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.

 

A strong foundation for any 9/11 argument is Building 7.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
What always boggles my mind is the whole reason why I believe that there are conspiracies surrounding 9/11 and that is Building 7.


I say this with the utmost respect for those who died on 9/11/2001 and their loved ones left behind.

I won`t give my personal story here, but I have an idea, I haven`t heard suggested yet, and it has to do with the collapse of Building 7. Building 7 is the strong foundation I have as my argument as to why I believe that a deception was made and that conspiracies do in fact revolve around 9/11.

I lived in one of the boroughs of NYC during 9/11 and on a trip to Manhattan today with a neighbor we did discuss some things such as the NWO and 9/11 and some other interesting subjects to say the least. I feel necessary to mention that I did not expect such conversation with my neighbor who is 30 years my senior, I`m 30ish. So interesting to know that she and others some of us wouldn`t even expect, feel and know that the wool is now being pulled over our eyes faster then ever.

Sorry to veer off topic.
Building 7.
Why did it come down?
Official explanation: fires and structural damage due to falling towers.
Facts we know:
Each tower was in fact attacked with an aircraft full of fuel.
Large fires engulfed many of the floors in the impact zones.
Countless explosions caught on videos.
Manintenance engineer working in the subbasement of first tower that was attacked was in sub basement when large explosion rocked the lower levels enough to maim a coworker and he attests that he is certain it was before the plane hit. Theres videos on YouTube, sorry, I`m not good with links, most have seen that guy anyway.
What else?
Oh, the towers each fell at free fall speed further debunking the pancake theory. You cant argue with science.
Science proves you cant make lava out of World Trade Center steel and jet fuel and fire.

Ok, my point again.
Building 7.
It was definitely brought down we all must at least accept that.
As to why we still cannot be all certain.

Facts: A BBC reporter reported Building 7 collapsed some 20 or 30 minutes before it did. You can actually see the building still standing behind her as she reports this. It is through the window during a live shot.
Puzzling?
I`d say so.

Again sorry for no links but the videos are out there just type 9/11 and see the results on YouTube or Googlevideo.

A fire commander was heard stating we`re gonna bring it down and lots of other funny coinkydinks, ya say?


I know in my heart there is mass deception going on. I can see that it is so much larger then most would ever dare to believe. Its not easy and it is scary but if we do one thing its at least be there for each other and always stick together. As a people no matter your age, your gender, your skin color, your religion, your sexual orientation, place of birth, shoe size or favorite food, if you stand for whats right, good will always overcome evil.

Finally, the idea I have that I have not heard discussed.
I believe 9/11 was part of something bigger and was orchestrated.
I believe part of the plan which was conceived with such intricate details to everything, was that the top of the tower was to crash into Building 7 as a justification for its demolition or collapse and when this part of the plan failed to unfold, they just stayed the course and made sure that building came down anyway because, believe me, there has to be very serious reasons as to why Building 7 had to go..




[edit on 5/12/2009 by csulli456]

[edit on 5/12/2009 by csulli456]




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
May I also add that it has also been noted that there was lava underneath the rubble of all three collapsed buildings.

Lava meaning melted steel and was there for some period of time enough that many of the workers at Ground Zero, some of which I personally know can attest to it being there.



[edit on 5/12/2009 by csulli456]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by csulli456
 


And what I mean is, no plane hit Building 7 so why was there lava there.
They explained off the lava underneath the towers due to World Trade Center steel, jet fuel and fire.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by csulli456
Facts: A BBC reporter reported Building 7 collapsed some 20 or 30 minutes before it did. You can actually see the building still standing behind her as she reports this. It is through the window during a live shot.


Here's that video:
www.youtube.com...

Here's another video from CNN:
www.youtube.com...

The reason I'm showing them both is because in the CNN video they say "We are getting information now....either has collapsed or is collapsing".

It seems to me that the BBC got the same report that CNN did, and they simply misread it. The report was probably talking about the possibilty of collapse. Remember, it was a hectic day. We shouldn't expect news reports from that day to be flawless.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic
 


Sorry, but I don`t want you to derail my thread here please.

I`m not here to argue that video.

I`m here for all those who are past that, we know we will never have everyone totally, but like I said at least keep goodness in your heart.

This thread is meant to deal witht the idea that the top of the tower was planned to fall onto Building 7.

That is my belief as I stated there is amazing attention to so many intricate details of that day.
I`m not here to get into all the other conspiracies involved.
Those who are with me know what I`m talking about.

Forget about the fact that Airforce was conducting military training exercises on the morning of 9/11, exercises dealing with hijacked aircraft crashing into targets.

Forget about the facts about the size of the whole in the Pentagon and the missing plane.

Forget about the size of the hole in the ground in PA and the missing plane.

I want to talk about the fact that the top of the tower was supposed to fall into Building 7 because that building was scheduled to go, it was all part of the plan that day.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by csulli456
Sorry, but I don`t want you to derail my thread here please.

I`m not here to argue that video.


It's one of the facts you present. It's part of your argument. Therefore, it's debatable in this thread.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic
 


Ok, sure, but not by me.

Wanna talk about your ideas about how the top of the tower was orchestrated with such intricate detail that it was planned to take out Building 7?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by csulli456
Wanna talk about your ideas about how the top of the tower was orchestrated with such intricate detail that it was planned to take out Building 7?


Shouldn't I be the one asking you that question?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by csulli456
 


I was being serious. I felt that I should be the one asking you that question because I haven't heard you explain why you feel that the top of the tower was planned to take out building 7. I'm just asking for evidence.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic
 


The towers didn't take down WTC7. WTC7 wasn't even close to being damaged enough to remotely collapse:

Here's the south side of WTC7:


That image is a screen-shot from the following video:
video.google.ca...

Notice that most of the damage is cosmetic and that there is no moderate to severe damage to remotely cause WTC7 to collapse.

Here's the roof:


Here's the north side:


Now let's take a look at some real severe damage to buildings that did NOT collapse:

WTC4:


WTC5:


WTC6:



To sum things up, WTC7 sustained minor damage, mostly cosmetic and it "collapsed", but WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6 sustained heavy to severe damage and still stood? Nuff said.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
WTC7 wasn't even close to being damaged enough to remotely collapse


Are these firefighters lying?


Captain Chris Boyle...
on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Source

Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler - Ladder Company 40:

Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

Source

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro:

The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

Source


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden...
also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Source




Originally posted by _BoneZ_
WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6 sustained heavy to severe damage and still stood?


I'm no expert in physics and architecture, but those were smaller buildings. They didn't have the weight factor going against them as much as building 7 did.

edit - fixed quotes

[edit on 5/13/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic
 


People tend to over-exaggerate alot, but the picture and video speak for themselves. I'll believe what I can see with my own eyes over anybody elses words.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
the picture and video speak for themselves. I'll believe what I can see with my own eyes over anybody elses words.


But your eyes haven't seen the damage on the lower south side of the building. Those firefighters have, so their eyes are all we have.

Here's some more quotes from firefighters and other officials that were there:


The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
.......
Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse - Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander
........
The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman
.......
Everything came crashing through the front of number 7 - EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
.......
I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.
- Deputy–Chief Nick Visconti


There's more in the source.

Also, when looking at this picture, it's hard to imagine that building 7 wasn't damaged by debris:




Originally posted by _BoneZ_
People tend to over-exaggerate alot

True. Like I said earlier, it was a hectic day. I'm not even sure how sure the first firefighter I quoted was about the hole being 20 stories tall. He probably didn't stop to count the floors, but instead probably just made a quick estimate. It's too hard to tell from the first photo you posted with all the smoke, and that seems to be the best picture available of the south side.

That being said, it's pretty obvious that he and the other officials that were there saw some pretty extensive damage to building 7.

(Of course, some will say that they are in on the conspiracy.)



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Like I said earlier, it was a hectic day. I'm not even sure how sure the first firefighter I quoted was about the hole being 20 stories tall. He probably didn't stop to count the floors, but instead probably just made a quick estimate.


The damage on the SW corner of the building spanned about 18 or 20 stories, but it was still superficial damage.




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Lets not forget who had offices in there and what that building had .....

1.IRS

2.DOD

3.CIA

4. Secret Service

5. SEC ( economic watchdog for wall street)

6. Mayor's Bunker command center

7. And all the documents to the Enron case

how convienent wouldn't you say.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yes, that damage on the SW corner isn't too bad. In fact, that picture makes it look more damaged than it was because the smoke is covering up the corner, making it look like more of it is missing.

However, doesn't seeing that damaged corner make you wonder how damaged the lower part of the south side was? If you look back at the quotes I posted above, the firefighters there seemed sure that the building was going to collapse due to how bad the damage was.

I'm thinking about emailing various officials in New York to ask them if they have any photos at all of the lower south side. I'm sure they exist, they just don't seem to be on the internet. I want to ask first if that's already been done to death, because if it has been, I don't want to bother them. Anybody know if that's been done?

reply to post by Grayelf2009
 



Originally posted by Grayelf2009
Lets not forget who had offices in there and what that building had .....
how convienent wouldn't you say.


I'm sure those organizations have offices all over the place.

It also seems to me that if there were anything incriminating in that building, it would be way more convenient to remove that material instead of blowing up the building.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
However, doesn't seeing that damaged corner make you wonder how damaged the lower part of the south side was?


No, it doesn't. I've seen photos of the South face, and you can't see how much damage is there (there is smoke around the base) but you can definitely see how much isn't there. At any rate, NIST even concluded that damage from WTC1 was not a dominant factor in WTC7's collapse, but the fire was. So even the "official" people are saying, the damage WTC1 inflicted was not significant.



Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
I'm no expert in physics and architecture, but those were smaller buildings. They didn't have the weight factor going against them as much as building 7 did.


You should have stopped after saying you were no expert in physics or architecture.. How much a building weighs has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, because every extra pound that has to be carried is carried by that much extra steel. There are ratios in structural engineering that have to do with this (design factory, safety factor, etc.), but just suffice it to say that they don't use the same size columns to make every single building irregardless of its size.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I've seen photos of the South face, and you can't see how much damage is there (there is smoke around the base) but you can definitely see how much isn't there. At any rate, NIST even concluded that damage from WTC1 was not a dominant factor in WTC7's collapse, but the fire was. So even the "official" people are saying, the damage WTC1 inflicted was not significant.


for the record, I'm not sure I can fully trust NIST's report either. I just don't think that they had all the details, and it was up to them to come up with an explanation, so they just dished out what they could.

I'd also love to see these photos you speak of.


Originally posted by bsbray11
You should have stopped after saying you were no expert in physics or architecture.. How much a building weighs has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, because every extra pound that has to be carried is carried by that much extra steel.


How good is that steel frame when chunks of it are taken out from the bottom? After that, I'm sure the weight factor is of huge importance.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
In my opinion, I think it is a far stretch to say TPTB planned to have the top of the tower hit WTC-7.

That would be too difficult to plan. However I also do not believe the government planned 9/11. I am one who believes the government did not plan 9/11, but took advantage of the events that happened.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join