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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 8
135
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I don't understand the debate...Saw it on live tv just prior to it coming down that they were discussing 'pulling' the building and shortly thereafter, they did...Apparently someone didn't think it was a good idea to broadcast the decision to the public...Little late now...




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Shadow Herder

I knew that none of those buildings were brought down by fire when I was watching it happen live. Common sense really is all it takes. But given how daft I know the western populace to be now after all is said and done, videos and eye witness testimony can be shown until the cows come home, and those folks will still cling to the official story.





most of us "folks" don't cling to that story, plenty of efforts have been made to get a second investigation (politically independent), large and small groups have consistently asked questions publicly, of many different government people, and do not get an answer. evidence has been shown over and over that can't be explained away...so, what would you do?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: reldra

The fires were being starved of oxygen soon after the planes hit, so there were no fires on the lower floors. How did all that structural steel melt below the impact zone?

I wasn't in the lower floors, so I don;t know there were no fires in them. We could see fire at the top floors, since it was filmed as actively being on fire on the outside of the building. Why were they starved of oxygen? There were holes smashed into the building.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

The whole demolition of WTC 7 conspiracy theory has been been endlessly debunked by real experts and scientists.

But unlike some on here, I won't stoop to the lowest level and call you all that believe the conspiracy theory nasty names.

The official story is the correct one. I think we can all agree to disagree.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.softwood.org... about 4 images down.

"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a
longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals
quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly,
often with little warning.
In contrast, wood loses
strength slowly and only as material is lost through
surface charring.
Average building fire temperatures range from
approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens
dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC,
retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."


But the steel was protected with insulation and temperatures did not exceed 300 °C (570 °F) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7, according to NIST.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.softwood.org... about 4 images down.

"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a
longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals
quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly,
often with little warning.
In contrast, wood loses
strength slowly and only as material is lost through
surface charring.
Average building fire temperatures range from
approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens
dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC,
retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."


But the steel was protected with insulation and temperatures did not exceed 300 °C (570 °F) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7, according to NIST.


I was responding to your asking for the source of a picture. I found the picture and this text was next to it. The text refutes that it takes thousands of degrees for the structural integrity of steel to degrade and that the integrity of wood degrades more slowly. Now we are down to a very small difference in degrees.
edit on 30-6-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Shadow Herder

I knew that none of those buildings were brought down by fire when I was watching it happen live. Common sense really is all it takes. But given how daft I know the western populace to be now after all is said and done, videos and eye witness testimony can be shown until the cows come home, and those folks will still cling to the official story.





most of us "folks" don't cling to that story, plenty of efforts have been made to get a second investigation (politically independent), large and small groups have consistently asked questions publicly, of many different government people, and do not get an answer. evidence has been shown over and over that can't be explained away...so, what would you do?



I personally wish everyone would discuss motive more often when major crimes have been committed and the official story and motive presented is lacking.

Motive used to be so very critical to a criminal investigation and in proving guilt.

• Who was largely targeted and killed? Brokers.
• What was destroyed? Financial information, intelligence investigation information in WTC 7 and at the Pentagon, and the contents of the basement vaults -- namely $240 billion in govt securities set to mature on 9/12/2001 and the days following.
• Why would the above be important to someone? Banking regulations were lifted in a state of emergency and those securities were cleared in the days following 9/11 without question. The U.S economy took a huge hit and has never really recovered since.

People behind a large financial crime warrant investigation because all of the above is much more compelling motive than 'Muslims hate our freedom.'


edit on 30-6-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.softwood.org... about 4 images down.

"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a
longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals
quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly,
often with little warning.
In contrast, wood loses
strength slowly and only as material is lost through
surface charring.
Average building fire temperatures range from
approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens
dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC,
retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."


But the steel was protected with insulation and temperatures did not exceed 300 °C (570 °F) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7, according to NIST.


I was responding to your asking for the source of a picture. I found the picture and this text was next to it. The text refutes that it takes thousands of degrees for the structural integrity of steel to degrade and that the integrity of wood degrades more slowly. Now we are down to a very small difference in degrees.


No, we are down to whether the steel was insulated to protect against office fires or not. It was.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
This video was a freedom of information requested video which you can clearly hear a deep thud explosion followed by the penthouse partial controlled collapse followed by total controlled collapse. There are people who claim that there were no explosions. They are lying.




A "deep thud explosion" sufficient to bring down the building, but not sufficient to disturb the smoke plumes one butterfly wing flap worth???

A blockish rainbow pixilation in the upper left of the video corresponding precisely with that muffled sound? Inferring not so much a "deep thud explosion" as a brief technical anomaly accompanied by the sound.

I have heard many a breeze blowing on a cell phone create more of a "deep thud explosion" sound than this.

You are welcome to your "beliefs", but the evidence you are providing doesn't support your claims.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.softwood.org... about 4 images down.

"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a
longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals
quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly,
often with little warning.
In contrast, wood loses
strength slowly and only as material is lost through
surface charring.
Average building fire temperatures range from
approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens
dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC,
retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."


But the steel was protected with insulation and temperatures did not exceed 300 °C (570 °F) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7, according to NIST.


I was responding to your asking for the source of a picture. I found the picture and this text was next to it. The text refutes that it takes thousands of degrees for the structural integrity of steel to degrade and that the integrity of wood degrades more slowly. Now we are down to a very small difference in degrees.


No, we are down to whether the steel was insulated to protect against office fires or not. It was.


Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed
because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing
insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple
floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached
temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with
dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns

source


We could go over and over the same scientific information that has been gone through before. I think it is a waste as we are not scientists. I believe WT7 appears to be a planned demolition. But, I am really more interested in the motives and actors behind the entire incident.
edit on 30-6-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.softwood.org... about 4 images down.

"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a
longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals
quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly,
often with little warning.
In contrast, wood loses
strength slowly and only as material is lost through
surface charring.
Average building fire temperatures range from
approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens
dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC,
retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."


But the steel was protected with insulation and temperatures did not exceed 300 °C (570 °F) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7, according to NIST.


I was responding to your asking for the source of a picture. I found the picture and this text was next to it. The text refutes that it takes thousands of degrees for the structural integrity of steel to degrade and that the integrity of wood degrades more slowly. Now we are down to a very small difference in degrees.


No, we are down to whether the steel was insulated to protect against office fires or not. It was.


But let me add this to be fair: After the bombing in 1993, the asbestos in the basement vaults was replaced by stuff that wasn't as great at protecting steel. That was under Clinton. Coincidentally, Clinton and Bush Sr. worked together to trade arms for drugs during Iran Contra and worked together during the Mena, Arkansas CIA drug running scandal. They would also be prime candidates for conspiring to commit major financial crimes, desperate to cover them up, and have the resources to pull off 9/11 considering all the 'unfortunate' government incidents that made the events more possible.
edit on 30-6-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Shadow Herder

I knew that none of those buildings were brought down by fire when I was watching it happen live. Common sense really is all it takes. But given how daft I know the western populace to be now after all is said and done, videos and eye witness testimony can be shown until the cows come home, and those folks will still cling to the official story.



I watched it happen live. The heat of the jet fuel can do this. You need an engineering degree, not just common sense.

I know the official story is incorrect. Most people should know that. #7 was a controlled demolition. I was on the phone that morning with Bruce Beach, the owner of the Ark II in Canada. I wanted a spot for myself and my daughter and was told I was welcome, then the border closed.

The OP is correct about that building.


Jet fuel haha building 7 jetfuel LOL!



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
I wasn't talking about jet fuel in regard to building 7. No need for the ha has. Not sure if your English is very good, so i will let it pass.


edit on 30-6-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

We could go over and over the same scientific information that has been gone through before. I think it is a waste as we are not scientists. I believe WT7 appears to be a planned demolition. But, I am really more interested in the motives and actors behind the entire incident.


Me, too. And AMEN, glad to hear you say that.

Hot, hot fire could have melted steel. Perhaps the situation was ripe for it. Who can state definitively? Now why would someone want to destroy those three WTC buildings and hit the Office of Naval Intelligence at the Pentagon? Those were the objectives that were achieved.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Double Post
edit on 30-6-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra


And recall, too, that Bill Ayers and other members of the Weather Underground managed to bomb the Office of Naval Intelligence at the Pentagon, they destroyed tapes and other evidence....yet somehow they walked away "guilty as hell and free as a bird." Now they teach in respected universities. That doesn't happen without the help and sanctioning of the federal government.

The Weather Underground. Just one more CIA-owned and operated 'terrorist' organization.



EDIT: I meant to reply to Reldra



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.softwood.org... about 4 images down.

"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a
longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals
quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly,
often with little warning.
In contrast, wood loses
strength slowly and only as material is lost through
surface charring.
Average building fire temperatures range from
approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens
dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC,
retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."


But the steel was protected with insulation and temperatures did not exceed 300 °C (570 °F) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7, according to NIST.


I was responding to your asking for the source of a picture. I found the picture and this text was next to it. The text refutes that it takes thousands of degrees for the structural integrity of steel to degrade and that the integrity of wood degrades more slowly. Now we are down to a very small difference in degrees.


No, we are down to whether the steel was insulated to protect against office fires or not. It was.


But let me add this to be fair: After the bombing in 1993, the asbestos in the basement vaults was replaced by stuff that wasn't as great at protecting steel. That was under Clinton. Coincidentally, Clinton and Bush Sr. worked together to trade arms for drugs during Iran Contra and worked together during the Mena, Arkansas CIA drug running scandal. They would also be prime candidates for conspiring to commit major financial crimes, desperate to cover them up, and have the resources to pull off 9/11 considering all the 'unfortunate' government incidents that made the events more possible.
I like this idea. The simplistic view has normally been 'to start the neverending war on terror". But watching the video of Bush being told, while reading to children and the look in his eyes...it has always creeped me out. Any other President would have excused themselves and given the book to a staffer to finish reading.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

And then there was the lie Bush told about seeing the first plane hit, when video of the first plane was not made public for months. It wasn't shown live on TV like the second plane.

George W. Bush:


Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."


CNN Transcript of Townhall Meeting



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: hellobruce
There are about 2.1 million engineers and architects in the USA, so far only 2,252 have bothered to signed their petition in about 9 years....


In as far as I know there is no movement of engineers and architects that supports the official story. Note even 2,252 people. So, if numbers are what counts (sic), you're outnumbered


No wonder, when this is the quality of their "research"


Seems to me this gentleman tried to explain something technical to a layperson. That's not research, that's provoking curiosity.


That video provokes laughter and makes people trying to get to the bottom of this look bad.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: reldra

And then there was the lie Bush told about seeing the first plane hit, when video of the first plane was not made public for months. It wasn't shown live on TV like the second plane.

George W. Bush:


Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."


CNN Transcript of Townhall Meeting


And I just love how he acts like he was a victim to having been whisked away without time to think. Even if he just saw reports of the first tower having been hit by a plane (which wasn't immediately obvious at the time, some thought it was a bomb like 1993), his thinking was so slow that he couldn't say "I need to cancel this book reading and tend to what's going on????"

His story doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
edit on 30-6-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
135
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join