WTC 7 photos. Debunk.

Originally posted by Damocles

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...

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

I am not sure if you noticed or knew, but there is a sound delay of 9 seconds from the WTC to the camera taken at Hoboken. The sound delay was not removed hence the approx. 9 sec sound delay.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Insolubrious]

which means we should have seen the building start to fall 9 seconds before we heard anything....correct?

actually that means there was an explosion before the collapse starts, i guess about 9 seconds before since the boom in the footage happens just before we see any visible collapse.

Watch at 1:30 the sound delay is removed. There is a couple of explosions captured in the audio.


[edit on 29-1-2007 by Insolubrious]

Structure has to be removed or sufficiently weakened before a demolition can begin in which the structure drops right down upon itself and does not provide much resistance. If much structure is left intact then you're going to get resisted and the falling mass is going to be offset in some unpredictable direction. Then you'd have unnecessary collateral damage, or the job would at least be sloppy, or in this case the first explosives may have been a bit too obvious.

@insolubrus: right, so the building stood for a full 9 seconds before it started to fall? that simply makes no sense to me. also, the other two 'explosions' they piont out dont sound to me like explosions. they simply sound like, noises.

bsb: ok, if the buildings were preweakened for a cd...wasnt there a real good chance that a strong windstorm could do bad things?

you will notice there is the explosion almost immediately before the penthouse section drops away, then the second boom happens just before the entire collapse commences, that is in the version with the sound delay removed.

right, but if they removed any delays, they altered it, therefore its not real evidence to me. show me raw footage. and if they are going to mess with it why bother putting the text in for the 9 second delay? and whats with all the play/pause/play bs?

sorry, but to me its smoke and mirrors.

and if the playing with the delay was for the distance to the camera...how far away was this cat shooting from? and how fast is sound again?

see where im going with this? they played with it so its basically garbage. least for me

Originally posted by Damocles
if the buildings were preweakened for a cd...wasnt there a real good chance that a strong windstorm could do bad things?

I guess it would depend on how much structure they initially took out, and whether or not they were watching the Weather Channel.

so you can see why that would be pretty low on my list of "probables" then yes?

cuz if they did it to 7, chances are they did it to 1&2 also cuz, why come up with differnt plans for a separate building? but then you have a whole lot of weakened steel swinging in the breeze so to speak.

and on that note...why let 7 stand until late afternoon? the longer its up the more chance you have of some cowboy firefighter going in and stumbling on your ring main. or seeing the precut columns.

seems to me personally, the SMARTEST thing they could have done if it was a CD would be to drop it along with one of the towers while it would have been hidden in the massive dust cover and then just say it was brought down by falling debris. end of problem.

but, they didnt...

www.nytimes.com...

Steve Mosiello and Chief Turi told me they had
been looking for Chief Ganci. They thought they knew where
he was, unsuccessfully, and they were going back to - I
walked back down to the area where he was and sometime
after that they found Chief Ganci. He was like the first
person that I knew of that they found in the rubble. He
was somewhere across West Street from the Trade Center.
The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate
at the scene until probably somewhere around

www.nytimes.com...

here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I
S
guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to

S get everybody out of there.,
S
Q. Initially when you were there, you had said

5 you heard a few Maydays?
? A. Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.
S
Q. You were getting radio transmissions?
S A. There were people talking. The guys Iíve
S
talked to that were with us heard voices and were
? shouting to people. We had heard pass alarms, but then
a
we didnít hear voices, no more pass alarms. The heat
S
p must have been tremendous. There was so much #ing

S fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy.
S
Just the heat and the smoke from all the other

? buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything.

So it took us a while and we ended up backing
p
p everybody out, and thatís when 7 collapsed. Then,

? basically, after 7 collapsed, I went over and told the
I
p Chief that -- by then they had companies with

I handie-talkies, masks. Youíve got to remember, the

first 200 guys went in there with no handie-talkies, no

www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: Which building was that?

Visconti: Building 6. So I had put a battalion chief with each of the groups that went into 6. I kept trying to talk to him, walking over there, walking down a little bit into the ramp they went down, the door they went down into and how are you doing? You know we�re trying, we can�t find it.

I don�t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn�t see any fire at that time.

I kept walking back and forth. I walked over to where Rescue 1�s rig was underneath the bridge and over to that area. There were people trying to make access. They were trying to search. What I didn�t mention when I was walking down West Street, all the paper and debris in the street. I said what the hell is this from, but there was a tremendous amount of papers. When you walked you were kicking papers and checks and there was dust, real thick dust all over the place, and everybody was covered. Anybody that was there when the collapses occurred was covered in this dust, so I must have looked relatively clean.

Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they�re not trying to put this fire out? I didn�t realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we�ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that�s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you�ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we�ve got to get those people out of there.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Damocles
if the buildings were preweakened for a cd...wasnt there a real good chance that a strong windstorm could do bad things?

I guess it would depend on how much structure they initially took out, and whether or not they were watching the Weather Channel.

They could theorectically just take out the load bearing supports and not anything dealing with lateral loads (winds). How they would do it would depend on the structure. Even if the lateral bracing was in tact, a CD could be accomplished IMO.

This is actually what holds me up on the CD theory. A CD has to be planned with precision (cutting supports etc.). How could they have accomplished this with WTC 1, 2 & 7?
Edit: Ooops...didn't mean 3, I ment 7.

On the other hand, buildings just don't fall symmetrically from asymmetric damage.

I'm torn.

[edit on 1/29/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Damocles
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.

I have a question Damocles.

Wouldn't the magical jet fuel FAE run into the same problems you describe here? Could a jet fuel FAE blow out the basement and lobby levels considering what you have just described?

LOL god, i was actually afraid someone would ask me this. i was afraid becuause its not a simple answer.

so, in answer to your very direct question, yes, maybe and no. all at the same time.

ill attempt to explain but if i get it wrong, someone point it out to me, i just woke up.

before i get into the meat of it, let me point out a couple of key differences between the above discussed technique and vapors. most of the problem with a thermobaric that relies soley on particulates is going to be concentration, air mixture etc. if you have too few particles you ignite and none of the particles that do burn are close enough to each other to ignite the next ones. like dominoes that are too far apart. too many particles and they all burn so fast that without GOOD ventilation, they suck the air out and the rest of your material doesnt burn off and cause an overpressure. the other problem like i stated is gravity. wait too long in an improperly ventilated space and like dust...your fuel will settle out.

vapors however are different and are even more strictly dictated by the LEL and the UEL i mentioned above. however, with the right air mixutre its much easier to have a very nice thermobaric explosion.

so, jet hits building, unburned fuel finds its way down the elevator shafts, pools in the basement until a spark ignites it and BOOM. yeah, its going to be spectacular.

however, if not enough fuel or, too much fuel goes down the shafts, then either all you get is a fire or you get a pop vs a boom.

sorry for the short answer to a potentially complicated question but in answering i also try not to give "how to" examples and honestly, thats all i could do to really illustrate my points.

could it have happened? yes
would it have been easy? no
IS it what happened? maybe

without more real data, i cant say yes or no to it anymore tahn i could to dragons, magic or a superbushgravityray. (sorry anok i really liked that one )

also remember, my above post was directed more at the potential that material was put inside the steel columns (the hollow ones obviously) as an attempt to make a thermobaric in a covert fasion. i just dont see it personally.

the above was all in regards to 1&2 though. there is NO indication that this could have happened to 7 involving jet fuel however and diesel makes the absolute WORST fuel to try to even attempt a thermobaric with as its simply not explosive. great for other things, but horrid for thermobarics (honestly, im not sure i could even do it with diesel) so if someone tried to say there was a thermobaric explosion in wtc7 as a result of leaking diesel fuel, id laugh at them. really i would. given the choice between a diesel thermobaric and magic, id vote magic.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
so you can see why that would be pretty low on my list of "probables" then yes?

No, because you plan for these things. No engineer in this position is going to just randomly blow things up and hope the wind doesn't blow the building over. It just isn't done that way. You don't build bombs by just throwing the ingredients together, do you? Or rig them just by connecting wires without paying much mind to what's going where. A good engineer is going to be pessimistic enough to assume all of the right things are going to happen to ruin the operation, and then take them into account and prepare for them. This isn't just in the military.

cuz if they did it to 7, chances are they did it to 1&2 also cuz, why come up with differnt plans for a separate building?

Building 7 had a significantly different design than WTC1 and 2.

but then you have a whole lot of weakened steel swinging in the breeze so to speak.

Structures are also designed with safety factors so that they can hold (in cases like skyscrapers) several times the loads they're going to be expected to at any instant, in case of disasters. If the perimeter columns had a factor of safety of 5, which they were supposed to, then you could take out 4/5 of all the perimeter columns, and theoretically it would be able to hold all of its loads just fine. This wouldn't be safe long-term obviously, but those figures aren't meaningless either. Skyscrapers are beasty structures.

When you would cut the steel in places, maybe you can see how cutting what may seem like a significant part of the structure may actually not do much in terms of getting the whole thing to just fall down. It just makes it easier to take out whats left later.

seems to me personally, the SMARTEST thing they could have done if it was a CD would be to drop it along with one of the towers while it would have been hidden in the massive dust cover and then just say it was brought down by falling debris. end of problem.

There are people that think that's what was supposed to happen, that WTC7 was supposed to fall with WTC1 when it was consumed by the dust cloud, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were arrogant enough / realistic enough to do it in broad daylight just because they knew they could, and that nothing would result from it.

Originally posted by Damocles
could it have happened? yes
would it have been easy? no
IS it what happened? maybe

So basically what you're saying is, if someone was intentionally trying to use an FAE-type explosive to do damage, you seriously doubt it would work. But in a freak accident that no one has much control over, then it's more plausible and you think it may have happened? How does that work?

Originally posted by Damocles
so, jet hits building, unburned fuel finds its way down the elevator shafts, pools in the basement until a spark ignites it and BOOM. yeah, its going to be spectacular.

But, I thought the fuel was on fire as it was falling down the elevator shafts? As evidenced by the people in elevators being burned.

griff, bsb, you two seem to be trying to have a contest here. that being which of you can make the vein in my head stick out more.

lets recap shall we?

bsb. PLEASE dont make the troll mistake of taking things i type out of context. i respect you and your opinions, i only ask this one courtesy.

in my post about thermobarics and how they would be 'interesting' at best and most likely NOT work, it was in regards to the post above mine where the poster speculated that the columns were hollow and material was fed into them to create thermobaric explosives that would some how manage to NOT create huge accoustic signatures and would NOT start rampant fires and STILL bring the building (7) down. i opined that i didnt see it happening and layed out all of the reasons why.

my NEXT post in which you quoted me from, i was responding to griff, who i had to assume was asking about the possibility of jet fuel making its way to the basement and acting as a naturally occuring thermobaric device. i said that it was subjet to the same parameters and faced the same difficulty but as a vapor vs a particulate it had a lot more leeway with the parameters and therefore COULD have happened just that way.

so, i stand by my statements. if there is any part still unclear please ask but please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth. thank you.

griff. this whole thermobaric discussion on my part has been SPECULATION. we have no evidence ANY of this happened. you asked a question, i layed out possible scenarios. thats it. but in direct answer to your last question, can anyone prove 100% without a doubt that the fuel was on fire AS it came down the shafts or did it ignite later. i mean, people getting burned in the elevators/shafts. had the fuel been running or did they physically see fire raining on them and KNOW that none of the fuel had been flowing prior to this?

oh and in regards to the discussion we were having about pre weakening steel.

i cant disagree on a particular point other than my original thought was that if you go in and weaken that much steel, you do it relativly close to when you are going to blast it. otherwise, on a building that tall, you never know what will happen. as has been agreed as fact, the tops of those buildings tended to move up to a few feet in a good wind, and u just never trust the weather.

Originally posted by Damocles
griff, bsb, you two seem to be trying to have a contest here. that being which of you can make the vein in my head stick out more.

No, just trying to learn. Thanks for taking the time to educate me.

griff. this whole thermobaric discussion on my part has been SPECULATION. we have no evidence ANY of this happened. you asked a question, i layed out possible scenarios. thats it. but in direct answer to your last question, can anyone prove 100% without a doubt that the fuel was on fire AS it came down the shafts or did it ignite later. i mean, people getting burned in the elevators/shafts. had the fuel been running or did they physically see fire raining on them and KNOW that none of the fuel had been flowing prior to this?

You make valid points. I do think in at least one case, the fire did rain down on them. This doesn't dispell that some could have rained down and then ignighted. Thanks again.

no worries, i was kidding mostly. im just not feeling well today and probably more irratable than is warranted. sorry if i came off as a prick.



but, as to the effects already burning fluid would have to the chances of a thermobaric explosion occurring naturally, off the top of my head i cant think of any situation where already burning liquid could do anything other than burn. if it can happen, im not sure i can see how.