It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:41 PM

originally posted by: CALGARIAN
Yes, this was def FINALLY resolved... back in 2001.
The MASSIVE amount of fire debris that crushed the side of the building caused it to collapse.

WHY (or who) would have planted explosives in WTC7? lol.

I don't get these 9/11 truther nutters... I bet none of them will recognize the impervious logic you used to address the so called evidence presented in the OP. Don't worry though, I noticed it. The case you brought forth is airtight and rock solid. I mean, you even threw in an "lol" at the end, so what more could they ask for??

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:16 PM
a reply to: 3n19m470

I don't get these 9/11 truther nutters... I bet none of them will recognize the impervious logic you used to address the so called evidence presented in the OP. Don't worry though, I noticed it.

Over the years, I have compiled a list of truther claims that have been debunked with facts and evidence. They claim that explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings and yet, they cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support their claim.

Another truther claim is that ACARS proved that the 9/11 aircraft were still airborne after their reported crash times, but if they had done their homework properly they would have found that ACARS depicted no such thing and they would have also found that radar tracked the 9/11 aircraft to their crash sites where radar contact was lost.

Another case was when they claimed that a drill on the day of the 9/11 attack somehow effected possible interception of those aircraft. Our air defense is geared for aircraft approaching from outside the borders of the United States, not from within. Let's take a look at two examoples.

Death Ends 1,600-Mile Flight Of Learjet Stolen by Mechanic

A flight mechanic who did not have a pilot's license stole a private jet in Virginia early today and flew it 1,600 miles to Denver, where he shot himself to death as the authorities closed in, officials said.
They said they did not why the mechanic, Mike Christiansen, 24 years old, of Newport News, Va., stole the twin-engine Learjet 36-A.

He was found dead at the controls moments after landing the plane that had been stolen from his employer, Flight International, at Patrick Henry International Airport in Newport News.


The Crash of Payne Stewart's Lear Jet

At 1327:13Z, the controller from the Jacksonville ARTCC instructed the pilot to climb and maintain flight level (FL) 390 (39,000 feet (12,000 m) above sea level). At 1327:18Z (0927:18 EDT), the pilot acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane, and occurred while the aircraft was passing through 23,000 feet (7,000 m). The next attempt to contact the aircraft occurred six minutes, 20 seconds later (14 minutes after departure), with the aircraft at 36,500 feet (11,100 m), and the controller's message went unacknowledged.

The controller attempted to contact N47BA five more times in the next 4½ minutes, again with no answer.

First interception

About 1454Z (now 0954 CDT due to the flight's crossing into the Central Time zone), a U.S. Air Force F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, who happened to be in the air nearby, was directed by controllers to intercept N47BA. When the fighter was about 2,000 feet (610 m) from the Learjet, at an altitude of about 46,400 feet (14,100 m), the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response.

The F-16 pilot made a visual inspection of the Lear, finding no visible damage to the airplane. Both engines were running, and the plane's red rotating anti-collision beacon was on (standard operation for aircraft in flight). The fighter pilot could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside.

He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1512Z, the F-16 pilot concluded his inspection of N47BA and broke formation, proceeding to Scott AFB, Illinois

Despite false claims of truthers, drills have no effect on air defense readiness. In regard to WTC 7, I have posted a video of the collapse of WTC 7 and challenged truthers to provide a time line on the video where they think demolition explosions are heard. They can't do because there are no explosions evident in the video..
edit on 30-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:07 AM
Con Edison has 4300 miles of gas line buried under Manhattan. A gas main line will have a pressure of 80-100 psi and a pipe diameter of 6-8". From there the gas is fed through a pressure regulator stations which reduce the pressure to 25-60 psi. Another regulator out side a home or small business will drop the pressure to 1/4 psi. It will take a long time for the gas pressure to drop to 0 after the gas has been shut off.

As for the time of the explosion in that video:

If you go back in time on google earth to 4/6/2014 the shadows angle cast by the buildings will be almost exactly the same as the time of the explosions. The lengths of the shadows will be slightly shorter because the sun is at 49.4 deg or 3.51 deg higher. Also keep in mind that google earth is a mosaic of separate photos, and the photos were not taken at the same time. This will show some slight discrepancies in the shadows. However all of the photos of GE NY NY 4/6/2014 appear to be taken within a 5 min time window.

Sun light showing in video compared to google earth 4/6/2014 with angle drawn.

Clearer photo of same area with angel to show position of shadow line in relation to flag poles.

Zoom in of flag poles.

The sun on the flags and the tower but not the on building or ambulance places this video in the same timeframe as the phone booth video.

The explosion is a gas leak originating from here.

edit on 31-7-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:12 AM
a reply to: waypastvne

Nice work.

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:26 AM

originally posted by: DerekJR321
Energy usage can not generate NEW energy. The force used to crush the floor below uses up the momentum and energy. It doesn't create NEW energy to continue down 70+ floors.

You are familiar with something called gravity and mass?
If you stack up 100 beer crates and drop an elephant on the top, do you assume that the elephant will be stopped by the magnificent magical powers of those beer crates? The elephant doesn't need to "create" anything, its own mass is enough.

It's basic science, when you drop extremely heavy things onto things that cannot support their weight, it will collapse.

originally posted by: DerekJR321
Let's just look at WTC1. The impact was between the 92nd and 98th floors. The total height was 110 stories. So if we start at the highest point of impact (the 98th).. that leaves us 12 intact stories. If we were to completely remove floors 98 to 92, and drop the remaining 12 stories down onto the structure.. at BEST we can expect that only up to the 80th floor would be destroyed,

Your assumption is obviously completely wrong.
You think that a floor designed to hold its own weight is able to hold 12 times as much weight? Why? Just because you say so? You think they factored in the ability for a floor to be able to carry the weight of 12 times its own weight (and more), just because it supports your theory.

We know for a fact this is not true.
The floors of the WTC were designed to function in holding up their own weight, not designed to hold up any weight you want to drop onto it to support your theory.

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 07:02 AM
a reply to: Rocker2013


You also don't seem to understand what the Bazantian collapse theory describes. Your elephant example is nonsense. You need to weaken the structure locally from 10-20% at the top. Take a saw, damage it and put it on fire. Are you aware that each floor of the twin towers is able to hold its own weight a couple of times? Not 14 stories or 23 stories, but I thought about 5 times its weight. But even that is not needed. Each story (not the floor) is able to hold the complete weight of the remaining structure of the building. Floors don't need to hold weight, the columns do that. This means if we have N stories story i=1...N is able to hold at least (N-i) stories. This means the first story is able to hold the complete building. And story 96 is able to hold 14 stories. But the whole collapse theory depends on some assumptions. First it is assumed that a complete section fails and obtains enough kinetic energy to crush the next story and so on. Further mass is accumulated and a conservation of momentum law is used for the collisions. The discrete theory was first worked out by Frank Greening and Bazant's model is in fact the same one but used in differential equations. I have a couple of objections against the theory but this is not the thread for that. I only wanted to explain that your elephant theory is utter nonsense.

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:26 AM
a reply to: drommelsboef

You just beat me to it. Well written.

Again, evidence that those OS Trusters never ever READ the links I provided, to the heap of pages full of discussions of the Charles M. Beck mathematical papers, which are stock full of mathematical engineering evidence that both WTC 1 and 2 towers and WTC-7 could not have collapsed NATURALLY, even when Charles assumed that half of ALL exterior and interior-core columns were removed from his math equations, and to top it off, he ALSO removed HALF of those remaining half of all columns their material strength, to make the NIST assumptions even look more ridiculous.

Rocker2013 for sure refused to read this, ten or so pages back already :

--- discussion about Charles M. Beck's three papers from Cornell University :
Title : Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse.
REFUTE THAT, by Charles M. Beck.

Found those Beck papers related posts of mine and the usual opponents back in this same thread in this post.
Do then read also from that thread its pages 14 to 25.
It's the pages long discussion about these three Charles M. Beck papers.
They couldn't refute them. Not by far.
Perhaps you get interested enough to Read this whole, full thread you now reading one post from. It has become my repository for all my important 9/11 information.

For the OS doubting readers, hardcore OS trusters show time and time again, they do not read our links with an open mind, if they read them at all.
Found those Beck-posts easily back through the ATS Search, by using the words " labtop Charles M. Beck "
Beck wrote three papers by the way, on the WTC 2-South and 1-North towers collapses, and the WTC 7 collapse, all very advisable to read and then trying to understand and refute them, or find additional fine-tuning areas of interest, which Beck should include in his newer versions.
I would like to see him refute the faint possibility of any form of lateral displacement of vertical core or exterior steel columns (buckling), caused by overloading of one or more columns.
Don't forget he proves that if even half of all vertical exterior and core columns are removed from his equations, the remaining half of them which he also let loose half of their strength, were still several orders stronger enough to not buckle.
The inwards "buckling" of rows of exterior columns seconds before collapse initiations of the two Twin Towers were in fact "pulling inwards" caused by displaced floor areas, which were pulled down near the core, by a row of cut core columns where that floor area was still firmly connected to and also to that exterior column row. His calculations show there is no other possible explanation for that inward bowing of those exterior panels situated all on the rim of one floor. At near center positions on that exterior, where the floor plate areas were connected perpendicular to that exterior columns area.

Links are in my posts in this thread's pages, and in my LaBTop Pearltrees pages HERE.

Especially extensively discussed in my 27 L.Abtop pages, together with a lot more related mathematical, architectural and engineering papers.

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:48 AM
A reply to: waypastvne

Waypastvne, where do the sun's shadows come from then, in the multiple deep window-frames my sun rays originate from ?

Load this picture in Paint, and use the 200% or 400% enlarge function, then you clearly see the horizontal and vertical shadows in those window-frames their right sides.

That means we live on a new planet with two suns, one that shines its rays from a westerly oriented sun into those window-frames, and one that shines from behind the camera man on those flag poles.

edit on 31/7/15 by LaBTop because: Additional last lines explanation.

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 10:08 AM
Waypastvne, in my opinion, an audio specialist like the one who made that Trinity Church audio report I linked to, should put the audio of these two next explosion sounds comparisons through his expert software, just like these ones :

Listen to this FOIA freed from NIST, Trinity Church clip its TWO HUGE EXPLOSIONS :
audio print-out of the deep explosion sound and the rest of the WTC-7 collapse sound signals in this FOIA freed video :

Shaped Charge explosion compared to phoneboot explosion heard from WTC 7, found by Insolubrious :

Insolubrious : Of course the debunkers will like to claim this video is fake. But this explosion sound has actually been corroborated by the explosion captured in Steve Spak's video, confirming it's authenticity. This one :

Steve Spak filmed from 214 Broadway, which is 2 blocks east of WTC 7. Building on the left is a Chase Manhattan bank. It seems to me however, as recorded between 17 and 18 o'clock p.m. on 9/11/2001, if you note the vertical shadow line on the back wall of the Millennium Hotel, just left of that left flag, at the 0:25 seconds video time. And thus not around 10 o'clock a.m. as Insolubrious seems to think.
If waypastvne with his shadow software could assist to confirm this, than we hear thus a shaped charge or other explosion, around the time WTC 7 came down. Spak must have stood at the corner of Fulton Street and Broadway, so to see.
Use Fig. 2-1 Map showing the World Trade Center location in lower Manhattan. With those pink colors. From NIST NCSTAR 1-8, WTC Investigation. At 0:40 Steve's position is indicated with that thick red arrow.

And I am not sure anymore if we have to measure my yellow sunlight beams their elevation angles against the long concrete rim lines at the Chase Manhattan Bank building, like I did to match your proposal of the 11:01 a.m. time for the explosion, with its sun-elevation angle of 46 degrees.

I am contemplating now again, as I did in first instance when I posted my above quoted post, that in fact we have to measure the angle between these sun rays, and the EARTH its horizontal street plain, where Steve Spak stood on, while filming.
Because that's the elevation of the sun rays on the earth its surface.
Thus, parallel with the bottom line of the screen.

In that case, I get an approximate angle of 20 degrees (fault margin about 1 s).
I took that video's screenshot when the camera was as good as parallel with the ground/street level.
I waited until the roof of that fire truck was nearly parallel in the shot. That's why the vertical line of the Bank is as good as perpendicular with the Fulton Street its ground level.

WTC-7 Explosion Fulton St-Broadway Solar Calculator 17:20:37 p.m..JPG
Azimuth (in °) at Local Time 17:20:37 = 257.87°
Elevation (in °) at Local Time 17:20:37 = 20.14°

That could then be the DEEP SOUND at WTC-7, and then 4 seconds pass, before the east penthouse roof starts to collapse.

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:37 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Please review this video and identify the time lines where demolition explosions are heard.

WTC 7 Collapse Video

Understand that structural failure produce explosive-like sounds, which is evident in this video where a crane collapsed.

From this video, what sounds do you hear at time line 0:42 and time line 0:46?

Explosion-like Sounds Due to Crane Collapse

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:13 PM
Azimuth is measured in degrees clockwise from north.
Elevation is measured in degrees up from the horizon.
Az & El both report dark after astronomical twilight.

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:42 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

To be fair and honest, I just noticed there is a clock in the tower. Reading it to the best of my ability I get 10:50.

Double checking this with solar calculator, Both flag poles would be in the sunlight, The shadow would just be touching the flagpole on the right. But If the time of the video was 10:50 the shadow of the upper setback of the building would be smack in the middle of the clock and it is not. The tower does not come into full sunlight until 11:00.

The clock is at least ten minuets slow. The time of this explosion is still most likely 11:01:07.

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 07:11 AM
Bottom line; we may never know the truth about the events surrounding that horrible day. Whether the gov had any knowledge of, or involvement in the despicable acts taking place. But, taking history into account, is it not wiser to take a stance of suspicion rather than denial? Because, even if it turns out that no blood shed on 9/11 turned up on the hands of our gov, it IS NOT because they are unwilling or incapable of committing such acts. Any cognitive, rational thinking person residing in the good ol' US of A should know that our gov does not give a single solitary s**t about the vast majority of its citizens.

Very nice and thorough thread BTW
edit on 8/1/2015 by Firewater because: oh yeah

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: Firewater

No matter exactly who committed the crime, the fact remains that the federal government has gone to great lengths to coverup any proper investigation. It has gone to great lengths, with the help of the mainstream media, to obfuscate the facts and truth.

That strongly suggests involvement, as does a very large pile of other circumstantial evidence.

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:54 AM

originally posted by: CALGARIAN
WHY (or who) would have planted explosives in WTC7? lol.

The military industrial complex was financially broke and needed to get rid of evidence that was stored in wtc7. They needed new orders in their books. They had the needed contacts to NORAD...

And they were and are too big to fail. So no .gov will ever bring them to justice. They can not afford to loose their mic elites.

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: greyhat

The military industrial complex was financially broke and needed to get rid of evidence that was stored in wtc7.

Evidence please. I was working on an Air Force base at that time and would like to know the rest of the story.

They needed new orders in their books. They had the needed contacts to NORAD...

What were those orders?

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:49 AM
a reply to: Salander

No matter exactly who committed the crime, the fact remains that the federal government has gone to great lengths to coverup any proper investigation.

American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing Aircraft Co., American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Architects, the Protec. Co., and other demolition engineers and experts, are not government agencies nor employees, but they support the fact that fire, not explosives, took down WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

They didn't declare war on the United States, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in his first and second Fatwa.

They didn't take responsibility for the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for 9/11.

They didn't release martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers because it was al-Qaeda that released those martyr videos.

edit on 1-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:26 PM
This is why I always click on 9/11 conspiracy posts with the word 'Solved' in the title. Especially when it is in all caps.
Yelling and screaming at each other about how your evidence is PROOF, and theirs is conjecture, is just hysterical. And a lot of the 'hard science' presented by either side would be disbelieved by the very same people presenting it if it was given to them in ANY other context. But, that's what makes this site great, so rage on Truthers, rage on OS'ers. And have a wonderful day.

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:17 PM
a reply to: pfishy

The reason why I posted the video of WTC 7 was to challenge those who continue to claim that explosions were used to demolish WTC 7 as it collapsed.

I asked them to identify the time lines in that video where explosions are heard. People need to understand that you cannot just place explosives in a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse, especially without pre-weakening the structure, otherwise you are going to simply have what happened in 1993 where WTC 1 withstood the detonation of a huge bomb or something like this building.

Building Frame
edit on 1-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:12 AM
A reply to: waypastvne

That's again a VERY good find, that bell tower clock.
What amazes me, is that nobody starred your post, but me (now).

Of course the sun was traveling in an arc from east to west, around the back of the southern side of Fulton street, as can be seen in my many posted maps with the yellow colored sun's azimuths in it.
Thus, still waypastvne's time setting is having a great chance of being true, only the clock's time is confusing the matter, but the shadows seem to confirm his first additional seismic event theory time of 11:01 a.m.

So, where did these sharp (or diffuse? ) shadows in those Chase Manhattan Bank its deep square "windows" holes come from, is the question still nagging me.
I contemplated on two candidates for a solution :
1. Left/right switching of the video, like can be easily done in photos
2. The bright sunlight was reflected off some object back to that southern Bank facade.

Nr 1 seems too far fetched, and then the northern facade of the building on the northern side of that little church with the bell-tower clock would have been shown, making us think it was the Bank building.
Can anybody check how that northern building's facade looks like? Then we can put that to rest.

Nr 2 seems to me the only solution left. Only, when the sun's rays reflected from the dust and smoke clouds, I expect very diffuse ghost shadows in those deep square holes I let my sun rays originate from.
To me, they seem quite sharp. Could there be a huge building north of the Chase Manhattan Bank with a lot of reflective windows which reflected the sun rays?

And why are those shadows formed by rays of light under an Elevation angle of about 20 degrees with the horizon?
Sun reflections should be casted back under the same angle. But in this case seemingly under about half that Sun's Elevation angle of 45.9 degrees at 11:01:07 EDT a.m.?

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in