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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
You cant make a small rubble pile without controlled demolitions.


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...




Great, we all agree that WTC 7 was controlled demoltions.


If there was damage to any corner of the building then it should of came down chaotically ... but it didnt.

World Trade center 7 was brought down by controlled demolitions.




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
it doesnt matter, WTC7 had damage due to WTC1, regardless of what damage NORTH did TO SOUTH. you cant debunk the fact that WTC7 had 13 storied damaged down the middle, with crossbeams breached.


Unless all the beams were breached on all the columns, your theory doesn't hold (pun intended). Even the undamaged facade on the sides of the columns would give stability to the structure. Can you show conclusively that all support beams were breached? You guys want us to show conclusive evidence of our theories, now it's time for you to do the same in kind.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


But then you showing the tower debris falling into building 7 is just as moot. You can't argue it is from the debris. The damage might have come from something else.

It is inconsistent to argue for such damage, but to ignore the *LACK* of damage left on a closer building.

*IF* there is such damage at such a far distance. Then why has the NORTH TOWER been left with only minor damage and no gapping holes?

[edit on 8-4-2008 by talisman]



its not a moot point, you are talking about two different building falling into each other. they were different distances, positions and they are built differently. if the north tower was shaped like WTC7 and was built like WTC7 youd have a point, but its not the same building. and you have nothing scientific to say the beams from both buildings would fall the same in the first place. the damage on the NORTH and SOUTH towers were on different levels from each other, giving evidence they would not fall the same.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]


Steel is steel when it is the type of steel that was used in the construction of these types of buildings.

Huge steel beams were hurled right at the NORTH TOWER with greater velocity then at Building 7.

If the Planes left such huge holes in the Towers, the question would become then why didn't huge 40 ton steel beams ejected with high velocity not leave puncture holes of near or greater equal size??

[edit on 8-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


And you can't prove that it came from the Towers collapse.


LMAO. SO HOW DID IT GET THERE? its shown in video.


Its not shown in the video. We see building debris falling toward building 7, just as we do as the SOUTH TOWER falls into the NORTH TOWER.

After that, it is conjecture.



ok if if you need to go with that in order to ignore the fact that it had 13 stories scooped out with cross sections breached, which made enough impact to make the building crooked, then i cant help you. the fact is, there is no proof of a demo and all the proof shows it buckled in towards itself due to missing parts of the structure, as explained here by structural engineers, which it is easy to see you are not a structural engineer and could stand to read this: www.structuremag.org...



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


I'm not ignoring building 7's damage. I am including it in the "story", and the
"story" doesn't add up when you factor in that the NORTH TOWER didn't sustain this type of damage when clearly it had huge amounts of steel fly right at it.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


But then you showing the tower debris falling into building 7 is just as moot. You can't argue it is from the debris. The damage might have come from something else.

It is inconsistent to argue for such damage, but to ignore the *LACK* of damage left on a closer building.

*IF* there is such damage at such a far distance. Then why has the NORTH TOWER been left with only minor damage and no gapping holes?

[edit on 8-4-2008 by talisman]



its not a moot point, you are talking about two different building falling into each other. they were different distances, positions and they are built differently. if the north tower was shaped like WTC7 and was built like WTC7 youd have a point, but its not the same building. and you have nothing scientific to say the beams from both buildings would fall the same in the first place. the damage on the NORTH and SOUTH towers were on different levels from each other, giving evidence they would not fall the same.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]


Steel is steel when it is the type of steel that was used in the construction of these types of buildings.

Huge steel beams were hurled right at the NORTH TOWER with greater velocity then at Building 7.

If the Planes left such huge holes in the Towers, the question would become then why didn't huge 40 ton steel beams ejected with high velocity not leave puncture holes of near or greater equal size??

[edit on 8-4-2008 by talisman]


for one, the NORTH AND SOUTH are off center from each other whereas WTC7 was dead center across from WTC1. nobody is saying the south tower didnt hurl beams, its the fact that NORTH AND SOUTH are not on the same lateral position, so beams would hit off center or might miss altogther. and as i said they are built different and WTC1 could take more damage than WTC7.

WTC7 had 13 stories scooped out from WTC1 and you cant disprove that.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


I'm not ignoring building 7's damage. I am including it in the "story", and the
"story" doesn't add up when you factor in that the NORTH TOWER didn't sustain this type of damage when clearly it had huge amounts of steel fly right at it.


now you are deflecting. you originally wanted to know how WTC7 would fall into itself and i showed you how. it fell towards the gaping hole with 13 stories ,missing cross sections. so you are now deflecting and adding another part regarding north and south when they are two different scenarios. DID WTC7 HAVE MAJOR DAMAGE OR NOT?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


The picture I provided clearly shows huge amounts of debris being flung right in the direction of the NORTH TOWER. Building 6 sustained greater damage then Building 7 as the Towers fell right ontop of it, but Building 6 had no free fall, or near free fall collapse.

We have a problem here either way.

There is no good reason for there not to be huge damage left on the NORTH TOWER. Also building 6 not completely collapsing.

*IF* you argue for different building types, then that opens another problem. The problem of course would involved the inconsistency between damage left by the JETS as opposed to the LACK OF DAMAGE left by the fall of the TOWER.

Either way, there is inconsistency here.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   

The building fire alarm system [for WTC 7] was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored.
NIST


After the initial blast [Flight 11 hitting WTC 1], Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said
READ MORE HEREHanging Around WTC 7





And for the clencher...



Explosions occurred in WTC 7 before either of the twin towers had collapsed.

Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven.
www.groundzerospirit.org...



Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon
www.americanfreepress.net...



At that point he made some phone calls, and an un-named individual told them to "leave, and leave right away". Jennings and Hess then proceeded to the stairs, and made it to level 6, when there was an explosion, and the stairwell collapsed from under their feet, Mr. Jennings was actually hanging, and had to climb back up. They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing. This is an important detail, as many debunkers have used Mr. Jennings statements out of context to claim the damage came to WTC 7 from the towers collapsing, not the case according, to Mr. Jennings.

The interview has been cut off where they say how they made it to the lobby, but when they did make it down, Mr. Jennings found it destroyed and littered with dead bodies. He said it looked like, "King Kong had came through it and stepped on it, so destroyed, I didn't know where I was. So destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, that I believe the fire department made to get me out." Shortly after he made it out, he was seen on several news channels telling his story.




[edit on 9-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
There seems to be some poorly researched debunkers trying to confuse you good people.

They will try to tell you that WTC 7 had a 20 story gash and thats why it IMPLODED EXACTLY like a PROFESSIONAL CONTROLLED DEMOTLITIONS.

Here is the Bankers building which suffered way more damage that the controlled demolitioned World Trade Center 7.


It did not collapse.

Give up on the 20 storey gash theory before you are made fools for using that as a weak defense for the overly DEBUNKED official story.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I'm not saying it was a controlled demolitions job, but i have a couple of points to add some have already been touched on.

1. Building 6 had a tower fall onto it. Thats right, right onto it nearly cutting it in half and yet, it stood. Destroyed no doubt but it did stand. So, how does a building withstand that kind of punishment but the one behind it falls due to a few office fires and the corner knocked out?

I've searched the internet and found a steel frame building in philly burn for 12 hours. Still standing.

Caracas: Steel framed building 18 hour BBQ. Guess what? still standing.

Madrid: Steel framed burned for 22-24 hours (reports vary) in what was called a "Raging Inferno." The building was COMPLETELY DESTROYED. Except for, of course, the steel frame


My question is not how, how doesn't matter. How already happened and apparently thats all we seem to dwell on. Why is the question. What was in building 7? Why would whoever destroyed the building risk going through such scrutiny that they surely knew would follow to risk destroying what was inside of it? Whatever it was or whatever the reason it would have had to be, at least in my mind, a damn good reason for doing it. The shock value was already achieved with the larger of the two towers. Destroying 7 was a extreme risk to take.

Mabey the lack of attention at the time, and the lack of attention since towards building 7 is exactly what was supposed to happen.

Good topic.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

There seems to be some poorly researched debunkers trying to confuse you good people.

They will try to tell you that WTC 7 had a 20 story gash and thats why it IMPLODED EXACTLY like a PROFESSIONAL CONTROLLED DEMOTLITIONS.

Here is the Bankers building which suffered way more damage that the controlled demolitioned World Trade Center 7.


It did not collapse.


Yes. 2 different buildings, with completely different construction performed differently...and this is proof of CD to you?

Sorry, not all buildings will react the same way to the same damage.

Seriously, do some research and quit blaming the firefighters.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


beachnut said;

posted on 7-4-2008 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by IvanZana
Here is what the newly rebuilt WTC 7 "Solomon brothers" building looks like,

As you can see how close the other building are and how little damage they suffered.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by IvanZana]


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.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by beachnut]

>> Without any context, I'd say that was a photo of a buildiing under demolition. The white dust coming out is what is called a "pyroclastic flow" -- it even moves up 100s of feet higher than the building. How could a fire and then collapse explode upward? How does a steel building that was admittedly hit in one corner, not topple to the side. It takes a LOT OF WORK and timing of explosive charges to bring buildings down in their own footprint -- because STRAIGHT DOWN is where the building is strongest. A chair with four legs "might" topple if you pull out 1 leg, But it isn't going to fall straight down.

And as to the twin towers -- I'd talked about a fire and then pancake from a plane strike to my wife in 1999 when we were touring the building on vacation. But I'd never imagined that you could have support struts on the floors be so weak as to collapse with the weight of a few floors on them and also at the SAME TIME, be strong enough to pull down the core.

The support struts had sharp angled cuts. Steal would bend or "maybe" snap. You cannot have an angled sharp end on a steel girder unless you cut it or use a shaped charge -- or, maybe this metal thing works differently in this one magical case.

You CANNOT have a pancake collapse on a building like the North and South tower AND have the core pulled down. You cannot have a 10 story chunk of the building disintegrate in mid air while it is toppling over -- which I saw clearly on the video. You can't have a fire hot enough to weaken the support struts of the floor AND still have unmelted windows a few feet away -- call me crazy.

You cannot have a pancake collapse at the speed of gravity because it takes time to transmit the energy to the lower floor. The WTC should have taken at least a minute to collapse this way.

The building was required to go through a multi-billion dollar overhall to remove asbestos. It was acquired for about $127 Million from the Ports Authority, and then got something like $7 Billion in insurance per building -- sorry but my memory is foggy on this. But, because they fell, the owner made at least $6 Billion in profit without having to deal with a huge loss because of the Asbestos. Lucky guy.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
It is clear to me that WTC 7 came down, not through some controlled demolitions -- but because it was overloaded with case files of ENRON, Haliburton, Carlyse Group, and about $17 Billion in a fraud charge against the Bush family on some phony bills that they were involved in -- I can't find the actual case right at the moment, but you should be able to find it on the web. But I was amazed that it wasn't front-page news how much they were going to be personally responsible for,... oh wait, no, since about 2002 I'm not amazed by anything anymore when it concerns our press in this country.

The number of cases against the NeoCons and their pet companies in that building, should have crushed it into dust years ago. We are lucky it lasted this long.

Do a search some time on the cases that were lost in that Building.

By the way, Guiliani was given about $100,000 in campaign donations to locate his Emergency headquarters in that building -- why would someone care that much that he put Emergency response in any particular building?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Boner
 


Thats because the proof was destroyd with the buildings.

Appearently the government's plan is going well. People like us are labled "crazy" and "unpatriotic" and sould be sent to the psyco ward.

This is my last post because of the op's disability to take this thread seriously and because of the stupidity of the other posters.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by shiman]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by havingfun
 


Here is some trivia;

NO Steel structured buildings have EVER fallen from fire -- in the history of mankind, than the 3 that fell at the WTC.

The North Tower had a fire burning for hours that consumed two of the lower floors about two weeks before it opened. Apparently, it was fixed and sprinklers were installed.

The WTC towers were constructed to withstand 3 simultaneous hits by large airplanes because the Empire State building was struck by a large military aircraft just before they broke ground. Maybe this is also when we started putting blinking lights on tall buildings -- that part I'm not sure of.

Why are we still re-hashing this? Maybe because, the military is doubling their expenditures on weapon systems to $1.6 Trillion. Yeah, those numbers are starting to get unreal. The Government Accountability Office gave the 72 new military projects a rating of "0" -- it means they don't think they will work.

Why does Joe Lieberman think we need $385 Billion for nuclear submarines to hunt Al Qaeda? If we could use that money to send everyone in Africa to college, and feed them as well, would we need a submarine to go after people with box cutters in a desert?

Gee, I wonder what the motive would be to get America into another war. We already spend more than all the other militaries in the world COMBINED. I guess, if we double the amount spent, we can withstand a force with 34 Box Cutters.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
i see nothing that proves controlled demolition. the video of it falling has no explosions. ALL DEMOLITIONS HAVE EXPLOSIONS. simple as that. you can talk all you want regarding how it collapsed into itself and not outward (hitting surrounding buildings) but a reason is given by many structural engineers as to how it collapsed inward. BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE EXPLOSIONS, INCLUDING VIDEO OF IT FALLING. fail.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


The picture I provided clearly shows huge amounts of debris being flung right in the direction of the NORTH TOWER. Building 6 sustained greater damage then Building 7 as the Towers fell right ontop of it, but Building 6 had no free fall, or near free fall collapse.

We have a problem here either way.

There is no good reason for there not to be huge damage left on the NORTH TOWER. Also building 6 not completely collapsing.

*IF* you argue for different building types, then that opens another problem. The problem of course would involved the inconsistency between damage left by the JETS as opposed to the LACK OF DAMAGE left by the fall of the TOWER.

Either way, there is inconsistency here.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by talisman]


DID WTC7 HAVE ENOUGH MAJOR DAMAGE TO CAUSE A COLLAPSE OR NOT?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
DID WTC7 HAVE ENOUGH MAJOR DAMAGE TO CAUSE A COLLAPSE OR NOT?


If the answer to that was simple, I'd imagine NIST would have released a report on it by now. Correct?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
There's no doubt that it had enough damage to collapse or else it would still be there. The hard part is determining where that damage was and how it occurred. The final report, if it ever comes out, will surely not be to everyone's satisfaction.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join