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 photos. Debunk.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
What game?

You started a thread to see if those photos were faked.

So far no one has presented any evidence that they are.

Multiple videos and eyewitnesses match up with the photos.

Why do you think they are fake?




posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Cool, we are on page two, and I dont see any posts.. LeftBehind must be left behind.

On-topic...



Look where the smoke is on WTC 7 while it is falling.. 43 seconds into the video....

hmm.. that smoke is from WTC 1 and 2 and 6 and others.. but not WTC 7.

Thank you....

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Since when were there no firefighters in WTC7 when Silverstein said to pull? And how does that video prove anything. When that guy said "pull" he ment to pull the building down using cables, they didn't use explosives. I can't explain why WTC6 didn't collapse..maybe because it was only 8 stories tall and didn't have debris jammed into its lower corner un-balancing the weight?

edit: spelling

[edit on 27-1-2007 by lizziex3]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Once again: Since when do firefighters have the power to "pull" a building? I'm going to ask my co-worker who was a firefighter for 15 years how many buildings he got to blow up during his career and see what he says


and also once again even though the other poster said it as well:

Pull is a term for "pulling" a building down with cables, NOT for demolishing it with explosives, okay?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Wow, look... straight cut beams on WTC 7, all the way across. Hmm, this can't happen with falling debris, nor fire. wow. shocking..






Originally posted by lizziex3
Since when were there no firefighters in WTC7 when Silverstein said to pull?


Since 9/11.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

WTC 7 was evacuated early because of the fear that WTC 1 would collapse like a tree would. Instead it collapsed symmetricaly like a controlled demolition crew would demo a skyscraper.


Originally posted by lizziex3
And how does that building prove anything. When that guy said "pull" he ment to pull the building down using cables, they didn't use explosives.


I never thought anyone denies that the term "pull it" is used in the CD industry, everyone knows it is. It is also used for explosive demolishion, hence the reason they had to clarify Silverstiens quote, to make sure people didn't think of a controlled demolision.. If pull it didn't mean controlled demolision then why did they have to lie and say he was talking about "the firefighter effort"??


Originally posted by lizziex3
I can't explain why WTC6 didn't collapse..maybe because it was only 8 stories tall and didn't have debris jammed into its lower corner un-balancing the weight?


No WTC 6 just had 90% of its entire middle section demolished by falling debris...


Also you say WTC 7 had unballanced weight right? Then that would mean the second law of thermodynamics would have made the building topple over like a tree would. Instead it defied physics and collapse symmetrically... crazy..

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
Once again: Since when do firefighters have the power to "pull" a building? I'm going to ask my co-worker who was a firefighter for 15 years how many buildings he got to blow up during his career and see what he says


and also once again even though the other poster said it as well:

Pull is a term for "pulling" a building down with cables, NOT for demolishing it with explosives, okay?


Once again, nobody said firefighters pulled the building, ok? Obviously, when Silverstien said "and they made the desicion to pull" he was most probably talking about another entitiy.


"Pull" is also a term for pulling the legs out from under a person, and making them fall. Same for "pulling" the support columns from a building to make it fall. Same with using gravity to "pull" the unstable building down with controlled demolishion..

i can keep going.. never before has anyone tried to convince someone that "pull it" is not a controlled demoltion term. 100's of people are aware that is is a CD term...

so you might as well give up with that...



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
the thing is, it did NOT fall symetrically. i really suggest you watch the video Screw Loose Change (though i doubt you will) it talks about WTC7 in the very beginning so you wouldn't have to watch all of it. also when i said building, i ment video, i just wasn't thinking and typed it wrong. Also, Pull is NOT, i repeat, NOT a term for using explosives. is IS, i repeat, IS a term for getting the firefighters out of the building. And where is your proof that the firefighters were evacuated early, surely everyone else was, but the firefighters stayed until their commander told them to PULL OUT. I am confused as to why you even made this thread, you're obviously not going to change your mind about what you think no matter how much evidence is provided.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I simply must ask here: How many of you guys on both sides of the debate are Civil Engineers? Or experts in controlled demolitons? or material science? (Three strikes for me at least)

The point is we are ALL entitled to believe what we want to we are all blessed that we have this forum to debate this very topic BUT barring a sheepskin from an accredited institution of high learning we are all gifted amatures no more no less ...........

So

Please stick to the topic at hand and cease all the personal snipes at each other. They add NOTHING to the debate at hand.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
the thing is, it did NOT fall symetrically. i really suggest you watch the video Screw Loose Change (though i doubt you will) it talks about WTC7 in the very beginning so you wouldn't have to watch all of it. also when i said building, i ment video, i just wasn't thinking and typed it wrong. Also, Pull is NOT, i repeat, NOT a term for using explosives. is IS, i repeat, IS a term for getting the firefighters out of the building. And where is your proof that the firefighters were evacuated early, surely everyone else was, but the firefighters stayed until their commander told them to PULL OUT. I am confused as to why you even made this thread, you're obviously not going to change your mind about what you think no matter how much evidence is provided.


Did you just completely ignore my last two posts?!?!??!?!?! damn time for you to go on ingore too... see ya..



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I know it IS a demolition term, just NOT one used when blowing up buildings, but when PULLING them down with cables.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
the thing is, it did NOT fall symetrically.


Are you talking about WTC 1 or 2 or 7? The only building that didn't completely fall symmetricaly is WTC2. The very top section started to fall like it was supposed to according to the second law of thermodynamics, but then for no reason at all started to collapse symmetricaly.. WTC 2 was to far to damage WTC 7 so that doesn't matter...

Both WTC 1 and WTC 7 fell symmetricaly.. period.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
that's right. Ignore the people trying to give you the facts and only listen to people who agree with you. Goodbye.

If you would watch just 10 minutes of this video you would see what i'm talking about that it didnt fall symetrically. but i know you're not going to.

The link was in my post on the first page but here it is again.

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

[edit on 27-1-2007 by lizziex3]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
I know it IS a demolition term, just NOT one used when blowing up buildings, but when PULLING them down with cables.


It is also used for "pulling" the support columns out from under the building, with explosives!!!!

--clicked ignore--

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Fred, i'm sorry if i'm getting a little out of hand. I am not an expert in anything, i am simply citing what i believe are the facts, which aren't based on theories from people who can believe anything BUT the truth. I am now leaving.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Screw Screw Loose Change...

This is why I laugh at Screw Loose Change...



Here's a graphic estimate of how much of the building was actually damaged by the impact of Tower One:


Note the word "actually". Now look at the graphic they used...from NIST none the less.




Note the word "estimated". They are saying that "estimated" guesses are "actually" fact. Thats a grade F, from me. Since no one on Earth knew the exact structure damage done to WTC 7.
Oh here is more...



As you can see, WTC 7 is clearly in the debris field for the collapse of WTC 1; indeed in this picture it looks as though some debris might have gone over the WTC 7 building.


Note the word "clearly". Now look at the picture and angle they used.



LOL!!!! Someone give this guy a crash course in "camera angles". Here I will do it for him..



OMG THEY ARE GOING TO CRASH!!

I will run circles around Screw Loose Change producer.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   


I think these photos were photoshopped or air brushed by the government to hide WTC7's south face. Maybe to hide the exact positions of the fires, because it would give away the fact that all the major financial bank floors are on fire. Or just to hide the lack of damage to WTC 7.


Is this your actual question? It is more of a statement and leaves alot of leeway in how to answer you.
1. No, the government did not photoshop them.
2. Why hide lack of damage to WTC7? This statement makes no sense. They did not hide anything, and there are multiple credible witnessess to back this up.

There is nothing to debunk.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Actually to get back on topic, yes, I now know because of video that these photos are not photoshopped...

Now, we need to debunk weither or not this smoke is from WTC 7 or not.

Because of the video, I, have come to the conclusion that the wind was blowing southwest, which blew the smoke from WTC 1 and 2 and 6 onto WTC 7. This made the illusion that every floor of WTC was on fire..



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
If this was really smoke from raging fires in WTC 7, shouldn't we be seeing fire and or smoke comming from the other side of the building?

Those broken windows are open to the inside where the fire is supposed to be, no? Why no smoke there?



It also to me doesn't look like smoke from fire, shouldn't it be raising up vertically, as smoke from a hot fire normaly does? Looks more like dust that's being pushed horizontaly to me, as in dust from the collapse of one of the towers.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
thing is without a time stamp, those pics are pretty worthless. if they were takin during the collapse, well, dust. if they were takin at 3 in the afternoon...something else.

ive always admitted that of everything that day, wtc7 makes me scratch my head. but, KNOWING what i know of explosives between my training and years of actual hands on blowing sh..tuff up, there is one question that i always ask if it was a controlled demo. and this question is a quote from marvin the martian. "wheres the ka-boom? where is the earth shattering ka-boom"

cuz thermite didnt bring down 7 kids. no way in hell.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
you all need to remember how much precise and careful planning for controlled demolition is. It is not logical that random fires and random damage started in one afternoon can bring down a building so effortlessly and symetrically a few hours later.

Controlled demolitions takes months of planning and sufficent weakening to the buildings core columns, they cut the beams at up to 99% and spend weeks carefully planting explosives. The building is usually condemned long before any prep work takes place.

Yet here we have a building (WTC7) hit by random debris and with a few fires that manages to totally collapse with no preperation or planning (officially).

Are controlled demolitions doing their job wrong? Shouldn't controlled demolitions just make a few gashes and start fires in the next building they want to bring down? It would save them much time! Who needs controlled demolition when we can start a few fires and create some random damage, then 5 hours later or so the building will take care of itself.

WTC7 collapse should of put controlled demolitions inc. to shame for their time wasting efforts and out of a job. Back to the drawing board guys, it seems controlled demolitions is much easier than we thought!

Damocles - did you ever see Segals footage of WTC7? The audio captured explosions in the video. The majority of the major news network footage audio was muted then commentary dubbed over.

What happened to WTC7:

00:55>

video.google.co.uk...




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join