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.

 

Building 7 Explained

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   


Excellent video here on the science behind Building 7's collapse, complete with models and videos, particularly a video with an angle of Building 7 rarely shown.



+2 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Building 7 is a smoking gun and I'm not even a fan of 9/11 conspiracies!

It was a controlled demolition.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 
Unless this explains how there was a cover up and explosives were planted in that building leading up to a controlled demolition, then only an naive person would buy it.


...Yup. Lies and propaganda.


edit on 7-9-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by binkbonk
 


May I ask did you watch the video? How is it idiotic to look at what the science tells us?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 

Yeas I watched the propaganda piece you are mistakenly calling science.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by binkbonk
 


May I ask did you watch the video? How is it idiotic to look at what the science tells us?


What science tells us? Based on your definition of "science" which appears to be, "Is there a YouTube video of the event that sounds feasible," then I can counter the argument with more "science:"




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 

Thank you for that video. On it's face, it's at least as credible as any other theory thrown out, and a perspective I've not seen explained quite that way before. The footage of the Penthouse was the most interesting part though. I watched it fall, but also noticed the windows on the floors it apparently fell into or through did NOT blow out. Rather hard to say explosives did that without breaking glass.

The new perspective is appreciated and if I can verify for myself that the video clip there is legit, then this goes a very long way to settling doubts I've had from previous stories about Bldg 7. It's a shame I can't give 2 stars.


edit on 7-9-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: typo



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

This video was posted earlier today I believe. I chose this one as it has over 1500 UNBIASED ( that being the key word) Architects & Engineers who have all examined the footage from building 7's collapse. They all agree that the only way this building could have fallen like this is a controlled demolition. I've seen many botched demolitions on youtube and if even one detonation doesnt go off at the right time, the building will collapse to one side not straight down. If office fires weakened the building and it collapsed due to structural failure, it couldnt have all broken apart at the exact same time which the collapse clearly shows. Therefore, your video is a completely biased video made by people who support one story. I on the otherhand am open to whichever story provides the strongest evidence.

edit on 7-9-2011 by truthordeath because: wrong youtube link



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
"WTC 7 burned uncontrolled for 7 hrs..." stated the guy in this video..

Windsor Tower Spain..

Enough said..

If you dont know that building look it up..

And bringing up an overpass and a steel building is like comparing apples and oranges.. Its been done here on ATS and got nowhere..



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   



It burned for 24 hours



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


I looked it up, I see it took the firefighters 24 hours to combat the fire, but I don't see how long the fire burned uncontrolled. There is a difference between a fire being uncontained and simply burning uncontrolled.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
"WTC 7 burned uncontrolled for 7 hrs..." stated the guy in this video..

Windsor Tower Spain..

Enough said..

If you dont know that building look it up..

And bringing up an overpass and a steel building is like comparing apples and oranges.. Its been done here on ATS and got nowhere..

Quite right. A horizontal steel girder supported at its extreme ends and a horizontal span of elevated highway are considerably different from a vertical steel-frame building. I wonder if the videomaker could tell us in what way they're different?
edit on 9/7/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
"WTC 7 burned uncontrolled for 7 hrs..." stated the guy in this video..

Windsor Tower Spain..

Enough said..

If you dont know that building look it up..

And bringing up an overpass and a steel building is like comparing apples and oranges.. Its been done here on ATS and got nowhere..


I'm not sure why you bring up the Windsor Tower Fire? . The areas of the tower that were largely steel DID, in fact, collapse. The Madrid tower was a concrete structure though. Outer support was steel, and it failed. It also wasn't uncontrolled. It was fought for almost 24 hours. It hadn't just had a 1,000+ foot tower collapse just over 100yrds away and do an unknown amount of damage to it's structure. The massive damage and partial collapse of the Windsor Tower was suspected to be a simple electrical fire.

Where the two cases are similar, it would seem Spain supports the OP here, not disproves it? If I am misreading what your context was in mentioning that incident, I apologize.

edit on 7-9-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse

Excellent video here on the science behind Building 7's collapse, complete with models and videos, particularly a video with an angle of Building 7 rarely shown.


The problem is that the conspiracy theorists have swallowed so much drivel from those damned fool conspiracy web sites that they will simply disregard anything that even remotely contradicts what they want to believe. Their logic goes like this...

A) They want to believe WTC 7 was the result of some sinister plot involving secret controlled demolitions.

B) Even though WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of the north tower, they don't want to accept this is true, so to them, the fact that WTC 7 was damaged by the north tower's collapse is simply gov't disinformation covering up the sinister plot that destroyed the building by secret controlled demolitions.

C) Even though eyewitnesses specifically said the lobby of WTC 7 looked as if "King Kong came through and destroyed it" and firefighters specifically said the out of control fires were causing deformation in the structure, they don't want to accept this is true, so to them, these people are really secret gov't disinformation agents covering up the sinister plot that destroyed the building by secret controlled demolitions.

D) So now, even though a board of engineers put together an educated guess on how the building collapsed based upon physical evidence and eyewitness accouts, they don't want to accept this is true, so to them, these engineers are paid gov't patsies covering up the sinister plot that destroyed the building by secret controlled demolitions.

In short, there is literally nothing under the sun you can show them, because to them, they don't want to believe it's true, so they'll just say it's manufactured evidence covering up the sinister plot that destroyed the building by secret controlled demolitions. I'd tell you more, but the conspiracy peopel don't want to believe what I'm saying is true, so to them I'm a troll paid to come here to ATS and cover up the sinister plot that destroyed the building by secret controlled demolitions.

Of course.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 

Well, if "Lucky" Larry Silvestein buys a bridge and insures it, you can bet that it will have the same characteristics as Building 7.
A bird poops on it, and CRASH.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
That penthouse must've been made from solid lead to be able to crash through the entire building intact all the way to the bottom taking the whole interals of the building with it causing the rest of the building to come straight down at free-fall with no resistance.

Yeah, not buying that for one millisecond.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Torre Windsor did partially collapse.

Watch



I think it's a waste of time, still talking about building 7, it colapsed on it self cause of damage from one of the towers, on the frontside,and the fire
.
edit on 7-9-2011 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 

Bull.
Too uniform. Too predicted. It was "pulled" remember?
Pathetic.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I tell you what, when I see a bucket load of PhD's telling me this happened and a bucket load of politicians telling me the opposite happened I know who I'm going with.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this entire event was pre-planned. No doubt at all.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by binkbonk
 


May I ask did you watch the video? How is it idiotic to look at what the science tells us?
It's idiotic because it's made up like a fairy tale. It's not science it's lies for d*mb people.
edit on 7-9-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join