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: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
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.

You say there's no evidence of that stuff but there's even LESS evidence of planted bombs.

And this has been discussed a few times now, but...how else were buildings that shape and size supposed to fall? If there's no earthquake causing the building to tip over EVERY building that shape and size will fall straight down. There's absolutely no other way they could fall as there's no force strong enough (besides an earthquake) to make them fall any other way.


(just to note, they fell straight down, but the didn't fall symmetically. With wtc 7, the south side started falling first and with the twin towers, the top parts started falling first )




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

And this has been discussed a few times now, but...how else were buildings that shape and size supposed to fall? If there's no earthquake causing the building to tip over EVERY building that shape and size will fall straight down. There's absolutely no other way they could fall as there's no force strong enough (besides an earthquake) to make them fall any other way.


All you've got to do is think about it!

If a building is damaged only on one side, how does this cause the side that is undamaged to fail? It's basic physics! You will get collapse on the side that is damaged, just like what happened to the fed building in Oklahoma.

Also the tower that started to topple, as you point out, how do you explain the fact that the inertia of the toppling top was suddenly stopped, and the building underneath gave way? You can't explain this with the fire analogy, it just doesn't work that way.
In fact the building started to act as you would expect, a toppling over of the damaged top portion, and then the rest of the floors/supports underneath the damaged sections gave way equally causing a symmetrical collapse.
Any slight deviation from an equal failure of supports would have caused the buildings to topple/partialy collapse. And the incredible thing is 3 buildings acted in this physics defying act in one day!
How can anybody support the official story and keep a straight face?

It doesn't matter if we can't prove bombs caused it, it's already been proved fire and aircraft damage DIDN'T do it and couldn't do it, so what does that leave? Magic Alha physics defying technology?

As far as EVERY building acting that way...PROVE IT!! Show me one buidling that has fallen in it's own foot print from anything but controlled demo.
I'll be waiting, and waiting zzzzzz.......

[edit on 9/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Even though WTC2's cap tilted, it still fell straight down ultimately, because the tilting miraculously stopped. And WTC7 similarly collapsed straight down, except with no spewing of debris as it did so, and thus it landed in a pretty neat little pile at its footprint when it was finished.


The evidence of a controlled demolition is in the absurdity of those things falling as they did naturally. Prove that they like that fell naturally and theories involving controlled demolition won't be needed.

I could cite specific pieces of evidence in support of demolition, but you guys never accept them, so just prove your case and you won't have to keep trying to disprove ours.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The silence that has taken over this thread speaks volumes. Does anyone have an updated timeline for the final reports from FEMA and NIST re: WTC 7? As I recall the NIST report is 4 months+ overdue as of April 2006.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
bs and ANOK...
Simple questions -
1. Have you ever seen a building fall any other way outside of an earthquake?

2. Do you have an grasp of what gravity is?

3. Have you ever in your life seen any buildings being demolitioned like that?

(4. (this isn't just for you two and a little of the subject) How long was the debris smoldering? A couple of weeks if I'm not mistaken. How?)

Take a look at this video. How in the world does something like this happen in a CD?
Close up of South Tower collapse



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Simple questions -
1. Have you ever seen a building fall any other way outside of an earthquake?


Steel skyscrapers have never fallen outside of earthquakes and controlled demolition.


2. Do you have an grasp of what gravity is?


Yes. But do you have a grasp of what electromagnetism is? And how/why physical objects resist passing through one another? And how this force is exponentially stronger than gravity, which just so happens to be the weakest force in nature?


3. Have you ever in your life seen any buildings being demolitioned like that?


In videos, yes. They just set the charges off in a different order/different parts of buildings. But other than that they look exactly the same.

Pyroclastic flows of fine dust clouds, falling straight into footprints, at near free-fall speed, squibs, etc.

Example:





Not a natural collapse. No natural collapses of high rises like that. Again, a video and more info on that collapse can be found here.


Take a look at this video. How in the world does something like this happen in a CD?


You take out a floor's support with thermite until it starts to collapse on its own, and then you switch on the charges, which you program to go off from top down. Watch the video of WTC2 and you'll see bursts start coming out of the building after it's been leaning for a bit.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
In videos, yes. They just set the charges off in a different order/different parts of buildings. But other than that they look exactly the same.

Pyroclastic flows of fine dust clouds, falling straight into footprints, at near free-fall speed, squibs, etc.

bs (no, not calling you. The other bs as in bull ....)
1. Neither of the towers collapsed in on itself. They fell outwards.
2. The twin towers started collapsing at the impact points. Have you ever seen a building collapse from that high up before? Have you ever heard of something like that happening? Has that even ever been suggested before?


You take out a floor's support with thermite until it starts to collapse on its own, and then you switch on the charges, which you program to go off from top down. Watch the video of WTC2 and you'll see bursts start coming out of the building after it's been leaning for a bit.

oh for crying out loud. Are you serious? Are you listening to yourself? Are you that desperate for the government to be behind 9/11 that you would start making crap like this up? Why? Why do you want so bad for the government to be behind the attacks?

I'd like to see 1 shred of evidence that could even remotely support your claim...



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
1. Have you ever seen a building fall any other way outside of an earthquake?


It would be easier to answer that with a question of my own...Have you ever seen a building fall like the WTC that was not a controlled demo?
I will also confidently answer my own question, NO. Prove me wrong and I'll shut up.


2. Do you have an grasp of what gravity is?


Do you have an (sic) grasp of what friction and resistance is? All it seems you understand is that gravity causes things to fall to earth. What you seem to miss is that buildings are built to withstand the force of gravity. Damage and fire to upper floors will not cause gravity to overcome the physical restraints imposed on the lower floors by it's method of construction. The only way a building will come down in that manner is if all the supports gave out at the same time.
So another question, what caused the lower floors, undamaged by plane or fire, to not effect resistance and friction to the upper floors falling on them?
You think gravity did this?



3. Have you ever in your life seen any buildings being demolitioned like that?


So what if I haven't, what difference does that make? There is nothing physically impossible with the demo theory of the WTC, there is no "well it couldn't have been demo's because blah blah blah ". Only more evidence that points to controlled demo.
I would rather believe the physics of it than the fairy tail. So, just because a building hasn't been demo'd in that way before doesn't mean it couldn't have been done.


(4. (this isn't just for you two and a little of the subject) How long was the debris smoldering? A couple of weeks if I'm not mistaken. How?)


Who knows? And again does it really matter? Thermite? Super mini plasma laser mp3 playin' nukes?? Old socks? It doesn't change the physics of the collapse.


Take a look at this video. How in the world does something like this happen in a CD?


Not sure what you're getting at? How can you tell what the collapse mechanism is from a video? If we could then we wouldn't still be debating this.

[edit on 13/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by bsbray11
In videos, yes. They just set the charges off in a different order/different parts of buildings. But other than that they look exactly the same.

Pyroclastic flows of fine dust clouds, falling straight into footprints, at near free-fall speed, squibs, etc.

oh for crying out loud. Are you serious? Are you listening to yourself? Are you that desperate for the government to be behind 9/11 that you would start making crap like this up? Why? Why do you want so bad for the government to be behind the attacks?

I'd like to see 1 shred of evidence that could even remotely support your claim...



why would you like to see ANOTHER shred of evidence? are you that fond of hand waving?

6.6 seconds is freefall for tower seven(-.6 seconds). not even air resisted the collapse very much.

that's just freaky.

wind resistance is a given when you're talking about skyscaper floor spans.

this indicates the government is lying about who's behind it.
why would the government lie?
who does the government serve? the people? or big business. the honest answer to this question leaves a clue as to why a government might lie to the people it's supposed to represent.

why would bsbray be desperate for the government to have been behind it?

that's just wierd.

i think every single 'conspiracy theorist'(or 'realist', as i like to say), would love to be wrong, and would love a squeeky clean america, unblemished by high level corruption.

that's just unrealistic.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Do some people still not believe the WTC 7 was pulled?

If you are one of those people, see East Penthouse on top of WTC 7 imploded too!.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Okay, I tried posting something, I wrote a really nice long post but like..Windows fails at existence and it didn't end up being posted, so I'll just summarize:

It couldn't of fallen the way it did because of a fire.

1. The fire would of had to make the center beams all collapse at the same time
2. Then the outside beams would of all had to fail, exactly at the same time, milliseconds after the center beams.

Why does that matter? The form it fell in, demolition style.

3. There wasn't enough gas in order to do that
4. If there was, it would of been impossible to set it all off, because the debris from the fallen towers wouldn't of triggered ANY explosion, and you need an explosion for any explosive gas to bring down a building in that style.

If you believe that it was from a fire, you as might as believe that we never landed on the moon. Or that the earth is flat. Or that there are no oceans, it's just an optical illusion that Atlantians made by putting mirrors under a small pool, then re-wrote all of history in order to make us believe there are oceans.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Damage and fire to upper floors will not cause gravity to overcome the physical restraints imposed on the lower floors by it's method of construction. The only way a building will come down in that manner is if all the supports gave out at the same time.


wtf are you basing this on? You all talk like this like you're experts but all your doing is reading and copying CRAP from other non experts.
Plane crashes into building. Parts of building damaged, some integrity lost.
Plane explodes (starting at impact). More structrual damage.
Fires. Damage spreads, more integrity lost.
Let's say that all the damage just happened on one side of the building. So you have one side that's very weak and the other side holding everything above it up. What do you think is going to happen?


So another question, what caused the lower floors, undamaged by plane or fire, to not effect resistance and friction to the upper floors falling on them?
You think gravity did this?


Once a building that size starts to collapse there's no stopping it. After each floor, more weight is added to the collapse. Those floors were not designed to handle such a weight on top of it.



So what if I haven't, what difference does that make? There is nothing physically impossible with the demo theory of the WTC

There's plenty wrong with it.
1. No on in their right mind would put demos that high up. First it's never been done before so there was no guarentee it would work.
2. The collapse started at the impact points which means
a) whoever place the explosives would have had to been a psychic.
b) these explosives had to survive the plane impact, the resulting explosion, and the fires.
Extremely improbable.
3. There's absolutely no way you can wire a building like the WTC and not have it noticed. Especially that high up.


Only more evidence that points to controlled demo.

What evidence!!!???
You haven't provided one shred of proof!

How do you know a plane can't do that?


I would rather believe the physics of it than the fairy tail. So, just because a building hasn't been demo'd in that way before doesn't mean it couldn't have been done.

wtf is the difference between a demo (explosive) and a plane (used as an explosive)?



Not sure what you're getting at? How can you tell what the collapse mechanism is from a video? If we could then we wouldn't still be debating this.

1. Yes we would still be debating this. This is a conspiricy site. You can show people a blue pen and they'll insist it's a red pen.
2. In a CD you would see some sort of explosion or reaction. You do not see that in the extremely close up video which would have picked that up. What you see is the most damaged side of the building (with the fire still going strong) buckle in causing a chain reaction. Now if you can prove that the building could have still stood despite the damgaged floors failing then by all means present your evidence.


It would be easier to answer that with a question of my own...Have you ever seen a building fall like the WTC that was not a controlled demo?
I will also confidently answer my own question, NO. Prove me wrong and I'll shut up.

Since buildings like that don't fall too often no. But you do see it all the time with houses. Different structures but the mechanics are basically the same. With houses and apartments though you don't have the added damage of planes flying into them at 400-500 mph.




Anyway, since you seem to know everything and are obviously an expert in this field, give us a step by step timeline of what happened.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
if you place demo charges, why wait 45 minutes to blow the south tower, which was hit last, versus over an hour for the north tower which was hit first?

Why not blow the charges on impact to hide any evidence at all of charges. Why blow the north tower last even though it was hit first. Why use demo charges when a fully loaded 767 can do the job? Why use demo charges only on one floor, the same floor as the impact? Why chance the demo charges being destroyed by the impact anyways. How can you have demo charges placed on a floor which was destroyed by the plane anyways. Why use demo charges at all? Im not sure why u keep saying the builidngs collapsed perfectly onto their own footprint when they hardly did. The collapses were very violent, very messy and scattered debris for blocks, and smashed the remaining wtc complex buildings. Hardly a controlled demo, pure and utter nonsense.

Its almost as silly as saying the ryder truck bomb in front of murrrah building, at a radial distance from the main support column of 15 feet with an equivalent of 4800 lbs tnt and creating a crater 7 feet deep, 30 feet wide through 11 inches of asplhalt and 7 inches of concrete somehow only managed to create a blast pressure wave of 49 psi on the main column and therefore there was no way in hell a truck bomb could have taken out that main support column, and we must have cutter charges in there as well.

You people are so clueless, but what makes me even more upset is that we all have one thing in common, we each have only 1 vote. No wonder the dems control you, you believe anything you hear.

Train



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Train,

Just to clear things up. The title of the thread is what happened to WTC7...not the towers. So, yes, WTC7 DID fall into it's own footprint. Thanks for sticking to the topic.

Edit: I'm really not one to talk about going off topic though....I do it all too often.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Odd. I don't post very often, but lately I've been getting a lot of "page not found" when I go to post.

Anyway, I have a couple of suggestions which I hope will be helpful.

Recognize that evidence of demolition materials is not necessarily evidence of a controlled demolition.

Recognize that the plan may have included stuff besides hijacked planes.

There can be no credible argument that the WTC was not the intended target. Use of fuel-laden planes is not that much different from use of fuel laden building (WTC7).

If I were going to try to figure this out on my own (which I don't have the time for - I'm heading back to Louisiana for another 3 months to do what I can to help with yet another of my country's recent failings) I would start by seeing what could have been known about WTC7 ahead of time:

The location of the special offices that probably had, at least, limited amounts of explosives on hand.

The info on the diesel fuel, especially since they already demonstrated using that - possibly for symbolic reasons also - material.

What was the accessibility of the roof and/or penthouse?

Start there (just like they would have). Use your engineering, physics skills and building access information and see how hard such a thing would have been to put together - given the demonstrated skills and dedication evidenced by the hijacked planes component.

Ask: Would the government be just as likely to want to hide how it failed to protect against this as well as the planes?

Lastly, on strong-force & weak-force. Use of in-house terminology outside of the field tends to lead to misunderstanding. For purposes such as this there is no instructive value to referring to gravity as the weak force.

The so called stong force is so limited in scope (thankfully - otherwise we'd have atomic explosions everytime a rock fell) as to be meaningless in any discussion except one about atomic explosions - which this is not.

The so called weak force effects mass at the other side of the universe. Comparitively weak? Yes, but persistent as all get out.

That's my two bits worth. Probably won't have anything to add (could end up doing some lurking from time to time). Please, don't misinterpret nothing further from me as meaning anything one way or ther other.

May you be successful in your honest endeavors.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
1. Neither of the towers collapsed in on itself. They fell outwards.


But they fell outwards with the center of gravity still within the footprint! They didn't fall to one side, or lean this way or that, but fell straight down. That's if you believe gravity did bring these towers down. Otherwise you're right with me in believing that lateral force from explosives brought them down. There was no leaning/tilt/etc. etc. that caused the buildings to fall on any particular side, and this is exactly my point.


2. The twin towers started collapsing at the impact points. Have you ever seen a building collapse from that high up before? Have you ever heard of something like that happening? Has that even ever been suggested before?


Like I said, it's just a matter of programming the charges to go off in a certain order.

If you think that would be hard, then this is going to blow your mind. Electronics is wonderful, and it's been around for quite a long time by now.


oh for crying out loud. Are you serious? Are you listening to yourself? Are you that desperate for the government to be behind 9/11 that you would start making crap like this up? Why? Why do you want so bad for the government to be behind the attacks?


See, I'm not that attached either way that I become hysterical when considering this kind of stuff. That's a major difference between you and me.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
After each floor, more weight is added to the collapse.


How many times are you going to make a fool of yourself with this assertion before you give it up? Prove that most of the debris fell within the footprints.

Everyone that's seen photos of Ground Zero knows that the whole complex and beyond was showered with debris, and most of it was outside of the footprints where it had all been blown. You can watch a freaking video and see the debris cloud multiply several times the actual width of the buildings. Your assertion doesn't hold water.


1. No on in their right mind would put demos that high up. First it's never been done before so there was no guarentee it would work.


Does being so high up in the air prevent explosives from working or something?


2. The collapse started at the impact points which means
a) whoever place the explosives would have had to been a psychic.
b) these explosives had to survive the plane impact, the resulting explosion, and the fires.
Extremely improbable.


Prove that it would've been extremely improbable. If you watch the impacts, you can see concrete dust being ejected perpendicular to the building faces just as it was when the buildings were collapsing.

And you can throw thermite or C4 or a number explosives directly into fire and they won't necessarily combust. Thermite won't ignite at such low temperatures, and C4, for example, can have plasticizers added to require higher temps to set off, even though I doubt most C4 would be set off in open-atmosphere, sooty fires like that in the first place.


3. There's absolutely no way you can wire a building like the WTC and not have it noticed. Especially that high up.


Then you don't use wires.



wtf is the difference between a demo (explosive) and a plane (used as an explosive)?


I'll just mention the obvious that the planes didn't bring the towers down. Anyone watching the tower impacts and the subsequent few seconds could realize this. NIST blames the fires. Maybe you should catch up to them and argue the same thing.


Since buildings like that don't fall too often no. But you do see it all the time with houses. Different structures but the mechanics are basically the same. With houses and apartments though you don't have the added damage of planes flying into them at 400-500 mph.


Comparing houses to steel skyscrapers and saying the mechanics are basically the same? That's like comparing a canoe to an aircraft carrier.


And if by "don't fall [like that] too often" you mean, have never fallen like that at all except for 3 buildings in the WTC Complex on 9/11, then you'd be right.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by ANOK
So another question, what caused the lower floors, undamaged by plane or fire, to not effect resistance and friction to the upper floors falling on them?
You think gravity did this?


Once a building that size starts to collapse there's no stopping it. After each floor, more weight is added to the collapse. Those floors were not designed to handle such a weight on top of it.


Once a building that size starts to collapse, it usually doesn't fall vertically where the outside starts to collapse milliseconds after the inside coloumns. Those floors were not designed to handle such a weight ontop of it. Therefore they'd pull a trade-center-tower on us and break and fall like the top of WTC.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
wtf are you basing this on? You all talk like this like you're experts but all your doing is reading and copying CRAP from other non experts.
What do you think is going to happen?


What am I basing this on?...common sense.
I didn't copy it from anybody.
OK there must be more damage to building 7 that I haven't seen, are you privy to pics we aren't?
Where are the raging fires, that firefighters said weren't worth fighting at the time?
Did you look at the Oklahoma building BTW, it's a good example of what happens to a building that's been bombed. Did it fall straight down defying resistance and friction? No, it had a partial collapse, the undamaged supports remained standing. What do you think would happen?



Once a building that size starts to collapse there's no stopping it. After each floor, more weight is added to the collapse. Those floors were not designed to handle such a weight on top of it.


In this situation, no matter how weak the floors were, you're going to get resistance from the floors that were not damaged. A huge percentage of the lower floors were not damaged AT ALL. Do you really think 5 floors on fire could heat up the steel, many yards bellow, enough for them to collapse?
Do you think the approx 20% top portion had enough weight to pulverize the rest of the building with no sign of resistance al all? In fact the top portion was pulverized into dust before it even impacted the lower floors, how do you explain this? With another smiley?



1. No on in their right mind would put demos that high up. First it's never been done before so there was no guarentee it would work.
2. The collapse started at the impact points which means
a) whoever place the explosives would have had to been a psychic.
b) these explosives had to survive the plane impact, the resulting explosion, and the fires.
3. There's absolutely no way you can wire a building like the WTC and not have it noticed. Especially that high up.


1. LOL So? No one put a man on the moon before but they did it. You reasoning is err a little niave. Obviously it did work.
2. Look at building 7 collapsing, does that start at the impact point
We are talking about WTC7. But look at a video of building 2 collapse, you can see it starts above the impact point.
3. What does the hight have to do with it, and what do you know about what the government/military is capable of?



You haven't provided one shred of proof!
How do you know a plane can't do that?

I never said I did.
I don't. Except the designers of the buildings said it should have survived multiple hits by a 707.



wtf is the difference between a demo (explosive) and a plane (used as an explosive)?


LOL you should be able to answer these simple questions yourself.
Anyway, what do you think that big fireball is when the planes impact?
It's the fuel from the planes burning up. And you should know that controlled demo is a totally different deal than a random explosion.



2. Now if you can prove that the building could have still stood despite the damgaged floors failing then by all means present your evidence.


The evidence has been presented, you refuse to see common sense, not much I can help you with there. How many more times does it have to be explained?



Since buildings like that don't fall too often no. But you do see it all the time with houses.


LOL not even gonna bother with that one....How many houses have steel supports?


Anyway, since you seem to know everything and are obviously an expert in this field, give us a step by step timeline of what happened.


I never claimed to be an expert, you are the one claiming to know what happened, because the government told you how it did. I use my common sense and the information available to all of us to come to a conclusion. How do you come to your conclusion? Oh I know, it's made up for you, no need to think, or risk seeming too liberal or lefty. Now go be a good little boy, and do and think as your government tells you.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Poor Anok is being harassed


It was 2001 man, even if fires were to reach the demo's, they wouldn't blow. It's not the 1800's, we don't use kegs of gunpowder as demo's anymore



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join