It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

page: 5
11
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:14 AM
Okay using good old physics unresisted freefall for an object 570 ft above the ground would be roughly 4.5 sec. (32.17ft/sec^2). Terminal Velocity can be ignored due to 570ft is too short of a distance to reach terminal velocity from drag.

Estimates of total collapse of WTC7 (roof to ground) range between 6.5 to 7.5 sec. This gives a rough difference of 2-3 sec depending on collapse estimates. Not a huge amount of time difference. But what would be acceptable? 10-15sec?

Now I will compair it to the
Beriut Hilton In the video look at the right central tower (I would guess it to be a stairwell or elevator) as it does a straight level fall very similar to WTC7 (notice the rest of the building does not) but if it is 225ft tall (approximately 22 stories) unresisted freefall would be 3 sec. from the moment that roof moves to the best guess time of it hitting the ground is about 4 sec.

Again I am not an expert but a 1 sec difference versus a 2-3sec difference for a building more than twice the height seems fairly consistant.

Now look at the whole building how the CD causes the building to drop along the lost vertical point and it folds right into itself. WTC7 does not do this. WTC7 does a straight level fall. This is why I doubt CD on WTC7. To purposefully shape the charge for a straight level fall makes it very risky as to where and how the building would end up. Showing a three year old a city made of blocks immediately comes to mind.

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:51 AM

Originally posted by AhabstarThis is why I doubt CD on WTC7.

Fair enough. Now... why did it fall? Also, what does your post have to do with the photos or damage being discussed in this thread?

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Pootie]

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 08:02 AM
I see that de-bunkers are now using a dual approach where WTC-7 is concerned: one arguing that the penthouse fell first, causing a kink in the roof, which they claim is evidence of an asymmetrical collapse; and now in this thread, a new argument, suggesting that the fall was too symmetrical!

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 08:22 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
You don't need physics 101 to understand this. For a building to fall this way ALL the supports would have to fail at the same time, how does that happen from localised damage? It doesn't and never has.

To further illustrate this point. Here is the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City. The suppossed one bomb severed all columns except for one. Notice how much of the building is still standing with just one column.

Preparation operations for the implosion were more sophisticated than those required for a "normal implosion operation." When a structure is imploded, the contractor relies on the structural integrity of the building being demolished to assist in the control of the fall of the structure. In the case of the Murrah Building, the structural integrity of the building had been compromised by the terrorist blast, therefore, reconstructive operations had to be conducted to augment the structural integrity of the building in order to control its fall away from the adjacent parking garage.

Source: www.controlled-demolition.com...

Notice how they explain that it was difficult to demolish the building because they didn't know which way it would go and actually had to build support for the structure to fall straight down. That's with just one column left standing.

Here's a NOVA interview with Stacey Loizeux of CDI.

NOVA: Why do the explosive charges go off at intervals rather than all at once?

SL: Well, if I kick both your legs out from under you, you're going to fall right on your butt. If I kick one leg out from under you, you'll fall left or right. So the way we control the failure of the building is by using the delays. And, again, that varies structure to structure and depending on where we want the building to go. A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

Source: www.pbs.org...

Notice how she explains how it was impossible for WTC 7 to fall in it's own footprint. Not in so many words but you get the point.

Here's what she says about the one column.

NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?

SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.

NOVA: How did they describe it?

SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.

One column held that whole building together but WTC 7 came down symmetrical? How? Isn't it funny how now NIST has contracted CDI to tell us if it was a demolition or not. In light of what they have said in the past about columns and having to knock out every single one at the same time to get a symmetrical collapse, I wonder what the verdict will be.

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 08:34 AM
Incorrect assumption. I support neither agenda. I look at what I see and draw my own conclusions. It is called objective thought. I actually congradulate the OP for independent thought and investigation, as the OP introduced something different instead of repeating someone else's work until a group forms and it becomes a mantra.

Grainy, digitally compressed video over zoomed then "corrected" for over zooming makes for strange sights like disappearing plane wings and proves very little to nothing depending on the claim. Frame by frame study is difficult when VHS recording does not create frames and digital recorders of the time were crap for such long range shots.

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 03:22 PM
So, now we are supposed to ignore the Video evidence.

Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin eyes?

LOL

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Smack
So, now we are supposed to ignore the Video evidence.

Wow, okay. That is a very bold assertion and a slightly self-righteous attack. But I will roll with it.

Completely unrelated to 9/11, but take a long hard look at Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. In particular, the scenes in the droid factory. All that machinery, ducking the swinging arms, molten metal pouring into mold, jumping through giant presses stamping out parts, the hanging steam and sounds of the factory: 100% digital. The entire sequence was filmed in green screen with the actor jumping in front of marks. Indeed that was post production editing of footage at its finest. Agree?

While watching a digital broadcast you can sometimes see digital pixilation caused by interference in the broadcast, reception or translation to the TV screen. It is annoying but we dismiss those pixel squares as incorrect visuals. Agree?

VHS is a recording on magnetic tape, there are no frames like in a traditional film. Frame by frame advancement is moving the recording 1/24 to 1/30 of a second. The displayed image will have motion blurs, ghosted images of scene transitions as the focus goes from one subject to the next. In a TV show think of an establishing shot of the White House to a tight close up of the actor playing the president just before he speaks.

Digital filming works much like VHS recording except that the digital image will undergo error correction and compression. Sounds perfect right? No, it is not. Subjects that are stationary and unchanging are not continuously updated. Other imperfections are present in digital, such as digital versus optical zoom, but I am not as well versed in digital to point out those failings. But I do know that the availability of quality HD Digital cameras on 9/11/2001 was very sparse indeed. The model used for the movie Once Upon A Time In Mexico is now considered a consumer model and retails for about \$900-\$1100.

What all this means is you have missing wings, planes entering intact buildings and other nonsense. Post-production editing can produce even wilder results.

We can take the footage of the MBL pitcher that accidentally hit that pigeon in that game, start off with a close up of the bird about to take off from the railing surrounding a ballpark (any one will do), reverse a video of that pitcher checking first base (should be footage of that sometime during that game) so it looked like he is checking to the right (do it fast enough and people won’t notice glove on wrong hand or crop the check to extreme close up of the face), show the actual footage of the pitch and the sound of a thud and squawk on impact along with a dramatic music score of cellos and violins and that accident looks intentional. You could even zoom into a bird’s eye and show the reflection of the incoming ball and some people will believe it.

I have seen some evidence footage from 9/11 “newly revealed” or “rare” that use some of these same elements. Watch the local and national news of interviews where the actual interview is interrupted , a separate detail is shown such as footage along with the reporter doing a commentary narration of what you are viewing, then we are back in the interview with a question and answer that reaffirms the commentary you just saw. Oddly enough this technique is overused in 9/11 conspiracy programs as well as official story programs. In fact these techniques are so overused, that I would hazard a guess that there actually reasonably intelligent people on this planet that will honestly tell you that the whole thing was faked and the towers are still standing.

--continues--

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Smack

Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin eyes?

I would guess that I would have to believe my own “lyin eyes” as they seem to be connected to a bit of grey matter that discerns forced perspective over personal objectivity. Reading back over the post I seem to notice an admission that the OP used part of another building in his image. Hmmm. Perhaps this is not as good of a thread as I first thought….

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Find me a building that has done this, I guarantee you you can't.

Ok sure, heres one.

Just because something has never happened before does not mean it is impossible.

Why do people keep claiming that the building fell into it's own footprint. If it hit buildings across the street, that means that it did not fall perfectly into it's footprint.

What, did you guys move the goalposts so that WTC 7's footprint counts as the actual buildings footprint plus a block in every direction?

If it was a "classic CD" as some of you claim, then why did it hit other buildings? Controlled demolitions do not damage the surrounding buildings, the exact opposite of what happened at 7.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by LeftBehind]

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 10:47 PM
People are arguing one way, then another, then this way, then that way....

We must remember what was in the Building, namely THE CIA amongst the bunker and other highly secure and confidential things.

Someone brought up the Oklahoma Building. Excellent point, the building still stood.

But even more CIRCUMSTANTIAL is the fact that Nichols is claiming the FBI is involved in that bombing, he names the person in an Affidavit.

Recall, Nichols and Mcveigh have always maintained other peoples invovement in that, recently he came forward and named it to be the FBI.

Not only that, we now know Nichols had contact with Ramzi Youseff, in the Philippines!!

Ramzi was the first WTC bomber! What a fricking coincidence! I mean the writing is on the wall.

Building 7 was a job, the Demolition Dutch expert saw it and said the same thing.

When you factor in the building and its unusual collapse but then what was in the building it had the CIA, Controlled Demolition was involved with the clean-up who also was involved with the clean-up of CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS in the Oklahoma bombing.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven and the circumstantial is undeniable.

We even have sounds of explosions with emergency workers responding near Building 7.

We have testimony from a lady who said the fireman told her "THEY WERE GOING TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDING",

We have Emergency Workers now coming forward and talking about it. Craig Bartmer claims to have heard a Series of Explosions from 7.

WE have on a CNN clip a person saying as plain as day..."THE BUILDING IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP",

Then the quick clean up of 7.

The BBC reported the collapse 20 minutes before.

It just isn't one thing.

I mean the number #1 expert on Bin Laden and Al'Qaeda starts his new JOB at the WTC In August 2001 and just so happens to get killed by Bin Ladens men???

And guess what? O'Neil was involved with the capture of Ramzi Youseff! You know the guy who had met Nichols, the guy who put a bomb in the first WTC attack!?!

And the Guy who hired John O' Neil just so happens to be on the TV that day and tells Dan Rather the whole story of Fire taking down the buildings, that there was NO STATE involved, it was just the terrorists...Yaaaaah Riiight.

Bin Laden and the Bush's family tied in OIL. What a coincidence, I mean the Bush Father and Son have this way of getting to the Top of things, namely the President of the United States, and then the Bin Ladens???

Well, well, well Bin Laden also has this ability to get to the top, he just so happens to be at the top of the TERROR NETWORK, I mean what are the chances? This is pure theater and its garbage.

Building 7 in my mind is not just about the collapse. Its about much, much more. If we get stuck arguing with people who will never believe in this about the building and only the buildings demise we will get stuck on the details and miss the overall picture.

Yes its possible a building can collapse. But how probable? Then when you factor in the CIA being there and people predicting the collapse then how probable? The factor then approaches zero.

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Just because something has never happened before does not mean it is impossible.

Talk about missing the point. It hasn't happened before beccause it doesn't happen, it's physically impossible. The Wright Brothers have nothing to do with it...lol

And if you think WTC 7 is not in it's own footprint then you are more clueless than I first thought. Of course some buildings are gonna get hit, NO CD is EVER perfect. But 7 is too perfect to be a natural chaotic collapse, period.

If you don't believe me try the experiment I suggested, go ahead try to prove me wrong!

[edit on 21/3/2007 by ANOK]

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:25 PM
Right.

It was so perfect that it hit other buildings.

That is the opposite of what a controlled demolition is.

A perfect controlled demolition would implode the building into it's own footprint leaving the surrounding buildings undamaged.

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:40 PM
^ keep on repeating your garbage I'm not listening any more..

If you really think this isn't in it's own footprint then what is it in?
Most of the building is in a nice neat pile with the outer walls/facade obviously folded in wards. Look at the buildings around it, yeah lots of damage...

Have you studied any buildings that have done the same that were not CD's. Again I challenge you to find me a building that did the same without CD. I don't want to hear stupid crap about things not being impossible because they haven't been done before. Some things are impossible because we have certain physical laws that prevent it. The laws of physics don't change.

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:47 PM
The laws of physics?

I wasn't aware that you had proved the collapses impossible.

Please share this truth with us. I'm sure you have some sort of equation and calculations to show us right?

Right?

Let us see this proof of yours that the way 7 collapsed was "impossible" without explosives.

I'm sure you can provide concrete evidence that explosives were used.

A building can't "fall perfectly into it's footprint" and also hit other buildings. The two terms are mutually exclusive.

WTC 7 Lies

[edit on 21-3-2007 by LeftBehind]

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:10 AM
This is what I mean in my post above. You have a beautifully drawn up piece of work by wecomeinpeace, an absolutely great piece of analysis and the thread gets bogged down with people denying the obvious. Aside from the tremendous circumstantial series of events, we must always remember that there is suspicion not only because of this collapse, but because of the events surrounding it.

The implications in this thread are enormous. I think we need to discuss this more.

BTW great work wecomeinpeace, I really enjoyed that opening.

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 01:24 AM

You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Nice work. I had previously read NIST's document and thought that massive orange blob looked a tad ridiculous when the most significant damage I had seen was represented by a tiny little orange dot in the south west corner. Never had the chance to look into it in more detail.

What has suprised me hugely though, is the lack of footage of the south face. I know that was the side where the towers were so it wasn't an easily accesible region, but is there nothing from a helicopter, rooftop camera, etc etc? I mean the mile squared around ground zero must have had more cameras in it than anywhere on the planet that day. The main counter argument seems to be that we can't see enough of the building to judge the extent of the damage to that face, we could really do with a clearer view.

I wonder if images of the south side aren't being repressed?

Also, come on guys and gals. I don't understand closed mided debunkers. or closed minded CTers. I like objective thinkers. Leave the playground squabbles at school where they belong, this site has more value than that.

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 07:29 AM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I wasn't aware that you had proved the collapses impossible.

Please share this truth with us. I'm sure you have some sort of equation and calculations to show us right?

I wasn't aware that you (or anyone else for that matter...even NIST) has proven that the collapse was possible.

Please share this truth with us. I'm sure you have some sort of equation and calculations to show us right?

Prove to me and the rest of us that asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fires can fell a building symmetrically.

Time to PROVE IT!!!!!!!!

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 10:35 AM
Why should I Griff?

And why demand this from me, yet give Anok a free pass when he makes outrageous claims.

I am not the one who claimed:

Some things are impossible because we have certain physical laws that prevent it. The laws of physics don't change.

I am certainly open to another interpretation of the collapse, but it better involve something that we know was there, as in fire and damage from the other buidings collapsing. If someone can prove there were bombs, I will certainly listen to them

I never claimed that the laws of physics prove my case.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by LeftBehind]

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I never claimed that the laws of physics prove my case.

That says it all right there. So, you and the government don't need to take the laws of physics into account?

I am now working on some calculations that may provide some insight. I'm not giving away anything right now because I haven't completed but once I'm finished and they are peer reviewed (a simple peer review of just making sure the calculations are correct) I'll let you know what I come up with.

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Griff

That says it all right there. So, you and the government don't need to take the laws of physics into account?

Now you are just being silly.

Of course the laws of physics have to be taken into account. Neither theory is physically impossible and I am not claiming so.

The onus is on the one making incredible claims about the collapse being impossible, to prove it.

11