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.

 

What happened to WTC 7 again?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
It wasn't like this building in madrid was it?

Before the fire:





After the fire:




Images are from This Website




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   
So.

Despite the fact that every single building in the world could be argued to be different - different designs; different lay of the land; different materials; different builders; different age and natural stresses on materials; different histories of the buildings themselves - and despite the fact that the failure and/or collapse of any building in the world and any collisions, fires, explosions, natural causes, and all other factors involved and contributing to the failure and/or total collapse (or non-collapse) of said building will all be unique and individual to that one incident...

you're suggesting that it is a Law of physics that any building which falls straight down was brought down by controlled demolition?


*edit for spelling

[edit on 25-3-2006 by quango]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
The government's official reason for the collapse is "We don't know why it fell."
quango, next time you have a though let it go.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
You're suggesting that it is a Law of physics that any building which falls straight down was brought down by controlled demolition?


How about you post some pics of buildings that collapsed straight down like the WTC building did without any demolition explosives?

And maybe an explanation of the laws of physics that would cause a building to collapse straight down with no aparent resistance from lower floors, that wasn't caused by demolition explosives.

Go ahead, we will be waiting....and waiting, and waiting...



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
promomag what were the causes of those building collapses you showed? The lack of any fire damage seem to suggest earthquakes. You cant very well compare earthquake damage ie violent back and forth shaking to the WTC7.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How about you post some pics of buildings that collapsed straight down like the WTC building did without any demolition explosives?


I have none.
On a related note, if something has never happened before, is it possible or not possible?


And maybe an explanation of the laws of physics that would cause a building to collapse straight down with no aparent resistance from lower floors, that wasn't caused by demolition explosives.


I am not an expert in physics, nor do I have any experience in building collapses.
Therefore, anything I might suggest will hold no weight.
I also find it extremely difficult to reach a definitive conclusion on what happened, based on a few videos, a couple pictures, and some quotes.


Go ahead, we will be waiting....and waiting, and waiting...


By all means, get on with your research. I have no information that isn't already out there.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
I also find it extremely difficult to reach a definitive conclusion on what happened, based on a few videos, a couple pictures, and some quotes.


the same could be said of the government report into how the buildings collapsed because none of it was based on actual physical examination of the evidence. this in itself should be a great cause for concern.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by justyc
the same could be said of the government report into how the buildings collapsed because none of it was based on actual physical examination of the evidence. this in itself should be a great cause for concern.


I don't disagree.
I also can't presume to know the reason for the lack of an investigation.

Could have been knowledge of faulty construction would have opened the door for lawsuits, fines, indictments for negligence, etc.

May have been to cover up evidence of a controlled demolition.

Possibly, just a terrrible mistake made in the anger and haste following an attack on the United States. (ie. "we don't need to know why the buildings fell, we KNOW why the buildings fell - we were attacked...etc.)



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
promomag what were the causes of those building collapses you showed? The lack of any fire damage seem to suggest earthquakes. You cant very well compare earthquake damage ie violent back and forth shaking to the WTC7.


Well apparently you literally can't compare ANYTHING to Building 7 because no other skyscrapers in the world have ever fallen from anything other than earthquakes or demolition, despite there being hundreds of skyscrapers, and despite all the past skyscraper fires and etc.

The point of making comparisons is to make you THINK. Not to make you say "Oh, well those buildings were just made a lot different so no need to take them into serious consideration."

We know they were different. We want you to think critically, and that doesn't mean a quick "nope, not WTC7; can't think about it."

Why did those other buildings not even begin to fall straight down? Why have no other skyscrapers, except Silverstein's on 9/11 at the WTC, fallen straight down upon themselves like that?

Don't you guys have anything to point at from the past to say, "this is why the WTC collapses weren't out-of-place"? I've yet to see anything, but a lot of buildings that just illustrate how out-of-place those collapses really were. No skyscraper collapses due to fire. No buildings just falling down upon themselves and falling straight through, the whole way down. Only demolitions.

You guys get this point of our argument, right? You don't just immediately reject it because it makes your heads hurt?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't you guys have anything to point at from the past to say, "this is why the WTC collapses weren't out-of-place"? I've yet to see anything, but a lot of buildings that just illustrate how out-of-place those collapses really were. No skyscraper collapses due to fire. No buildings just falling down upon themselves and falling straight through, the whole way down. Only demolitions.


I hesitate to choose a side in this argument for the same reason that you find the collapses out-of-place. Because there ISN'T anything in the past to compare. The two towers were twice as tall as any other building to ever come down, intentionally or not. WTC 7 is 130ft taller than the tallest building ever imploded, and at only 570ft tall, that's a significant amount.

No comparable building has ever fallen. Rather than this fact making WTC 7 suspect to me, all it does is leave me with no point of reference by which to judge the collapse.

Yes, it was the first collapse of its kind in history. Yes, puffs of debris which look like demolition sqiubs seem to be present. Yes, the building falls fast and lands in its own footprint. I am not disputing these things.

At the same time, I have no idea what was happening to the structure of the building, how much damage there was to the building, how it affected the building, and whether there was enough damage to cause the building to collapse, and most important - whether the damage and fires that were present couldn't possibly have brought the building down in a manner which resembled a controlled demolition.

Because it LOOKS like a neat demolition. I'm not even arguing that.

Maybe it was brought down intentionally - but nothing proves this to me, and it remains only a possibility.




You guys get this point of our argument, right? You don't just immediately reject it because it makes your heads hurt?



I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I get your argument. I don't reject it at all.
However, WTC 7 was constructed by mortal men. I assure you - it could fall down.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The government official reason was not "we don't know".

3 groups (NIST, FEMA,Silverstien properites) have come to official conclusions on the 9/11 attacks, and still no one wants to read and try to comprehend the evidence that is presented. You would rather read prison planet, use a few key words others use and rarely is any sense made.

1. There is no explosive evidence. NONE.

2. There are eyewitness accounts of damage to WTC 7, including FDNY,NYPD,PA and photographers

3. After the second tower fell, there were reports of "damage" to over a 1/3 of the building.

4. Why would Silverstien say to 'pull it' to use demolitions instead of meaning ot pull hte fire fighters, only to then privately fund a research group to prove that they came down on thier own?

5. The collaspe of WTC 7 took over 30 seconds from the first failure that was seen to collapse.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
3 groups (NIST, FEMA,Silverstien properites) have come to official conclusions on the 9/11 attacks,


I thought FEMA ignored WTC7? Can you give me a link to where they researched it?



1. There is no explosive evidence. NONE.


Sulfidation of steel. Could be explosives or gypsum. Still is not evidence against demolition.


2. There are eyewitness accounts of damage to WTC 7, including FDNY,NYPD,PA and photographers


Can you provide these pictures the photographers took. Oh, that's right, they are all top secret for some reason.


3. After the second tower fell, there were reports of "damage" to over a 1/3 of the building.


They have building codes for a reason. Since the redundancy factor is over twice the amount needed to stand, you would need over 1/2 of the building to not only be damaged but obliterated. 1/3 doesn't cut it.


4. Why would Silverstien say to 'pull it' to use demolitions instead of meaning ot pull hte fire fighters, only to then privately fund a research group to prove that they came down on thier own?


There were no firefighters in the building at the time they "pulled" the firefighters. So, what did he say to pull? Also, I don't think it was up to Silverstein to direct the firefighters? When did he make firechief?

Maybe his private fund was set up to throw the guilt from him?


5. The collaspe of WTC 7 took over 30 seconds from the first failure that was seen to collapse.


Bullocks and you know it. Yeah, the first failure was the penthouse roof.....where there mysteriously wasn't any fire?






posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Why not?


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You cant very well compare earthquake damage ie violent back and forth shaking to the WTC7.




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
There are collapses of buildings where the entire 1st, 2nd, 3nd ,4th, and or 5th floors have given up under the weight and support of the above floors and came down to squish everything below....

yet still stand.....

The same goes for floors through out a building.... say floor 5 pancakes but 1, 2, 3 and 4 and floors 6 on up are still standing

Seriously folks, buildings don't completely collapse on their own footprint from fire or earthquakes.... or even damage from earthquakes or buildings falling next to them. Let alone fall into little itty bitty pieces that you can hold in your hand. Seriously, do any of you know the contents of a skyscraper?

think about it.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
My question is why?

What is the need to implode WTC7?

Who gains from doing this and why does it need to be covered up?

What is the motive?

I do not see the point when you consider the events of the day.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
See the quote below:



I dunno... talk to the landlord, Larry Silverstein, who collected billions in insurance claims, and avoided having to do a massive asbestos renovation.

Or the CIA, who had offices in WTC7
Or the Secret Service, who had offices in WTC7
Or the DoD, who had offices in WTC7
Or Giuliani, who had an emergency command center in WTC7
Or the SEC, who had offices in WTC7, including files on Enron



Originally posted by Oddzon
My question is why?

What is the need to implode WTC7?

Who gains from doing this and why does it need to be covered up?

What is the motive?

I do not see the point when you consider the events of the day.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oddzon
My question is why?

What is the motive?


OK this is just my opinion:

To maintain power the government has to justify its existence. In times of peace and low crime people are more inclined to dislike government intrusion and control of their lives. Without someone or something to protect us from, government becomes nothing but an institution to maintain our infrastructure. The gov is just a tool used by the extremely wealthy corporations and banks to maintain their power and exploitation of the population.
To maintain that power and keep government from losing it's power and hold over our lives they have to invent situations that appear to be a threat to our safety, then they can step in to "save us" from this imaginary threat.
If you look at history with that in mind you'll start seeing the connections.

To maintain that kind of control the 'enemy' (be it crime, drugs, terrorists or whatever...) they create and perpetuate has to be bigger and badder than the last. Look at the history of war, they get bigger, the enemy gets more hard to define. The latest one "terrorism" is a coup for them, they could milk this for ever. (what happened to the war on drugs, crime etc...no longer needed)

This form of controlling the population works on a global scale, what the government does is designed to effect not only this country (we're talking U.S./West gov in this instance) but the world. Those in high positions of power don't think of themselves as "Americans" like your average citizen does, they are 'worldly' and they want to control EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY in it.

So the gov creates a threat they have to protect us from, allowing them to become more powerful and the general population to become less powerful and less of a threat to 'them'. They are more paranoid about us than we are of them, but they are aragant and take risks knowing, because of our indoctrination through state controlled schools (ever wonder why they are not privatized like everything else?), that the majority of the population will not question authority. Those that do are few and really not a big threat to them.

The 'powers that be', those that own and control the government, have been pushing their agenda for centuries, there final plan is to have the worlds population under total control, thus making us no longer a threat to them and their powerful wealthy lives. Revolutions are messy for them and history is full of them, they don't like the masses uprising and spoiling their 'fun'. They already have most of the worlds population so controlled we wouldn't even think of revolting, some as we know won't even question government.

It's like a game, let's see how far we can push it. On 9-11 they really pushed it and so far they've got away with it, but it was risky for them and still is. We haven't seen any major events since, they have to tread carefully now, but if the population really starts sweating the gov about 9-11 we'll see something else big happen, another distraction to quell the dissent.

So to sum up, the motive is two fold, more control over the U.S./Worlds population through fear of a supposed threat, and an attempt to bring the middle east under control of the west, thus expanding world domination. They have been trying to do this for centuries and have so far failed. But they are patient and never give up, one tactic doesn't work so they wait until their chance comes to try again. Whilst in the meantime setting up the worlds stage to create the situations they need to be able to stage events like 9-11.

If you look at history with this in mind you will easily see the patterns.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Regarding the pull it issue, i don't get it. When would a fire chief ever phone the leaseholder/owner saying "oh i don't think we can control it"
The fire chief consulted with silverstein as to what to do next, that does not sound right at all.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
EXACTLY


Originally posted by The Links
Regarding the pull it issue, i don't get it. When would a fire chief ever phone the leaseholder/owner saying "oh i don't think we can control it"
The fire chief consulted with silverstein as to what to do next, that does not sound right at all.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join