What happened to WTC 7 again?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 25-3-2006 @ 05:11 PM by Born Again Anarchist
video.google.com...

im sure most of you have seen this video. if you havent, this guy seems to have been doing some homework. pretty good info on everything that happened. seems to me the buildings were brought down, all three of them, with demolition. but if this turns out to be true, then the world as we know it will change. bush may be snitched out on purpose tho so those who are really in control wont loose control. any american presidential administration is expendable to these that are on top...as well as american people. IF 9-11 was all pulled off with military precision, and the truth of it was going to be revealed...then bush would be the hangman....the whole world will think he was the one...but in reality, he's just a puppet. just another one out of the way...and they still have control.


reply posted on 25-3-2006 @ 08:36 PM by promomag
From what I've read WTC 7 had the Following Occupants:

The CIA
The Secret Service
Department of Defense
City of New York Emergency Command Center
And The Securities Exchange Commission

Given that occupency list, WTC 7 should have been built like Fort Knox and not fall so easily unless it was pulled down by explosives. WTC 7 should have also been heavily resistent to fire or the threat of fire spreading from floor to floor.

I'll ask again.... does anyone here know how a skyscraper is engineered and know the contents of a fully housed and occupied skyscraper? Or, do any of you work in a skyscraper currently or have worked in a skyscraper?

Anyone?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Does this have more to do with the concept of the Re-development afterwards and any potential long term profits?


I was thinking something like myself. It wouldn't be necessary to pull it for any other reason, I think, except maybe an overboard case of evidence destruction. There were a lot of important files there relevant to potentially devastating court cases, as well as Giuliani's bunker, which was probably used as a control center as 9/11 was being carried out. And who knows what was in the offices that the CIA and all the other agencies had there, especially if they planned on blowing the building on 9/11. Nice excuse for losing a lot of scandalous files, right? The CitiBank files alone, if taken to court and given proper media coverage, could have brought down the whole US economy.



reply posted on 25-3-2006 @ 08:53 PM by ShadowXIX
Originally posted by promomag
ShadowXIX

It's looking to be quite obviouse that you know very little to anything at all about civil and structural engineering so let me ask you this.... do you think engineers design skyscrapers to collapse on their own footprint?

I'll wait for your answer



First the WTC didnt fall on its own footprint parts fell well clear of it.



But please structural engineers sure as heck dont design buildings to topple over like dominos. They go to great lengths to design building not too collapse in the first place.

No matter how much you try to change the point comparing pictures of earthquake damaged buildings to the WTC is still stupid. There is no getting around that sorry, The forces are far too different.


reply posted on 25-3-2006 @ 09:42 PM by promomag
The title of this thread is "What happened to WTC 7 again?"

All discussion is related to WTC 7.

The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)

WTC 7



WTC 7 Footprint



WTC 7 had a larger footprint than originally planned. ... The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building
wtc.nist.gov...

Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Originally posted by promomag
Please pay attention. We are talking about WTC 7. Take a look at the picture you just posted in response again.

And you're absolutely right, engineers don't design buildings to collapse... period.


I was paying attention



do you think engineers design skyscrapers to collapse on their own footprint?


This is exactly what you said skyscrapers you didnt say the WTC7

But very well


Even the WTC7 didnt fall entirely within its footprint.

Engineers might not design buildings to collapse, but they realise they do infact collapse and try not to make it so in any such event it topples over like a domino.

Comparing it to earthquake damage is still classic though.




reply posted on 25-3-2006 @ 10:02 PM by ShadowXIX
Originally posted by promomag
The title of this thread is "What happened to WTC 7 again?"

All discussion is related to WTC 7.

WTC 7 had a larger footprint than originally planned. ... The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building
wtc.nist.gov...

Thanks for playing.



Yeah but see I wasnt replying to your orginal post I was replying in that post to your general term skyscrapers in, Your word not mine.

And if your going to bring up earthquake damaged building when this thread is suppose to "All discussion is related to WTC 7."


I can bring up the WTC when you use general terms like skyscraper in your questions.

Nice link BTW

The debris of WTC 7 wasMOSTLY contained within the original footprint of the building


Just like I said even the WTC7 didnt entirely fall in its own footprint.

Thank you for playing


reply posted on 25-3-2006 @ 10:15 PM by promomag
Do you want to argue 'mostly' now?

The earthquake pictures are in regards to building falling verticaly which proves only that yes... buildings do fall verticaly, nothing more, nothing less.
How it relates to WTC 7 is how skyscrapers relate to collapsing, be it from earthquakes.... or fire... which I've provided photo evidence for earthquaks... not fire. There is no evidence in the history of skyscrapers to show that any skyscraper collapsing prior to WTC 7 has in the same manner WTC 7 collapsed other than through a controlled demolition.

This is a fact I'm pretty sure we can both agree on.


The debris of WTC 7 was MOSTLY contained within the original footprint of the building


What does 'mostly' mean to you?


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Originally posted by promomag
The title of this thread is "What happened to WTC 7 again?"

All discussion is related to WTC 7.

WTC 7 had a larger footprint than originally planned. ... The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building
wtc.nist.gov...

Thanks for playing.



Yeah but see I wasnt replying to your orginal post I was replying in that post to your general term skyscrapers in, Your word not mine.

And if your going to bring up earthquake damaged building when this thread is suppose to "All discussion is related to WTC 7."


I can bring up the WTC when you use general terms like skyscraper in your questions.

Nice link BTW

The debris of WTC 7 wasMOSTLY contained within the original footprint of the building


Just like I said even the WTC7 didnt entirely fall in its own footprint.

Thank you for playing

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 9 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 1 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 12 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 5 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 6 days ago with 8 member flags