It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
With regard to early reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 by the BBC, I am at a loss as to how this keeps coming up. Now, it could be that, on a very confusing day, the BBC got a premature report from Reuters that the building had gone down. It's collapse had been expected for hours and the firefighters pulled out.
Or, the perps, with their lives on the line, decided to give a foreign news outlet a script as to how it was going to go down. If you believe the latter, you will literally believe anything. Even if you can abandon all critical thought and suppose that happened; just a moments thought will tell you that was quite impossible. Everything that day initially depended on when the 4 flights got off the ground. No-one could say anything would happen at a precise time after that.
Originally posted by conspiracy88
reply to post by GenRadek
What I find funny about your whole "there was no sound!" rebuttal is this: why the heck would the government (who already knew they were gonna be breaking every law of physics possible on that day) make it even more obvious by letting everyone hear the demolition go off. In this day in age, I can say with almost 100% certainty that someone out there in this great big world of ours has figured a way to do demolitions silently. Actually, wait there is a way! It's not that hard big man, just search google for silent demolitions. Going by my search, there are a number of commercial companies that already perform these operations. Seriously! What is wrong with you people! None of the 9/11 story makes any sense so why are you still defending it! This is exactly why we will always be controlled by tptb because people like you defend them when they could care less about you. Ignorance is bliss, it's been said a billion times but never gets old. Whatever. I guess we'll meet at the final battle on opposite sides. I welcome it. I'll enjoy ridding our world of ignorance. Enjoy fighting for those who want to destroy you
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by downisreallyup
There was NO sound of demo charges going off. I dont care how many times you say, see the smoke? See the way it fell? Its a demo! No its not. There wre NO detonations heard prior to any movement.
Originally posted by Rigel Kent
reply to post by GenRadek
You need to learn some basic physics my friend.
Assuming that the speed of gravity in new york is the same as everywhere else on the planet, where on earth do you get 3.9 seconds from?
WTC collapsed in freefall mode in a little over 7 seconds, its on video
You repeatedly quote NIST yet they have been proven to have fabricated evidence to fit their theories.
Stop trying to belittle Richard Gage, he is an accomplished architecht, You are not, how do I know that? I just know.
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Originally posted by fleabit
I don't think OP, that the word "proof" means what you think it does.
On another note, I still haven't heard a single reasonable explanation about WHY they would complicate this entire operation even further, but demolishing yet another building. If the WTC and Pentagon being attacked and destroyed wasn't enough to carry the supposed agenda of an excuse to make war, I doubt one more side building would have done squat.
Originally posted by TwoPhish
We also have Silverstein say in an interview that they decided to PULL IT.
When questioned afterwards what he meant by that it was said what he MEANT was; to pull the firemen out of the building. (the fire dept was out of that building hours prior to its collapse)
The firemen WERE out of the building hours before.
We also have a Lieutenant say on air that the WTC 7 either has to fall on its own or BE TAKEN DOWN.
What more do people want to hear? And the fact the OS doesn't even mention WTC7 almost speaks volumes!
[edit on 13-2-2010 by TwoPhish]
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Originally posted by GenRadek
, and Larry mentions how there has been such a bad loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it", what is he referencing to? A) Pulling the firefighter operations in and around the WTC7 to keep them from unecessary danger; or B) blowing up WTC7 somehow or "pulling it" down with cables?
Originally posted by GenRadek
Now let's play the reading comprehension game! After reading the quote above, and having the commander call LS saying the fires are out of control, there is no way to save it, and Larry mentions how there has been such a bad loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it", what is he referencing to? A) Pulling the firefighter operations in and around the WTC7 to keep them from unecessary danger; or B) blowing up WTC7 somehow or "pulling it" down with cables?
Second question in the game, Who made the decision to pull? Was it: A) Larry S? B) They, as in the fire dept's commander and his officers on scene?
Third: Is the fire deptment in the controlled demolition business of high rises? A) Yes, B) No, C) Do not know.
Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by fleabit
The OP gave the reason why building 7 was destroyed in his original post ! Did you not read it all ? The whole operation was co-ordinated from this building aswell as housing some extremely sensitive documents pertaining to certain cases going through the judicial system concerning the Enron investigation amongst others ! Alot of prominent people would have been implicated and so it benefitted them aswell as serving as an excuse for war ! A war on TERROR, a war that can never be won ! It's genius really !
Originally posted by MightyAl
Great video! And it seems very difficult for anyone to see it otherwise.
I'm sure most of you have already seen the video below, but that's what made me believe right away that the WTC7 collapse was planned, as BBC reported its collapse 20 mins before it really occurred.
When the WTC7 finally did collapse, the BBC reported it again, but it was such shocking news, you would never have guessed that BBC reported the same building collapse before it actually happened.
the 9-11 Debunking website shows photos of WTC7 lying in the street below, which means it didn't collapse in it own footprint. I don't think the government is stupid enough to make it fall exactly in its own footprint. That would be too obvious.
Controlled demolitions can also be controlled in a way that no one will realise the truth until years later when the majority thinks it's foolish to still question the 9-11 attacks :-)
Enjoy the video (again, if you've already seen it):
Do you see the WTC7 building behind the reporters head still standing as she speaks? It's sheer comedy, if not disturbing.
[edit on 13-2-2010 by MightyAl]