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.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Again with the "no building has ever collapsed because of fire" argument? In case no one noticed, fire was only part of it. WTC 7, according to the firefighters who where there that day, suffered massive damage to the side facing the Towers. Again, according to the people there that day, the damage was heaviest towards the center of that side. That kind of damage would cause a collapse like what we witnessed.
at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. ... until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage." - Battalion Chief John Norman
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti don't know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side
Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years Boyle: ... 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.
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post
Fire chief Daniel Nigro
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Wolfofwar, all those pictures you posted in no way relate to anything that happened to WTC7 that day. In NONE of those cases did the buildings go through what WTC7 did. Not even the Murrah building. The fires in WTC7 started just after Tower 1 collapsed into it and burned unchecked for how many hours? 6 or 7?
So the 9/11 Commission didnt mention the damage to WTC7 as playing a part in the collapse...woohoo now THATS a smoking gun.
Originally posted by WolfofWar
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Again with the "no building has ever collapsed because of fire" argument? In case no one noticed, fire was only part of it. WTC 7, according to the firefighters who where there that day, suffered massive damage to the side facing the Towers. Again, according to the people there that day, the damage was heaviest towards the center of that side. That kind of damage would cause a collapse like what we witnessed.
Even though the Commission report says it was the fire that brought it down, lets ignore that, and look at the firefighters testimony. There was damage to the building.
In no pictures, on any side, do we see anything beyond a superficial wound to the external walls. This is your traditional skyscraper with steel frames on the outside, and the load bearing cores that keep the building up on the inside.
This is the damage done on the Oklahoma city federal building, by an explosive parked outside.
Now, you can say that the WTC 7 was different because it wasnt a bomb, it was the debree. Well what about the Verizon building? look at the damage that happened to it AT the WTC during that day, it never collapsed.
30 West broadway office building was severely damaged, and obviously wasnt going to be used again, but it didnt collapse
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Such wit amongst the sarcasm.
at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. ... until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage." - Battalion Chief John Norman
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: don't know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side
Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years Boyle: ... 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.
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post
Originally posted by Pazzzzz
Look at how the building comes down, compare that to buildings that are downed using controlled demolition. And then compare.
Originally posted by Pazzzzz
Look at how the building comes down, compare that to buildings that are downed using controlled demolition. And then compare.
Pictures show otherwise. While the damage is significant, it is not anything that would've threatened the structure itself.
Again, HALF of the Federal building in the OK City bombing was blown away... the building still stood.
Highly suspicious, to me, that the two towers came down like they did.... very little damage to nearby buildings from the falling buildings themselves. They came down like someone designed them to come down... in a nice, neat pile..... relatively small area so they could truck it away ASAP
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Nice, neat pile? You are kidding right? There was nothing neat about that pile of wreckage. And it took MONTHS to remove all of it.
Originally posted by albie
If the towers had fallen sideways, wouldn't that have created more carnage and devestation and looked less suspicious? It seems to me they missed out here.
Silly illuminati.
Originally posted by WolfofWar
Why would they waste more lives? The object of false flag terror is to make it real, but limit the casualties enough that its not a major blow.
For example, the buildings SHOULD have fallen down sideways, and SHOULD have been hit at high noon, when more then 1500 people or so were in each tower, and to be sure they hit, they SHOULD have nose dived to take out the lowest reachable part of the tower they could.
Originally posted by Techsnow
If he did decide to demolish the building after the plane hit, can it even be possible to set up demolisions that fast?
I'm really stumped here. It seems like the building shouldn't have fallen with that little of damage. Maybe a chunk could of fallen off, but the whole building fell! Strait down! It is odd, I have to admit.
Originally posted by gps777
It is odd,but what is even more odd is the thought that it was an inside job either mossab,Islamic terrorists or the US Gov.If it was the firemen? surely it would be public knowledge and why would firemen kill other firemen?