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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 7
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Regarding building 7, even if the whole south side was ablaze, the north side wasn't. So if the south side collapsed through fire, then common sense tells us that the whole building wouldn't just give way at close to free fall speed, as it did, and into it's own footprint.

If one side of the building's integrity gave way, then it would partly collapse, or at least topple- it wouldn't 'sink' into it's own footrpint all at once.


Great care and precision goes to explosive demolition jobs, normally taking weeks or months for a big job. Otherwise buildings topple at the weakest breaking point and fall into the street, other buildings, etc......causing property damage, fines, injuries and even deaths.

The fact the buildings came straight down means the buildings were likely built with the explosives IN THEM so that if they ever become a danger, someone can trigger the procedure. I have read this somewhere but don't expect anyone to confirm this for you because it is a secret. If people knew then many would not work there out of fear, and fear only. The explosives are safe since setting them off involves explicit intent(no accidental explosions allowed).




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
thanks for the post. we need a 9-11 truther revival.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Regarding building 7, even if the whole south side was ablaze, the north side wasn't. So if the south side collapsed through fire, then common sense tells us that the whole building wouldn't just give way at close to free fall speed, as it did, and into it's own footprint.

If one side of the building's integrity gave way, then it would partly collapse, or at least topple- it wouldn't 'sink' into it's own footrpint all at once.


Great care and precision goes to explosive demolition jobs, normally taking weeks or months for a big job. Otherwise buildings topple at the weakest breaking point and fall into the street, other buildings, etc......causing property damage, fines, injuries and even deaths.

The fact the buildings came straight down means the buildings were likely built with the explosives IN THEM so that if they ever become a danger, someone can trigger the procedure. I have read this somewhere but don't expect anyone to confirm this for you because it is a secret. If people knew then many would not work there out of fear, and fear only. The explosives are safe since setting them off involves explicit intent(no accidental explosions allowed).


Building 7 was built in 1987. Are you suggesting that they were put in then?

Sounds like duff disinfo.

Building 7 had it primary superstructure in the core of the building. The outline of the core can be seen were the within perimeter of penthouse plant rooms and straight down.

Secondary superstructure elements consists of the cantilevered trusses reading from the core to the south elevation facade.

You can place charges in the cores and the floors above the trusses without anybody knowing.

Another reason why Barry Jennings saw corpses in the lobby could be because the cantilever trusses tied to the enormous north facing retaining structure were cut with charges.

All these explosive can be placed at any time during announced maintenance programmes. Most office users don't inspect lift shafts.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 



Please note the location of Building 7. It is separated from WTC 1 by two buildings, WTC 5 and 6.


WTC 5 and 6 - 9 stories (WTC 5) , 8 story (WTC 6)

WTC 1 is 110 story

WTC 7 is 47 story

So you are saying the debris from collapse of WTC 1 can not reach WTC 7 because of WTC 5/6....?




Clearly you are stuffing words in to my mouth.

What gives dude?




How come WTC 7 collapsed straight down when it was a newer and better built building than WTC5 and 6 which did not collapse even though they were severely damaged?.


It's called controlled demolition, just like the 2 main towers, anyone with more then 2 working brain cells can see that.

I mean, steel beams always break at neat 45 degree angles and thermite fires keep raging in the debris when a building collapses onto itself, right?


Im actually amazed there are still people who believe the official story.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


What difference does it make when the explosives were put in place? I think there is not enough time during scheduled maintaince to do all that work carefully and methodically, but of course I could be wrong since I am not an expert.

The bottom line is that explosives were used because the buildings came straight down! I have seen plenty of demolition jobs on discovery and they say it takes weeks or months of work to bring down structures 1/3 the size of wtc.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
is it because the government said that WTC7 was downed by fire that this discussion still has any merit?

it simply fell like a controlled demolition...like a controlled demolition.....a controlled demolition.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 



Your "belching smoke" is probably an updraft from the burning building 5. Do you see the photo of Building 5?


Did you uh, check out where WTC5 is? Let us look at your graphic:



It is amazing how smoke from WTC5 can sneak down low, go down the block towards WTC7, then travel and cover up the whole face area.

Also, how exactly can smoke creep up the side and look like its blowing out from WTC7, if it is from 5 and 6, which are farther away? That makes no sense. Smoke is clearly coming from the windows of WTC7. Also plenty of firefighter stated 7 was burning out of control. If it was in no danger of collapse, then why did they bother putting a surveyor transit on it?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje


It's called controlled demolition, just like the 2 main towers, anyone with more then 2 working brain cells can see that.

I mean, steel beams always break at neat 45 degree angles and thermite fires keep raging in the debris when a building collapses onto itself, right?


Im actually amazed there are still people who believe the official story.


Oh wow. You are still stuck on those photos of the clean up with 45 degree angles? Fun fact: During clean up at Ground Zero, workers cut the beams on 45 degree angles.

Geeze are Truthers reversing back five six years?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

And in regards to building 7 ,there was no plane impact to blow-off the fire proofing on the steel columns/beams and trusses. So the question is how can fire weaken steel when(in the past) there have been many fires (all day and night fires) with steel structures in Spain and China... and none dropped down on its footprint?. Why would building 7 be any different? Was there a new voodoo-fire we thought never new existed, and suddenly on 911 it appeared to reek havoc in the big apple?


That actually brings up an interesting issue. Dr James Quintiere is/was a fire expert at NIST and he conducted his own independent research into the collapse of the buildings, and he theorizes the buildings never had adequate fireproofing to begin with. This is important to consider because this implies the fire codes in NYC are horribly inadequate, meaning that instead of griping how rare it is, you should be griping about how this might be a tragedy that's waiting to happen again in some other skyscraper under the right set of circumstances.

Of course, the truthers don't care about his research or how troubling his findings are. It's not fashionably sinister sounding enough for their tastes. Quintiere should have said it was the work of the Jews, or something.



I posted a whole thing to 4hero about the inadequate fireproofing at the WTC and he just ignored it. Typical really.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

How come WTC 7 collapsed straight down


Because it can't tip over. Columns would of fractured at the joints after just a few degrees of bending. And after only a few degrees of bending, insufficent lateral velocity would have been reached to make it visually appear on youtube videos to make DS'ers (Delusional Story of 9/11 was an inside job) realize that it did NOT collapse straight down.

Pieces of 7 landed ON TOP of Fitterman HAll.


when it was a newer and better built building than WTC5 and 6 which did not collapse even though they were severely damaged?.



Cuz neither of those buildings had long span floor beams. they were traditionally framed building, with no core and wide open office floor spaces. Columns were closer together. Most likely 20 or so.

Shorter floor beams means less expansion.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Oh wow. You are still stuck on those photos of the clean up with 45 degree angles? Fun fact: During clean up at Ground Zero, workers cut the beams on 45 degree angles.

Geeze are Truthers reversing back five six years?


Some of the beams may have been cut down for transportation, but it would be laborious to cut them at perfect 45 degree angles! It's clear from some pictures that beams were already cut prior to anyone started dismantling them for transit.

This a little bit off topic, but I'm going to throw it into the mix anyway...

Many firemen were trapped inside the towers when it collapsed, do you think that they would have been in there if there was a danger of it collapsing? With their experience and knowledge of building's behaviour throughout history, they would not have gone inside to rescue people if there was the slightest doubt in their minds it would collapse. Yey Mayor Giuliani said in a video I posted in this thread (will post again if necessary) that the thought the towers & WTC7 were going to collapse well before they did. So why allow firement to go in there? Why would firemen go in if there was the slightest doubt?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Shills are like busses, you think they're not gonna turn up then a few appear out of knowhere!

Dont see anyone cutting this beam!


edit on 24-5-2012 by 4hero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
There are many smoking guns to make an educated guess that 9-11 was an inside job:

NYC
1)two modest jets bringing down to huge towers constructed from steel and concrete.
2)wtc7 was far away from wtc1 and wtc2
3)everything came straight down rather than at any tilt
4)explosions were heard from many people

Washington, DC
5)an airplane managing to fly so fast and and so low into the pentagon that defies logic.
6)an airplane managing to penetrate steel reinforced concrete "bunker-like" wall
7)no footage was shown of what struck the pentagon
8)all video footage from nearby business was confiscated by government agents

Consequences
9)two wars were immediately started on muslim countries
10)the supposed perpetrators were quickly arrested and every mass media outlet was quick to jump to the same conclusions. What happened to methodic investigation, where it normally takes months if not years to piece the puzzle together?

And the biggest smoking gun of all.....DRUM ROLL......
11) $2.3 trillion dollars was announed to be missing by Donald Rumsfeld one day prior to 9-11. (9-10-2001)

Anyone with at least half a brain can correctly deduce 9-11 was a horrific inside job to take away freedoms from every american by perpetrating genocide and then conspiring to lie about everything. TSA, DHS, 2 wars, trillions wasted(bad for our debt).


Oh God. Its just copy and paste from those damned fool Truther sites.


1. Not just two jets but fires out of control, damage, and time.
2. WTC7 was 355 from WTC1. WTC1 was over 1,000ft tall. How can debris NOT fall up to 1,000ft away?
3. Due to design of the WTC Towers, floors fell internally while exterior columns were pushed out laterally (more or less), and core columns behaved like trees tipping over to fall farther away.
4. Yeah and so what? You mean having over 30+ acres of offices and two burning airliners wouldnt cause explosion sounds? Not to mention buried and burned vehicles later.
5. Nothing about the flight into the Pentagon defies logic, unless you have no skill at taking a plane and just aiming towards a 925ft and power gliding it, when an airport runway is at most 200ft wide.
6. No the Pentagon was not steel re-enforced concrete or bunkerlike. Do some real research into that, rather than copy and paste from truther sites.
7. Two to three exist.
8. Most were sent in and of all only one showed the clearest video
9. Afghanistan was targeted due to AQ being harbored by the Taliban, Iraq was in plans earlier cause we all know Bush Jr wanted to avenge daddy. But strange how no Iraqis were among the hijackers.
10. Well gee, who else was the biggest terrorist organization at the time that has also launched massive casualty attacks in other countries? And who bomb WTC in 93? The Tamil Tigers?
11. FALSE. There never was any trillions missing or stolen and this whole thing is the result of truthers and lousy reading comprehension skills. It has been a year earlier there were accounting issues with antiquated financial systems.

Nicely done copy and pasting. Too bad its all false.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 





Cuz neither of those buildings had long span floor beams. they were traditionally framed building, with no core and wide open office floor spaces. Columns were closer together. Most likely 20 or so.


What do you mean by "traditionally framed building"? All the WTC building have steel superstructures and column fixing spandrels as skins.



Shorter floor beams means less expansion.


Do you think office fires expand beams? Do you also think beams are not insulated?

Here is a section of WTC 7 - please note the insulation. It is there for a reason.



You can also see that each floor is insulated to protect from fire.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

And in regards to building 7 ,there was no plane impact to blow-off the fire proofing on the steel columns/beams and trusses. So the question is how can fire weaken steel when(in the past) there have been many fires (all day and night fires) with steel structures in Spain and China... and none dropped down on its footprint?. Why would building 7 be any different? Was there a new voodoo-fire we thought never new existed, and suddenly on 911 it appeared to reek havoc in the big apple?


That actually brings up an interesting issue. Dr James Quintiere is/was a fire expert at NIST and he conducted his own independent research into the collapse of the buildings, and he theorizes the buildings never had adequate fireproofing to begin with. This is important to consider because this implies the fire codes in NYC are horribly inadequate, meaning that instead of griping how rare it is, you should be griping about how this might be a tragedy that's waiting to happen again in some other skyscraper under the right set of circumstances.

Of course, the truthers don't care about his research or how troubling his findings are. It's not fashionably sinister sounding enough for their tastes. Quintiere should have said it was the work of the Jews, or something.



I posted a whole thing to 4hero about the inadequate fireproofing at the WTC and he just ignored it. Typical really.



I don't see your post anywhere...If you would be so kind to re-post it again G-deck, I would really appreciate. But regardless, it really doesn't matter what documents or copy'n paste idea your are presenting. No one really knows how inadequate or sufficient the fire proofing really was. So even talking about it for any of WTC towers is bunk ,heresy,,, irrelevant. Fire can't weaken 5inch to 14 inch thick steel. And please don't post your flimsy church burning picture as proof. Thank you


What I don't recall is you ever trying to debunk my signature. How does it feel to be a paid shill?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I love the way a shill will say something like "Geeze are Truthers reversing back five six years" Whilst their still trying to sell a lie 11 years down the line!


Another witnesses stating explosions in WTC7




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


What difference does it make when the explosives were put in place? I think there is not enough time during scheduled maintaince to do all that work carefully and methodically, but of course I could be wrong since I am not an expert.

The bottom line is that explosives were used because the buildings came straight down! I have seen plenty of demolition jobs on discovery and they say it takes weeks or months of work to bring down structures 1/3 the size of wtc.


It takes weeks or months to plant charges for controlled demolitions because contractors strip out structures for;

> recycling of metal/copper wiring means $$$
> removal of asbestos mandatory
> removing fitments and fixtures means less rubble to haul and a compact pile

The WTC building did not go through these stages.

Further still, nowadays detonators can be wireless and if not then the criminals could have used the unstripped electrical wiring. You can plug in charges into electrical sockets and send a detonation signal through the wiring.
edit on 24-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join