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.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 2
59
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88

Originally posted by darkspeed
reply to post by tide88
 


where are these huge holes that you speak of? Can you show us all?

Of course I can. Why else would I mention it. What, you think I work for loosechange or someone. Stateing false info and not backing it up.


"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology"
significant damage to WTC7



Quoting NIST, bo to the shizzle you should be a comedian buddy!

You might aswell start reciting the 9/11 Comission Report, im sure we'd get a good laugh out of that

Merry nuclear winter and a happy new world order to you son!




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkspeed
reply to post by tide88
 


that works! Thanks for the info. do you know if there were other buildings that sustained the same amount if not more damage and remained standing?


Yes, as I am sure you already know. However those building were 1/4 of the height and constructed differently. All you have to have is damage or weakening at the right place for a building to collapse. It happend at WTC7 not at the others. I realize this isnt a very good analogy, but you ever play jenga. Remove the wrong piece and it falls. According to the NIST these pieces were damaged in WTC, hence the collapse.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Make it clear once again, this building wasnt as tall, as old, as poorly constructed, and didnt have a jetliner with a full gas tank crash into it out how many MPH than exploded at impact thus burning and destroyed the already crappy made support beams.

Case closed!

eyes wide shut........



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I'm surprised it didn't melt, considering the Chinese like to put lead in everything.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

some fire that is!




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by phushion
 


OF course. I am sorry. The hundreds if not thousands of people in the NIST are in on it too. Silly me. So now we have the president, VP, staff, cia, firemen, policemen, fbi, NSA,journalists, BBC, Israel, AA, demolition experts, contractors, plus tens of thousands of other people in all different government and civilian positions in on a huge conspiracy and yet they have been able to keep it all quiet. Not one leak. Hell and it was all planned in the first 9 months Bush was in office.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


I'm begining to see the whites of your eyes, your not trying to open them are you?

Dont quote scripture, show me some pictures.

To be totally honnest it would only take a small number of people to produce some miss-information in the necessary "professional" institutes with which the so called "professionals" will digest at one point, then regurgatate (did i spell that right?) later when applied to a relevent study/investigation at a later point. Some refer to this as education and training.

Before you continue supporting the claim that nothing dodgy went on the day of 9/11 which is OT, or more so that a plane didnt hit the building in Beijing - which again is OT from the OP as he never mentioned WTC 1 or 2, please oh please do explain why three buildings can drop to the ground at free fall speed (a speed achieved when no resistance is present to provide an opposing force to the falling mass), then perhaps a paragraph or two on why all three happend to fall on the same day, then if your up to it a few more on why it has never happend before and will never happen again?

Once you've achieved this then perhaps we will look at the effect the planes had on the two buildings that were crashed into and also the effect that the collapse of both WTC 1/2 had on WTC7 and so forth, and even the Pentagon if you want and was the last one Shanksville (from the UK - sorry).

As i understand both NIST and the 9/11CR either ignore the fact that its not possible for a building to collapse free fall unless it is due to the result of a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (theres two key words that should keep you busy for a while) or they support the possibility of buildings collapsing in this manner as a result of a plane crash and MINOR fires or collapsed building debree falling onto it...


Back to topic, its been quite cleary documented after 9/11 and researched before 9/11 that no buildings have collapsed completely to pretty much dust the way either WTC 1/2 or, OR!!!! WTC7 by any amount of fire, no fire could burn at a high enough temperature for a sustained duration to even have much of an effect on the steel of any building of any design unless it was built inside a giant furnase engineered for the sole purpose of melting metal.

Case *cough* closed.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Repeat post - flipping 3g dongle cutting out on me grrrr


[edit on 9/2/2009 by phushion]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I wonder what the anti-truthers will say about this...

Heh, I'm sure the blind believers and TV tuned morons will still believe the official story. It's like a thief that has been caught red handed on tape insisting on his/her innocence.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by KonigKaos
 


No one is talking about WTC 1 or WTC 2. They are talking about WTC 7.

More evidence that 9/11 could possibly be an inside job.

Well I am pretty sure that this building didnt have a 110 story building collapse into it, ripping huge holes into the side of the building and doing unknown damage to the inside.


You do know that NIST even mentioned that "The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires"

Do you know what they said about the "huge holes"?
“while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

If fire was the primary cause of the collapse of WTC 7 and the debris from WTC 1 had little effect then why didn't the building in Beijing collapse when the fires were much worse if the fire was mainly the cause with WTC 7?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
More clear concise evidence that High Rise buildings that are a complete inferno do not collapse ...... so much for the WTC 7 basement fire and pan cake collapse.... you seriously need to be taken to the doctor if you believe the "official story"

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by phushion
 


First off the building didnt collapse at free fall speeds.

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

source

And when you can show me show hard evidence of a coverup, get back to me. The grainy photos, claiming there was thermite present even though there is no proof, saying it was a controlled demo (again no proof), free fall speed, when clearly it isnt. Misrepresentation of facts (watch the first loosechange. The reason the had to make a second was because the had to remove the BS they put in the first one) I will be happy to entertain these rediculous accusations or should I say assumptions. I not sure why I even bother responding to these thread anymore. All they are is repeating the same old arguments over and over, and almost all of them have been disproven. But go a. call me a sheep, tell me to open my eyes. Yeah yeah, I know, I am a disinfo agent.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88

Originally posted by darkspeed
reply to post by tide88
 


where are these huge holes that you speak of? Can you show us all?

Of course I can. Why else would I mention it. What, you think I work for loosechange or someone. Stateing false info and not backing it up.


"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology"
significant damage to WTC7



Cool, can anyone tell me why with apparently one whole corner of the building gone, that when it collapsed it didnt fall that direction?

If I walk up and kick your right leg, and you subsequently fall to the floor, im willing to bet you fell on your right side.

How does this building amazing crimp in the middle and collapse almost freefall, evenly over its foot print rather than crumbling towards its weakest side?

:S life is so confusing

[edit on 9-2-2009 by king9072]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
it didnt collapse because the building wasnt on american soil and bin laden wouldnt dare run a plane into a chinese building



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by danielsil18
 


Read page 67-68. Looks to me that the NIST states that damage done to WTC7 from WTC1 could have been part of the reason for the collapse.

The conditions that led to the collapse of WTC7 arose from fires, perhaps combined with structural damage that followed the impact of debris from WTC1.....

page 67-68
Dont know why I bother even arguing. Show me some real proof and I will gladly rethink what I believe happened. And I am not stating a conspiracy isnt out of the question, I just believe it is highly unlikely and is just speculation on your part. Anyway guess this is getting way OT. My original point is you cannot compare the two different scenarios. We are talking two totally different stuctures built at two totally different times. WTC was built over 38 years ago. Anyone who thinks buildings arent built better today then 38 years ago is delusional.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Edit to add: Even WTC 7. Was this building subject to stresses of two huge structural collapses nearby?

[edit on 2/9/09 by FredT]


It was only one according to this map:

Map

Can I see where did you read that it was two?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


read the above link (page 67-68). It is a pretty simple explanation. Whether it is true or not I dont know. However it makes sense to me.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by king9072
 


read the above link (page 67-68). It is a pretty simple explanation. Whether it is true or not I dont know. However it makes sense to me.


It just seems odd to me you know.

Wtc6:
www.stagedterror.com...

In between WTC1 and 7, it takes huge damage relative to its size and yet outter walls and some structure remain standing.

It is soooo rare to have a complete and utter building failure that puts it into its foot print, if one side of the building is damaged, its damaged, maybe THAT side collapses, but not the entire building.

Huh?
911research.wtc7.net...

That damage looks 100 times worse in proportion to its size, than the "carved out" corner of the wtc 7.

:S life is so hard

[edit on 9-2-2009 by king9072]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


In the plethra of video footage available its quite clear to see that rather large steel beams are flying in all directions including upwards during the collapse of both the towers at quite frightening speeds, something *cough* thermite *cough* must have provided the energy for these beams to be propelled from the structure in this manner

Even taking the quote provided from presumably your most favorite 9/11 debunkers website into consideration i still feel the buildings either dropped free fall or close enough to it. Something inside both the buildings provided enough energy to create angled cuts in the steel beams (of which there is evidence of these cuts, aswell as bent and distorted beams) and then disperse the beams in just about all directions aswell as turning the majority of the buildings into nothing but dust (including WTC7).

Does as dash of the 1st responding firefighters testamoney that they heard explosions (thats plurar not singular) not help you spare a second thought for the possiblity of a false flag terror attack or perhaps a 'let's turn a blind eye to this' situation which was the key reason for the USA and UK amongst others to go rape, pillage, and murder (slight exaduration there) in the middle east?

By the way id say your more of a debunker nut than a dissinfo agent, time for a new thread darling!



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


I have no idea. Unfortunalty those buildings were torn down so we will never know. To me it looks as though wtc7 would collapse easier then wtc6. The base of wtc6 looks more sound to me and is also much wider the wtc7. Simple physics would state that a taller thinner building would collapse much easier than a wider shorter building.
wtcwtc7 before 911



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join