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: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


But I was adding something. I was using the OP's same logic to prove the opposite.

What gets tiring is the sensational titles of the threads and then, when you get in, the same old nothing.

I am seeing this as a new trend. The truthers have gotten nowhere in years. So now I am seeing alot of thread with 'absolute proof...' and 'it is well known by now there is a conspiracy...' or 'there is little doubt of a controlled demolition'. Years of paranoia does not make something true.




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
"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?"

Why would the column buckle? To tell you the truth, and looking over the eye-witness accounts and pictures, I see the following:

1) A massive hole in the building, reported by one fire office to be "20 stories high"

2) Lots of fire - which burned for hours.

3) A collapse pattern that doesn't look like the result of typical demolition job (i.e. the building didn't come down in a neat pile).

4) There are several videos of NYFD people at the scene - prior to the collapse - who express their fears that the building would collapse.

5) Watching the footage of the collapse itself, it's clear to see the building collapses in distinct direction - i.e. one side goes before the other.

6) If thermite was used - why didn't the fires raging inside approximately one third of the building ignite it prior to collapse?

7) Do you have any examples, for sake of comparison, where thermite has been used in demolitions?

8) Why thermite? Surely conventional explosives would have provided a better chance of success in demolishing a building?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I am glad we all agree the WTC 7 was brought down with engineers and explosives.



Here is some pictures to show you how small the rubble pile was and how little damage to surrounding buildings





IN this next picture. Government coverup and disnformationalists will say that the builiding was heavily damaged and also had a raging fire.

ALL LIES.


You should all be suspicious of these new users coming on regurgitating government disinformation about 911.

DOnt ever let anyone convince you otherwise that WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition.

Tell all your friends and family about No plane in Shanksville (flight 93) and WTC 7 was controlled demoltions.

THe picture of the damage to the one corner is most likely photo shopped.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by snoopy
 


How many skyscrapers do you know come down with an announcement before collapse?



How many skyscrapers have been hit by tons of falling debris from collapsing buildings? Are you saying that a rare event doesn't justify a rare result? This is not a valid argument. I asked for proof, not conjecture. Can you prove that it was a CD?

By your logic, if something doesn't happen for the first time, then it's not possible. And therefore all existence is not possible. Was the first building fire impossible because before that no building had ever burned?

Or perhaps you can show us some examples of other buildings that were of the same design and suffered the same damage and still survived? Because even if you did, it still would not prove a controlled demolition.

And more importantly the announcement of the collapse was by the firefighters who could clearly see that the building was in danger of collapse due to fire. Understandable considering the building had been burning all day long with no aid or water. All firefighters know that buildings under such conditions are destined to collapse. Common sense. The firefighters there at the scene when it was happening even went so far as to discuss this on camera.


Falling debris dont make a building fall strait down with free fall.




How did the buildings around the tt's get damaged but not destroyed?

And how did wtc7 get destroyed when the towers went into free fall downward?

Why didnt building 4 collapse?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana















You poorly informed, poorly researched and poorly versed debunkers have failed to confuse or derail anyone in these forums.


1. Controlled demoltions in WTC 1

2. Controlled demoltions in WTC 2

3. Controlled demoltions in WTC 7

Facts.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
IvanZana,

If you want your investigations to have any credibility, please don't just pick and choose evidence that fits your view. You need to consider the whole picture.

Consider - the image you've shown of WTC7 looking undamaged. Yes - it didn't look to bad from that side. However:




Presenting a one-sided view doesn't help your cause - nor will it get you any closer to the truth you believe in.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by bohica1972]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dirtonwater
 


I can agree with your premise. You might want to add NIST to your list of "seven years on and nothing has been put forth" people though.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bohica1972
IvanZana,

Consider - the image you've shown of WTC7 looking undamaged. Yes - it didn't look to bad from that side. However:




Presenting a one-sided view doesn't help your cause - nor will it get you any closer to the truth you believe in.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by bohica1972]



The picture you provided is the only picture showing that damage. Those WTC damage pics were released in 2004-05. They looked photoshopped.

Your picture also proves that the building should of toppled like a tree.

So thank you. You just proved the WTC 7 was controlled demo.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Ivan,

I appreciate you feel passionately about this subject. I'm leaving the office now - and I'll be back online tomorrow.

The fact is - the building did collapse at an angle, which is clear from the debris patterns and from some of your videos. There are other, less clear, images of damage to WTC7 also.

So throw-out that a picture must be photoshopped because you don't agree with it is a weak argument. All the evidence to date points to a collapse caused by impact damage and fire. The onus is on you to prove the building was brought down by other means.

One question before I go - what is your single most conclusive piece of physical (not a non-expert visual interpretation) evidence that this happened (i.e. explosive residue, evidence of tampering on buidling struts etc) that backs up your assertion?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
THis picture was taken 6 hours after the Controlled demoltions of WTC 1 and WTC 2. 1600hrs.


As you can see there is no damage and the fires look purposly started.
World trade center 7, (Solomon brothers) building was brought down with controlled demoltions.

Tell your friends, family.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bohica1972
Why would the column buckle?


Without horizontal bracing, columns will buckle. Euler came up with the formula on how to calculate such forces and needed bracing.


In 1757, mathematician Leonhard Euler derived a formula that gives the maximum axial load that a long, slender, ideal column can carry without buckling.



Self-buckling of columns

A free-standing, vertical column of circular cross-section, with density ρ, Young's modulus E, and radius r, will buckle under its own weight if its height exceeds a certain critical height:


en.wikipedia.org...


1) A massive hole in the building, reported by one fire office to be "20 stories high"


I'm looking out the window right now at a building that is being torn down. There's a massive hole in the facade. Should I worry about it going into freefall collapse?


2) Lots of fire - which burned for hours.


Can you give any evidence other than hearsay to back up this claim? I'm not saying that there wasn't fire, but a fully engulfed fire, it was not.


3) A collapse pattern that doesn't look like the result of typical demolition job (i.e. the building didn't come down in a neat pile).


Can you post another 47 storey building that has been CD'd so we can compare? It fell a bit neater than some much smaller demolitions have also. So, this doesn't prove anything.


4) There are several videos of NYFD people at the scene - prior to the collapse - who express their fears that the building would collapse.


There's also first responders that describe explosions and a count-down to the collapse. Your point would be?


5) Watching the footage of the collapse itself, it's clear to see the building collapses in distinct direction - i.e. one side goes before the other.


In a damaged building, would one expect anything different?


6) If thermite was used - why didn't the fires raging inside approximately one third of the building ignite it prior to collapse?


Thermite doesn't ignite from fires. It takes large temperatures to start the process.


7) Do you have any examples, for sake of comparison, where thermite has been used in demolitions?


Do you have any examples, for sake of comparison, where a steel framed building has collapsed into itself from fire? See how this works?


8) Why thermite? Surely conventional explosives would have provided a better chance of success in demolishing a building?


Success in demolishing yes, but clandestine? No.

[edit on 4/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Building 7's Rubble Pile


Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

* its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building


What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?

Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features. 1
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.
www.wtc7.net...




[edit on 8-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I love how people can;t live with the truth. They have to make up stuff to make them feel better, and feel like they have a cause. Why can;t you believe what we saw and what the goverment told us happend really happend? Is that because the GOVERMENT told use, so it must be wrong? I don;t get it, but who am I, Just another sheep I guess, or thats what you guys will call me.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jcavs88
Why can;t you believe what we saw and what the goverment told us happend really happend?


If it made any sense what-so-ever I would accept it.


Is that because the GOVERMENT told use, so it must be wrong?


No. If you were the one telling me this fanciful crap, I'd say you were wrong. Government or not.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
You guys are right, after reading the whole building 7 thing I believe you guys. Thanks for setting me free. Now what are we going to do about it?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
IN this next picture. Government coverup and disnformationalists will say that the builiding was heavily damaged and also had a raging fire.

ALL LIES.


Actually, it was the FDNY who reported large fires in WTC7. Are you accusing them of lying about it too?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Oh no. The building's going to come down at freefall into itself. Call the authorities.



[edit on 4/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


great post



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bohica1972
 


Thank you for the image. It is one I have not seen before. I do not necessarily believe that it was "photoshopped" but I also do not believe that it explains the collapse of 7.

If the damage to that corner had caused the collapse, I would expect to have seen something more like this...




You will also notice, that despite the awesome destruction, large sections of the building remain structurally intact, though obviously warped and damaged.

[edit on 4/8/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by bohica1972
 


Thank you for the image. It is one I have not seen before. I do not necessarily believe that it was "photoshopped" but I also do not believe that it explains the collapse of 7.

If the damage to that corner had caused the collapse, I would expect to have seen something more like this...






You will also notice, that despite the awesome destruction, large sections of the building remain structurally intact, though obviously warped and damaged.

[edit on 4/8/0808 by jackinthebox]


Excellent example.


Here is another


This building was a failed controlled demotlition and its still standing with 1/2 the building being explosivily gutted out.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join