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.

 

9/11 and building 7

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
LB, that is not the south face.

Honestly, I don't even know how that was supposed to be a response to my post. But it might explain why this image of yours was so off, without you understanding why:



That's not the South face.




posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade


Every video I have ever seen shows all three buildings coming straight down. Even WTC 2, which started it's decent with it's top in angular momentum, and then against Newton's law, changed it's direction toward the earth.

Isn't it quite ironic that if they really wanted to make it look "natural", they should have had the buildings break apart in pieces, and topple over? Yet they fell at freefall+, and totally pulverize themselves into dust with pyroclastic flows. . .

Again, I don't think this was the case according to the firemen.


The buildings didn't come straight down. 1&@ pretty much spewed outward. They in no way resembled controlled demolitions which collapse inward and on themselves. If you look at the footage from the helecopters filming the falls, the whole island is pretty much engulfed in dust and debre. How many CDs have you seen like that? How many destroy most of the surrounding buildings? If they did fall straight down and into their own footprints, then the surrounding areas would not have been destroyed.

natural? If the buildings fell the way you describe they should, they would defy the laws of physics. This isn't a cartoon, this is real life. Buildings don't simply fall over to the side.The amount of force required simply doesn't exist.

Some firemen quotes:

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good." - Boyle

"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. " - Boyle

"There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. " - Hayden

"That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. " - Hayden

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. - Fire chief Daniel Nigro



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
They in no way resembled controlled demolitions which collapse inward and on themselves. If you look at the footage from the helecopters filming the falls, the whole island is pretty much engulfed in dust and debre. How many CDs have you seen like that? How many destroy most of the surrounding buildings? If they did fall straight down and into their own footprints, then the surrounding areas would not have been destroyed


Another way of saying that, is "not even a conventional demolition will destroy a building so damned thoroughly."



Remember that while you say demolitions have never produced such collapses, neither have any other collapse mechanisms. These things were totally new and completely alien to all other collapses, before or since 9/11.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   


It sure looks like the debris from the tower is impacting WTC 7.

In fact it almost looks as if you can see dust trails from stuff bouncing off the south face of WTC 7.





[edit on 3-9-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
LB, that is not the south face.

Honestly, I don't even know how that was supposed to be a response to my post. But it might explain why this image of yours was so off, without you understanding why:


What does that picture have to do with anything. Why don't you respond to the ideas presented in the post instead of discussing me. Thanks.



It appears that smoke is billowing out of the entire southwestern corner and the south side of the building.

Do you have any pics of the south face undamaged perhaps?

Anything to add to the discussion other than petty attacks and unsupported opinions?



Notice how the smoke is not just coming from the southwest corner, as you would have us believe, but instead is coming from a large area of the building?



[edit on 3-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Pointing out that you're confusing different faces of a building is a personal attack?

You didn't have to remove that image, either. Just like you didn't have to rename your thread that originally insinuated that there were no court cases against the gov for 9/11. When the rest of us get something wrong, we tend not to go back and edit things so no one can tell. It's dishonest to the discussion going on, imo. And that's no personal attack, either.

If you want a picture of the South face, go to the "Debunking" 911 site and look at the Steve Spak photo alleging to show the huge crater-gouge. That's actually the SW corner damage. I've posted about this on page 2 of this thread:




The Steve Spak photo of the South facade of WTC7 shows this damage, as Slap Nuts and WCIP have shown on another thread. This can be determined by the angles in the photo, matching sooty marks on the building, and the amount of undisturbed south face shown in the photo.

You'll notice that in the photo, you can see obvious damage (the SW corner damage), and then you can see much of the rest of the South face, with no more visible damage. You can say that they just missed the other, hypothetical, huge gouge in the building, for whatever reason (even though it was supposed to be HUGE and therefore somehow justify the free-fall collapse of Building 7), but NIST placed that hole near the center of the building face. That creates some problems, as even one of the "debunking" sites points out that you can pick out most of the columns on the South face to the right of the SW damage. So then where was the gouge? It would have to be on one of the extreme sides of the face, as a quick column count will show it wasn't near the center (assuming it existed at all as something separate from the SW corner damage).



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Like I said, discuss the topic not me thanks.

I don't know why you want to discuss me so much, but bait someone who wants to participate in a flame war.

If you didn't want the image removed, maybe you should have saved it to your own photobucket account. I will do with mine what I wish.

Now how about instead of hiding behind your double standard of evidence you show us a picture of the south face undamaged.

You claim that all you want to see is a picture of this hole in the south face and it will prove it to you.

Yet you have no pictures of an undamaged south face and take it on faith because that is what you wish to believe.

Where's the pictures of the undamaged face?

Most of the pictures show quite a bit of smoke appearing to come out of the southwest corner and the south side. As well as testimony from firemen on the scene saying that there was massive damage to the south face.

Where is the testimony saying that there were limited fires in WTC 7 and that the south side was undamaged?

Negative proof will never prove demolition.





[edit on 3-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Reread my last post, which quotes a post from the second page of this thread. There is a picture of the South face. It does not show a large gouge. Only the SW corner damage. It shows too much undamaged area for the gouge to have been where NIST placed it.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Isn't it quite ironic that if they really wanted to make it look "natural", they should have had the buildings break apart in pieces, and topple over? Yet they fell at freefall+, and totally pulverize themselves into dust with pyroclastic flows. . .



Actually they didnt fall at freefall+. They fell slower than that.


My bad- I should have said that only WTC 7 fell at freefall in a vacuum. The towers did as first seem crumble from the impact point of the planes down, and therefore it wasn't as neat as this;


ebaumsworld.com...


Since then I have changed my mind. . .


Originally posted by LeftBehind

Secondly, pyroclasctic flows are extremely hot. The clouds that day were not pyroclastic, which is why we see people at ground zero covered in dust, not burned to a crisp.


That's a good point. I will have research that fact further. Maybe the flow from a CD, even though it has the same signature, is less ferocious that a vocanic eruption. Thanx again for the comment. ( I love when someone thinks of something I haven't. Long live ATS! )


Originally posted by Snoopy

The buildings didn't come straight down. 1&@ pretty much spewed outward. They in no way resembled controlled demolitions which collapse inward and on themselves. If you look at the footage from the helecopters filming the falls, the whole island is pretty much engulfed in dust and debre. How many CDs have you seen like that? How many destroy most of the surrounding buildings? If they did fall straight down and into their own footprints, then the surrounding areas would not have been destroyed.

natural? If the buildings fell the way you describe they should, they would defy the laws of physics. This isn't a cartoon, this is real life. Buildings don't simply fall over to the side.The amount of force required simply doesn't exist.


Again I stand corrected & should have said that WTC 7 came straight down, but the towers came down like no other buildings in the history of buildings. . . That's why there's such a great debate over this. . . Why did they even come down at all. . .















[edit on 3-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Maybe the flow from a CD, even though it has the same signature, is less ferocious that a vocanic eruption.


Definitely less severe, and these kinds of flows are not typical for any types of building collapses or demolitions. They're only known to volcano eruptions, and the only reason we saw them in New York that day was because of the insanely massive destruction each building suffered.

It seems as though there was intense heat from the collapses, but where it would have come from, and where exactly these cars and parking lots were (below), I'm still not exactly sure (except for the last image).

Photos:













[edit on 3-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Maybe the flow from a CD, even though it has the same signature, is less ferocious that a vocanic eruption.


Definitely less severe, and these kinds of flows are not typical for any types of building collapses or demolitions. They're only known to volcano eruptions, and the only reason we saw them in New York that day was because of the insanely massive destruction each building suffered.

It seems as though there was intense heat from the collapses, but where it would have come from, and where exactly these cars and parking lots were (below), I'm still not exactly sure (except for the last image).

[edit on 3-9-2006 by bsbray11]


I don't know where these parking lots are either, but they do resemble this lot. I know this photo is 140 West St. facing west, and directly north of 3 WFC.




posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
That's interesting, because West Street is where this photo was taken (even though the parking lot would be by another corner of the WTC complex if I'm reading you correctly!):



You can see 90 West Building in the background (notice the windows).





It was right across the street from WTC2:




As WCIP has pointed out, this exact area also corresponds to hot spots after 9/11:






Can't forget the hot spots when talking about massive heat output from the Towers.


[edit on 3-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by TG
I thought there might have been a fast way to demolish a building.


There is a fast way to demolish a building.

Incorporate the explosives right into the building while it is being built. Then when you are ready to proceeed with the demolition, lets say a week or so before hand, you send in your people to check the charges which were put into place 30 years prior.


um its like impossible to get away with that theory.
do you know how many people worked to build the towers??? HUNDREDS. theres no way to keep em all quiet while you rig the explosives. there is no way the bombs were planted during construction because someone working on it would have spilled the beans by now.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
theres no way to keep em all quiet while you rig the explosives. there is no way the bombs were planted during construction because someone working on it would have spilled the beans by now.


What makes you think they haven't? Have you talked to any of them recently?

Christophera, when he used to post more frequently around here, would refer to oral histories given by the actual guys that did construction for the Twin Towers. Guess what they testified to? Each floor being evacuated before the pouring of the floor slabs. The concrete came along behind the steel (as you will notice in construction photos), and before each floor slab would be laid, according to the workers, the floors would be evacuated of everyone without a special security clearance from the Port Authority, and material would be laid below the floor slabs, and then the concrete laid over top of that.

You'd have to contact Christophera for any more specifics on that, though. Personally, I've come across corroborating information in an article that I never thought to link at the time, where someone who had actually seen the construction drawings talked about pressing the Port Authority on an unaccounted-for 1/4 inch or so in certain parts of the structure. I remember images showing lateral components, and they may very well have been the floor slabs, but I didn't think anything significant of it at the time and haven't seen it since.

I did save an image from that page, though, if it would help anyone to find it again (at least I think this was from the same page):



but I can't even remember what the significance of this image was. It might have been the clean shearing on the box columns.

I'll try to track down exact sources for these oral histories and post them, even if it means digging through libraries and real books.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
2PacSade, I know you are new here, but it really doesn't help to spam the board with a bunch of images.

Most of us here have seen and are familiar with those images you have posted.

I can guess where you are trying to go with in that post, and my response is this:

Can you detail the specific similarities and differences in the design and construction ofeach of those buildings? How are the the same or different from the WTC buildings.

If you want to compare them, you have to be prepared to defend that comparison.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
bsbray, I really don't think you can make any argument from that last picture.

It is obviously from well into the clean up.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Anyone watch the show on Discovery last night? It had video of WTC 1's collapse that clearly showed large sections of the tower falling into WTC 7.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
It's funny you pick something that I only reference in passing to attack, HowardRoark.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
2PacSade, I know you are new here, but it really doesn't help to spam the board with a bunch of images.

Most of us here have seen and are familiar with those images you have posted.

I can guess where you are trying to go with in that post, and my response is this:

Can you detail the specific similarities and differences in the design and construction ofeach of those buildings? How are the the same or different from the WTC buildings.

If you want to compare them, you have to be prepared to defend that comparison.



That's fair. . . For one, the Windsor building in Madrid seems to be very similar in design to the towers, just not as tall, and the core doesn't seem to be as robust as the boxed column design of the towers. I guess the other comparison, though much more broad, is the fact that no other buildings have ever fell because of a plane strike, which they were designed for, and a fire, which they were designed for. . . And those other buildings burned for much longer, as did WTC 1 in 1975. I'm sorry if it was a waste of time to post the pics-



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Comparisons to other buildings aren't even necessary, and of course people like HowardRoark are going to tell you that the WTC Towers were 100% alien to any other buildings upon the face of the Earth, because no other buildings will EVER fall like that from aircraft impacts and fires alone.

It ultimately falls upon this: where is the evidence of sufficient damage from fire?

We know roughly how much damage the Towers suffered from the impacts. We know exactly how many perimeter columns were knocked up from the impacts, and NIST (being the very conservative agency that they are
) changed Flight 175's impact trajectory in order to fail the maximum amount of core columns possible in simulations, and got less than 50% at least somewhat damaged, and some 8 or so out of 47 totally failed. Again, that was their worst case scenario, after altering a plane's trajectory.

So we know how many columns failed from impacts. We know that those buildings were massively redundant, as all skyscrapers are. For example, the perimeter columns were 5 times redundant according to NIST, so if every 4 out of 5 perimeter columns were knocked out, or 80%, the perimeter would have completely failed instantly. Remember -- that's TOTALLY FAILED columns, NOT buckled columns, which still support some loads.

So what we should be looking for, is A LOT of buckled perimeter columns, as latest government word is that this is what caused them to start falling in the first place. How many have we actually seen? Not much more than a handful on any given floor.

The SE that came out against the NIST Report in the Fetzer interview voiced this exact same concern: we did not see enough buckling, not NEARLY enough buckling, to explain why either building began to fall. There was too much structure that was obviously still intact, before each collapse began.



[edit on 4-9-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join