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.

 

WTC 7 south face hole

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Not the best video, and the premise is lame, but if you look closely, you can see the south face hole briefly through the smoke in a couple of shots.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Watching now


Just to note - look at the fires in the Madrid tower. They are clearly giving off surges of fire similar to the so called "thermite" in the WTC's.

Ok Finished watching - Nice find


Gotta find it amussing how people can claim the fires were limited...

As for the flashes - a comment on the video sums it up pretty well.


The "lights" did not appear to be explosions of any sort. Some of them blinked, some of them remained on, some of them seemed to be moving .... explosions used in deliberate implosions are set to explode at specific intervals- it is rhythmic and has a patter ... these do not have any consistent patterns or behaviours. I do not know what the lights are, but they do not appear to be similar in any way to the deliberate explosions for a planned implosion.


I personally think that at least a couple of these "flashes" are paper flying from either WTC7 or nearby buildings. It's actually blatantly obvious that this paper of some sort in most cases.

Due to the fact that trade tower 7 collapsed from the bottom (not due to controlled demolition), there is nothing bombs that high up in the building would have done to assist the collapse.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Just to note - look at the fires in the Madrid tower. They are clearly giving off surges of fire similar to the so called "thermite" in the WTC's.


If you've ever been around a large fire at night, that's what glowing embers (hydrocarbons) look like.

If you've ever been around a large fire during the day, you don't see that at all.

This is kind of the same reason why the condition is included on some steel color charts, or especially aluminum, etc., that the material is to be viewed in the dark, or at least diffused light. They don't suggest those things for turds and giggles. The surrounding light (or lack thereof) actually does play a large role here.



I'm not seeing a hole, either. I'm seeing dark places, but so are there dark places on the West face, and you know what those are? Soot marks. So nothing conclusive is presented here.

If you want to show a hole, then show a hole. Don't show vague, dark areas on the face of a building that is almost completely obscured by rising smoke. And if you want to pursue the argument further, you can save yourself some time and come to the point where you have to explain how hundreds or thousands of tons of steel provide NO resistance to free-falling mass.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you want to show a hole, then show a hole.


Ok...







www.debunking911.com...
"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.


More quotes



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.

www.firehouse.com...


There was a hole in the bulding buddy.

As for the fires. I think you may be underestimating how many fires I have been around during the day.

I watched an apartment building burn when I was about 11 and I live near a prime area for bush fires. All of which had traits common to that of the 'thermite' at the WTC's. And I can assure you, none of these fires had thermite.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I'm not disputing the SW corner damage. I'm disputing the other hole that everyone claims there was, that no one can quite pin-point exactly, or show a photo of, etc. The SW corner damage would have ultimately been inconsequential to any major structural failures. It wasn't even near any major components.

As far as being around other fires, what can I say? I'm sure you have. So have I. We're entitled to our opinions, I suppose.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
people who believe the government version of the conspiracy theory make me sick. They know it was an inside job they just choose to deny it for some mysterious reason. Perhaps because they can't come to terms that governments can't be trusted.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not disputing the SW corner damage. I'm disputing the other hole that everyone claims there was, that no one can quite pin-point exactly, or show a photo of, etc. The SW corner damage would have ultimately been inconsequential to any major structural failures. It wasn't even near any major components.


Firefighters who were on sight on 9/11 at trade tower 7 agreed that the hole in the SW corner of the building was leading to a collapse. So do several well regarded structural engineers. I'll talk about the other hole for now.

The other hole is a murky issue. It is entirley possible for this to have happened due to the collapse of trade tower 1. It is rather likley that the hole was there and the various videos seem to show the same thing.

Regardless of that we are talking about a building COVERED in smoke on that face of the building. Asking for proof of a hole would be like asking someone to prove the existance of god. People have said he was there (like the firefighters and the hole) but no one today can go back and check.



As far as being around other fires, what can I say? I'm sure you have. So have I. We're entitled to our opinions, I suppose.


Agreed. I respect your opinion and I don't wish to argue opinion. The thermite debate isn't for this thread anyway so I think it would be best to leave it for another thread
I apologize for starting that debate in my original post.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
From about 4:55 to about 5:35 in the above refrenced u-tube video, you can see two large (or maybe the same) holes in the south face.

Unfortunately that video is so downsampled, it is impossible to make out clear details, but you can see the hole.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
The first thing I noticed about the Madrid fire was that when it was partially collapsing, the material fell pretty much straight down. Not being blasted 600+ feet away from the tower. Still watching (without sound though).



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Just to note - look at the fires in the Madrid tower. They are clearly giving off surges of fire similar to the so called "thermite" in the WTC's.


I thought the same thing until I realized that they look nothing like the steady stream of material at the WTC.


Due to the fact that trade tower 7 collapsed from the bottom (not due to controlled demolition), there is nothing bombs that high up in the building would have done to assist the collapse.


You do know how controlled demolition is done right? If so, you wouldn't have posted this comment.

Here's a quick video of one. Notice the blasts in the upper part of the structure. It also collapses from the base down. So, why do they need to place the bombs in the upper structure again?

video.search.yahoo.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
From about 4:55 to about 5:35 in the above refrenced u-tube video, you can see two large (or maybe the same) holes in the south face.


Perhaps, but at what floors? Here's the field of view of the camera zoomed out:



The two-floor fire damage you see on the west face at the southwest corner comprises the 29th and 30th floors. If any of the black areas on the south face which you posit to be holes are indeed such, and not soot damage from burnt out fires, then they are on the upper floors. Damage to the upper floors has already been documented (see below), and would be highly unlikely to cause a bottom up collapse of the entire structure.


wtc.nist.govprogress..._report_june04/appendixl.pdf
p L-18
Much of the damage above Floor 18 appears to be nonstructural. The black areas on the facade indicate areas of burned out fires.


The hole pivotal to NIST's truss #2 hypothesis may conceivably be hiding somewhere behind WTC6 in the Spak photo, however your YouTube video certainly doesn't reveal it.

But what is most interesting in your video is at the 6:30 mark there is an eyewitness account of an explosion inside WTC7. His words:

"Yes, I was, I was part of the emergency management crew on the 23rd floor and when all the power went out in the building another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor and where there was an explosion! And we were trapped on the 8th floor."

The NIST report states:

pL-17
Reported close to time of WTC 1 collapse:
East stair experienced an air pressure burst, filled with dust/smoke, lost lights
West stair filled with dust/smoke, lost lights, swayed at Floors 29 through 30, and a crack was felt (in the dark) on the stairwell wall between Floors 27 through 28 and Floors 29 through 30
• Floors 7 and 8 had no power, air was breathable but not clear
• Phone lights on Floor 7 were on but could not call out


What is your theory as to the cause of these explosions which occurred before the collapse of WTC1? Why is there no further mention of nor attempt to explain these events in the NIST report? What equipment or apparatus was present in the building which could cause an "air pressure burst"? And what manner of air pressure burst produces dust and smoke, causes floors to sway, causes enough structural damage for people to become trapped, and can crack stairwells?

[edit on 2006-11-7 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Tempting though it is to grab at a new video and present it as evidence I have to say this one appears to be of too poor quality to support the South face hole argument convincingly in either direction.

Equally, I find reports of explosions generally unconvincing without some corroboration. In the mayhem of what was going on almost any loud bang was reported as an "explosion" including the sound of bodies of jumpers landing on the ground or roofs.

Staircases swaying? Well that's more interesting but I guess an awful lot would depend on the condition of the rest of the building structre at the time but if it was close to the point of collapse and a crack in the wall was noticed then there were certainly very major forces already at work but that doesn't necessarily mean explosives.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Staircases swaying? Well that's more interesting but I guess an awful lot would depend on the condition of the rest of the building structre at the time but if it was close to the point of collapse...


A valid question, if it weren't for the fact that these explosion events and internal damage occurred before WTC1 collapsed and before WTC7 had sustained any damage.



[edit on 2006-11-7 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Howdy folks...

Howard perhaps this is a little cleaner...





**Can't get the video link to work correctly

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Speaking about debris falling into/on/whatever WTC7.

Check this short avi I've made just 5 minutes ago.

WTC7 Debris Trajectory

That's what it looks like watching these two clips.

Sorry about quality and editing. I've made it in about 15 minutes.

Check this clip also:
WTC1 collapse/debris.

It shows much better where debris from WTC1 are falling and it looks quite clear that only those marked by arrows in the first clip hit WTC7. But it doesn't looks like it was that much of debris to make so much damage to the WTC7 south face to bring whole building down in CD style.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by STolarZ]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   
These are two very impressive video clips. Thanks for posting them.

The most shocking event is the huge outer perimeter wall part being expelled in the direction of the Winter Garden.
That really is the biggest chunk I ever clearly saw in any video online.

How, in the name of common sense and physical possibilities, can you explain that unbelievable far extent of a (supposedly gravity driven) trajectory path of such a immense heavy debris part?

And the first analysis you put together is showing clearly 2 streams of burning debris being launched in an upward arc, which is imop very suspicious, not like any real gravity driven collapse we have seen posted here.
From its originating point in the collapse, it is expelled clearly in a very far reaching UPWARD arc.

Can anybody explain that to me, without taking in account some sort of explosives used ?

I noticed in another thread :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

about the BBC documentary a big perimeter wall part falling as the first one reaching ground level, very close to the still standing tower wall. And that came clearly from the highest starting point of collapse.
So why should much lower perimeter parts been launched about 5 to 10 times further during the proceeding collapse?
Like that big chunk falling on the Winter Garden.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join