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.

 

Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Other than initiating the fires in wtc7, the damage from the debris from wtc1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of wtc7.
NSTAR 1A, pxxxiii


One of the main tools used by so called debunkers to explain the 'legit' collapse of wtc7 (that damage from wtc1 was a major factor in the collapse of wtc7). Basically this leaves us no rational explanation to the collapse of wt7 presented by the current (final?) investigation.

So debunkers debunk if you dare or can. I want you to go on record and say that you believe fires caused the collapse if thats what you really believe. I want to know on a personal level if anyone believes that concusion.

Also, if you go on record and say you think that the NIST final report is correct, please state if you also thought the preliminary reports were correct, and why. Thanks, and I look forward to having zero debunkers as usual.




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I have a hard time not believing the experts who spent years studying the collapse of wtc7.


[edit on 26-6-2009 by edgar34]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Other than initiating the fires in wtc7, the damage from the debris from wtc1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of wtc7.
NSTAR 1A, pxxxiii
. Thanks, and I look forward to having zero debunkers as usual.


You got some splainin to do.

Why would they even bother with wtc7? Because of some records of some alphabet agency? They could just remove the records. That would be a lot simpler than planting tons of exposives.
There is no logical reason that I have heard for taking wtc7 down after two of the worlds most famous buildings have collapsed.

And why did they wait until the wtc 1 ,2 were hit by planes? Why not just use the alleged exposives without the planes. Why wait until most of the people got out? If they used exposives, why bother with putting them in the second tower. Why not just topple the first tower into the second. That would be pretty dramatic and eliminate the need for explosives in the second building or even the third,wtc7 if they toppled building 2 into it. Everybody says you have that kind of control with explosives.

Were explosives used in the Pentagram? Where were the explosives for the 4 th planes target?

As Condi unbelievably said,"How could anyone know they would fly planes into buildings."



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by jprophet420

Other than initiating the fires in wtc7, the damage from the debris from wtc1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of wtc7.
NSTAR 1A, pxxxiii
. Thanks, and I look forward to having zero debunkers as usual.


You got some splainin to do.

Why would they even bother with wtc7? Because of some records of some alphabet agency? They could just remove the records. That would be a lot simpler than planting tons of exposives.
There is no logical reason that I have heard for taking wtc7 down after two of the worlds most famous buildings have collapsed.

And why did they wait until the wtc 1 ,2 were hit by planes? Why not just use the alleged exposives without the planes. Why wait until most of the people got out? If they used exposives, why bother with putting them in the second tower. Why not just topple the first tower into the second. That would be pretty dramatic and eliminate the need for explosives in the second building or even the third,wtc7 if they toppled building 2 into it. Everybody says you have that kind of control with explosives.

Were explosives used in the Pentagram? Where were the explosives for the 4 th planes target?

As Condi unbelievably said,"How could anyone know they would fly planes into buildings."




I think truthers want to believe any nonsense they read on the internet.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 

Hi, jprophet420 and all waked up persons !

Here is my "point of view" and logics on the subject:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Blue skies.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN
reply to post by jprophet420
 

Hi, jprophet420 and all waked up persons !

Here is my "point of view" and logics on the subject:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Blue skies.



Dont be conned by the liars in the "truth" movement.

A film is coming out this Septemer exposing the lies of Alex Jones.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   



[edit on 26-6-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by edgar34
I have a hard time not believing the experts who spent years studying the collapse of wtc7.


[edit on 26-6-2009 by edgar34]

The didn't conclude how the towers came down, only that it was possible for fire to have initiated a collapse.

It sounds to me like you didn't read their work, in which case it doesen't matter what you believe as your belief is based on conjecture.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
The fires were massive, and the building remained standing for several hours before it collapsed.

I don't see what's so surprising here.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desucher
The fires were massive, and the building remained standing for several hours before it collapsed.

I don't see what's so surprising here.


Whats surprising here is there are building codes in the good 'ol U S of A and it defies them on an unprecidented level, and that it has never happened in history. If you believe that fires alone brought down wtc7 then please give me something better than "the fires were massive, and the building remained standing for several hours". There have been many fires that were more intense (massive as you so jr highishly put it) and burned longer and never brought a building down into symetrical global collapse, or any collapse for that matter.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by Desucher
The fires were massive, and the building remained standing for several hours before it collapsed.

I don't see what's so surprising here.


Whats surprising here is there are building codes in the good 'ol U S of A and it defies them on an unprecidented level, and that it has never happened in history. If you believe that fires alone brought down wtc7 then please give me something better than "the fires were massive, and the building remained standing for several hours". There have been many fires that were more intense (massive as you so jr highishly put it) and burned longer and never brought a building down into symetrical global collapse, or any collapse for that matter.


A few things

1. The collapse was not symmetrical.

2. An 110-story buidling had just collapsed a block away.

3. Please don't be so condescending, if you want to be taken seriously.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


We may never know the motive behind destroying wtc7, but the evidence just isn't there to suggest that it was the direct or indirect result of the planes flying into the buildings.

As for who could have known they were going to fly planes into buildings, I believe the official story in as far as Muslim terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings; But I also believe that the U.S. Government knew it was going to happen and took full advantage of the situation.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Desucher
 



I don't see what's so surprising here
no commercial building has ever fallen down from a fire in all of the history of buildings and none have since and none ever will. you don't see any
thing surprising w/ 3 falling on the same day. pull your head out!

dont just say its a lie either. back it up!

[edit on 26-6-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Desucher
 



I don't see what's so surprising here
no commercial building has ever fallen down from a fire in all of the history of buildings and none have since and none ever will.


That is a blatant lie.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Desucher]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Desucher
 



That is a blatant lie
saying its lie shows just how green you are on the subject.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
A few things

1. The collapse was not symmetrical.
It was not 100% symmetrical by definition of the word, in terms of controled demolition it was more symmetrical than most.

2. An 110-story buidling had just collapsed a block away.
I just cited my source, which is the NIST, who said that didn't have anything to do with it. I specifically said in the OP...


"Other than initiating the fires in wtc7, the damage from the debris from wtc1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of wtc7.
NSTAR 1A, pxxxiii


3. Please don't be so condescending, if you want to be taken seriously.
I apologize. However I'm not worried in the slightest about being taken seriously. Weather I use cynicism or tactfulness to present them, the facts remain facts. I only want people to take the facts seriously.


[edit on 26-6-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desucher

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Desucher
 



I don't see what's so surprising here
no commercial building has ever fallen down from a fire in all of the history of buildings and none have since and none ever will.


That is a blatant lie.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Desucher]


Its not a blatant lie at all. The original statement pushed by the 'truth movement' was that "No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire." That was slightly incorrect as there was one building in china that was a warehouse/storage shed that collapsed due to fire once. It was a temporary structure. The statement was then revised to "No steel framed high rise structure has ever collapsed due to fire prior to wtc7, and none since." That statement is 100% true and verifiable.

So while he was semantically incorrect, he was much closer to the truth of the matter than you.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


More to the point who cares honestly if they wanted to demolish the building all they would have done is waited for the fires to burn out decare it unsafe then demolish the building. They would need to go through all this subterfuge. If you honestly believe they blew up the building they still could have done this legally days weeks months later by claiming the building was damaged and declaring it a public health risk!

So honestly why would they bother to fake it your theory doesnt make sense.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by jprophet420
 


More to the point who cares honestly if they wanted to demolish the building all they would have done is waited for the fires to burn out decare it unsafe then demolish the building. They would need to go through all this subterfuge. If you honestly believe they blew up the building they still could have done this legally days weeks months later by claiming the building was damaged and declaring it a public health risk!

So honestly why would they bother to fake it your theory doesnt make sense.


What theory have I presented? I asked people to either present evidence or go on record supporting the NIST theory. The theory that fires alone initiated a global failure collapse in wtc7.

I agree that that theory, the only one I have presented (and is NOT mine) in this thread , is utter hoggwash.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by edgar34
I have a hard time not believing the experts who spent years studying the collapse of wtc7.


Who spent years ...STUDYING?...more like 'THINKING' of a way that, FIRE alone could have done it...and they FAILED



BTW...the WTC7 report is a HYPOTHESIS....
a 'hypothesis' that has NO supporting facts...

NO steel was examined or even saved...ALL material destroyed

NO evidence of an 'INFERNO' that WOULD be needed to heat ALL the vertical support. EVENLY, to get the result of EVEN DECENT OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, that WE SEE in EVERY video of 7 collapsing.....ALL video and picture evidence show ONLY spot fire, NEVER on more than 2 floors, and NEVER covering an ENTIRE floor....

They rely on HEARSAY for the amount of fire for their HYPOTHESIS.....and they IGNORE hearsay, about EXPLOSIONS and BOMBS going off..

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"


There are NO pics of ANY FIRE in the NIST WTC7 report to support their HYPOTHESIS

NO mention of free fall ACCELERATION in their peer-reviewed draft from 8-08

Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST was confronted at a NIST Q&A BEFORE the final report came out...as to WHY, NO mention of free fall ACCELERATION in the peer reviewed draft, when it is so easily measured by the facade of the building...here is the vid of him stumbling for an answer.

and he also says that..."free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

and here is what NIST was forced to put in the final report...

[NICSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0 s.

when this occurs, the kink forms and the ENTIRE building is EVENLY falling

WE SEE IT happening...falling as fast as an object falls...THROUGH THE AIR
(actually, what they measured, should ONLY occur in a vacuum...with NO resistance...when a feather falls as fast as a marble...THAT is what falling at a rate equivalent to the acceleration of gravity is).

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?

as soon as the kink is formed, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.

how do you get,'EVERY' column to act the same way, at the same time, unless they are under the 'SAME' conditions, and acted on by the 'SAME' force???

At 4.0s of the collapse, the 'ENTIRE' building is falling faster than 80 ft.a second...'ONLY' possible by removing 'ALL' resistance...nothing in the way

just as Shyam Sunder says..."free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join