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.

 

Anyone see this yet??????

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
www.serendipity.li...

This link should provide all the proof you need that explosives were used to take down, not only WTC7, but the twin towers as well. They also use mathematics to prove it. Time to stop denying.

[edit on 6-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]




posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I heard that the building was designed to fall like that due to the material it was built out of. In the event of it collapsing, instead of falling over it was supposed to fall down.

Anyway, I thought it odd how it fell outwards from the centre.
But then I'm no engineer....



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Um, that video is bogus.

WTC 7 was COMPLETELY covered in debris from WTC 1 and 2 debris falling onto it.

And did no one notice that the billowing smoke in the background doesn't move at all?

Regarding buildings falling due to fire:

Ask any fire marshal or fire investigator in the insurance industry what happens to steel when it is heated in a fire... it does not melt, but it does warp, twist, bend, and weaken.

Normally buildings don't fall from fire because high-rise buildings are fully sprinklered. When there is a fire, the sprinklers in the fire area activate and control the flames until the fire department comes and extinguishes them. This did not happen in WTC 1 and 2 because many sprinkler pipes and riser pipes were severed in the initial crashes and FDNY never put ANY water on these fires.

WTC 7 sprinklers were functioning but FDNY decided not to risk any more lives, partially due to the enormous loss they had already incurred. But mostly because when there is a fire the Fire Department's job is to save lives and minimize property loss. WTC 7 had already been evacuated so there was no danger of loss of life. And the building was so severely damaged due to intense fire caused by the ignition of diesel fuel stored in the building to power the Office of Emergency Management's generator. So FDNY knew there was no danger to life, no danger of the fire spreading to surrounding buildings, and no chance for the building being usable again due to the intense diesel fuel fed fire. So FDNY, AND NO ONE ELSE, made the decision to "pull", which in fire-fighting terms means to pull the fire fighting operation out and let it burn.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   
What big raging fire in WTC7? Please show us evidence of the towering inferno that provided enough energy to weaken 50 floors of steel and cause a perfect demolition style collapse.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Ok I am not seeing a link or a pic for the thread anyone else see this? Where is it?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Ok so pull it here means to bring it down on purpose.

Ok, and "pull it" when it came to the other buildings meant something else.
I cant get over the lies.


What other buildings were said to have been pulled?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
WTC 7 was COMPLETELY covered in debris from WTC 1 and 2 debris falling onto it.


Supporting evidence?

There was some damage in places, but it was not uniform so as to allow a perfectly uniform collapse, just as the small amount of damage shouldn't have caused any collapse in the first place. But if you'd like to claim that the building was "completely covered in debris from WTC 1 and 2" then I'd like to see what new evidence has come out that you're basing that off of.


Ask any fire marshal or fire investigator in the insurance industry what happens to steel when it is heated in a fire... it does not melt, but it does warp, twist, bend, and weaken.


Yes, from high enough temperatures. The WTC Towers had much more severe fires, no? And yet the steel samples that were tested only showed a couple hundred degrees or so worth of heating. That's not enough to cause a loss of strength, let alone a major loss of strength.

A large number of columns would also have to be compromised, because a few columns here and there isn't going to cut it for a global collapse. You're going to have to give structural engineers and the steel they use a little more credit than that: it's literally against the law for skyscraper to be so shabby in NYC. And a lot of columns here and there isn't even going to cut it for such a perfectly symmetrical collapse.

When a building falls like WTC7 did, I don't see how any rational person can look at it and say fire did it. Fire is something that we're all very familiar with. Buildings are things we are all very familiar with. Imagine fire in a building. Imagine possible failures due to fire here and there, in a building. Then look at the footage of Building 7 collapsing. FIRES DON'T DO THAT! That steel-framed building fell at the rate of free fall! Fires don't cause that, either!



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Um, that video is bogus.

WTC 7 was COMPLETELY covered in debris from WTC 1 and 2 debris falling onto it.

And did no one notice that the billowing smoke in the background doesn't move at all?

Regarding buildings falling due to fire:

Ask any fire marshal or fire investigator in the insurance industry what happens to steel when it is heated in a fire... it does not melt, but it does warp, twist, bend, and weaken.

Normally buildings don't fall from fire because high-rise buildings are fully sprinklered. When there is a fire, the sprinklers in the fire area activate and control the flames until the fire department comes and extinguishes them. This did not happen in WTC 1 and 2 because many sprinkler pipes and riser pipes were severed in the initial crashes and FDNY never put ANY water on these fires.

WTC 7 sprinklers were functioning but FDNY decided not to risk any more lives, partially due to the enormous loss they had already incurred. But mostly because when there is a fire the Fire Department's job is to save lives and minimize property loss. WTC 7 had already been evacuated so there was no danger of loss of life. And the building was so severely damaged due to intense fire caused by the ignition of diesel fuel stored in the building to power the Office of Emergency Management's generator. So FDNY knew there was no danger to life, no danger of the fire spreading to surrounding buildings, and no chance for the building being usable again due to the intense diesel fuel fed fire. So FDNY, AND NO ONE ELSE, made the decision to "pull", which in fire-fighting terms means to pull the fire fighting operation out and let it burn.


i suppose you're going to tell us next that all wtc7 videos are bogus? Just because some smoke didn't move? Is it not possible that this is something that can occur?

Not to mention that Fire Engineering magazine called the WTC investigations a half baked farce

also, according to NIST report there were no fire fighters in the building....



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
The smoke clearly does move, just not very much in the 6.5 seconds it took the building to fall to the ground. There is a lot of footage showing the exact same mode of collapse from other angles, too. That several localized and relatively light fires plus some localized and relatively light, totally asymmetric damage could have caused this mode of collapse is one monofilamentious straw to cling to for you apologists.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Um, that video is bogus.

WTC 7 was COMPLETELY covered in debris from WTC 1 and 2 debris falling onto it.

And did no one notice that the billowing smoke in the background doesn't move at all?

Regarding buildings falling due to fire:

Ask any fire marshal or fire investigator in the insurance industry what happens to steel when it is heated in a fire... it does not melt, but it does warp, twist, bend, and weaken.

Normally buildings don't fall from fire because high-rise buildings are fully sprinklered. When there is a fire, the sprinklers in the fire area activate and control the flames until the fire department comes and extinguishes them. This did not happen in WTC 1 and 2 because many sprinkler pipes and riser pipes were severed in the initial crashes and FDNY never put ANY water on these fires.

WTC 7 sprinklers were functioning but FDNY decided not to risk any more lives, partially due to the enormous loss they had already incurred. But mostly because when there is a fire the Fire Department's job is to save lives and minimize property loss. WTC 7 had already been evacuated so there was no danger of loss of life. And the building was so severely damaged due to intense fire caused by the ignition of diesel fuel stored in the building to power the Office of Emergency Management's generator. So FDNY knew there was no danger to life, no danger of the fire spreading to surrounding buildings, and no chance for the building being usable again due to the intense diesel fuel fed fire. So FDNY, AND NO ONE ELSE, made the decision to "pull", which in fire-fighting terms means to pull the fire fighting operation out and let it burn.


So, when I was there, you're saying that I was insane or something? I was there a bit after the cleanup started, so they got most of the stuff on the streets out, however there were some streets still covered in dust while I was there, but those streets were relatively far away from WTC 7. And please please explain to me why the church didn't fall...Or why the trees didn't burn, or why the buildings next to wtc didn't fall. From out of all the trees, buildings right next to WTC, WTC 7 fell. Which was far away. And it fell from an internal fire, which made it collapse in a demolition like way. 5 hours after WTC Towers. (I think 5 hours)

Please use logic... "But the government said..." The government says a lot of things. Especially recently. Weapons of Mass Destruction is the best footnote for any person like myself since it's publically known that Bush lied about them, there was no mistake.

But please please use logic. That's how simple this situation is. It's practically logical.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Larry Silverstein, theowner of the twin towers and building 7, went on PBS and said that they decided to ''pull'' WTC7. Anyone who knows demolition will tell you that ''pull'' means to demolish a building. How could the explosives be put in place for the demolition, unless Silverstein and his masters planned it?

Sliverstein, in July 2001, purchased the towers, and WTC7, and took out a record insurance policy for $7,000,000,000 on them. Then on September 11th, all the Buildings he owned collapsed. Even WTC7, which wasnt hit by a plane, wasnt even in the debris field of the Towers, somehow caught fire, and collapsed within a short time.

The Millenium Hilton, which was right beside Tower 1, and actually had Tower 1 fall onto it, and pieces of debris from the towers were found in almost all the lower floors of the Millenium Hilton, stood strong.

So if your building is owned by the Hiltons, and is right next to the twin towers, your building stands. But if your building is owned by Larry Silverstien, your buildings collapses. Meanwhile, Silverstein has already collected $2 billion of his 7$ billion insurance policy for the buildings, on an original $ 200 million dollar investmet.....Mr. Silverstein did quite nicely with his investment didnt he?

Not to mention that no modern steel building has ever collapsed due to fire. A sky-scraper in spain had half its floors burn, for 9 days, and it didnt collapse. The engineer who designed the towers came out publically after 9/11, and said that theres no way fires brought those buildings down. He also said that he designed the towers to take multiple jet impacts

We need to ask some serious questions here.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Perhaps it's just an insurance scam?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mashup
Didn't the WTC towers sort of collapse like that?
So doesn't that support the claim that controlled explosives were used in the towers?



Yes and no.


No being the WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom where WTC 1&2 collapsed from the top.

Yes being they all fully collapsed, the objective of a controlled demolition!


.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
The show said building 7 collapsed because a fire raged out of control for 7 hours unchecked or something like that


I'm sure you already know this, but to this who don't, there was NEVER a raging out-of-control
in the WTC 7.

.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

What other buildings were said to have been pulled?




(Unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero -PBS (09/10/02)

.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Um, that video is bogus.

WTC 7 was COMPLETELY covered in debris from WTC 1 and 2 debris falling onto it.


This pic begs to differ with you:





And did no one notice that the billowing smoke in the background doesn't move at all?


No, it moves, just real slow because the video speed is REAL SLOOOOOOW.




Regarding buildings falling due to fire:

Ask any fire marshal or fire investigator in the insurance industry what happens to steel when it is heated in a fire... it does not melt, but it does warp, twist, bend, and weaken.


So a fire weakend all the main supports and exactly the right time to make the 7 implode on it's on footprint?



Normally buildings don't fall from fire because high-rise buildings are fully sprinklered.


Normally? NEVER!!!

Buildings fallen from fire before 9/11 = 0

Buildings fallen from fire after 9/11 = 0



So FDNY, AND NO ONE ELSE, made the decision to "pull", which in fire-fighting terms means to pull the fire fighting operation out and let it burn.


They may have "pulled" the firefighters out, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about Silverstein pulling the building and "watching it collapse afterwards."

Pull it = demo the building

Pull the firefighters = pull them, not pull it.

I think it would be highly dangerous to your health if you reffered to a fireman as an "it".

.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
This pic begs to differ with you:




Normally buildings don't fall from fire because high-rise buildings are fully sprinklered.


Normally? NEVER!!!

Buildings fallen from fire before 9/11 = 0

Buildings fallen from fire after 9/11 = 0


About the pic: Keep in mind, the church RIGHT next to the WTC buildings, wasn't damagded on the inside, no fires, the steeple (sp?) is still in contact. THE GRAVES WERENT EVEN CHIPPED. (I've been there, believe me.)

And WTC7 fell? Right right right.

About the buildings falling: I said the same thing, none ever fell, but i couldn't find the page which showed all the buildings which were on fire for much longer and didn't fall. The closest thing I did find was a building in a madrid, on fire for over 5 hours (all of it), and only some outside things fell off. However, I do believe that building was much older than WTC.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
just 1 word "IMPLODED"



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Somehow I highly doubt that. For there to be an implosion there'd have to be a very large vacuum appear out of nowhere in a matter of seconds...And the building then would fall over, where the implosion would the an epicenter, it wouldn't fall so nicely, where the middle falls before the rest.

Even if it'd be really hard to create such a big vacuum to take down a whole building. Without planning and such. A "Raging, out of control fire" would NOT cause that.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Yeah, I've noticed no damage to that church or graveyard.

As for implosion, wouldn't the fire consume most of the oxygen? I'm sure there's a CSI episode with something like that....




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join