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: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmytango
Oh one more thing - could someone show me evidence (pictures, news stories, etc.) of another building that fell in the manner of WTC7 that WASN'T demolished in a controlled manner?

That's withstanding esdad's comment about WTC7 using a unique construction (it had to be unique - no other steel framed building in history collapsed due to fire). If someone can show me proof that that was indeed the case then, ok. I won't hold my breath.

Gotta add this - from the aforementioned FEMA report, same page (5-31) VERBATIM:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 AND HOW THEY CAUSED THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE remain unknown at this time" (emphasis added)

FEMA: You see, the fires caused it, but we just don't know how. We just know it was the fires.


You know something?

Not to derail the thread, but that sounds a LOT like the ID argument. "Uh, the designer did it, but we just don't know how. We don't even know who/what the designer is."

No wonder ID and the official story are both BS to me...





posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I don't know how to take this, seeka. ID (intentional demolition)? We're you being sarcastic?

I'll say this much - the onus isn't on me to prove anything. It's on the government (and it's independant (?) studies) to prove their hypothesis. I'm here to say that the govt's own reports regarding WTC 7 are inconclusive by their own admission. They haven't even come close to supporting their hypothesis, IMO.

Come to think of it - in a court of law precedents are set. The precedent when it comes to steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire is that they don't. In order to reverse or alter a precedent one has to prove the precedent was assigned in error. I await this proof wholeheartedly so I can admit I'm wrong and move on.

Something tells me I'll be here for awhile....



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
How does one certify a building is "able to withstand an airplane impact"? Complicated equations? Computer simulations using 1970's tech? Does anybody really think that every possible variable involved in such an incident could be mapped out and accounted for?
Is a statement like this more bravado than anything else? We know the building was built by humans - this is enough reason to believe it could be felled.
Does anyone remember a certain luxury cruise ship, of such massive size, and built with a unique design of watertight compartments, which was declared "unsinkable" and then proceeded to hit an iceberg and sink on its very first voyage?


To me, the most damning/suspicious elements of this case are the destruction of the crime scene and conclusion-first approach of the existing inquiries. But even this isn't proof of anything besides negligence. Was it simply horrendous incompetence? Was it a cover-up for this incompetence or for something else, such as poor building design, liability, etc.?


I think asking for proof of fires burning hot enough is unfair and the people doing it know that it is. Where is the evidence that there weren't fires that hot. Sure someone can post a link to an explanation of why there couldn't be and someone else can post a link to an explanation of why there could be. But any proof of what actually happened is gone, everybody knows it, but everyone keeps arguing back and forth anyway, for 14 pages now...

Why not start at the common ground, where everyone can agree: an reinvestigation into 9-11 should begin with an investigation into who destroyed one of the largest crime scenes in history. Who made that call? Who is responsible for that? What was the logic? IMO, the truth starts there.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Larry Silverstein invested $386 million in WTC 7. On 9/11, by his own admission, Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition of his building. In February of 2002, his company won a settlement of $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
A question came up about the unique nature of the structural design of WTC 7.

There was some unusual framing over the Comed substation which was there before the building was built.




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
[Mod edit: Removed unnecessary quote of entire preceeding post]
Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

do you work for NIST, howard?

you always seem to have the good stuff first. never seen that graphic before. where did you get it?

a question came up? with whoms?

[edit on 4/6/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Is it possible to upload pictures to www.abovetopsecret.com?

Never mind, I found it.... amazing how these neat little features are hidden on this website

[Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary quote of entire preceeding post]








Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/6/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 6-4-2006 by promomag]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   


you always seem to have the good stuff first. never seen that graphic before. where did you get it?


IIRC, that graphic comes from the NIST report, which apparently you didn't read. Buy hey, who needs to read something that doesn't agree with what you believe.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
ALL members posting to this thread.

There is no need to quote the entire preceeding post, typically. Please quote only that which you are responding to/addressing in your post.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I downloaded all of the draft reports and the powerpoint presentations.

My own little "Memory Hole."

edit

presentation







[edit on 6-4-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



you always seem to have the good stuff first. never seen that graphic before. where did you get it?


IIRC, that graphic comes from the NIST report, which apparently you didn't read. Buy hey, who needs to read something that doesn't agree with what you believe.


well, there are some things i know without reading.

that's what school was for.

MIST has no idea how tower seven fell. i have a very good one.

maybe you guise can help them out.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Could someone please tell me why a link to the NIST report keeps getting posted? What are we supposed to know from it? I read it, and at this point there's nothing conclusive in it.

If you'd like, I'll put together a 40+ page document that says 'my hypothesis is that the building was demoed in a controlled manner. Here's 40 other pages that tell you why I THINK that, with no conclusive proof whatsoever.'

Will that sway the NIST supporters to the other side?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
NOTHING but a NEW and UNBIASED investigation will ever end the speculation. We need to pressure our local reps to move on this. The sooner we know what happened on 9/11/01 the sooner we can heal that still bleeding wound and begin uniting this country again. The TRUTH needs to be known.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Apologies for the intrusion. I don't come to this site much because it requires such a long time to look through everything (so I don't offer any redundant info/insight) and I don't usually have that kind of time even though I'd like to know what isn't making it onto the regular media.

My thoughts are to pull together JimmyTango's post 2114089 and Woodhak's post 2122557 and the early info on the special inhabitants of building 7 along with a couple of other comments.

When I was a military paperwork peon several decades ago, one thing we were all trained on was the use of devices to destroy the documents in our possession in the event our base was overrun. This requires such devices to be on hand. I have no idea how much of this procedure has been automated in the 30 or so years hence, but you folks probably know how to go about finding out.

Could be that something was triggered accidentally in reaction to either a temperature threshhold; byproduct of same due to failure of a sensor array; or in reaction to a sustained vibration threshhold caused by the falling (rumbling) of towers 1 & 2. This could explain why so many see evidence of explosives - without indicating that it was a purposeful controlled demolition.

As for the "it" conjecture. "It" could just refer to "rescue effort" as in "call it off".



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by derbal
Yeah, like Roosevelt let us get bombed by the Japs so he could start a war with...GERMANY. Ok.


Just like Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to fight communism in Vietnam. Just like Bush in recent history lied about WMDs in order to invade Iraq. Just like many other lies told by past US presidents (and I'm not talking about infidelity). 9/11 isn't the first lie ever to be told, though it's certainly the biggest. Did you know that the ATF killed the Branch Davidians at Waco? They weren't some crazy cult that commited mass suicide, they were killed by a government agency in a very cruel and painful manner. But this information was covered up and if you ask the average person about Waco they'll tell you something about a cult setting themselves on fire. That's what was reported on the mainstream media at the time and that's what the general public believes. There was a definite cover up and it's obvious to anyone that cares to look.

And this happened during the Clinton administration. It's not a matter of Republican or Democrat; it's a matter of the government abusing it's power.

Also, don't use the word "Japs". That's a derogatory term. Those same "Japs" were herded into internment camps during world war two. "Jap" is a racial slur. Please remember that.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka


Not to derail the thread, but that sounds a LOT like the ID argument. "Uh, the designer did it, but we just don't know how. We don't even know who/what the designer is."

No wonder ID and the official story are both BS to me...



That's funny. That's exactly what the demolition argument sounds like to me.

Q: How did they lace the buildings with explosives and what kind of explosives did they use?

A: The government has bombs and powers that none of us know about and that can perform miracles. They are the govenment they can pull off anything!!11




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

Originally posted by derbal
Yeah, like Roosevelt let us get bombed by the Japs so he could start a war with...GERMANY. Ok.


Just like Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to fight communism in Vietnam. Just like Bush in recent history lied about WMDs in order to invade Iraq. Just like many other lies told by past US presidents (and I'm not talking about infidelity). 9/11 isn't the first lie ever to be told, though it's certainly the biggest. Did you know that the ATF killed the Branch Davidians at Waco? They weren't some crazy cult that commited mass suicide, they were killed by a government agency in a very cruel and painful manner. But this information was covered up and if you ask the average person about Waco they'll tell you something about a cult setting themselves on fire. That's what was reported on the mainstream media at the time and that's what the general public believes. There was a definite cover up and it's obvious to anyone that cares to look.

And this happened during the Clinton administration. It's not a matter of Republican or Democrat; it's a matter of the government abusing it's power.

Also, don't use the word "Japs". That's a derogatory term. Those same "Japs" were herded into internment camps during world war two. "Jap" is a racial slur. Please remember that.


Wow. What a post.


But, you do know that the Gulf of Tonkin DID happen, the Branch Davidians WERE terrorists, and they DID find WMDs...




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That's funny. That's exactly what the demolition argument sounds like to me.

Q: How did they lace the buildings with explosives and what kind of explosives did they use?

A: The government has bombs and powers that none of us know about and that can perform miracles.



miracles? i would hardly call mass murder a miracle.

how, doesn't matter, yet. when you see a plane fall from the sky, it is not important to know whether it ran out of fuel, or whether a bird got stuck in the engine, or whether he was commiting suicide. HOW does not change the fact that the plane fell from the sky.

now, just replace plane with tower. it FELL with virtually NO resistance. a proper investigation could determine EXACTLY how they planted the explosives, and who did it. for now, we must get enough people to KNOW that it fell, and that towers one and two had bombs in them.

a finnish military expert has some ideas on how.....is a mini nuke a miracle maker?
and there these reports of police finding other suspicious devices, thought to be bombs...la bamba.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

You have voted LazyMind for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


I have voted you way above because your post is actually the BEST in defence of it not being a controlled demolition. Actually, after your post, I believe this to be the best explaination of everything that happened. I do believe that the towers fell on their own...sorry guys...the only thing though is the inner core, I still believe that something else brought those down...what, I do not know and don't want to conjecture. Anyway...welcome to ATS and please stay...we could use your knowledge.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
What post of LazyMind's are you referring to? I'm only seeing the one on this page, up a little and regarding WTC7. Am I missing something?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join