Let us talk about the Smoking Gun: WTC7

The smoke in the photo's below is two different, colours does that make sense at all?

Or is the second one meant to be pulervized concrete hitting the building?

WTC 7 - Picture 1



WTC 7 - Picture 2



[edit on 10-9-2006 by aelphaeis_mangarae]

The free fall was bottom to top implosion, where as the towers were harder to implode using a top to bottom fireing sequence. That is just my opinion, please feel free to take it with what ever you decide best.

Any study or practical knowledge of imploding demolition techniques, would make that much as obvious as the nose on most of our faces. Or I hope, but humanity has never ceased to amaze me, so...

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
The smoke in the photo's below is two different, colours does that make sense at all?

Different cameras have different output. It's why the buildings themselves are different colours. Different lighting, hue... saturation ect.

hmmm doesn't look like any huge damage in this image, also with all the damage on one side of the building why did it go straight down? and not over to one side?

If the corner missing on 10+ stories is not huge damage, then what does qualify?

I guess a smoking crater in the south side and corner damage extending multiple floors is light damage?!

Under what circumstances would there be heavy damage? After the building fell?

Aelphaeis, the color shift makes perfect sense, as it's essentially related to viewing distance - it's what makes the sky appear blue. The molecules in air tend to scatter shorter wavelengths (i.e. blue) of light, whilst having no effect on longer waves (such as red). That basically means that air "glows" bluish when there is sunlight to scatter, and it also explains why sunsets appear red: having to pass through much more atmosphere in low angles, the blue component of the sunlight gets mostly scattered away and thus, for the observer, filtered out.

I hope I could make some sense out of it for you.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Lumos]

Whoops.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Lumos]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If the corner missing on 10+ stories is not huge damage, then what does qualify?

I guess a smoking crater in the south side and corner damage extending multiple floors is light damage?!

Under what circumstances would there be heavy damage? After the building fell?

Its damage for sure, but is it enough to bring a building down? Not in the way it fell.

In order for us to see huge damage, that fits the implosion like fall of the building, we need to see equal, and heavy damage all around the building, otherwise it's like cutting a tree down. you chip a part out, and it falls at its weakest point, not straight down into itself.

Take a look at this:
NIST "WTC Complex" misleading...

Just look at it.. The image at the left is the illustration NIST used in their report depicting
the "WTC Complex" written on WTC6 with WTC7 at top of it.
The image top right comes from wikipedia's illustration depicting the WTC Complex
where you can clearly see that WTC6 is what they call "WTC Complex". The NIST
deliberately tried to mislead readers with this depiction because quite a few people
will probably assume that this "WTC Complex" is actually the WTC1 unless they
would look into maps of it. At the top right is a depiction of the WTC Complex
from wikipedia for comparison.
The image at the lower right is a photo from WTC7 engulfed in dust.

Source:
en.wikipedia.org...:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.jpg

Video compilation of a dozen WTC7 collapse/implosions vids:
video.google.com...

If the corner missing on 10+ stories is not huge damage, then what does qualify?

I guess a smoking crater in the south side and corner damage extending multiple floors is light damage?!

Under what circumstances would there be heavy damage? After the building fell?

The INNER CORE that held the structure up was as good as undamaged so even a fall
to the side would be questionable. The way WTC7 falls implies that all the steal
colums failed at the exact same time which is impossible to explain unless you take
into concideration explosives are used.


[edit on 10-9-2006 by zren]

Originally posted by zren
the "WTC Complex" written on WTC6 with WTC7 at top of it.
The image top right comes from wikipedia's illustration depicting the WTC Complex
where you can clearly see that WTC6 is what they call "WTC Complex". The NIST
deliberately tried to mislead readers with this depiction because quite a few people
will probably assume that this "WTC Complex" is actually the WTC1 unless they
would look into maps of it.

"WTC Complex" is the term used to incorporate ALL of the WTC buildings together.

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
The smoke in the photo's below is two different, colours does that make sense at all?

Or is the second one meant to be pulervized concrete hitting the building?

I used to think that the second image was an image of pulverized concrete being squeezed between WTC7 and its neighboring buildings as a Tower had just fallen, but that side is actually the side facing the rest of the complex, and right over top of WTC5 and 6, which were heavily damaged and engulfed in flame (much more so than WTC7).

So it doesn't appear to be the case that could have been dust from a Tower. That stuff must be a combination of smoke from WTC5 and 6, and smoke (+ thick dust?) from WTC7, despite no visible flames even on the west face there. LaBTop posted a while ago (here) suggesting that we could be looking at the result of thermite reactions taking place in WTC7 at that time.

Guys and gals unless any of us here are structural or mechanical engineers then none of us really are qualified to comment on this. I for one believe this whole day was one giant conspiracy in one way or another but after 5 years, there have been no really well respected people in this field come out and say that the way these buildings fell couldn't possibly have happened the way the US govt. says it did. Sure we have had some people come out, but most of them are taken for crackpots in their field. Whenever the firm that built the towers says they couldn't have fallen like they did and sings it from the rafters, then I think people might start to ask some more questions.

Now if any of you are qualified engineers then I stand ready and willing to listen and support you, but all this profound chatter by unlearned individuals is tiresome. We all know something stinks to high heaven here, but nobody has managed to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt for 5 years now which seems rather absurd to me if it didn't happen like they said it did.

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by zren
the "WTC Complex" written on WTC6 with WTC7 at top of it.
The image top right comes from wikipedia's illustration depicting the WTC Complex
where you can clearly see that WTC6 is what they call "WTC Complex". The NIST
deliberately tried to mislead readers with this depiction because quite a few people
will probably assume that this "WTC Complex" is actually the WTC1 unless they
would look into maps of it.

"WTC Complex" is the term used to incorporate ALL of the WTC buildings together.

No sht sherlock but notice how they hide the WTC1 and 2 on the picture. Any mainstream
reader will not notice it. While they are 'correct' it is the WTC Complex, the building
they pasted the text on is WTC6 which stands BETWEEN 1 & 7. Misleading losers.

Here is an idea, look up what the firefighters said about the damage to WTC 7 and the fact that they realized early on that because of the damage they saw, that WTC 7 was most likely going to collapse as well. They had the best vantage point that day and yet the only part of their testimony that people on the board take seriously is the MISQUOTES about explosions and bombs.

Originally posted by Escrotumus
Sure we have had some people come out, but most of them are taken for crackpots in their field.

If this can be said of any physicists or engineers or mathematicians, etc., coming out against these collapses, it's a result of what they're saying about 9/11 in the first place.

These people are not "taken for crackpots in their fields" until people start using ad hominems against them when they do come out, to avoid addressing exactly what they say. How many people have I seen address what LP structural engineer of 30-years experience Charles Pegelow say? None. Yet I bet you a lot of people will be quick to call him a crackpot anyway, just like you have just done. Have you ever considered that this may be a reason these people are so slow to come out to begin with? We could do without the negativeness towards individuals, and focus solely on the information, which is far from esoteric or isolated to simply one or two fields of study; all of these sciences are based firmly upon the core science of physics, and in some cases, chemistry.

I'd like to add that the Oklahoma City building never collapased...and it sustained major structural damage compared to what im seeing in these photos.

Ok Larry Silverstien WTC owner said they made a decision to pull(Demilition term)WTC7. That is ADMITTING THAT SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE MADE A DECISION TO DESTROY THE WTC!!!!!!! YES! Besides we havent even got an anwser of why it callopesed you know what they tell us ("I have no idea"). Another things buildings dont callapse because of a fire BBC TRIED TO BURN DOWN A BUILDING FOR LIKE A MONTH! GUESS WHAT ITS STILL STANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!ERRRRRRRRRRR ARE PEOPLE DUMB WAKE THE HELL UP AND SEE WHATS GOING ON

Even if it had severe structural damage on one side, it should not have fallen down, evenly, into itself and into it's own footprint. That ONLY happens in a controlled demolittion.

If you cut a tree to the point that it will structurally fail, it does not fall into itself, it falls over towards the weakest point of its base. So if you cut into the western point of the trunk, and made a wedge into it, the tree will naturally fall into that wedge, and down.

If the building failed structurally because of the damage on any point of the building, its fall would have been uneven and would have, logically, falled down into the point of the building that was weakened the most. So it would have tipped over to the structurally weakest point of the building.

It would tip over. Or it would do this.

Failed demolition

instead we see something more similar to this.

Demolition

Again with the "no building has ever collapsed because of fire" argument? In case no one noticed, fire was only part of it. WTC 7, according to the firefighters who where there that day, suffered massive damage to the side facing the Towers. Again, according to the people there that day, the damage was heaviest towards the center of that side. That kind of damage would cause a collapse like what we witnessed.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
That kind of damage would cause a collapse like what we witnessed.

Thanks for clearing that up for me brother.
After three years of research into 911 I still couldnt figure out what brought down building seven. My entire 911 conspiracy theory revolved around building seven.
Now that you have come and stated that fact so clearly I can go back to my regular daily proceedings, and just forget about the countless other anomalies.