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.
Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Anyway... more about WTC 7, I finally took the time to read the NIST report about WTC 7 and I came to the conclusion that they don't even know what happen. They use words like "possible structure damage", and "probable", and its all theoretical.
South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby
Originally posted by svenglezz
I never said any laughed at the theory........
Originally posted by svenglezz
I am very interested in this topic and have personally asked (on the side) structural
engineers in the industry......there opinion ... and NOT one thinks TNT or other means then the planes taking them down.
Originally posted by svenglezz
and as noted by another post above that many have LAUGHED at the idea.
Originally posted by svenglezz
And the WTC 7 (not sure about that building) but I have assumed the effects of
1&2 would have a huge effect on that building...esp. from below.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
They also:
Edit Pictures without annotation.
Claim Damage to the central South Face with no Photos
Assume the cantaleiver Truss system is "tooth picks" and the whole thing was essentially a time bomb wating to fall.
Cannot backup their claims on the amount of recovered diesel.
Ignore the squibs.
They state:
South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby
THERE IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENE OF ANY OF THIS ANYWHERE. THEY SAY IT WAS "WITNEES REPORTED" LAUGHABLE As a matter of fact the photos that do exist show none of this damage. See: www.abovetopsecret.com...
MAny of thier "Observed Fire Locations" are unverifiable via photo or video evidence just like the MASSIVE CRATER in the south face.
Global Collapse
- The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated
to have occurred with the failure of core columns
Originally posted by twitchy
while comparitively, building 7 collapsed symmetrically with no where near the fire damage of building 5 or building 6.
Originally posted by esdad71
The buildings are completely different in construction. It is like comparing a volvo to a Chevy. They are both cars, but worlds apart.
Originally posted by esdad71
Do you have proof of this statement?
Originally posted by esdad71
Comparing that thermite picture to the WTC is a joke.
Global Collapse
- The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated
to have occurred with the failure of core columns
Originally posted by esdad71
Why do you insist on stating that the NIST report is not accurate? What authority do you use to attempt to prove a point? Study the construction of the WTC 7 building, and you may begin to understand why it failed.
So sad.
did study the design of WTC 7, just as much and probably more than you did. I still don't know why it failed, but the clues point more towards an inside job of controlled demo. What could have possibly damaged all the steel I beams that held it up? FIRE? Debris from WTC 1 and 2? Since when does cement and fire break 6 inch thick steel beams? A 6 inch thick steel beam crashing into another 6 inch thick beam wont even damage it. It will dent it a little, but thats it.
Originally posted by esdad71
I was using CAD in 86 at age 13, and designed my first home at 19. I then moved onto commercial structure and development, so I am well aware of how things are designed(blueprints), created (modeling)and what it takes for a project(building). I just never wanted to openly say it here because I did not want to be marked as a 'wanna be expert' like they try to tear apart Howard.
Originally posted by esdad71
What clues point to an inside job.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually that picture with the 45 degree angle cut proves that workers were on the scene cutting beams. Why don't you look into the background of the picture before jumping to conclusions about thermite.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
And slapnuts, why don't you post those pictures you think NIST altered again. Those are not the same pictures.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's not like more brightness made a difference to the NIST argument in the context they used that photo. They could have used any photo of 7 intact and it would have made no difference. It is ludicrous to say that the photo has to be fake, as if no pictures were taken from that angle before the building collapsed.
Originally posted by LeftBehindWheres your proof that they altered the photo to hide broken windows?
Originally posted by esdad71
... I have been presented from every site from 9/11truth to prisonplanet to, well, you know them all. I took the time to read them, and where some of them do over a convincing arguement, it is not enough to sway me.