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.

 

Video of WTC 7 Burning! A Must See

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Not sure if anyone has seen this video of WTC7 ... I was stunned. Please let me know if this has any effect on your opinions as to what happened in regards to a collapse or CD.





Mod Edit: All caps title only.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Geez Cameron, all caps?

I'm watching the video now....

Hope it's something new that I haven't already seen..

edit to add.

Thanks for the link, Cameron. It answered at least a couple of my questions regarding #7.

[edit on 2/17/2007 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Wow, finally a flame from the South side?


About damned time, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Very nice and rare video, parts of which I haven't seen before either. Strong arguments indeed, I must admit.

Still, not strong enough. When you say "fully involved in fire", I'd expect more than "a dozen of windows" through which (admittedly fierce-looking) flames leak. A raging inferno would look different, I guess. AFAIK, there are fire prevention doors in buildings like these (even in my school building those doors closed automatically and were not allowed to be fixed "open") so the flames can't spread from one section or level to the next.

And the video still can't explain why the building collapsed on its footprint, with the center giving in first (as MSM footage reveals), instead of tipping to the side where the "severe damage" occured.

Very nice find, Cameron!



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
And the video still can't explain why the building collapsed on its footprint, with the center giving in first (as MSM footage reveals), instead of tipping to the side where the "severe damage" occured


It didn't really fall into its footprint. WTC7 fell in two sections. Below is a picture facing toward the North East. Notice the wreckage that is draped on the white building North of WTC 7. That is a big portion the east face of WTC7.



How can we predict the way a huge building will fall..with all the variables that went into something like this?

As an experiment

For instance: If we were to find another 40+ story tall, steel framed building, and we gouged random parts of it, set it ablaze and didn't try to control the fires...Which way would it fall? Would it topple? Would it come straight down? Would it look like a controlled Demolition? Would it be impervious to our attempts to destroy it?

If anyone can tell me the answers to these questions..I would understand why people are so convinced of this CD theory.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
This is physics, listen up. This will probably be the last time I put this much effort into explaining something in an ATS post that should be learned in a classroom.


Gravity is a force that tends to pull objects on Earth towards the center of the Earth. It is a relatively weak force.

Electromagnetism is the force that keeps objects from falling through each other, because the empty physical spaces between atoms and parts of atoms and etc. is actually vast. This force is much stronger than gravity.

One of the laws of thermodynamics states that things will follow the path of least resistance, always.

A vector is a 2-dimensional number that has both a magnitude and a direction. For example, gravity will "pull" an object and cause it to accelerate towards the center of the Earth at 9.8 meters per second per second (or meters per second squared). The magnitude is 9.8m/s^2 and the direction would be -90 degrees whereas 0 degrees is perfectly horizontal, the x-axis.

I'm not familiar with what the forces associated with electromagnetism in dynamic systems are called, but in static systems they're called normals, and the normal force is the equal and opposite force "pushing up" on an object to counter-act gravity. Loads can be increased and the normal will change proportionately to keep counter-acting gravity to prevent objects from falling into themselves up until a certain point, but remember that the path of least resistance will still always be taken.


A simple mathematical model of WTC7 collapsing due to asymmetrical damage centering around the South face would have gravity accelerating mass into the path of least resistance (compromised columns towards the South end of the building).





For the sake of argument, let's say the entire base of the Southern facade is compromised.




Now we reach common sense, reaching back to our days as toddlers, stacking blocks upon each other and learning how they interact with each other in different configurations.

Which way is that thing going to go, following the path of least resistance to the ground? Is the whole thing going to fall straight down at once, or is gravity going to find a way to accelerate half of the building more easily than the other, leading to the building leaning?

A technical analysis here could get quite involved, with forces conflicting with each other at lots of angles and therefore sines and cosines and all kinds of mess like this for each and every column being acted laterally on the North side of the building as the South side would be trying to fall down due to gravity, but would be offset by resistance, friction, electromagnetism, the normal force, or whatever you'd like to call it.

Point is, gravity wouldn't take over as if it's top dog. The building would have to fall at an angle into the direction of least resistance (compromised structure) because of friction.


Another common sense example: kick a leg out from under a chair. The chair is going to fall in the direction of the missing leg. Why? Nothing is preventing gravity from acting on that corner of the chair anymore, but the other legs are still preventing the chair from falling straight down. Someone please tell me they understand this logic!


You guys understand this, right? It really shouldn't be debatable should it? The only way around this is to find some excuse for the loads to have been transferred in some amazingly balanced way by the actual structure of the building, which is what NIST has been trying to come up with for the past 5 years.



Btw, "leaning" in all four directions (WTC7 damaged buildings on all sides and leaned into Vesey Street to the South) is more indicative of an explosive collapse to me, rather than some sly way of weaseling out of how straight the building came down, because the centers of gravity in those four cardinal directions are all going to cancel each other out and put the greater center of gravity right back into the footprint. WTC7 fell into its footprint, not that a 2-second glance at any photo wouldn't tell you this basic info anyway, seeing as how the biggest pile is right at the base of where WTC7 once stood. Common freaking sense people.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
No disrespect, but it is highly debatable. I understand you are trying to equate this to a textbook explaination. Utilizing laws of science and sensible logic you form a soilid arguement. For that, I commend you greatly.

However, there are too many variables to account for. The shape of the building is one. A trapazoid with the smaller face pointing South. How much destabilization was due to impact damage? ..How much was due to fire? Video shows the east penthouse as the first area to collapse..then the West. How does this effect the way the building crumbles? if you look at that photo I posted above you will see that on top of the WTC7 pile of rubble is the outer face of the North wall. So it did essentially crumble "South first" and the north wall did tumble..just not as dynamically as our eyes, and imaginations, would expect. I suspect most of the "action" that people were wanting to see in order to validate a collapse in their minds was obcsured by smoke and debris. This goes for all three towers. After all, they were much taller than most buldings we have seen fail.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
No disrespect, but I don't think you understand at all what I'm saying.


Excuse how sloppy this image is, but it serves to illustrate quickly.





This building was RIGID. All steel skyscrapers are SOLIDLY BOLTED AND WELDED TOGETHER.


When you kick the leg out from a chair, the reason the whole thing falls at an angle is because gravity acts on one corner, and that one corner, because it is solidly, chemically combined to the rest of the chair, pulls the rest of the chair down with it towards where the one leg is missing.


This is the only way to bring a building straight down:





Even then it isn't easy.


This really is not debatable material. I may not be the best teacher in the world but what I'm describing is not something I've pulled out of my ass. When you tell me it's debatable, what you're telling me is that you have no idea what in the HELL I am talking about.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
No, I understand what you are talking about. And I can see you have done a great deal of research on the subject.

BUT for it to be a controlled demolition It would seem that the demolition team would have to have preconcieved ideas of where to place the charges, taking into account, Of Course, of where the damage had been done to the building from falling debris, and how much damage had been done by fires..also needing to keep the explosives away from the fires in fear of them exploding "Out of Synch."

To me, it seems more logical that the building came down like it did due to a chaotic chain of events; as improbable as they might seem.

Because if it was a CD with explosives, set weeks in advance, the team of demolitionists would have to have known where to place the charges to counter-act the everchanging points of structural instability in order for it to come down like other "controlled" demos. IOW it is even more improbable to control something that is ....out of control, as is evidenced by the video above.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Sorry to intervene, but I don't think you're getting was bsbray is implying. The damage to the building wouldn't change anything if it was CD. It fell on it's footprint. The rest is just non influencing details.

I happen to think you articulated great. Well done.


AAC



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Sorry but I don’t see how this video proves anything, except that people on both sides of the argument will promote a poor argument as fact. People who debunk 9/11 videos should also apply the same rules to this video, but I doubt many will only because of the position it takes. I guess I will have to do a quick assessment.

Right at the beginning guy in the video says that there are “fires throughout the building” and I captured a screen shot when he is saying that that it shows fire only in one area.



Later he shows a close up of the fires and states there are “fires blowing out of 12 windows”. Well in a building that has approximately 60 windows per floor and 47 floors that is not very many.



He also says the building is “fully involved” which is a term firefighters use meaning the entire structure is on fire, but the video shows the opposite. Just to be clear, here is a Google image search of “fully involved” and you can browse through the images to get an idea what it means.

Goo gle image search of “fully involved”

Now I ask does this building look like it was "fully involved"? I don't think so.

And what about the last line in the video? “That is my argument to disprove the collapses of the Twin Towers”

But wait a minute I thought this video was about Building #7. He shows a picture of a vertical column and solves the entire mystery surrounding 9/11 just like that. Wow that is truly amazing.


What else is amazing is how the rules of debunking only apply to one side of an argument.

[edit on 2/17/2007 by Hal9000]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Fires are not relevant to the collapse of Bldg 7, if that were the case then why are people who are experts needed to bring down a building with a "CONTROLLED" fashion??

Why not just start some random fires and watch em' fall freefall speed?



Here are some questions.

1.Why is WTC 7 burning worse then the Pentagon? WTC7 wasn't even struck by a plane, yet it seems to have this 'fire' that is not controlled.

2.Did the Pentagon have the hotspots that Bldg 7 had?


BLDG 7 was nowhere near this.......















So this building didn't collapse, so I SEE NO GOOD reason why a 47 ft STEEL STRUCTURE built in with redundant designs should collapse on 9/11.

There isn't a *GOOD* reason beyond someone involved in the determined take down of the building.


And for those who talk a lot about concrete vs steel etc, kindly look at the crane, which is made of Steel. It isn't melted or showing any signs of 'sag' it is just there, am I to believe the Steel in WTC7 just melted away?

And not just in one area, but in every single crucial part of the building at the same time???










[edit on 17-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Sorry to intervene, but I don't think you're getting was bsbray is implying. The damage to the building wouldn't change anything if it was CD. It fell on it's footprint. The rest is just non influencing details.

I happen to think you articulated great. Well done.


AAC


Thank you!

Did you get a chance to look at the picture I posted previously in this thread? It shows a very significant portion of the east face of WTC7 actually fell North, and draped wreckage on top of the white building at the top of the photo. Other sections of the building actually fell Southward. and the North face of WTC7 did, in fact, topple South, draped on top of the wreckage just as bsbray11's "Toppling" explaination shows. The tall WTC7 was just more rigid, than it was top heavy (sans the penthouses) The actual Toppling happened; we just couldn't see it due to the smoke, dust, and other buildings blocking our camera angles. This is likely the case for all three buildings.

So WTC 7 did indeed topple, as is evidenced by the North exerior wall being draped on top of the rubble. WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, as is evidenced by the debris being draped all over a building to the North. It actually fell in two fragmented directions.

I don't know why people have the idea the building fell in its own footprint. I suppose that is just the hookline of the story or sumpin' *Shrugs*

Hey, thanks again!



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Like I said before man, the building "fell" in all four cardinal directions if you want to argue that crap. It hit all 3 neighboring buildings and fell into Vesey Street in the South too. That means absolutely nothing, because the center of gravity is still in the footprint of the building.

When you look at an image of WTC7's rubble pile, and you see the great heaping mass right there at the base of where WTC7 once stood, what in green hell makes you think it toppled anywhere but down, by and large? Why does any other direction take predominance when the great majority of the mass was right there within the footprint? Even watch it collapse and you can even see that it's going straight down, and leaning less than most any demolition I've ever seen.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Tailsman,

Do you realize that the Windsor in Madrid is Not a Steel building?

Well that isn't COMPLETELY correct..Only the outer facade of the upper half of the Windsor is a Steel structure....This was done to lighten the building.

The part that was steel is shown in the diagram below.


Failed ..well, catastrophically.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Correct, but shouldn't the concrete center of the building still remain, as seen in the windsor photo? Did building 7 have the same type of center? Also I would hardly compare the Blaze of the windsor tower to the small fire in building 7. I have to go with Bsray on this one.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   
The Windsor Tower used reinforced concrete. The steel beams used on the exterior were thin, a few inches in diameter only, and they took a much more severe fire for nearly 24 hours before they failed. Imagine much thicker columns, much less intense fire, over a much shorter period of time.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Like I said before man, the building "fell" in all four cardinal directions if you want to argue that crap. It hit all 3 neighboring buildings and fell into Vesey Street in the South too. That means absolutely nothing, because the center of gravity is still in the footprint of the building.


WOW, now it is just the center of gravity that is in the footprint?


When you look at an image of WTC7's rubble pile, and you see the great heaping mass right there at the base of where WTC7 once stood, what in green hell makes you think it toppled anywhere but down, by and large?


I don't think it toppled anywhere other than down...by in large. But the North face DID topple over the top of the wreckage. Just like you said it would, except not a soon as you THOUGHT it would.


Why does any other direction take predominance when the great majority of the mass was right there within the footprint? Even watch it collapse and you can even see that it's going straight down, and leaning less than most any demolition I've ever seen.


It still doesn't prove it was any sort of Controlled Demolition. It just means it didn't fall like you would have liked to see it fall. In actuallity I don't think ANY of us wanted to see ANY of the buildings get hit by planes, burn, then fall, then burn and fall again.. AT ALL. !ANY OF IT! .. AND WE ARE MAD AS HELL ABOUT IT. By doing all of this research we are actually coping with it. We are looking at these events as investigators..NOT Victims anymore. It helps us move on.

It is just that the anger is misguided. We *should* be mad about our federal government being incompetent and complacent...NOT being some Crazed, Murderous, super-intellegent, cohesive machine..that can stage and pull off something of this scale that has us still unable to prove anything SIX years later. They are not that smart, or organized..never have been..probably never will be. The people that make up our *shudder* Federal government are just chicks and doods, that got them gubment jobs. Really.......really,really.



[edit on 18-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11






Thanks for the great posts!

Here's how I would try to explain this to my 13-year old... maybe this will help.

Look at the above photo. Specifically, look at front roofline of WTC7. As the building falls, this roofline stays pretty much parallel to the ground from start to finish. Also look at the roofline on the right side of WTC7. It stays parallel to the ground as the building falls too.

The fact that the rooflines fall parallel means that the collapse of WTC7 started precisely simultaneously beneath every beam supporting both rooflines. Because gravity causes objects to accelerate as they fall, an object that begins falling first will always stay ahead of an object that begins falling afterwards.

As seen by the rooflines, the entire structure begins falling at the same time.

This can ONLY mean that the resistance holding the entire structure up vanished instantly.



Or, here's another way to look at it...

There was absolutely no angular momentum involved in the collapse. A simple look at the video above shows that. The angular momentum would result only from one section of the building failing before another section. Think back to WTC2's tilt before it collapsed.

WTC7's roofline showed no tilt, therefore there was no angular momentum. Therefore every supporting beam by definition HAD to fail simultaneously.

What's really interesting about this is that the NIST's preliminary explanation for WTC7's collapse is the exact opposite of their explanation for the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. The NIST said in WTC1 and WTC2 that the heat caused the horizontal beams to basically sag, pulling in the vertical beams that supported the building.

For WTC7, the NIST is saying that the some vertical beams failed first, and this somehow caused the horizontal beams to fail simultaneously, which then somehow caused the simultaneous collapse of every other remaining vertical beam in the building.

No wonder it's taken over 5 years the the NIST STILL doesn't have a final report on why WTC7 collapsed the way it did. There most current "theory" is total b.s. Asymmetrical damage by definition would cause asymmetrical failures, not simultaneous universal failures.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Can we all agree that WTC7 was badly damaged before it fell?

It freaks me out to hear people saying "it was nothing" "just superficial stuff"

Like a window got broken..or art was knocked off the wall, or someones make-up case got spilled.

That building took a hit, big time...I just don't see how anyone could argue that.

Once that happens not even the best demolitionists and firemen know where the building might fail.

Look, for this to be a controlled Demo...

Evil super-beings would have had to know that the North tower was going to cause enough damage to WTC7 to even make this theory even debateable.

Super-beings had to know where to set the explosives so very real fires didn't either cause the the "mythical hidden charges" to go off out of sync or render any of them inopperable.

They also had to know where the debris was going to hit so THAT didn't set any of the explosives off out of sync or render them inopperable.

If these powerful directional charges, strong enough to level all of the support columns, were causing all this destruction, then where are any signs of Squibs?

How do we really know what collapse characteristics for buildings this size, and make have when put through the obvious hardship these buildings endured? How do we know that all tube in tube designed steel buildings wont do the same thing in a similar situation in the future?

We don't.



new topics




 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join