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.

 

My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

edit on 5/8/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: decorum




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
I don't give a rat's ass what your point was dude. The random poster in that thread completely speculated that the hijackers might have not known it was a suicide mission. He didn't offer any evidence to back it up and you immediately agreed with him. I offer complete speculation, which I provided evidence for and you completely shot it down at the first sight of it. You battled me and eventually questionined how I knew that the military can track planes without a transponder on. [I'm guessing the military can only track aircrafts that make contact with them. If Russia ever decided to bomb us, I hope they contact the military first and let them know] Bias much?


Oh, I get it now. You LOST that debate and you're still seething about it so you're here to instigate round 2. Sorry, but I'm not going to play your silly games that only serve to bolster your ego at the expense of mine. The moderators can only tolerate so much deviation from the topic before they start yanking posts, particularly when you're admitting you don't care about the topic of this thread. What the heck do Russian bombers have anything to do with the OP's reasons for thinking WTC7 was a controlled demolition?


I'm not supporting his theory, I'm just totally sick of how you treat truthers vs. those on your side. You come off as the most pompous a-hole on planet Earth and it really does get annoying. I can't say you don't have any valid points, because you do. You've opened my eyes to things I never thought about. But the way you express yourself and your feelings about people in search of the truth, well it's just hostile and rude


...which leads me to asking my OTHER question- if you truthers can't get your beloved conspiracy stories past a nobody like me then how do you expect to fare during any future investigations in the 9/11 attack that might be convened? Here, it's just me and and a few other people who have too much time on their hands. There, you'll face the scrutiny of all of scientific and technical experts throughout the country, and plus,you'll almost certainly be portrayed as a bunch of crackpots by the mainstream media. Heck, I don't even do that.

If I give the impression that I'm a pompous a-hole then that's my own human failing, but how many times does it have to be shown that the truthers really have no idea what they're talking about before it dawns on them that they really don't have no idea what they're talking about? Not a few posts before yours, there's a guy attempting to drop innuendo in his signature that alleges Bush might have issued a shoot down order...despite the fact the 9/11 commission report specifically documents that Bush issued a shoot down order. Please, explain that to me.
edit on 9-5-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Cognitive Dissonance- Create a false reality (support lies/half truths) due to fear of facing facts that alter your perception of reality. Also known as Orwell's DoubleThink.

Fires could NOT have brought down WTC7 in a symmetrical near free fall collapse, there are control demolition experts that have concluded WTC7 was brought down by planted explosives. I have a feeling more experts would speak out however with the example made of Danny Jowenko i dont really blame them.



The guy in the video is Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolitions expert with world recognition. He was found dead last year as a result of a single sided car accident. Coincidence ala Barry Jennings or foul play?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 


Are you aware that Danny Jowenko is emphatic that WTC 1 and 2 were not CDs? If so, how do you feel about that? Are you going to reject his opinion about that but endorse what he says about this?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 


Are you aware that Danny Jowenko is emphatic that WTC 1 and 2 were not CDs? If so, how do you feel about that? Are you going to reject his opinion about that but endorse what he says about this?


Yes I am aware of this, however referring to WTC1 & WTC2 is going to do nothing but derail the thread... I simply posted this because of his conclusion that WTC7 WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 


Are you aware that Danny Jowenko is emphatic that WTC 1 and 2 were not CDs? If so, how do you feel about that? Are you going to reject his opinion about that but endorse what he says about this?


Yes I am aware of this, however referring to WTC1 & WTC2 is going to do nothing but derail the thread... I simply posted this because of his conclusion that WTC7 WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.


Sorry, but it's not derailing the thread. You are introducing this man purely because you ascribe some authority to him. I'm not asking you to discuss WTC1 and 2, I'm asking you to think about whether you actually do consider him an authority.

Because if you do then you will have to concede that the same rules apply in any discussion of the other towers - you will have to uncritically accept his word because of the special insight you ascribe to him.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 


Are you aware that Danny Jowenko is emphatic that WTC 1 and 2 were not CDs? If so, how do you feel about that? Are you going to reject his opinion about that but endorse what he says about this?


Yes I am aware of this, however referring to WTC1 & WTC2 is going to do nothing but derail the thread... I simply posted this because of his conclusion that WTC7 WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.


Sorry, but it's not derailing the thread. You are introducing this man purely because you ascribe some authority to him. I'm not asking you to discuss WTC1 and 2, I'm asking you to think about whether you actually do consider him an authority.

Because if you do then you will have to concede that the same rules apply in any discussion of the other towers - you will have to uncritically accept his word because of the special insight you ascribe to him.


It IS derailing- we are not discussing WTC1 and WTC2 we can leave that for another thread. I believe the title of this thread is "My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!"

As for ascribing authority to Jawenko I am not, I posted the video just to show that there ARE professionals in the field of controlled demolition that agree with a controlled demolition theory.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
It IS derailing- we are not discussing WTC1 and WTC2 we can leave that for another thread. I believe the title of this thread is "My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!"


No, actually, it's misdirection. There's a glaringly obvious hole in what you're attempting to claim so you attempt to pull a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" so you won't have to admit you're wrong. That stunt didn't work on Dorothy and it certainly isn't going to work on us.

BUT...if you insist painting yourself into a corner with this bit, fine. What you've essentially said without meaning to say it is that WTC 7 was the ONLY building that was secretly demolished controlled demolitions on 9/11. Silverstein specifically said it was "pulled" because there was already so much loss of life, and if your position is correct that WTC 7 was the ONLY building that was secretly demolished by controlled demolitions it means there was a legitimate safety reason for doing so and it probably saved many people's lives.

So where's the "sinister secret conspiracy" here?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
It IS derailing- we are not discussing WTC1 and WTC2 we can leave that for another thread. I believe the title of this thread is "My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!"


No, actually, it's misdirection. There's a glaringly obvious hole in what you're attempting to claim so you attempt to pull a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" so you won't have to admit you're wrong. That stunt didn't work on Dorothy and it certainly isn't going to work on us.

BUT...if you insist painting yourself into a corner with this bit, fine. What you've essentially said without meaning to say it is that WTC 7 was the ONLY building that was secretly demolished controlled demolitions on 9/11. Silverstein specifically said it was "pulled" because there was already so much loss of life, and if your position is correct that WTC 7 was the ONLY building that was secretly demolished by controlled demolitions it means there was a legitimate safety reason for doing so and it probably saved many people's lives.

So where's the "sinister secret conspiracy" here?




Nice try but no. I am trying to maintain this thread on topic, something you and shadows are not understanding. Again the title is WTC7 and probability of controlled demolition.

In regards to "sinister secret conspiracy" if WTC7 was "pulled"/Controlled demolition which you seem to be accepting you do realize that the demolition of this building would have been rigged weeks in advance, It would not have been possible to rig the building while it is consumed by fire as the official report claims.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

edit on 9-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
In regards to "sinister secret conspiracy" if WTC7 was "pulled"/Controlled demolition which you seem to be accepting you do realize that the demolition of this building would have been rigged weeks in advance, It would not have been possible to rig the building while it is consumed by fire as the official report claims.



oh snapppp



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

Nice try but no. I am trying to maintain this thread on topic, something you and shadows are not understanding. Again the title is WTC7 and probability of controlled demolition.


You're stalling, now. Asking whether WTC 7 was the only building rigged by controlled demolitions is still relevent to WTC 7 and the probability of controlled demolition.


In regards to "sinister secret conspiracy" if WTC7 was "pulled"/Controlled demolition which you seem to be accepting you do realize that the demolition of this building would have been rigged weeks in advance, It would not have been possible to rig the building while it is consumed by fire as the official report claims.


Nope, because the fires were burning out of control and they would have consumed any explosives that might have been in the building at that time (when set on fire, C4 will burn rather than explode). The out of control fires and the tremendous loss of life from the (according to your own vsources) legitimate fire induced collapse of the towers was the entire reason WTC 7 was "pulled" after all. Everything is pointing to the fact that Silverstein was a hero by puling WTC 7, and since noone died in WTC 7 it turned out to be the right call.

Why then are you artifically trying to induce all this suspicion and doubt to soil the man's heroism? I'm only going by your own sources that WTC 7 was the only building rigged by demolitions, after all.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
A hero to the US Gov't


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.

The agency's officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things. They have been deeply involved in counter-terrorism efforts in the New York area, working jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies.

The CIA's main New York office was unaffected by the attacks, but agents have been sharing space at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and have borrowed other federal government offices in the city.

The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but it maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where CIA case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States.

The New York station was believed to have been the largest and most important CIA domestic station outside the Washington area.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


LOL!!!


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


LOL!!!

WoW!!!

Try writing a movie script, or (easier) a "spy" novel!!

Wow!

Too hilarious to be believed, in real life..........



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


And this means........... what exactly?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

Nice try but no. I am trying to maintain this thread on topic, something you and shadows are not understanding. Again the title is WTC7 and probability of controlled demolition.


You're stalling, now. Asking whether WTC 7 was the only building rigged by controlled demolitions is still relevent to WTC 7 and the probability of controlled demolition.


In regards to "sinister secret conspiracy" if WTC7 was "pulled"/Controlled demolition which you seem to be accepting you do realize that the demolition of this building would have been rigged weeks in advance, It would not have been possible to rig the building while it is consumed by fire as the official report claims.


Nope, because the fires were burning out of control and they would have consumed any explosives that might have been in the building at that time (when set on fire, C4 will burn rather than explode). The out of control fires and the tremendous loss of life from the (according to your own vsources) legitimate fire induced collapse of the towers was the entire reason WTC 7 was "pulled" after all. Everything is pointing to the fact that Silverstein was a hero by puling WTC 7, and since noone died in WTC 7 it turned out to be the right call.

Why then are you artifically trying to induce all this suspicion and doubt to soil the man's heroism? I'm only going by your own sources that WTC 7 was the only building rigged by demolitions, after all.


Not stalling, you are asking if I believe Jowenko when he says 7 was rigged while 1 & 2 werent. Explain to me the relevance of that question are we discussing my views on what Jowenko says or are we discussing WTC 7 and probability of controlled demolition- which you have stated that you believe and openly supporting Silversteins decision to bring down the tower.

With you admitting to Silverstein demolishing the building please explain this- How and why would WTC7 be rigged for demolition on such a hectic day, with "severe fire and structural damage"? Besides wouldnt it be more economical to let the building burn out and collapse just as WTC1 and WTC2 did?

And for the record the whole "pull it" thing from Larry is ridiculous, people focus on that interview too much, there is more damning evidence of pre-knowledge than some stupid statement made by Silverstein. E.g. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad (ISI chief that wired Atta the money) meeting with Bush Admin. , NORAD stand down orders etc.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Well it was on CBS news. I looked it up, its true. But then again, it had security offices all over the complex so I do not see how any of it means anything.

Here is the link:

CIA Office

news.bbc.co.uk...
edit on 5/9/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Asking whether WTC 7 was the only building rigged by controlled demolitions is still relevent to WTC 7

But he isn't asking 'whether WTC7 was the only building rigged by controlled demolitions', is he? And if WTC7 was not the only building 'rigged' how is that relevant to the issue at hand, i.e. whether WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition? The question of whether WTC1 and 2 were destroyed by demolition is surely irrelevant to WTC7, is it not? Pancake merely posted a video of Danny Jowenko giving his opinion on WTC7's collapse and someone pointed out that Danny didn't think WTC1 or 2 were demolitions, which is irrelevant when it comes to WTC7. It is a digressive non-issue. I don't think anyone should believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition just because Danny says-so though. Knowledge of the truth is not acquired by taking other people's words for the truth of things. It is acquired by examining things for oneself and making the mental effort required to understand them.
edit on 9-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
So let me get this straight.

The CIA didn't know their own building was be rigged for CD. Therefore they had to look throught the rubble for secret documents.

If the CIA was that inept how could any group of people pull off 911 in secret?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


It wasn't "their" building:


The CIA didn't know their own building was be rigged for CD.


And, as has been clearly demonstrated, WTC 7 was NOT "rigged for CD".....

Clear?

eta...oops.....well.....on same page, we are......(even if others are not)... hope this helps (??)
edit on Wed 9 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join