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 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
EDIT* see my post below...

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Odessy]




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


I know, it was one of the original lies I seen through.

I absolutely love your signature line. I can only add, that when He creates the New Jerusalem, the old will pass away and be forgotten.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

Have you not seen the footage of the firefighters there as it was happening talking about it? I don't know how to search youtube for it...

I know how to search youtube, heres a video for you...

firefighters SUPPORTING the CD theory...

now, have you seen the video when BBC announced WTC7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually has?

looks like they know something we dont.


Why do we need demolition companies? Because burning buildings all day long is not a reliable way to collapse a building.

Umm, excuse me, but fire has never caused a skyscrapers demise... NEVER...



... a lot of surrounding buildings later had to be demolished form the damage caused by the collapse.

I've never heard this. Could be true, but mind showing some links or info we can look at?


how about any physical evidence what so ever that shows WTC 7 was brought down with explosives?

Physical evidence? you mean like the bombs they used? I believe they blew up already...
But you can choose to ignore all the facts that we have if you want...



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
While it may look nice and controlled from a low res small video clip on the internet, it was anything but that and a lot of surrounding buildings later had to be demolished form the damage caused by the collapse.


Can you point out what specifically was from 7 and not 1? And what buildings are you specifically speaking of that had to be demolished? If 1's debris was the culprit for bringing down 7, would it not be logical to assume at least some of the damage you are claiming 7 did to other buildings was actually from 1?


And again, could you point out a controlled demolition of a 47 story building?


Here's the second largest. Notice how it just falls apart.

www.youtube.com...

What caused this building to just fall apart?

www.youtube.com...


And how about any demolition done using Thermite?


Since I'm suppossed to believe that gypsum smoldering with steel can cause it to corrode and melt, why can't you imagine thermite being placed on beams?

What seems more plausible?


how about any physical evidence what so ever that shows WTC 7 was brought down with explosives?


Even though I have no way of getting any evidence (even by FOIA requests), this does not negate the legitimate questions that we raise.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 



It looks like WTC7 got hit the most. And the other buildings in your photo were repaired. All that is missing for the OP to be correct is evidence.


Please, allow me to post the correct information. Here is a map showing the layout of the World Trade Center, and the damage pattern.



You will notice that this rendering designates WTC 3 as a "full collapse" when in reality, despite the severe damage sustained, what remained of the building had not in fact collapsed, but looked like this...



It seems quite cleat that WTC 7 suffered far less damage, than those buildings closer to the footprint of Towers 1 and 2.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
That building was 30 stories. That's a big difference. And what's the argument again? That because smaller buildings have been demolished with explosives that it proves that WTC 7 was? Think that would hold up in court?

And why would they not use thermite? The question is why would they? No demolition companies have used thermite EVER. And for good reason. It's not reliable and the explosives they use are a 100 times better. Thermite was simply not made for that purpose.

So again, do you have any physical evidence of a controlled demolition? Forgetting about the logistics of wiring up what would have to be the largest controlled demolition in the history of mankind and the enormity of such a task especially given a building that is going to be partly destroyed by debris and burning all day.

So what seems more likely? Absolutely not thermite, that's for sure. And if the only evidence is "well it looks to me like a controlled demolition", that's not going to fly outside of conspiracy web sites. And I don't know how many controlled demolitions take 19 seconds to collapse and cause buildings to buckle and lean beforehand. And if you look at any demolition videos you will hear the tell tale charges going of in rapid succession. Not so with WTC 7.

Hey anything is possible, but I have to go with whatever has the most evidence to support it. So far the only thing going for the CD is that it simply looks a little like one. And I have to go with what the demolition professionals think as they are trained in this kind of thing.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
That building was 30 stories. That's a big difference. And what's the argument again? That because smaller buildings have been demolished with explosives that it proves that WTC 7 was? Think that would hold up in court?


The difference is 17 more stories. Know why they don't go that high in CDs? Because it's uncontrollable. But, that 47 storey building came down pretty nice and neat compared to some much smaller demolitions that have taken months to plan.


And why would they not use thermite? The question is why would they? No demolition companies have used thermite EVER.


So? It does not mean that it couldn't be used. I thought you were the one who said just because something hasn't happened before, it doesn't mean that it can not happen? Or maybe I was reading wrong?


And for good reason. It's not reliable and the explosives they use are a 100 times better.


And this has what to do with 9/11 and covert actions again?


Thermite was simply not made for that purpose.


It does a hell of a job welding railroad tracks though, you have to admit.


So again, do you have any physical evidence of a controlled demolition?


No, I don't. Again, do you have any precedence, history, materials science, engineering to back up your claims? Let alone physical evidence?


Absolutely not thermite, that's for sure.


Opinions should be stated as such.


And if the only evidence is "well it looks to me like a controlled demolition", that's not going to fly outside of conspiracy web sites.


Well, the only other explaination that I can think of is shoddy materials/design/workmanship/etc. And I'm sure we don't want to go there do we?


Hey anything is possible, but I have to go with whatever has the most evidence to support it. So far the only thing going for the CD is that it simply looks a little like one. And I have to go with what the demolition professionals think as they are trained in this kind of thing.


Since CD companies don't use thermite to do demolitions (as stated by you), then how would they know? Are you saying that they would be trained in thermite detection? Amid all that molten metal?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
That building was 30 stories. That's a big difference. And what's the argument again? That because smaller buildings have been demolished with explosives that it proves that WTC 7 was?

seriously?
Thats not the argument at all...
The argument is that:
1) A steel structured building had NEVER collapsed due to fire...
2) Firefighter testimonials...
3) The building fell into its own footprint...
4) The building fell at almost free fall speed...


And why would they not use thermite? The question is why would they? No demolition companies have used thermite EVER.

Can you prove that please? how do you know this?
And I don't know what the hell they used. I believe people said they smelt thermite around the pentagon right? not the WTC buildings...
and isnt the argument for the pentagon a missile? where thermite might be used? (but thats another subject all together).


So again, do you have any physical evidence of a controlled demolition?

What are you looking for? How can one of us possibly obtain physical evidence?
Even if someone had access to ground zero, the bombs have already been used!
You want proof?
How about the owner of the building ADMITTING that they pulled the building?
would that do it for you?
ok, here you go:



And if the only evidence is "well it looks to me like a controlled demolition", that's not going to fly outside of conspiracy web sites.

You're obviously ignoring everything we are telling you...
and sorry to tell you, the truth movement has spread much further than conspiracy sites and into international politics...





[edit on 7-4-2008 by Odessy]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
For the folks that aren't convinced by the video evidence that WTC 7 was a controled demo...
Why no investigation of the colapse? The 911 report didn't have one page on the colapse of WTC 7.
Why did Silverstein make the "pull it" comment?
Why has the MSM ignored WTC 7?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


Alright, seen as nothing has been proved about WT7, why don't you provide evidence of it collapsing from the damage it sustained?

If you're so adamant about recieving evidence for a CD, why don't you share the info which convinced you?

tO



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
By the official story building 7 should not have collapsed.

By the official story: only the fact that large quantities of jet fuel burned in the twin towers could have brought down the towers. The steel was designed to withstand any conceivable fire or plane crash of when they were built.

To believe that building 7 came down because of fire, is to believe that the twin towers were designed to come crashing down. This is in complete opposition of what the designers and official story state.

Although 24000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored in 7 for generators, Diesel burns at less than 600 degrees K or about 800 degrees F.

The steel in the WTC was said to have failed at temperatures in the thousands.

There was an underground power substation under building 7 but the bottom three floors were open and trussed around the power substation.
Meaning that the center of the open bottom did not rest on that structure, so collapse of the substation in the center could not bring down the center.
In the pictures of the collapse, the center clearly collapses first, drawing the sides in and down. So the trusses below the heat source of about 800 degrees would have to have failed.
Funny, I thought heat rises.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
At the risk of being labeled a government plant, I'll just say that I think most of your questions have been answered already.

www.popularmechanics.com...

There is even a section dedicated to tower 7. I won't be coming back to argue back and forth about anything. I'm simply not interested. It's all been hashed and rehashed, and 95% of it is simply trying to outshout the opposition.

Supposing I am wrong, I have even more questions. Why are the demolition contractors who rigged WTC7 silent? Are all the people who participated heartless fiends and in on the conspiracy? Not ONE of the employees thought, "gee, we rigged that building last week (or month, or whatever)? That's odd."
What about the thousands of employees in the building? Noone noticed that floors were being cleared out and rigged with explosives? Are they all co-conspirators too?
Not one of them was a democrat or independent or libertarian or moderate republican? ALL these people were deluded "neo-cons" who sold out so no one would know the "TRUE" story? Not one Democrat in a position of power has said, "Wait a second -- this official story isn't true! We're going to nail this guy!" Wouldn't they pounce on such an opportunity?
While I'm far from pleased with our current government (and it goes way beyond this current administration), if you really believe the things you are insinuating, wouldn't it call for more action than bleating on message boards? Do you honestly believe that the government systematically murdered three thousand people in cold blood so they could go to war in Iraq? If they were so determined to go to Iraq, couldn't they just do that anyway without killing three thousand US citizens? It's not like Bush is really running his administration based on polling data is it? The war is unpopular now, and troops aren't headed home. Why would he need a popular reason to send them?
If I really thought the government in a mass conspiracy killed thousands of its own people in cold blood, I would be out in the streets daily, not hiding on the internet moaning.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by want2believe
What I can not understand is why no one on either side of congress says a word. You would think that the dems would find evidence to bring the republicans to there knees. Does this mean our intire government is involved.

Yes! It helps to stop thinking of the competing political parties as completely seperate entities. They'd like us to believe that there are no links between them because if we believe we have a genuine democratic system, we stay complacent. In reality, the Democrats are the Republicans, the Republicans are the Democrats. Labour is Conservative, Conservative is Labour. They put on these little acts to demonstrate the difference between them, but they are part of the same wider organisation. The aim of that organisation is simply to further their agendas and all of our televized and printed political news is intricately geared towards achieving this.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ok while I don't believe the offical story your "evidence" is very poor. The biggest issue is that you offer no proof. You just say it came down without damaging surrounding buildings which your last picture shows it did, look at the building at the bottom of the picture.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I've tried talking to people about 9/11 and how its amazing how many "coincidences" there are surrounding that day. How WTC tower 7 was brought down in a controllled demolition., various "live" video foottage was skewed, etc. They just dont want to listen to it. They dont want to take any information in about it. It's a total refusal to listen...



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Just to chip in on the subject of thermite...

Thermite would be awsomely rubbish choice to use in a demolition. Firstly, it's not an explosive - it a compound that, when exposed to extremely high temperates, leads to an exothermic reaction. So what you've got is a rapidly burning substance that exceeds the melting point of steal, but only in a very small area.

There's simply no way you could use it. If you packed thermite around a steel column it would burn itself out, or be sluiced by melting steel from the column, before it caused siginificant weakness.

If you packed it vertically, the thermite would pour down once the reaction is triggered and not deliver enough heat to significantly damage steal columns.

After reading these comments, I've had a dig around for the truthers' take on thermite. What tosh! I've seen thermite being attributed to intense temperatures beneath rubble days, sometimes weeks later. A thermite reaction burns itself out in seconds.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by bohica1972]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by bohica1972]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
You can use the OP's logic to prove it was not a controlled demolition.

Serious Proof Building 7 was not a controlled demolition.

No one is able to prove it is a controlled demolition.

No doubt about it, it was not a controlled demolition.

"wave your hands, do a little dance, then shout out CONSPIRACY"



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I won't be coming back to argue back and forth about anything.


Not to be rude, but why even come here in the first place then? To state your opinion and run away? What does that accomplish?


Why are the demolition contractors who rigged WTC7 silent?


What if these people are operatives working for another entity other than the USG? Would they be blabbing to the world? Do our own CIA guys tell the world about all the attrocities we've done in other countries? Think about this please.


Are all the people who participated heartless fiends and in on the conspiracy?


No matter who pulled this off, aren't those involved heartless fiends and in on the conspiracy? Terrorist or not.


Not ONE of the employees thought, "gee, we rigged that building last week (or month, or whatever)? That's odd."


Again, do we go around saying "gee, I just helped bomb some building in Iraq. That's odd." I just used Iraq as an example.


What about the thousands of employees in the building? Noone noticed that floors were being cleared out and rigged with explosives? Are they all co-conspirators too?


There is maintenance in my 12-storey building all the time. No one says "gee...that's odd".


Not one of them was a democrat or independent or libertarian or moderate republican? ALL these people were deluded "neo-cons" who sold out so no one would know the "TRUE" story? Not one Democrat in a position of power has said, "Wait a second -- this official story isn't true! We're going to nail this guy!" Wouldn't they pounce on such an opportunity?


There are some that have had the gonads to speak out. Ron Paul comes to mind.


If I really thought the government in a mass conspiracy killed thousands of its own people in cold blood, I would be out in the streets daily, not hiding on the internet moaning.


Some of us have jobs and daily life.

BTW, I can see by the tone of your post that what I say will be taken with a grain of salt because I'm on the internet "moaning".



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bohica1972
Thermite would be awsomely rubbish choice to use in a demolition. Firstly, it's not an explosive - it a compound that, when exposed to extremely high temperates, leads to an exothermic reaction. So what you've got is a rapidly burning substance that exceeds the melting point of steal, but only in a very small area.


This is true if you use it in the way you are thinking of. Try thinking outside the box for a minute with me here. I'll explain a little more below.


There's simply no way you could use it. If you packed thermite around a steel column it would burn itself out, or be sluiced by melting steel from the column, before it caused siginificant weakness.


I'm not sure how you determine that it would sluice itself out by the molten steel as I've seen thermite burn straight through a car engine before. But, you'll say that the thermite was laying on the engine right? I'm getting to that.


If you packed it vertically, the thermite would pour down once the reaction is triggered and not deliver enough heat to significantly damage steal columns.


What if you packed it on the connections of the beams to columns, severing the connection? Then, without sufficient horizontal bracing, the column would buckle?

Like how they weld railroad tracks together using thermite only instead of welding together, they'd be severing the connections. No verticle placement neccessary and the thermite would burn down as expected of it.


After reading these comments, I've had a dig around for the truthers' take on thermite. What tosh! I've seen thermite being attributed to intense temperatures beneath rubble days, sometimes weeks later. A thermite reaction burns itself out in seconds.


Something had to keep those fires burning that hot for that long. The official story is rubble. The truther story is also rubble. But started with thermite reactions. One-in-the-same if you ask me.

[edit on 4/8/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 4/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dirtonwater
 


No offense but I'm getting tired of these kinds of postings around here. If you people have nothing to add, don't post. Thanks.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join