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 TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Varemia
Even with Trade Center 7, a 47 story skyscraper has never taken so much damage from a collapsing building like the wtc1.
So 7 caught debris from WTC1 and if WTC1 had the iron melting and hot temperature thermate
falling in it the fires started melting 7 which might have its own spiked iron beams to make it
'unsafe'.
Not saying that such would totally bring 7 down which seem would need pre wiring itself as
implosions take time to work out.
ED: Seemingly there is more than plane crashes involved.
edit on 12/2/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
I'm not trying to argue for WTC7 falling the way the engineers and scientists said it did in the official story. I'm just trying to bring to light that truthers use every fallacy in the book to make people think it was a conspiracy, all under the guise of "asking questions."
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
See, that's what I don't get. You ask a question and then answer it yourself, with no backing. I haven't seen any pictures of the South side of the the WTC7 because guess what? A building collapsed there, and there was too much smoke to get an aerial view. You're thinking of the North side, which had only windows broken out from the fires.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
It's been explained, that's all I'm saying. I was correcting your misconceptions about what happened in my previous post, because if you thought that the North side was the South side then you had to have been confused.
Check my signature, I have a link to a post FULL of very educational links that I have found over time. I think one of the first should be a very detailed post by member, exponent. Read through it thoroughly and come back to me here.
The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
How can you pick one piece of data from one link and say that it disproves all of them? That's an extreme fallacy, really.
Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
It would go down like a bad Quinton Aaron movie.
Who gets trapped in the rubble and how do we find them?
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
No one has stepped up for the tower construction as all are gone now and
left us with a problem they seemingly created, a lemon of a building?, that
was weak enough that Atta studied in Germany, according to one event
reconstruction documentary, to deduce a plane could bring it down.
Atta is a civil engineer on top of pilot or ring leader.
Such explanations on perhaps ordered scenarios that involved the plane
attacks.
If normal airliners could bring those buildings down that fast then they could not have stood for 29 years and withstood 100 mph winds on multiple occasions.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
If normal airliners could bring those buildings down that fast then they could not have stood for 29 years and withstood 100 mph winds on multiple occasions.
So, if a building can withstand a 100 mph wind gust then it is "plane proof"?
Please tell me you're not a building designer.