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.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well if the building was so severly damged and all the floors gutted by fire it would not take a huge quantity of explosives. WTC 7 was evacuated several hours before so thier would have been no sneaking in under peoples noses.
Originally posted by nick7261
Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
In the first place I cannot see any body in the US being capable of planning the alleged conspiracy in all its permutations
But you can believe bin Laden and a rag-tag group of untrained arabs that never planned or carried out any thing even remotely similar to this COULD have pulled this off?
Let me make sure I understand this...
The CIA and the Dept. of Defense, with billion dollar budgets and thousands of professionally trained and experienced operatives could NOT pull off 9/11, but 20 or so untrained, inexperienced, arabs, with little or no support organization an minimal funding, COULD pull off 9/11?
Do you really think this makes any sense?
Originally posted by nick7261
Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
So IMHO they had no need to demo the buildings, a bit of flame was enough!!
This conclusion is based on YOUR assumptions about why WTC7 would need to be destroyed. If the individuals working within the U.S. government were involved in any way they may have had their own reasons for wanting WTC7 to come down on 9/11.
Keep in mind that WTC7 was the home of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, SEC, and IRS to name just a few tennants.
Originally posted by PartChimp
I'm sure the democrats who are wailing and beating their fists against their chests to make him look like even more of an idiot than he already does wouldn't expose him if there was any reason to do so.
Originally posted by something smells
I personally doubt the CTers motives.
Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
To All,
CTers of any type must have Captain Paranoia on the shoulder in the first place to "look for the truth". This immediately puts in place the selective evidence process.
All I know is that when we have all lived out our respective lives my viewpoint will be the same. Probably your viewpoint will remain the same. Difference will be that I would have got on and lived my life. The CTers will still be trying to convince people from their "zero point energy" powered wheelchairs or banged up under some mental health code still shouting "inside job".
I await all the lovely graphics and juvenile insults that usually follow this kind of response.
Thank heavens for the Ignore Button
Originally posted by talisman
GwionX
Which is all the more reason why a *RANDOM* event would have less chance of success of a straight down collapse. She did mention in that interview that they did demolish the Oklahoma City Federal Building , they just had to be careful.
But that building(Oklahoma City Federal Building) was far more damaged then WTC7. In fact, the Oklahoma City Federal Building looked far more damaged then even the Towers.
But, it needed 'explosives' to finish it. That to me makes the Building 7 collapse by a random event ludicrous.
It is the same thing, it needed 'explosives' to finish the job. They did before, so people like them can do it again.
We can all agree that this building was far more damaged then bldg 7
Yet we are expected to believe that Building7 that had a *bunker* just fell straight down from some damage and fire.
[edit on 19-2-2007 by talisman]
Originally posted by CameronFox
Was this building on fire for hours without any firefighting operations at all? What is the design if this building? IS it the same as WTC7? Apples to Apples here kiddies.
Originally posted by Samblack
I was stating that the "remote control" devices would of melted not the C4.