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.

 

East Penthouse atop WTC 7 imploded too!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Some do when air resistance has been factored in. Air is sometimes pumped out of buildings before they're collapsed so that they'll fall more quickly and neatly. Whether or not that happened at WTC7 is hard to say, but the building definitely fell at the speed of free fall at least. This contradicts the fact that there would be resistance in any natural collapse from the remaining steel columns.

Your talking about creating a vacuum.Correct?How would that even be possible when there was atleast an 18 story whole in the side of the building? Please tell me you have a theory on this.




posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Your talking about creating a vacuum.Correct?How would that even be possible when there was atleast an 18 story whole in the side of the building? Please tell me you have a theory on this.


Do you have proof of this 18 story 'whole'(sic)?

A picture? Anything?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Not to be a jerk but that is every where.Do a search on wtc 7 pictures.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   


Duhh, some of us have been discussing 9/11 on these forums for months and are very familiar with the common WTC7 pics. I can assure you that none of us have seen the 20 story hole.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Wow.I am sorry to hear that.You surf all the major pages,right?Never noticed the shots of smoke pouring out of 7 from top to bottom,with the edges of the building ravedged?Some say it is 20.There also is shot at street level, with the ruble that fell from it blocking the street.This is all well before it fell, perfect into its foot print,Not ,the last part anyway.On the CT sites they only show the building from the other side and claim squibs are going off.If I must show you the start of the other side,here goes.

www.geocities.com...

Hope this helps.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Cuz,I'm a nice guy,
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. "

From the page I noted above.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
That's all you have? One comment?

You believe this one comment? Again where are the pics of this damage?

There are pics of everything elese, why not this huge damage to WTC7?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I am sorry you only find one quote and no pics,there is alot of info there, all sourced with pics.It takes some time to get through it.If you are looking for facts they are there.I tried.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Here is another page that might help in your search.Has good sourced quotes and pics if you follow some links.Good nite and good luck!


911myths.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
LOL it wasn't that I only found one quote, you only showed one quote.

And there are NO pictures of this damage to WTC7 on any of the sites you've linked to.

Keep trying...



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I gave you one quote to get you started.You acted as if you researched this for some time w/out ever hearing,or seeing such things.Although, you asked about a 20 story hole when I had only said 18?Interasting ,if you had never come across it before.The info is there, if you choose to believe something else,and some how cast aside all those pages have to offer.I can help no further.Laugh all you want.It will not be my reflection in that mirror.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
LOL I know all about the claim of damage, known for a looong time. Already done my research thank you.

But no one has yet been able to prove, or show proof of this damage.

Including you.

But regardless, like I've said sooo many time I get tired of repeating it, damage to one side of a building does not cause a symmetrical global collapse. This HAS been proved with physics and past precedents.

I was just hoping you might have something new, but obviously you don't.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Love to see your proof on the physics.Dr Jones I presume.I have stated this too often.A Cold Fusion expert does not stand up to all the structural engineers and experts in this field that do not agree with him in this area.His own physics department thinks his theories stink.You however think he is, Moses.Unless of course you have a new physics guy you wanna quote.I think that covers Dr.Jones.No more off topic.I got to get.
Peace.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The image with the 18 or 20 story gaping hole is the Bankers Trust Building, not building 7.

The "terrorists" must be picking their dis-info agents from the bottom of the pile these days.



[edit on 18-7-2006 by Legalizer]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   
dble post sry

[edit on 18/7/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Love to see your proof on the physics.Dr Jones I presume.


Actually you presume wrong, as usual I might add. Presumption will get you no where.

I know enough about physics to understand damage to part of a building does not cause symmetrical global collapse of the whole building, no matter how you like to spin it.

The video of the collapse is proof enough. Now it's your job to prove it wasn't a controlled demo, which NOBODY, even NIST, has been able to do.

Even if there was a huge 18 or 20 story hole in one side, it would not cause undamaged columns to fail. If it did then buildings 5 and 6 would have collapsed also, and long before 7 did. The Oklahoma building would have collapsed. The WTC would have collapsed in 93. That building in Madrid would have collapsed. The need for professionally placed charges to bring down buildings would be unnecessary, just make a big hole with a wrecking ball, stand back and watch it neatly fall symmetrical to the ground

Office fires don't get hot enough to cause construction steel to fail. The fires were unevenly spread, obviously not heating up all the columns to the same degree. All the columns would have to fail at the same time to cause a symmetrical collapse.

How much more physics do you need?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I know enough about physics to understand damage to part of a building does not cause symmetrical global collapse of the whole building, no matter how you like to spin it.


This is not a question of physics, it is a question of engineering.


Originally posted by ANOK
Even if there was a huge 18 or 20 story hole in one side, it would not cause undamaged columns to fail. If it did then buildings 5 and 6 would have collapsed also, and long before 7 did. The Oklahoma building would have collapsed. The WTC would have collapsed in 93. That building in Madrid would have collapsed.


Different buildings, different designs, different construction methods, different damages, etc. Physics has nothing to do with those issues, now does it?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
In addition, all that smoke coming from WTC7 doesn't mean there were raging fires.

For one thing, have you SEEN any raging fires in WTC7 in any pics? No. You see small patches of fire, spread pretty far apart on only a few floors.

For another, the rest of the WTC complex was still smoking behind WTC7 pretty badly, which is in all likelihood what you're seeing coming from behind WTC7. I don't know if you were aware, but other WTC buildings were on fire, besides WTC1, 2, and 7. And those other fires actually gotten pretty damned bad compared to their buildings, and produced a lot of smoke, but never caused any global collapses. The WTC Tower rubble also smoldered for a few months, didn't it? Hm. But yet when you see all of this beside WTC7, even when you can't see any actual fire in the building, it means there was a raging inferno in WTC7. Just one you cuoldn't see, apparently.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
This is not a question of physics, it is a question of engineering.


So what engineer specializes in building collapses? A demolition engineer?

Structural engineers mostly just deal with static loads and structural elements that are NOT in motion.

And they don't deal with things like squibs, or the angular momentum of broken-up buildings, or any crap like that. Those are physics issues. Structural engineers wouldn't know any better than anyone else with physics classes under their belt.



Different buildings, different designs, different construction methods, different damages, etc. Physics has nothing to do with those issues, now does it?


Physics is what allows buildings to fall in the first place, Howard.

Not construction drawings or specifications.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
No physics involved?
ROTFLMAO!!

So you're saying that engineers don't have to consider the physics?

All physical properties and actions of objects go out the window when engineers are involved? That they can bend and manipulate the laws of physics?
That they don't have to consider the laws of physics when designing and constructing buildings?

Wow I didn't realize engineers were so God like...


no physics involved
Engineering is based on physics...

[edit on 18/7/2006 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join