Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

page: 16
87
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
I'm a skeptic and this is the one thing that makes me hesitate in thinking it was a controlled demo. It was indeed the first time buildings of this type did collapse but it was also the first time jet liners slammed into the side of them. As a skeptic I wouldn't advise people to use the "first time in history" notion. The argument has it's rough edges.


Thing is though a plane, or anything making a hole, in the building where they did can not cause all the resistance of the structure bellow the impact point to disappear. Neither can fire. There is not enough energy available in the the towers to cause complete collapse, and deformation of all the concrete and building internals.

If you read the NIST report you will notice that it didn't attempt to explain the collapses at all, it only offers a hypothesis for collapse initiation, that comes down to their claim that sagging trusses pulled in columns.

Can anyone demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns? Watch this vid, if you understand basic physics and engineering this should clue you in to the effect of "sagging trusses". Take note they added weight to the floors, they removed core columns, and the floors were rigid not sagging from heat (so a direct pull on columns), and it's a much weaker concrete structure. The towers had no core columns removed, no weight was added, the trusses were supposedly sagging from heat (malleable, no longer rigid), and the towers were much stronger, steel vs. concrete.





posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Basically it is impossible for a building to collapse in near perfect symmetry without the aid of explosives of some kind.

You mean like hundreds of tons of fuel filled airliner at hundreds of miles an hour type explosives?


No that doesn't fill the bill. You won't get a symmetrical collapse that way. And in fact the buildings withstood the collisions. You know that.

As far as your video goes, let me amend my statement. It is impossible for a building to collape in near perfect symmetry, except in a controlled demolition.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The towers had no core columns removed, no weight was added, the trusses were supposedly sagging from heat (malleable, no longer rigid), and the towers were much stronger, steel vs. concrete.



I always thought a couple of plains crashed into those buildings, destroying several columns. I must have been mistaken.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


The fire protective shield on the beams and columns was not foam . It is more like cement and asbestos with other filler . It does not burn away .



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No that doesn't fill the bill. You won't get a symmetrical collapse that way. And in fact the buildings withstood the collisions. You know that.

Well, yah. For a little while. Two planes. Two fires. Two collapses. I'd call that 2 for 2. Or 3 for 2. 5 for two? How many buildings were destroyed that day, anyway?


As far as your video goes, let me amend my statement. It is impossible for a building to collape in near perfect symmetry, except in a controlled demolition.

"Near perfect symmetry." Near? But not quite, huh? Afterwards it looked like one hella mess to me, covering acres. I don't know what you mean to imply by "near perfect symmetry".

I don't think this has ever happened before so I couldn't make a qualified judgment based on past experience.

I know what you mean by controlled demolition but I think you are using the term incorrectly here. Ten guys with hammers can take apart a building in a controlled fashion, one board at a time. Or tractors and wrecking balls, thats controlled too.

If you are implying explosive demolition then you should say that. By saying "controlled" you could mean several different methods one of which is explosive. But you know that as well.

And if you mean to imply that the buildings were brought down with explosives then I would ask, where are the firing train components that always litter the site of a controlled explosive demolition? This would include miles of spent shock tube, bits of blasting cap, and maybe some wire and unexploded charges. All that stuff is brightly color coded so as to be readily identifiable for safe removal in the aftermath before cleanup and removal of debris.

Explosives manufacturers also employ "identifier tags" (like chemical fingerprints) incorporated into their various products so that in case of misuse, forensics could identify the manufacturer and type of firing train components, date code, lot, etc.This would be all over the columns and girders in the form of residue. Where are those finger prints? Firemen and police are trained to identify this material in numerous safety courses. Where is that evidence? Show me one picture those components I mentioned. Don't just tell me they found "similar residue", either. I know what they say they found. Theres a big difference.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuciferFlow

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


Well you say building 7 could self destruct in the air and fall practically within it's foot print. Well then I was wondering why it has never happened before with fully engulfed structures


The problem I have with these "never before in history" claims, is that this is actually the first time that 757 and 767's were crashed into buildings. Same with the WTC7. Not only was it engulfed, but it was slammed with debris from the south tower. Before we start claiming that type of damage is insignificant, put into perspective that we're talking about 50-60 stories worth of iron, steel, crashing into a building. Has that ever happened to another skyscraper? if it has, I'd love to see the pictures/info about it. If another building has gone through the same amount of damage to the structure and still stood, THEN you can say "that's happened before", and said building has survived.











steel buildings do not fall from fire, hell then dont even fall when someone sets off a huge bomb in front of them.
Get a clue. it was swamp gas!!!
edit on 22-6-2012 by Gyrocopter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Thats one hell of a "footprint".



Just look at all that "symmetry". Its nearly perfectly everywhere.



And the actual "footprints". Compare those 2 little things with the size of the area around them.



Controlled, huh? Nearly perfect, Imploded, Symetrical, "Footy prints"?



You guys crack me up.

Oh, and don't forget to tell these guys to confess about all the firing train demolition materials they were finding in the rubble. They lost buddies there. You think they wouldn't come forward about that?

Between you and me, I wouldn't ask that to their face unless you want yours rearranged.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I guess you have made every body here look like an idiot and you are the smartest thing that walks . If you had a bit of sense you could see the whole picture and explain why Rudy Giuliani moved his disaster control center from the WTC 7 . From a specially hardened 23rd floor to a building 2 blocks down the street 2 weeks before the 911 event . How about the missing Comex gold from the WTC or the applications for demolition permits by the NY port Authority for the WTC asbestos white elephant .
I'm sure you aren't an Architectural Engineer and probably haven't seen too man demolitions of buildings . Foot print is subjective to interpretation by those that do the demos . The actual way the building fell is all that is needed to determine that it was a demolition . And that was by made by countless qualified people who signed a petition to reveal the truth . The fact is how the building came down is not the issue . Who and why and what's going on and why are we being lied to . Then if building 7 was a demo who is responsible for all those deaths directly or indirectly .



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by intrptr
 

I guess you have made every body here look like an idiot and you are the smartest thing that walks . If you had a bit of sense you could see the whole picture and explain why Rudy Giuliani moved his disaster control center from the WTC 7 . From a specially hardened 23rd floor to a building 2 blocks down the street 2 weeks before the 911 event . How about the missing Comex gold from the WTC or the applications for demolition permits by the NY port Authority for the WTC asbestos white elephant .
I'm sure you aren't an Architectural Engineer and probably haven't seen too man demolitions of buildings . Foot print is subjective to interpretation by those that do the demos . The actual way the building fell is all that is needed to determine that it was a demolition . And that was by made by countless qualified people who signed a petition to reveal the truth . The fact is how the building came down is not the issue . Who and why and what's going on and why are we being lied to . Then if building 7 was a demo who is responsible for all those deaths directly or indirectly .

I have no problem understanding that the whole thing was planned beforehand. And other things are suspicious too. Here's a post I made earlier in this very same thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Leave anything out?

My point was more to why they came down, not Rudy Guliani.


The actual way the building fell is all that is needed to determine that it was a demolition.

Saying you don't need any evidence except "the way it fell" is not evidence.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


The video of the building falling was all that was needed by the men that designed them . I'll put my faith in architects and structural engineers that have the plaques on their office walls stating their proficiency in the matter .
For all that I know you could be the Pizza delivery man !



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by intrptr
 


The video of the building falling was all that was needed by the men that designed them . I'll put my faith in architects and structural engineers that have the plaques on their office walls stating their proficiency in the matter .
For all that I know you could be the Pizza delivery man !


What about the architects and engineers that did papers which support 9/11? What about the thousands of architects and engineers who don't find anything suspicious? I guess you just think the rest are in on it, lying, or stupid. Funny how you can just pick and choose who to believe.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't know of any .



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't know of any .


Are you admitting that you've only read one side of the case? Surely you've read the work of Bazant? Or the summary papers of NIST? There's a lot of published studies on the towers, and you don't know a single one?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by intrptr
 


The video of the building falling was all that was needed by the men that designed them . I'll put my faith in architects and structural engineers that have the plaques on their office walls stating their proficiency in the matter .
For all that I know you could be the Pizza delivery man !


What about the architects and engineers that did papers which support 9/11? What about the thousands of architects and engineers who don't find anything suspicious? I guess you just think the rest are in on it, lying, or stupid. Funny how you can just pick and choose who to believe.


Well, either way, thousands of people are lying. Care to flip a coin?

People should believe their own eyes. We don't need "experts" to explain the basic laws of physics.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
How about the missing Comex gold from the WTC


Oh dear, yet another truther made up story - there was no missing gold!

911research.wtc7.net...


and explain why Rudy Giuliani moved his disaster control center from the WTC 7 . From a specially hardened 23rd floor to a building 2 blocks down the street 2 weeks before the 911 event .


Another made up story from truthers.... he didnt move it!

doyoueverwonderblog.wordpress.com...

Why do truthers keep repeating these silly stories that have been debunked here many times before?
edit on 23-6-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by SimonPeter
How about the missing Comex gold from the WTC


Oh dear, yet another truther made up story - there was no missing gold!

911research.wtc7.net...


and explain why Rudy Giuliani moved his disaster control center from the WTC 7 . From a specially hardened 23rd floor to a building 2 blocks down the street 2 weeks before the 911 event .


Another made up story from truthers.... he didnt move it!

doyoueverwonderblog.wordpress.com...

Why do truthers keep repeating these silly stories that have been debunked here many times before?
edit on 23-6-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)


Quoting articles that quote only mainstream sources like the "Times Online" is not proof of anything. Unless you can prove that gold was not secretly moved out of the WTC before the event then this is a pointless argument.

And this "truther" crap constantly coming from the "liar" camp is really getting quite outdated already... what is it about the "truth" that liars hate so much?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Well, either way, thousands of people are lying. Care to flip a coin?

People should believe their own eyes. We don't need "experts" to explain the basic laws of physics.

Actually if you believe the 'debunker' side, thousands of people are deluded. I'll pick that over lying any day.

You might think you don't need physics experts to understand 'basic laws' but you would be wrong. There's a reason that engineers have to be accredited and certified you know? It's because keeping a building upright is not a 'basic law' or simple in any respect.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Next you are going to claim a couple rainforests unearthed the support beams?

Your theory about plains having anything to do with this is preposterous...



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   



This vid should cover everything.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   


...or better yet.





new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join