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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 12
46
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
The 9/11 shills describe their own behaviour everytime they make a reply against a 9/11 researcher!

WTC7, was controlled demolition and no shill lies will ever change that fact.


This is just Orwellan double speak. You're saying it's okay for you to insult and derail because you alone know the truth. And that by calling you out for ad hominems and half-truths the "shills" are acting dishonestly.

Only a zealot could think this way. It's deeply millenarian and absolutely anti-logic.




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

You have a coherency problem dude. My response was in relation to the video you gave to 4hero. You subsequently commented to me with a link to a photo which I did not address. You also called me a "truther".

If you cannot keep up, I will no longer respond to you. Sorry
edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


I think I am likely to die of old age before I get a coherent reaction from you. I am not thedman. I gave you a link to this article in relation to cut steel at the WTC site. Any comment ?

www.sharpprintinginc.com...


Sorry. I was rude.

Basically what I am saying is that site clearances crews may have cut the steel members. I would expect them to during the removal of very heavy objects.

This, however, does not negate the possibility of some columns and tying members being dismembered by cutting charges used by the criminals that destroyed the WTC building.
edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by 4hero
The 9/11 shills describe their own behaviour everytime they make a reply against a 9/11 researcher!

WTC7, was controlled demolition and no shill lies will ever change that fact.


This is just Orwellan double speak. You're saying it's okay for you to insult and derail because you alone know the truth. And that by calling you out for ad hominems and half-truths the "shills" are acting dishonestly.

Only a zealot could think this way. It's deeply millenarian and absolutely anti-logic.


I thought the Official Story faithfuls are the zealots.

It is a belief system brought onto them from above from the almighty Powers that Be.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

You have a coherency problem dude. My response was in relation to the video you gave to 4hero. You subsequently commented to me with a link to a photo which I did not address. You also called me a "truther".

If you cannot keep up, I will no longer respond to you. Sorry
edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


I think I am likely to die of old age before I get a coherent reaction from you. I am not thedman. I gave you a link to this article in relation to cut steel at the WTC site. Any comment ?

www.sharpprintinginc.com...


Sorry. I was rude.

Basically what I am saying is that site clearances crews may have cut the steel members. I would expect them to during the removal of very heavy objects.

This, however, does not negate the possibility of some columns and tying members being dismembered by cutting charges used by the criminals that destroyed the WTC building.
edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


But do you have any evidence of cut steel pre-clean-up ? And why do the cuts show typical characteristics of cutting by thermic lance ?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 





This, however, does not negate the possibility of some columns and tying members being dismembered by cutting charges used by the criminals that destroyed the WTC building.

But can you prove even one was cut before the attack?
Just one?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





But do you have any evidence of cut steel pre-clean-up ? And why do the cuts show typical characteristics of cutting by thermic lance ?


Considering that you broached the subject and I merely raised a point of logic, do you believe there is no evidence that cutting charges were used?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 





This, however, does not negate the possibility of some columns and tying members being dismembered by cutting charges used by the criminals that destroyed the WTC building.

But can you prove even one was cut before the attack?
Just one?


Can you prove otherwise?

Just one?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Romekje


It's called controlled demolition, just like the 2 main towers, anyone with more then 2 working brain cells can see that.

I mean, steel beams always break at neat 45 degree angles and thermite fires keep raging in the debris when a building collapses onto itself, right?


Im actually amazed there are still people who believe the official story.


Oh wow. You are still stuck on those photos of the clean up with 45 degree angles? Fun fact: During clean up at Ground Zero, workers cut the beams on 45 degree angles.

Geeze are Truthers reversing back five six years?


Bending the truth to fit the OS is easy.

The beams were cut in exactly the same way as they would have been with a controlled demolition.

LOOK at how the buildings come down, are you blind or just plain ignorant?

IF it wouldve even been possible for the towers to come down with the relatively miner damage they recieved, they would've topled over, not crumble into it's own footprint.

But can't have damage to the surrounding buildings now, can we?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by Alfie1
 





But do you have any evidence of cut steel pre-clean-up ? And why do the cuts show typical characteristics of cutting by thermic lance ?


Considering that you broached the subject and I merely raised a point of logic, do you believe there is no evidence that cutting charges were used?


There is absolutely no evidence of any of the following :-

a) acquisition of explosives.

b) transportation to WTC site.

c) installation at WTC evading security, sniffer dogs etc.

d) detonations at point of collapse.

e) remnants of det cord, caps, detonators etc



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje

Bending the truth to fit the OS is easy.

The beams were cut in exactly the same way as they would have been with a controlled demolition.

LOOK at how the buildings come down, are you blind or just plain ignorant?

IF it wouldve even been possible for the towers to come down with the relatively miner damage they recieved, they would've topled over, not crumble into it's own footprint.

But can't have damage to the surrounding buildings now, can we?


You are right, they were cut for demolition: AFTER 9/11/01

Oh I am well aware of how they fell. For starters, if the column was cut at the base, then why did the collapse start at the top of the structure at the impact point? Also, why did people survive in the stairwells in the core? Third, why did the core remain standing after initial collapse if the core columns were cut at the base?

You have a lot of catching up to do. Arguments from personal incredulity are worthless here.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


1. That's right Gdeck , 5 hours of an uncontrolled fire cannot do squat to steel. In fact , even aluminum has a hard time weakening with uncontrolled fires. So imagine "mild steel". I am starting to think you have never work on an actual Tower before???

2. Flaming debris? You have any physical evidence of that?- I mean flaming while being projected in the sky. You keep shooting yourself in the foot with 1000 ft and 300 ft distance stuff. Understand fire can't survive flying in thin air. And the plane impact is not and will not be an issue when asking a simple question: how many times (the supposed expert) has anyone seen flaming flying debris ignite another of these voodoo fires that will pulverize steel and concrete.


3.How do you know it was "sub-standard"? Someone else's theory or yours alone? It doesn't matter you really have no clue and you choose to use this term constantly. Did you even read what I said about the core? For your "Fire-proofing failure/Tree tipping/Pancake theory(FTP)" to work the Responsible Party(not the 19 arabs) must use an additional arsenal to pulverize the core. Which is what we both see in your video. The FTP theory alone would leave the core mostly intact(much,much more than the video displays) . Why ? Well what would have pulverized it exactly? Can't be the fuel or the jet liner or weight alone. If planes can do this much damage then the Japanese should have won the Pacific in WWII. And if jet liners were this destructive to massive facilities ,then why we haven't sent one of are many "old fleet" 767's to destroy or pulverize those Iranian Nuclear facilities with one quick swoop. Our military spends trillions and trillions and the answer to all wars is are special Boeing 767's and we don't use them.. Honestly, after witnessing 911 why would we ever use a Tomahawk or a Bunkerbuster bomb to do our dirty work again. Two planes weighing 392tons, And that amount pulverized 1,200,000tons of a much harder material. I say cut our military by half and start using these 767's... That's if NIST/FEMA and Gdeck are correct.

But something tells me all three are full of hot air.



4.How can you seriously say the core survived? Because it dropped last? Nothing was still standing. That's why logical people conclude it was demo'd.

5.Fire ball elevators??. How do you know this?. Why would you say things that you have no clue about. Elevators do have brakes and chances are the elevators were either Otis or ThyCorp. I doubt any of those two companies would allow a Mechanical or Express elevator to not have brakes. Wow. So you say fire-proofing being blown off and now elevator-fireballs. My friend you are very sloppy and you use to be pretty good. Time to change jobs or go back to school.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by Alfie1
 





But do you have any evidence of cut steel pre-clean-up ? And why do the cuts show typical characteristics of cutting by thermic lance ?


Considering that you broached the subject and I merely raised a point of logic, do you believe there is no evidence that cutting charges were used?


There is absolutely no evidence of any of the following :-

a) acquisition of explosives.

b) transportation to WTC site.

c) installation at WTC evading security, sniffer dogs etc.

d) detonations at point of collapse.

e) remnants of det cord, caps, detonators etc




Your comment does not constitute proof.

However, here is my response;

a) do you think that a government actor would have a problem in acquiring explosives?

b) you can transport plastique explosives to WTC underground car parks in vehicles in mislabeled containers.

c) the security of the WTC was Stratesec and the company principle was Marvin P. Bush, brother of George W. Bush ---> who needed to evade what?

d) yes. There were detonations.

c) Wireless detonators negate the need to use det cords



Finally, setting up demolitions explosives takes time because contractors strip buildings due to the mandatory requirements to remove asbestos, to recycle material such as copper wiring and to reduce the size of the collapsed pile.

If you do not need to do any of these pre-demolition activities and all you have to do is install wireless explosives, you can do the rigging in days with a crack team especially if security is in your pocket.
edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
Can we please ban the term "smoking gun" on this website? it is way overused!
Can we please ban every english word.....



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


Check this out;



An enormous chunk of WTC 1 landed on Fiterman Hall and it did not collapse as if it was pole axed like WTC 7.
edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


Check this out;



An enormous chunk of WTC 1 landed on Fiterman Hall and it did not collapse like it was pole axed like WTC 7.


Friterman Hall was not built like 7 with a ConEd substation underneath it and fires burning over 6 hours.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


Check this out;



An enormous chunk of WTC 1 landed on Fiterman Hall and it did not collapse like it was pole axed like WTC 7.


Friterman Hall was not built like 7 with a ConEd substation underneath it and fires burning over 6 hours.




WTC7 was not built like WTCs 1 and 2 and no airplane hit it but it went down like them.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

There is absolutely no evidence of any of the following :-

a) acquisition of explosives.

b) transportation to WTC site.

c) installation at WTC evading security, sniffer dogs etc.

d) detonations at point of collapse.

e) remnants of det cord, caps, detonators etc


No one said there was! You made all these up!

However, we know there were explosions, on tape, from eye witness accounts, and a steel framed building WTC7 has never come down by fire alone before, so it's easy to deduce from the evidence we have to work with what actually happened! If you want to believe and sell lies, that is your choice, but lies do not change real facts.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Why are these so called debunkers here if they have everything all worked out and believe the OS? Why do they spend hours upon hours here if the OS stands up so well?

They obviously have a lot invested in 9/11 to keep doing what they do!

They think people are stupid! Their game was up a long time ago. US tax payers unknowingly paid for 9/11 with their taxes, and 11 years down the line their taxes are being spent on damage limitation!



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
reply to post by GenRadek
 


1. That's right Gdeck , 5 hours of an uncontrolled fire cannot do squat to steel. In fact , even aluminum has a hard time weakening with uncontrolled fires. So imagine "mild steel". I am starting to think you have never work on an actual Tower before???


Oh this is entertaining. Then why are fire codes so prissy about fireproofing steel structures? I'm thinking you have not done any research into fire safety at all, or the behavior of steel in fire. You have a lot to learn kiddo.




2. Flaming debris? You have any physical evidence of that?- I mean flaming while being projected in the sky. You keep shooting yourself in the foot with 1000 ft and 300 ft distance stuff. Understand fire can't survive flying in thin air. And the plane impact is not and will not be an issue when asking a simple question: how many times (the supposed expert) has anyone seen flaming flying debris ignite another of these voodoo fires that will pulverize steel and concrete.


I'm really trying hard not to LOL here, because this like a hilarious comedy routine. Thats ok, I see you are still a newbie here, so I'll go easy. For starters: when objects are on fire and say, they are thrown or fall from a tall structure, that object will remain on fire as long as the "fuel" is still available. Fire wont jump by itself, it needs to be transported on something, be it an ember, a tree, or a desk (for example), or flammable fumes. Now, when the Twin Tower fell, nearly 20+ ACRES of offices were burning. Think about that for a few seconds. Is it inconceivable for flaming debris to be ejected and impact another structure? Also, if debris cannot fall fall from a tall structure, why do firefighters and demolition crews create collapse zones that are twice the height of the building about to fall? And who said fire pulverizes concrete and steel? I see you like red herring.



3.How do you know it was "sub-standard"? Someone else's theory or yours alone? It doesn't matter you really have no clue and you choose to use this term constantly. Did you even read what I said about the core? For your "Fire-proofing failure/Tree tipping/Pancake theory(FTP)" to work the Responsible Party(not the 19 arabs) must use an additional arsenal to pulverize the core. Which is what we both see in your video. The FTP theory alone would leave the core mostly intact(much,much more than the video displays) . Why ? Well what would have pulverized it exactly? Can't be the fuel or the jet liner or weight alone.


I just wrote a whole response to 4hero on that no less than two weeks ago. I'd say this is a much bigger potential conspiracy than anything the Hardy Boys at Loose Change and Alex Jones and Richard "Boxboy" Gage could bring up.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

also I can see you really have no clue as to how the WTC were designed. The core survived pal. Remember the Spire? The floors, due to how they were connected collapsed first with the exterior columns, leaving behind the core (more or less) intact, at least a good 60+ floors high. Tell me how many buildings get demoed top to bottom. The top section of the Tower as it collapsed helped knock off much of the top section of core as it fell, but as you can see, a good hunk remained, and people even survived in the core. How can they survive in the core if it got blown up? Also, gravity does a great job smashing things.



If planes can do this much damage then the Japanese should have won the Pacific in WWII. And if jet liners were this destructive to massive facilities ,then why we haven't sent one of are many "old fleet" 767's to destroy or pulverize those Iranian Nuclear facilities with one quick swoop. Our military spends trillions and trillions and the answer to all wars is are special Boeing 767's and we don't use them.. Honestly, after witnessing 911 why would we ever use a Tomahawk or a Bunkerbuster bomb to do our dirty work again. Two planes weighing 392tons, And that amount pulverized 1,200,000tons of a much harder material. I say cut our military by half and start using these 767's... That's if NIST/FEMA and Gdeck are correct.



Recall that we did lose quite a few ships due to kamikazes. Including aircraft carriers. But why did some survive and some not? Depends on where it got hit, how it got hit, with what it got hit, as well as conditions of the ship's ammunition, damage control parties, etc. Most planes were shot down if you dont remember. But I like your strawman. It is very entertaining.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath



WTC7 was not built like WTCs 1 and 2 and no airplane hit it but it went down like them.


So? I guess we should now apply the tried and true Truther standard response: if it never happened before, it must not ever happen.

Right? I wish everything was this simple.




new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join