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 SPreston
FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”6
Originally posted by mbkennel
Only if all of the mass building was moving at free fall. In reality, you see some of it (the upper parts) doing so, but that doesn't mean that all of it did, and for all time from initial to final configuration.
Collapsing buildings fall at 'g', whether from internal collapse or induced collapse.
This is not indication of any conspiracy at all
Originally posted by ahnggk
ALTHOUGH it is still plausible they used explosives to maybe contain the collapse and minimize damage to surrounding buildings. But with explosive or not.....
Originally posted by ahnggk
I'm an engineer and I agree with this. When the upper floors collapsed,
It's certainly no smoking gun.
Originally posted by ahnggk
I'm an engineer and I agree with this. When the upper floors collapsed, the huge mass falling down, there's no artificial structure on earth absorbing such force. If you try to even absorb energy of the falling mass' for a couple seconds to a full stop, that would amount to dozens of G's(G-forces so to speak).
I don't know how heavy the upper floors that fell, probably, thousands of tons or more, multiply by the dozens and you have an enormous unstoppable force.
ALTHOUGH it is still plausible they used explosives to maybe contain the collapse and minimize damage to surrounding buildings. But with explosive or not, the speed of collapse would not have significantly be affected.
Originally posted by fleabit
Considering that I've seen long math formulas that also supposedly proved it did not fall at freefall speeds, I don't think this means much.
Unless you can replicate the same conditions, it's guesswork.
I've read more than once that the risers and something else fell faster than the building, which is impossible they said, unless those risers had lilttle rockets attached to them.
So this doesn't mean much to me at this point. It's certainly no smoking gun.
Originally posted by KIRKSTERUK
reply to post by ashamedamerican
The "Pulled" from Larry S has been debunked before many times, even on a BBC documentary in the UK. I'm sure someone else here can point to the source. As for people like you, finding something which implies it could have been part of a controlled demo is enough for you to spout this kind of nonsense whilst ignoring the logical explanation.
edit: here it is
uk.youtube.com...
[edit on 12-12-2008 by KIRKSTERUK]