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.

 

The Impossible Collapse Of WTC7

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Well well presented tupak, see these osers cannot debunk you alls they can do is attack you personally the evidence is irrefutable. The only thing osers drone on about is how impossible it would have been to rig the buildings.




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 



Well well presented tupak, see these osers cannot debunk you alls they can do is attack you personally the evidence is irrefutable.
I know, I put a pretty good explanation out there that is simple to understand, but since I'm not an engineer or architect does it not make sense?


I don't see how my credentials affect the simple analysis that I put forth, because if somebody disagrees with it, they should explain why rather than saying that I'm not qualified to discuss that.


The only thing osers drone on about is how impossible it would have been to rig the buildings.
Yep, that is just about the only argument against a controlled demolition theory. The fall-back line is always something like "Yeah, so a demolition team just walked in the front door and rigged up a building?"

IDK how they did it, but I really doubt that whoever rigged up the building would just walk into somebodys office while they're working, start smashing their wall with a sledgehammer, put an explosive charge in there and say "Sorry to disturb you".

If something as hardcore as a false-flag attack is being planned by the top levels of our governemnt, the preperations obviously are not going to be sloppy.

But I don't even think that point matters.

Here is the important part: Just because nobody saw them rigging up the explosives doesn't guarantee that they didn't rig up explosives, and all of the evidence in the OP suggests a controlled demolition. So since that argument still leaves open the possibility that it could have been rigged up with nobody noticing, all of the evidence backing a controlled demolition means that they successfully set up the building with nobody noticing.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


So your an expert on this as well as those you know and presume to have heard their of like mind... I'm surprise you guys still have a job in your field..

Prove everything in your statement.. enculding those thousand that claim the same opinion ... I'm sure most here would be happy to hear the agruement of a few hundred.. If so..

But as you pointed out... your not in it anymore to discuss this.

But for those that claim the padded answer is true... I guess I could see why there is a concern to disagree.
It would put forth a concern for they're Jobs..
Job sercurity comes to mind.. Dispite the truth.

Corruption runs deep within the minds of men..
Argue that.. never mind.. I know your answer.

OP.. you won!

Jesse!

.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 





I know plenty of Engineers who dont believe it. Just because they havent made a group called "The 20,000,000 engineers who dont believe world trade center 7 was a controlled demolition" Doesnt mean they dont exist. On one hand everyones saying hardly anyone knows about the WT7 collapse/demolition.....and then you ask for proof that people dont believe it lol How many professionals have said it was not a controlled demolition....many, hundreds if not thousands. These people were given ALL the information...not dribs and drabs....not a few Youtube videos. Im sure if there were some financial gain to disprove it they would be queuing up....i wonder how many books have been sold about this conspiracy from these engineers who put themselves in the limelight??? I wonder how much money the whole 9/11 conspiracy rakes in each year.....id say lots and lots and lots.


What a stellar example of pure, unadulterated assumption on your part.

It is an exercise in futility trying to convince me that there is an overwhelming number of architects and engineers who believe the original story compared to the number of those who don't. I do not believe that you know "plenty of engineers." I believe you are lying simply based on the fact you have made your statements with no evidence to support them.

I'm curious how you know that these O.S. believers you speak of were given "ALL the information....not dribs and drabs......?" Do you know how absurd your comments sound? I don't think you do....or maybe you do, and this is why you now claim you're done with this thread. Let's hope you are.

Writing a book is one of the most effective ways to condense a lot of information into one reference and disseminate it to the public on an international scale. Should people write books and publish them for free? I might add that there are just as many books written by supporters of the O.S. trying to keep this lie alive.

All's fair in books and war......



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Writing a book is one of the most effective ways to condense a lot of information into one reference and disseminate it to the public on an international scale. Should people write books and publish them for free? I might add that there are just as many books written by supporters of the O.S. trying to keep this lie alive.
Haha for real, people laugh when we use YouTube videos as evidence, now books are out of the picture too? Maybe we could try communicating the simple facts in sign language, or maybe brail if that doesn't work either.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
That loves a conspiricy is starting to look like -PLB- alter ego, kinda makes you wonder...
WTC 7 will stay off the spotlight because is the huge white elephant in the OS's room, they cant let it go out too far...



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Nice thread mate,
All anyone with a half a oyster in their cranium has to do is look at the slow mo video and see that this collapse was from the bottom up, this was different from 1 & 2 which were top down. I am a natural blond and even I can figure this one out.....what u reckon?

PEACE,
RK
edit on 16-8-2011 by Rigel Kent because: cos i can



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82
Well well presented tupak, see these osers cannot debunk you alls they can do is attack you personally the evidence is irrefutable. The only thing osers drone on about is how impossible it would have been to rig the buildings.


The images in the op show that all the buildings were effected differently. The reason they all reacted differently to is due to other circumstances and building materials etc. Some crumbled, some toppled over, some were gutted etc.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 



All anyone with a half a oyster in their cranium has to do is look at the slow mo video and see that this collapse was from the bottom up, this was different from 1 & 2 which were top down. I am a natural blond and even I can figure this one out.....what u reckon?
WTC7 was brought down by a controlled implosion, and I think that the twin towers were brought down in a top-down demolition, and the planes were used as the decoys or the explanation for the controlled demolition of the towers.

I think that's why the planes hitting the towers as well as the towers collapsing were shown 500 times on every mainstream media outlet, to hammer the idea that the planes hit the towers, and then the towers collapsed because of that into our minds.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Its nothing personal
We just have different views on this. Im not saying im 100% sure either way....it could have been a demolition, it could have been a result of the damage the building and supporting structures sustained.


The problem with a demo, aside from the obvious (like getting caught strategically rigging an enormous building) is what would be the propose for taking building 7 out?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 



The problem with a demo, aside from the obvious (like getting caught strategically rigging an enormous building) is what would be the propose for taking building 7 out?
Does that matter? All of the evidence in this thread points to a controlled demolition, so does it really even matter why?

Cashing in on an insurance policy, destroying any evidence of an inside job since the inside job/false flag attack could have been operated from WTC7, who knows. The important thing is that the building was brought down by a controlled demolition rather than falling debris/fire damage, understanding why they would do this does not change the fact that they did it.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Malcher
 



The problem with a demo, aside from the obvious (like getting caught strategically rigging an enormous building) is what would be the propose for taking building 7 out?
Does that matter? All of the evidence in this thread points to a controlled demolition, so does it really even matter why?

Cashing in on an insurance policy, destroying any evidence of an inside job since the inside job/false flag attack could have been operated from WTC7, who knows. The important thing is that the building was brought down by a controlled demolition rather than falling debris/fire damage, understanding why they would do this does not change the fact that they did it.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


It matters because the building came down as a direct result of the other enormous buildings coming down at the foot of its foundation (as another poster already mentioned). So if there was absolutely no logical reason to deliberately bring them down then a reasonable person would conclude that they were not deliberately brought down but cam down from the damage they sustained and the building could not support the damage. I don't buy the "insurance job" scenario because that is just comical.

If that was too hard to understand then it sums up thusly: There was no reason to take the building down.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 




It matters because the building came down as a direct result of the other enormous buildings coming down at the foot of its foundation (as another poster already mentioned)
No it didn't, and I explained exactly why it wasn't brought down by the damage that it sustained.

Before you reply to this post, do me a favor and read every single word of the OP please.


So if there was absolutely no logical reason to deliberately bring them down then a reasonable person would conclude that they were not deliberately brought down but cam down from the damage they sustained and the building could not support the damage.
No, a reasonable person would look at the evidence that I provided in the OP, and either conclude that I am correct in my conclusion, or provide some evidence or analysis of their own to the contrary.

Saying that the damage which I have proved is insufficient to cause the collapse is sufficient to cause the collapse does not back up your side of the story, that is just you voicing an illogical opinion in the face of facts that disprove your opinion.


If that was too hard to understand then it sums up thusly: There was no reason to take the building down.
You may think that, but the OP proves that the building was brought down by a controlled demolition.

Unless you can disprove the analysis that's in the OP, your claims that you don't see a motive or that there was fire/falling debris damage are irrelevant.

So, if you want to actually try and debunk the proof that the building was imploded, I'm all ears, but claiming that you don't know what the motive is does not debunk the facts, that is just an opinion on your part.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Your OP didn't provide any evidence though. It showed images of other buildings coming down, on fire etc. and from what i can see in different ways. What that proves in regard to building 7 i imagine no one would figure out.

I am not criticizing you but basically we can make up anything we like.

How about this: Building 7 had video evidence of politicians having sex with sheep so it had to come down.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 



Your OP didn't provide any evidence though. It showed images of other buildings coming down, on fire etc. and from what i can see in different ways. What that proves in regard to building 7 i imagine no one would figure out.
OK, we're not going to continue this conversation until you have read every word of the OP. Don't just look at the pictures, read every single word. Once you have done this, then reply to this post.

To summarize the OP, the damage that the building sustained was asymmetrical, yet it produced a symmetrical collapse, which is impossible due to the conditions necessary for a symmetrical collapse.

The collapse of WTC7 also matched up with a controlled demolition for several reasons: A symmetrical collapse, a fault indiciating a core column failure used to implode the building and cause it to fall in on itself, free-fall during the collapse, a neat pile of debris as a result of the implosion, and explosions heard before the collapse.

Contrary to your claim, I have provided evidence in the OP, and there is evidence backing up every one of those facts. Do you agree that the collapse of WTC7 matches up with a controlled demolition for the above reasons? If not, why?


How about this: Building 7 had video evidence of politicians having sex with sheep so it had to come down.
You are too funny.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I read the post.

So what was the reason to bring building 7 down?

So far we heard:

1- Insurance money but that building was already in a state that it would have needed to come down.

2- Something was in the building.

Those are strawman arguments and like i said at that point we can just make anything up.

Bear in mind no one died from building 7 coming down and the towers already came down.

Remember building 7 was 400 ft away from the towers and the towers were more than 1300 ft tall so even eliminating all the evidence that it sustained massive structural damage there just wasn't any reason to take the building down deliberately.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


So what was the reason to bring building 7 down?

So far we heard:

1- Insurance money but that building was already in a state that it would have needed to come down.

2- Something was in the building.

Those are strawman arguments and like i said at that point we can just make anything up.
Those are actually answers to your strawman argument.

See, this thread is discussing the similarities between WTC7 and a controlled demolition, and by bringing up the topic of movite rather than addressing the on-topic discussion of the controlled demolition hypothesis, you branched off in the off-topic direction of the motive for a controlled demolition.

That's not what my OP contained, making your argument a strawman.




Remember building 7 was 400 ft away from the towers and the towers were more than 1300 ft tall so even eliminating all the evidence that it sustained massive structural damage there just wasn't any reason to take the building down deliberately.
The "why" doesn't matter, because the evidence that I have presented proves that it was a controlled demolition.

If you would like to discuss the motive, which would require speculation rather than a fact based discussion, you can either private message me, or you can make a thread of your own and I would be glad to discuss this topic.

However this thread is not "The motive behind a WTC7 demolition", so can you stay on topic dude?
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Malcher
 


So what was the reason to bring building 7 down?

So far we heard:

1- Insurance money but that building was already in a state that it would have needed to come down.

2- Something was in the building.

Those are strawman arguments and like i said at that point we can just make anything up.
Those are actually answers to your strawman argument.

See, this thread is discussing the similarities between WTC7 and a controlled demolition, and by bringing up the topic of movite rather than addressing the on-topic discussion of the controlled demolition hypothesis, you branched off in the off-topic direction of the motive for a controlled demolition.

That's not what my OP contained, making your argument a strawman.





To a layperson there are similarities in all building collapses weather controlled demo or not so that is not any revelation.


Remember building 7 was 400 ft away from the towers and the towers were more than 1300 ft tall so even eliminating all the evidence that it sustained massive structural damage there just wasn't any reason to take the building down deliberately.



Originally posted by TupacShakurThe "why" doesn't matter, because the evidence that I have presented proves that it was a controlled demolition.

If you would like to discuss the motive, which would require speculation rather than a fact based discussion, you can either private message me, or you can make a thread of your own and I would be glad to discuss this topic.

However this thread is not "The motive behind a WTC7 demolition", so can you stay on topic dude?


There has to be a motive but now you conveniently say "i don't want to hear it". But the fact remains: If there was no reason to take that building down then why take it down by controlled demo? And even if they wanted the building taken down by controlled demo because it was too dangerous to keep up they would just say "building 7 is going to be taken down by controlled demo" because who would object?
edit on 16-8-2011 by Malcher because: adding



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 



To a layperson there are similarities in all building collapses weather controlled demo or not so that is not any revelation.
In a discussion of whether or not the building was brought down by a controlled demolition, comparing the similarities between WTC7 and controlled demolitions is extremely relevant.

I'll post them again:

Characteristics of the collapse of WTC7 vs. controlled demolitions:
WTC7: Symmetrical collapse
Controlled Demolition: Symmetrical collapse (unless the building is rigged to fall into a parking lot or an empty space rather than straight down)
WTC7: Free-fall during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Free-fall during the collapse
WTC7: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
WTC7: A fault during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: A fault during the collapse (implosions)
WTC7: A neat pile of debris
Controlled Demolition: A neat pile of debris
So it matches up with a controlled demolition for many reasons. Refer to the OP for evidence of any of these claims.

It doesn't match up with a fire/falling debris damage caused collapse for these reasons (Again, the OP contains evidence backing these claims):

--Fire has never caused a skyscraper to collapse despite the many more severe fires that have burned for much longer over many more floors than with WTC7.

--The fire/falling debris damage that the building sustained was asymmetrical yet it produced a symmetrical collapse.

Reasons to suspect a fire caused collapse (followed by reasons to discount those reasons):

--The building suffered quite some damage from the collapse of the twin towers and falling debris damage. (However, the falling debris damage that the building suffered was asymmetrical)

--The building had fires scattered throughout the building (However once again, these fires were asymmetrical, and the combination of asymmetrical damage patterns impossibly caused a symmetrical collapse)


There has to be a motive but now you conveniently say "i don't want to hear it".
I would like to hear it, however discussion of the motive requires speculation. I prefer to stick to facts, but like I said if you want to talk about the motive you can start a thread for that topic or private message me about it.


But the fact remains: If there was no reason to take that building down then why take it down by controlled demo?
Clearly there was a reason if it was demolished, however I cannot give you a clear cut motive for it so sorry you've hit a dead end.


And even if they wanted the building taken down by controlled demo because it was too dangerous to keep up they would just say "building 7 is going to be taken down by controlled demo" because who would object?
Good point.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
why are you guys even arguing with people that can't see what's in front of their faces...seems to me there's a little more at stake here than just denying the collapse.....


here we go....here is for you deniers......


the buildings were designed to fall within their footprints at free fall speed =sarcasm


every building in that area was designed specially to fall at free fall speed right?

must have been some real smart engineers.....



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join