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.

 

WTC 7, What Happened Here? Can Anyone Please Explain

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Hi All,

Ok, i may be pretty behind the times here but i have difficulty understanding why there were no questions raise about the WTC 7 collapse. Infact, i cant even recall what the MSM official story was regarding why it collapsed. Could someone please explain the official story to me. Another thing that bothers me is, How did it collapse? It wasn't struck, no other building collapsed etc and why aren't the American people questioning this so much that a public enquiry is forced into action?




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
It's simple.. it's called the search tab, Use it.. Click here for offical explanation.. ..



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The official theory is that WTC 7 came down solely, and primarily due to normal office fires. The building was struck by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1, but the NIST report also notes that the damage to WTC 7 from the falling debris of the collapse of WTC 1 had little relevance to the collapse of WTC 7.

Here's the NIST WTC 7 collapse report:

wtc.nist.gov...


Former NYPD officer and 9/11 First Responder, Craig Bartmer talks about what he heard as WTC 7 collapsed:





Here's a short video about WTC 7 called "This is an Orange":





And always remember, it's far easier to trust what your own eyes can see, than have faith in what someone else tells you you're supposed to see:





If you have any more questions about WTC 7 or anything further about 9/11, feel free to ask.






edit on 26-7-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
NIST admitted that WTC 7 fell with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 seconds.

Most people nodded their heads, accepted it and moved on.

Gravity, huh?



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrmcleod
Hi All,

Ok, i may be pretty behind the times here but i have difficulty understanding why there were no questions raise about the WTC 7 collapse. Infact, i cant even recall what the MSM official story was regarding why it collapsed. Could someone please explain the official story to me. Another thing that bothers me is, How did it collapse? It wasn't struck, no other building collapsed etc and why aren't the American people questioning this so much that a public enquiry is forced into action?


The United States has been in The Twilight Zone since 9/11/01.

On that day the effect was really intense and seems to have altered the Laws of Physics.

Since then the Laws of Physics appear to have returned to normal everywhere on the planet but there has been an enduring psychological effect. People, including most certified experts, do not seem to be able to recognize that Physics did not work in the usual manner on that day.

psik



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

In the fullness of time and history, future generations can't NOT recognize that the official story about 9/11 is riddled with lies and is a false history or a public myth.

Grade 10 physics students, armed with nothing but a few basic equations, some videos of the event, and a stopwatch, will prove, time and again, that WTC7 AND the twin towers can only have been destroyed as observed by explosives.

9/11 is like a dark family secret regarding an incestuous rape.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I watched a video on you-tube that said that building, building 7 was where the higher-ups watched the event.So there fore it had to be demolished hours latter so there would be no evidence.The video spoke of money that was put in to a office for Major Gevonta for a air system and for bullet proof glass...If I can find the video I'll try to down-load it.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by zbeliever
I watched a video on you-tube that said that building, building 7 was where the higher-ups watched the event.So there fore it had to be demolished hours latter so there would be no evidence.The video spoke of money that was put in to a office for Major Gevonta for a air system and for bullet proof glass...If I can find the video I'll try to down-load it.


This kind of stuff is useless speculation which cannot be confirmed by physics and just wastes time.

psik



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



In the fullness of time and history, future generations can't NOT recognize that the official story about 9/11 is riddled with lies and is a false history or a public myth.

Grade 10 physics students, armed with nothing but a few basic equations, some videos of the event, and a stopwatch, will prove, time and again, that WTC7 AND the twin towers can only have been destroyed as observed by explosives.


And yet here we are ten years later, billions of persons having access to the internet and videos, persons with educations and basic knowledge and, well....nothing. No investigations, no grass roots organizing, no mention in the popular culture, nothing. Please explain how, generations from now, there will be a massive popular revelation with regard to 9/11 "truth".



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
WTC 7 landed mostly in its own footprint, evidence by the four outer walls being visible on top of the rest of the collapsed building. This is impossible from a natural collapse.

There is only one way a building can land mostly in its own footprint...


Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...



WTC 7 outer wall folded inwards on top of the collapsed building...



The OS supporters will claim the building leaned to the west as it fell, but the video this claim is based on shows only part of the buildings one side, and it is obvious what it is showing is that wall falling inwards, as we know they all did from post collapse pics.

They will also say surrounding buildings were damaged, so it could not have been in its footprint. All I can say is show me a controlled implosion collapse that did not spread debris outside its footprint. They think it has to be 100% or its not in its footprint, which is simply unreasonable and a cop-out.

They will tell you there is no such thing as an 'implosion'. They ignore that the term 'implosion demolition' is a specific type of demolition as explained in my link above. Semantics is not a valid argument.

Note, no 'truther' web sites were used in the construction of this post.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 





why aren't the American people questioning this so much that a public enquiry is forced into action?


I wonder that myself. I think it's fear. Fear of being called unpatriotic. I want to bring it up to people, but it's hard. What if they don't believe me? What if they go nuts and start calling me a terrorist?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Thank you all for your replies. It helped a lot. So as a summary, the American people were told it collapsed because of office fires and debris and the accepted it? Regrading a public inquiry...do TPTB really have that much control over the people that someone or a group of people cant force the issue to congress to have it looked into. What a sad, pathetic existence we live in sometimes...its heartbreaking really! Hopefully the truth will come out one day for all to see!



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Hi, jr. Part of the problem is the fact that the 'truth' is so horrible that most people don't want to believe it, something the 'perps' were counting on. When I saw 'loose change' for the first time about seven years ago I was sick for a week. Even though it's speculative and some of it has been proven wrong, the fact remains that we were lied to that day. The group af a-holes on here that tout the OS are very nervous these days, because we are making headway. I'm glad to see that you are interested in this matter and can only ask you to continue to poke the sleeping elephant in the room.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Hi, jr. Part of the problem is the fact that the 'truth' is so horrible that most people don't want to believe it, something the 'perps' were counting on. When I saw 'loose change' for the first time about seven years ago I was sick for a week


The best movie I have seen on the subject is 9/11 Mysteries.



Most people don't look at 9/11 as nothing but a physics problem. Airliners are inanimate objects. Skyscrapers are inanimate objects. Skyscrapers have to satisfy certain physics requirements long before they can be hit by airliners. You don't want to try to build a 110 story building and get to the 80th floor and say, "Uh oh, we didn't put enough steel in the basement!"

So the fact the physicists were not demanding to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers within SIX MONTHS of 9/11 says some really peculiar things about the psychology of our engineering schools. Is part of their motive to make their area of expertise look as complicated and mysterious as possible?

I wonder what is going on in the heads of smart 7th and 8th graders that can figure out why skyscrapers should not be able to collapse and yet all of the adults around them believe this crap.

SCIENCE is supposed to be a TRUTH MOVEMENT. We shouldn't need another one.

psik



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
Thanks, Psychy. These people that are trying to use science to bolster the OS are pathetic. It's so obvious that they are not for real. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they have their 'team meetings'. Thanks for all you do.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



In the fullness of time and history, future generations can't NOT recognize that the official story about 9/11 is riddled with lies and is a false history or a public myth.

Grade 10 physics students, armed with nothing but a few basic equations, some videos of the event, and a stopwatch, will prove, time and again, that WTC7 AND the twin towers can only have been destroyed as observed by explosives.


And yet here we are ten years later, billions of persons having access to the internet and videos, persons with educations and basic knowledge and, well....nothing. No investigations, no grass roots organizing, no mention in the popular culture, nothing. Please explain how, generations from now, there will be a massive popular revelation with regard to 9/11 "truth".


So, in your wonderful post of facts, you fail to mention anything to rebut the physics aspect of the buildings falling at near-free fall speeds.
Is this one of those instances, where since you dont have an answer or rebuttal, you simply dont mention it...although you posted the original statement.
What would the handlers think? Seriously...what do they think?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
the official explanation is that fires wekaened the central column(s) and it fell the way it did due to the aforementioned fires and damage taken from the demolition of wtc 1 or 2. However its very curious, that buildings directly adjacent to WTC 1 and 2 which were badly bent out of shape by the impact of great ammounts of debries did not collapse.
edit on 28-7-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
For a moment let's forget about the free-fall or angle-cut I-beams of tower 1 and 2... let's forget the "plane's" wings disappeared before hitting the Pentagon... let's forget that Osama's 'confession video' is a fake... let's even forget that many of the 'highjackers' are alive and were not even in the U.S....

WTC Tower 7 is the smoking gun of... well, call 9/11 what you want.



edit on 7/28/11 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Have you searched the Internet lately on 9/11? Have you seen the polls that have been done?

Bear in mind also that the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC7 are preserved in the historical record, in perpetuity.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The following is the only "explanation" offered in 130 pages of waffling trivia:

"Eventually, the fires reached the northeast region of the building. The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 involved the initiation of the buckling of a critical interior column in that vicinity. This column had become unsupported over nine stories after initial local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of local floor failures. The buckling of this column led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the roof, and led to the buckling of adjacent interior columns to the south of the critical column. An east-to-west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed, due to loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then buckled as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit. This was a fire-induced progressive collapse, also known as disproportionate collapse, which is defined as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure, or a disproportionately large part of it."

So the "explanation" is, essentially, "it burned down".




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join