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 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 22
7
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Perhaps someday, you will win a Pulitzer or Nobel Peace Prize with your incredible knowledge of physics, engineering, mathematics, and controlled demolition. You are obviously hiding it somewhere, becasue we have never witnessed it here.




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
When are you debunkers going to wow us? You start a thread with an outrageous title which is not supported by the video evidence you posted. You claim that some damage from falling debris and fire brought down WTC7 and yet WTC 5 and 6 nearly destroyed from the towers falling on top of them, and stood only to be demoed later.
You claim that building 7 had some unique structure or sub structure, which I don't doubt, but when are you going to prove why that structure allowed the collapse, but 5 and 6's structures allowed them to still be standing?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You are obviously hiding it somewhere, becasue we have never witnessed it here.


The same can be said about the people who still believe the official story (with no actual evidence to support it)



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


LOL it's just basic physics bud, it's all you need to know...

Maybe you need this...

www.wiley.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Massive fires dont cause a steel framed building to collapse the way WTC7 collapsed.

In fact, they dont collapse at all. Thats why they make them steel-framed.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Massive fires dont cause a steel framed building to collapse the way WTC7 collapsed.

In fact, they dont collapse at all. Thats why they make them steel-framed.


Funny how none of the believers can get this through there closed minds.

I have shown several steel building that has longer lasting fires and worse structural damage then any of the WTC buildings and did not collapse.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Massive fires dont cause a steel framed building to collapse the way WTC7 collapsed.

In fact, they dont collapse at all. Thats why they make them steel-framed.


No, they're made from steel because there's a limit to how tall a brick/stone building can be made and still have rentable space.

They CAN be made tall, sure. But the walls at the base would have to be so thick in order to hold up the building that it becomes pointless.

It's all about economics, not fire safety.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Some videos of WTC 7 I hadn't seen before.

Putting claims of "MASSIVE totally involving" fires into perspective (South & West sides)

Google Video Link



Showing penthouse collapse a few seconds before "global collapse ensues"

Google Video Link



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
is it just me, or do the ANTI-truthers complete lack of logic and reason make you want to believe more and more in the truth movement? there is some really poor over compensation for lack of intellect or viable arguement on the part of these postings proclaiming the "government never lies" crap



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


ok throat yogurt what if you are right? does it not bother you at all that the physics and engineering of these building to withstand far more devastation without failure, well failed. if the official story is true, then arent you scared of every bridge and building that was built to stand up to a certain degree of abuse? i mean, according to you, the builders lied about what these building should do. engineers were way off on how they would hold up. and the government standards that make sure buildings are not built so tall yet so easily demolished apparently do not exsist. stuff is going to start falling down all over the place now.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


Re22666;

Your question is somewhat of a strawman. Buildings don't collapse from nothing. (typically) IF a building is on fire... I am NOT staying in it. That's it.

The importance of the NIST studies are very important to future building constructions. Look at the new world trade center 7. Look at how much is different. The amount of concrete vs. steel. The width of the stairwells, etc.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Funny how none of the believers can get this through there closed minds.

I have shown several steel building that has longer lasting fires and worse structural damage then any of the WTC buildings and did not collapse.


You have?

Can you please post a link to that post.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


"Your question is somewhat of a strawman. Buildings don't collapse from nothing. (typically) IF a building is on fire... I am NOT staying in it. That's it.

The importance of the NIST studies are very important to future building constructions. Look at the new world trade center 7. Look at how much is different. The amount of concrete vs. steel. The width of the stairwells, etc. "

you do realize, throat yogurt, that putting lots of words down without really saying anything substantive may convince your friends at the club how smart you are but i guess i need you to actually say something. you completely miss the points you respond to or your responses are way off but you really have made no valid point of any kind yet? are you telling me that they lied about those building when they were built? they were guaranteed to stand up to far more than what took them down. my point is, if that is all the explanation you need, doesnt it make you worry about the other structures that you rely on every day that our gubment has told us are safe? how can we ever know again. apparently buildings can fall down much easier than the architects are willing to admit they should. that should worry you, not make you babble random stuff back at me.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


Appropriate name there. Your own photo's show that WTC did not, I repeat, did not, fall into it's own footprint. In fact it looks like it took the path of least resistance as your side likes to say. It looks as if the building "slid" off of the main core and piled up on the streets surrounding WTC 7. Pretty sloppy "controlled demolition" if you ask me.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by re22666


you do realize, throat yogurt, that putting lots of words down without really saying anything substantive may convince your friends at the club how smart you are but i guess i need you to actually say something. you completely miss the points you respond to or your responses are way off but you really have made no valid point of any kind yet? are you telling me that they lied about those building when they were built? they were guaranteed to stand up to far more than what took them down. my point is, if that is all the explanation you need, doesnt it make you worry about the other structures that you rely on every day that our gubment has told us are safe? how can we ever know again. apparently buildings can fall down much easier than the architects are willing to admit they should. that should worry you, not make you babble random stuff back at me.


Well, sir you are wrong in your statement. The buildings were not designed to withstand a plane INTENTIONALLY flown into it. For you to suggest otherwise is not an accurate statement.

I do not worry about other buildings that are not on fire. I work in a 39 story building everyday. I am very confident in its integrity. If it were on fire, I would evacuate. If it were hit by a plane. I would evacuate if at all possible.

We also have to look at the safety of our first responders. How safe will they be? NIST was looking into that as well I believe.

Do you think a building can be made "terrorist proof?" Before you answer this, think of it financially. IS it possible?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by re22666


you do realize, throat yogurt, that putting lots of words down without really saying anything substantive may convince your friends at the club how smart you are but i guess i need you to actually say something. you completely miss the points you respond to or your responses are way off but you really have made no valid point of any kind yet? are you telling me that they lied about those building when they were built? they were guaranteed to stand up to far more than what took them down. my point is, if that is all the explanation you need, doesnt it make you worry about the other structures that you rely on every day that our gubment has told us are safe? how can we ever know again. apparently buildings can fall down much easier than the architects are willing to admit they should. that should worry you, not make you babble random stuff back at me.


Well, sir you are wrong in your statement. The buildings were not designed to withstand a plane INTENTIONALLY flown into it. For you to suggest otherwise is not an accurate statement.

I do not worry about other buildings that are not on fire. I work in a 39 story building everyday. I am very confident in its integrity. If it were on fire, I would evacuate. If it were hit by a plane. I would evacuate if at all possible.

We also have to look at the safety of our first responders. How safe will they be? NIST was looking into that as well I believe.

Do you think a building can be made "terrorist proof?" Before you answer this, think of it financially. IS it possible?



the buildngs WERE designed and built to withstand the impact of a fullsized jetliner. that is a fact. WT7 wasnt hit by one anyway, so how does claiming they shouldnt stand up to planes anyway back up why 7 fell? You are talking in circles. and "terrorist proof?" can you make anything deathproof? my car, no matter how well constructed will never prevent me from having a stroke in it. What would terrorist proof mean? whatever proofing i come up with, i am sure we can hypothesize a terrorist attack that could undo that. i am not dealing in hypotheticals. I am talking about a building that was not hit by a plane, burned for a while in asymetrical patterns, then fell completely from the bottom up into its footprint. if you want to circumnavigate the facts with wordplay, i suggest you get scrabble. i wont argue with someone who says nothing with as many words as possible.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by re22666


you do realize, throat yogurt, that putting lots of words down without really saying anything substantive may convince your friends at the club how smart you are but i guess i need you to actually say something. you completely miss the points you respond to or your responses are way off but you really have made no valid point of any kind yet? are you telling me that they lied about those building when they were built? they were guaranteed to stand up to far more than what took them down. my point is, if that is all the explanation you need, doesnt it make you worry about the other structures that you rely on every day that our gubment has told us are safe? how can we ever know again. apparently buildings can fall down much easier than the architects are willing to admit they should. that should worry you, not make you babble random stuff back at me.


Well, sir you are wrong in your statement. The buildings were not designed to withstand a plane INTENTIONALLY flown into it. For you to suggest otherwise is not an accurate statement.

I do not worry about other buildings that are not on fire. I work in a 39 story building everyday. I am very confident in its integrity. If it were on fire, I would evacuate. If it were hit by a plane. I would evacuate if at all possible.

We also have to look at the safety of our first responders. How safe will they be? NIST was looking into that as well I believe.

Do you think a building can be made "terrorist proof?" Before you answer this, think of it financially. IS it possible?



you missed my point anyway. you work in a 39 story building? how do you know the wind wont knock it down? or a bird landing on the roof? all im saying is that based on your premise, standards and regulations are apparently something people can just say exsist and noone has to abide by them and noone checks to see that they did. so every structure in the US might really be papier mache, how would we know? it might all be one good rainy day away from coming down right?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
You need to research a little better sir. 1&2 were designed to withstand a plane to hit it lost in the fog. NOT from terrorists using planes as missiles flying them at top speeds.

WTC-7 was not designed to withstand the debris from a 110 story skyscraper raining burning debris on top of it...then left to burn for several hours.

The building I work in has been through 3 hurricanes, many blizzards, any i would guess at least 50 thunderstorms with hurricane force winds.

Your arguments are flawed and without proper research.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You need to research a little better sir. 1&2 were designed to withstand a plane to hit it lost in the fog. NOT from terrorists using planes as missiles flying them at top speeds.

WTC-7 was not designed to withstand the debris from a 110 story skyscraper raining burning debris on top of it...then left to burn for several hours.

The building I work in has been through 3 hurricanes, many blizzards, any i would guess at least 50 thunderstorms with hurricane force winds.

Your arguments are flawed and without proper research.

so you are saying the buildings were designed to withstand impact based on the intentions of the controller? lost or terrorist makes the difference? and there is no evidence of the destruction of caused by 110 story building raining debris on top of it and it was supposed to still be standing if left to burn for hours or days. as well as the many bulidings that withstood much greater damage when the twin towers collapsed, yet those buildings were destroyed to great degree, did NOT FALL DOWN COMPLETELY. smaller, weaker buildings than 7 took far greater hits and stood. i dont know what you are basing your facts on, sir. but you really havent said anything thats backed up by either the official reports or any recognized analysis since. you do sound as though you watch FOX news loyaly though. good for you. i prefer to be lied to be smarter folks than that at least.





posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by re22666


so you are saying the buildings were designed to withstand impact based on the intentions of the controller? lost or terrorist makes the difference?


Yes I am. Please look into the K.E. (kinetic energy) between the plane lost in fog and a plane traveling at 400+ MPH. That make a HUGE difference.




and there is no evidence of the destruction of caused by 110 story building raining debris on top of it and it was supposed to still be standing if left to burn for hours or days. as well as the many bulidings that withstood much greater damage when the twin towers collapsed, yet those buildings were destroyed to great degree, did NOT FALL DOWN COMPLETELY. smaller, weaker buildings than 7 took far greater hits and stood. i dont know what you are basing your facts on, sir. but you really havent said anything thats backed up by either the official reports or any recognized analysis since. you do sound as though you watch FOX news loyaly though. good for you. i prefer to be lied to be smarter folks than that at least.


I suggest you go to page one of this thread and look at the link I provide with a published paper regarding the collapse of WTC-7. I will bet you wont, because it goes against your CT's.

You don't know what facts I am basing my posts on? Interesting. They are easily found anywhere on the internet.

Everything I have stated is backed up. Let me know what you're confused about and I will point you to the appropriate source.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join