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.

 

WTC7 Who thinks office fires did it? Show of hands.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Just a quick show of hands, who thinks WTC7 was brought down due to office fires?Thats the conclusion of the NIST report. Just want to see who believes it and who doesn't.

Also WHY you believe what you believe would be nice.
I'll answer later as I don't want to facilitate derailment. Thanks.




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I don't believe it fell due to office fires because of witness testimony of explosions happening in the basements. Remember Barry Jennings?
Also two lingering words in the history of 9/11 "pull it".



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


This shows details that are usually omitted by the 'conspiracy' web sites and advocates:

www.debunking911.com...

Good stuff to look through.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Yeah, fires did it.

I used to think that it was a combo of the fires and the damage, but then I actually read the report:
wtc.nist.gov...

I assumed that they didn't have enough info to determine the cause, but I shouldn't have made that assumption before reading the report. I advise that all "truthers" also read the report before criticizing it.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Hi, jprophet.


Originally posted by jprophet420
who thinks WTC7 was brought down due to office fires?

NO WAY. In my URL bellow you will see another building ALL
burning in a BIG fire, and STANDING UP !


Also WHY you believe what you believe would be nice.

Read that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
EDIT to add:
The fire is in the last YouTube.

Blue skies.

[edit on 2010/3/29 by C-JEAN]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This shows details that are usually omitted by the 'conspiracy' web sites and advocates:

www.debunking911.com...

Good stuff to look through.

You can make that page 10 times longer with more drivel, but it will never explain this:





You will never get a steel-structured highrise to fall evenly and completely from fires. If you think you can, you should be advised that you can become a very rich person by doing so.

Controlled demolition companies spend very large sums of money to pay a large crew to prep a building, then to set the explosives. Not to mention the cost of purchasing the explosives themselves. Do any of you realize how much money CD companies could save by having a couple people run into a building and set some fires?

But they don't use fire because it's impossible and unpredictable.

If you honestly think that you can make a steel-structured highrise fall the way WTC 7 did from fires, I urge you to show the world how because we would all be interested to know.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Did you not read the entire link?

It was NOT just from the fires, you know.

There was substantial damage inflicted, structurally, as well.

I thought you knew that?

But, I just find the message, and present it. Because it makes a lot more sense than what you proposed...which was true, it DOES take a lot of people a lot of time and effort to rig for a controlled demolition. BUT, we didn't see them expend that sort of time and effort involved at WTC 7....



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
No, it is my opinion it was not just from fires alone.
Those that want to hang on to NIST are only showing their ignorance at this point. Most people know NIST has been proven false by credible sciences.

As far as the government websites explaining their version of the events of 911, it has now been proven mostly lies.

The only real evidence that seems to stand up to sciences is some of the investigation that A&E has proven.

I know some of you OS believers will put A&E down but that is all you can do, because none of you can dispute their scientific findings.

So, my answer is NO that fires alone did not bring down the WTC.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Lets see -any of my FF friends were across the street at World Financial
Center 3 (WFC 3) - fighting fires started there by debris from WTC 1.

None of them witnessed any mysterious ninjas planting explosives
to bring building down or Silverstein ranting in the street "to just pull it"

Have to go with office fires .....



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It was NOT just from the fires, you know.

That is absolutely incorrect. NIST concluded that fires alone brought WTC 7 down. You must not have read the final report.




Originally posted by weedwhacker
There was substantial damage inflicted, structurally, as well.

I'm not sure what your source is, but I'll quote NIST from their own website:


“while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”


In other words, the "substantial structural damage" that you claim happened wasn't a factor in the collapse of WTC 7 according to NIST.

You really should read the final report of WTC 7. It's a hilarious comedy sketch that claims WTC 7 collapsed solely due to normal office fires.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

What's an office fire? Is that different from other kind of fire? Can you swim in it? Does it match the drapes?


I cant assume what you believe from that post, sorry. PLease answer the question, I would love to hear your answer. Thanks.


This shows details that are usually omitted by the 'conspiracy' web sites and advocates:


I present no conspiracy theory so there is nothing to debunk. That does not answer the question I asked.


Lets see -any of my FF friends were across the street at World Financial
Center 3 (WFC 3) - fighting fires started there by debris from WTC 1.

None of them witnessed any mysterious ninjas planting explosives
to bring building down or Silverstein ranting in the street "to just pull it"

Have to go with office fires .....


That implies that your firefighting friends or you have seen this sort of thing happen before. I would love to hear those stories !!!


Yeah, fires did it.

I used to think that it was a combo of the fires and the damage, but then I actually read the report:
wtc.nist.gov...

I assumed that they didn't have enough info to determine the cause, but I shouldn't have made that assumption before reading the report. I advise that all "truthers" also read the report before criticizing it.


Apparently Weedwhackers link disagrees with the NIST report. Very interesting.

Notice that out of all the people that answered the thread, only 3 answered the question.

Now, for me.

I really dont know what brought down the WTC7. I have not seen sufficient evidence for controlled demolition and I have not seen sufficient evidence (even less) for fires bringing down the building. Thats why I want a new investigation.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Just to keep the 'poll' going...
not a chance baby, there were a lot of explosives used. Having studied both physical and circumstantial evidence (and pretty much stuck with the laws of physics) there is no chance it fell without a major dose of explosives.
Once you get your head around the physical evidence, which is pretty clear in all the videos; squibs, and the speed of the collapse into its own footprint etc, you look at the circumstantial evidence.
Its at that point you become deeply and truly embarassed for having bought the OS for even a minute.

And to Bonez - you're doing a great job mate, but I have found my life here so much more pleasant after discovering the ignore button. WW and his mates are getting paid for posting here, and I assume you're not. You're just a few clicks away for a better forum...



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
It wasn't fires. The building was a fortified command post for the City of New York. The fires were small.
Has to be controlled demolition.
Just my opinion.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


From your source...
"Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong." That's the funniest thing i've read so far about bldg 7.."it easily tilted over"..riiiiight..let's see that tilting bldg...pffft.

(I'm talking about the wtc building tilting not bldg 7)

[edit on 3-4-2010 by baddmove]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by baddmove]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Just a quick show of hands, who thinks WTC7 was brought down due to office fires?



Well, when you phrase it in such a way that makes it sound like someone's Obie caught on fire and throwing it in the trash bin caused some papers to be burned it sure sounds implausible. Too bad such a phrasing ignores the massive amount of damage done to the building. If you're going to fall for and perpetuate such a reductionist view of this event I'll have to give you a humongous



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
It went down to fast and to even to be caused by a accident. WTC7 and WTC1 and 2. Free fell to the ground like there was no resistance present.

It must have been brought down. Only demolition can bring down a building with minimal resistance to the collapse.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Too bad such a phrasing ignores the massive amount of damage done to the building.

From the NIST Report on WTC 7:

Page 39/130

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.


Page 39/130:

Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.


Your quote does not reconcile with the findings in the NIST report.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I think it was a controled demo. That still doesn't answer who did it and why. Did someone just want the space to build new buildings?

I feel all three buildings were unquestionably loaded to the gills with explosives.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This shows details that are usually omitted by the 'conspiracy' web sites and advocates:

www.debunking911.com...

Good stuff to look through.

You can make that page 10 times longer with more drivel, but it will never explain this:





You will never get a steel-structured highrise to fall evenly and completely from fires. If you think you can, you should be advised that you can become a very rich person by doing so.

Bravo and excellent comparison of two controlled demolitions. For WTC 7 to have collapsed the way it did would've required every support column to have failed within milliseconds of each other. Highly unlikely, to say the least.

What a coincidence that debunking911.com looks just like 911myths.com, the debunkers other disinfo Mecca. Both sites' "evidence" are equally long, convoluted and nonsensical. How can people be so gullible?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join