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: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Exactly, people will say "it looked like a controlled demolition" but when you think about what a controlled demolition really looks like, it was nothing like a controlled demolition.
In a controlled demolition you have months and months of prep work, leading up to the implosion and if you watch any video of high rise controlled demolition it does not even look like one.
that was a 31 story building, you can quite clearly see that there has been loads of prep work done before, as it falls you can see the flash's of light from the explosions and then hear lots of explosives going off one after the other. even the way the building falls is different.
originally posted by: oxidadoblanco
a reply to: jaffo
I agree...
Simple physics brought those buildings down,,
If i make a 3 story building out of concrete and steel and jam a 64 chevy into it...
IT WILL FAIL.........
And.....It will "explode" debris out the sides............
Something is wrong with the video....Why is there "explosion" with a complete fail of a building?
It should have been a total ..................I do not know.................
All you experts might want to renegotiate your belief...Just a thought....
lol
Just a thought..
You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but the speed of which building 7 fell, and I have watched it side by side with several other demolitions, it looks everything like a controlled demolition to me.
It doesn't mean the same explosives were used to create the effect, but the effect was identical, IMHO.
originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
That's a steel-reinforced concrete building. WTC 7 had a massive steel frame.
Has it occurred to you that there are different demolition techniques for different types of construction/materials?
If it hasn't, then you are lagging far behind in your research.
soulwaxer
It doesn't mean the same explosives were used to create the effect, but the effect was identical, IMHO.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
My biggest gripe with the "controlled demolition" story is why did no one notice all the bombs being setup in the days leading up to 9/11? It is pretty obvious when you walk into a building that is wired for a controlled demolition that it is going to be blown up. The bombs used on all the main support columns are easy to pick out and many times in the middle of the building for anyone walking by to see. You could NEVER set all those bombs up before hand without anyone noticing. The whole damn building's employees would have to be in on the secret.
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Jchristopher5
It doesn't mean the same explosives were used to create the effect, but the effect was identical, IMHO.
Unless you can actually provide evidence however that there was some other external factors that contributed to the demise of the building that point means nothing.
NIST provided a complex explanation for why the building fell, this is a view backed by most of the worlds experts in high rise buildings.
If you believe otherwise, that is fine, if you believe for example that it was brought down by explosives, fair enough, go for it, but just know this that unless you have actual proof that explosives were used (or mini-nukes, space lasers, thermite, ect) then your belief that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition is just a that a belief. Your views hold no more strength or merit than me saying that I belief the world to be flat.
NIST provided a comprehensive explanation of why the building fell? Are you kidding me?
Barry Jennings testimony, for example, was not part of the official story
Why do you trust the official story?
the entire interior of the building collapsed. Eventually the building essentially became a hollow shell and the exterior support columns also failed and the building fell straight down. There was very little resistance because the interior of the building had already collapsed.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Philippines
Those other towering infernos did not have a 1100 foot high skyscraper carve twenty story holes out of them. Again....why do people forget that 7 was heavily damaged........
How does your current theory apply to other towering infernos not falling because of fires?
Do you expect us to believe that the interior of the building wasn't attached to the exterior?
How does your current theory apply to other towering infernos not falling because of fires?
Quite simply it is because WTC-7 like almost all other high rise building was unique, in this particular case the building had a number of weaknesses that were exposed that day, mostly this was because the buildings foundations were put in for a much smaller building which created a number of challenges for the engineers.
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.