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.

 

WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
This wtc7 collapse looks like to me, that a huge magnet pulled down the building so perfectly from the inside of the earth. Definately it has nothing to do with explosives, but it actually was a controlled demolition, and not an accident. How did it fall then? I have never seen such collapse.




posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Istvan, I have a question for you. Let's just say that the gov was behind 9/11. Why after flying planes into towers 1 and 2 would they bring them down along with #7? For what purpose? If they were behind it, wouldn't flying planes into the WTC serve the same purpose? (whatever the purpose may be). I am trying to find a motive. If the gov just wanted to start a war on terrorism, I think by just flying the planes into the buildings would have been enough. Just curious to your thoughts on this, or anyone else for that matter who thinks the gov was behind 9/11.

Edit: Istvan, i agree with you that it looks like a magnet pulled it dowmn. But wouldn't the floors falling on top of one another like a domino effect produce the same results?

[edit on 7-16-2004 by nyarlathotep]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Well, the same magnet pulled down every floor below the impact point of on and two World Trade Centers too, I guess. Because from the impact point down they fell symmetrically.

Damned NWO.


[edit on 7-16-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Ok, so here is one for you believers to investigate and skeptics to chew on.
WTC7 was no ordinary building. For lack of a better word it was an engineering wonder.
You see, WTC7 was build OVER an electrical substation.
There was no way that it could have fallen on its footprint (except for controlled demolitions) due to the fact that a giant steal I-beam spanned nearly the entire length of the building.
Dont believe it? Look into it.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Antimyth, most people provide their proof with a link or something. Look into it doesn't really work around here. So, do you have any proof of this I-beam?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
WTC 1 & 2 weren't controlled demolishes.. this theory has been bunked by several engineers already..



This picture alone explains what happens, as stated in a previous post, the floor supports (Not the main beams) melted causing the floor to fall.

Also, in this picture:



You'll note the building did NOT fall straight down. The top of the building toppled sideways before falling down on itself. Causing a domino effect of wieght falling onto the lower floors.

Quote from my source:


As fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800C - hot enough to start buckling and collapsing.

The protective concrete cladding on the cores would have been no permanent defence in these extraordinary circumstances - keeping the intense heat at bay for only a limited timespan.

Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire

World Trade Center construction manager
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."


news.bbc.co.uk...


Now, back on topic.. as for WTC7.. I'm researching into it now :x



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
No, you won't divert my point. I clearly stated that the WTC 1 and 2 fell symmetrically BELOW THE POINT OF IMPACT. Not particularly interested in what happened above the impact floors.

They both fell symmetrically below the impact point just as WTC 7 fell symmetrically for a different reason. It had been burning for about 7 hours or so when it gave up the ghost.

Gravity doesn't pull sideways. There's not even a logical reason for it to fall anyway but straight down.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Well, I just recapped myself on the whole WTC7 "conspiracy".. I watched the videos of the building falling and read the facts (not the 5 million conspiracy pages)..

To be honest, the whole wtc7 thing is quite a mystery.. nothing adds up..

However, to attempt to bunk SO's posts, I'd like to quote this from a unreliable source:




An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull".

www.wtc7.net...
and a "copy" of the FEMA report found:
www.wtc7.net...

Since the facts dont add up, then all we have is speculation.. alot of the 'facts' point to fowl play. But the lack of explosion charges going off (as one would clearly see in demolishing videos).. I'd have to say that there is no fowl play..

Pics of explosives going off before a building falls:



Also, do you seriously think WTC7 was wired up like this:

And no one noticed?

Pics from:
www.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Gravity doesn't pull sideways. There's not even a logical reason for it to fall anyway but straight down.


Look at the picture in the abovepost .. the building didnt fall straight down. The top fell sideways meaning that the supports on that side of the building gave out first.




To floor supports failed. The main beams did not. The upper floors fell down on the lower floors causing:




posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
And then we have this nice little clip here straight from the gov.....

"Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation, including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records: The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns. The documents are necessary to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models that can explain why the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future."

Thats right, the gov is admitting a cover-up right there, spinning it to the masses as 'liability concerns'.
In other words-we cant give you the blueprints because we are CONCERNED that you will figure out that we are LIABLE.
www.house.gov...

SIDENOTE- to the guy telling me to 'post links' because 'that doesnt work here at ATS' I can only say that I'm not here at ATS to jump through hoops for anyone. As i stated on that post it was for believers to investigate and skeptics to chew on.
Didnt your parents teach you to close your mouth when you are chewing?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
By all means debate, thats what I'm here for.. I'm a skeptic..

Though the wtc7 collapse is fishy, I seriously doubt any connection to the towers 1 & 2 falling. The notion is almost laughable (to me atleast)



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
9/11 has to be one of the most coincidence filled incidents that i have EVER read about. i guess the question is, when do 'coincidences' become set up occurences?? to blindly think that the govt is telling the truth.........i'm not even gunna finish that statement.

hmmmmmmm i wonder when the next set up..err....attack will occur.....when do the kids head back to school????



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
9/11 has to be one of the most coincidence filled incidents that i have EVER read about. i guess the question is, when do 'coincidences' become set up occurences??


Exactly. Not even five minutes ago I was discussing this with a friend. One or two coincidences may raise a couple of eyebrows. Multiple coincidences scream of foul play. I don't buy the official story for a second.

"You're telling me you're going to fake some terrorist thing just to scare some money out of Congress?"

"Well, unfortunately, I have no idea how to fake killing 4,000 people, so we're just gonna have to do it for real. We'll blame it on the Muslims, naturally. Then, I'll get my funding."

The above quotes taken from the movie The Long Kiss Goodnight, 1996.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   



"You're telling me you're going to fake some terrorist thing just to scare some money out of Congress?"

"Well, unfortunately, I have no idea how to fake killing 4,000 people, so we're just gonna have to do it for real. We'll blame it on the Muslims, naturally. Then, I'll get my funding."

The above quotes taken from the movie The Long Kiss Goodnight, 1996.


Love the quote! Is this a movie I should see?

All one needs to do is read OPERATION NORTHWOODS to get an idea of why.
"Justification for US MILITARY Intervention in _________" (fill in the blank).

And then on page 10 they tell you almost exactly how 911 was commited.

Thats your tax dollar hard at work.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwsdakota


Look at the picture in the abovepost .. the building didnt fall straight down. The top fell sideways meaning that the supports on that side of the building gave out first.




NO! Do some studying PLEASE! You do not take the reactions of a single floor and extrapolate it to an entire building. Note my statements PREVIOUSLY made in this thread. The first floor to fail would NOT fail symmetrically.

This entire thread proves how people will obsess and convulse on a theory they absolutely commit to holding...that's called dogma...that's called fanaticism. And any physical/engineering laws thrown at you will be ignore for the sake of holding on to your warped conviction.

You guys are scarey!

[edit on 7-16-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Antimyth
Thats right, the gov is admitting a cover-up right there, spinning it to the masses as 'liability concerns'.
In other words-we cant give you the blueprints because we are CONCERNED that you will figure out that we are LIABLE.
www.house.gov...

SIDENOTE- to the guy telling me to 'post links' because 'that doesnt work here at ATS' I can only say that I'm not here at ATS to jump through hoops for anyone. As i stated on that post it was for believers to investigate and skeptics to chew on.
Didnt your parents teach you to close your mouth when you are chewing?


The burden of proof is on you my friend. After you have been here more than a couple of days, you will realize that.

Also, where does it say that the gov admits a coverup? I didn't read anything of that nature in your post or your link


All I can say is I really have to laugh at that comment about my parents teaching me to close my mouth while I am chewing. When you give me something to chew on, maybe I will close my mouth. Until then, save your insults for someone who cares



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwsdakota


Since the facts dont add up, then all we have is speculation.. alot of the 'facts' point to fowl play. But the lack of explosion charges going off (as one would clearly see in demolishing videos).. I'd have to say that there is no fowl play..



So you only think that what you see in the video is the only thing out there. Let me tell you if it can be done, someone else can do it better. Why couldnt they just have put a bunch of little but strong explosives arounf the main beam, the one that melted. That would make the floors give and you would never see it comming. You could even time the explosives to go off just be for the next floor gets there.

You say there is all this shady stuff, but just because you didnt see it demostrated in the video it cant be. deny ignorance!

I have a link for this I have to find it.

I think it was 8 months before 9/11 building 7 had 15 million put in on the 22,23,24 floors, (I think those are the floor. dont qoute me on that. I will find the link.) Bullet proof glass, the who place was reinforced steel. The link seemed to point it to being a command center for 9/11. Then they dropped it. Ok, maybe just maybe the towers fell because of the planes. (I have worked with metal, heck everyone has experinced this, If your cooking on an iron skillet, sometimes the handle gets to hot to touch, heat tranfers through metal. The towers where all metal, the heat would travel down the shaft then through the floor then to the outer walls and down.) Building 7 fell for know reason. I mean why was it even on fire? People where evacuated before people of the towers???????? There where buildings closer, on the other side of towers that didnt fall.
It didnt have "jet fuel" on it, What in it could have burned so hot to make it fall? Notice no explosions see from building 7. Hmmm...................



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
The editor in chief of Fire Engineering, a little over three months after 9/11, called the investigation into the unprecedented symmetrical collapse of three steel structures (one not even being hit by a plane) a "half baked farce." He also says:

"As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypothetical. "
fe.pennnet.com...

Humm, Complete destruction of the physical evidence, eyewitnesses hearing and seeing bombs, the lease-holder admitting it, you'd think all this would have been covered in the commission. Send me the cspan footage if you can find it. I would also love to see the boarding passes with the fingerprints of these "19 Arab Terrorists".

And the attitude was started with the remark about my mood. I realize I'm new but give me a break.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by roxdog]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If I recall, the building was put down purposly. They knew a little bit after 1 and 2 collapsed that this one was going to, so they evacuated people and demolished it theirself the day of the attacks.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pyxsul
If I recall, the building was put down purposly. They knew a little bit after 1 and 2 collapsed that this one was going to, so they evacuated people and demolished it theirself the day of the attacks.

That directly contradicts the offical explanation. Buildings don't just implode willy nilly. Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, NOR it was of the same design as Tower one and two. What would make them think the biulding was just gonna fall? How did they wire it up in just a few hours while it was on fire (a fire that FEMA woud have us believe CAUSED the collapse).

[edit on 17-7-2004 by roxdog]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join