mostly in its own footprint.

Ah, there's that "mostly" again! The "implosion" removes inner supports with the use of explosives. But for some reason you don't think anything else can cause those supports to fail. Mostly.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Its like saying there is no traffic in New York, because in an interview on a NY street with traffic in the background you do not hear it.

What I said before it all depends on how your equipment is set up. In this video you hear the explosions more clearly, you know what else you hear more clearly? The noise of the building collapsing.

We all agree that WTC 7 did collapse. I think we can all agree that a building collapsing makes some noise, not like explosions, but its noisy, well on the WTC 7 video you do not hear the building collapsing either, so the faintness of the noise must be due to the way the equipment was set up. You still can hear both in the WTC 7 videos, the explosions before the collapse, and the noise of the building coming down, albeight very faint.

EDIT: Well actually like in the second video, now imagine the equipment set up to record the audience in the vicinity, the building not being windowless and gutted and more objects in the way and you are there.


Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Six Sigma
All three clearly have very loud explosions followed by the collapse.


And as mentioned many times (but ignored by conspiracy theorists) in a controlled demolition there is an order to the explosions as well.
The building is not brought down in one big bang, but as heard very well in the videos here, the internal structure is taken out first by earlier explosions in a predefined order, before the building is finally taken down by the final explosions.



Indeed



Also its curious that the office of Crisis Management was evacuated shortly after a plane struck a building in your city, but I am just going to assume that the order was given to evacuate all of the WTC complex shortly after the first strike, unless somebody can show me it was otherwise.
edit on 28-3-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
So truthers who believe in CD have no evidence whatsoever, and their argument goes like this: "I don't understand how building 7 could collapse like the OS says it did. If you don't prove it is possible, it was CD".

Three fallacies in one. Argument from ignorance, reversing the burden of proof and a false dichotomy.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


No, No. Towers 1 and 2 were legit collapses. Coincidentally WTC7 had been wired to blow for years, and they figured "might as well pull it"



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



But regardless WTC7 fires were not hot enough to cause steel to suddenly fail. Steel does not act like that in fire, it sags, it bends, it does not suddenly break.

The tallest building to ever be imploded was only 23 stories, because tall building are extremely difficult to implode. WTC 7, 47 stories tall, landed mostly in its own footprint, it could not have happened from fire.

.


Here are pictures of WTC 7 on fire

Notice tremendous amount of smoke pouring out from fires on multiple floors

www.911myths.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Yes because everyone is on guard now, AFTER The attacks! I mean really, your argument there really doesn't mean a whole lot because we're in the post 9/11 world now. Could have been much different pre-9/11. Lot's of things were...like being able to hijack a plane with box cutters (if you still subscribe to the official story).

Just my .02 cents.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join