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: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

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


Controlled Demo.

Explain otherwise how the columns supporting the Penthouse did not
bring down the building immediately.




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

discombobulator- get some sources to back your claims please.

Which claims in particular would you like sources for?

Always happy to oblige where I can.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 




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:


It is the building contents or in firefighter lingo "Live Load"

Almost everything in modern building is synthetic aka PLASTIC

Plastic is made from petroleum and burns with some 50-100% more
heat energy than organics (wood, paper, cloth)

Things like cubicle dividers (styrafoam or urethene), carpets (nylon)
seat cushions (urethene), the glue and resins which hold things together
like desks (particle board made with synthethic glues), computer cases,
monitors and printer are all plastic

There is tremendous fire load from other materials - offices often have
tons and tons of paper, also ceiling tiles (cellouse)

All these things burn well - making it difficult under normal conditions to fight the fire

WTC7 had no water for sprinklers or standpipes to suppress or at least
contain the fires - water mains had been cut by collapse of the towers

With no water to fight fires and structural integrity of building in question
FDNY was forced to abandon WTC 7 and let it burn



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Wouldn't you try to use things that do not burn as easily?

Plastic do not just "burn" you know that, plastics use in those things you talk about need at least 150C to melt, and you know what needs to happen after that? It needs to evaporate and then and only then can it go up in flames (At ~ 400-500C). What fuel is use to ignite the plastic?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The CD videos are touted as "proof" of demolition of the WTC and we watch the videos looking for proof. We see the many CD videos with buildings that are stripped clean, precut, and cabled together. Explosions with bright flashes and sharp reports cover the building in complex, controlled patterns immediately before the collapses occur. When we look at videos of the WTC collapses, we see none of the demolition charges exploding as in the CD videos. There are no series of bright flashes or sharp reports immediately before the collapses.

After comparing the videos one would logically conclude the videos show that CD definitely did not occur in the WTC because the videos are completely different in the time leading to collapse.

Based on this comparison, what reasoning leads you to conclude that the CD videos suggest CD had taken place at the WTC?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Based on this comparison, what reasoning leads you to conclude that the CD videos suggest CD had taken place at the WTC?


For me, it's the way it falls, and I've always thought it wouldn't need to be as complex a job as people make out. Weaken the basement, a few key points throughout the structure, and let gravity do the rest.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
what did the poor fire fighter say over the radio about the massive infernos?...yer we might need a hose or 2 to put out this fire breathing metal bending monster fire...2 hoses.
Never mind the person waving in the gaping hole in the tower where this metal bending concrete crushing fire was.

On w7 what about the firefighters and cops telling people to move away because it is going to pulled down.

and what about all the cars and trucks etc that were melted block and blocks away, did the planes do that too?

Where did all the gold go

why were people in lower levels that got out with flesh blown off there bodies.

There is just toooooo much to mention, how any sane person can claim it isnt a cover up once they really listen to the FACTS is beyond my being.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Was there a series of explosions immediately before it fell? How would you be able to tell the difference between a key beam failing from fire or explosive?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Actually, I have to confess, I was thinking of KC-135s when I made that post, as they're like modified 707s, yes? The WTC towers were supposed to be able to withstand the impact of a 707, IIRC, and that's what made me think of them, especially as they must be getting old by now. So as you rightly say, one should be able to pick them up surplus relatively cheaply.

Let's not take all that too seriously, though. It was just a joke to begin with...



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

Originally posted by discombobulator
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.


Didn't think you would be for a moment.

There is of course the witness testimony tying the audible "Ka-BOOM!" to WTC7, which you conveniently ignore. Then we have the stunning audio confirmation of what the witness described.

And IIRC the one you refer to is actually to do with the collapse/demolition of the twin towers. Plus you have the firefighters in the Naudet film. It's ok, I realise nothing's going to convince you.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Its funny how the 4th video by SPreston looks like the WTCs falling down.
But you know its just a coinsidence.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


The more than 9000 gal of Jet fuel carried by the planes - it acted as
an accellerent to ignite combustible materials

It is similar to lighting a backyard grill with the lighter fluid (kerosene)

The jet fuel sloshed through the building - some burned off in the initial
fireball, but enough remained to start the fires



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 297GT
 





what did the poor fire fighter say over the radio about the massive infernos?...yer we might need a hose or 2 to put out this fire breathing metal bending monster fire...2 hoses.


You talking about this? Battalion Chief Orio Palmer




Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.

Lad.15
Alright ten-four, we're on our way.

Battalion 6
Battalion 6 to commandpost?

Battalion 6
Battalion 6...Battalion 6 reports there is a skylobby available at the 44th floor that will serve uh, will serve the floors above. Uh, unintelligible[5]

unidentified
7 unidentified to commandpost?

Bat.7 Alpha
Chief Palmer reports on the 78th floor, numerous 10-45 Code Ones, uh, we got isolated pockets of fire, we need at least two handlines up there

Bat.7 Alpha
7 Alpha to Battalion 7?


Talking about conditions on 78th floor South Tower - this was the lowest
area of the impact zone . Also as sky (elevator) lobby did not have many
combustibles as was lined with tile and marble .

Bulk of the fires were 3-4 floors above in 82-83 floors

Have to do better than parroting this old piece of misinformation....



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo-V™
For me, it's the way it falls, and I've always thought it wouldn't need to be as complex a job as people make out. Weaken the basement, a few key points throughout the structure, and let gravity do the rest.


How would you be able to discriminate between demolitions and non-demolitions? None of those that make this claim can say how it would have collapsed. Given the lack of knowledge on what either collapse would have looked like, absence of explosions that appear on the CD videos, and the absence of physical evidence, how can anyone logically claim demolition?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
How would you be able to discriminate between demolitions and non-demolitions?

?


Originally posted by pteridine
absence of explosions that appear on the CD videos


Where are the "explosions" in this Video, that is a great collection clips, and you'll notice the lack of obvious explosive flashes in most of the demolitions, but granted you do see some.

EDIT=Remove text.


[edit on 5/8/2009 by Neo-V™]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I read somewhere that the WTC buildings were so huge that if they were to be demolished it would of had to of been done in three stages addressing the top middle and lower portions of the buildings. Traditional Controlled demolition methods would of not worked on the building due to its size.

One thing I can say for sure.... The building fell strait down.

It was a reichstag.

Our government blew up its own building and blamed others to gain support to go to war.

Then they continued to instill fear via anthrax mail and DC sniper.

The US government has gone insane.

Let this sink in.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by titorite]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


There is no evidence of demolition. Let that sink in.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


?? ??

The world you live in is very different from the REAL world. Their is all sorts of evidences that it was a controlled demolition. Just because you want to pretend otherwise does not make your fantasies true.

I will not go into it because many others on this thread already have and your idea of refuting their evidences is something akin to repeating "Nuh uh".

WTC7 fell due to fires according to the OS. Show me ONE Other skyscraper built in the 1970s or later that has fallen in the uniform manner of the WTC 7 (otherwise commonly referred to as a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION).

Just one example of a similar building collapsing due to fire... 1970s era or later...

YOU have tyhe whole internet in front of you.. If your right you can prove it.

If Fire can bring down buildings like the WTC then you can show me one other example.

Right?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by titorite
 


There is no evidence of demolition. Let that sink in.



How can you fools continue to repeatedly troll with such ignorance? This is beyond being the pinnacle of stupidity, and into, blindly supporting an employer.

THERMITE HAS BEEN FOUND IN ALL SAMPLES OF DUST TAKEN FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER GROUND ZERO ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT ANYWHERE FROM 10-100 TONS WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO SEE AS MUCH RESIDUE AS HAS BEEN FOUND.

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE? EVERY SINGLE INCONSISTENCY IN THE OFFICIAL STORY SUPPORTS DEMOLISHING RATHER THAN FAILURE, GET A GRIP AND QUIT TROLLING AND WASTING EVERYONES TIME.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Was there a series of explosions immediately before it fell? How would you be able to tell the difference between a key beam failing from fire or explosive?



Becuase fire cant melt fire, especially in just an hour. So it's completely ignorant to imply that you would need to be able to see the difference, cause it hasn't happened in history.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join