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: 14
46
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by djmarcone
 


On theory is that all highrise buildings have explosives prepositioned in case of emergency and they need to be taken down. (insurance thing i believe it was)

There has been some discussion about this but how far this is true, i don't know. Somehow i can't really imagine having explosives positioned in buildings that are in use, just for insurance purposes to protect surrounding buildings in case of a calamity, but who knows.

The world is crazy enough, but i think it's a simple case of explosives being planted in the months or weeks before the event.




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


have you ever compared the speed of the falling debris to the building itself? It's EXACTLY the same.

Free fall speed is called like that for a reason, there was no resistance whatsoever from the floors below. Even the slightest resistance from the lower floors would have a cumulative effect as the collapse progresses, and you should be able to see a clear difference between the falling speed of the debris, and the building itself.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath


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.


Thanks for your input. Once again one talks about specifics and you resort to a vague platitude and an ad hominem attack. Can you really not see the irony?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

Originally posted by Varemia
Here's a decent picture of the smoke-from-fire of WTC 7:


edit on 24-5-2012 by Varemia because: Resized the image


That's not smoke!

It's the dust flying because of the earth trembling when the demolition charges were let loose in WTC1 and WTC2.

Reading this thread I think it is about time you had a new amendment to your precious constitution:

It is the right of every man and woman (even gay) to ignore facts and use bogus science and lack of knowledge of physics to explain anything they choose.
Doing this also entitles them to insult people trying to bring to their attention, facts established by real scientists.

Most Truthers are laughed at in the rest of the world. Some of the truthers in this thread (likke funnyhead) is particularly entertaining.

It is my hope that the mods stay off this thread - as they apparently have till now - and allow a few to read this post before I get banned for telling the truth.


If you will note the row of blackened window surrounds, they are four on top of four windows towards the corner. The glazing is blown out and there is no fire.

I pose this explanation; the billowing dust clouds was drawn up WTC 7 because of wind shear and it smothered the localised fires within the building.

If the fires were so great and they caused the trusses to slump because of the fires, why is there no fire licking out of the broken windows?
edit on 24-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


Could it be that the fires were further in than the windows you see?

Why does the flames absolutely have to lick out of the windows?

And regarding explosions. Have you ever heard the noise a concrete slab makes when it cracks because of heat? Would you at least acknowledge the possibility that the strain the trusses and what-have-you makes a significant noise when they give way?

Have you heard the noise from a flash over? Would you even consider that the explosions that some firemen refer to could be their "technical" term for smoke gasses igniting?

And the most important - for Truthers - have you asked MythBusters their opinion?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by Varemia
 


have you ever compared the speed of the falling debris to the building itself? It's EXACTLY the same.

Free fall speed is called like that for a reason, there was no resistance whatsoever from the floors below. Even the slightest resistance from the lower floors would have a cumulative effect as the collapse progresses, and you should be able to see a clear difference between the falling speed of the debris, and the building itself.


No, it's not. 9.25 seconds would be free-fall. The building took 10.75 seconds to collapse. That's a difference of 32 feet per second compared to 23.69 feet per second.

Seriously, get your damn facts straight.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

Originally posted by Varemia
Here's a decent picture of the smoke-from-fire of WTC 7:


edit on 24-5-2012 by Varemia because: Resized the image


That's not smoke!

It's the dust flying because of the earth trembling when the demolition charges were let loose in WTC1 and WTC2.

Reading this thread I think it is about time you had a new amendment to your precious constitution:

It is the right of every man and woman (even gay) to ignore facts and use bogus science and lack of knowledge of physics to explain anything they choose.
Doing this also entitles them to insult people trying to bring to their attention, facts established by real scientists.

Most Truthers are laughed at in the rest of the world. Some of the truthers in this thread (likke funnyhead) is particularly entertaining.

It is my hope that the mods stay off this thread - as they apparently have till now - and allow a few to read this post before I get banned for telling the truth.


If you will note the row of blackened window surrounds, they are four on top of four windows towards the corner. The glazing is blown out and there is no fire.

I pose this explanation; the billowing dust clouds was drawn up WTC 7 because of wind shear and it smothered the localised fires within the building.

If the fires were so great and they caused the trusses to slump because of the fires, why is there no fire licking out of the broken windows?
edit on 24-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


Could it be that the fires were further in than the windows you see?

Why does the flames absolutely have to lick out of the windows?

And regarding explosions. Have you ever heard the noise a concrete slab makes when it cracks because of heat? Would you at least acknowledge the possibility that the strain the trusses and what-have-you makes a significant noise when they give way?

Have you heard the noise from a flash over? Would you even consider that the explosions that some firemen refer to could be their "technical" term for smoke gasses igniting?

And the most important - for Truthers - have you asked MythBusters their opinion?


Yes, the flames would be licking out of the window even if the fire was further in and near the core. This is because there would more oxygen by broken windows.

You will also see that the majority of windows are intact and there is little evidence of wide spread fires.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

***snip***


Feeding rubbish as fact doesn't make it right.

"392tons(2 jetliners + fuel)" did not pulverize 3 towers. It did weaking the construction in two towers sufficiently to start a chain reaction where floors collapsed on top of each other and the weight of the collapsing floor and momentum took care of the rest.

I find it crazy that Truthers blatantly disregard simple logic and never - ever - try to critically analyze the rubbish they are fed by people hell bent on undermining the government and thus cause greater instability.

Don't you guys ever try to think about who might have that as their agenda?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


The fact is there is a lot more going on than the towers falling . Cheney said we need another Pear Harbor and from the White House bunker we got one . Cheney was heading up a what if exercise , what if terrorist flew passenger jets into the Trade Center and Pentagon . This was on the day it happened and from a bunker built for this . Cheney lied about his arrival to that bunker . He was there directing that venture at the time it happened per congressional testimony given by the Secretary of Transportation Norman Meneta . We got our Pear Harbor and Larry Silverstien recieved twice the face value of the insured WTC for the two planes . The New York Port Authority the owners of the WTC applied for a demolition permit twice to bring down the white elephant called the WTC and was denied of course because of the Asbestos dust that would be disbursed through out the city . A cost of 15 billion to dismantle the WTC towers and 200 million to encapsulate the Asbestos made a terrorist attack the only way to get rid of the Towers . Funny thing is that Silverstien just leased the WTC and insured it against terrorist attacks and stipulated in the lease that he could rebuild it if brought down . Then he said pull it ! He knew the term he was using being in real estate for so long .



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Yes, the flames would be licking out of the window even if the fire was further in and near the core. This is because there would more oxygen by broken windows.

You will also see that the majority of windows are intact and there is little evidence of wide spread fires.


Citation needed...

Seriously dude, back your stuff up.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
***snip***
Also, steel is capable of withstanding the temperatures of jet fuel, even without fire proofing. Come back once you've done some more reading.


OK - you read this then:

Have you ever heard anything about how superheated steel behaves? Did you know that it expands? Did you know that the expansion caused it to NOT fit in the brackets where it was supposed to rest?
Did you know that steel becomes softer when it is superheated? Do you think that the inherrent strength stays the same? Have you wondered if the weight of the floors above would be enough for the softened steel to bend and be torn out of the brackets?
What ever would a few heavy gauge bolts sound like when they suddenly snap because of the severe strain?

But of course. It is easier to disregard things like that. After all it is written by someone who doesn't believe in the "inside job" - hence its invalidity.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:29 PM
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?


If there was that evidence, it would be known and you would have presented it.

You didn't, therefore it isan admission that it does not exist.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

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?


Are you asking him to prove a negative?

that's illogical if you are...

Can you prove otherwise?

Just one?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:33 PM
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 as if it was pole axed like WTC 7.
edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


No.

That's from the collapse of 7.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane2
 

The heat of Jet exhaust is 1800 degrees and is burned at the maximum temperature attainable . The heat of raw jet fuel burning in a inefficient manner such as in a burning building might make 800 degrees . An oxygen starved situation would be less such as a smoldering fire . Steel melts at a much higher temperature and is compromised in structural capacity above the temperature of raw fuel combustion . The real problem here is the collapse of building 7 that was situated behind buildings 5 and 6 that were completely burned out leaving only a steel structure . These two buildings 5 and 6 had to be cut down . They had received the full brunt of the collapse of the towers and were crushed downward and still did not colapse . Yet building 7 with some fire and some facade damage collapsed in a way that hunderds of structural engineers called for an investagation into its collapse. All of this after Neocon Dick Cheney said before hand about America going to war against Iraq and Afganistan that we need another Pear Harbor . We got it . Another statement attributed to Cheney was to the Talibon who opposed a Trans Afganistan pipe line is you will accept a carpet of Gold of a carpet of bombs shortly after becoming President by proxy. Some though he was supposed to be vice president



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

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 as if it was pole axed like WTC 7.
edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


No.

That's from the collapse of 7.



So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.


Seriously, what is wrong with you? Most of the buildings surrounding the WTC complex didn't collapse. They sustained damage, but the varying designs led to varying results. Are you trying to say that it's a conspiracy that the buildings were considered unsafe and had to be deconstructed one floor at a time due to damage?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.


Seriously, what is wrong with you? Most of the buildings surrounding the WTC complex didn't collapse. They sustained damage, but the varying designs led to varying results. Are you trying to say that it's a conspiracy that the buildings were considered unsafe and had to be deconstructed one floor at a time due to damage?


So what you are saying is that many buildings suffered damage and the only one that collapsed without an airplane striking it was WTC7?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.


Seriously, what is wrong with you? Most of the buildings surrounding the WTC complex didn't collapse. They sustained damage, but the varying designs led to varying results. Are you trying to say that it's a conspiracy that the buildings were considered unsafe and had to be deconstructed one floor at a time due to damage?


So what you are saying is that many buildings suffered damage and the only one that collapsed without an airplane striking it was WTC7?


No, Building 3 also collapsed, and many other buildings suffered partial collapses. The firefighters were watching Building 7 ALL DAY because they knew it was damaged too far and would collapse. How do you consistently forget that?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Heads up



The ad hominem attacks against other ATS members stops NOW

Firstly - Just because someone does not agree with your particular viewpoint, it does not mean their contribution is invalid, or give anyone the right to insinuate that they have been paid to post it on ATS.

Secondly - if anyone has an issue with the ATS Staff, use the complaint button and air it with the owners.

The topic of this thread is "WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traiters are rounded up" - Discuss it. Take the bickering, ad hominem attacks and bitching elsewhere, because it WILL be removed as off topic or 9/11 madness.

That's been our policy for a number of years now. It is still in effect.
edit on 25/5/12 by neformore because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join