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: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Yeah, that's the one. It could explain why WTC7 came down in a controlled demolition manner. Because, it was a controlled demolition. As in it was always set up....it makes the most sense in my mind. If it did actually have as much damage as they claim...then why wouldn't they just "pull" it? It sounds like the most logical explaination to me. If this guy has any credence then he has a great point. There are fail safes....especially when we talk about the government. It makes sense and would explain the controlled demolition of WTC7 that they would want to just ignore.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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?


yeah, man. it was 'something' that brought down tower seven.

i'm thinking paper shredder. or, preplanned automatic demolition that is not controlled. something, anyway.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
it fell down, that happens when you slam a building up aginst it.

just my opinion though



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Then that makes sense to me too, Griff. But it was still a purposeful demolition. I don't see how that really contradicts any major issues from the demo side on WTC7, since the how's of any of the collapses are described pretty vaguely by both sides (pancake collapse vs. explosives, and those words are about as far as it usually goes), save by that Scandanavian General's suggestions, which seem pretty encompassing to me.

TruthAction,

Why did it fall straight down, and take the path of the absolute most resistance it could have, if the damage was asymmetrical and from debris?

Why not just fall straight back, or wherever the columns were severed/damaged, as one would expect, and which would provide the least resistance to a fall?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
TruthAction,

Why did it fall straight down, and take the path of the absolute most resistance it could have, if the damage was asymmetrical and from debris?

Why not just fall straight back, or wherever the columns were severed/damaged, as one would expect, and which would provide the least resistance to a fall?

I thought this was explained already (maybe in another thread), that's how buildings fall.
You'll never see a building that large tip over or fall any other way unless acted upon with a much larger force (such as an earthquake). With building 7 you did see the back side of the building (the damaged side) start to collapse first (hence the penthouse disappearing), but because of the size, weight, and structure of the building, the back side and the rest of the building couldn't fall any other way except straight down.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You'll never see a building that large tip over or fall any other way unless acted upon with a much larger force (such as an earthquake).


Well, coincidentally, earthquakes and demolitions are the only things that have ever collapsed steel skyscrapers. So there you go.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Look at this movie and tell me that it didn't look just like WTC7 collapse.
Controlled demolition

It started from one side to other falling straight down withou almost any resistance. Just like WTC7 collapse only in WTC7 it started as you wrote ThatsJustWeird from the back of the building.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
So what?

Have you ever personally been to a building implosion? I have. In fact I have seen 7 buildings go down this way.

That proves nothing except that a buildng will fall straight down.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Whaaaaat? Man Howard, you're the expert on everything. So you say building 7 didn't look anything like a demolition?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Howard: I've wrote that it looks like not that it is. Yo've been to a building implosions. So what ? That doesn't prove nothing too (except that you know how it looks like live).

You've wrote this in other thread: "...WTC was hit by falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 resulting in sever strucutral damage. It caught fire and burned for 7 hours before it fell..."

What do you mean by "sever structural damage" ? Was this damage:

responsible for collapsing ? (Btw. this picture isn't very good if it comes to talk about WTC7 damage... That's the only one "showing" WTC7 damge ?)

Or was it this:

raging fire ? (Btw. where this fire came from in the building ?)



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
That photo only shows the corner of the buildng.

According to eye witnesses, there was a large hole scooped out of the south face of the buildng.

Note the heavy volume of smoke in that first picture. That is the fire I'm talking about.

There were two 6,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks in the basement that supplied the emergency generators on the 6th floor. They were normally kept full. After the debris was cleared they were found to be empty.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
So then explain the mechanism to us, Howard, that allowed WTC7 to fall right down upon itself, with the roof descending at free fall, so that it all landed in a pile at the base of where the tower once stood.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
If a coulmn failed at a lower level, near where the transfer trusses were, then the building would have fallen stragiht down.

A few of things should be noted.

1) the building's structure was unusual.

2) Any building that size will collapse straight down. Gravity, It's the law!

3) There were unusual fire loads related to the emergency generator system in that building.

4) The possibility that there was substandard construction or hidden defects in the structure should not be ignored.

5) The building took a big hit from the falling debris from WTC 1.

6) There are credible accounts from firemen on the scene that there were no explosions before the collapse.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If a coulmn failed at a lower level, near where the transfer trusses were, then the building would have fallen stragiht down.


Precedents for this information? Specifically, historical examples of such failures from steel skyscrapers?


2) Any building that size will collapse straight down. Gravity, It's the law!


No. Steel skyscrapers have only come down by deconstruction, demolition, and earthquakes. Seeing how earthquakes would be the most relevant here (uncontrolled structural damage), that's where you'd want to look to back up this "law" of yours that such buildings can only fall straight down.

Besides, gravity is the weakest force in nature. The force preventing two solid objects from pushing through each other, for example (electromagnetism), is exponentially stronger than gravity. Considering this, it would make more sense in terms of physics if the building took the path of least resistance as gravity took a hold of it, and just fell over to the side through air instead of through steel and concrete.

Nothing else that you just posted was even relevant to what I asked.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
You are EXACTLY right.




it would make more sense in terms of physics if the building took the path of least resistance as gravity took a hold of it, and just fell over to the side through air instead of through steel and concrete.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what?

Have you ever personally been to a building implosion? I have. In fact I have seen 7 buildings go down this way.

That proves nothing except that a buildng will fall straight down.



HAHAHA!

thanks, howard.

so, when you load a building with explosives, and plan for it to come straight down, that's what happened in 7 out of 7 cases?

'nuff said.

p.s. you can add an eighth to that, unless you're already talking about ALL the world trade center towers, one through seven. (although, i heard the roof of six was blown hundreds of feet into the air, so i guess the bomb boys had 'fun' with the whole thing.)

as an aside, how does millions of dollars worth(presumambly TONS of it) of precious metal just 'disappear'? stuff like gold and silver that was stored at the world trade center.

they didn't call it the 'WORLD TRADE CENTER' for no reason.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What was going on in building 7 that they needed so much backup power.


How much is 42,000 gallons of diesel?
It would provide about 330,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. I use 100 to 300 kilowatt hours per month, so it would provide electricity for me for at least 90 years.
How many decades could Building 7 provide you with electricity?
www.erichufschmid.net...



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Howard, it is no use. They have decided that they are smarter that anoyone else out there including architects and multiple appointed commisions, and that they are experts who can deny any theory you can present. The rational answer is no fun.

I still want to know where your evidence of demolition is? If this is WTC 7, it was 'pulled' so where is the evidence?

www.usatoday.com...

Follow the clicks and this explains the unique struture of WTC 1 and 2 and how fire can cause collapse

and here is a link to an article from a few months after 9/11 stating that WTC 7 had been warned about the diesel fuel it was storing.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Howard, it is no use. They have decided that they are smarter that anoyone else out there including architects and multiple appointed commisions, and that they are experts who can deny any theory you can present. The rational answer is no fun.

I still want to know where your evidence of demolition is? If this is WTC 7, it was 'pulled' so where is the evidence?


Esdad

The only people who have/had access to the important evidence (FEMA and NIST primarily) are not even looking for evidence of controlled demolition. I don't really understand why you, Howard, etc. even believe that the collapse was an accident. The vaunted government reports tell you nothing conclusive - after 4+ years they are still trying to figure out how the main support column(s) failed - why do you think that is? Maybe because there's no evidence of fires that were hot enough to cause it? They've had all that time to come up with a plausible, explainable scenario, and they still haven't got it.

Show me one other building that collapsed due to structural damage and fire (outside WTC 1 and 2), and show me where YOUR experts have proven ANYTHING conclusive as to why WTC 7 fell as it did, and I'll shut the hell up.

In the meantime I'll ask you and Howard a question - does the collapse of WTC7 look like a controlled demolition to you?

Just wondering.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71-

and here is a link to an article from a few months after 9/11 stating that WTC 7 had been warned about the diesel fuel it was storing.

www.nytimes.com...


I would be more inclined to believe that article if it came before 9/11.


Just because it's in print doesn't mean it's the truth. The government has been caught planting their own news stories before, many times. Nothing new, but I'll bet you'll still wonder why we can't see the truth, as you do?

There is NO evidence of explosions from diesel fuel tanks.
There is NO evidence of raging fires.
There is NO evidence of damage capable of causing a symmetrical collapse.

But even so, fire, in any shape using any fuel, would not cause a building to collapse symmetrically the way the WTC buildings did.
If you'd have got any kind of collapse from fire or explosions, it would be partial. See the Oklahoma fed building bomb for an example. Or any other building bombed, or burned down.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join