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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Map (Proof WTC 7 Should Not Have Come Down)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
How can anyone believe the WTC 7 lies after seeing this?





backup link to image if it doesn't work..
img183.imagevenue.com...

[edit on 3-8-2007 by Samsonite]




posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The thread's about WTC 7 not 1 or 2. How did 7 come down with 5 & 6 in the way (see map).
I'll just sit back now and watch...



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Well anyone? Where are all the debunkers?



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The debunker mantra on this is "Cantilever Truss"...

"WTC7 failed because damage to support columns 79, 80 and 81 this affected a transfer truss and caused global collapse because of the cantilever truss design"

The only thing is...

- Many buildings use this design.
- The building still had a safety factor that allows for a loss of 1/4-1/2 of all supports.
- There is no evidence of fires hot enough to weaken steel.
- There are no pictures showing damage that would affect any of the transfer truss "system".
- The trusses were not recovered/investigated to support the claim.
- The NIST damage assessment does not show damage to the transfer trusses even though it is exaggerated according to photo analysis.
- FEMA states that: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

The final statement is very strange as they clearly state that the fires caused the collapse: "...how they caused the building to collapse..." but then go on to say they do not know how the building collapsed.

this is classic double speak. They convince the readed that the fire caused the collapse and they know it... then they say they do not know what happened.

the average reader walks away remembering "the fires caused the collapse" and not the rest of the quote.

NIST does this CONSTANTLY in their NCSTAR reports, especially regarding computer models.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
What about the countless footage that shows the center column being blown right before building falls in on itself?

Are we to believe that fire spontaneously erupted/burned the center column, instantly, and then the building collapsed?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I thought WTC 7 had vitually no damage to it (no structural damage at least) and spontaneously just fell as if God just said so.

wtc7.net...

More info on 7



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by midnightrider07
I thought WTC 7 had vitually no damage to it (no structural damage at least) and spontaneously just fell as if God just said so.

wtc7.net...

More info on 7


Yeah its pretty strange you know, I wonder how it got caught on fire in the first place, not to mention firefighters who mentioned about a large hole and gash in the building. I wonder....maybe it has something to do with the North Tower related.



[edit on 10-8-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Denying the truth about WTC 7 is probably the most painful to watch.

The building falls straight down after minor fires "ravage" it for a few hours.

Such a shame.

Why have the mass media not givin wtc7 much play ? Because they know what Americans will be thinking when they see that video.

When the mass media shows the American public WTC7 falling over and over and over and over again like they did with other 9/11 videos you know the gig is up and that we have won.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Building Seven represents the best example of the truth that no plan is ever really perfect, at least not one as complicated as the 9-11 inside job.

It is so plainly and clearly a controlled demolition that the defenders of the LIE are forced into the most ridiculous excuses to try and explain away vast amounts of hard evidence and irrefutable testimony from eyewitnesses. The building was not just structurally sound, it was reinforced doubly due to a major electrical power transfer point under the building. It had to be super strong to pass code and was unable to fall from anything but total support failure; fire CANNOT be used as a cause of the collapse : fire is not the main causative agent: fire CANNOT burn so evenly that all supports would melt and give way at EXACTLY the same moment in time.

To ask an intelligent person to accept odds like those is insulting. How can ANYONE believe that fires in that building could be buring at the lower levels at such temp's that they could cause a total and simultaneous failure of ALL major structural supports? it is beyond belief and no one really believes that unless they are denying reality.

Now add in the other hundreds of anomalies about this event and this building and the answer is apparent: 7 was the screw up that should have gone down with the others in the am.

Remember when Bldg. 6 exploded and caused a great huge dust cloud at ground level near Bldg 7? That was when the basements of a few surrounding bidgs were blown out; the over. photos show the site with no rubble in several adjacent buildings, just 3 or 4 stories of scoped out earth where something blew them sky high..not collapses, but an utter lack of debris. Deep craters do not result from building collapses!! The stuff has to fall somewhere and a few buildings in the area simply were blown up from the lowest levels up.

The rest were what we see on the well known clips: The Towers turing to flour like dust from the top down ( instead of leaning and large pieces falling like a gravity collapse) and bldg. 7 being brought down with the penthouse crimping in exactly where it has to; the obvious total support failure is ONLY conceivable with explosives and such. No serious observer can fail to see the odds involved in getting fire to cause a total failure of the columns..no way. And there was not NEAR enough damage from falling debris..( by the way, how could debris fall that far away? Hmm? ) for the supports to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY in any event!!

Simultaneous failure of all critical supports at the exact same instant; and the defenders of such nonsense simply say it is just another example of having a bad day..like the Norad failure and the total lack of highjack code alarms, blah blah..just amazing coincidences all on the same day..just those Arabs good luck!!

I believe that 7 was to be taken down much earlier and only a glitch or two kept it from happening; but the plan called for the destruction of those offices in 7 and it was a must do operation no matter what. They HAD to destroy 7!! Even if it meant exposing major flaws to the slumbering public; like the BBC report, and the small and localized fires, nop evidence whatsoever of damage or fires in the very lower levels, the embarrassingly apparent demolition of 7, meant to be unseen much earlier along with the others destruction; no matter, they had no choice.

7 housed offices that had to go, and records that HAD to be destroyed forever. There is a mystery of sorts about the federal Secret Service Officer, Miller I believe, who was supposedly the only man killed in Bldg. 7. Was he a witness to fires being set and operatives scurrying around getting the building ready to blow? Did he know too much? Why was he left alone in the building when the firemen were withdrawn many hours earlier and the building was supposedly controlled and evacuated?

We have all seen the videos of the firemen saying to get back, the bldg (7) is coming down, etc.. Many warnings before it was blown; it was announced on the radios of the people at the scene and people were backed away from it just prior to it coming down. This means that it was controlled; no other possible reason to believe otherwise. And to believe that in all of recorded history that three buildings in New York were to suffer from the only cases of physics being altered to allow for the stated reasons is just too much. the odds alone are beyond comprehension.

ONLY people desperate for the comfort of a continued belief in a world that has good guys running the show could possibly believe that Bldg 7 came down from fire or damage from falling debris. It is just ridiculous and supported by NO evidence whatsoever. Some people just cannot conceive of the fact that the ' leaders ' of this nation are either evil and criminally oriented profiteers with grand goals that have nothing to do with helping the people at all. To believe that the rulers of us all here would murder thousands to promote a profit making agenda, along with other nefarious global goals, would shake their world to the point of rendering them incapable of living without extreme fear and upset.

They would prefer to deny any and all evidence in order to assuage and comfort themselvs that it is really all OK, and that there MUST be some reason for all the anomalies and evidence that screams out the guilt of the perpetrators. They MUST maintain an illusory world of American Idol and sports and job and family...ignoring the facts as they are just too crazy to contemplate..right?

There is NO other reason for continued denial. There is just no denying the obvious. bldg. 7 is the centerpiece of a vast array of embarrassing and telling proofs that only the criminally negligent media and an uneducated andlazy American public can keep the lIE alive at all. If the average American could be sat down and taught from A to Z the facts about the 9-11 events, Dick Cheney and his gang of murdering traitors, along with Chimp and Condi and the other neocon conspirators would be hauled in chains off to the Haugue for trial on War Crimes charges; if they ever get out of Spandau, we could then try them all here for Treason and Murder and a million other crimes that we already have massive evidence for.

Only the dumbed down populace here allows the continued crimes we see to keep going on. Educate and liberate the people, then maybe we will have a chance



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samsonite
How can anyone believe the WTC 7 lies after seeing this?





backup link to image if it doesn't work..
img183.imagevenue.com...

[edit on 3-8-2007 by Samsonite]



It's strange isn't it?

THe Bankers Trust building probably suffered more damage than WTC 7 did, yet it didn't catch fire or collapse. Go figure.



[edit on 10-8-2007 by Conundrum04]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
And of course no one gives a rat's ass about these "inconvenient inconsistencies".

I'm going to come clean here:

I hate cowards, and can't stand the extremely weak people that support the big lie. The powers that be use these "pussies" to further their agendas to gain influence and control.

You guys are beyond foolish to follow leaders into battle that have no clue as to what combat means. Bush might have a bit of knowledge with his naked wrestling, getting pissed on while being initiated into skull and bones.


A physical confrontation is INEVITABLE!!!! \







[edit on 11-8-2007 by Conundrum04]

[edit on 11-8-2007 by Conundrum04]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   


How can anyone believe the WTC 7 lies after seeing this?


WTC 7 lies? After looking at a MAP? Give me a break. I will continue to believe the words of the men and women of the NYFD and NYPD who were there that day and reported HEAVY damage to number 7, not to mention the fires or the widespread belief of those folks that due to the damage, WTC7 was going to come down. So, keep looking at your goofy map and dreaming up lunatic theories, ill stick with the brave men and women who were THERE.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So, keep looking at your goofy map and dreaming up lunatic theories, ill stick with the brave men and women who were THERE.


What about this guy?:


Google Video Link



Or more relevant to WTC7, a police officer named Craig Bartmer, who was near the base of WTC7 when it started collapsing and heard/saw a sequence of explosions rip through its bottom floors.

Why don't you believe him? Why would he lie? Why would a NYPD officer that was there and helping people that day, just make that up?

He also said he had seen the damage to WTC7's south face. In his words, there was damage, but no creaking, no sagging or leaning or tilting, and it wasn't anything anyone would rationally expect to globally destroy a building.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Funny thing is BsBray, we have video testimony that disputes these raging infernos and severe damage. Video testimony is key. Where are the video testimonies of these so called firemen and police that say otherwise? We don't have them. Tells us alot.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Funny thing is BsBray, we have video testimony that disputes these raging infernos and severe damage. Video testimony is key. Where are the video testimonies of these so called firemen and police that say otherwise? We don't have them. Tells us alot.




How would this firefighter know that WTC7 is about to collapse? Structural integrity compromised? Can't put fire out? Hmm....



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by discomfit
Denying the truth about WTC 7 is probably the most painful to watch.

The building falls straight down after minor fires "ravage" it for a few hours.

Such a shame.

Why have the mass media not givin wtc7 much play ? Because they know what Americans will be thinking when they see that video.

When the mass media shows the American public WTC7 falling over and over and over and over again like they did with other 9/11 videos you know the gig is up and that we have won.


This is the main reason that almost half the people questioned about what happened in NYC on 911 don't even know that a third building fell that day?

My wife thought I was NUTS when I first told her that I believed we were not being told the truth because of WTC 7. She didn't know what I was talking about. She thought about leaving me because of it at first. . .

I told her of WTC 7 & showed her the available footage. She now questions what happened also. . .

The official story of WTC 7 collapse, if proven to be false, is the key to exposing everything. . .

I don't buy it.


2PacSade-


[edit on 13-8-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
No debunkage on my first post in this thread?

Where oh where have NCSTAR1-6e NCSTAR1-6g and NCSTAR1-6f gone?

*NIST NCSTAR 1-6E Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center 7. 2005.

* NIST NCSTAR 1-6F. Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center 7 to Debris Damage

* NIST NCSTAR 1-6G. Analysis of September 11, 2001, Seismogram Data



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



How can anyone believe the WTC 7 lies after seeing this?


WTC 7 lies? After looking at a MAP? Give me a break. I will continue to believe the words of the men and women of the NYFD and NYPD who were there that day and reported HEAVY damage to number 7, not to mention the fires or the widespread belief of those folks that due to the damage, WTC7 was going to come down. So, keep looking at your goofy map and dreaming up lunatic theories, ill stick with the brave men and women who were THERE.


But undoubtedly only when it suits you. The massive FDNY & NYPD testimony of bombs going off in the buildings and molten steel afterwards in the basements of WTC 1, 2 & 7 doubtless comes from the craven cowards, not "the brave men and women who were THERE (ta-dum!).

Also, your argument is a blunt instrument. Even if the NYPD/FDNY thought the bldg was truly undermined to such a state, simple glance at the construction plans of the bldg show that it could not have fallen as it did.

Yet once again: the lower 8 floors were a highly reinforced web of columns and trusses to allow the building to partially encompass a Con Ed substation. On the 23rd & 24th floors, there was a reinforcement belt of structural bracing to protect the NYC emergency command center, the "bunker."

Even if the scattered fires and the falling debris had affected the middle floors seriously enough to cause collapse, the building would have toppled to one side, it would not have given up all structural integrity in a moment and collapsed at freefall speed. Impossible.

You would have had the bunker belt holding the top together, and the reinforced base standing as well.

Instead you had a neat pile and thermal hotspots in the basements for weeks after. And as Pootie so rightly notes, not one decent explanation from NIST after nearly six years of them wishing it would just go away.

So who's really dreaming? Who's theories are really the "goofy" ones?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join