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: 9
1
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


By the workers clearing the wreckage......


I'll play you guy's game. Prove it.




Rush? It was Memorial Day weekend 2002 before all the wreckage had been removed. And the building performance team DID have all the access they needed to test the steel.


There was so a rush.



Why else would the debris from WTC 7 be COMPLETELY removed even before WTC 1 & 2 which may have had survivors in it? Don't tell me and others there was no rush to clean WTC 7 debris. The picture doesn't lie.

Show me proof that the performance team had access to all of the steel. I've heard different.




9) fact that FEMA and NIST investigations only covered up until collapses initiated


What is this supposed to mean?


If you are having a problem figuring out what that is suppossed to mean, then there is no help for you. Because the collapse initiations are only 35% of the problem. Why can't they prove that a global collapse was inevitable instead of just stating it?



Define reason. Do you really think concrete is going to survive falling several hundred feet amongst tons of structural steel and NOT get pulverized?


In a pancake collapse, YES. With the floors pancaking on themselves, there would be no room to pulverise (become in tension). All the concrete would be in compression (in a pancake collapse). Also, there was plenty of pulverising from the begining...i.e. when only a few feet were collapsing.

Edit to add: I'm not saying that it all would be left, but it should have been at least in layers and not spewed into downtown NY. That is if it was a pancake collapse.




So you think the upper floors of WTC2 are going to fall 800-900 feet and NOT get destroyed??


Since the caps were pulverised before hitting the ground (way before, I might add), then his post stands to reason.




They already were analyzed. And not all of the steel was shipped to India and China, a lot of it stayed right here in the US.



Define alot. Was it 10%, 20% etc. I'd like to know how much was saved.

On a side note. I never heard anyone mention the nitrogen residue from the '93 bombing. Wouldn't that hinder the annalysis of new Nitrogen residue? Not sure how long the residue would stay.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 2/7/2007 by Griff]




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Rush? It was Memorial Day weekend 2002 before all the wreckage had been removed. And the building performance team DID have all the access they needed to test the steel.


What? They said themselves that they DIDN'T have all the access they needed, and they were only taken on a tour through a site where the steel was being temporarily dumped. That was the extent of it. And they weren't shown structural documents.


Astaneh-Asl before the House Committee on Science:


I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled.


gop.science.house.gov...



In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.


gop.science.house.gov...



This is like a re-learning process, after all those trivial "debunkings" start to seep in. You guys keep saying not ALL of the steel was shipped out, and you forget how very little of it was actually examined. Trivialities.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Maybe they got rid of the upper sections first becasue they were "on top" ? There is plenty of steel that is left in America, tons of it left outside to rust in middle america also. I have posted that before. It was to be used to create buildings and it sits there. Common sense would state that it would also be easier to clear WTC7 when looking at it from above in the picture. Would you not start there if you were in charge of the clean up? Why must it be a conspiracy?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Common sense would tell a person to excavate where there might be survivors first. Since there are still operations for WTC 1 ongoing in the pic, it would seem this didn't happen. The whole place was fenced off etc., so there would be no need to excavate this area first for road access etc.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
many of my answers to these questions are speculation. im not a cop or federal agent. perhaps ultima may be the better person to ask, this is more in line with his backround, but ill offer my opinions so long as we're clear, these are opinions unless stated otherwise.


Originally posted by talisman
Damocles

I have a few questions for you, I was reading through your posts and they seem very level headed indeed.

The questions I have are:

Why wasn't there a more careful investigation into the use of explosives in either of the towers or bldg 7?
How was it that the gov was so sure that explosives weren't used by Al'Qaeda for example?

my guess would be that its becuase there werent any indications of explosives being present. yes, the towers LOOK like they could have been demo'd but that doesnt mean they were


What reason do you think there was for so much of the material that day to be 'melted' or 'done away with'?
I mean in the interest of future attacks wouldn't it be almost an insurance policy to look to how future buildings might from the benefit of design, not collapse if something similar occured?
They could learn from the material and build more wisely in the future.

becuase as soon as you start moving evidence, it looses its evidentiary value to some degree. and i think the main priority was to get it out of the way to recover bodies, see if there were any survivors (initially) and to get NYC back to working order. also i think they may have felt that why bother with the wreckage when we can 'simulate' anything we need to. pure speculation.


What exactly moved the mass out of the way in order for the building to fall at a high rate of speed? The mass above coming down? Or something else?

no idea. ill not even try to give an 'expert' or even informed opinion to taht exact question, it wasnt my area. but it would seem we have an answer to the age old question of what happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object.


Why is there the sound of an explosion just before Bldg 7 collapsed with a prediction?
could have been anything really. too broad to speculate. the one video ive seen of said explosion was 9 full seconds before the start of the collapse. sooooooo it took gravity 9 seconds to make it start to fall, and no one has a problem with that?


Why is there what sounds like a bomb before the WTC Tower collapsed,(posted earlier) and here with Bldg 7?
lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org...


Why are statements like this:

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--
Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Only available after the freedom of information act was used by the New York Times?

are you asking why it took a foia or are you asking about hwat he saw?
about what he saw...ill stand by the statements ive made that not everything that looks or sounds like an explosion is linked to a block of tnt or such.

why a foia? no idea.









[edit on 7-2-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



4) photos of steel beams that appear to have been cut

By the workers clearing the wreckage......


No, there is a photo of a standing beam with an angular cut, with molten metal both inside and outside of the beam. This molten metal would not be on the inside of the beam from a worker clearing the wreckage.


im guessing u mean this one?



i showed that pic to a friend of mine who's an industrial welder. he builds highrises and i didnt tell him hwat the pic was from. asked him how he thought it was cut and if it looked odd for any reason.

he backed up what i had thought before. oxy-acetalyne torch. the flame would blow slag inside the beam and let it drop on the outside. asked why it was cut at that angle and he said "well it looks like its in a cleanup area, probly just making it shorter...what youve never cut down a tree?" the large amount of slag at the bottom of the angle cut is from when it fell over and he reached insiside to finish the cut (most likely)

no mystery on that pic



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles



i showed that pic to a friend of mine who's an industrial welder. he builds highrises and i didnt tell him hwat the pic was from. asked him how he thought it was cut and if it looked odd for any reason.

he backed up what i had thought before. oxy-acetalyne torch. the flame would blow slag inside the beam and let it drop on the outside. asked why it was cut at that angle and he said "well it looks like its in a cleanup area, probly just making it shorter...what youve never cut down a tree?" the large amount of slag at the bottom of the angle cut is from when it fell over and he reached insiside to finish the cut (most likely)

no mystery on that pic


Sure didn't look like the way the building should fall if thats how it was blown in theory. That kind of cutting would make the building fall down like a tree, TIIIIMBEEEEEEEEEER. Not like the video that shows the building falling in pieces.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
well i can understand why those that think it was thermite would latch onto a photo like this. cut all the supports at an angle inward and the main columns would all be pushed downward towards the center and bring everythign wtih it...

but...if you look at the edges of that cut, you can see where the torch burned through the web then was pulled back to start on the thicker parts again. that 'sawtooth' pattern is very indicative of on OA torch. so if the thermite crowd want proof, that one photo almost disproves it.

rather, disproves that THAT beam was cut by thermite...

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well i can understand why those that think it was thermite would latch onto a photo like this. cut all the supports at an angle inward and the main columns would all be pushed downward towards the center and bring everythign wtih it...

but...if you look at the edges of that cut, you can see where the torch burned through the web then was pulled back to start on the thicker parts again. that 'sawtooth' pattern is very indicative of on OA torch. so if the thermite crowd want proof, that one photo almost disproves it.

rather, disproves that THAT beam was cut by thermite...

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Damocles]


Might want to do a little more research and you might find things like this.


www.valis.cjb.cc...

Dear Mr. Gould and Mr. Boyd

Re: Were oil company bombs, cutters used to 'pull' WTC #7?

A former (1965-1980) Schlumberger field engineer and researcher into computerized real-world data fusion, I am now a forensic economist investigating the special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams used to execute the precise and co-ordinated series of attacks on 9/11.

I invite the board of directors of both of your companies to investigate the possible use of oil company remote-controlled bomb and cutter technologies by as-yet unidentified organizations which decided to ‘pull’ – industry jargon for demolish – WTC building #7.

WTC#7 became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse through fire. The collapse generated pools of molten steel in the debris piles at the site, consistent with the ignition of chemical (thermite) cutters pre-positioned by wireline inside its structural box columns and the remote-controlled detonation of atomized aluminum powder or ‘rocket fuel’ bombs in segregated column sections.

Schlumberger’s “Casing and Tubing Cutters” document has, “Cutters used to sever tubing or casing .. Jet cutters cut casing in a flat plane perpendicular to the casing wall. Chemical cutters burn the casing .. Applications: .. Burr- and flare-free cutting with chemical cutters; Bomb for heavy drillpipe or casing [base of box columns 4” thick]”.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
ok first of all wtf? if you have some problem with me specifically please, lay it out. insinuation is getting old

second of all...we were discussing THAT picture which any moron that has ever held an oa torch can clearly see was done by said torch.

third, research what? that some guy is 'researching' that now SWAT teams dropped 7?

yeah fine great go him. whats he got?

that there are thermite applications that could cut steel? news flash. thats not new.

what exactly are you going for here? lay it out man.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Since when does Al Qaeda have SWAT teams?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ok first of all wtf? if you have some problem with me specifically please, that there are thermite applications that could cut steel? news flash. thats not new.

what exactly are you going for here? lay it out man.


Maybe this will give you a hint of why i took what you said as an insult.


You might be an ATSer if you :

* If you have ever analyzed videos of the World Elite looking for evidence of Reptillian Shapeshifting... You might be an ATSer. external image

* If you have an irrationally strong fear RFID, you might be an ATSer. external image

* If you have spent over an hour scrutinizing the murals at the Denver Airport and come to the conclusion that it is a Nazi/NWO headquarters for the future flooded world. You might be an ATSer.


I am just stating what i find out in research. That thermite reactions could have brought down the buildings and the planes may have caused it or started it.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 8-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles




Does anyone have the full pic of this? I've noticed that the other cut columns in the pic aren't cut at an angle. At least going by memory.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Damocles




Does anyone have the full pic of this? I've noticed that the other cut columns in the pic aren't cut at an angle. At least going by memory.


Hey Griff,

Here's the full photo:




What I find interesting in this photo is that there seems to be so much debris around the beam that it doesn't look like it would have been easily accessed to cut by the clean-up crew.

Also, has there ever been any documentation that the clean-up crew actually cut standing beams with torches, or at what point in the operation the beams were cut?

Also, the beam on the right side of the photo isn't cut cleanly like the beam in the center of the photo. And if any beams were cut by the clean-up crew, wouldn't it have made more sense to clear out the debris, and perhaps cut the precariously angeled beam before cutting the beam in the center of the photo?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
there is also NO indication when this photo was taken. the firefighters arent caked in dust so its not likely it was taken at 11am on the 11th.

there is no way to say that one guy would cut a beam at an angle and another wouldnt cut straight, we have no idea what is going on, we have a random photo.

what is pretty obvious is that the beam in question WAS cut by an OA torch. you can see it very clearly.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
what is pretty obvious is that the beam in question WAS cut by an OA torch. you can see it very clearly.


I can agree with that for now.

It would be nice to get a time stamp and location for this photo.

Another thing I see. Look at the columns in the background. It looks like those columns were concrete re-inforced steel columns. You can see were some of the concrete has spalled off the column to the left.

Also notice that there is a fireman to the left of the "cut" column. He is leaning over doing something. If you visualize him standing, his head would be a few feet below the bottom of the "cut" angle or close to it (it's hard to tell). How could someone cut so high and why? It doesn't look like it would be easy to get a cherrypicker in there or anything. So, why not cut the column further down where you could reach it?

Edit: Here's the photo imbedded.



[edit on 2/9/2007 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
What I find interesting in this photo is that there seems to be so much debris around the beam that it doesn't look like it would have been easily accessed to cut by the clean-up crew.

Also, has there ever been any documentation that the clean-up crew actually cut standing beams with torches, or at what point in the operation the beams were cut?

Also, the beam on the right side of the photo isn't cut cleanly like the beam in the center of the photo. And if any beams were cut by the clean-up crew, wouldn't it have made more sense to clear out the debris, and perhaps cut the precariously angeled beam before cutting the beam in the center of the photo?


Hi Nick-

I don't have any documentation either, but I can tell you what I saw when I was there. This is something I posted in a thread here.


Why would someone go through all the effort to cut the beam at an angle when it would be much quicker to just cut it striaght accross? I saw them cut beams like this when I was there. The beams were lassowed with cables to a crane. They obviously didn't just cut them & let them fall wherever becuase of safety reasons. There would be no need to cut at an angle to get the beam to "walk" in a certain direction. As a matter of fact a swinging beam was detirmental if anything becuase the guys cutting the beams were also suspended in metal cages armed with an acetelene torches. They often got hit with the swinging beams after they completed the cut, ergo the need for the cages. We called them "the canaries".


It's no in-depth report or complete analysis by a long shot, but I can tell you much of the steel was removed in this fashion right after the collapses.

2PacSade-



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Griff,
The picture you posted is interesting. It has more questions than answers.

1. I do not 100% believe that the column was cut with a torch.

The column is a welded box, the way you would cut a welded box would be from the outside so the slag would be on the inside. In the picture at the top of the column you see slag inside the inner portion of the column.
However, on the lower side of the column you see heavy slag on the outside of the column. This can only be possible with a torch if the three higher sides were cut and the column leaned over to access this area with a torch. If you were using cranes to choke the column while it was being cut, this would not have been necessary.

Now examine the slag on the lower section of the column and notice how thick it is. This can be caused by using a real dirty tip that melted more than it cut, or using a tip to small for the job. It is argueable that neither of these statements are true because if you cut the other cuts using a torch, you should get a similar slag pattern.

One more point on the cut being made by a torch. If you examine the top left section of the cut column, you will see a area above the gray colored steel that is brown in color. This area was not cut, but had to be broken off when the box was removed or fell. That indicates that a person did not cut three sides and lean the box over to access the lower edge where the heavy slag is present.

The columns appear to have been covered in cement for fire proteceion. Yet all the exposed columns are rust colored, and the cement appears to be removed. The beam closet in the picture still has a section on the steel fabric that is attached to steel when it gets fire insulation installed on it.

2. The steel boxes appear to be made of at least 2" thick steel.

This type of constucted beam would be almost impossible to break. That means that even if the towers collapsed some how, that these massive supports would have had to break so as to let the building fall to the ground. What you would expect to see if this collapse was real due to airplane fuel, would be these giant box columns standing in the air, with some of them bent over rather than sheared off. Steel of this magnitude would take a extreme amount of force from all directions before it failed.


Any way nice picture.

We will never get the truth, but we can keep on looking



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
If you look closely, you can see molten melt running down the sides near the cut.

What little is left of WTC1 and WTC2 has been examined chemically and traces of thermate (a demolition charge used to cut beams in the exact manner as seen in the photos) was found on the beams.

Thermate should not have been within a gazillion miles of WTC1 and WTC2 if it was "just" a fire that caused the collapse.

Someone care to explain why thermate was found if the building wasn't demolished??

[edit on 14-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Not sure if you've seen it, but if not: 9/11 Mysteries (Full Version)

A Professor that appears in this video, is interviewed for another. I'll see if I can find it and will post it.

EDIT: Here it is. Go to 24:13 in the video or 47:55 into the video.
9/11 Revisited v.2

[edit on 14-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]




top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join