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: 13
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
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..........


You don't seriously think he wrote it, do you?

www.cbsnews.com...

Edit: Nevermind, I see it's already been posted.
edit on 9-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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.


So you admit that he "pulled" it, and you're even calling him a hero. Bravo.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, it takes a minimum of six weeks to wire a building this size for a CD, according to the people who do it for a living. How exactly then, did Larry "pull it" without explosives? Was it like the chanting and ritual at the Walls of Jericho?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
So you admit that he "pulled" it, and you're even calling him a hero. Bravo.


Nope, because a) he didn't "pull" anything, it was the fire department, as his quote specifically said THEY pulled, not him. Silverstein's exact quote has been posted here five gazillion times already so I'm not going to post it all over again, and b) it's already been demonstratably proven the whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit is an internet hoax invented by Alex Jones by deliberately misquoting engineers pulling wreckage down with cables.

I'm not here to explain my position because you already know what my position is. I'm simply listening to you explain YOUR position, and so far, trying to get a straight answer out of you on your position is akin to nailing jam to the wall. Asking whether or not WTC 7 was the only building rigged for demolitions IS relevent to the topic of this thread, whether you want to address it or not.


As has been pointed out repeatedly, it takes a minimum of six weeks to wire a building this size for a CD, according to the people who do it for a living. How exactly then, did Larry "pull it" without explosives? Was it like the chanting and ritual at the Walls of Jericho?


Well then in such cases, we need to go back and review the facts. Since WTC 7 was on fire, and that explosives wouldn't have survived the fires regardless of what supernatural explosive formula the gov't could have concocted, the only two logical answers are that the NYFD either found a way to quickly rig a building with controlled demolitions before they could be destroyed, OR, there really weren't any demolitions regardless of what that guy in the video says. Since firefighters don't even have anything to do with controlled demolitions you'll know which scenario I'm siding with.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
So you admit that he "pulled" it, and you're even calling him a hero. Bravo.


Nope, because a) he didn't "pull" anything, it was the fire department, as his quote specifically said THEY pulled, not him.

So you are admitting Larry told They(FDNY) to pull the building, is that right?

the only two logical answers are that the NYFD either found a way to quickly rig a building with controlled demolitions before they could be destroyed, OR, there really weren't any demolitions regardless of what that guy in the video says. Since firefighters don't even have anything to do with controlled demolitions you'll know which scenario I'm siding with.


Yet here you say that no one pulled/demolished WTC7.

So let me get this straight...you say Larry was a hero for bringing down WTC7 and should be praised, but then you say that you dont think FDNY could possibly have demolished the building because they dont do that kind of stuff.

Split personality much?
edit on 9-5-2012 by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup because: cheetos



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Yeah, I think it's a necessity to spell out your hypotheticals in no uncertain terms e.g. "even if, hypothetically your theory were true then we should expect..."

Otherwise people will think that you've ceded their entire CT every time you point out an inconsistency. Lot's of people read the board who speak english as a second language



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:45 AM
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!"

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.


So you think Jowenko has no authority. Why then are you enlisting him to support your case?

I repeat - I am not asking you to discuss WTC1 or 2. You are accusing me of derailing the thread in order not to have to consider the implications of accepting Jowenko's word.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

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.


Wow. You think it's a non-issue. I think it's quite important. It's also germane to the thread however much Pancake wishes it wasn't - because if you take Jowenko as an authority then you must by necessity take his word on 1 and 2. If you don't then you can't enlist him regarding Seven either. So it's literally relevant to the topic of Seven.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



because if you take Jowenko as an authority then you must by necessity take his word on 1 and 2.

Thanks for your thoughts, TOTS. I agree, and that's obviously a problem, isn't it? But I wouldn't say that 'it's literally relevant to the topic of WTC7'. I can understand as to why Danny didn't think WTC1 or 2 were controlled demolitions because, well, let's face it, they don't look like conventional controlled demolitions whereas WTC7 does. Personally, I would try not to make habit of citing hollow statements from experts like Danny to support my arguments because, for all their experience, it's argument from authority and that's a logical fallacy the last time I checked. Such vacuous sources in fact provide no hard information at all about anything and are not authentic in any meaningful scientific terms. They are merely sources of suggestion, not of known truth. But I do get the feeling this topic is getting side-tracked into inconsequentialities again. I think one of the most important questions that have gone unanswered up until this point is why do NIST's models show some 2/3's of the core-columns still intact during free-fall? That would violate basic physics, I would think.
edit on 10-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
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..........


LMAO ...dude...This is the reason the search for 9/11 truth cannot be debated. Bias bias bias. Oh and I posted the article to put this thread back on track, but then again anything pertaining to the search for truth must be invalid or materialized.

::face palm::



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Nathan-D

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.


Wow. You think it's a non-issue. I think it's quite important. It's also germane to the thread however much Pancake wishes it wasn't - because if you take Jowenko as an authority then you must by necessity take his word on 1 and 2. If you don't then you can't enlist him regarding Seven either. So it's literally relevant to the topic of Seven.


IMO it's not. WTC 1 & 2 were struck by airplanes, WTC 7. was not. We have no idea what kind of damage happened to the inside of WTC 1 & 2. We have speculation, but no solid facts. WTC 7 suffered exterior damage and fires which I feel can easily be factored in unlike airplanes smashing into buildings. (I'd say it's not really an every day factor in the field of engineering/architecture).



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Pancake, I must admit that the three demolitions are all critical to the big picture. If one building was rigged then all three most certainly were, although 1 and 2 would require differently technology simply because of their sheer size and their close proximity to other buildings. If one looks at aerial photos of Ground Zero after the fires were brought under control and the thick smoke was out of the way one can clearly see that the falling debris actually burnt holes into the rooftops of the adjacent low buildings and also the plaza areas. In other words they didn't crush the infrastructures, they seared through them, slicing through steel roof and floor joists instead of caving them in as we would expect from the fall of debris that is normal and not superheated. Look particularly at the well-defined holes in the roofs of the two low buildings just north of the main towers along Vesey Street....

911research.wtc7.net...

Summary: If Jowenko doesn't believe 1 and 2 were CD'd then he must be suffering from mind-paralyzing cognitive dissonance. We have videos of molten metal pouring out of the towers on lower floors nowhere near the fires long before the collapse. That's really all one needs to see.
edit on 10-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: typo

edit on 10-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



because if you take Jowenko as an authority then you must by necessity take his word on 1 and 2.

Thanks for your thoughts, TOTS. I agree, and that's obviously a problem, isn't it? But I wouldn't say that 'it's literally relevant to the topic of WTC7'. I can understand as to why Danny didn't think WTC1 or 2 were controlled demolitions because, well, let's face it, they don't look like conventional controlled demolitions whereas WTC7 does. Personally, I would try not to make habit of citing hollow statements from experts like Danny to support my arguments because, for all their experience, it's argument from authority and that's a logical fallacy the last time I checked. Such vacuous sources in fact provide no hard information at all about anything and are not authentic in any meaningful scientific terms. They are merely sources of suggestion, not of known truth. But I do get the feeling this topic is getting side-tracked into inconsequentialities again. I think one of the most important questions that have gone unanswered up until this point is why do NIST's models show some 2/3's of the core-columns still intact during free-fall? That would violate basic physics, I would think.
edit on 10-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)


That's a fair point. It's not a view I share but it's consistent.

I was merely pointing out that its odd to use the words of an authority with whom you basically don't agree. It's not OT because it's a question about the logic of using that authority for this very topic. Since you don't choose to accept his statement simply because of who he is then this critique is obviously not addressed to you.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Pancake, I must admit that the three demolitions are all critical to the big picture. If one building was rigged then all three most certainly were, although 1 and 2 would require differently technology simply because of their sheer size and their close proximity to other buildings. If one looks at aerial photos of Ground Zero after the fires were brought under control and the thick smoke was out of the way one can clearly see that the falling debris actually burnt holes into the rooftops of the adjacent low buildings and also the plaza areas. In other words they didn't crush the infrastructures, they seared through them, slicing through steel roof and floor joists instead of caving them in as we would expect from the fall of debris that is normal and not superheated. Look particularly at the well-defined holes in the roofs of the two low buildings just north of the main towers along Vesey Street....

911research.wtc7.net...

Summary: If Jowenko doesn't believe 1 and 2 were CD'd then he must be suffering from mind-paralyzing cognitive dissonance. We have videos of molten metal pouring out of the towers on lower floors nowhere near the fires long before the collapse. That's really all one needs to see.
edit on 10-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: typo

edit on 10-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
.

I completely agree there is a lot of evidence to show foul play regarding WTC1 and WTC2 I have yet to make up my mind on that subject.

Nowhere in my comments or in any of the videos I posted does it bring up WTC1 or WTC2... not until OS'ers started bringing up the irrelevant topic, but the posters on this thread that want to argue in favor of the OS LOVE to derail the thread when you have made a point.

People trying to counter my argument believe that if you believe in one statement a person makes then you must believe in ALL of said persons statements, this is the sort of logic that gets people's minds trapped in the figurative "box". Jowenko was a quick reference point as to the belief that WTC7 was controlled demolition which is the topic of discussion per the thread title, unless I have lost all of my reading comprehension



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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!"

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.


So you think Jowenko has no authority. Why then are you enlisting him to support your case?

I repeat - I am not asking you to discuss WTC1 or 2. You are accusing me of derailing the thread in order not to have to consider the implications of accepting Jowenko's word.


What is it with you and looking for Authority?



Jowenko was a demolitions expert NOT an authority figure, and the fact that I support his viewpoint on WTC7 being controlled demolition is a completely independent idea from what he believes on other matters whether it be WTC1/WTC2 or if apples are better than oranges.
edit on 10-5-2012 by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup because: potato



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

What is it with you and looking for Authority?


You understand the meaning of the term as I'm employing it, right? You introduced him as an authority on explosives and demolition.




Jowenko was a demolitions expert


Yes - you consider him an authority on demolitions.

You have introduced him in order to lend weight to your argument because he is, in your opinion, an expert. And yet you don't in fact agree with his expert opinion when expressed elsewhere. I'm just pointing out how illogical that is. And even your fellow inside-jobbers agree with me.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Yet here you say that no one pulled/demolished WTC7.

So let me get this straight...you say Larry was a hero for bringing down WTC7 and should be praised, but then you say that you dont think FDNY could possibly have demolished the building because they dont do that kind of stuff.

Split personality much?


Do I really need to explain your own conspiracy theories to you? This fellow was insisting WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolitions and I'm trying to explore this scenario rationally. It cannot be realistically debated there were fires burning out of control in WTC 7 any more than it can be realistically debated that WTC 7 collapsed. If there were controlled demolitions it would absolutely positively mean they were rigged right then and there on that day, before the fires were able to destroy the explosive charges and/or the mechanisms used to detonate them. Plus, you gleefully jump up and down quoting Silverstein's "pull it" statement but in the context you want to interpret it under, the building was "pulled" specifically to save lives, not because of any sinister secret plot to take over the world.

SO, according to your own conspiracy theories, either the New York Fire department risked their lives entering a building with an out of control fire raging inside to plant explosives in a matter of a few hours to bring down a dangerously unstable building and prevent any further loss of life...OR, there isnt any controlled demolitions conspiracy and you're simply seeing what a bunch of con artists and crackpots running those damned fool conspiracy websites want you to see. I know I don't need to tell you which one I myself say it is.

You truthers certainly aren't stupid. You've just never actually sat down and thought your conspiracy theories out all the way through logically until now.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Yet here you say that no one pulled/demolished WTC7.

So let me get this straight...you say Larry was a hero for bringing down WTC7 and should be praised, but then you say that you dont think FDNY could possibly have demolished the building because they dont do that kind of stuff.

Split personality much?


Do I really need to explain your own conspiracy theories to you? This fellow was insisting WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolitions and I'm trying to explore this scenario rationally. It cannot be realistically debated there were fires burning out of control in WTC 7 any more than it can be realistically debated that WTC 7 collapsed. If there were controlled demolitions it would absolutely positively mean they were rigged right then and there on that day, before the fires were able to destroy the explosive charges and/or the mechanisms used to detonate them. Plus, you gleefully jump up and down quoting Silverstein's "pull it" statement but in the context you want to interpret it under, the building was "pulled" specifically to save lives, not because of any sinister secret plot to take over the world.

SO, according to your own conspiracy theories, either the New York Fire department risked their lives entering a building with an out of control fire raging inside to plant explosives in a matter of a few hours to bring down a dangerously unstable building and prevent any further loss of life...OR, there isnt any controlled demolitions conspiracy and you're simply seeing what a bunch of con artists and crackpots running those damned fool conspiracy websites want you to see. I know I don't need to tell you which one I myself say it is.

You truthers certainly aren't stupid. You've just never actually sat down and thought your conspiracy theories out all the way through logically until now.


You are starting to show glimpses of lacking reading comprehension or ability to think outside of what your government officials tell you.

I have stated before that I do not quote Silversteins "pull it" interview as evidence, there is much more damning evidence/facts that show prior knowledge/participation in the attacks and the fact that you say that IF it was controlled demolition it "could only have been rigged for demo on the date of 9/11" just shows your closed mindedness.

Your method of debate is reminiscent to that of an elementary school child, no facts used except for mind loops centered around your belief. Thank you for trying to put forth a valid debate but I think I will refrain from addressing your mind looped way of thinking.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

I have stated before that I do not quote Silversteins "pull it" interview as evidence, there is much more damning evidence/facts that show prior knowledge/participation in the attacks and the fact that you say that IF it was controlled demolition it "could only have been rigged for demo on the date of 9/11" just shows your closed mindedness.



None of that matters though, cuz if you introduce Jowenko as an unassailable expert, then that means that that 1 and 2 collapsed as a result of planes and fires. It was a terrorist attack then.

No inside job.

So therefore, regardless if 7 had explosives planted beforehand or not, in order for your theory to be internally consistent, it was brought down for legit reasons.

No inside job.

Again



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

I have stated before that I do not quote Silversteins "pull it" interview as evidence, there is much more damning evidence/facts that show prior knowledge/participation in the attacks and the fact that you say that IF it was controlled demolition it "could only have been rigged for demo on the date of 9/11" just shows your closed mindedness.



None of that matters though, cuz if you introduce Jowenko as an unassailable expert, then that means that that 1 and 2 collapsed as a result of planes and fires. It was a terrorist attack then.

No inside job.

So therefore, regardless if 7 had explosives planted beforehand or not, in order for your theory to be internally consistent, it was brought down for legit reasons.

No inside job.

Again


So the fact that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by planes and terrorists means the importance of WTC7 freefalling from a Control Demo is irrelevant? nice try...again READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD. We are talking about WTC7 not WTC1 or 2 , and if you guys want to focus on what Jowenko thinks I suggest you look at two things
1) Learn to think for yourself and analyze information with your own critical mind- just because you agree with one persons viewpoint doesnt mean you have to agree with all others
2)Jowenko is not the only controlled demo expert to say WTC7 was free fall

Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The idea that WTC7 could have been wired that same day is preposterous.

The idea that all of its supporting beams all failed in the needed sequence to bring it down in classic CD style the way we observed on video without pre-planted charges is infinitely more preposterous than that. All the rest of the OS'er arguments after that are completely irrelevant.

It is absurd and anyone who believes it was the result of fire deserves going straight to one of Halliburton's prison camps.
edit on 10-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join