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.

 

Image Of WTC 7 Shows Core Columns Neatly Piled after Demolition.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

You're ignoring the fact that Jones has admitted that his thermite theory would be useless to help collapse the building. And that he has now advocated cutter charges.


I'm not aware of any changes by Jones.

Surely you would have some sort of link for this.




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48


I'm not aware of any changes by Jones.

Surely you would have some sort of link for this.


You'll find the thread at this truther forum:

the911forum.freeforums.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by seattletruth
 


Relax a bit. It's not even my government you question here but I have no particular affection for politicians anywhere for that matter.




I don't have to relax, because it's my country we're talking about. My people. My government. Obviously you don't have much stake in the matter. If 3000 of your people were murdered by your own government, you'd be pissed off too.

Secondly, why do you think that thermite can only work with gravity? Do you not realize that thermite can be made to spray SIDEWAYS, especially considering the USA has the most powerful and ingeniuitive military industrial complex on the world, with billions in the budget anually for private military contractors? You really think that the silly, weak force we call "gravity" is too much for them to overcome, for just the fraction of a second needed to spray sideways through a steel beam?? Wow, you truly are deluded.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by seattletruth]

[edit on 17-1-2010 by seattletruth]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by seattletruth
 


If you need to imagine some top-secret black budget gravity defying technology in order to explain what happened it's a sure indicator that you're on the wrong track as it gets more implausible as you progressively try to fit the pieces together. I'd like to see more detail on these thermite devices that can cut massive columns sideways in a fraction of a second.

Those columns had variable cross-sections so you're suggesting the individual 'devices' were all tailor-made and precision fitted to ensure every failure occurred at precisely the right time and in the right sequence and we're talking about 100s of them at least. Does that sound plausible?


You really think that the silly, weak force we call "gravity" is too much for them to overcome, for just the fraction of a second needed to spray sideways through a steel beam?? Wow, you truly are deluded.


You certain I'm the one who's showing signs of delusion?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Lets look at some facts.

1. We know that building 7 was brought down becasue we have the statements from 2 Fire Chiefs that the firemen were out of the building BEFORE the phone call to Silverstien.

2. Oil companies have been using chemical, mechanical, and jet cutter devices for years to cut pipe.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
1. We know that building 7 was brought down


Yes, bought down by fire and damage when the other buildings fell down. No explosives were involved in bringing down any WTC building. That is a fact!



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Yes, bought down by fire and damage when the other buildings fell down. No explosives were involved in bringing down any WTC building. That is a fact!


If the building fell from fire and damage it would have fallen to the South side that had the damage, not straight down as all the videos show.

You do not need explosives to bring down a buidling, there are other ways.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Something going sideways for a second isn't "defying" gravity like an anti gravity weapon or something.. It's simpy shooting sidways. Like a "bullet defies gravity" for a few seconds. That's not a super hard concept to imagine is it?

And what do you think the CIA sells drugs for? To fund their black operations. Or maybe they used some of the 2.3 Trillion that was announced MISSING and unaccounted from the military budget by Donald Rumsfeld the DAY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11.

You don't think 2.3 trillion, or even a fraction of that, could buy whatever technology they needed? They certainly had the security access to the building so they could plant everything.

I'm done debating with you because it's not worth any time. Your eyes are covered with wool and that's not going to change. You just see what you want to see, regardless of any amount of evidence to the contrary.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Thermite was used in the WTC's. Thermite gets to about 3000 degrees F and is pretty nasty.

WTC buildings were demolished. The Insurance money on the buildings was absurd and the profit enormous.

www.nytimes.com...

Link to a burnt building with no collapse.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane so extremely hot jet fuel is not likely to be a cause of the collapse.

And Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, not to mention most of the jet fuel would be used in the initial explosion.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum


Those columns had variable cross-sections so you're suggesting the individual 'devices' were all tailor-made and precision fitted to ensure every failure occurred at precisely the right time and in the right sequence and we're talking about 100s of them at least. Does that sound plausible?



Of course not. All of that happening just by chance makes way more sense.




posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 





Amazing pic. Hard to believe that this was not controlled demolitioned and that it was caused by just fire. Impossible. t


And what a coincidence that they announced on BBC that building 7 had collapsed prior to the actual collapse.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
"And what a coincidence that they announced on BBC that building 7 had collapsed prior to the actual collapse."

And here is another incredible prediction. Aaron Brown of CNN predicted the collapse of Building 7 a whopping one hour and ten minutes prior to the collapse! Man, these guys are good!

He makes the prediction at the beginning of the video and then Building 7 collapses at 6:20 into the video. Keep an eye on the timer on the top left, as the VCR video is sped up.





[edit on 30-1-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by triplescorpio
also there is absolutely no eyewiness testimony to support any explosions .


What a load of crap. You can't get much more ignorant than this, considering there ARE tons of testimonies of explosions, seismic evidence, all of it.

Look up Craig Bartmer. NYPD officer who says he was at the base of WTC7 when it started "collapsing" and he clearly saw explosions blow out of the lobby before it all started sinking straight down.

There was more than one major news media anchor talking about "secondary explosions" happening about every 20 minutes after both buildings had fallen, and there are even seismic records from FEMA showing events happening about every 20 minutes after both towers were down. Then there are the actual video clips where you can hear the explosions yourself.


Basically all you posted was a big emotional rant, 'oh my brother was such and such so I don't want to hear conspiracy theories', then ignorantly making the claim that no one reported explosions or that there wasn't any evidence of them. There is TONS of evidence of explosions from that day. Most "debunkers" are even aware of this by now, they just claim without evidence that the explosions were caused by electrical generators exploding or any other bull they can come up with.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Not to jump in the middle of this intense battle. I haven't made my mind up either way as I don't trust either side on this issue. Can anyone confirm for me that this is building 7 in the photo? I am just covering the bases. Thx in advance.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
oh, man... why did they think they had to dome 7 too. dey some demo'in dudes, no, i take that back. dey some demo'in mutha truckers, did you know the property was sold three weeks proir and the day prior or so, bush and the senior bin laden were next door or three doors down having brunch. altavista that. there's more. you knew ofcourse that the bushes and bin laden families are in the refinery construction business and go back. so, when i told my buddy Jim tha i had read that, he said sure, the bin ladens are a wonderful family! just the one son....



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ventian
Can anyone confirm for me that this is building 7 in the photo? I am just covering the bases. Thx in advance.


Yeah, it's Building 7, but why should you take anybody's word for it?

Look in the background and you'll see the black roofs of WTC5/6 behind it.


If someone can watch that building "collapse" and STILL doesn't think anything is wrong then I have to wonder what good considering anything else is going to do when they don't understand basic physics in the first place. I'm not trying to be rude but in all seriousness, what do you know about what would have to take place inside such a building to make it fall that way? You have to think about this stuff. A building sinking straight down into itself at the rate of free-fall is not exactly a normal occurrence, even for buildings that have been burning all day.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
what do you know about what would have to take place inside such a building to make it fall that way?

A serious compromise to the building's structural integrity. Same as thing behind any building collapse.

In this case, it is quite obviously a fire that went unfought all day, spreading from perhaps a few isolated pockets to a fire serious enough to compromise the structural integrity of the building.


Originally posted by bsbray11
A building sinking straight down into itself at the rate of free-fall is not exactly a normal occurrence, even for buildings that have been burning all day.

But it didn't sink straight down. The building clearly has a kink as it partially falls in on itself. Especially near the end of the fall, it can be seen going towards the south and the west, as backed up by the debris field found after the collapse. In fact, there is a photographically documented time line of the entire collapse, as well as the debris field. But I don't think you'd buy it as it's in FEMA's report.

Further, what makes you think it collapsed at free-fall speeds? If it was some kind of controlled demolition as you say, then it very well should have fallen at faster-than-free-fall speeds. One floor impacting another is much more energy than a floor is designed to hold. This is an exponential process. The final speed should only be limited to gravity.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sciemus
A serious compromise to the building's structural integrity. Same as thing behind any building collapse.


Thanks for stating the obvious.



In this case, it is quite obviously a fire that went unfought all day, spreading from perhaps a few isolated pockets to a fire serious enough to compromise the structural integrity of the building.


And why exactly is it obvious to you that this is why the building free-fell into itself?


But it didn't sink straight down. The building clearly has a kink as it partially falls in on itself.


The building fell into its footprint. I'm not into splitting hairs.

Do you know what a vector is? Ever had a physics or engineering class?

Well express WTC7's acceleration as a vector in 3 dimensions and what axis do you think is going to have the greatest component of the motion? The "y" axis, or the vertical axis. Which is to say when the building moved -- the most blatant motion in which it moved, which is totally beyond debate for anyone that has eyes AND an understanding of the English language, was "down." Which is where the remaining structure happened to all be. Funny huh?


Especially near the end of the fall, it can be seen going towards the south and the west, as backed up by the debris field found after the collapse. In fact, there is a photographically documented time line of the entire collapse, as well as the debris field. But I don't think you'd buy it as it's in FEMA's report.


Parts of WTC7 fell onto all 4 adjacent streets but its center of gravity obviously remained within its footprint and not in the streets beyond the building.


Further, what makes you think it collapsed at free-fall speeds?


NIST. There is no such thing as "free-fall speed," free-fall is an acceleration due to gravity when nothing is impeding the fall. And even NIST now admits about 3 seconds of the visible collapse is a confirmed acceleration at the rate of gravity. Do a Google search.


If it was some kind of controlled demolition as you say, then it very well should have fallen at faster-than-free-fall speeds.


Can you explain how it is possible to fall faster than the rate of gravity please?


One floor impacting another is much more energy than a floor is designed to hold. This is an exponential process. The final speed should only be limited to gravity.


The only way it would equal gravity is if you removed ALL resistance. And you are assuming pancake theory. Pancake theory was only proposed for the Twin Towers by laymen and even then it was completely debunked by NIST in later years. WTC7 started collapsing from the bottom first, which is why pancake theory doesn't even make a damned lick of sense to begin with for that building.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join