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: 18
0
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
You forgot to quote the part in my statement where I explain this. Yes, a controlled demolition is used with many explosives when you don't want debris flying into the neighbor buildings. If you want it to look more natural, you would only need to sever the columns in a few places and let gravity do it's job with no regaurd of the neighboring buildings.

Which could be done by flying airplanes into the building.
That is much easier than going floor by floor, knocking out the walls to try and get to the columns then replace the wall and do it all unnoticed in a building in which thousands of people work there every day.



Maybe I can put it differently. I'm talking about people believing that a few floors can bring the towers down but won't believe that a few floors plus a few explosives can.

Why would you need the explosives if the "few" floors can do it? That's what I want to know.

Also explosives are well....explosive. Why were there no explosions? Thermite as some people are suggesting was used is extremely reactive (I mean, even pouring water on it will cause an explosive reaction [of steam]).
en.wikipedia.org...

Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, when they are exposed to sufficient heat to ignite they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction.

So how did this or any other explosive survive the initial plane impacts, the resulting explosions, and the ensuing fires?


This way you wouldn't need to hide that many explosives in the building.

Hiding ANY explosive in a building like that is improbable.

Got any ideas on how they could have possibly done that?




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
bs here claims that the bombs were planted and they were somehow unnoticed. He still hasn't explained how though. He's also suggesting that the bombs were placed on every floor.


That's right, because I don't know. I wasn't there! *gasp*

All that needs to be proven is that the towers couldn't have fallen naturally. Nothing else even matters dude. When you retreat to attacking theories on how the explosives were placed, you've apparently already given up on arguing that the towers could have fallen naturally. So don't worry about the how aspect of it until you've come to terms with what really happened in the first place.


Who the 'f' cares how they went off. It's WHAT went off that we're talking about.


Really? Can you back this up, that you were talking about this? I've asked you to back up at least three or four things you've suggested and you've failed to back up any of them. You've put words in my mouth and everything else and keep trolling right along through my requests for examples like you never even posted.



You didn't just suggest it was a combo; you just suggested it was the planes.

Where?


Page 16 of this thread:


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


And I responded, the planes didn't bring the towers down.


Going to correct yourself now? I suspect you'll just talk in more circles instead.


No building has ever had a plane that large slammed into it on purpose either.


Which accounted for only 15% of the damage to the structure, leaving the other



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
All that needs to be proven is that the towers couldn't have fallen naturally.

What are you waiting for?



Really? Can you back this up, that you were talking about this? I've asked you to back up at least three or four things you've suggested and you've failed to back up any of them.


Such as what?



You didn't just suggest it was a combo; you just suggested it was the planes.

Where?


Page 16 of this thread:


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


And I responded, the planes didn't bring the towers down.

Ha! A joke...
...funny...


Going to correct yourself now? I suspect you'll just talk in more circles instead.

Correct what? Throughout this thread and others I have said it was a combo, not once did I ever say the planes alone brought down the building. Asking what the difference is between a plane crashing, exploding and buring into a building and a demo is not saying or even suggesting the planes alone were at fault. I was asking a simple question that you still haven't answered.



Which accounted for only 15% of the damage to the structure, leaving the other



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
What are you waiting for?


Not for you. If you want to shut me up, you can prove that the towers could have fallen naturally. Don't just give me theories. Give me proof of natural collapse.



Really? Can you back this up, that you were talking about this? I've asked you to back up at least three or four things you've suggested and you've failed to back up any of them.


Such as what?


For one, the very thing I'm referencing in this quote, which you of course fail to support here.

For two others:



It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.


Where did I suggest that? Have a link?


So...are you saying a psychic did in fact place the explosives there or were the explosives placed after the planes crashed?


And where did I suggest this?


Those are from page 17. It should be kind of embarrassing that I have to keep doing this sort of thing for you when you can just scroll back over the posts.


Ha! A joke...
...funny...


That wasn't a joke, lol. This is kind of sad, dude. Can't you just fess up to these minor little issues? I just showed you where you suggested the planes brought the towers down, just as you asked!, and you respond with this immature crap.

How are we supposed to trust the honesty of anything else you post if you won't admit to these simple slip-ups that are plainly visible to everyone else on this board?


Throughout this thread and others I have said it was a combo, not once did I ever say the planes alone brought down the building.


Then you should learn the difference here between the plane impacts and subsequent fires. They are two different events, and you were just suggesting the impacts did the job of the fires. That's not right. It's incorrect, despite whatever you may have posted in the past. It's not a logical argument to compare the plane impacts to demolition charges in the buildings, because I think we can agree that if there were any charges in the buildings on 9/11, they wouldn't have failed to bring the buildings down.

Asking what the difference is between a plane crashing, exploding and buring into a building and a demo is not saying or even suggesting the planes alone were at fault. I was asking a simple question that you still haven't answered.

I haven't answered because the premise doesn't make sense: the plane impacts did not cause significant damage! They didn't bring the towers down. If you want to argue that the fires did, then by all means do so and show us how the fires sufficiently destroyed the support to initiate demolition. But the plane impacts caused a minor amount of damage in comparison to what needed to be done to initiate a collapse.



Which accounted for only 15% of the damage to the structure, leaving the other



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not for you. If you want to shut me up, you can prove that the towers could have fallen naturally. Don't just give me theories. Give me proof of natural collapse.

Are you blind?
I have posted at least 3 different videos of the collapse in this thread.
1. Flying planes into buildings (and whatever the results) is hardly "natural"
2. Are you suggesting the collapses were not natural? Well, what proof do you have they weren't natural.




For two others:



It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.


Where did I suggest that? Have a link?

Well you haven't suggested otherwise. So what is it? Were there explosives on all floors or just that one?



And where did I suggest this?

lol
I said "whoever placed the explosives would have had to been a psychic."
You said "Prove that it would've been extremely improbable"


I just showed you where you suggested the planes brought the towers down, just as you asked!, and you respond with this immature crap.

wtf?
You still haven't showed me, in that quote or any other, where I said the planes brought down the towers!!!!!
Why are you making (crap) up?


Then you should learn the difference here between the plane impacts and subsequent fires. They are two different events, and you were just suggesting the impacts did the job of the fires.

Dude...do you have some sort of...I don't know....problem?
What part of IT WAS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS is so difficult to understand? The impacts AND the subsequent fires lead to the collapse of the buildings. I have said that throughout this and other threads. I NEVER suggested that the planes did the job of the fires.



I haven't answered because the premise doesn't make sense: the plane impacts did not cause significant damage!

I'll ask again...are you legally blind?

1. How do you know it didn't cause significant damage?
2. Define significant?

look at the videos again, the explosion happens IN the building (with both planes)


But the plane impacts caused a minor amount of damage in comparison to what needed to be done to initiate a collapse.

This is based on your expertise knowledge I take it?

And again, what part of "combo" is difficult to grasp?



I'm asking for any skyscraper fire that's caused 60% damage, period.

?
What are you talking about? 60% damage to the floor the fire was on or the whole skyscraper?


I'm trying to point out that no skyscraper has ever had that kind of damage done to it by fire alone, period! Do you get the point now? I want you prove that the fires did that kind of damage to the towers, when they have never been able to before.

You're not making sense.
You all keep using the Windsor Tower as an example, well look at that! Look what the fire did to that building. Have that type of fire concentrated on a couple of floors, add the damage to an airplane raming into it, and what do you think is going to happen?



Have you ever seen buildings demoed like that?


Yes. But you won't until you're reasonable and stop calling foul on which directions the buildings fall in, because they can be set up to fall in any direction pleased. That's what I was trying to say, but that you apparently didn't get.

You just answered yes. Please tell me when and where, I'd like to look at that myself.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
LOL Thatsjustweird...Sry but I'm not gonna waste my time answering all your points again. Sry but wherever you got your research?? Needs re-examining or something?

The one point I keep making and you keep skipping around is this...

How do roughly 15 floors have enough weight and momentum to completely collapse and turn into dust, at near free-fall, 90+ floors that are undamaged by fire or impact? That's all I ask, no BS, no skipping around and deflecting, no emoticoms, no sarcasm, just your analysis of how that is physically possible under any circumstances. I and thousands of others would love to see it.

How is that physically possible? Simple question, if you are so sure of your research you can answer that right? And if you can you should send your results to NIST, because they couldn't.

(IMO Even if multiple planes hit the building, it would not have collapsed in that fashion, it would have been far messier and lower floors and parts of lower floors would have remained standing. But that is just my opinion and right or wrong, doesn't change the physics of the collapses that happened)

Edit; Also pls re-examine the pic you posted above. If the explosion happened inside the building then what are those two huge fireballs OUTside the building?

It's not the building blowing out, the damage is not consistant with that.
So what does that logicaly leave? Jet Fuel. The majority of the jet fuel exploding and burning off. So it doesn't leave much fuel left to ignite the non-existant raging fires inside huh?

And BTW TJW, if you haven't seen the vids or heard the audio of explosions at the WTC then your "research" was not very thorough, huh? Or are you just playing at being ignorant of the evidence that abounds? I can't believe you missed the Mister Narc threads? Ever hear of Steve Jones? Hmmmm?

I'll even help you, here...

www.youtube.com...

But I'm sure you've already seen this and analysed it during your research right? So what is your opinion?

[edit on 14/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I have posted at least 3 different videos of the collapse in this thread.


This is proof of a natural collapse?


1. Flying planes into buildings (and whatever the results) is hardly "natural"


You know exactly what I mean. There's no point in playing semantics.


2. Are you suggesting the collapses were not natural? Well, what proof do you have they weren't natural.


I just asked you for proof of a natural collapse, and you just turn it around on me. Well, my argument is that the collapses could not have been natural because natural collapse theory makes no sense. My proof is that you can't offer any evidence for your case, and it makes no sense. Have fun. Your ball again.


For two others:




It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.


Where did I suggest that? Have a link?

Well you haven't suggested otherwise.


x.x

You just contradicted yourself then, because in a more recent reply you say I'm stating there were explosives on every floor. Simple solution: stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post, because it's getting old and certainly isn't getting either of us anywhere. Anyone who wants to look over the evolution of our discussion is of course free to do so and may form their own opinions therefrom.

I'll repost those pics of the demolition, though, since you asked for one that looked like the WTC collapses:





Image source.

Keep in mind what I said: the only real difference is the order in which the charges were set off. Calling foul on that alone is ignorant and small-minded; it would not be hard to program difference sequences with a computer. You call foul on the most minute ****.

I'll leave you to Anok and whoever else, if they even feel like bothering with you anymore. You're unreasonable and I don't think you put much thought behind a lot of what you post, except just enough to argue and bicker and provoke that much more.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The one point I keep making and you keep skipping around is this...

How do roughly 15 floors have enough weight and momentum to completely collapse and turn into dust, at near free-fall, 90+ floors that are undamaged by fire or impact? That's all I ask, no BS, no skipping around and deflecting, no emoticoms, no sarcasm, just your analysis of how that is physically possible under any circumstances. I and thousands of others would love to see it.

This has all been discussed multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple threads.
From the You must think I'm a fool... thread, I posted these two links that can give a better explanation
www.pbs.org...
www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

'nother link
www.construction.com...

Let me ask you a question. You have 15 floors. Those 15 floors all collapse onto the 16th floor that is not designed to handle all that weight and is already damaged. What do you think is going to happen?

(see my previous post - 2119673, page 17 - for more info and videos)


Also pls re-examine the pic you posted above. If the explosion happened inside the building then what are those two huge fireballs OUTside the building?

It's not the building blowing out, the damage is not consistant with that.
So what does that logicaly leave? Jet Fuel. The majority of the jet fuel exploding and burning off. So it doesn't leave much fuel left to ignite the non-existant raging fires inside huh?

This is exactly why I said watch the videos....



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
LOL, **bangs head against wall**

What do you think would happen?

Well lets see, all the floors bellow the 16th floor would suddenly and instantly become detached from there mountings, while the concrete, plaster etc...explode into a fine dust, and the steel melt, just in time to allow the upper floors to continue falling, with no resistance and no friction from touching and attached parts.


And now let's look at it in the real world.

The damaged top portion of the building tilts towards the damaged side of the building (WTC 2). At the pivot point, on the damaged side, you would have major collapsing of floors on the damaged side, their momentum would be slowed and stopped by the lower undamaged floors and the still undamaged upper floors away from the impact point of the aircraft.
The top portion will continue its topple, maybe breaking apart as it does, raining debris. It's weight is no longer on the floors of the main building and so it longer has energy for complete collapse.
Most of the fires were in these upper floors and would no longer be burning.

Which version makes the most sense to you?

(The second version is an exaggeration, I still believe that it needed extra energy, i.e. explosives, to make the top do what it did, I think the timing was off, or the damaged floors blew out too quick. All this work is just my opinion based on what we know, pls don't expect proof...lol Just use your common sense)

[edit on 14/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
ANOK,

Your lack of knowledge makes everything you say pure rubbish. Buildings are designed to hold up static vertical forces, not dynamic falling buildings.

Train



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Uh, TJW...

This thread is about BUILDING 7! Why do you keep bringing up planes? Oh, I get it, you must be a mutant with invisi-vision like Larry Silverstein, so you saw the invisible planes that all us ordinary humans missed...


But, don't let that stop you from talking about planes hitting buildings here; it really helps your argument.





posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Certain types of structures, like smaller, rigid concrete framed buildings, can tip over like a tree, especially if they are build to modern standards in earthquake prone areas.

Steel framed structures, however, are too flexible, and gravity is too powerful a force once the frame is a few degrees out of plumb. It is unrealistic to expect that the WTC towers or WTC 7 would have tipped like trees.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I can agree with you Howard that WTC 1 and 2 couldn't fall like a tree. They where hit too high. WTC7 is another story because ther is no 100% pure evidence (like good photo) of damage to one of the corners so It's hard to tell if that damge was enough for collapsing on that side.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
I can agree with you Howard that WTC 1 and 2 couldn't fall like a tree. They where hit too high.


The whole buildings certainly wouldn't tip like a tree, but that doesn't mean the upper floors wouldn't, and it certainly doesn't mean that the whole buildings should have totally collapsed into beams and dust.

Also,


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Steel framed structures, however, are too flexible, and gravity is too powerful a force once the frame is a few degrees out of plumb. It is unrealistic to expect that the WTC towers or WTC 7 would have tipped like trees.


Is an asinine statement because there is no precedent for buildings globally collapsing like the WTC Towers did. Saying what is likely or unlikely here is based on absolutely nothing but personal opinion.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
[edit on 24/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Uh, TJW...

This thread is about BUILDING 7! Why do you keep bringing up planes? Oh, I get it, you must be a mutant with invisi-vision like Larry Silverstein, so you saw the invisible planes that all us ordinary humans missed...


But, don't let that stop you from talking about planes hitting buildings here; it really helps your argument.



wtf are you talking about? I was responding to a person talking about the Twin Towers.

Thanks for minding your own business though



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by truthseeka
Uh, TJW...

This thread is about BUILDING 7! Why do you keep bringing up planes? Oh, I get it, you must be a mutant with invisi-vision like Larry Silverstein, so you saw the invisible planes that all us ordinary humans missed...


But, don't let that stop you from talking about planes hitting buildings here; it really helps your argument.



wtf are you talking about? I was responding to a person talking about the Twin Towers.

Thanks for minding your own business though


Man, please.

You've been running your mouth all through this thread talking about planes hitting buildings. Do you deny this?



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I'll admit it if I haven't already, but I am no expert. The WTC 7 collapse screamed controlled demolition to me, but I could always be wrong.

Could someone from the no CD camp explain to me how you've got it figured out when NIST and FEMA don't? I'm not to trying to be rude, but I've read the NIST and FEMA reports and they are nothing but conjecture. If someone could post for me conclusive findings by the government that WTC7 collapsed due to whatever damage, that would go a long way to convincing me that I am off-track, and perhaps others. I believe I've asked for this proof a few times, but I am not surprised it's not been provided, because I don't believe it exists.

JT



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   


I'm not to trying to be rude, but I've read the NIST and FEMA reports and they are nothing but conjecture.


I hate to break it to you but conjecture is about the best you are going to get.

Its not like the building was full of sensors and video cameras to gather every piece of information needed to make a perfect analysis.

Its not like there were guys with radios inside as it collapsed saying columns 42 and 43 just buckled due to so and so.

I don't imagine they plan on building another WTC and knock it down just to test their theories.

Get realistic, as with many things in life a best guess is about the best you will see.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Thatsjustweird sed:

I'll ask again...are you legally blind?

1. How do you know it didn't cause significant damage?
2. Define significant?
external image
look at the videos again, the explosion happens IN the building (with both planes)



Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure.
(NIST, 2005, p. 144)

This means that the towers were just fine after the plane hit, and they could tell that this was so because of the building's oscillations. Longer periods would mean a less stable tower, but this was not the case.

Also,

The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes
(NIST, 2005; p. 179)

and yet... NIST also reported that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. This is because their computer models showed that the fire would have had to have been this hot to just initiate a collapse. So the office material burned this hot?

I wonder if Mario the service guy was delivering extra office material to be burned, or if maybe it just magically appeared on its own because it seems to me that it would have burned off in any given area in 20 minutes at those temperatures.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join