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.

 

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsup86



Thank you for posting this video, I can clearly hear the first explosion from WTC 7 as the Penthouse collapse.

Second thing I noticed is while watching WTC 7 collapsing from allege office fires, why did the penthouse collapse first? There were no fires on the top floor.

Third thing I can clearly see is it almost looks like there are no floors in the building for the whole building to come straight down in that manner.

I guess what I am trying to convey is what would cause every single floor joists on every floor starting from the bottom, not the top, to break away simultaneously and perfectly.

What I see in the video is the Penthouse collapse first, but the rest of the WTC 7 is collapsing from the bottom up.

Why did the bottom floors on WTC 7 even collapse in the first place? This doesn't make since. WTC 7 collapse should had started from the floors that had the worst fires, not the bottom floors, there was no fires.

I also agree that the media does use special microphones that muffle out background noises most of the time.

There are many questions I have concerning WTC 7 that doesn't make sense to me that just office fires and even a gash on the outside of the WTC 7 from damaged done from the other WTC demise.

If the OS is true that the gash is what caused WTC 7 to collapse then why did every single floor joists break away simultaneously instead of the WTC falling in it's lease resistances?
edit on 3-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   


I also agree that the media does use special microphones that muffle out background noises most of the time.



This is 100% correct...





If the OS is true that the gash is what caused WTC 7 to collapse then why did every single floor joists break away simultaneously instead of the WTC falling



If I may please correct you sir, NIST stated the damage to #7 from the falling tower had nothing to do with the collapse, it only started the fires.

However that adds to your point..
edit on 3-1-2016 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

So why, are there still windows in Verizon building next door....?

Can see where some windows were broken , but most are intact

davewhitmore.net...

Same with 30 West Broadway across street = WTC 7 smashed into it inflicting severe damage that it had to be torn down

Yet many of the windows are still intact

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Mythical explosions capable of destroying entire building, but cant broke windows few feet away.....






edit on 3-1-2016 by firerescue because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2016 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



If I may correct you sir, NIST stated the damage to #7 from the falling tower had nothing to do with the collapse, it only started the fires.

However that adds to your point..


Thank you for letting me know that.


I wasn't sure if it had to do with the gash or not. But if NIST is claiming the office fires brought WTC 7 in the manner we all witnessed, I do not see how that was possible, do you?

For every floor joists to break away perfectly and simultaneously starting from the bottom up does not consist a natural fall.

The fact is the only thing that can cause the WTC 7 to fall in that manner is a controlled demolition, would you agree?
edit on 3-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Please fix your links...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Yes I do agree, whiteness that were there stated the bottom floor was blown out first, IIRC the lowest floor on fire was the 12th floor..



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

en.wikipedia.org...:Verizon_building_damage.jpg

en.wikipedia.org...:Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg

Your links are not working.

I fell to understand what you are trying to say here.

I am referring to WTC 7.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb


Yes I do agree, whiteness that were there stated the bottom floor was blown out first, IIRC the lowest floor on fire was the 12th floor..


I agree.

How could the bottom floors just collapse when there was no fires in them? This is what doesn't make sense to me.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

140 West - Verizon

davewhitmore.net...

30 West Broadway

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Scroll down

Notice other building in background

It still has windows
edit on 3-1-2016 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
I can clearly hear the first explosion from WTC 7 as the Penthouse collapse.


You just heard the rumble as WTC 7 started collapsing. Do you think it would collapse silently?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Firerescue, that is not damage to the Verizon building. The building did suffer some damage around the 8th floor but it was minimal, it suffered far more from wtc 7..

Also the photo says one year, that was not the one year anniversary if thats what they are saying..
edit on 3-1-2016 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I'm a trained observer and a pilot....and I call bad form....BAD FORM on the T V that day......

The first thing the media did was throw logic and common sense in the wanker......had expert narrators standing by....how efficient and time saving.....let bbc screw up the bldg. 7 announcement....and did a bang-up job of the masks for the cgi in two sections of the narrative....for all to see.

the first reporters in choppers with video showed and spoke the words, my friends...."not enough debris to fill a suitcase " at the pentagon shaped bldg. or at the Shanksville site. The nice lady that witnessed the Shanksville flyover isn't smart enough to make up that she saw something that didn't make sense.....I'm a 65 year old pilot....don't get me started...I won't stop
edit on 3-1-2016 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue


Same with 30 West Broadway across street = WTC 7 smashed into it inflicting severe damage that it had to be torn down

Yet many of the windows are still intact


Perhaps a special kind of explosives were used, that were design to only to blow up all the supporting floor joists simultaneously.

Not the kind of demolition that blasts outward shooting out all the windows out, as WTC 1 & 2 that the News videos captured.

The problem is we do not know how the WTC 7 was rigged or what kind explosives that were used.

The question has been asked why wait an hour before bring town the WTC?

My opinion is, it has something to do with waiting for the alleged hijack planes to do their job.
edit on 3-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce



You just heard the rumble as WTC 7 started collapsing. Do you think it would collapse silently?


No, what I heard is an explosion, then the rumbling as the WTC 7 collapse.

No the WTC did not collapsed silently. Furthermore, no one seem to know how far the camera crew where from WTC 7?

The kind of microphones the media uses muffles out many background sounds, I think we all can agree on that.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Perhaps a special kind of explosives were used, that were design to only to blow up all the supporting floor joists simultaneously.


So silent explosives, that have no blast effects?


The problem is we do not know how the WTC 7 was rigged or what kind explosives that were used.


The real problem is there is zero evidence for any explosives being used in any WTC building.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Typical when buildings with structural damage or errors collapse, the whole building collapses in one piece, there are plenty of those kind of collapses on you tube .


Here is are a few simulated computer models of how the collapse occurred, it's not accurate but gives an idea of what happened.


One thing i haven't seen mentioned, is the damage on the lower floors on building 7 from splash damage when tons of building debris from the collapsing tower hit the ground in front of building 7, the lower floors would be pushed in to the building.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


So silent explosives, that have no blast effects?


Thank you for your response.

However I never made any such claims to silent explosions. I believe the blast were very well controlled.

I am certain the people behind rigging up WTC 7 did not want the collapse to look like a traditional demolition. That would have sparked outrage immanently. No, they wanted it to look like a normal collapse, however when one is examining the News video, it does not look like a natural collapse.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye


One thing i haven't seen mentioned, is the damage on the lower floors on building 7 from splash damage when tons of building debris from the collapsing tower hit the ground in front of building 7, the lower floors would be pushed in to the building.


Thank you for your response.

However that is not what was witnessed or in the News footage. What we are witnessing is the whole building coming down from the bottom up.
edit on 3-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
however when one is examining the News video, it does not look like a natural collapse.


So exactly what should a "natural collapse" look like, in a building that was damaged and had unchecked fires burning?

A building that was creaking and making noises, and that the fire department knew would collapse, as they were watching it move?


Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.


edit on 3-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: hellobruce


So silent explosives, that have no blast effects?


Thank you for your response.

However I never made any such claims to silent explosions. I believe the blast were very well controlled.

I am certain the people behind rigging up WTC 7 did not want the collapse to look like a traditional demolition. That would have sparked outrage immanently. No, they wanted it to look like a normal collapse, however when one is examining the News video, it does not look like a natural collapse.


How did the plotters arrange for the damage to WTC7, the bulge in the structure and extensive fires? Wouldn't it have made more sense to the plotters to bring 7 down as the towers collapsed and blame debris from the towers for destroying 7? As the OP asks, why wait hours?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
www.firehouse.com...

Photos of damage to WTC7 www.911myths.com...

Photos of the fires in WTC7 www.911myths.com...




top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join