Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

page: 8
87
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


I agree with you that 9-11 was a big conspiracy. There was "drills" and "power outages" throughout the weeks leading up to 9-11 and there was "construction" or "repair" crews going into the basement of the twin towers weeks leading up to that day. Also during that time that those crews were working in the basement noone was allowed in it unless they worked with that crew. So I believe the governmnt knew all along that that was going to happen ahead of time to cover up either some shady transactions or to enact war which they can profit from. That day (9-11) was a day that Silverstein profitted off of because he hld the lease for the complex and had it insured for substantially more than it was worth.




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I just have one question here. Why does no one incorporate the gash in WTC7? If Debris from the south tower sliced right into that building, wouldn't that be enough structural damage to weaken the building?

www.youtube.com...
edit on 21-6-2012 by LuciferFlow because: none



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I have an anecdote that ties in with this, though unfortunately I have no proof for it (and I have looked hard... it was actually my experience with disappearing information around this topic that has led me to be such a fastidious keeper of content now).

In the days after 9/11, I was very interested in it just like everyone else, and was scouring the net for anything related to it... it was in those first few days that I came to my own realisation that everything really didn't seem as straight-forward as was initially made out in the media.

One article I came across was a scan of a maintenance and security schedule for the world trade centre covering the last 6 months of the year.

It had a calendar layout with columns for different facilities, and looked like something a cleaner or groundskeeper might have to be aware of certain security arrangements throughout the year, for moving through the building. From memory, there were things like fire drills, generator checks, lift services and maintenance for which ones wouldn't be available when, and lots of acronyms that didn't mean much to me.

There were two odd things with it in hindsight, the first was the latter half of the schedule (oct, nov, dec) was much more sparse than the first half.

The other odd thing was a 4 day blackout period about 2 months before September, where it looked like everywhere was off limits, and i think it mentioned something about sub-structure checks (but I'm not too sure on that... there was something building related... and from memory it was something about structure).

At the time, I tried to dig deeper, and came across some employee accounts from blogs before the incident that talked about not being able to go to work because of some security exercise, and a bunch of dudes in overalls having free run of the building in July for a few days.

My cousin was also working in the WTC at the time, and when I asked him he remembered having bare-bones staff for a couple of days, and being restricted to moving in the building, and the building being closed to tourists.

Anyway... like I said... all anecdotal, and something I haven't shared often because of that... but I always thought, with a lot of good planning, a four day blackout-period, a team of nondescript experts with complete access... that would be more than enough time to set something like a controlled demo up.

Just some thoughts...

Cheers



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
One simple reason that sticks out to me which supports the 9-11 conspiracy theory is, why did the "terrorists" not try to fly the plane into the White House? Why fly them into the World Trade Centres? Yes, it did make an impact and a statement if it was a genuine terrorist attack, but surely if they really wanted to shake up America they would hit America at its political centre, the White House? On the other hand, if it were the America Government who committed this act they would know that to get the support of the people which they needed, a better option would be to hit the American public where it hurts. I personally would be more upset and vengeful if somebody attacked one of my own family members, or even Joe Public, rather than a political figure whom i had no personal feelings about.

I was going to search in Google "flight paths over the White House" however i realised that this may not be the wisest thing to do



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by abacus1111
One simple reason that sticks out to me which supports the 9-11 conspiracy theory is, why did the "terrorists" not try to fly the plane into the White House?


Just where do you think United Airlines Flight 93 was headed?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by abacus1111
One simple reason that sticks out to me which supports the 9-11 conspiracy theory is, why did the "terrorists" not try to fly the plane into the White House?


Just where do you think United Airlines Flight 93 was headed?


Even more controversial considering it was the only plane that didn't reach it's target
I'm not an expert on 9-11, I have delved slightly into it, however i do believe that people over complicate theories and don't always take a step back and see it from a more basic viewpoint. If you are to believe that JFK was murdered by the American Government, then that was done to make an impact, the American people cared about JFK and they directed their hate towards the "offender" which took the heat off the Government. If Bush had of been killed on 9-11, would the American people have cared as much? Would they have supported the War in Iraq to the extent they did?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by abacus1111
If Bush had of been killed on 9-11,


Bush was not in the Whitehouse or Capitol.... so what makes you think he was the target?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Basically it is impossible for a building to collapse in near perfect symmetry without the aid of explosives of some kind.

You mean like hundreds of tons of fuel filled airliner at hundreds of miles an hour type explosives?

Or...






None of these buildings are built of steel reinforced concrete, they do have 1 resemblance to the WTC collapses though, they were rigged for doing so.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by abacus1111
If Bush had of been killed on 9-11,


Bush was not in the Whitehouse or Capitol.... so what makes you think he was the target?


I know he wasn't, he was visiting a school. I'm not saying he was the target, i'm asking hypothetically if "terrorists" had committed this act, why Bush wasn't the target.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Harley guy is not a conspiracy he is introduced as Mark Walsh a freelancer for FOX!! it wasn't discovered since he announces it before anything is said!! just watch your own video. the more these nonsensical threads are posted the weaker the conspiracy argument becomes.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
The fact WTC7 was a controlled demolition should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.



SO TRUE!!!

Anyone with more than an ounce of intelligence knows it wasn't a controlled demolition.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje

None of these buildings are built of steel reinforced concrete, they do have 1 resemblance to the WTC collapses though, they were rigged for doing so.


Can you please explain what reinforced concrete was used in the construction of the towers?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuciferFlow
I just have one question here. Why does no one incorporate the gash in WTC7? If Debris from the south tower sliced right into that building, wouldn't that be enough structural damage to weaken the building?


The NIST report stated that structural damage did not play a key role in the collapse.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by abacus1111

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by abacus1111
If Bush had of been killed on 9-11,


Bush was not in the Whitehouse or Capitol.... so what makes you think he was the target?


I know he wasn't, he was visiting a school. I'm not saying he was the target, i'm asking hypothetically if "terrorists" had committed this act, why Bush wasn't the target.


Bush was in Sarasota, Florida.

Not saying this means anything, just a coincidence I came across




FBI found direct ties between 9/11 hijackers and Saudis living in Florida; Congress kept in dark


Just two weeks before the 9/11 hijackers slammed into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, members of a Saudi family abruptly left their luxury home near Sarasota, leaving a brand new car in the driveway, a refrigerator full of food, fruit on the counter — and an open safe in the master bedroom.

In the weeks to follow, law enforcement agents not only discovered the home was visited by vehicles used by the hijackers, but phone calls were linked between the home and those who carried out the death flights — including leader Mohamed Atta — in discoveries never before revealed to the public.
edit on 21-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GhostLancer






Here is the fallacy behind the video-faker's contention. Just because he altered and added special FX to a real video of WTC collapsing and it fooled anyone does not mean that the building was not the work of demolition. Okay, so he fooled a bunch of folks by adding explosions, a soundtrack and a UFO. This does not take away from the validity of the original (unaltered) video, nor does it disprove that WTC 7 was the work of demolition.

Sure, you can fake a video about UFOs, but that doesn't mean that there are not UFOs. You can fake a video about **anything** (like the ending of a football game or some other sports event), but it does not replace the reality that already happened. He can fake videos about WTC 7 all day and night and fool thousands of people, but in the end, a faked video about WTC 7 does nothing more than show the world how good of a lier he is. Heck, he might even get a job offer from people who might be getting ready to stage the next dramatic cinematic attack event.

Faking videos about WTC 7 (or anything else) does not supercede the reality that actually happened. At the end of the day, all the guy has done was to fool good people. It does not discount the evidence that is out there, ---the REAL video evidence and scientific principles that scream that WTC 7 could not have fallen the way it did due to the little damage it took.


Or we could look at another way, He showed us what gullible fools the Truthers are.
edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



not exactly true. If you read the description in the video he admits that most truthers were NOT fooled by this video. Unfortunately it's usually the people with the strangest theories that are the most outspoken, and the ones who usually make videos. Add to that all the disinfo agents, and it makes it look like the majority of people who think 9/11 didn't happen exactly like our government is telling us it happened believe in these crazy theories. When really it's a very small percentage.

I believe 9/11 was a false flag op, but I could easily see that the video was fake when it was originally released.

One problem I have with every 9/11 debate is that the official story believers do not understand that not all truthers subscribe to the same theories. There are some serious whackjobs out there. However if you are an OS supporter you must subrcibe to the 9/11 Commission Report word for word yes? Of course not. There are people who believe that the US wasn't involved in 9/11 but also don't agree with everything in the Commissions Report.

There's people that have all sorts of different beliefs, some are still on the fence.

Using the term "truther" is really poor form in my opinion, and it always turns me off from these discussions. It's as annoying as calling everyone who believes the majority of the Official story "shills". Also when did calling someone who is searching for the "truth" become the battle cry for official story proponents? Like it's an insult to search for the truth? Never understood that one. But I digress...

Is there a name that you can lump everyone who believes in a religion? whether it be Catholics, Chistians, Muslims, Buddists, you also have to include cults that worship Elvis, or Marshal Applewhite, or whoever it may be. Creationists? Well not really. Some religions believe we are the product of alien hybridization. So there are religions(or cults) that don't subscribe to the creationist theory.

So please enough with lumping people who have very different ideas and theories about what happened on 9/11 in the same group.Just like some religions are just stranger/sillier than others; some people who don't buy the "Official Story" believe im some strange theories. "No Planers", "Energy Weapons from space" "Aliens did it" you name it someone believes it.

Let's come up with a new word for people who are just plain ignorant, and stop throwing the term "truther" around as if everyone who believe's 9/11 was a false flag op all subscribe to the same theory, when there are dozens and dozens of theries. How about we use the term "ignorant people".



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LoonyConservative
 



seems to me that the logical thing to do would be indeed to "pull it"


So, if you're relying on logic then logic would dictate that in order to "pull" it ie destroy the building then one would be required to have the means to do so. In order to collapse a building explosives are used and of course these need to be in place "Prior" to the decision to "Pull" it being made.

Logic would also dictate that as Silverstein did not personally "Pull It" but ordered someone else to do so then that someone else need have the means to do so and of course be totally aware what Silverstein was talking about.
For Silverstein to deny what he was recorded saying really goes to show the level of contempt those in office in the US have for the ignorant Chicken Lickens masquerading as intelligent citizens.

When it comes to the topic of 911 and the enormous energies spent by some members of ATS in doing a very piss poor job of trying to debunk, without "ever" presenting even a half sensible scientific explanation of how a couple of office fires could collapse a building at free fall speed, my stooge alert goes to red .

I often contemplate the "John Lear Video" and his critique of some of the suspicious machinations of ATS and when it comes to the topic of 911 his words certainly do raise a few flags.

The people of the US have "NEVER" had a criminal enquiry in relation to this matter let alone what their own law demand a "Murder Investigation" the debunkers on this website with a motto of "Deny Ignorance" should be fully ashamed of themselves for being complicit in a murder by proxy by not spending their energies and intellect demanding a proper investigation.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GhostLancer






Here is the fallacy behind the video-faker's contention. Just because he altered and added special FX to a real video of WTC collapsing and it fooled anyone does not mean that the building was not the work of demolition. Okay, so he fooled a bunch of folks by adding explosions, a soundtrack and a UFO. This does not take away from the validity of the original (unaltered) video, nor does it disprove that WTC 7 was the work of demolition.

Sure, you can fake a video about UFOs, but that doesn't mean that there are not UFOs. You can fake a video about **anything** (like the ending of a football game or some other sports event), but it does not replace the reality that already happened. He can fake videos about WTC 7 all day and night and fool thousands of people, but in the end, a faked video about WTC 7 does nothing more than show the world how good of a lier he is. Heck, he might even get a job offer from people who might be getting ready to stage the next dramatic cinematic attack event.

Faking videos about WTC 7 (or anything else) does not supercede the reality that actually happened. At the end of the day, all the guy has done was to fool good people. It does not discount the evidence that is out there, ---the REAL video evidence and scientific principles that scream that WTC 7 could not have fallen the way it did due to the little damage it took.


Or we could look at another way, He showed us what gullible fools the Truthers are.
edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Using the term "truther" is really poor form in my opinion, and it always turns me off from these discussions. It's as annoying as calling everyone who believes the majority of the Official story "shills". Also when did calling someone who is searching for the "truth" become the battle cry for official story proponents? Like it's an insult to search for the truth? Never understood that one. But I digress...

Is there a name that you can lump everyone who believes in a religion? whether it be Catholics, Chistians, Muslims, Buddists, you also have to include cults that worship Elvis, or Marshal Applewhite, or whoever it may be. Creationists? Well not really. Some religions believe we are the product of alien hybridization. So there are religions(or cults) that don't subscribe to the creationist theory.

So please enough with lumping people who have very different ideas and theories about what happened on 9/11 in the same group.Just like some religions are just stranger/sillier than others; some people who don't buy the "Official Story" believe im some strange theories. "No Planers", "Energy Weapons from space" "Aliens did it" you name it someone believes it.

Let's come up with a new word for people who are just plain ignorant, and stop throwing the term "truther" around as if everyone who believe's 9/11 was a false flag op all subscribe to the same theory, when there are dozens and dozens of theries. How about we use the term "ignorant people".


Agreed bro. Every time I post something it's automatically "so homervb, the entire government was in on it?" and that is the opposite of what I believe. I hinted in the other thread that the FBI was unreliable because they're covering up the Saudi investigation and "thedman" responded with "So you really believe the 9/11 Commission was in on it too?" It gets out of hand very quickly around here.

In the minds of those who support the OS the "truther" label is almost a defense mechanism to segregate "normal" every day people from people they think are "insane" for even questioning the events of 9/11. I will agree there are some odd theories out there (lasers, holograms, santanic rituals) but not everyone in search of the truth defends those theories.

New comers to the truth movement need to know it's a search for truth, not a search for an inside job. There are anomalies you can find about the events of 9/11 but you can't be too quick to just point the finger at everyone in the US government.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


i think the world trade center is actualy made of lego, that will explain everything. guess they didnt use massive length steel structures to support the building. lol, cheers, peace, pun definetely intended.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
-Nevermind already posted-
edit on 21-6-2012 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
So, let's say for arguments sake that building 7 was brought down by choice. Would it confirm to you that the entire day of 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government to make war? If your answer is yes then you understand why they have chosen to ignore it altogether. Maybe we did "pull" it. So the hell what? Maybe it was beyond saving. Maybe they didn't want another WTC coming down by it's own unexpectedly and kill even MORE PEOPLE.


I will say for certain that this entire subject is old. Why a building must be professionally brought down in order for it to come down the way it did is silly to me, btw. How the hell else are buildings supposed to come down but straight? What, can they fall over hundreds of feet in any direction they want? They aren't trees. They aren't the leaning tower of Pisa.


Gee wiz, people. It's been 11 years. Not one damn soul has come forward to say, hey guys, I was on the inside. I can't take the guilt anymore. I don't want to go to hell when I die. It was all a plot by the government to make war and money, and distract people so someone can rule the world like some storybook or movie, and 7 billion people conveniently accepts being told what to do and ruled by some tyrants wanting power.


Not one soul. With cold hard proof to show they aren't looking for attention. Why is this even still going on is beyond me. Aliens are infinitely more interesting than this because they're actually a possibility.





new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join