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.

 

9/11 and building 7

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
TG

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
It's WTC-7 that bothers me the most about the events of sept 11th 2001

Didnt Larry Silverstein say he ordered it to be pulled?

If thats correct could building 7 have been wired in such a short space of time?

If not then isnt it beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job?




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
i believe it takes around two weeks minimum to wire a building like that? thats why everyone is saying it is an inside job, as far as i know most of the fire and damage to that building just like the towers was all on one side therefore the building should have topled to one side but they all came straight down, just like a controled demolition.


TG

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Ive never believed 9/11 was an inside job but WTC-7 has got me thinking. I thought there might have been a fast way to demolish a building.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
i dont believe there is, not with the amount of precision in the way the buildings all came straight down.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the towers didnt collapse straight down. It was WTC 1 collapsing across WTC 5 and into WTC 7 that caused the damage that led to WTC 7's collapse.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Watch the videos and you'll intuitively feel that both Towers fell straight down. It appears very, very obvious that they're going straight down. And they were.

Material was being ejected pretty equally in all directions. This means that while material was being flung everywhere, the centers of gravity still remained in the footprints.

This is in contrast to the buildings falling to one side or etc., which I'm sure you will agree, they obviously did not.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Then explain the pics showing the large chunks of WTC 1 across WTC 5 to the pile of wreckage that was WTC 7.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Then explain the pics showing the large chunks of WTC 1 across WTC 5 to the pile of wreckage that was WTC 7.


Please read what I post before responding.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Material was being ejected pretty equally in all directions. This means that while material was being flung everywhere, the centers of gravity still remained in the footprints.


[edit on 25-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
You have NO factual information on where the "center of gravity" remained during the collapse. Nobody does, all anyone has is conjecture.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Nobody does, all anyone has is conjecture.



To a great extent, in the sentence prior to this quote, you are correct, "Nobody does". Hence the ongoing conjecture, plausible considerations and assertions, on both sides. No?

In the end, it's a matter of perspectives, possibilities, and presumptions that ultimately result in circular debates such as this.

All the while, and until there is universal resolve as to what actually took place that fateful day, the circular debates and positioning will continue.

Considering this Is a conspiracy site, "What more could They wish for?"



$ .02



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You have NO factual information on where the "center of gravity" remained during the collapse. Nobody does, all anyone has is conjecture.


Watch the collapses. Do they look like they're falling downwards, or tilting to a certain direction?

Look:









It's staring you right in the face.

The buildings are not tilting in any direction. They are falling straight down, despite the massive ejection of heavy debris. This is because it is being ejected in all directions.

But tell us exactly what you think, just so we're clear:

Is it leaning in one particular direction, or is the debris being spread pretty equally in all directions?



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Ok so this is my first post on ATS…

When I looked trough the forum sections I decided to start with 911, sadly there is only one tread about Building 7 and to make it worse its hijacked off topic.

What I know is this:
-Building 7 housed many important offices, including; CIA, IRS, SEC, Secret Service and Dept of Defense.
-The collapse of Building 7 is rarely talked about in the media or in forums as these. (IMO, because no one died in it).
-In the precarious documentation we have of the collapse of the building anyone can see that a team of fire fighters would have been able to put that fire out.

So “I think” that, whoever “planed” 911 had as its primary goal to take down Building 7. Why? Because, in Building 7 there were many investigations against really important/influential/rich people. And the thing rich people hate the most is loosing their money. So “they” decided to erase all evidence against them by taking down the building. Why no one died? Because, then no one would ask questions about how their loved ones died on Building 7. In conclusion, make huge diversion as the twin towers falling and use it as a smoke screen and give absurd explanations about their collapse, to get people talking about the twin towers and not Building 7. So far it worked great since everyone is hung up on the towers and not on Building 7.

Hope to get this tread pretty hot so if you disagree or have some good input please don’t hesitate to post.


STR

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The buildings are not tilting in any direction. They are falling straight down, despite the massive ejection of heavy debris. This is because it is being ejected in all directions.

But tell us exactly what you think, just so we're clear:

Is it leaning in one particular direction, or is the debris being spread pretty equally in all directions?


They don't have to tilt to collapse assymetrically, because the buildings themselves weren't symetric. The north side of Tower 1 was not the same as the east side. Why? Mostly because of Tower 2. The wind would deflect off one building into the other, or the other building would shelter the other. Such effects could be calculated with good precision using the computers, wind tunnels and formulas of the 1960's.

In addition, the tower may have collpsed staright down, or almost straight, but the portion of the building above the collpase,which remained more or less intact until it hit the ground or Toewr 7 (I can't imagine the horror of being at the top of that building and freefalling like that. Horrible, horrible, horrible.), because of the way the floor of initial collapse collapsed, it could have sent the top, or large portions of it northward into Building 6 and Tower 7.

Third possbility is that pieces from 1WTC did fly 300+ ft in all directions. The column tree famously planted in the side of 3 World Financial Center across the very wide West St highway suggests the possibilty. The piece was dentified as comming from near the top of Tower 1. Also, note in the many aerial photos on the WTC site that there is a large hole in the roof of 5WTC, which is even farther from 1WTC than 7 was. In fact, an entire wing of Building 5 was carved out by collapse, which strongly suggests that Tower 1 ejected large amounts of heavy steel components far from its footprint.

Id go with the latter explanation, as there was a sizeable gash down the face of 7WTC from top to bottom (as seen in the photo and corroborated by eyewitness accounts from the ground). This could only have been caused by material ejected from the ~90th floor collapse point.



[edit on 30-8-2006 by STR]

[edit on 30-8-2006 by STR]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TG
I thought there might have been a fast way to demolish a building.


There is a fast way to demolish a building.

Incorporate the explosives right into the building while it is being built. Then when you are ready to proceeed with the demolition, lets say a week or so before hand, you send in your people to check the charges which were put into place 30 years prior.


STR

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by TG
I thought there might have been a fast way to demolish a building.


There is a fast way to demolish a building.

Incorporate the explosives right into the building while it is being built. Then when you are ready to proceeed with the demolition, lets say a week or so before hand, you send in your people to check the charges which were put into place 30 years prior.


Explosives have a finite shelf life. You can't just leave them sitting there for years. They'll either become inert, or at least unable to be detonated, or become unstable and explode the moment its moved the wrong way. It's quite like for the latter to happen as the Twin Towers routinely swayed a foot or more in the numerous windstorms it was subjected to in its short lifer.

You'd have to replace every single charge in the weeks and months before the attack to be sure of collapse, which leads back to all the problems of installing the tons of explosives in thousands of locations without anyone noticing.

Never mind that there are no photos or accounts of such tampering.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by STR]


Edn

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Placing explosives or anything for that matter in a busy building is very very easy, people tend to be to busy to notice a janitor or plummer etc fixing something. Getting explosives into place would have been a hard job but definitely not impossible.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the towers didnt collapse straight down. It was WTC 1 collapsing across WTC 5 and into WTC 7 that caused the damage that led to WTC 7's collapse.


I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Larry Silverstien himself says, on camera, "we made the decision to "pull it", and we watched the building collapse."



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
Placing explosives or anything for that matter in a busy building is very very easy, people tend to be to busy to notice a janitor or plummer etc fixing something. Getting explosives into place would have been a hard job but definitely not impossible.



Which is why it happens all the time right?

Obviously you need to look into what it takes to demolish a building before throwing out these unqualified and uninformed opinions.

Here is what it took for a smaller building.



www.controlled-demolition.com...

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system.


It not only takes thousands of precisely placed charges, it also requires some supports to be preweakened and for beams to be drilled before placing charges.

I think the experts, even working without haveing to be clandestine, would not classify it as "very very easy".

Please explain how it is "very very easy" to hide something like this.




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please explain how it is "very very easy" to hide something like this.



This is what it looks like when you are on a budget and COST and SAFETY are your GOALS.

Low Cost.
Low Tech.
Quick and Dirty.

This is not how it would look if the GOALS were different.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by STR
They don't have to tilt to collapse assymetrically, because the buildings themselves weren't symetric.






That looks pretty symmetrical to me.


The wind would deflect off one building into the other, or the other building would shelter the other. Such effects could be calculated with good precision using the computers, wind tunnels and formulas of the 1960's.


Winds were not bad on 9/11, and the perimeter columns were nowhere near anything troublesome in terms of lateral loads. Even NIST will tell you this in various releases. So I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.


Also, note in the many aerial photos on the WTC site that there is a large hole in the roof of 5WTC, which is even farther from 1WTC than 7 was.


This is incorrect.


In fact, an entire wing of Building 5 was carved out by collapse, which strongly suggests that Tower 1 ejected large amounts of heavy steel components far from its footprint.


WTC5 just right beside WTC1, and here is its damage:




Id go with the latter explanation, as there was a sizeable gash down the face of 7WTC from top to bottom (as seen in the photo and corroborated by eyewitness accounts from the ground). This could only have been caused by material ejected from the ~90th floor collapse point.


This gash was also right on the SW corner of the building, and away from any major structural components.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join