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: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
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?


So what in your opinion DID level ALL the support columns simultaneously?

Ok, say we stipulate there was serious damage to WTC7. Now what?

We know that there was NO damage to the north face, and probably not the east or west faces of WTC7. The only damage was to the south face. How could random asymmetrical damage cause the simultaneous failure of all support columns?




posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 02:19 AM
link   

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

Funny you should mention that. They knew well enough to evacuate ahead of time even though a steel structure has never collapsed like that before. Hmmm...


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.

Or... maybe it was supposed to happen sooner, but because it didn't take a direct hit, they waited till after five hours to make it look like it was related to the main event.


How do we know that all tube in tube designed steel buildings wont do the same thing in a similar situation in the future?

Let me ask you this. If the tube design was so fallible, after 9/11 why wasn't anyone who designed that building held accountable? Either it was a good design or it wasn't. Either way someone should have been held accountable, but nobody was. Why not?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
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.


Actually, though that's exaggerated a bit, the damage is pretty superficial-looking. Structures are built a lot more sturdily than you might think, especially steel or reinforced concrete buildings, and even moreso skyscrapers. They're built to take disasters.

The Twin Towers were even struck by 767's and only had small minorities of the columns in local parts of the structure compromised (>15% taken out on the impacted floors), the rest of what had to fail being chalked up to the fires by NIST. WTC7 was barely hit with anything, and its fires were completely puny by comparison to most any other fire at the complex on 9/11 (including buildings 4 and 5), and then, somehow, comes straight down upon itself accelerating at free-fall. WTC5 burned longer and more severely (and it was a smaller structure) and it didn't have anything but local floor collapses where a floor would sag somewhere from softened steel. That's all that has ever been known to happen! Scientists have been observing the effects of office fire on steel regularly at least since the 1980s, and never has there been anything to confirm NIST's hypotheses.



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


Check these out: www.implosionworld.com...

I think there are some quotes around here somewhere from one of CDI's owners, talking about how they can make a building tilt, spin, speed up, slow down, and whatever they need, just by setting the timing just right. But watch those videos and you'll see how orderly they can be.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
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"


Acording to fire fighters their was only major damage to 10 floors 8-18, the rest was superficial.

Problem is thier have been other steel builidngs that burned a lot longer then all the WTC buildings and suffered structural damage from the fire and did not collapse. Unless you have proof that this fire department is wrong or lieing.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

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.


Also of the damage to the side was so sever the building should have collapsed to that side instead of straight down.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Great video! I haven't seen anything like this before. Here is the link to another one great video similar to the one you posted but with more information about WTC7!
Click here

My regards.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
It is precisely the fact that so many "experts" would expect that a CD would fall in the footprint that makes me think that there were no CDs in any of them.

CTers are proposing that unknown individuals were clever enough to sneak in huge quantities of explosives under peoples noses, plan to have aircraft crashed into buildings at different locations and all the rest of the ingenious stuff but forget that a conventional CD would leave a tell-tale footprint. Do you really think that someone capable of such a crime would forget a detail like that knowing how many paranoid people there are in the US? I don't.

In the first place I cannot see any body in the US being capable of planning the alleged conspiracy in all its permutations and if there were such an agency do you really think that it was a case of "Whoops forgot about the footprint thang!". Look guys it was either a perfectly planned gig or it was not a gig at all.

If they wanted to finish the buildings they would not have to demolish them. Severe structural damage would have meant that the buildings would have probably been pulled eventually anyway. Even economically can you see companies being able to get their employees to go back into those buildings? They would have still lost a lot of people even without the collapses.

The size of the buildings and loss of water pressure would have meant leaving them to burn and who knows what would have been left then?

All this "expert" analysis of videos and jpegs ain't going anywhere for me.
I like all the pretty graphics etc, I suppose if nothing else there are now a lot of self taught Photoshop experts


So IMHO they had no need to demo the buildings, a bit of flame was enough!!



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
CTers are proposing that unknown individuals were clever enough to sneak in huge quantities of explosives under peoples noses


Well if the building was so severly damged and all the floors gutted by fire it would not take a huge quantity of explosives. WTC 7 was evacuated several hours before so thier would have been no sneaking in under peoples noses.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Thank you to all on a great thread with great points... same old questions though.

I would like to say that this video has lead me to believe that the fires were even more severe than I had first thought. I'm sure some believe the same. I think that just because you can't see the flames, does NOT mean there isnt fire. The beginning of the video shows smoke pouring out of almost all the floors. This is not smoke or dust from the debris of the collapsed towers as we once thought. (yes i thought so too) There are fires on MANY floors of this building that were showered with debris. Lets keep in mind there were minimal firefighting efforts going on. The last two hours there was ZERO.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
CTers are proposing that unknown individuals were clever enough to sneak in huge quantities of explosives under peoples noses


Well if the building was so severly damged and all the floors gutted by fire it would not take a huge quantity of explosives. WTC 7 was evacuated several hours before so thier would have been no sneaking in under peoples noses.



Ultima? come on now! Your a pretty smart guy. But Geesh! to even THINK that CD experts could look at a 47 story skyscraper burning out of control and say...."ok lets all run into this burning building... plant EXPLOSIVES...and detonate in under 2 hours????" Dude... your reaching here. Remember the last two hours all the firemen were doing was pretty much standing around watching it burn. Of the hundreds of firefighters..not one ever mentioned seeing a crew of people running into the building with explosives.

Sorry... not one of your better posts.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Yes, good point. Exaclty as shown in this video.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Thank you to all on a great thread with great points... same old questions though.

The beginning of the video shows smoke pouring out of almost all the floors. This is not smoke or dust from the debris of the collapsed towers as we once thought.


Just because thier is smoke comming out of all the floors does not mean thier is fire on all the floors, smoke on some floors can travel to others.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Thank you to all on a great thread with great points... same old questions though.

I would like to say that this video has lead me to believe that the fires were even more severe than I had first thought. I'm sure some believe the same. I think that just because you can't see the flames, does NOT mean there isnt fire. The beginning of the video shows smoke pouring out of almost all the floors. This is not smoke or dust from the debris of the collapsed towers as we once thought. (yes i thought so too) There are fires on MANY floors of this building that were showered with debris. Lets keep in mind there were minimal firefighting efforts going on. The last two hours there was ZERO.



Thanks for the link to the video!

Here's a question I had that you might know the answer to. I thought of this while watching the candles burn on a birthday cake last night...

The smoke that appears to be coming out of the south face of WTC7 seems like it is pouring out almost horizontally with no upward drafting of the smoke once it leaves the building.

However, the smoke coming out of the windows on the west side of the building where small fires can be seen immediately rises out of the windows.

Why would the smoke on the south side NOT rise at all? Is it correct to think that this means there wasn't sufficient heat from this smoke to cause it to rise?

Try burning something without having the smoke rise. Even the smallest, "coldest" fires has smoke that rises -at least in my experience.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

There are fires on MANY floors of this building that were showered with debris.


Thats what I said about the fires.... MANY floors. But yes... the smoke does not mean there was FIRE on EVERY floor.

Thanks



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Nick ~

Good question. Hopefully we have someone qualified to answer that. I for one am not. Bsbray will probably come up with something that will explain it and I will have no idea what he is talking about



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Ultima? come on now! Your a pretty smart guy. But Geesh! to even THINK that CD experts could look at a 47 story skyscraper burning out of control and say...."ok lets all run into this burning building... plant EXPLOSIVES...and detonate in under 2 hours????" Dude... your reaching here. Remember the last two hours all the firemen were doing was pretty much standing around watching it burn. Of the hundreds of firefighters..not one ever mentioned seeing a crew of people running into the building with explosives.

Sorry... not one of your better posts.


Well for 1 if you rememebr from the report from the EPA recovering the fuel states that thier was probly no fires on the ground floor because other wise they would have recovered all the fuel.

Second all personel including firemen were moved back beyond a safety zone around building 7.

Third as stated several times and backed up by fire department, no steel buiding has collapsed due to fire and or structural damage.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well for 1 if you rememebr from the report from the EPA recovering the fuel states that thier was probly no fires on the ground floor because other wise they would have recovered all the fuel.

Second all personel including firemen were moved back beyond a safety zone around building 7.

Third as stated several times and backed up by fire department, no steel buiding has collapsed due to fire and or structural damage.


~Yes I remember that. BUT that was determined AFTER the debris was removed. There would have been no way of knowing that unless you sent in a team to get the information. Any I highly doubt and CD team would subject their staff to going into a burning building to plant explosives. Also was there any signifigant seismic activity? Were there any witnesses to any explosions just prior to the collapse?

~ The safety zone was i believe 100yards. And there were fireman around the entire perimeter. NONE of which witnessed anyone sneaking into a building carrying hundreds if not thousands of pounds of explosives with them.

~ You and others can state that till the cows come home. Just please remember that NEVER has a steel building been showered with debris from a skyscraper that was collapsing, burns out of control with MINIMAL fire operations, then left to burn for two hours. Look at the video...look at the holes in the building.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Anyone else see that sudden burst of blue flame? It only lasted a few seconds but it was kind of odd that it was the only different colored flame right next to the regular fire. I know blue is supposed to be very hot but just wondering if it could be anything else, chemical maybe?

I know it's probably nothing but it just caught my eye.




posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I saw that too. In the past I have seen that geenish-blue color when plastics are burning. I would ASSUME it was computer equipment or other plastics that are commonly found in office space.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
CTers are proposing that unknown individuals were clever enough to sneak in huge quantities of explosives under peoples noses, plan to have aircraft crashed into buildings at different locations and all the rest of the ingenious stuff...]


The government is proposing that a small group of extremists planned and financed the simultaneous hijackings of 4 commercial airliners over a several year period, all without going noticed by any U.S. intelligence operations which were specifically looking for terrorists who might be planning just such an attack.

The government is proposing that these terrorist would sneak around the country, attend flight training schools, receive large amount of cash wired to them through international banks, right under the noses of the billion dollar intelligence organizations who were LOOKING for them.

The government is also proposing that it's own intelligence officers from project Able Danger were mistaken when they claimed to have identified these terrorist, and then ordered these officers not to tell their story to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee who wanted to hear their story.

The government's 9/11 Commissioners are also proposing that they were simply mistaken when they first denied that the officers from Able Danger ever wanted to talk to them, and that the information they were going to provide wasn't relevant to the 9/11 Commission investigation anyway.

The government is proposing that the NIST after 5 years, and after being 2 1/2 years behind schedule, still can't figure out why WTC7 collapsed the way it did.




In the first place I cannot see any body in the US being capable of planning the alleged conspiracy in all its permutations


But you can believe bin Laden and a rag-tag group of untrained arabs that never planned or carried out any thing even remotely similar to this COULD have pulled this off?

Let me make sure I understand this...

The CIA and the Dept. of Defense, with billion dollar budgets and thousands of professionally trained and experienced operatives could NOT pull off 9/11, but 20 or so untrained, inexperienced, arabs, with little or no support organization an minimal funding, COULD pull off 9/11?

Do you really think this makes any sense?



So IMHO they had no need to demo the buildings, a bit of flame was enough!!


This conclusion is based on YOUR assumptions about why WTC7 would need to be destroyed. If the individuals working within the U.S. government were involved in any way they may have had their own reasons for wanting WTC7 to come down on 9/11.

Keep in mind that WTC7 was the home of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, SEC, and IRS to name just a few tennants.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
~ The safety zone was i believe 100yards. And there were fireman around the entire perimeter. NONE of which witnessed anyone sneaking into a building carrying hundreds if not thousands of pounds of explosives with them.

~ You and others can state that till the cows come home. Just please remember that NEVER has a steel building been showered with debris from a skyscraper that was collapsing, burns out of control with MINIMAL fire operations, then left to burn for two hours. Look at the video...look at the holes in the building.



But what about the EMT and firemen that have come foreward and stated that they were told to leave the area that the building was being pulled and then heard a countdown over the radio.

The buildings i have posted burrned longer then the WTC buildings combined and suffered major structural damage due to the fires but still did not collapse. So how do you explain a building with some damage to 1 side and burning a few hours just collapsing.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join