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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
Why not?


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You cant very well compare earthquake damage ie violent back and forth shaking to the WTC7.



If I have to explain the differences it would seem to be waste of my time since you have a very poor understanding of physics.

But gone on like a Earthquake and what happened at the WTC7 are very much alike. That really helps your case




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
My position is looking at data, all kinds of data.... and asking questions.

What is your position ShadowXIX, is it ignorant and biased already?

I do know that so far you've proven to be quite proficient at giving excuses in your response.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by promomag
Why not?


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You cant very well compare earthquake damage ie violent back and forth shaking to the WTC7.



If I have to explain the differences it would seem to be waste of my time since you have a very poor understanding of physics.

But gone on like a Earthquake and what happened at the WTC7 are very much alike. That really helps your case


[edit on 25-3-2006 by promomag]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by quango
You're suggesting that it is a Law of physics that any building which falls straight down was brought down by controlled demolition?


How about you post some pics of buildings that collapsed straight down like the WTC building did without any demolition explosives?

And maybe an explanation of the laws of physics that would cause a building to collapse straight down with no aparent resistance from lower floors, that wasn't caused by demolition explosives.

Go ahead, we will be waiting....and waiting, and waiting...


Myself I would love to see those kinds of pictures, haven't seen any yet. Unless the WTC is so unique that no other buildings in the entire history of the world have even been remotely similar I have to expect that there has been other examples of this NATURAL PHENOMINA we have been told to expect.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oddzon
My question is why?

What is the need to implode WTC7?

Who gains from doing this and why does it need to be covered up?

What is the motive?

I do not see the point when you consider the events of the day.


Very good question and one I have been thinking about for some time now.

consider this:

well into the disaster, the decision was made to do this. The #7 building had minor damage comparably and was big enough to make rebuilding it a high cost without good reason.

maybe the successful coming down of WTC I and II made it worthwhile to pull #7 also. Note the 3 tallest of the WTC buildings were all pulled too.

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

Certainly the mystery surrounding #7 hints at what happened that day.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
My position is looking at data, all kinds of data.... and asking questions.

What is your position ShadowXIX, is it ignorant and biased already?

I do know that so far you've proven to be quite proficient at giving excuses in your response.


If you think comparing the effects of earthquakes on buildings relates to WTC7 in any usefl way your showing the only ignorance and bias here.

This is even comparing apples and oranges, its like comparing apples and pineapples.

Learn what goes on during a earthquake

eqseis.geosc.psu.edu... Quakes/Notes/earthquake_effects.html

www.seismo.unr.edu...



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
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



Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by promomag
My position is looking at data, all kinds of data.... and asking questions.

What is your position ShadowXIX, is it ignorant and biased already?

I do know that so far you've proven to be quite proficient at giving excuses in your response.


If you think comparing the effects of earthquakes on buildings relates to WTC7 in any usefl way your showing the only ignorance and bias here.

This is even comparing apples and oranges, its like comparing apples and pineapples.

Learn what goes on during a earthquake

eqseis.geosc.psu.edu... Quakes/Notes/earthquake_effects.html

www.seismo.unr.edu...



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
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.


Originally posted 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.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First the WTC didnt fall on its own footprint


WTC7 did.


All in a neat little pile.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

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


They also don't design boats to sink, or planes to fall out of the sky, or the engine light on my car to keep turning on even though I've had it checked out at two different places and nothing appears to be wrong.


Nonetheless, these things happen.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
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.




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Of course the govt knows why the building collapsed. It was hit by a jet airplane full of fuel, and that fuel ignited causing the metal infrastructure to weaken, melt and collapse, bringing the building down with it.
And don't you think some definitive proof would have come out by now if it were brought down on purpose by someone other than the terrorists?
At first I believed the theory that there were explosive charges installed just for this occasion, so it would save lives by not falling over onto other buildings. But really, I haven't seen any proof. And I haven't seen any proof that the govt. did this on purpose so we could invade Afghanistan.
Yeah, like Roosevelt let us get bombed by the Japs so he could start a war with...GERMANY. Ok.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Please Pay Attention.

WTC 7 DID NOT get hit by a jet airplane full of fuel.



Originally posted by derbal
Of course the govt knows why the building collapsed. It was hit by a jet airplane full of fuel, and that fuel ignited causing the metal infrastructure to weaken, melt and collapse, bringing the building down with it.
And don't you think some definitive proof would have come out by now if it were brought down on purpose by someone other than the terrorists?
At first I believed the theory that there were explosive charges installed just for this occasion, so it would save lives by not falling over onto other buildings. But really, I haven't seen any proof. And I haven't seen any proof that the govt. did this on purpose so we could invade Afghanistan.
Yeah, like Roosevelt let us get bombed by the Japs so he could start a war with...GERMANY. Ok.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Here's a pic of WTC7 after it's collapse:



Is that not a collapse onto its footprint?

Before collapse:




Pretty amazing, how it left such a neat pile as it fell. No lopsiding or anything. Just straight down onto itself -- all the way down.

So fire and debris from the Towers caused that, Shadow? The same kind of fire that's never brought down a steel skyscraper, and the same kind of debris that hit other nearby buildings that were in no danger of collapsing?

And yet you have WTC7, a 47-story skyscraper, falling straight down, symmetrically, into a neat little pile. ......



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join