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.

 

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There is a thread that was recently psoeted by De;taboy, look it up, that shows the WTC 7 fires and the pushing back of people due to thoughts of collaspse "prior to the collpase".


Who where the originators of the "thoughts of collapse"?

There are also videos of firemen saying "move back the building's gonna blow".

Who ordered no fire fighting in WTC 7? But yet, WTC 6 and 5 where having water poured on them. Who decided to try and save the lost causes of 5 & 6 but not 7? Especially in light of who had offices in 7?

Don't give me no water pressure either. That has been proven a lie.




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
i couldnt bring myself to read through the whole thread, but, but this fire was VERY VERY minor, uncomparable to.... anything really.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I am still waiting to see those UNCONTROLLABLE fires in WTC 7..

I even gave a definition of uncontrollable...

You wanna talk get to talking.. This bringing up things and not saying more about it when someone knows your lying is getting old..

I want DEFINATE PROOF IF UNCONTROLLABLE FIRES IN WTC 7.. How hard is it??

There is tonz of images and tonz of film.. Give me some PROOF ALREADY..

Definition of Uncontrollable fire would be Windsor.. Get with it.

I am refering to you esdad71.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.


which include:

No One Liners
No Profanity
No Insulting or Name Calling.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I hear someone got shot in the head the other day - and he didn't die!

Which by the logic of this thread means that shooting people in the head doesn't kill them


The thread also seems to indicate a degree of desperation amongst some conspiracy theorists



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Unfortunately I am not calling people out.. Its just straight fact..

Go thru all posts in this thread, when you bring something so simple as to asking about a statement they made..

They cant show the proof...

Therefore it would be a lie. So.. I haven't called anyone out of character yet.

Hang around you will see my point.


Originally posted by Essan
The thread also seems to indicate a degree of desperation amongst some conspiracy theorists


You mean the same degree you guys used to say steel can melt on that freeway accident in CA?

Come on this is basic science.. WTC 7 should have never fell and we all know it..

Wait it was hit witha plane... thats been said.. Have a Nice day.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Come on this is basic science.. WTC 7 should have never fell and we all know it..


I see lots of folk making argument and counter argument. They can't all be right.

As I wasn't there at the time I can't comment on the structural integrity of WTC7 following the catastrophic collapse of the adjacent towers.

But the idea that a completely different building didn't collapse under completely different circumstances is somehow significant is either a sign of real desperation - or the work of a disinformationist trying to discredit those who think WTC7 was brought down by pre-meditated demolition



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Like i said, You guys can use some strip mall that collapsed, or some freeway in CA that fell.. then when we actually bring something that resembles the WTC or what not.. Its not good with you guys..

Ya ok.. sure...

See we dont use small little instances. We use actual events that are similar to it.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
I hear someone got shot in the head the other day - and he didn't die!

Which by the logic of this thread means that shooting people in the head doesn't kill them


The thread also seems to indicate a degree of desperation amongst some conspiracy theorists


The difference would be past precedence. Has ANYONE been shot in the head and died? Then your post is worthless imo.

I'd say the desperation is the official people myself.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Everybody knows the towers didn't fall because of fire. This is the worst best kept secret of all time. In centuries to come, our future generation will be scratching there heads, saying I'm glad i wasn't born in that era. To most foreign countries viewing the USA, it's common knowledge that 911 was a inside job, but somehow the Bush administration have managed to weave there magic with there beautiful people. The only reason for the American people not seeing this for what it was is they can't fathom such a horrific act from there own leaders. Thats the only reason i can think of. I have to hold the current American administration in the same league as the nazi's, and I'm not excusing my own government either, There partners.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
This entire subject doesn't matter, at all. The truth is in front of your eyes already, and not many see it.

If 911 was NOT an inside job, there wouldn't be millions of disbelievers, there wouldn't be millions of coincidences, there wouldn't be millions of flaws in the offical story, ALL of it would make complete sense, and nobody would question it.

...but we don't have that. We have millions of disbelievers, millions of coincidences, millions of flaws in the story, and millions of reasons not to believe. All of this wouldn't be happening if 911 actually happened they way the US Gov. says it did.

It's just that simple. 911 was an inside job, if it wasn't, we wouldn't have all these 911 conspiracies and 911 truth movements.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Hey I fly a 767-300, very similar to the one that hit the twin towers. There is not enough Jet-A in there to cause a building collapse, even if it melts steel. I mean have you ever SEEN the twin towers. It looks like a jet hitting it as a mosquito. I know a lot of you will say im stupid but cameras play tricks with the eyes.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeingevil
As everyone knows, Jet fuel is so potent you can dump a few hundred gallons of it over a baseball field, set it on fire, and soon enough you'll have a giant miles-deep sinkhole. Jet fuel is potent stuff!


Yeah jet fuel is so potent, that when you crash a tank of it into a building at 500 mph and it instantly mixes with air and catches fire, it all burns up within seconds. Funny how jet fuel was designed to burn faster than regular fuel.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I am going to post this because people are going to call you out..

I want to know if you have proof of what you speak.. like that you fly planes and such.. that way we don't have to hear the official people talk about how your blowing crap out your... well you know...

I am still waiting for those images/videos of Uncontrolled fires in WTC 7.. Hell for that matter anywhere on 9/11 in that area.. except the cars.. that's another story all together.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
What do you want me to tell you I defiantly will not tell you what airline I fly for.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Originally posted by sensfan
I fail to see in the story where the structural integrity of the bldg in China was compromised by being struck by a high speed jumbo jet.

Apples and Oranges people....no use comparing the 2.


Thats funny because i dont recall any plane hitting building 7.


HAHAHA Go Get Her Black_Fox! and yeah, if you read the reports, the building didn,t come down because of the jets messing up the structure of the buildings... it was the fire... and something to do with a pancake?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
That PrisonPlanet.com website is all gloom and doom. They obviously
cater to the people who thrive on the dark side of human nature.

After searching other news sources, it appears that this fire was more
smoke than anything else. Here's a more mentally balanced story of
this minor event: www.forbes.com...

Thankfully, U.S. skyscrapers under construction aren't plagued with the
many problems that this World Financial Center has endured over the
past 10 years.. yes.. 10 years and it's still not completely built.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
yes.. 10 years and it's still not completely built.



Makes one wonder how it actually started. The article didn't say how many floors were affected or how long it lasted. It just said quickly put out.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
One quick question and forgive me if its been asked before:

As part of this physics defying feat, was the building hit by a 200000 lb+ object travaling at 400-500 mph? and full of jet fuel?


[edit on 8/16/07 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
One quick question and forgive me if its been asked before:


Nope. Hasn't been asked yet. Glad you thought of that. Problem solved. J/K.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join