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.

 

So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by pstrron
I kind of wonder why the collapse of WTC7 is even still brought up. First of all Goldstein the owner publicly stated on TV that he gave the order for the building to be pulled which is a term for CD of the structure. In order for this to happen, it must have been already planned. Goldstein had also placed a multi-million dollar insurance policy on WTC 1, 2 and 7 three months prior to 9/11. After the collapses of all three buildings he received an $800 million dollar settlement. Follow the money.

In regards to WTC7, it was pulled, case closed.


It's been 12 years. You still can't even get his name right.

This is the truth movement in a nutshell.


Well Goldstein is one of the most popular Jewish names, so it's easy to make a spelling mistake, sometime the mind is on autopilot. He obviously knows who he really means because he gave all the other info about Larry, and you know it was just a simple mistake, don't tell me you have never made a spelling mistake on a forum before!

But his is how low some of you OS believers go. When your argument is falling apart, you become snide and aggressive, and instead of debating about what happened, you start trying to subtly attack the person posting.

Your fellow OS'er 'hellobruce' has been equally as petty, and everyone can see the personal attack is just another attempt to rubbish what the poster said because you have no other come back, or because you want to give the impression to forum lurkers, that the poster does not know what they are on about.

Calling people silly 'truthers' and all that stuff, telling people they are saying lies, and are talking crap, are all theoretically against the rules at ATS, but time and time again, nobody addresses your posts, yet if it was the other way round, you'd have a mod sticking their fancy blocking stickers all over people's comments that you do not like.

If you want to be taken seriously you should stick to debating fairly, and if you can't hack it, or cant behave in an adult manner then go and post on a forum where people want to lower themselves to your petty level.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hello bruce
 


Those truthers are full of well educated Architects , Structural engineers and Demolition experts .
Why did Cheney and his side kick Bush refuse to testify before Congress unless they were together at the time, off record and behind closed doors .This was a National event . Why the secrecy ? Was Cheney worried that Bush would spill the beans ?
If you didn't hear alarms going off when they refused to appear before Congress how can you question Truthers . What does truthers mean . They want the truth as opposed to those who accept anything fed to them by our prestigious politicians .
edit on 3-6-2013 by SimonPeter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


More to the point what makes you think we need yet another thread on this



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


More to the point what makes you think we need yet another thread on this


That's easy mate, because the issues haven't been resolved in a satisfactory manner



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
This is such a unique and original thread....

I don't like calling people out for repeat threads, but seriously?
You've been here since 06. What are you thinking?


I guess its ok to start a few hundred threads about Obama and Bush, but not ok to do so in regard to important topics like 9-11, ufos/aliens, area 51 and secret society boards. Not to mention how quickly some things head to the hoax bin. Been here a while you know.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I believed the OS 100% for 5 years, my search sent me to ATS, where I found a type of "safe harbor" on the net in the 9/11 forums here at ATS. My very first thread in 2006 was on 9/11. Try and talk about this on any other message board and see what happens, I have, and wow cyber bullying gets nasty because you can't even ask questions or post a video without getting attacked or banned by even the mods. This is one of that last places on the net where threads even redundant threads are not locked, and to ATS I am very grateful for that. To me let threads live or die in the wild, if they get no posts or flags they slowly sink away to oblivion. This thread specifically deals with the fires of WTC7 bringing it down, obviously it has interest as it currently sits at the top of the 9/11 forum and is one of the threads highlighted on the page of the ATS Index for conspiracies.

That's why.
edit on 3-6-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


I always find it strange how there is always a presumption when it comes to 9/11 that anyone who believes the OS is some how ignorant. I have been researching 9/11 since it happened and was following Middle Eastern terrorism before 9/11. Yet you seem to presume that 14 minutes worth of video that's really just a regurgitation of stuff "truthers" have been saying for years is somehow going to change my mind.

I say to you that prior to 9/11 there had not been any significant terrorist attack against domestic American airlines and as such security was lax.

you respond with a list of every single significant Air craft hijacking in history, a video that seems to say Barbra Olson is someone else or a fake vitamin (didn't watch it), something about Northwood's and then a link about how two years before hand NORAD ran a exercise.

none of that means that pre and post 9/11 aircraft security was the same and that before 9/11 security on aircraft was just as strict as it is today.

in other words you have provided a bunch of links and videos that are just distraction's

I say to security was much more relaxed before 9/11 than it was today and you respond with stuff that's not really relevant



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
It seems to me that the OP has proven it wasn't a controlled demolition.

From his own example, he states how impossible it is to create a freefall into the buildings own footprint. If even professional demolition people can't do this with all the time in the world and in total public view, how would you expect a bunch of guys sneaking around during the early morning hours to wire a 100% perfect demolition?

You wouldn't.

Therefore the only explanation left is that it was a freak of nature, not a controlled demolition.


A lot of freaks of Nature in one place at one time. I always say.. Follow the money.
Now its acceptable that certain alphabet groups work with 'terrorist cells' to break them up and or catch them in the act .cough cough.
Why do some find it hard to believe they were doing this in 2001.. or 1981, or 1941? If not the alphabet groups but the ones who control them groups.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by reeferman
 


I always find it strange how there is always a presumption when it comes to 9/11 that anyone who believes the OS is some how ignorant. I have been researching 9/11 since it happened and was following Middle Eastern terrorism before 9/11. Yet you seem to presume that 14 minutes worth of video that's really just a regurgitation of stuff "truthers" have been saying for years is somehow going to change my mind.

I say to you that prior to 9/11 there had not been any significant terrorist attack against domestic American airlines and as such security was lax.

you respond with a list of every single significant Air craft hijacking in history, a video that seems to say Barbra Olson is someone else or a fake vitamin (didn't watch it), something about Northwood's and then a link about how two years before hand NORAD ran a exercise.

none of that means that pre and post 9/11 aircraft security was the same and that before 9/11 security on aircraft was just as strict as it is today.

in other words you have provided a bunch of links and videos that are just distraction's

I say to security was much more relaxed before 9/11 than it was today and you respond with stuff that's not really relevant


You're saying security was lax to fit the official story. Security is in place for a reason, and since the introduction of security it has never been 'lax'. Yeah it might be very over the top these days, but it's never been lax at any time. Where exactly did you get the idea security at airports was lax prior to 9/11?

Nobody is saying OS believers are 'ignorant' but I have not met one OS supporter that will even entertain any other plausible theory, they just accept the OS for what it is, even though the OS was handed to you by the people that really did 9/11!

Can you not see the problem there? The people who were behind 9/11 provided all those reports that all you OS'ers stand by. Surely with the likes of Operation Northwoods etc you can see that the government is very capable of being very devious, so why would anyone believe their fraudulent reports? Once a fraud, always a fraud.

I don't know why you're even part of this debate if your mind is already made up on the OS?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

I don't know why you're even part of this debate if your mind is already made up on the OS?

I've never understood this, either. If there was a message board whose members promoted a belief in leprechauns that meddled with world affairs, I can't imagine how bored I would have to be to bother to register and troll them for an evening, nevermind log in every day and night to try and reason with them and insist how wrong they are.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
WTC7 was the one event that actually makes me question if it was actually a controlled demo.

Thanks for the thread OP, star and flag.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I really wish the people who believe the 'official story' would explain something to me.

Since it's apparently been proven by the collapse of the three buildings that massive steel beams act not as a heat dissipating sink but 'lose 50% of their strength and rigidity' from exposure to sustained heat, don't you worry whenever you fire up your thin gauge steel ovens and BBQs? Don't you worry that your pots and pans will warp from that propane or natural gas flame?

How can you see the everyday evidence of the temperatures it takes to actually warp steel, not to mention melt it which I presume few of us have ever seen, and still cling to the OS when such massively larger structures are concerned?

Do you now limit your BBQ sessions to less than 57 minutes total (the time it took for the South Tower to collapse from impact and fire onset), lest your Webmaster collapse under the weight of your hot dogs?

I'm not trying to be trite; I just wish I could figure out a way to make money from the incredible level of cognitive dissonance I see every day.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   


All the local CCTV has been released.
reply to post by exponent
 


Around the Pentagon? Honestly?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Here is a very obscure interview(less than 100 views)with a firefighter.
He makes a very strong case.



Interestingly in another interview he said there are a lot of firefighters that know fire could not have accomplished this alone, but they are scared to publicly come forward, they will only essentially talk amongst themselves about it.

edit on 3-6-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
Think about this....

If this was all a huge conspiracy pulled off by the government and GWs buddies why wouldn't they have planted WMDs in Iraq?


Exactly.

If it were a huge conspiracy, then Darth Cheney's buddies would have blown up buildings (and NOT the Pentagon) using truck bombs, and blamed it on Saddam's men. And that would have seen to be much more likely.

Everybody in the GWB admin was interested in Iraq, nobody gave a crap about Afghanistan. Afghanistan was an unexpected detour they had to manage. The obsession with Iraq meant that they didn't send enough US ground forces to Afghanistan because they were already trying to build up for the Iraq war. And that's how Osama got away.

The conspiracy is right in front of you---manipulate the actual terrorist attack on 9/11 into an institutional movement to go to war with Iraq.
edit on 3-6-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

* * * * * * * * * REMINDER * * * * * * * * *



Debate the topic. Debate it with passion, if you wish. Don't debate each other or your personalities. Please be mindful of the T&C and the special considerations and conditions that apply to the 9/11 forum.

thank you



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


If that's true then I guess Bush's compatriots within NIST done as they were instructed to do, it wouldn't surprise me.

As I said, with the amount of questions still remaining around 9/11, it just stinks. Too many conflicting stories and when you look at what came from 9/11, the security contracts, poppy field access, Larry Silversteins obscene payout etc. etc. It all adds up to cold hard $$$$$$
edit on 3-6-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join