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.

 

Botched Building Demolition Reinforces WTC 7 Lie...

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

The WTC7 collapse, however, the entire east Penthouse drops below the visible roofline 6-7 seconds prior to the global collapse, during which you can see the rest of the Penthouse structure drop before the rest of the building does.


That should be your red flag! If the penthouse fell first, why didn't the
rest of the building follow at the exact same time?

You do know the floors and steel beams were connected to the ones
holding up the penthouse correct?

So..if those fell down, why didn't the weight of the penthouse pull the
other columns in immediately?



A) 9/11 truthers hand wave the structural damage to WTC7 and the fires on many floors as irrelevant.


Structural damage is asymmetrical. Building should have tipped to one
side. SEE VIDEOS ABOVE. ALSO SEE NIST REPORT.

Fires? A few floors and weak at best. How did the fires damage all of the
core columns equally in WTC7?


B) no detonations, in my opinion, are visible in the middle and upper structure leaving us to believe that they must have been placed in the lower portion of the building if a controlled demolition did indeed take place.


Opinion? There is visual evidence of blasts going off throughout the building.


Wouldn't the occurance of a controlled demolition of the WTC7 be more likely to produce the result shown in the three buildings above?
And if not, why not?


If it was a failure perhaps.

Isn't it strange a side by side comparison of controlled demo looks exactly
like WTC7 in hundreds of other videos I can link for you?

WHAT ARE THE ODDS HERE DISCO? Do you believe in miracles?



[edit on 5-8-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 





Additionally, as previously mentioned, there were only sparse fires across only a few floors out of 50 (fifty). This is according to the official story.


Sparse fires???



What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.



If you look here can see tremendous volume smoke pushing out of
numerous floors on south side of building

www.911myths.com...


Of course the truthers always lie - showing side of building away from impact where most of the fires were.....



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


no...THIS is showing how buildings behave

a redundant block of overlapping applications to form a single STRONG unit

there is even a vid in the op that shows 'NO FLASHES'...and then the ENTIRE building falls....where have I seen that before.....wait...don't tell me



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by king9072
 





Additionally, as previously mentioned, there were only sparse fires across only a few floors out of 50 (fifty). This is according to the official story.


Sparse fires???


please prove otherwise

NO pics, NO video, NO steel to look at in order to FORM the HYPOTHESIS



What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.



and should have ended, because a NATURAL progressive gravitational collapse will NOT spread horizontally and IS ALWAYS DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause



If you look here can see tremendous volume smoke pushing out of
numerous floors on south side of building

www.911myths.com...


Of course the truthers always lie - showing side of building away from impact where most of the fires were.....


The VERY FIRST SHOT, is what's known as a 'chimney effect where the smoke from the ENTIRE area, gets sucked around the building

EVERYTHING else is ALL the SAME shots, with DIFFERENT angles, and LATER video footage shows THOSE areas when the flames and smoke are gone.

It always seemed funny that there is NO pictures or video shots of fire in the NIST WTC7 HYPOTHESIS



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by discombobulator
 


The use of the term "structural damage" when referring to what WTC 7 experiences, is wrong. There was only superficial damage to the facade on one side. This is from the official version of events.

Additionally, as previously mentioned, there were only sparse fires across only a few floors out of 50 (fifty). This is according to the official story.

NIST reported that there were fires on 10 of the 50 floors. In addition, the fires were described as:

5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors;
6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor;
7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures;
9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.
source

Now that's the official version of events, but you told me it was something different. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen a truther misrepresent "the official story". Craig Ranke does it all the time.

What do you think "passed the point of flashover" means, and how does this compare to your description of "sparse" is?

Now what I would like to hear is your version of events. Clearly you don't accept that the building could have fallen down in the manner described, so perhaps you could be so kind as to point out precisely how it did come down. The mechanism and it's placement will do nicely for starters, thanks.


I am also going to assume that the answer to why you have not bothered to explain how, not one piece of footage clearly showing a 757 smashing into the pentagon has been released - is due to matters of national security.

I suspect that could be one reason.

Another reason could be that CCTV cameras recording at 1-2fps are not ideal for capturing objects that are moving at over 700 feet per second and that the quality of footage you demand does not exist.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

I think it is very telling that professional demolition had to be used to bring down buildings that buildings 1+2 fell directly upon.

Telling of what precisely?

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.


That even though WTC 3,4,5 & 6, had TWO 110 story towers fall DIRECTLY on them, and 5 burning till the next day,.......NONE of the buildings experienced NATURAL TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE

ALL of those building had MORE damage than WTC 1,2 & 7

1st tower has NATURAL TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE at a CONSISTENT, NEAR-FREE-FALL speed after 56 minutes of SPORADIC fire.....please



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
Another reason could be that CCTV cameras recording at 1-2fps are not ideal for capturing objects that are moving at over 700 feet per second and that the quality of footage you demand does not exist.


While I am of the belief a plane did hit, it would be nice to see more of the videos to confirm it.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by discombobulator
 


The use of the term "structural damage" when referring to what WTC 7 experiences, is wrong. There was only superficial damage to the facade on one side. This is from the official version of events.

Additionally, as previously mentioned, there were only sparse fires across only a few floors out of 50 (fifty). This is according to the official story.

NIST reported that there were fires on 10 of the 50 floors. In addition, the fires were described as:

5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors;
6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor;
7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures;
9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.
source



There is NO proof of a total global collapse causing inferno that would be needed to effect EVERY vertical support, AT THE SAME TIME, in order to get the EVEN decent of the ENTIRE building FALLING as fast as an object can fall through the AIR



Now that's the official version of events


NO...that's the official HYPOTHESIS, that is based on NO STEEL, NO pictures, NO video




Now what I would like to hear is your version of events. Clearly you don't accept that the building could have fallen down in the manner described, so perhaps you could be so kind as to point out precisely how it did come down. The mechanism and it's placement will do nicely for starters, thanks.


I am also going to assume that the answer to why you have not bothered to explain how, not one piece of footage clearly showing a 757 smashing into the pentagon has been released - is due to matters of national security.

I suspect that could be one reason.


Is THAT the reason they show NO fires in the WTC7 HYPOTHESIS report?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 

On these two web sites there is a time line for the planes on the day of the attack
www.wanttoknow.info...

www.911timeline.net...

However with regard to the slow speed of the aircraft I have been told that achieving max speed depends on altitude and that the F15 can fly at 1600 mph or more at 5000 ft at low alt the max speed is 900 mph. To get top speed the plane has to use afterburners which it can only use for a short time before running out of fuel and that it can only hold that speed for a couple of minutes.



I have been told that to achieve top speed, the plane has to be using afterburners. These essentially pump fuel into the exhaust to increase thrust. Without an afterburner, the maximum speed is lower. But the plane can only use an afterburner for a limited time before running out of fuel - I do not know the limit for the F15, but for many warplanes it is stated as 1-2 minutes - say 50 miles at high altitude, 30 miles at low altitude.

I don't know enough about aeroplanes to confirm the above if anyone would like to read the links and has any info to provide on why the aircraft were slow to respond I would be interested.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
That should be your red flag! If the penthouse fell first, why didn't the
rest of the building follow at the exact same time?

I suspect the answer lies within the definition of "progressive collapse", turbs.


You do know the floors and steel beams were connected to the ones holding up the penthouse correct?

So..if those fell down, why didn't the weight of the penthouse pull the
other columns in immediately?

The Penthouse can be clearly seen falling into the building without pulling down the exterior frame. I highly doubt that collapse triggered by fire or explosives would make a difference here.


Structural damage is asymmetrical. Building should have tipped to one side. SEE VIDEOS ABOVE. ALSO SEE NIST REPORT.

I have read the NIST report, turbs. And the Q&A where your exact point of contention is addressed.


Fires? A few floors and weak at best.

I'll ask you the same question as your friend above:

What does "passed the point of flashover" mean?

How did the fires damage all of the core columns equally in WTC7?

They didn't, and noone has asserted this. You're making it up.


Opinion? There is visual evidence of blasts going off throughout the building.

Really, could you point them out to me?

Also, I'm guessing if they were visual blasts then we're not talking about thermite cutting through core columns, are we.

You'll notice that from the other implosions there is a very pronounced, progressive wave of multiple detonations that produce very visible flashes.

Do you have any audio of the blasts (which would have had to occur immediately prior to controlled demolition) or video of the flashes you could share with me?


Isn't it strange a side by side comparison of controlled demo looks exactly like WTC7 in hundreds of other videos I can link for you?

It is strange, yes, and it was the one thing that convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job when I first looked at it about 5 years ago.

The complete absence of the more observable elements of a controlled demolition, however, lead me to now believe otherwise.

Well, that and actually fact checking a lot of the truther assertions.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulatorI suspect the answer lies within the definition of "progressive collapse", turbs.


You are clueless.

What force/event happened to disconnect all of the beams before/while the
penthouse fell to prevent an immediate collapse?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Haha, yet another perfect case study of intentional distraction as a tool to derail a losing arguement.


I consider 10 of 50 floors, "few". That's 20 percent, and even you guys say that only some floors may have had extensive fires. So I think this is a generous 20%.

But, I am willing to give you guys absolute, complete, fire across 25% of the entire structure (I think we can all agree it was not this bad, but you guys need all the help you can get). It is now up to you based on that notion, to explain how there was a near instantaneous failure of the entire 100% of the structure, 75% of which was damaged in absolutely no way.


It would also be nice of you to mention how it were possible for many structures of similar design were able to endure not only much longer fires, but fires that had engulfed a drastically higher percentage of the structure. The failure of WTC 7 on 911, is and always will be an absolute anomaly as far as structural failure is concerned. And, since it occurred on a day with a long rapsheet of astronomical coincidences, I prefer to believe the realist point of view, that perhaps nothing were coincidence, but was instead by design.

When you can do that, I will again destroy your next illogical point.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by discombobulatorI suspect the answer lies within the definition of "progressive collapse", turbs.


You are clueless.

What force/event happened to disconnect all of the beams before/while the
penthouse fell to prevent an immediate collapse?

Let me guess, turbs, a detonation from pre-planted explosives?

Tell me why the Penthouse collapsed into the building structure 6-7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed, turbs.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


You might like to consider the proposition that I haven't taken your question terribly seriously. I'm doing a reductio ad absurdum of the OS. You might need an active sense of humour to understand what I'm driving at.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
Haha, yet another perfect case study of intentional distraction as a tool to derail a losing arguement.

Uh huh. Having your own argument verified is a distraction. Fascinating.


But, I am willing to give you guys absolute, complete, fire across 25% of the entire structure (I think we can all agree it was not this bad, but you guys need all the help you can get). It is now up to you based on that notion, to explain how there was a near instantaneous failure of the entire 100% of the structure, 75% of which was damaged in absolutely no way.

I'll defer to the NIST explanation, thanks. That's the best explanation I've seen so far, especially when compared to the controlled demolition explanation which is completely devoid of the audio and visual evidence required to support it.

When you've come up with an adequate explanation for how the WTC7 was brought down with evidence to support it, I'm all ears.


It would also be nice of you to mention how it were possible for many structures of similar design were able to endure not only much longer fires, but fires that had engulfed a drastically higher percentage of the structure.

NIST answered this one too.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
I'll defer to the NIST explanation, thanks. That's the best explanation I've seen so far, especially when compared to the controlled demolition explanation which is completely devoid of the audio and visual evidence required to support it.


Only if you're willing to ignore the mainstream news footage compiled at the end of the rather wonderful Core of Corruption Part I. There's an excelent section that pulls together an impressive collection of explosions and testimony about the same, in all three buildings. One guy even describes WTC7 as going, "Ka-BOOM!", and rather satisfyingly, a few minutes later, you see a news clip which lets you hear exactly what he means. It really does go "Ka-BOOM!"

[edit on 5-8-2009 by rich23]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Only if you're willing to ignore the mainstream news footage compiled at the end of the rather wonderful Core of Corruption Part I. There's an excelent section that pulls together an impressive collection of explosions and testimony about the same, in all three buildings. One guy even describes WTC7 as going, "Ka-BOOM!", and rather satisfyingly, a few minutes later, you see a news clip which lets you hear exactly what he means. It really does go "Ka-BOOM!"

I'll look into it.

Thanks for the tip.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Only if you're willing to ignore the mainstream news footage compiled at the end of the rather wonderful Core of Corruption Part I. There's an excelent section that pulls together an impressive collection of explosions and testimony about the same, in all three buildings. One guy even describes WTC7 as going, "Ka-BOOM!", and rather satisfyingly, a few minutes later, you see a news clip which lets you hear exactly what he means. It really does go "Ka-BOOM!"

The video that you refer to asserts that the three explosions it presents are of the WTC7 collapse, but offers no proof of this. WTC7 is visible in precisely none of them.

In fact, one of the three videos shown, the one with the firefighters making phone calls, was actually filmed 7 hours prior to the collapse of WTC7.

Sorry, not convinced.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Better and easier to use KC-135s than the 130s. The KC 130 is limited to about 3600 gallons of jet fuel. The 135 can easily haul 31,000 gallons. The 135 will give you almost a megaton yield, while the KC-130 will give less than 100 kilotons (using a 5,000 BTU per pound conversion for dynamite and 135,000 BTU per gallon of Jet A or B. JP_-4 is higher since it is half gasoline.
And surplus 135s might be easier to find. The 130s are needed to service our rotary wing stuff in the middle east, while the 135s are too fast for that mission. And the 135s are set for retirement/replacement as soon as the USAF decides between Boeing and Airbus for the replacement. The minimum refueling speed of the 135 is 180 knots (207 mph
). High end cruise peed for the AH-64 Apache is 143 knots.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Fire cannot bring down concrete or steel buildings, it's simple as that. What was there to burn? Wood? Can fire from would actually melt steel? NO. Can fire from wood destroy concrete? Might crack it, but WTC7:


The current 7 World Trade Center's design placed emphasis on safety, with a reinforced concrete core, wider stairways, and thicker fireproofing of steel columns, and incorporates numerous environmentally friendly features.
- Wiki


discombobulator- get some sources to back your claims please.

[edit on 8/5/2009 by die_another_day]



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join