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.

 

Photo of Madrid skyscraper fire (still standing)

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Yeah the cards was a bad analogy but you got the point....

So what about building 7, that had no impact AND collapsed straight down, no?




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Well the thing is, when the towers collapsed, they threw debris and huge pieces of building everywhere. a number of other buildings were severely damaged by this debris. There were partial collapses in at two other buildings, if I recall correctly.

After that damage, WTC 7 burned for 7 hours with no active fire suppression.

The longest time any passive fireproofing is ever designed to resist fire for is 4 hours.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
"WTC-7 was a 47-story building and became a two-story pile of rubble," Hamburger said, "making it the first major structure in the United States to collapse because of fire." -Stanford Report (12/03/01)

"The 2 million-square-foot building, 7 World Trade Center, had suffered mightily from the fire, and had been wounded by beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire." -Chicago Tribune (11/09/01)

"Why didn't this 56 story skyscraper, one of Venezuela's tallest buildings, collapse from this massive fire if the WTC 7 supposedly collapsed from a fire that was much smaller and didn't burn as long?"

"Isn't it simply miraculous that all seven WTC buildings were destroyed and only one non-WTC structure, a small Greek church?"

From here:
thewebfairy.com...

Can you say Insurance Mr.Silverstein?


kix

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I Am laughing a lot...thanks....

lets keep the math contest open shall we?


quoted by Shadow_______

A gallon of normal car gas can equal like 10 sticks of TNT in explosive force.

___________________________

ok so here we have this gem and we know the 767 carried 23 k gallons of fuel but for FUN lets round it to just 20k gallons of fuel

20 000 X 10 = 200 000 sticks of TNT...lets say each stick weights just 500 grams so 2 of them will make a kilo and 2000 will make a ton of TNT

200 000 / 2000 = 100 tons of TNT or to be exact a .1 a kiloton BOMB Yield....DID I MISS THE FIREWORKS????

mmmm now I know why WTC colapsed.....that half a kiloton of explosive force was concentrated on WTC 7 ONLY.....

there is no worse blindness than those who do not want to see......

By the way that Picture of the woman standing by the hole of the plane is just amazing.....

ah and on another topic th eengine of a VW bug uses your super TNT fuel and it doesnt melt and it does not requiere water to cool...... just air ( in Mexico at 7600 feet above sea level and temperatures above 95F, they dont melt...mmm maybe is because we dont have super fuel? oh waitt Maxico sells 2 million barrels of oilt o the US so it must be the same "super TNT" fuel...

Ill be having fun with this....

[edit on 15-2-2005 by kix]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Everyone knows WTC was brought down by a combination of Global Warming, El Nino and the slowing of the North Atlantic Current. This talk of jet fuel and controlled demolition is merely a distraction.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Since there's no way in hell this thing's goin back on topic I'll throw this in the mix:

WHAT BLOODY PURPOSE WOULD KNOCKING DOWN WT7 SERVE???

I tend to stray away from these threads because they all say the same thing, so I don't know if this point has ever been brought up.

But why? The shock and awe to the public was done with One and Two, the economic damage was done with One and Two, the human loss was done with One and Two. For the most part the only people that know anything about WTC 7 are conspiracy theorists.

Do you really think "they" would take the time to rig up explosives in an essentially inconsequential building then detonate the # long after the Twin Towers collapsed?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Pistol Pete, can you say insurance?
Our friend Mr.Silverstein received 500 million in insurance money...

"In a September 2002, PBS filmed a documentary called 'America Rebuilds' which was about the rebuilding of the world trade center. During the documentary, they interviewed Larry Silverstein, real estate tycoon, who received part of a multi billion (500 million to be exact) insurance compensation after the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed."



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
For those that don't believe the WTC was brought down by demolition, let me present more of my case. These buildings HAD to come down. It was the psychological catalyst for the people's support for the "war on terror". It's Psychology 101. Something that horrible will stick in a person's mind until the day he or she dies. It could not be left up to chance that those buldings would still be standing after that. Five thousand dead as opposed to only a few hundred also has a psychological effect on the people.

Some on here who disagree with myself and others that there was demolition set off to bring the towers down will say that it would take too much time and planning and drilling and wiring and whatnot. Those people would also say that the buildings were built to collapse upon themselves anyways. OK, I hear ya. People in my corner would say that the buildings were built to withstand the impact of an airplane without collapsing, so what gives??? Let me pose this scenario to you, the planes only have to fly into a general area of the building. This creates a diversion of devastation, smoke and fire. The domolition was only set up to take out the supports on a few floors above the impact. The smoke and fire would camoflauge the demolitions set up on the outside of the building, and of course we wouldn't be able to see what was going on in the interior anyway. If strategically placed demolitions take out the supports on, let's say, three floors, the weight of the top of the building collapsing through those three floors would be enough to set of the total collapse of the building. This is very plausible in my estimation and takes into account both sides of the argument.

Peace


[edit on 16-2-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
a couple of problems with that theory. No highrise building goes up without every part of the structure being inspected several times in the process.

two, explosives are by their very nature unstable chemical compounds. They don't age well. Most explosives become even more unstable with time. For example, old TNT "sweats" nitroglycerin.

There is just no end to your far reaching denial, is there? It's not a ridiculous idea at all. Explosives could be added to the building any time, long after the building was built, and even, long before 9/11.
You're the one being ridiculous in assuming it couldn't be done. Two weeks before 9/11, I bet you I could've walked into WTC7 with a toolbox and an official looking jumper suit and did practically anything I wanted, including install explosives on a few supports.

And about staying on topic. I do believe the entire point to posting this thread was to compare the buildings, and bring question to why ours collapsed. The subtopic is indeed implied, but nevertheless...



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
This attack was easily over a decade in the making before it actually happened. Things like this take time or the people will never buy it. They gave us the first Gulf War and the first WTC attack. These events gave us the terrorists' desired target, the WTC, and public enemy 1 and 1A, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden respectively. The seeds were then planted. Close to a decade later, so as not to raise suspicion, the plan unfolds in a horric fashion and the people turn to Dubya to protect them and validate his "war on terror". It's really that simple and it doesn't matter to me if you want to believe it or not. We're all in the same boat anyways, right?

There are just some people that are incapable of opening their minds to all the possibilities, including the fact that their government has and will continue to lie to them and cover up those lies. Few things that happen in this world just happen, they are made to happen. It's easier to sway the masses that way. It's not rocket science, in fact we all do this to a much lesser degree in our own lives every day. I'm part of the herd whether I like it or not, but I'm happy being the black sheep at the back of the herd.

Peace



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Pistol Pete, can you say insurance?
Our friend Mr.Silverstein received 500 million in insurance money...


Where did you find that quote? You didn't even post a link. This is from Forbes:


Larry Silverstein, president of Silverstein Properties, has said his actual losses on Sept. 11, 2001, amount to $8.2 billion, including $5.7 billion for the twin 110-story towers, retail property at the site and buildings 4 and 5, which were also destroyed.


WTC7 was sufficiently damaged by the initial collapses of One and Two that it would have had to have been demolished any way. As per the quote above the rest of the property was destroyed as well. There's no valid reason to have taken the unnecessary risks in setting charges in WT7 and detonating it.

It's this strawman crap that draws people away from the real issues of the day such as why did all the business leaders that should have been in the World Trade Centers attend a meeting at Offutt Air Force Base that day, and then why did the President go there?

Grasping on to these conspiracy theories that for the most part are pretty accurately debunked just make us all look like crazies.

I mean Christ, there was still people that tried to claim that a Globalhawk or a missile hit the Pentagon after Catherder's complete decimation of that theory.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Hmmm sry PistolPete can't find that quote, but I've found this.
Larry is trying to get $7 billion and if not he will receive $3.5 billion...
And he secured the lease on the WTC just months before the attacks happened.

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.nysscpa.org...



[edit on 16/2/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And he secured the lease on the WTC just months before the attacks happened.


True.

Another one of those peculiarities.

Even though I stil think the collapse of WTC 7 was just a coincidence.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   
There are no coincidences....



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   


uk.news.yahoo.com...

To be dismantled soon....



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I just love this picture, WTC 7. If that is not classic controlled demolition then I'll eat this thread.





posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
I mean Christ, there was still people that tried to claim that a Globalhawk or a missile hit the Pentagon after Catherder's complete decimation of that theory.

Catherder's "complete decimation" was far from complete. In fact, it ignores all unanswered questions in favor of biased, preconceived notions. Many questions are still unanswered.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join