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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Bsbray

I know it must be frustrating for people to expose your lies, but you can still listen in.

You and anok both claimed with your above photo that it fell neatly into it's footprint.

I have shown conclusively that it didn't. It fell across the street and damaged buildings. This is the opposite of what happens in controlled demolitions.

And now you can't even get your lies straight. First theres no fires, then you are outraged saying that no one said there's no fire, then in your last post you claim that smoke can exist for hours without fires.

But go ahead, ignore me like you ignore any evidence that contradicts your fantasies.

Just once Bsbray maybe you can show some actual evidence or maybe some eyewitnesses that only saw small or no fires in WTC 7. If not, then maybe you can explain why you think the firefighters are in on it and how they planted bombs in the building.



"maybe the smartest thing is to pull IT, and then we watched THE building collapse".


Wow, that is a pretty bad mangling of the quote.


"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.


Isn't it amazing how much you can twist things by putting them out of context.


They made the decision. Not Silverstein. Silverstein had no authority over the firefighters. Nor did the firefighters plant bombs in 7.

Any proof you have to the contrary, please let's see it.

Read the pdf I posted. There are pages of firemen and rescue workers who witnessed out of control fires in 7.

You "small fire" theorists are all calling them liars, regardless of how many people have been tricked by the lies on 9-11 denial sites.

Please show some actual evidence on why you think the firefighters are lying and/or in on it.



[edit on 5-2-2007 by LeftBehind]




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
You have voted LeftBehind for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Keep up the good work!



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The building was surrounded by other buildings so what do you expect? The Deutsche Bank Building/130 Liberty St. was dismantled piece by piece because even with a controlled demolition it would have damaged surrounding structure. The buildings are right on top of eachother!

The term, "falling into it's own footprint", should be thought of in quite simple terms. It doesn't require any scrutiny or nit picking at all.

A building's footprint is two dimentional, the building itself is three dimentional. The only time a building is truely within it's own footprint is when it's standing. It's the only time three dimentions of matter will fit neatly into two dimentions of area. When a building comes down, for whatever reason, it will not fit neatly anymore, but there's still a distinct visual characteristic that allows one the ability to discern between the following;

This building fell into it's footprint;

i101.photobucket.com...

These did not;

i101.photobucket.com...

2PacSade-


Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 5/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I think it's obvious watching the videos of WTC7's collapse that there was little, if any, horizontal or angular force acting on WTC7 when it collapsed. The scattering of debris on the ground was the result of the material having nowhere else to go.

After all, since the building collapsed, the material had to go somewhere. Like you said, the only time it was entirely within its own footprint is when it was standing.

Imo, it's ludicrous to even attempt to portray the collapse of WTC7 as "normal" and the result of fires and structural damage. Asymmetrical damage and fires simply cannot produce a simultaneous collapse of the entire steel structure.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And now you can't even get your lies straight. First theres no fires, then you are outraged saying that no one said there's no fire, then in your last post you claim that smoke can exist for hours without fires.

But go ahead, ignore me like you ignore any evidence that contradicts your fantasies.

Just once Bsbray maybe you can show some actual evidence or maybe some eyewitnesses that only saw small or no fires in WTC 7. If not, then maybe you can explain why you think the firefighters are in on it and how they planted bombs in the building.


You don't have any evidence, you have hearsay.

This is evidence:








None of them show the building engulfed in flames, not even entire floors.


Originally posted by LeftBehind

"maybe the smartest thing is to pull IT, and then we watched THE building collapse".


Wow, that is a pretty bad mangling of the quote.


"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.


Isn't it amazing how much you can twist things by putting them out of context.

They made the decision. Not Silverstein. Silverstein had no authority over the firefighters. Nor did the firefighters plant bombs in 7.


Isn't it amazing how you miss the point and just try to knee-jerk your way out of this.
The difference between my quote, which I did paraphrase, is that I did not leave out the part that matters. I don't care who made the decision, them, they, Silverstein, that was NOT the point. The point is WHAT they pulled.
"It" referring to a building rather than a person or people.

But time and time again, you come here and prove that you are susceptible to sidetracks without any substance.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Read the pdf I posted. There are pages of firemen and rescue workers who witnessed out of control fires in 7.

You "small fire" theorists are all calling them liars, regardless of how many people have been tricked by the lies on 9-11 denial sites.


Well they might've been out of control, they weren't fighting them. That doesn't mean anything. A match can burn out of control, that doesn't mean it will bring down a building. The size of these fires is what matters.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please show some actual evidence on why you think the firefighters are lying and/or in on it.
[edit on 5-2-2007 by LeftBehind]


We never said they were in on it, we never said they were lying. They might think they're telling the truth without remembering the full truth.
Maybe you are just misinterpreting them. The point is, you don't have any evidence to back up your claims of heavy damage and huge fires.

The fires might've been hot, out of control, but nowhere on video or photo does it show the fires to be covering a large portion of the building. And that is what is important to cause such a collapse.

Oh and hey, if you want to put all your hopes on the eyewitness accounts of firefights I'd be carefull. There are those that saw explosions. Shall we ignore them because they appear to be a minority? Don't you think it is obvious we hear more firefighters talk about fire than explosions? Or do you still perceive the media to be unbiased on these matters?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

They made the decision. Not Silverstein. Silverstein had no authority over the firefighters. Nor did the firefighters plant bombs in 7.

Any proof you have to the contrary, please let's see it.
[edit on 5-2-2007 by LeftBehind]


Yes Silverstein had not authority over the firemen so they could have only been talking about the builidng when they stted PULL IT.

Who said anything about bombs, thier are several ways to bring down a building. Specailly a building that was damgeged and the floors were gutted.

Can you porve these firemen worng ?

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

They made the decision. Not Silverstein. Silverstein had no authority over the firefighters. Nor did the firefighters plant bombs in 7.

Any proof you have to the contrary, please let's see it.
[edit on 5-2-2007 by LeftBehind]


Yes Silverstein had not authority over the firemen so they could have only been talking about the builidng when they stted PULL IT.

Who said anything about bombs, thier are several ways to bring down a building. Specailly a building that was damgeged and the floors were gutted.

Can you prove these firemen worng ?

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.






[edit on 5-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
ok, but no one is still able to show me 'proof' of explosives.

ill admit, even in the absense of explosives, its possible it was a preplanned controlled demo, but no one can provide me with even a plausible hypothesis on that one either.

so, lets talk a moment about explosions and explosives for a moment.

how many people have heard or seen actual high explosives being detonated in real life? not on tv, not in a movie, first hand real life.

not many. being a fireman doesnt make you an explosives expert, trust me.

and before i go too much further, lets first admit that yes, anything that causes an explosion is technically an explosive but lets also agree that theres a far cry from a 5lb propane tank and 10lbs of C4 shall we? (NO im not saying any explosions on 9-11 were 5lb propane tanks its an example for comparison to make a point. k?)

so, everyone wants to talk about buildings needing an external source of energy to do what they did that day. ok, energy. explosions are massive releases of energy. explosives are concentrated releases of energy...


they make noise. LOTS of noise. now, one or two very small charges could go unnoticed, admittedly...but, you wont bring down a large building with one or two small charges. sorry, you wont. (dont snap back about fires and isolated damage, thats not what im saying im talking JUST about explosives here and wont even comment on any questions other than that)
somone in another thread quoted some cd expert as saying that linear shape charges are 'unimpressivly quiet'. compared to? how many? yeah, a 1m lsc is only like 425g of explosive. (thats .93lbs) ok so to cut a 12" square steel box beam takes 1.25lbs of explosive multply by the number of beams per floor you need to cut multiply by the number of floor and you start to get the idea. (for the record, the fireworks you see even at a distance and can still hear/feel use mostly powder based explosives and have a very small RE factor so that would be equivalant to just a few grams of like C4)

never mind the firing circuits. you would have to be able to wire everythign so redunantly in case something bad happened during the confusion because you dont want there to be any evidence left from a charge NOT going off at all. but being so redunant can also leave a lot of evidence behind. (dont even start on me with 'remote control' detonators. very few demo experts like to use them cuz theres just too many ways they can fail)

ive said before, someday when im really motivated, ill put up a large, unbiased post on demolitions facts/myths but thats outside the scope of this thread.

so, ive said all that to say this...wheres the proof of explosives?

said before that the absense of explosives doesnt mean that it wasnt a CD, but ive yet to see proof of how thats done also.

so as to witnesses hearing 'explosions' let me ask, becuase frankly i dont know and this is an honest question...did any of these buildings have caffeterias? hot water? were there gas lines running to these areas?

always rule out the probable first, then start looking at the improbable. am i saying a gas leak brought down 7? nope, i have no idea why 7 came down and have said so repeatedly...but i still dont see evidence of explosives.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is Bldg 7 was where the 'Bunker' was, honestly does anyone think they would have built a 'bunker' in such a weak building>?

The Building suffered damage, but nothing that has been worse then other buildings in the past.

The fact is, the building fell into its own footprint, and had a little debri fall into other buildings as well.

But to deny it fell straight down is to deny the obvious.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
short post

why would you build a 'bunker' in a high rise?

that just defys logic on so many levels i cant even comprehend that one.

is it possible that it was simply a command and control center for a disaster? why would that need to be a "bunker"?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Damocles

I hear you on that, I agree why on earth was a *bunker* ever constructed there and way up on a skyscraper, I have no clue.

I would imagine though the building must have been designed with unique 'redundant' feature.

The fact it had a bunker, the CIA, Secret Service amongst other important things.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Hearsay and eyewitnesses are not the same thing.


en.wikipedia.org...

The Federal Rules of Evidence provide a general definition of hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."


Since the people on the ground that day actually talk about what they personally saw, it is not hearsay.

They really are witnesses to fires and damage to WTC 7. When you combine that with the pictures and videos of smoke billowing out of the south side, it's pretty easy to conclude that there were in fact large fires.

Posting pictures of small fires as proof, and yet ignoring all the things I just listed is to ignore reality and only pick the evidence that fits your theory.

If you believe in the "small or no fire" theory, please explain to me what, other than fire, can make smoke pour out of a building like this for hours?

/f3tvd

/zg4un

Numerous firefighters saw the blaze first hand, and that is consistent with the few photos and videos of WTC 7, that show massive amounts of smoke billowing out.

Yet you would ignore all this and call the firefighters liars based on a few pictures of the north side of the building? Are you looking for truth, or ignoring it?

You would have us believe that all these people are liars and complicit in mass murder based on photos that don't even show the damaged and burning south side?


www.911myths.com...

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
–FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...


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. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.
– Capt. Chris Boyle
/e7bzp

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.
–Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...



Based on all the available evidence, they knew 7 was badly damaged and burning uncontrolled. They knew it was a danger all afternoon, and they thought it would fall down.

How you can ignore all of the above, and claim that the building was pulled is beyond ignorance and into the realm of denial. Especially as there is no evidence whatsoever that 7 was a controlled demo, with or without bombs.


We never said they were in on it, we never said they were lying. They might think they're telling the truth without remembering the full truth.


You are saying that they are in on it, and lying about it. Remember a paragraph or two before that in the same post.


The point is WHAT they pulled.
"It" referring to a building rather than a person or people.


You are saying that the firefighters stopped nearby rescue operations to demo a building, making them complicit in insurance fraud, and mass murder, and then lied about it.

You can sugar coat it if it helps you sleep at night, but it doesn't make your accusations any less disgusting.

And you do this based on speculation and for some sick reason many of you wish the above scenario was true and look for any way you can to prove it.


So if you have some evidence that actually backs up what you guys are claiming go ahead and post it.

If you have nothing, then admit it, and stop accusing ground zero fire fighters and rescue crews of mass murder and false statements.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
LeftBehind

The question is this, if your so willing to accept the Testimony of People who saw a fire on WTC 7, will you also accept the countless testimony of Firefighters and Emergency staff who saw "low level flashes", heard "explosions", "pops" in the WTC towers?



As for Bldg 7.

Was it ever on fire like this?





Or sustain this type of damage?







There is nothing to suggest that Bldg 7 was ever that far gone. If there was nothing to suggest that Bldg 7 was that far gone, then there is no good reason to conclude it fell down in 6 seconds and had a global collapse, that none of its redundancy kicked in, and it landed pretty well in its own footprint only because of it being on fire.

Now, if Bldg 7 was never damaged like this, are we now saying that the Windsor Bldg in Spain was INCREDIBLEY more redundant then Bldg 7?

I mean people can say each case is different, but that is a non-argument, since buildings are designed for worse case scenario's.

Or is it a coincidence that most of the bldg's that fell that day were owned by Silverstein?



[edit on 5-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So if you have some evidence that actually backs up what you guys are claiming go ahead and post it.



Why not hold FEMA and NIST to the same standard? They are the government organizations responsible for the investigation. And yet they have produced NO evidence to support to pancake collapse theory.

In fact, the evidence was destroyed before FEMA and NIST could even examine it.

That said, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed due to some other reason besides the pancake theory. Some of this evidence is:

1) molten metal dripping from WTC2 and in rubble weeks after collapse
2) all three buidlings collapsed symmetrically from non-symmetrical damage
3) Initial drop of North tower radio antenna
4) free fall collapse times
5) eye-witness testimony of flashes and explosions in lower floors
6) horizontal puffs of smoke from WTC7, a building that collapsed from the bottom and didn't have pancaking floors to explain the puffs of smoke

Further, how can you possibly expect anybody to come up with hard evidence of a controlled demolition when the government destroyed all the evidence?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
short post

why would you build a 'bunker' in a high rise?

that just defys logic on so many levels i cant even comprehend that one.

is it possible that it was simply a command and control center for a disaster? why would that need to be a "bunker"?


Thier was an emergency bunker built in building 7 for the mayor in case of civil emergency.

Thier were threads stating that the fires in the builidng caused the fuel tanks for the bunker to ignite but the EPA recovered most of the fuel.

www.wtc7.net...


To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.





[edit on 6-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by damocles
so, ive said all that to say this...wheres the proof of explosives?


From the rest of your post it sounds more like you're asking for proof of something like C4 or any other conventional high explosive than any explosives in general. Right?

What if they just didn't use a conventional high explosive?


Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And now you can't even get your lies straight. First theres no fires, then you are outraged saying that no one said there's no fire, then in your last post you claim that smoke can exist for hours without fires.

But go ahead, ignore me like you ignore any evidence that contradicts your fantasies.


I'm quoting this as an example of why LB is on my ignore, and to show that it isn't because he's just too good at arguing with people.

He said that I claimed there were no fires in WTC7, and then that I said that "smoke can exist for hours without fires". Where? That's all I ask. I never said either of those statements, and LB will never link us back to the posts, because they don't exist. That simple. And I don't even know where in the hell the stuff about smoke existing without fire even came from


That topped off with the cynical emo-frothing of "But go ahead, ignore me like you ignore any evidence that contradicts your fantasies" becomes too much to even bother reading.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
here is a clip where you can clearly hear what sounds like a bomb, then a prediction about Bldg 7 collapse.

anyone know who these guys are in the film, they certainly aren't New York's fire fighters
lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by damocles
so, ive said all that to say this...wheres the proof of explosives?


From the rest of your post it sounds more like you're asking for proof of something like C4 or any other conventional high explosive than any explosives in general. Right?


yes, thats why i differentiated between conventional HE and other things taht oculd be considered 'explosive' (gas leaks, cans of compressed cleaning supplies(yes, i know that an aerosol can cant blow upa building but it sure would sound like an 'explosion' when it BLEVE'd and that could account for the sounds people heard..well things like that anyway) in other words, things youd find there in general)



What if they just didn't use a conventional high explosive?
[


well im open minded enough to discuss that. what did you have in mind? honestly im at a loss as to what an unconventional explosive would consist of...so if you have an example please...

the problem is bsb, and i guess this is my point...for ANY 'explosive' to structurally damage a building you have to release energy. can we agree on that? conventional explosives are just really fast chemical reactions during which heat and light are released. the sounds come from the supersonic overpressure.

so, for an explosive to fit your unconventional criteria, it would have to be something that could release energy without those thing yet still release enough energy to damage the building.

again though, im open minded and would love to discuss. if it goes too far off topic for this thread we can start a new one and discuss that specifically.

Damo



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Hearsay and eyewitnesses are not the same thing.


en.wikipedia.org...

The Federal Rules of Evidence provide a general definition of hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."


Since the people on the ground that day actually talk about what they personally saw, it is not hearsay.


Granted I stretched the term a bit. It does not refute my other point that there are eyewitnesses for explosives too, you've posted quite a long post but failed to address this important fact. Because frankly it destroys whatever argument you had left. But just for the heck of it I'll answer the rest of your questions.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
They really are witnesses to fires and damage to WTC 7. When you combine that with the pictures and videos of smoke billowing out of the south side, it's pretty easy to conclude that there were in fact large fires.


No you don't combine it, you compare it.
But as I said in my first answer, we have eyewitnesses for fire and explosives, nobody is denying the fact there were fires, you on the other hand are denying the fact that there were explosives. So it's YOU who is denying and ignoring evidence, not us.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Posting pictures of small fires as proof, and yet ignoring all the things I just listed is to ignore reality and only pick the evidence that fits your theory.


"All the things" = Someone telling you there was fire.

Good, we agree on that.
However, what the pictures show is that the fire was never big enough to affect the building. Again, because this evidence doesn't fit your story, you decide to ignore it and choose to believe only footage of the other side of the building, where the only thing we see is smoke. Again this is no evidence for whatever theory you support.

< snip >



Originally posted by LeftBehind

We never said they were in on it, we never said they were lying. They might think they're telling the truth without remembering the full truth.


You are saying that they are in on it, and lying about it. Remember a paragraph or two before that in the same post.


The point is WHAT they pulled.
"It" referring to a building rather than a person or people.


You are saying that the firefighters stopped nearby rescue operations to demo a building, making them complicit in insurance fraud, and mass murder, and then lied about it.

You can sugar coat it if it helps you sleep at night, but it doesn't make your accusations any less disgusting.


Oh boohoo, lets pull the Bill O'Reilly card of emotional entrapment.
Maybe you should learn how to read before you let your emotions run out of whack because you're so missing the point it's becoming ugly.

First of all, we're talking about WTC7, nobody died, the firefighters aren't mass murders even if they brought it down themselves.

Now you try to pin this on the firefighters, where did I say they blew up the building? The firefighters never had to know the building would be demolished, and I never suggested that. All someone had to do was tell them to stand back in case it came down. And what do you know..

You're the one trying to accuse them, not me. And frankly I'm tired of people using the "oh how inconsiderate" excuse and "oh they must all be in on it" just to reinforce your own beliefs.

For a skeptic you sure like to deny a lot of evidence.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
So if you have some evidence that actually backs up what you guys are claiming go ahead and post it.

If you have nothing, then admit it, and stop accusing ground zero fire fighters and rescue crews of mass murder and false statements.


I've posted it, you even posted it. You ignore eyewitnesses that talk about explosives. You ignore evidence of small fires, no or very little damage. You fail to show anything yourself other than those eyewitness accounts that don't mention explosions, yet accuse us of failing to come up with anything?


Seriously, if you need to ask for evidence for a demolition in case of WTC7 I feel for you.

- No large fire
- No extensive damage
- Fast collapse
- Footprint collapse
- Eyewitness say explosions occured
- Typical 'dip' in the building
- Squibs

In fact, there is NO evidence for a collapse due to structural damage and fire. NONE, other than ASSUMING (quoted from the actual report) that there was extensive damage and ignoring all the evidence that there wasn't.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
the problem is bsb, and i guess this is my point...for ANY 'explosive' to structurally damage a building you have to release energy. can we agree on that? conventional explosives are just really fast chemical reactions during which heat and light are released. the sounds come from the supersonic overpressure.


Yeah, we agree. But what I have in mind now, that Spoon's posted about, are these nanothermite aerosols that produce both overpressures and high heat, and can expand following a path. Hellhounds, right? And you can fine tune the explosion for more explosive force and less heat, or more heat and less explosive force. Imagine these being detonated from the core traveling outwards to the edges of the trusses, where they meet the perimeter columns and push them outwards, after having already dealt structural damage within the core. This would take very little thermite, right?

The overpressures I'm still not sure about. It was NBC or ABC or some news agency like that that captured an audible explosion from the base of WTC2 as it began to fall. Have you heard this clip? A deep boom, followed by the static-like sound of the building's destruction coming afterwards. Now that I think about it, most all other clips of the towers falling either start after this has already occurred, or are too far from the towers to reach any conclusion. For example, the two videos showing the collapse wave racing down WTC2 don't show the collapse beginning, yet they were right below it. Other mainstream media clips tend to be from some distance.

Being able to pick out single explosions beyond the beginning events is something that deserves some scientific experimentation on its own, because I'm not totally convinced that you would be able to pick out any given explosive detonated from within the core of a tower once it's already been compromised, or had a sequence of rapidly-detonating devices more or less floor-by-floor in a somewhat staggered pattern, or some way to mask the spikes so that they don't line up with each other. You know what I mean? It's not so much that explosives aren't loud, so much as it is that those buildings were huge, and the collapses were very rapid, and so any demolition sequences would also be very rapid, and simply off-setting the spikes would probably do wonders for "smoothing" the audio into one loud roar of rapidly-expanding clouds (visually the "squibs", rows of expulsions, etc.).

[edit on 6-2-2007 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join