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.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
Refresh my memory ANOK. How exactly was the WTC7 building designed? What damage did it inccur during the collapses? What damage did the fires do to the interior? what happened when the interior experienced internal failures from fire, which caused the structure to be collapsing for 18 seconds, before the hollow shell came down last? Hmm maybe that is how the exterior walls landed like that?
But then again, this is about WTC3 and not WTC7, so that is OT. Turbo here is a little confused about what constitutes as "still standing". Let's help him out first ok?
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by backinblack
The reason why WTC 3 did not fall is because it was not a target on 911. It was not hit by a plane and it wasnt built wtc tough. You truthers are grasping at straws.
Wtc 3 was pulled (by cables) down.
Sorry for the sarcasm. I had to answer like an ats debunker and I will tell you, I used no intelligence to respond. Debunkers got it easy.edit on 26-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by turbofan
Not to mention, that even after another 110 story building collapses on top of it(wtc1). Wtc3 was still standing, being reduced to a four story building, but still not completely collapsing. A great picture of it, after having two 110 story buildings collapse on it, here:en.wikipedia.org... (second pic from the top)The building had 18 floors literally flattened by the second collapse, yet still withstood full collapse. Saving 14 peoples lives, who believe it or not, were actually in that building while it was crushed down to a 4 story building.
I guess though, when you think about it, that day, the large buildings crumbled like cards while small buildings like wtc3 and wtc4 were able to stand strong.
You contradicted yourself, truther.
How can over 80% of a building be crushed, killing 40 people; still be called "standing strong?"
WTC 4 was damaged beyone reapir and was torn down... how exactly were they standing strong?
edit on 26-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by VonDoomen
No really, the collapses happened very differently. It is only similar in that they did collapse.
As for why suffering less damage led to its collapse, as you've probably read, the official account is that the fires where they were led to the collapse, not the damage. The damage just allowed the near-symmetrical final collapse.
Let's do a role-call of the damage to the trade center. First off, there was a 10 story gouge off the corner of the building. Then, there was a 20 floor section of damaged building from the floor up in the center of the south side, according to an eyewitness account by firefighters. It was unfortunately obscured by the smoke of the fire, so no pictures exist of this damage. (but remember, no pictures or even direct eyewitness accounts of demolitions exist, so the fact that we have actual visual account of this damage is more credible than the sound of an explosion.) I recall there also being a smaller amount of damage near the roof of the building, but it was likely a lightweight projectile from the WTC 1's collapse.
Now, compare this to the design of say WTC 4. It was fortified after the '93 bombing and had a very different structural design since it was only 9 stories high. As a result, it was able to have much sturdier design mechanics. As such, it makes sense that it could take so much damage and remain standing. WTC 7 was a different scenario, a set of unfortunate circumstances that became more severe over the course of the day and eventually led to a complete global failure of the building. First the interior began collapsing, and then after the base blew out, the damage allowed a low-resistance fall that looks "similar" to a demolition, but is actually quite different in almost all regards.
Originally posted by 4hero
80% was not crushed, you can see what is left in the OP's picture. Use logic to determine how much is left, and if what is left is standing strong, then come back and try again...