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.

 

Let us talk about the Smoking Gun: WTC7

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
All This focus on North towers and South Towers and the pentagon, allthe debate and squabble, it feel like an attempt to pull us away from the REAL smoking gun: World Trade Center Building 7.

World Trade building 7 was a 47 story high steel skyscraper, constructed in 1987 and was designed by Emery Roth & Sons. The office buildings were home to a number of companies and government businesses, including government agencies such as and the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council.



This magnificant building fell on 9/11. It was not hit by a plane, but simply fell, do to two unexplained fires.
bellaciao.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

The building fell after 7 hours, from these two fires, or so we're told. Note that this was a steel skyscraper, with only a few floors on fire. Another steel building in 2005 had went up in flames for 24 hours in Madrid Spain.



It never collapsed.

The most unusual thing about the World Trade Center building number 7 collapse was it fell at freefall speed, all at once, into it's own footprint.



And then we have the comments of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the buildings, whom put a big insurance policy on six weeks before on them:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.'... Uh... And they made that decision to pull... and then we watched the building collapse.


Note the words pull it. Its demolition speak for bringing a building down. Some try to debunk this claim, saying that it was to pull thefirefighters out, but its important to note that the firefighters had stopped trying to fight the fire long before due to water shortage.

And yet, after all this, no media coverage. If you never researched 9/11 you never would've seen the world trade center building 7 collapse. Even the 9/11 comission never fully explains it, its an anomaly.

So lets discuss the anomaly here on ATS. Whats your thoughts on building 7? What happened? is it proof of controlled demolitions, or something else?

[edit on 9-9-2006 by WolfofWar]
[edit to fix title]

[edit on 10-9-2006 by ADVISOR]




posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Common sense and a little "investigating" will tell you that the collapse of building 7 was NOT caused by a fire started from 'debris' from the collapse of the towers.

Add that to the multiple comments from firefighters stating that they saw multiple flashes and then heard exposions like 'pop pop pop'. This was intentional.

As for the towers, which was the cover for the collapse of building 7, their fall can tell you something as well.
They were demolished NOT victim to 'weakened' beams. The argument that the collapse of the top caused the whole building to fall at a freefall because of the weight is completely illogical. It's an insult to the American people and the people of the world. They are calling us ignorant and stupid by making that statement.

I'll just say this and then you make up your own mind on these buildings.

First, NEVER in the history of skyscrapers has one ever collapsed from a fire. Not even after burning at high temperatures for 24 hours straight! Second, the fire was respectively at the 74th and 80th levels of each tower. That's roughly 30 floors above the fire. Say that even if the beams were weakoned at that point then the TOPS of the buildings would have slid off. Especially tower 1 since it was hit last and hit on the side and not directly on. The majority of the jet fuel burned up OUTSIDE of the building on impact. Anyway, that top would have slid off to the weakoned side. Okay, the top collapses, now we have 70 plus floors of REINFORCED HIGH GRADE STEEL STRUCTURES STILL SUPPORTING THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS! This would NOT allow for a collapse at a freefall rate. It's simply not possible. Thus, the same thing for building 7.

If the buildings had collapsed from the fires then the collapses would have been impeded by the sound structures on the floors beneath. At least enough to prevent a freefall.

Just wanted to throw that out there. This is something that I am willing to discuss with anyone.

The so-called terrorists did not take those buildings down. It's sad to think that ones own government would kill its own people just to grab money and power. Too many high ranking people got rich off of this. The government gained too much power from this. Just do the math.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Although I'm still in doubt over whether explosives were in the towers, I have a hard time with WTC7 (I've asked SkepticOverlord for his take on this in his upcoming 'Focus on 9/11' Podcast).

The statement 'pull it' by itself could mean any number of things, and I've given some honest thought into this one. I'd like to try a different approach here, one that doesn't assume 'pull it' means one thing and one thing only.

Now, to Mr. Silverstein's credit, he is not in the demolition industry, so it would be unfair to take everything he says as demolotion-related terminology. But if he meant to pull the firefighters out due to danger, personally I could think of several terms that would come to mind before 'pull it': evacuate, clear the building, get them out, abandon, give it up, too dangerous to save, not worth the risk, get outta there, pull them out, pull back, pull out.

It's a common practice when checking your grammer, to substitute a given word for other words and phrases to see if it makes sense. For example, "The building was on fire, and people were in danger. I decided to leave it alone. Well, if I don't like the sound of "leave it alone", I can substitute something else to see if it sounds better. "The black box was on fire and people were in danger, I decided to evacuate."

But if we're talking about demolishing the building, tems like "bring it down", "collapse", "destroy", pull, fit perfectly. Hopefully you see where I'm going with this, let's try it with Mr. Silverstein's quote.



"...not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' "


Gramatically, if he is referring to rescue efforts, this not not correct. Mr. Silverstein is an educated man. A group of firefighters are not 'it'; a group of firefighters are "them"; "they", the word used to describe the firefighters, are not "it".

Using the above examples of better terms, let's see if the statement makes sense.

"..not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just evacuate...And they made that decision to evacuate... and then we watched the building collapse."

Said this way almost makes it sound like the building collapsed on top of rescue efforts.

"And they made that decision to bring it down... and then we watched the building collapse."

Although I don't personally like the direction it leads us in, this makes more sense.

Additionally, and I'm sure this has been brought up before by both sides of the argument, WTC7 was not constructed in the same way as the towers. Whether the towers pancaked from impact or not, WTC7 should not have come down flat like it did. Yes, it had sustained a lot of damaged, but it should have fallen, not pancaked.

Obviously, I'm no expert in these matters, just a little common sense here. If you think I'm wrong, please shred me, I'd like some feedback on this.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Astygia

in addition

I would add

to the inference of silversteins/fire dept situation

of deciding to pull it [ at the last minute ]

since the bldg was pulled/demo'd/yanked,

this takes weeks of planning in an empty bldg

to set charges in place.


this was not, an empty bldg !





toasted

[edit on 9-9-2006 by toasted]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Astryia, one thing you are wrong about, is the damage. There was very little, and you can see it by just looking at the pictures, only two floors were on fire, and barely any external structural damage.

The damage that was down; minor damage to the Parapet wall, windows blown out, and two small fires, which could have been contained, given enough time and water.





posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Astryia, one thing you are wrong about, is the damage. There was very little, and you can see it by just looking at the pictures, only two floors were on fire, and barely any external structural damage.


Actually, no. There was quite a bit of damage at WTC 7, as the firemen's eyewitness reports attest to. There was a gouge in the southwest corner, and according to eyewitnesses a 20 story+ hole in the south face. There are pictures, but the smoke obscures things. We can tell from the existing video and pictures that there is quite a bit of smoke pouring out of WTC 7 and that more than two floors were on fire. The photos also back up the eyewitness statements.

Video of the smoke pouring out.

www.youtube.com...

Here is a pic showing debris hitting WTC 7.



www.911myths.com...

Some pictures of the building pouring out smoke.







I don't think it would be correct to describe this as "very little" damage. The damage to the south face described by firefighters matches the photos of damage to the south face very well.


[edit on 9-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
First off, if Larry was accidently admitting to demolision, the tape of that interview would have never been able to leave the building. Secondly, we do not know that Larry told the Fire Chief to 'pull it'. He says that they 'made the descision to pull it', which if meaning the firefighting effort in the building he wouldn't have much say on.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
First off, if Larry was accidently admitting to demolision, the tape of that interview would have never been able to leave the building.


Not really, because itsan admittance of guilt. imagine the leak of the headline.
"PBS interview confiscated because of Larry Silversteens confidental slipup."

The governments stance on everything is to not admit mistakes. Its better to allow a mistake to ferment in theair and turn into a "conspiracy theory" that will discredit itself because of the stigma of "conspiracies" then to forcibly confiscate material.


Secondly, we do not know that Larry told the Fire Chief to 'pull it'. He says that they 'made the descision to pull it', which if meaning the firefighting effort in the building he wouldn't have much say on.





"I got a call from the fire department commander, he said we have already have such terrible loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"


Your right, in his own words he himself doesnt say he said to "pull it" but in his world, its mentioned that it was the "best thing to do."

It could mean anything, I guess we'll never know.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Not really, because itsan admittance of guilt. imagine the leak of the headline.
"PBS interview confiscated because of Larry Silversteens confidental slipup."


If you believe that the government can cover up this operation then surely you have to admit they could cover up a slip in front of camera. By either making up a reason the tape can't be showed to threatening those involved.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLazy

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Not really, because itsan admittance of guilt. imagine the leak of the headline.
"PBS interview confiscated because of Larry Silversteens confidental slipup."


If you believe that the government can cover up this operation then surely you have to admit they could cover up a slip in front of camera. By either making up a reason the tape can't be showed to threatening those involved.


honestly? no, they couldn't. Because unlike other circumstances, theyres much more witnesses.

-THe Producer
-The interviewer
-The Editors
-The camera man
-the Keygrip
-The boom mic guy
-The unpaid intern

Who ALL heard him, and if it was confiscated, they all heard it, and would start second guessing it.

Its the same reason why they rushed the steel out day one away from public interest. They take evidence BEFORE it gets to the people, they dont take evidence out of the hands of people.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
LeftBehind,

First of all, that airborne picture sure is impressive - what a massive explosion!


Secondly, can anyone explain what we're seeing on those WTC7 pictures watermarked "magnum photos"? I mean, the entire southern facade is smoking like an armada of steamships, and yet, on the adjacent western face, there are neither any sources of smoke nor any signs of fires, not even near the corner. Odd. Incredibly odd.


[edit on 9-9-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
I mean, the entire southern facade is smoking like an armada of steamships, and yet, on the adjacent western face, there are neither any sources of smoke nor any signs of fires, not even near the corner. Odd. Incredibly odd.


Not really odd at all, considering WTC5 and 6 actually were suffering intense fires right across the street from the southern face of WTC7.








posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
You don't think that smoke emanated from 5&6, do you?

Look at that clear distinction between the south and west face! Again, there is NO indication of fire whatsoever visible on the west face, while the entire south face is smoking as if Woodstock II took place round there! How does this fit together?

PS: And in case we were indeed seeing smoke from 5&6, how are odds that the smoke would extend just so that it would coincide perfectly with the building's corner from that vantage point? Slim, eh?

Look:



[edit on 9-9-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Pulli it means pull the operation as in "Pull the firefighting operation"


mikell



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
You don't think that smoke emanated from 5&6, do you?


The smoke in the aerial picture, rising up the south face, yes. I most certainly believe it would be asinine to assume that the smoke from WTC5 and 6 just disappeared and did not rise, or moved so far laterally before rising or anything that reaching.

For the west face, if you want my honest opinion at this point, I do not think that that is any smoke from any hydrocarbon fire. I think, though I admit to having no hard supporting evidence right now, and only my intuition, that what you are seeing is resultant of preliminary assaults on the inner structure of the building to prepare for the vertical collapse. Specifically, I think the concrete (WTC7 consisted of steel-reinforced concrete members) is being eaten away with something. The "smoke" intuitively appears to me more reminiscent of the WTC dust clouds (actually, even thicker) than the little sooty smoke we saw from any actual fire within the building.

Hope that clears up what I was saying.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I was referring to the picture I later abused with paint. Looks like there is some smoke coming from somewhere closer than 7, distinguished by appearing less bluish and more blurred, but the rest, basically everything to the right of the red vertical line and above the foreground smoke seems to come straight out of 7's south face. And I agree, it's really thick smoke, and lots of it - that's why the complete lack of visible fires, esp. on the S-W corner, is so disturbing.

Just theorizing now, but what about actual smokescreens? Just to make it appear as if it really was burning badly before it eventually collapsed? Actually, the same might even apply for the towers, as they were smoking really heavily, especially in relation to what we know about the fires. I think it's not too far fetched to implement some devices for that purpose if you were to rig them anyway...but as I said, it's just a thought.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Dying, inefficient fires can produce a lot of smoke from what I've read from firefighters. This might explain the massive dark smoke output from the Twin Towers, but not sure on Building 7. I can't say what you've suggested is any more likely or unlikely than what I've suggested, but I think you have a strong point in that of all that smoke -- you can spot not a single flame on the north face, even at corners from which masses of smoke was pouring.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   


Not much damage on the top, especially since the official report says a big chunk of the top of the building was taken out.

Heres a good side look of that smoke.




But not alot of fire.

And remember, this isn't a "uniquely designed skyscraper" that most claim was an excuse for the fall of the north and south tower. This is a traditionally designed skyscraper, just like the building in Madrid, Spain.

And a lot of smoke doesn't necessarily mean alot of fire, or a intense fire. The only visible signs of a fire are those two floors. And even if there was a massive fire where that smoke was, why did it fall completely, vertically down, in little over 8 seconds, evenly into itself and on its footprint? If it somehow melted through the supports, it would've only been on the side where all that smoke was, right? so it would've slumpt in half.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Just to avoid misunderstandings, I (or you
) might have confused the directions. I labelled the smoking face "south" and the other visible face "west".

But whatever, the fact remains that there appears to be smoke pouring out of one entire face, not only from a handful of isolated spots, and that there's absolutely no sign of fire on the adjacent face, which is definitely very, very strange.

PS:
quote in your sig, bsbray. Sometimes people just need to relieve their conscience.



[edit on 9-9-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
how is it

that something so obvious

is pointed out, but still gets

gets overlooked

even after being pointed out ?!?!?!?!




I think we could have a thread on that alone....

toasted



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join