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.

 

Mystery of Building 7 collapse, on 9/11

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
another clip that takes a look at building 7. Why aren't all the american newspapers raising the same questions and highlighting the same issues. American people need to win back the media from the neo-cons

www.youtube.com...




posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Simple - the construction of the building lead to the type of colapse we see. It's a mesh support exterior.

I'm currently in the process of a 3d graphic that will explain this.

And if you think the Meida is conservative....... then there is no Earthly force that can save you.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Simple - the construction of the building lead to the type of colapse we see. It's a mesh support exterior.

I'm currently in the process of a 3d graphic that will explain this.


Can you show another building like building 7 that has collapsed due to fire ?



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
AIM64C....

FOX news is not Conservative???

Ultima... dont forget the debris that slammed into WTC7 ....thats what I mean when i mention the truth movement....you make it off like there was "just a fire"...and you know there was MUCH more than that...

Just keeping it real



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Ultima... dont forget the debris that slammed into WTC7 ....thats what I mean when i mention the truth movement....you make it off like there was "just a fire"...and you know there was MUCH more than that...

Just keeping it real


since you're "keeping it real smiley face" then i'm sure you can show us exactly what damage there was to the building and precisely how that caused the building to collapse in free fall. that's what people mean when they mention the lie movement...you make out like 47 story steel frame buildings implode at the drop of a hat from damage to a couple of colums...and you make out like this is a normal everday thing because the govt wrote it in a report.

your not keeping it real, your just parroting the official story


[edit on 16-12-2006 by Momento]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
AIM64C....

FOX news is not Conservative???

Ultima... dont forget the debris that slammed into WTC7 ....thats what I mean when i mention the truth movement....you make it off like there was "just a fire"...and you know there was MUCH more than that...

Just keeping it real


But what about steel builidngs that burned for all day and night and had structural damage due to the fire, yet they did not collapse.

Check out these few.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed

The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
This was not JUST A FIRE!! I am not saying ANYTHING that hasnt been rehashed in here for years now. The building (WTC7) was severly damaged by debris from a collasping 110 story building !

You can show me all the buildings on fire till the cows come home, the fact is NONE of those building were hit by either a plane OR by debris from a collapsing skyscraper.

As far as evidence, there is minimal photographic evidence, but what i have posted is eye witness after eye witness that explains the damage to the WTC7..The firemen, police, EMT's, the engineers....everyone there knew that the building was in serious jeopardy. Thats why recovery efforts were stopped around the collapse of the tower for fear that #7 was going to come down. These firemen were pretty upset about this becasue they wanted to try to save more people burried. Imagine how many more lives would have been lost in the collaspe of WTC7 if the didn't "pull out" from their operation.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
This was not JUST A FIRE!! I am not saying ANYTHING that hasnt been rehashed in here for years now. The building (WTC7) was severly damaged by debris from a collasping 110 story building !

You can show me all the buildings on fire till the cows come home, the fact is NONE of those building were hit by either a plane OR by debris from a collapsing skyscraper.

As far as evidence, there is minimal photographic evidence, but what i have posted is eye witness after eye witness that explains the damage to the WTC7..The firemen, police, EMT's, the engineers....everyone there knew that the building was in serious jeopardy. Thats why recovery efforts were stopped around the collapse of the tower for fear that #7 was going to come down. These firemen were pretty upset about this becasue they wanted to try to save more people burried. Imagine how many more lives would have been lost in the collaspe of WTC7 if the didn't "pull out" from their operation.



Well i do not know how much real damage thier could have been since building 7 is one of the farest builidngs away from the towers.

Even so, from the fires i have posted that even with the damage and the fire it still should not have collapsed like it did.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
One thing to be brought up is the state of the other buildings.

Here is the map of the WTC complex. WTC 7 is the fartherest away from the two towers.


Here is WTC 3 after the towers collapsed yet it still stood.


Here is WTC 6. Due to damage, it was later demolished during clean-up.



Here is WTC 5 on fire after the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Its remains were also later demolished.


My point is that the other buildings in the complex suffered rather badly due to debris but what could not be salvaged were demolished during clean-up. WTC 7 was hit the least of the buildings in the complex. There's pictures of WTC 4 too, I can dig it up if people want me to.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
WTC7 Is indeed the Smoking Gun of 9/11 and also the Internet Age that came underway so rapidly within only a few years that ended the domination of public opnion by media outlets also have allowed the lie to be exposed.


Zionism = Devil
Faults in Plan & Rise of Internet = God's work



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
This was not JUST A FIRE!! I am not saying ANYTHING that hasnt been rehashed in here for years now. The building (WTC7) was severly damaged by debris from a collasping 110 story building !

You can show me all the buildings on fire till the cows come home, the fact is NONE of those building were hit by either a plane OR by debris from a collapsing skyscraper.


Cameron,

I've noticed you haven't said a word in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those buildings were also hit by the falling debris AND had more massive fires than 7. Care to explain?

Also, read my explaination why it doesn't matter if they weren't as big as 7. And really think about it for a minute.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Still at the end of the day no one can explain a reason for it fallin at pretty much freefall speed? I have never seen this point debunked. The reason is obvious, because it can not be.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Building 7 imploded. Plain and simple. Buildings like the Empire State Building had both *DAMAGE AND FIRE*, damage from a B-25 Bomber hitting it at over 300mph and the large Fire afterward it didn't collapse.

The damage of other buildings much closer with fully involved flames without collapse points to something else happening at Building 7.

Sampoong Dept Store is South Korea is 5 story bldg and did pancake due to structural design complications and the enormous weight ON-TOP of the Structure.

It took 20 econds for the full structural collapse which lends itself to such, it used the collapse slab and concrete design.

So, it took 20 seconds. A 5 story building 20 seconds to pancake and still parts on the side were still standing.








Now building 7?? A 47 Story building falls in 6.5 seconds!

So a 5 story building takes 20 seconds, and then we are expected to believe the 47 story building was okay falling at 6??

The whole Building 7 thing is ludicrous.

It is also highly circumstantial. When you factor in the CIA was there, the Bunker was there, that someone on video said "keep your eye on that building its about to blow up", then the BBC knowing in advance.

When you read Silverstein's comments on the structural design and how redundant the building was in the late 80's.

It becomes crystal clear what happened.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
A little information from Silverstien himself on WTC 7.


''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.



[edit on 10-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   


But what about steel builidngs that burned for all day and night and had structural damage due to the fire, yet they did not collapse.


So which one had a 110 story building fall into it?




Well i do not know how much real damage thier could have been since building 7 is one of the farest builidngs away from the towers


About what...150-200 feet away from the Tower, Tower over 1,000 feet tall...close enough to cause a hell of a lot of damage.




WTC 7 was hit the least of the buildings in the complex.


Not quite....



Buildings like the Empire State Building had both *DAMAGE AND FIRE*, damage from a B-25 Bomber hitting it at over 300mph and the large Fire afterward it didn't collapse.


With its throttles to the wall, the B-25 could do 300mph, empty. The one that collided with the Empire State building was going much slower. It hit the building, wings level, confining the impact damage done to 3 floors, (unlike the tower that was hit across 9-10 stories due to the atittude of the jet). The mass/momentum of the B-25 was pitiful compared to that of the airliners.

Then there was the construction of the Empire State building. Its design was much more robust than that of the WTC. Empire didnt have the wide open floors of the Towers, it has plenty of interior walls that help support the building.

Using the B-25 as a comparision isnt even apples to oranges, more of an apples to Mustang comparision.....



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Better yet, anyone thinking the tower was "too far" away to affect WTC 7, check this map.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



But what about steel builidngs that burned for all day and night and had structural damage due to the fire, yet they did not collapse.


So which one had a 110 story building fall into it?


Let's get this straight once and for all.. none of the towers fell onto Building 7. Nothing collapsed onto Building 7. Isn't it universally agreed upon by truthers and skeptics alike that the towers fell straight down onto their own footprints? If so, what collapsed onto Building 7 precisely? Give me a break, if anything collapsed onto it to extent you would have us believe we would see damage on the front and back of the building from the roof-down.

In reality, a tower from across the street that feel straight down showered some debris along the facade, damaging what only seems to be the front of the building and causing fires in some locations. None of this explains support columns failing simultaneously but hey, that little miracle didn't stop the towers from falling that day either, did it?

Edit: Damn bold tags

[edit on 10-3-2007 by BrokenVisage]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   


Let's get this straight once and for all.. none of the towers fell onto Building 7. Nothing collapsed onto Building 7. Isn't it universally agreed upon by truthers and skeptics alike that the towers fell straight down onto their own footprints? If so, what collapsed onto Building 7 precisely?


Um, no it is not universally agreed that the towers fell into their footprints, because they didnt. WTC 7 was indeed hit by the debris of tower collapsing. For those willing to at least look at the NIST report, it states that the tower collapsing cut a swath down WTC 7, penetrating at least a quarter of the way into the building. Of course, you could take the words of the firemen there that day that talk about the damage they saw to WTC 7 after the collapse. Prior to the collapse, little damage to WTC 7, after the collapse, massive damage to WTC 7...could only be from the tower debris hitting it.........unless of course you think Bush/Cheney flew their F-15 Strike Eagle into the cloud of the Tower collapse to fire missiles into WTC 7........



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

So which one had a 110 story building fall into it?


About what...150-200 feet away from the Tower, Tower over 1,000 feet tall...close enough to cause a hell of a lot of damage.


Not quite....



1. If you read the into on the buildings and look at the photos the builidngs i post had as much damage as builindg 7 and the fires lasted longer the 3 WTC builidngs combined.

2. WTC 7 was at least a block away form the towers.

3. WTC 4,5, and 6 had more damage then 7.



[edit on 10-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Better yet, anyone thinking the tower was "too far" away to affect WTC 7, check this map.

www.cnn.com...


Yes according the the maps building 7 is at least a block away. A lot further then 4,5, and 6

[edit on 10-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join