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.
Originally posted by Cassius666
I hope we can agree that WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7 were modern buildings built to withstand fires.
Originally posted by Varemia
Yes, but we can't agree on the insinuation that they were said to have collapsed solely due to fire. They collapsed because of fire AND damage. Remember that, ok?
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
The collapse was inconsistent with a collapse due to damage and fire. It should have followed the way of least resistance, instead WTC 7 fell straight down and WTC 1 and 2, well they exploded.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
The collapse was inconsistent with a collapse due to damage and fire. It should have followed the way of least resistance, instead WTC 7 fell straight down and WTC 1 and 2, well they exploded.
No, WTC 7 tilted as it collapsed
It should have followed the way of least resistance....
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
Why do you think that? The debries that did reach the building took out part of the fassade at one corner and the fires burned up whatever compustible was in the rooms, so yes, I guess they had the described effect. But it were not the fires and the sustained damage to make WTC 7 collapse the way it did.
Buildings are built to withstand fires and damage. The WTC towers closer to WTC 1 and 2 got banged up good, but did not collapse and had to be dismanteled in the cleanup process, well what was left of them, they were badly disfigured.
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
I dont see how that report relates in any way to the collapse we have all seen.
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
It still came straight down in the fashion of a controlled demoliton. I do not think you understand how unlikely it is for a building to come straight down by chance alone. If you see somebody throwing paint at a wall, for the mona lisa to appear, was it just a coincidence of one out of a million that happened to occour or some kind of trick? I just dont believe in magic debries that hit all the right spots to take out structures that supported the building, given the little visible damage WTC 7 overall had.
Given 2 theories, explosives and a fantastic highly unlikely (borderlining on only theoretical possible) unique never before and never again coincidence, explosives are more likely to be the case here, especially in the face of a clear motive, which has been acted upon.edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
New Zogby Poll: 51% Of Americans Want New 9/11 Investigation
67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7