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.
...
Anchor: Can you confirm that it was number seven that just went in?
FDNY lieutenant: Yes sir.
Anchor: Umm... and you were... You guys knew this was coming all day..?
FDNY lieutenant: We had been ha- We had heard reports that the building was unstable, and that it eventually it would need to come down on it's own... or it would be taken down. I would imagine it came down on it's own...
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
Your discomfort is noted. No name calling, no accusations and the link works perfectly.
Originally posted by alaskan
Were they going to do it with their axes? "I would imagine it came down on it's own" leaves room for doubt.
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
The information on WTC 7 is voluminous and out there for anyone who wants to go looking. I submit a good place to search is HERE.
This hasn’t stopped people trying to make the most of the story, though.
The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
Here the Scholars for 911 Truth press release is written in such a way that it could leave the reader thinking the exercise simulated a plane being used as a weapon, yet without them saying that explicitly. Another good reason to question not only the facts and references presented in what you read, but any implied meanings, too.
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
So your response to what you think is meaningless post is to create one yourself? Can’t help yourself can you?
As before, there was no name calling, no accusations and the link works perfectly.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Forgive my ignorance on this particular subject but what exactly was the plan when they were built. It must have been imagined that they may need to come down some day. What was the original plan for that just in case type scenario?
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Instead of demanding that I answer your question, why don’t you do your own research and share it with us. The construction was engineered in such a way as to consider a future demolition?
I am sorry if this seems like a personal attack; I don't mean it to. Your post is classic truther logic-flow. That is, you make an assertion based off of nothing more than your opinion, then demand that I prove it wrong.
It's not my burden to prove you wrong; it's your burden to prove your assertions. If you choose to believe WTC 7 was brought down because that’s your belief system – have at it! However, don’t make an assertion and then demand that I prove it incorrect.
Originally posted by alaskan
I never understand how people who still ask about explosives and loud explosions can act like they know so much about this argument.
I heard there's discussion about some kind of vermiculite or thermike or something like that.