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.

 

9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   

9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'


news.bbc.co.uk

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I cannot believe that this is now OFFICIAL????

There is no way that the Tower 7 was destroyed by 'fires'. anyone with a sense of intelligence would see that the reason for the collapse was because FEMA had all records stored in this building in the basement.

Research will show this to be true as well as searching on the ATS datbase for this very old story.

Let's point sheeple in the right direction on this one before it becomes an acceptable story...

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Valorian
 


This is not now official.

You nuts, go read the article.

Not only does it call it a conspiracy theory (i.e. an unproven theory), but it offers a much more plausible explanation


AND

it's almost 2 years old.



So calm down.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valorian


I cannot believe that this is now OFFICIAL????

There is no way that the Tower 7 was destroyed by 'fires'. anyone with a sense of intelligence would see that the reason for the collapse was because FEMA had all records stored in this building in the basement.

Research will show this to be true as well as searching on the ATS datbase for this very old story.

Let's point sheeple in the right direction on this one before it becomes an acceptable story...

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


You go find REAL footage of a controlled demolition in which you cannot see actual explosion.

Go on.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
What mystery? It was obviously demolished because the perpetrators were orchestrating the demolition of the other two buildings from there.

Just take a look at who was leasing building 7: The IRS, CIA, Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission, and this one's the kicker.

Mayor's Office of Emergency Management!



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Quote from the article"

"The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.

Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke. "
end quote


How can there be "New photo's" from 4 July 2008? Does that mean it has taken this long to photoshop images till they were happy with the result?


PS anyone know where these "new photo's" reside?

[edit on 15/2/2010 by prof-rabbit]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I just got an email from my sceptical brother




There you go no conspiracy.. just an oridinary fire. I am 100% convinced.


So I hit him with:

Hahahaha, don't be silly drew, the bbc reported the building had collapsed into its own foot print....before it even fell

www.youtube.com...

Notice the building still standing behind the reporter, And it never got hit by a plane, and it fell at free fall speed, and it's only the 3rd steel frame building to collapse by flames, if ya go by the official story.......the other 2 buildings were wtc1 and 2

Just take a look at who was leasing building 7: The IRS, CIA, Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission
1.
Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2.
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3.
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4.
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5.
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
6.
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7.
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8.
1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9.
Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10.
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11.
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12.
Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13.
Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14.
No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

12 Thermite Incendiaries found in steel samples:

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.

that is what they used to melt the steel,we all know that jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
2.
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3.
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4.
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”




[edit on 15-2-2010 by Pockets]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Ohh well that puts that to bed then
fires caused a building to look like it was demolished and for the roof to crease exactly like a demolition and for the top of the building no to show any fire whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pockets
And it never got hit by a plane, and it fell at free fall speed,


You left out the bit where it suddered severe damage, and unchecked fires for hours, and only for a short time did it fall at free fall speed..


Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration


Which way did you want it to fall? And nowhere near free fall speed


improbable symmetry of debris distribution


No, it fell as expected


3.Extremely rapid onset of destruction


Once they started falling they were not going to stop



4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes


as expected after a building was hit by a plane at speed


5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph


Sure about that speed? Just shows how much energy a collapsing building has


6 Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking


Wrong, not all of the concrete was pulverised in mid air, and again shows how much KE the building had
7.

no "pancaked" floors found


as expected


9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front


as expected


10.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame


again shows how much ke the building had, as expected


11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises


truther lie, tons of molten metal was not found


12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples


truther lie


13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples


Truther lie



14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire


No precedent for high rise building to be hit by 767 with a lot of fuel, at speed


12 Thermite Incendiaries found in steel samples:


Truther lie


that is what they used to melt the steel,we all know that jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel


truther lie, steel was not melted


And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1.
Slow onset with large visible deformations


Wrong, they were visible


2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)


Wrong, once it started falling it would have fallen exactly as it did.


3.Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel


exactly as expected


4.High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”


High rise buildings have not been hit by 767 before



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I guess all my years, of being skeptic of the official story have come to an end
.

Way to go N.I.S.T, now if you can give release the computer simulation model used to the public, we will never have to use explosives to bring down a steel structure again.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by On the level
Ohh well that puts that to bed then
fires caused a building to look like it was demolished and for the roof to crease exactly like a demolition and for the top of the building no to show any fire whatsoever.


No fire at the top ? How come the entire south side of the building was belching smoke from top to bottom hours before collapse ?

www.youtube.com...

At 1.35 you can hear someone say " Look at the hole in that building, building 7." He is referring of course to the damage inflicted when the North Tower went down. I know CTers prefer not to think about the south side .



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 




You left out the bit where it suddered severe damage, and unchecked fires for hours, and only for a short time did it fall at free fall speed..


I never left anything out



Which way did you want it to fall?


I didn't want it to fall, but it shouldn't of fallen strait down



4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes as expected after a building was hit by a plane at speed


This was before the collapse had started



Sure about that speed? Just shows how much energy a collapsing building has


No I am not, I quoted it from architects and engineers for 9/11 truth




No precedent for high rise building to be hit by 767


Who said anything about a 767?



3.Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel


This is from the NO EVIDENCE section



High rise buildings have not been hit by 767 before


again, who sais anything about a 767?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Pockets]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
NIST al-Qaeda conspiracy theory debunked by 9/11 scientific truth movement. WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.




posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Valorian
 


Its the BBC reporting it so it does not really surpise me at all. There like most other msm news operations, they just try and pull the wool over peoples eyes.

Be more intresting what the Architects of 911 truth have to say later in the month.

Peace



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Pockets
And it never got hit by a plane, and it fell at free fall speed,


You left out the bit where it suddered severe damage, and unchecked fires for hours, and only for a short time did it fall at free fall speed..


Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration


Which way did you want it to fall? And nowhere near free fall speed



Do you even read what you write? First you admit freefall speed then in you're very next quote you deny it. So witch is it... how do you account for any freefall? or are you sticking with there was none?



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TinFoilBat
 



Did you read it or just jump strait on the attack? where did I say it never fell at free fall? maybe I'm getting confused..or maybe you are...


[edit on 15-2-2010 by Pockets]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
*sigh*


www.youtube.com...

"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

-Chief Boyle (speaking about WTC 7)



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
"Before it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space."

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company."

www.nytimes.com... =print

Beginning in 1989, WTC Building 7 underwent a massive $200M renovation project, where the steel girders to the building were reinforced. Does this sound like some flimsy wooden building which would collapse like a house of cards due to localized fire and damage?

After viewing the evidence, one would have to be bordering on delusional to believe Building 7 collapsed because of a fire. If these three buildings collapsed because of fire and limited damage, no firefighter in his right mind would step into a burning and damaged steel structure ever again.



[edit on 15-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Welshextremist
 


*sigh*

Even NIST concluded the debris damage would have been insignificant to the collapse.

Anyone with some common sense can see that the damages to the SW corner were superficial and missed any columns, and we can't even see the damage on the South face so you guys' speculation on how massive that damage must have been has ran wild in attempts to explain why this building fell like it did. But like I said, even NIST looked over all that was available to them (including thousands of images NOT available to us, as well as the structural documentation) and concluded it would have also missed columns and not resulted in any significant damage.

The BBC article linked above is accurate when it says NIST is blaming this on the fires. Which were also not as catastrophic and unprecedented as everyone acts like they were when sensationalizing, again to explain why this building fell like it did.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
This issue is a pyschologists dream. It has in many ways ceased to be about evidence and about being right. Both sides are entrenched now and both suffer from the same blind defence of their side.

whether or not the O.S is true seems to be irrelevant. People are divided on the issue and the events of that day were whored out by politicians all over the world much like the Holocaust is still tossed around like the village bicycle.

Cheers



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join