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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
Since when do fireman have the power to blow up buildings? The term pull means to get everyone out of the building. Never has it been used as demolition lingo. For a long time has it been used as fireman lingo though.


Thats funny how PULL meant to bring down building 6 but it can only mean to get the firemen out of buiding 7. Can someone explain why it means 1 thing for building 6 but it can not be used the same way for building 7 ?

The demo and excavation teams PULLED building 6. PULL does mean to bring down a building and it does not mean you have to blow it up, their are several ways to bring down a building.







[edit on 28-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I do not think the photos are phaked, but they are being very very very misrepresented.

The smoke you see is not actually coming from wtc 7, it is coming from the smoldering rubble from ground zero and being caught in the "tip vorticity" vortex behind wtc 7 caused by the wind.

If you look at a car in a wind tunnel test, the smoke goes over the car and then swirls behind the car. The smoke is trapped in a low pressure region.





Its rather simple fluid dynamics. The smoke is not billowing out of wtc 7. It is coming from the ground zero rubble and being caught in the low pressure vortex behind the building!



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I find it funny how the debunkers continually debunk themselves with contradictions. In the same sentence, they say that the term pull means to pull firefighters out a of a building that was burning uncontrolled because it was not being fought, hence there were no firefighters in the building to "pull out"...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
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.


You also must remember that this precise and careful planning would not work if you let the building burn for hours.

Burning tends to have an effect on det cord and explosives, and even detonators.


The fact is, there is documented damage to WTC 7. The video and picture damage is consistent with the testimony of people there that day.

The firefighters were pulled out, not the building pulled down.

Spoon, that is just ridiculous. The smoke is plainly coming from building seven.

Or do you think the firefighters are liars as well?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
^So you're just going to ignore that the so called smoke is only comming out of the building on one side?

The smoke is not consistent with a raging fire, which through heat would be forcing the smoke out of every open window, not just on one side.

There are clearly broken windows, yet we see no smoke comming from them. The smoke is more consistant with dust comming from the towers imo.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
the term "pull" in many areas is just slang. thats it. ive used a variety of slang terms in my military career. in demo it no doubt started out in the military to refer to the "pulling" of the plunger on a time fuse ignitor. we dont use a match to start time fuse usually.

"light them up" has nothing to do with flashlights yet someone with a spotlight could use the same term. does that mean someone with a spotlight saying light them up is going to shoot them?

"cap" doesnt refer to cap guns.

etc.

its context and i dont think that the context of silvermans use has been properly established for me personally.

no i dont think ive seen segals footage. ill try to find it. ive always said that 7 was my real head scratcher in all this and im still open minded about it.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
and this question is a quote from marvin the martian. "wheres the ka-boom? where is the earth shattering ka-boom"


That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Thanks for the laugh.


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


I'm curious as to why you believe this. I know of your demolitions background and respect your opinion on this. Why do you say no thermite/mate? I thought thermite et al doesn't explode?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
lol no problem, it was meant to add a little levity to a serious situation and discussion.

well, my opinion of it not being a thermite drop is because most of the proponents of it being a controlled drop will say that the collapse seems to have initated in the lowes levels or even the basement of the building.

so, on the lower levels in most buildings, the supporting columns are, from what ive ever seen, going to be concrete, or steel beams encased in concrete. so for it to be thermite, someone had to go in with jackhammers and clear away enough of the concrete to get to the steel to wrap thermite charges on it. then leave it exposed.

i guess i was premature in saying "thermite DIDNT..." it IS possible, in the spirit of being open minded. im just saying that of all the tools available to do the job...thermite would be the most difficult.

not to mention that we have two scenarios here. either it was placed well in advance, by a team that had NO way of knowing what would happen to building seven as 1&2 collapsed. (ie there was no way to tell if 1&2 would drop exactly as planned. for all they knew the planes really would cause enough damage to make them topple and then you risk having ordinance in place that the firing circuits get damaged and they dont function right and therefore leaving evidence) OR they did it after 1&2 collapsed. meaning they had to sneak past firefighteres (if there were any) and go do pretty heavy construction in a building that may or may not have been on fire.

in the realms of possible and probable ill openly admit its possible, i personally just dont see it as the most probable.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Thanks. You make good points. You mentioned of all the various ways, thermite would be the most difficult. Do you have any speculation on what would be better that would fit the scenerio of WTC 7? Thanks.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
sadly i dont. thermite would be a real pain in the rear and for the reasons i listed for thermite, conventional demo charges would be as difficult plus adding the visual and accoustic characteristics of explosives. even using LSC's it takes more than 5lbs of demo to bring a building down.

the reasons im most up in the air over 7 is that of ALL of the photo's being bandied about, some showing 'smoke' others show 'no damage' etc, they all show the same thing. nothing.

no one has shown me a pic of the south face of the tower from 4pm that day that is clear of smoke and shows either an undamaged south face OR a gaping hole in the south face.

so in the absense of of something i can personally sink my teeth into, i withhold opinion on what DID do it. all im left with is, based on waht ive seen, what most likely didnt do it.

but then, my opinion is my own.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

so, on the lower levels in most buildings, the supporting columns are, from what ive ever seen, going to be concrete, or steel beams encased in concrete. so for it to be thermite, someone had to go in with jackhammers and clear away enough of the concrete to get to the steel to wrap thermite charges on it. then leave it exposed.



Many of the columns were actually hollow. It would be possible to cut just one hole at the very top and string a line of charges down the inside all the way from the top.

Also, i do not believe the columns were totally incased in conrete. The core had many areas were they were essentially exposed in the utilities areas, covered by nothing but white paint.

check out this vid;
video.google.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
line of charges...thermite or HE?

thermite more or less needs to contact what its burning to do it efficiently or you need a LOT more. same with demo charges. with the columns being hollow as you point out...unless they used a LOT of HE all they would have done is turned the columns into big gun barrels loaded with blanks. even if they had busted the columns, having to use that much more demo is going to change the accoustic patterns dramatically and make it harder to cover.

some of the beams were most certainly exposed. but, enough to drop the building so symetrically by simply cutting them with thermite?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
some of the beams were most certainly exposed. but, enough to drop the building so symetrically by simply cutting them with thermite?


See, this is the type of mentality that I don't understand. Not specifically picking on you Damacles.

You know what it takes to drop a building. How can structural damage on one face and fire drop the building so symetrically?

I'm talking about WTC 7.



[edit on 1/29/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Im not saying they used thermite alone. I think they also used thermobarics, which have never been used in a conventional demolition. The WTC complex was most certainly not a conventional demolition.

Critics like to point out that traditionally demo's go from bottom up. Of course, this traditional approach does not preclude going from top down. Of course that is possible.

Thermite, in its natural powder state is difficult to work with. However, it can also be made into a very sticky paste. See if you can find the mythbusters episode where they did the Hindenburg blimp explosion, they used sticky thermite paste.

Thermite can also be made into a thermobaric explosvie. Have you ever heard of flash powder? It is essentially Potassium Perchlorate and very fine aluminum dust. Thermite is aluminum and rust. You could easily add PP to that to make a very explosive, very hot burning material. Traditional thermite made with "nano-particle aluminum" is, in and of itself, an HE.

Thermobarics are very interesting explosives. There is nothing conventional about them.

The chief difference in Thermobaric design over traditional explosive devices moves away from a densely packed explosive core towards a large volume of highly explosive but low-density mass in the form of a gaseous cloud or colloidal suspension. In the normal bomb all explosive energy comes from a tightly packed core and must drive outward against air pressure and objects it encounters. It rapidly bleeds off energy at the square of the distance as it accumulates a wall of pressure resistance and a mass of heavy debris, which it must continually re-gather and push along.

Thermobarics are a lot like flour silo explosions, A dust of mist is dispersed into the air, then ignited. Resulting in huge pressure waves.

The new design starts as a small device but rapidly transforms itself through simple means (either a small explosive device, or compressed air, or spring loaded mechanisms, or fans, ect.) from a dense-core technology to a much larger gaseous-cloud or colloidal suspension state. Igniting the explosive cloud at any peripheral or central point creates a chain-reaction-like and progressively growing explosive force. As the force of the explosion moves outward, it continues to ignite fresh explosive materials as encountered and gains momentum rather than loosing it. It’s kind of like a super sonic boom effect. Further, because the gaseous cloud is efficiently mixed explosive materials combined with abundant free-air oxygen, ignition is far more complete and productive - leaving little or no chemical residue or traditional flash evidence (other than a burn signature, which any investigator would presume to be from ordinary fire) on immediately encountered objects.

The net result is as if a significantly larger central core device had been detonated, with the complete and even combustion making difficult any aftermath analysis as to the true nature of the explosives used. Finally, the shape of the cloud and the ignition point within the cloud, if properly controlled, provides an extremely easy means to create shaped charge effects despite a relatively free-form original cloud shape.

secondsightresearch.tripod.com...

Thermobaric explosions tend to last longer, and burn slowed, than traditional explosives. This generates higher sustained blast pressures in confined spaces. Explosives burn more completely, and leave little or no tell-tale signs of explosive residue.

Fireballs and blast waves can travel around corners and blast can travel around corners and penetrate areas inaccessible to bomb fragments. Blast waves are extensively intensified when reflected by walls and other surfaces.

Jet fuel cannot melt steel, but some Thermobaric devices can. Thermobaric design can be focused between two extremes; extremely high heat and low pressure, to moderate heat and extreme pressure.

Thermobarics can make use of numerous chemical solutions to use as an aerosol explosive material. Many of these ingredients do not need to be tagged with chemical markers like ingredients used in conventional explosives.

Thermobarics can also make use of colloidal suspensions of metal powders like aluminum and magnesium. It’s kind of like when a flour silo explodes due to all the dust in the air.

Thermobarics can make use of THERMITE!! Thermobaric thermite devices inside of the hollow columns would eviscerate the support structure from the inside out!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

posted by griff: See, this is the type of mentality that I don't understand. Not specifically picking on you Damacles.

You know what it takes to drop a building. How can structural damage on one face and fire drop the building so symetrically?

I'm talking about WTC 7.


no problem at all, but to speak for myself only, thats why i said i dont have enough data either way. we have no real idea how much damage was done to the building. or wasnt done for that matter. so, the jury is still out in my mind. but thats just me.

and to clarify, i had posted that it would take work to get to the columns, and spoon stated that he was under the impression that in certain areas of the building the columns were bare, it was THOSE i was referring to when i said that just cutting THOSE may not have dropped it symetrically. in the sense that unless they still took the time to expose the rest of them, chances are it wouldnt have worked so well. unless of course the architects messed up and made it possible for the building to fall as a result of just a few columns failing alone. then it doesnt matter if it was debris or demo, someone messed up lol.


@spoon: you have a good grasp of the basics of thermobarics, but i think theres a few points you fail to consider.

thermobarics are also known as 'fuel air bombs' and are what we saw so gloriously paraded on tv as the daisy cutter and the moab. both modified fab's.

just like grain dust in an elevator, or any other flamible gas, they need the right amount of air to go off. this is called the lower explosive limit. also, if you have too much you reach the upper explosive limit. so between these two limits is the sweet spot so to speak.

among the main problems with dumping this stuff down into a hollow column is going to be that air/fuel mixture. in my own opinion i just dont think its possible to get the right mixture within a structural column to do any real damage. personally i see it going one of two ways. too little fuel and it just burns off and doesnt have time to generate the heat required to significantly damage the integrity of the steel, or it explodes, which would have been pretty obvious to everyone for blocks around and there wouldnt be a debate.(think really really really big pipe bombs) had they put a LOT of material into the column, it would have melted and not exploded, but then it would have also caught a lot more stuff on fire and we wouldnt be having the 'no fires in 7' part of this disucussion, because even just before the collapse, the fires woulda been pretty obvious.

the next problem is simply gravity. to get a good mix in the air in such a confined space, you would have had to drop it in from the top. that means either some high tech gizmo thingy, which could have failed and left evidence, which you dont want on a clandestine op...or you got guys on each column up near the top dumping buckets of the stuff in holes at the same time at the same rate to get consistant dispersment of the material prior to them initiating it. but that brings another problem. the time from when its dumped in to when they start it on fire. cuz those guys sure want time to get to the ground floor and out the door...but, in an enclosed girder you dont exactly have the kind of air movment that you see in grain elevators keeping the particles afloat and gravity does its thing, it all sinks to the bottom and all you get is a fireworks like shower of sparks.

and as for the thermite paste the mythbusters used, needed quite a bit to cover their blimp, and even the thermite/hydrogen mix didnt melt their models aluminum frame. so imagine dumping gallons of this mix down the center of a hollow column. just seems like a lot of work.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
no problem at all, but to speak for myself only, thats why i said i dont have enough data either way. we have no real idea how much damage was done to the building. or wasnt done for that matter. so, the jury is still out in my mind. but thats just me.


I agree with you. The jury's still out in my mind also, although I argue more on the side of CD (just because I can't see how asymmertrical damage causes a symmetrical collapse). That's why I asked people to prove the governments theory with actual physics and engineering structural calculations (of which I haven't seen yet, even from NIST). I am a civil engineer with an emphasis on structural. I haven't used my structural background for over 10 years now, so I'm a little rusty. That doesn't mean I have forgotten what the jist of it all is. That is why when someone comes on here claiming to be a structural engineer, I ask to see their calculations. Again, haven't seen any yet.

I am currently in the midst of studying for my P.E. exam (structural P.E. BTW). Once I have a firm grasp on everything again (probably after the test in April), I am planning on doing some rudementary calculations. That way, I'm hoping to at least prove to myself that it is possible or not.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Also, just because I'm a civil engineer, I never intend for people to not think for themselves. My word is my opinion only.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
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...


well, i only watched part of it just now cuz well...i honestly couldnt take it anymore lol.

the "explosion" was 9 seconds before the start of the collapse. thats pretty telling to me. but ill keep my opinions to myself.

but i guess ill just ask one question: if it was an inside job, why would they go to all the trouble to make the twin towers look so accidental then out themselves by using HE so overtly on 7?

the rest ill leave up to everyone else.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but i guess ill just ask one question: if it was an inside job, why would they go to all the trouble to make the twin towers look so accidental then out themselves by using HE so overtly on 7?


I wouldn't think they would. I would think they would use the same materials for both the towers and 7. Otherwise, wouldn't we hear the tell tell signs of HE explosions when 7 came down?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
well thats why Insolubrious had me go watch that video that goes out of its way to point out "explosions" just before 7 comes down.

to be kind, i disagree with that video's findings in pretty much every way. the part i could stomach anyway

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I have a hard time with that video myself. Too many assumptions made. But, it happens on both sides....even the official reports have many assumptions made.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join