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: 9
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


It's arseholes like that that pollute the truth with BS. He might have hoaxing skills but obviously has
little in the ethics department.
Limbo
edit on 21-6-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Once again, how long does it take to survey a building BEFORE it is demolished? How long does it take BEFORE someone is sent in to set the explosives? How long did it take Building 7 to fall AFTER the Twin Towers were hit?

If Building 7 collapsed because of debris then how did falling debris affect the building to make it collapse? If Building 7 was "pulled" then who risked their lives to go in AT A MINUTES NOTICE, to setup explosives on all levels with a fire raging inside and half a building gone? If the building was "pulled" and NO ONE went in to set explosives to bring it down then how was it done and were there explosives in the building already and if so then who planted them and when and why?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atlantien
Once again, how long does it take to survey a building BEFORE it is demolished? How long does it take BEFORE someone is sent in to set the explosives? How long did it take Building 7 to fall AFTER the Twin Towers were hit?

If Building 7 collapsed because of debris then how did falling debris affect the building to make it collapse? If Building 7 was "pulled" then who risked their lives to go in AT A MINUTES NOTICE, to setup explosives on all levels with a fire raging inside and half a building gone? If the building was "pulled" and NO ONE went in to set explosives to bring it down then how was it done and were there explosives in the building already and if so then who planted them and when and why?



These are the questions I've pondered as well. Hypothetically speaking, if a conspiracy did exist and it was truly rigged with explosives, has anyone explored the possibilities of a foreign intelligence agency managing to rig these buildings? Hypothetically, Bush turns his head the other way while this agency does whatever they have to do to make 9/11 happen.

If the Urban Moving Systems story is true and there were explosives in these vans, can we link these two things together? The alleged 5 Dancing Israelis documenting their work from afar? This is all hypothetical and this is me trying to link events of that day hypothetically. If all 3 buildings were rigged I don't think any type of military personnel or demolition company is going to do it, it's just morally f*cked up.

The only fact I can offer is this Urban Moving Systems did exist, and the owner did leave the country with nobody to run his business



State Granted Access to Moving Company's Storage Facility

NEWARK- The State Division of Consumer Affairs ("Consumer Affairs") is asking all citizens who have goods stored at Urban Moving Systems' Weehawken warehouse to immediately contact Consumer Affairs, Attorney General John J. Farmer, Jr., and New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs Director Mark S. Herr announced today.

The State on Wednesday obtained a court order giving inspectors from Consumer Affairs access to the facility allowing consumers access to retrieve their goods and belongings. The State, at the same time, filed a lawsuit in Hudson County Superior Court against Urban Moving Systems and its owner Dominick Suter alleging violations of both the State's Consumer Fraud Act and regulations set forth in the Public Movers and Warehousing Licensing Act.

According to the complaint, on or about September 14, 2001, Suter departed from the United States and left no one acting as an agent for Urban.

The complaint also alleges that Suter violated the Mover's Act by, among other things, failing to provide Consumer Affairs the name of a current contact person or agent, not adequately responding to consumer requests for access to their belongings and not having an agent available for at least 20-30 per week to allow consumers access to their belongings.

"We became aware of the hardship consumers faced who could not get access to their belongings at Urban's warehouse," Attorney General Farmer said. "By obtaining this court order we can now offer consumers access to what is rightfully theirs. Our lawsuit should serve notice that we intend to prosecute those who violate our laws and undermine the public's trust."

"It appears that goods belonging to approximately 100 consumers are stored at the warehouse. Thus far we have only heard from 36 consumers," Herr said. "We have access to the facility for 30 days so we are urging consumers who have goods stored with Urban to contact us as soon as possible."

Consumers can gain access to the facility on an appointment basis and will have to provide proof of ownership to claim their goods, Herr said.

Consumers should contact Consumer Affairs at 973-504-6442 or 973-504-6228 to gain access to the Urban facility.

A violation of the Consumer Fraud Act carries a maximum penalty of $7,500 for the first offense and $15,000 for the second and each subsequent offense. A violation of the Licensing Act carries a penalty of $2,500 for the first offense and $5,000 for the second and each subsequent offense.

Deputy Attorney General Alan R. Niedz of the Division of Law is handling this matter for the State.


edit on 21-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


Ok, this fails to get mentioned a lot...

"Pull it" is, indeed, industry jargon for demolishing a building.

"Pull it" is also industry jargon for pulling out firefighters from a building that is now a lost cause.

The quote of Larry is meaningless and has nothing to do with anything, but it does give people a convenient little tidbit to pick at and complain about.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 



nor does it disprove that WTC 7 was the work of demolition.

Nor does it prove it either. All the "other truthers" who think that the hidden agenda government brought down the buildings besides impact and fire have yet to produce any actual evidence, (other than assertions). What remains in front of everyones eyes is the events themselves. Its easy to slow down and enhance the actual video to support some "anomaly" but really, all you are doing is replaying the events themselves over and over, just like they happened.

Yah, 911 was used to start the wars in the middle East, but beyond that, whats your point? False flags have been used throughout history to get the ball rolling on conquest and invasion . In order to start a war you need the peoples support. So kill a bunch in hi profile fashion, cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Atlantien
 


This assumes that the decision to implode the buildings was made while the attacks were underway.

There were various projects taking place at the WTC towers before the attack, power downs, heavy equipment and such, were reported in the weeks prior.

To properly and SAFELY demo a building you need probably weeks.

First, you've got to examine the entire structure, pick out the weak points, and figure out the method to bring it down with little to no damage to the surrounding buildings.

So, first, you've got to go in and expose the core structure of the building, as well as making strategic cuts to supports throughout the building. Then you have to wire the thing with explosives and triggers and fuses.

Now, arguably, that could be done, over a long period of time, without arousing suspicion.

But there is another explanation, that also fits with some of the evidence found in the dust.

A layer of thermite/thermate material mixed with paint and applied to the core structure. This could be done, literally, years in advance and no one would even notice this.

another, plausible, explanation involves thermite again, but this time, in shape charges or "cutters" that direct the thermite reaction through a small slit pointed at the core column at a 45 degree angle. There are a few youtube videos showing various experiments with something like this.

I have never, ever, heard anyone other than people arguing for the OS claim that demolition charges were placed during or after the attack. That's insane on so many levels it might as well be in there with the holograms and pod people.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





Yah, 911 was used to start the wars in the middle East, but beyond that, whats your point? False flags have been used throughout history to get the ball rolling on conquest and invasion . In order to start a war you need the peoples support. So kill a bunch in hi profile fashion, cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war.


You can't honestly be suggesting that we shouldn't care if 911 was self inflicted, because that's how wars get started?

You can't honestly be suggesting that the defining moment of our generation, shouldn't be honestly investigated?

you know, I have to give it to you Americans sometimes. You've got people foaming at the mouth, spending millions of dollars to try to prove Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, yet you tell me proving what actually happened on 911 doesn't matter?

Tell that to the children in New Jersey who went home to empty houses on sept 11. Tell those kids, wives, friends, families, that their loved ones deaths don't matter, because that's just how the game works.

I WANT the official story to be true. But, sadly, I took grade 10 and 11 physics, so I know that it isn't. I don't need to provide anything other than a grade 10 physics book, and a video of the towers and building 7 coming down with a time code. That really is all the evidence you need.

It doesn't suggest who did or, or why, or who knew, or who helped. All it suggests is, something isn't what we were told, but "what's your point?" right? Who cares.

I mean, it only changed our entire civilization with the police state, department of homeland security, TSA, internet policing, several wars, millions of deaths, billions of dollars in debt.

but again, what's your point?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Kang69
 


Ok, this fails to get mentioned a lot...

"Pull it" is, indeed, industry jargon for demolishing a building.

"Pull it" is also industry jargon for pulling out firefighters from a building that is now a lost cause.

The quote of Larry is meaningless and has nothing to do with anything, but it does give people a convenient little tidbit to pick at and complain about.


Larry stated it as an ipso facto sequence of events.... "They made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

How is this "meaningless"? Is it a co-incidence?


This is almost as ridiculously blatant as Fire Chief Peter Hayden saying "in its current state, you have about five hours".


I should call Hayden for some stock market tips..... he seems to know the future to pretty much within minutes even if something is happening for the first time in history.....

edit on 21-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: typo

edit on 21-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
OMG... that new amateur footage is pretty wild! You even heard faint detonations...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Echtelion
 


Go figure, many witnesses reported basement explosions on that day, doesn't really make sense considering the planes were a fair distance above their heads.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213

not exactly true. If you read the description in the video he admits that most truthers were NOT fooled by this video




Originally posted by Echtelion
OMG... that new amateur footage is pretty wild! You even heard faint detonations...




edit on 21-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I would like to say to the original poster thanks for posting this. Its always an interesting subject to look at it again.
What happened to this building is the proof that the main two towers were also brought down in a controlled explosion. Its nice to have all the videos put together and I've also just head the interview from Harley Man for the first time posted by KidTwist - So I do not consider this a rehash and it is interesting to read fresh peoples perspectives who many not have been on this forum before or posted on it.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Loopdaloop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Echtelion
 


Go figure, many witnesses reported basement explosions on that day, doesn't really make sense considering the planes were a fair distance above their heads.


They reported jet fuel explosions coming out of the elevator shafts. It makes sense to normal people



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

The black official looking chap at ther end of the video seems to not want to give information about why he is hanging about, which strikes me as odd.


He actually looks like a traditional 'man in black' (!)



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

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?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This has gone far beyond just being kicked around by "conspiracy theorists". more and more people are asking the questions and wanting answers, now people can sit here from all sorts of backgrounds and theorise, argue and debate all they want, but some people can have the evidence placed infront of them on a silver platter and because they have held a belief for so long they just cannot fathom that they could be betrayed in such a way.




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

I'm saying that 100 feet worth of 58 huge steal columns cannot be crushed at free fall acceleration, no matter how hard you try their will be some form of resistance especially when the only force involved is gravity.



True.

However, they weren't crushed.

They broke apart at their splices. And a broken column doesn't give any resistance.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Echtelion
 


Go figure, many witnesses reported basement explosions on that day, doesn't really make sense considering the planes were a fair distance above their heads.


They reported jet fuel explosions coming out of the elevator shafts. It makes sense to normal people


Sure.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

these buildings just don't break apart, they are so strong, amazingly strong!


They are also big ! Amazingly big! ANd amazingly heavy !

Sorry, but there is nothing in your life that you can use to be able to have an opinion that matters about this.


you have to destroy all the columns simultaneously to achieve free fall or else their will be a measurable resistance, it as simple as that.


No.


also I'd love for you to address the fire proofing


It's not fire PROOFING. It's fire protection, and they have protection ratings. Columns typically have a 3 hr rating, and floor beams have a 2 hr rating of protection. This means that in a typical office fire, in 2 or 3 hrs, respectively, and without getting the wet stuff on the hot stuff, the steel will be considered to be hot enough to be in danger of not supporting its load.

However, NIST doesn't think that the steel got this hot. Rather, it got hot enough to thermally expand enough to break connections in a building that was not designed with this in mind - cuz it wasn't code. Rather, it was expected that there would be firefighting efforts that would prevent the steel from getting hot enough to thermally expand.


and how fire caused 25 core columns to fail all at once in the first place,but i know you wont, because you can't.


They didn't all fail at once.

it is plainly seen that the penthouse falls into the interior 6 seconds before exterior movement. You cannot deny this.

This undeniable proof that some core columns failed WAY before others did.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post 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.

Thats exactly what that video is designed to show you. Once you pull a floor out from under a piece of any building high up... gravity will do the rest. In the french "explosiveness" demonstration no explosives were used, only gravity. In 911 the weakened structure gave way at the impact and burned floors, giving the same result.

Now look at this video and see where the building gives way, right at the floors compromised by the impact and fire.


Whether you pull out a floor by wire or fire, in the end gravity will assist. All the way to the ground.

By the way, Twin Towers were "tube in tube" construction with the floors free hanging from steel core and exoskeleton. Little more complex than "steel reinforced concrete". Steel reinforced concrete is what they make freeway overpasses and military bunkers out of. High rises are a compromise between materials, strength and cost. The Twin towers were uniquely constructed in order to reach that high. And that was their vulnerability.

The pilots knew that. Thats why they hit the buildings high up but not at the very top. So the top portion would crash down and bring the rest of the building with it. And not at the bottom, because then the firefighters may have put it out before weakening the supports. See that? The fires were give enough time to burn unchecked until the massive weight above the impact points would overcome the burned and blasted floors resistance to ultimate collapse. It happened just like we saw.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join