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: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
What is also interesting is the speed that they replaced WTC7 compared to the rest of the WTC buildings.

Construction started 2002
Completed 2006

Like they wanted that hidden as fast as possible.
Here is my personal experience on this, the new WTC7 building was already built before I even knew the old WTC7 came down on 9/11.




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Tupac I have noticed that you have never picked up on WTC6, with your intense and explicit research i`m sure there are many cans of worms here just waiting for you to open them. They say the damage was caused by falling debris but as can plainly be seen in the many pictures available, the damaged steel shows signs of a huge West to East directional force which punched a hole in the face of the building, and not as what would be the case of falling debris from above, damage sustained via a North to South downward motion. The probable cause of this coincides with the impact of WTC2 captured by the B.B.C.

Sorry for the slight derail, but here we have yet another slightly overlooked aspect of 9/11 with a bucketful of anomalies just waiting for your attention
.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I would like to add a huge detail that I didn't include in the OP: NISTs explanation of the collapse was that one core column failure caused the entire building to collapse symmetrically. One column failing out of 83 supposedly caused a symmetrical, free-fall collapse.

And, as if NISTs credibility hasn't already been completely erased, to further show how inadequate of an investigation it was, the fires near the column that they claim failed burned out over an hour before the building fell! See for yourself:


Take note of the location of that core column, and compare it to the kink located near the center of the building during the collapse:


WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, and that is the only possible explanation based on the evidence.

edit on 18-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


You do realize that the photo that you say the fire is out on....is the OPPOSITE corner from the thermograph right?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



You do realize that the photo that you say the fire is out on....is the OPPOSITE corner from the thermograph right?
No it's not. If you think otherwise, prove your claim.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Look at your own photos. You are comparing the north face of WTC 7 (where you think the fire is burned out) with the thermograph that shows the fire was concentrated on the south face of WTC 7.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 




Look at your own photos. You are comparing the north face of WTC 7 (where you think the fire is burned out) with the thermograph that shows the fire was concentrated on the south face of WTC 7.
The North side of the building is where the actual image is, yes. And the bottom of the thermograph is the North side, and the top is the South side.

Appendix L of the 2004 NIST report says it themselves: “Around 4:45 PM,
a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the [color=limegreen]middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned
out by this time."

We couldn't even see the South side since it was obscured by smoke, so clearly they are referring to the North side.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

Hello
There was some type of super thermites that blew all the buildings. That is why it took weeks to put out those fires. The planes that hit the towers were remote controlled. That is why there was complete radio silence and no sever deviation of flight path. The pentagon was hit with a smaller plane that was guided by a landmark on the ground. The plane that crashed in pa had problems with the remote control so they shot the plane down. That is why there is debris 6 miles apart. The air response was not there because all bases near dc was on a drill whereby planes were hijacked and sent into buildings. Therefore if true patriots heard this over the radio they would think its part of the drill. President bush knew about this since he did not leave the school until 30 minutes after the second plane hit. Secret service protocol would have gotten him out of there since his trip was known. He didn't leave because he was not the Target. God bless america



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by odinson
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

Hello
There was some type of super thermites that blew all the buildings. That is why it took weeks to put out those fires. The planes that hit the towers were remote controlled. That is why there was complete radio silence and no sever deviation of flight path. The pentagon was hit with a smaller plane that was guided by a landmark on the ground. The plane that crashed in pa had problems with the remote control so they shot the plane down. That is why there is debris 6 miles apart. The air response was not there because all bases near dc was on a drill whereby planes were hijacked and sent into buildings. Therefore if true patriots heard this over the radio they would think its part of the drill. President bush knew about this since he did not leave the school until 30 minutes after the second plane hit. Secret service protocol would have gotten him out of there since his trip was known. He didn't leave because he was not the Target. God bless america


it's funny how they had drills involving planes hitting towers that day and they had drills of the subway tunnels in england being bombed on 7/7 in the exact places that they were actually bombed....something is definitely fishy about that....
edit on 20-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 



it's funny how they had drills involving planes hitting towers that day and they had drills of the subway tunnels in england being bombed on 7/7 in the exact places that they were actually bombed....something is definitely fishy about that....


What drills were those?

What is the evidence or is this another conspiracy delusion?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by odinson
 



There was some type of super thermites that blew all the buildings.
Nanothermite does not have a high enough detonation velocity to cause the damage that was seen during the collapse. RDX or another high powered explosive on the other hand could have. This doesn't necessarily mean that nanothermite wasn't used at all--case closed, it could have been used to pre-weaken the steel structure before setting up the towers for the demolition.


Thus, for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity has to be greater than the speed of sound in that material, which requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel–far beyond 895 m/s for nanothermite.
Source


The planes that hit the towers were remote controlled. That is why there was complete radio silence and no sever deviation of flight path.
I don't know about that dude, I don't see why remote controlled planes would be necessary.


The pentagon was hit with a smaller plane that was guided by a landmark on the ground.
I do believe that a missile or smaller plane hitting the Pentagon is a possibility, but there is lots of evidence that backs up the position that a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon, and that it didn't hit the Pentagon, so I don't really know where I stand on that.


The plane that crashed in pa had problems with the remote control so they shot the plane down. That is why there is debris 6 miles apart.
Again with the remote controls? I think our government shot it down not because of a malfunctioning radio control system, but because they realized that they could either shoot it down and save lives on the ground, or let it fly into a building, killing everyone onboard as well as others on the ground. Statements given by military officials suggest this.


The air response was not there because all bases near dc was on a drill whereby planes were hijacked and sent into buildings. Therefore if true patriots heard this over the radio they would think its part of the drill.
I agree with this, although I don't know for sure what the drills were over. However if I remember correctly one of the training exercises involved a situation where multiple blips that weren't actually real airplanes were placed on the radar and this caused confusion that day.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I actually have to stop and take a look back at 9/11 lately.

it is SO damn symbolic. I have gone through so many cycles thinking about 9/11. thought it was an inside job immediately, then reconsidered all of that and believe now that it was truly a terrorist plot. But MOST recently I have been thinking it was a terrorist plot that had been in planning for so long... it's a scary thought. I firmly think that there is a deep cover up involved now but I still think the actual terrorists, although in bed with us, is not as much us as SOME people think... I don't know, but there is definitely gears turning in my head right now. I can't stop thinking about the builder.
edit on 22-8-2011 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 



it is SO damn symbolic. I have gone through so many cycles thinking about 9/11. thought it was an inside job immediately, then reconsidered all of that and believe now that it was truly a terrorist plot. But MOST recently I have been thinking it was a terrorist plot that had been in planning for so long... it's a scary thought. I firmly think that there is a deep cover up involved now but I still think the actual terrorists, although in bed with us, is not as much us as SOME people think... I don't know, but there is definitely gears turning in my head right now. I can't stop thinking about the builder.
Nah dude too many things point to a government planned false-flag attack for me to think it was a simple terrorist plot. WTC7 is the cold hard proof for me among many other pieces of evidence, but others don't see it that way and continue to believe in the impossible.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I'm not going to comment on my own personal views of what really happened on 9/11, but I'm going to post a video that proves a "tall structure" can fall in the exact same manner in which the World Trade Center collapsed. I know, I know, building v.s. blocks, haha, I don't care, that's not my point. I'm just saying.






posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by iunlimited491
 


That video does not prove a tower can collapse just like the WTC towers.

One huge difference, the WTC towers were not made of unconnected blocks stacked up on top of each other. If you think real buildings are constructed like that then you need to do more research.

All that video shows is the only way for the WTC towers to have fallen the way they did would be if they were made of unconnected blocks that were not held together, or cross braced.

That tower in your vid did not collapse under its own weight, it simply fell apart because there is nothing stopping the blocks of wood from falling, no resistance. Now if they were all glued together you maybe on to something a little closer.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by iunlimited491

I know, I know, building v.s. blocks, haha, I don't care, that's not my point. I'm just saying.




I said that.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by odinson
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

Hello
The plane that crashed in pa had problems with the remote control so they shot the plane down. That is why there is debris 6 miles apart.


Would an air to air missile really do that to a big airliner? Wouldnt it just damage the plane to the point it cant fly and it crashes mostly in one piece?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by iunlimited491

Originally posted by iunlimited491

I know, I know, building v.s. blocks, haha, I don't care, that's not my point. I'm just saying.




I said that.


ha ha, you proved our point without realizing it...it took around 5 good substantial shots to bring down a tower that was constructed of only little wood slats that were basically just stacked upon each other....they are trying to tell us that a building constructed of concrete and steel that was hit once, in one spot, would make the building collapse just like that little wood slat tower....that's nuts.....
edit on 30-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Try putting a fire to that litle tower for say an hour or two.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Try putting a fire to that litle tower for say an hour or two.


The fires in the WTC towers were only on the few floors above the impact point, which means the majority of the building was not effected by the heat of the fire at all. That means pretty much all of the building bellow the point of impact was not effected by the fire at all. That means the fire had absolutely no effect on the integrity of the building bellow the point where the collapse was supposed to have initiated. That means the lower structure should have created massive resistance to the collapse, resistance slows things down, and once things slow down unless there is another energy acting on it, it will keep slowing until it stops.

But the collapse did not slow from that resistance, and didn't stop until there were no more floors to collapse.

You need to find another reason for the complete collapse because it wasn't fire.

Having said that though there was resistance observed by the tilting of the tops (especially WTC 2), this proves that the top did not do the crushing, otherwise it would never have tilted, because that takes resistance, the bottom resisted the top from crushing it. The problem is according to physics the top should have maintained its angular momentum, as there was nothing stopping it, but it did stop and suddenly fall straight down. Now if the pivot point of the top failed the top would have still maintained its angular momentum and fallen off the side. The only way it could have suddenly just dropped is the bottom, including the pivot, dropped independently basically leaving the top to free fall behind it.
We also observe the tops were collapsing, as well as tilting, independent of the bottom, as observed...

WTC 1


911review.org...



edit on 8/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join