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.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 26
3
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   


Here exponent, I made you a new cropped photo from the WTC 1 dust cloud photo. This one even shows which windows are broken on the WTC 7 western face. See how similar the pulverized concrete dust clouds look in each 'cropped' photo?


posted by exponent
I'm sure that dust can look a lot like smoke, unfortunately WTC7 was emitting smoke for approximately 7 hours. It is hard to believe that despite the well known fires in WTC7, all the smoke seen was in fact dust. Your apparent assertion that this is the case baffles me. Are you really stating that WTC7 was not producing smoke?

You did not like the cropped photo I made especially for you? I thought it did a really good job at proving my point. Do you still believe that the pulverized concrete dust clouds in the original 'uncropped' photo is really smoke from raging WTC 7 office fires? Isn't that called denial? Do you also believe that the pulverized concrete dust clouds in this cropped photo is really smoke from raging WTC 7 office fires? My oh my. I think somebody has difficulty dealing with reality.





posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
But you were supporting the illusion that the cloud of pulverized concrete dust between the buildings was actually smoke from raging fires in the WTC 7 offices. I proved beyond any doubt that you were mistaken concerning the above 'uncropped' photo. Your video has nothing to do with this photo.


I believe you should go back and look at the Aman Zafar pictures. A significant amount of time passes between WTC1s collapse and any picture I have seen you post so far. Furthermore the picture you selected to post first above does not seem to be an Aman Zafar picture. I believe you are simply confused as to the timing.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

posted by wecomeinpeace on 11/14/05
Here is the full, 'uncropped' photo of the smoke coming from WTC7:



Here is a cropped image from another Aman Zafar photo. Maybe the image above is not cropped from an Aman Zafar photo, but it does present the pulverized concrete dust from the demolition of WTC 1 coming between the buildings just as Zafar's photos present it. All three photos show the heavy steel piece in WFC3. The photo above is not showing smoke coming from WTC 7.

However if you look at the shadow on the WFC3 building just above the heavy steel piece hurled from WTC 1 on the above photo and the center photo, it is in almost the same area. Therefore these two photos were taken within a short time of each other and both show a pulverized concrete dust cloud between the buildings.



Another Aman Zafar photo



The original for this cropped image



[edit on 10/3/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Here's another view with first responders standing in the rubble of 1, near the bottom of the photo. Clearly, there's no concrete dust coming from it at this time, but lotsa smoke coming from 7. Agree?





Another:






And now a youtube video that show that the motion of the smoke originates from 7, and isn't from 1:





Face it...... your beliefs are junk that have been debunked for years...



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ekul08
 


That is why in almost all explosions in wartime, on television, and in science appear BLEU!!!



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Every picture you've posted there comes from late in the day. Aman Zafar's page states this:

In the afternoon sun, the colour of the smoke is different. I am no longer shooting against the sun.


The picture immediately after this is the one you've posted, and the one immediately before is one close to WTC1s collapse. In the before picture, you can clearly see a massive difference in shadows. I have put together a simple scaled comparison to help you see where you are incorrect:




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

posted by LeftBehind on 11/13/05
Here is a great picture of WTC7 entirely covered with smoke on one side. You probably won't see this one on sites dedicated to the demo theory.

posted by wecomeinpeace on 11/14/05
Here is the full, 'uncropped' photo of the smoke coming from WTC7:

posted by exponent on 10/03/08
Large quantities of windows on the south face were smashed, and you have no evidence to suggest this cloud is purely from the collapse of WTC1. You are just speculating in an attempt to minimise the apparent severity of fires and damage to WTC7.



But I just objected to the use of the above uncropped photo for proving that smoke was coming from the south face of WTC7 when it is obvious it was not. Where is the smoke pouring out of those corner office windows some of which are open or broken? That is a cloud of pulverized concrete dust from WTC 1 pouring between those buildings. Not smoke.

I already knew there were fires in WTC 7, but they had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of WTC 7. As you can see from the penthouse collapse and the classic kink in the middle of the building, WTC 7 was brought down with a normal demolition. Fires do not collapse steel framed skyscrapers. If WTC 7 collapsed because of damage done to the south side of the 47 story building, then it would have collapsed in that direction, right on top of WTC 6. It did not. The pre-planted demolitions took WTC 7 straight down almost in its own footprint.



However, the Towers were destroyed with a new style US Military designed top-down explosive demolition. WTC 7 was away from the WTC and Lucky Larry had no 'terrorist attacks' insurance on the buildings near WTC 7 and they needed to be spared with a normal demolition. Perhaps destroying the US Post Office next door would be a federal offense that Lucky Larry would have to pay for. Can't have that can we?

But the 9-11 planners could care less what happened to the tenants and firefighters trapped in the towers, nor the buildings and vehicles and people down below, so top-down explosive demolitions were ordered for maximum Shock & Awe effect. Those people were expendable for corporate profits just like US Military 'cannon fodder' are expendable for corporate profits. The demolitions of all three buildings are so obvious.

North Tower Top-Down Explosive Demolition
South Tower Top-Down Explosive Demolition
South Tower-At The Corner Floors Are Intact Above The Explosive Wave Down The Building



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
But I just objected to the use of the above uncropped photo for proving that smoke was coming from the south face of WTC7 when it is obvious it was not.

How exactly is it obvious? I've already shown you your timing is wrong, so where is this smoke coming from?


Where is the smoke pouring out of those corner office windows some of which are open or broken?

Look just above the Winter Garden. Smoke will obviously only be produced by those floors suffering fires.


That is a cloud of pulverized concrete dust from WTC 1 pouring between those buildings. Not smoke.

No it is not, you've posted pictures from much later in the day than you realise, see my shadow comparison pictures above.


I already knew there were fires in WTC 7, but they had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of WTC 7. As you can see from the penthouse collapse and the classic kink in the middle of the building, WTC 7 was brought down with a normal demolition.

Why would the penthouse collapse indicate controlled demolition? It occurs way before the main collapse phase starts.


Fires do not collapse steel framed skyscrapers. If WTC 7 collapsed because of damage done to the south side of the 47 story building, then it would have collapsed in that direction, right on top of WTC 6. It did not. The pre-planted demolitions took WTC 7 straight down almost in its own footprint.

It didn't collapse due to damage, that simply slightly changed the failure mode. Please read the new NIST report.


However, the Towers were destroyed with a new style US Military designed top-down explosive demolition. WTC 7 was away from the WTC and Lucky Larry had no 'terrorist attacks' insurance on the buildings near WTC 7 and they needed to be spared with a normal demolition. Perhaps destroying the US Post Office next door would be a federal offense that Lucky Larry would have to pay for. Can't have that can we?

Please do not divert the topic, killing people is a federal offense.




top topics



 
3
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join