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.

 

The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

page: 11
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
Your right, this IS beating a dead horse.

Where is all the oil imports from Iraq? years later why are gas prices so high? You take a theory on WTC7 and turn it into Cheney bashing.


Halliburton has made hundreds of billions since 9/11 off our war on terror. Cheney has never actually stopped being employed by Halliburton. His income was just temporarily deferred into trust while he was VP.


So no the evidence is not in my face.. if you look at the debris field WTC7 was covered in it, and was damaged . oh and some of that debris was on fire.. seems to me that the logical thing to do would be indeed to "pull it" instead of wasting more and more resources on a building that cant be saved, when those same resources could be used to help injured people etc.


You're admitting that WTC#7 was intentionally dropped. Okay. I agree. That being the case, it would've had to have been pre-rigged for implosion, and that would have required premeditation on the part of the folks who hired the rigging to be done.


There was nothing for Larry to gain by bringing 7 down... the lease for the WTC complex was for 1, 2, 4 and 5... Larry was involved with WTC 7 in that his company was the one that built it. but at the time of 2001 he only owned the leases to 1 2 4 and 5
edit on 20-6-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)


WTC#7 held all the servers that contained all the FBI and SEC investigation data into ENRON, World Com, and several other expansive Wall Street cases, and when it went down, so did all those investigations. They were "secure servers" which means that they were not connected to any intranet or internet of any kind. This was the NYC home of the CIA, FBI, ATF, SEC and even had the Mayor's bunker (which he never even used for 9/11), so they thought it was properly fortified - which it was, if all they'd had to deal with was fire and not pre-rigged implosion.

Some of you OCT shills are better at this than others of you are.




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Don't apologize mate, keep on worshipping your government, see where that gets you in the next few years
, we can talk again then


We are not talking about the government. We are talking about the lies you are spreading.

There was no evidence of explosives found. There was evidence of jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Don't apologize mate, keep on worshipping your government, see where that gets you in the next few years
, we can talk again then


We are not talking about the government. We are talking about the lies you are spreading.

There was no evidence of explosives found. There was evidence of jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts.


Well, time will tell mate. Show me that evidence then



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum


Well, time will tell mate. Show me that evidence then


No. you show me your evidence of explosives.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by turamber
hello fellow enquirers..

new here, well sort of newish, been a "voyuer" for a couple of years..

911...we all have our opinions and have a right to express them..

anyway here is my thought on it

if it was a terrorist attack ( osama)...would they not try to cripple its finances also .....why not WALL STREET?i am a British citizen and not too clued up on the USA finances but i am sure WALL STREET is the financial capital..

if it was a reason to look for WORLD symapthy...WTC..many nations lost civilians that day NOT JUST USA... i am sure osama's war was against the USA and "friends"....a lot of non friends died that day too...

makes no sense to inflame half the world when you only want to catch some of its attention....


You're absolutely correct. It would have left no lasting impressions on the minds of Americans if they had blown up the NYSE.... but the towers were iconic symbols, much more powerful than most people are aware of unless they have studied the "mysteries". Symbols effect human consciousness which is ENERGY.... he who manipulates that energy controls the world.

These bastards don't study masonry for nothing.... it is derived from Kabbalah which is metaphysical science. Stuff like this is then portrayed as "magic" to the average American lemming which of course only exists on TV and movies....

Now since these savvy people also know that there are ways of making things "disappear" since "that guy David Copperfield does it all the time" then of course there must be an "explanation" for everything else including vaporizing jumbo jetliners and buildings that pulverize themselves from jet fuel.....

I highly doubt that the people from the ancient lost civilizations would have been fooled for one minute by 911 but today's human is allegedly "advanced"



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 
You sound just like a ten year old child. The evidence for explosives is the video of that building falling straight down, as though there was nothing holding it up. If you don't want to be perceived as a complete idiot, quit posting. Otherwise we will be left with no other choice.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It was blindingly obvious as soon as the twin towers and building 7 came down that they were all controlled demolitions. The majority of "evidence" since dilutes the truth and complicates that fact.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Are you not ignoring what I just said or just refuse to hear anything bad about your government?

Thats off topic. Changing the subject to "government was behind it" might get us "modified" to another realm. Nobody is arguing that point with you. I happen to agree with you that my government SUCKS! The discussion is about what caused the events to bring down the WTC.

You keep making points about pre set explosives and I will keep telling you yah, the planes had a very big explosive impact on all the buildings around there. We can see that. What I don't see is anything pointing to what the "Truth Debunkers" are saying.

By the way, thanks all for remaining civil for the most part on this one (up till now). This is fun. Isn't this fun?

Are we learning?

I gonna walk my dog. See you in a bit.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


You forgot the fact that each of the two twin towers was actually built as 3 physically distinct "boxes" stacked one on top of the other. The three distinct structures were then fastened together - you can even see the layer that separates each 1/3 if you look at a photo of the towers at an upward angle. The separating layers are slightly darker in color. This construction concept was used to make a progressive collapse (such as the that you believe occurred) completely impossible. The top1/3 - if it were to collapse - would stop at the separation layer, since the next whole building structure beneath it (that 2nd 1/3 of the building) would not have been affected at all by whatever it was that caused the top 1/3 of the building to crumble. Structurally, the sections were completely isolated and extremely difficult to compromise.

I spent years on this investigation, and the progressive collapse theory was thoroughly debunked in 2004. Period. The better OCT marketing shills never even bother trying to argue it anymore. You must be a 3rd stringer.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by waypastvne
 
You sound just like a ten year old child. The evidence for explosives is the video of that building falling straight down, as though there was nothing holding it up. If you don't want to be perceived as a complete idiot, quit posting. Otherwise we will be left with no other choice.



He doesn't care how he's perceived. He's made it quite clear he's here to "have fun".



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum


Well, time will tell mate. Show me that evidence then


No. you show me your evidence of explosives.


Check out anything by Stephen Jones. He's got the goods on the explosives residue in the pile and in the dust that ended up all over S. Manhattan. It's definitive. Not that Wall St or any of the military weapons manufacturers will ever let our government acknowledge it.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Check out anything by Stephen Jones. He's got the goods on the explosives residue in the pile and in the dust that ended up all over S. Manhattan. It's definitive. Not that Wall St or any of the military weapons manufacturers will ever let our government acknowledge it.


Dude you are out of the loop. An independent study was done, and it turned out to be paint chips. Just like we've been telling you all along.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Are you not ignoring what I just said or just refuse to hear anything bad about your government?

Thats off topic. Changing the subject to "government was behind it" might get us "modified" to another realm. Nobody is arguing that point with you. I happen to agree with you that my government SUCKS! The discussion is about what caused the events to bring down the WTC.

You keep making points about pre set explosives and I will keep telling you yah, the planes had a very big explosive impact on all the buildings around there. We can see that. What I don't see is anything pointing to what the "Truth Debunkers" are saying.

By the way, thanks all for remaining civil for the most part on this one (up till now). This is fun. Isn't this fun?

Are we learning?

I gonna walk my dog. See you in a bit.



Well, I've had many of these debates and yeah, I enjoy it


I disagree that mentioning the possibility of a false flag operation is off-topic though, I think it's very much on-topic. I am not saying I know what happened but I know one thing, there are just way too many discrepancies to be ignored here. Plus the subsequent fall-out and repercussions of these events adds more to the story.

An example, as I said, a van was pulled over that morning in connection with a possible terrorist attack, I've seen the news report from that morning. Nothing mentioned about it since.

Quote from NIST:

When asked why NIST did not test for explosive residues, NIST spokesman Michael Newman responded that NIST saw "no evidence saying to go that way."

No evidence, huh? Van pulled over, previous 9/11 attack with explosives in the basement? First time in HISTORY, that 3 steel structure buildings collapsed and the Trade Centre was designed to withstand hits from Boeing 707s which are similar in size to the 767. Those buildings should have never dropped, especially WTC7.

And obviously, we now know that some members on the NIST board had connections with Bush. The NIST report is certainly not an un-bias assessment on the attacks.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by NorEaster

Check out anything by Stephen Jones. He's got the goods on the explosives residue in the pile and in the dust that ended up all over S. Manhattan. It's definitive. Not that Wall St or any of the military weapons manufacturers will ever let our government acknowledge it.


Dude you are out of the loop. An independent study was done, and it turned out to be paint chips. Just like we've been telling you all along.


That's bullsh*t, and while I'm not calling you a liar, the people pushing that crap sure as hell are liars.

There's no such thing as an independent study of anything connected to the 9/11 attacks controversy. Everyone knows this.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster


That's bullsh*t, and while I'm not calling you a liar, the people pushing that crap sure as hell are liars.

There's no such thing as an independent study of anything connected to the 9/11 attacks controversy. Everyone knows this.


No elemental aluminum, not even in the jones study.

No elemental aluminum, no thermite.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Numbers33four

I am not saying that I believe this, but the building could have been built with the demolitions in place and disguised as part of the structure. This could have been planned from the start and built in from the start or retrofit at some time after construction.



In the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2, I'd actually say that this idea is very plausable. These buildings, being so tall ... and getting aged, it would be more than likely that someone had some safety measures put in. Espeically after the attempt on one of the buildings, in the 80's.

But, WTC 7? No, WTC 7 falling the way it did ... is actually tye "Inside Job" stamp, that is over the whole scenario. Along with the "total denial", and complete denial to do any real investigation.

And to be even more direct, the one thing that says that everyone who believe the official story are warmongers ... is the fact, that immediately the US pushed for a war in Afghanistan. A completely and utterly defenceless people, with a couple of donkeys and old frontloaders (basically speaking). The very kind, that any nation believing in liberty should be defending, not attacking ... the US goes in, and wages a war ... for decades, not to get Bin Ladin, but to overthrow and insert a puppet government.

Bin Ladin is dead ... why are you still there.

If this single fact, doesn't tell people that there is an ulterior motive in the whole scenario ... then they are basically braindead nincompoops, and any further discussion on the scenario leading up to the wars that followed, are pontless and waste of time. Sorry for the pun, it's intended.

edit on 21/6/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by intrptr
 

This construction concept was used to make a progressive collapse (such as the that you believe occurred) completely impossible.

Well the "concept" didn't work, obviously. I don't have to "believe" anything, I saw it.


...whatever it was that caused the top 1/3 of the building to crumble

Uhhh, gravity > mass x acceleration?


Structurally, the sections were completely isolated and extremely difficult to compromise.

How can they be isolated if they sit atop one another? The weight of the upper floors "progressively" increased which in turn hit the floors below with ever-increasing mass so yah, I would expect that nothing could sustain that force. And guess what, nothing did.


I spent years on this investigation, and the progressive collapse theory was thoroughly debunked in 2004. Period. The better OCT marketing shills never even bother trying to argue it anymore. You must be a 3rd stringer.

Well, since you spelled "period" instead of ".", I guess that is the final word huh? That no one gets to say any more about it cause you studied it and know how to spell period. Okay...

I don't play football. I debunk explosives "experts". Like you.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I spent years on this investigation, and the progressive collapse theory was thoroughly debunked in 2004. Period. The better OCT marketing shills never even bother trying to argue it anymore. You must be a 3rd stringer.


I would be interested in your publications about the subject. Or did you waste those years on watching Youtube videos and reading truther websites? (miraculously I already know the answer even though I know nothing about you).



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Seriously... why do the mods allow yet another Building 7 thread?

The op and subsequent posts are nothing but the typical regurgitation that we have been reading since 2006.

- First time in history
- Pull it
- BBC foreknowledge
- Silverstein making a ton of money.

It's all the same old garbage. There was nothing different in this OP that we haven't read and debunked in the past.



If you have nothing to add then why bother?


What was debunked, straw men arguments fro Popular Mechanics? Yeah they were. We don't care about Silverstein, that is one minor clue in a mountain of evidence.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
One could only wish that this thread would be the one to end all 9/11 threads. Sadly, I don't think that's going to happen.


The funniest thing about 9/11 theorists is how they are all dead-certain their theory is the right one, and yet it clashes directly with other theorists who ALSO claim their theory is the right one. You can't all be right. For the Pentagon, there can't have: Been no plane, just a prearranged explosive.. AND been a flyover of a plane.. AND have it been a different kind of plane.. AND it was actually a missile. Yet you will have folks clamoring that they KNOW they are right about all those theories. Well.. guess what, you aren't.

That the theories of a conspiracy have even more logic and common sense holes than the original story doesn't seem to bother folks who come up with this stuff. They just ignore those bits of their theory.

So.. here is to hoping this really IS the thread to end all threads on 9/11.




top topics



 
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join