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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

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





posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
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


www.geocities.com...


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.


Of course, since these firefighters dont mention bombs, very few conspiracy theorists will listen when the firefighters say they looked at the damage to WTC 7 and figured it was going to fall too.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

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.


So 6 hours on two floors hydrocarbons fires burned and brought down the whole building? Plus some damage to the corner lead to the fall of the entire building in perfect symmatry in freefall speed?

By all logic then the Madrid building should have fallen down. the Madrid building went through far more then WTC7 did and had far MORE structural damage from 24 hours of fires on 40% of the floors then the WTC 7 did.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

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




THANK YOU!

I thought I was the ONLY PERSON to go, "wait a minute, the Oklahoma Cirty building had it's entire SIDE blown out and it didn't 'pancake'...somthing isn't right here!"

Thanks you for posting pictures to help us all remember that the building in OK city was damaged MUCH more "structrually" than WTC7--fires or no fires.

Somthing dosen't add up and questions are to many to ignore. The Government is clearly hiding "somthing". What that is, I can't even begin to imagine.

All I know is that I am getting my own "bug out bag" ready for when sh*t really hits the fan.



[edit on 10-9-2006 by MystikMushroom]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Why do people insist on exagerating simple facts about a situation. This whole thing is heading towards rubber necking a car crash again. I think it is clear we have not been told everything about the event - but why should we? I keep reading claims that this or that must have happened because they haven't told us everything. At the end of the day why should they tell everything?

There are people on this thread who are clearly either exagerating or claiming things to be fact for the celebrity of getting noticed on the thread. To read some of the comments about damage levels you think that the only thing that happened to the building was it's post box fell down before they decided to blow it up.

If one day you ever did prove that it was down to the government in some way what are you going to do with that result then? Where do you go with it? What happens if it does just turn out to be terrorists? I think the tragidy then will be that there are those in this community who would genuinely be disappointed.

Monday morning mini post heavy weekend cycnical minded grumble....



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I think those quotes from the firemen sort of clinch it for me.

Which buildings cam down first? Did the twin towers fall before building 7? I'm no expert, but wouldn't there have been a lot of structural damage that we couldn't see caused by the fact that two massive buildings had fallen down? It would have been like a small earthquake.

The smoke coming from one side of the building isn't suspicious. The fire could easily have been spread over a wide area inside and strong winds pushing the smoke out one side.

Like I'd know.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

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


Pictures show otherwise. While the damage is significant, it is not anything that would've threatened the structure itself.



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

If that were the case, the building would not have collapsed as perfectly as it did. It would've toppled over to the 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.

Again, HALF of the Federal building in the OK City bombing was blown away... the building still stood.



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

Unless whatever caused that damage had gone straight through the building, out the other side, (which we know didn't happen) again, the building should not have fallen like it did. It's pure common-sense and elementary physics.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Look at how the building comes down, compare that to buildings that are downed using controlled demolition. And then compare.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pazzzzz
Look at how the building comes down, compare that to buildings that are downed using controlled demolition. And then compare.


Yes, that and look at how they all came down the same.... and it's quite obvious that had the missing chunk of #7 been bad enough to cause structural collapse, it wouldn't have fallen as neatly as it did.

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.

And I think another point that needs to be addressed by someone who knows building demolition is the fact that if the towers fell due to structural failure, why did they just drop? You'd think that from the weakened area on down, the building would collapse floor by floor, or by several floors at a time.... which would DEFINATELY slow down the free-fall, which didn't happen.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pazzzzz
Look at how the building comes down, compare that to buildings that are downed using controlled demolition. And then compare.


What a novel idea.

When you actually do this you'll notice that the penthouse starts collapsing earlier than the rest of the building, as if the core areas were collapsing first.

You'll also notice no huge bangs like you would in CD.

You will see no pre-collapse squibs, like you would in CD.

There are no no pre-collapse flashes as the charges go off, present in many CD's.

In fact when you compare, you'll notice that the only thing it does have in common with a controlled demolition is the fact that it collapsed.

Not very convincing. Especially since no demo charges are heard going off, those things are LOUD.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   


Pictures show otherwise. While the damage is significant, it is not anything that would've threatened the structure itself.


Sorry, but there are NO decent, close up photos of the damage to the tower side of WTC 7. That side of the building was off limits because it was within the collapse zone set up by the NYFD. The closest photos are the ones previously posted in which the side of the building is totally obscured by smoke.




Again, HALF of the Federal building in the OK City bombing was blown away... the building still stood.


And again, the Murrah building is comparing apples to oranges.




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


Very little damage to the nearby buildings? Must not have seen all the pics of the surrounding buildings then.

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.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
My biggest hurdle which i cant get over with all the demolition conspiracy theories about WTC`s is WHY?

Why would the the US Gov (as i`m assuming thats who you think did it) orchestrate planes flying into them only to back it up with explosives to make sure the job was done properly?

If say for instance (entertaining the idea) the Gov wanted an excuse to further its goals economically politically etc would`nt the planes be sufficient enough?

Even further why would they attack the WTC and Pentagon? when attacks such as Madrid Bali or London bombings would have stirred ample amount of anger amongst the US citizens to back Bush`s war on terror.

I remember the day it all happened like you all and was deeply shattered by the amount of innocent lives lost and loss to their family members by these maniacs.Not even a day had passed and there were Arabs cheering in the streets and even some said that it was the Jews who did it until eventually UBL took responsibility.

For all the arguments about controlled demolition its these questions of why that i cannot get passed because it sounds like terrorist propaganda,not that i believe much that comes out of Governments and media etc(WMD anyone)

If someone could tell their theory of why explosives would be necessary to be used with the possibility of being found out it was an inside job rather than the planes themselves doing a good enough job of shock and awe i`d like to hear it.


[edit on 12-9-2006 by gps777]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   

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.


As opposed to it falling or tipping to one side, which is what the likely result would've been, had the fires brought the two towers down. The towers fell into their own footprints. Extensive damage was done to the immediately surrounding buildings but nearly enough to come close to the kind of devastation that would've resulted, had they fallen at an angle, not to mention the many more people who would've been killed. Guiliani and the functional NYC government he had with him could've been wiped out.



[edit on 12-9-2006 by firebat]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   

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.

Well then with your same logic WHY use explosives at all then.Dont you think the lives lost due to the planes slamming into buildings and the people on the planes is 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.


Traveling at the speed they were and trying to avoid hitting other buildings and being quite unexperienced they probably did quite well for them to hit anything and as low as they did.

Who do you suspect planted explosives,was it the terrorists in your mind or......?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Lets assume that when Larry Silverstein said "pull it" to the firefighters he was saying the smartest thing to do was to pull the building.

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.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

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?

Agreed and if prior to the event would`nt the explosives been detonated or destroyed on impact where the towers began to fall.


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.


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?



[edit on 12-9-2006 by gps777]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

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?


What is odd, at the least, is the number of coincendences involved combined with the fact that the Bush administration is STILL politicizing the tragedy to fit their agenda, as opposed to admitting they were totally wrong. The fact that they're still putting their foot down, despite the overwhelming evidence that they were wrong, is very suspicious to me and proves to me that they were never interested in getting the real perps to begin with. Bush himself said he wasn't worried about Osama... then he denied he said it. Now, he's harping on Osama again.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join