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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
NIST updated their findings as they gathered evidence.


And the truth seekers update thier findings as we gather evidence.




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Bsbray-
Thanks for the info on the Peer Review. (ultima too) I learn something new everyday.

My thing on WTC-7. If this WAS a planned demolition...yes they would have had to hope that enough debris would land on this building to cause these fires... also...IF... and this is a BIG if... the water mains were not damaged, and the sprinkler systems were in working condition...That means there would have been an ongoing Firefighting operation that quite possible may have saved the building.

I just think there were way to many tangibles that worked in favor of the people that you feel planned this.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
When new EVIDENCE is provided I would expect there to be changes... There is not any new evidence involved with the conspiracy theories... where is the evidence that CTers have that has allowed them to make their changes?


Well, since CTers aren't in an organized group, I don't know where you get that one's theory applies to another but I'll try and explain. What about that it would take thousands of pounds of explosives etc? That made me change my theory from explosives to thermite/mate etc.


NIST updated their findings as they gathered evidence.


Since they had the evidence to begin with, how did they change their stance when NEW evidence was offered?


Alex Jones seems to think yelling louder during his blow hole conventions makes his theories that much more believeable.


I'm sick of you guys equating all CTers with Alex Jones, Loose Change etc. I don't listen to AJ nor have I watched Loose Change. The only videos I have watched are 9/11 Mysteries (had a few things wrong with it but in all a good video IMO) and the Rick Siegel video (of which I'm very sceptical of). So, I have made up my mind through my own research, knowledge and time. Not by listening to someone else.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
NIST updated their findings as they gathered evidence.


And the truth seekers update thier findings as we gather evidence.


Besides the claim that Dr. Jones made. Were is the new evidence? I dont want to look at pictures of aluminum coming out of a window, OR Youtube videos of a car being burnt with Thermite. I know this exists..i know it works. I know somewhat HOW it works. IF you go with the Termate...you have to go with the Jellied Thermate. Where is the evidence that this was used?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Sorry Griff.. there are a lot of Truthers in here that praise that guy. I will stop grouping you guys in with him. I know Bsbray isnt a fan of his either.

Thanks

ADD TO EDIT:

Griff to use thermate would require you to "collar" the thermate to the support colums...etc... it is extensive work! I had a formula as to how much thermate it would have taken to bring down the WTC towers. I will have to find it again... it was some time ago.

BsBray came with a post that showed Themate in a Jellied conscistancy.

(spell check)

[edit on 21-2-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
My thing on WTC-7. If this WAS a planned demolition...yes they would have had to hope that enough debris would land on this building to cause these fires... also...IF... and this is a BIG if... the water mains were not damaged, and the sprinkler systems were in working condition...That means there would have been an ongoing Firefighting operation that quite possible may have saved the building.


Who's to say that if it was a planned demolition that "they" wouldn't have thought of this? Maybe the water was down because of "them"? Maybe they rigged the towers to actually fall that way? Not easy but do-able. I think they could have orcastrated that to happen.

Edit: No problem CameronFox. I just get irritated being lumped in with the fanatics of the truth movement just because I don't go hook line and sinker for the official version.

As far as thermate. I don't care which it was. As long as there is a product out there that cuts steel, can be placed into position and meets all other perameters, it is a possibility.

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I just think there were way to many tangibles that worked in favor of the people that you feel planned this.


I have not found enough evidence to suggest the government did it but i have found enough evidence to suggest the government knows more then what thier are saying and might have known about it.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have not found enough evidence to suggest the government did it but i have found enough evidence to suggest the government knows more then what thier are saying and might have known about it.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]


I agree 100% with that statement. I think too many of the Truthers get placed in the fog with all the "sexy" talk of CD's, Operation Northwoods, Space beams... etc. etc... The real conspiracy is what the government DIDN'T do to protect us... and WHY they didn't. ( IMHO)



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
sorry long, possible multiple, post to follow. (you expect any less from me these days?)

first thing i found interesting in this thread was the video posted in this post.



Originally posted by mossad99
Yes, good point. Exaclty as shown in this video.


ok, in the first 2 mins they go into the whole "squibs" thing and in my mind TOTALLY blow the squibs theory right out of the water.
watch it closly and compare the speed of the fall to the velocity of the "squibs". ok...now...compare teh velocity of the squib to the fact that the slowest high explosives detonate at 24000fps minimum (they go up from there) and then ask yourself if it still looks like an explosive. i wont even go into the rest of the issues i have with the squibs again. and i know this is off topic but its a small point and if you think about it you'll see it.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1


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.


genuine interest ultima. any chance you can u2u me a link to this, id be interested to read that. (i am more open minded than im given credit for being)


Originally posted by purplecoral
i have definitely seen something that shows exposed steel beams at the bottom of the WTC, sliced across diagonally, exactly as experts would use explosives to weaken the bottom of a building for demolition... also, people inside the building reported that there were explosions in the basement before the buildings collapsed, and the glass was blown out of the windows on the ground floor, about the same time as (but not at the same time) that the plane hit (i think it was the north tower),


2 things purple
1) the most famous of the pics is easy to see that it was done with an oxyacetalyne torch. if you havnt ever used one, take the pic to someone that has done a lot of heavy steel cutting and ask them for their opinion. dont tell them what it is just say "how was this cut?" and you'll be suprised waht they say.
2) if the basement supports were blown on impact or shortly after...how'd the building stand for another hour?

bsb: you put a lot into the following posts (i posted a link to the one as i didnt want to just quote the whole thing but the whole thing was relavant)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

your description of c4 etc in this thread was right on, where you are, in my opinion, mistaken is your opinions on RC detonators. RC detonators are more the field of hollywood than real life. certainly not in a city setting. even weak transmitters can cause premature detonations from induced currents. as a matter of fact, even hardwired electric blasting caps are avoided in any area where there are any radio transmitters or high voltage electric lines. has nothing to do with the reciever getting a stray "fire" command or any type of encryption. its about the radio waves causing a spark within the cap.
even companies like CDI will hardwire a cap to detcord to set off the charges. the timing comes from either separate ring mains being fired at the proper interval or the math being done to use different lengths of detcord to vary the timing.

i would refer anyone who doubts me on this to "FM 5-34 Engineer Field Data" page 6-1 table 6-2. its an army manual thats in general release and should be easy to find.

this isnt to say that electrical caps or even RC couldnt be used, just saying its the least preferred adn most prone to misfire or malfunction which as we all know, leaves unexploded ordinance behind and theres your evidence. nay, your proof.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There were witnesses that reported explosions from WTC7, and at least one news anchor said that you could hear "secondary explosions" coming from the building every 20 minutes or so:

www.studyof911.com...

every 20 mins and the building stood all day? hmmmm



As far as how the detonator caps and all that survived, what did they have to survive? Do you know how little of WTC7's structure was actually affected by WTC1's collapse? All the charges had to survive, really, was the possibility of fire. And as I said, even C4 can withstand fire. Explosives are not automatically set off simply because they are exposed to a lot of heat; that's more Hollywood than science.


emphasis mine. that is misleading. they can withstand fire in the sense that they will not detonate. they will burn in direct flame or melt in high heat. either renders them useless as an explosive.


Originally posted by pmexplorer

Here is an example:
Pm. I'm nearly done...I'm doing my duty here ... By the way... you know all those nuts who tell you explosives create very high temperatures and molten iron... they don't. The create high velocity not high temperature... high temperatures are created by incendiaries.....

How do I counter that argument or has the guy gotta point?




sorry to say pm, not only does he have a point but on this single topic he's dead on. sorry.

about the blue flame in the video. my own opinion, its a pane of glass being blown out and reflecting the light. safety glass has a kind of blue tint to it no?

last question. if operation northwoods was the blueprint or inspiration for 911....what moron allowed it to be declassified?
seriously...?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
last question. if operation northwoods was the blueprint or inspiration for 911....what moron allowed it to be declassified?
seriously...?


The same morons who printed thier intentions on the US currency.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
last question. if operation northwoods was the blueprint or inspiration for 911....what moron allowed it to be declassified?
seriously...?


First off Northwoods was not a blueprint for 9-11. All it shows is the government has made plans to create false terror attacks in the past.
Don't you find it an odd coincidence that it is similar to the 9-11 attacks. Why is it so easy for you to just dismiss?

BTW good use of the 'exaggerate the claims' tactic there...


Anyway as for your question...

Because in their arrogance they don't expect enough people to make the connection to make any difference? They rely on people who think they're so smart and knowledgeable, but are so in denial can't see the obvious, how ever it's pointed out to them?

Because they have arrogant faith in their propaganda machine, and know the press will not expose anything to the public that would shake the system that they rely on for their business?

Because they had no choice?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
LOL so maybe my last question was a 'little' sarcastic...but you can see what i mean yes?

though your answers were quite plausible anok.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
After Jack's"ground breaking" laughable video... I think CT'ers will re-focus their hopes of a conspiracy on WTC-7.

How can "Truthers" continue to say this building had small fires after watching this video?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
How can "Truthers" continue to say this building had small fires after watching this video?


Because unless you provide proof of more than extensive smoke, it doesn't prove extensive fires. That smoke pouring out of the building could be from the fires on the lower floors and not those floors themselves. Remember smoke rises. Add the suppossed damage to the south facade and there you have an opening for the smoke to pour out of that face. Either way, this video doesn't prove that there were massive fires. It only proves that there was massive smoke.

BTW, with all that smoke and no one being able to get close to the building, how can all the firefighters who testified large fires be able to see those fires? We can't see them on the video, so how did the firefighters see such massive fires without being in the building?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
After Jack's"ground breaking" laughable video... I think CT'ers will re-focus their hopes of a conspiracy on WTC-7.


What does Jack's video about the pentagon have to do with WTC7? Or do you just like to say CTers and "truthers" and attempt to make them look crazy and cultish?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Collapsing like an accordion from the lower floors.

Did jet fuel get into the lower floors.

If its was not in the bathtub then the only connection was
financial.

The stone building missed getting on fire.

The German bank building never did burn up then just
debris damage.




[edit on 2/23/2007 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CameronFox
After Jack's"ground breaking" laughable video... I think CT'ers will re-focus their hopes of a conspiracy on WTC-7.


What does Jack's video about the pentagon have to do with WTC7? Or do you just like to say CTers and "truthers" and attempt to make them look crazy and cultish?


Griff... with all respect...as evidence is posted... some ct'ers tend to move the goal posts. There were MANY looking forward to this video to add to the "911 Was an Inside Job" agenda. Obviously the video was a joke...and this will cause CT'ers to focus somewhere else. We all know WTC7 is the "holy grail" of Truthers.

Sorry, but there were so many firemen just standing around after the collapse zone to just watch...yes there was smoke...LOTS of it...but i am quite certain there were times where firemen COULD see a 10 story (or so) hole in the building.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Griff... with all respect...as evidence is posted... some ct'ers tend to move the goal posts. There were MANY looking forward to this video to add to the "911 Was an Inside Job" agenda. Obviously the video was a joke...and this will cause CT'ers to focus somewhere else. We all know WTC7 is the "holy grail" of Truthers.


OK..I see what you ment by your statements then. It's hard to tell sometimes on an internet forum.


Sorry, but there were so many firemen just standing around after the collapse zone to just watch...yes there was smoke...LOTS of it...but i am quite certain there were times where firemen COULD see a 10 story (or so) hole in the building.


I don't discount fires nor do I discount damage. Here is a post from another thread that kind of goes along in this thread also.


Originally posted by Griff:
I know this isn't the "proof" that you official people want, but there is proof in the way those buildings defied the laws of physics and engineering principles.

I have been studying for my professional engineering license and have come across a few things. I will not post my findings just yet because I haven't done the math but will do so in a few months when I have more time.

Just a trailor. It is an engineering principle that an unbraced structure's columns (WTC-7) will all fail in the same direction. By unbraced, I mean free standing columns supporting the structure (floors, walls, etc.) that are not braced to each other by spandrels etc. Especially when there is damage to just one side. They will not fail straight down.

Now, granted this was in the reinforced concrete section of my review book. The steel and masonry sections of my book didn't say anything about this, so I am assuming that the principle works for all three. There is not a timber design section of my review book, but I would assume that timber would behave the same.

Another thing. The NIST report shows only 2 bolts for one of the connections from trusses to columns. It is an engineering principle that the connections of a building are to be stronger than the materials they connect. I'm not so sure that 2 bolts would be stronger than those massive core columns. This priciple is used so we can design structures as a structure and not individual columns, beams etc. I have to do some calculations to make sure that that scenerio could even hold the floors as it was without fire.

To be continued.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The bottom line is... NO ONE knows EXACTLY how WTC7 collapsed. Just by saying that does not prove in anyway that explosives were used. Or not used for that matter.

We will all wait to hear what NIST has to say..and I'm sure it will be combed over and over like Donald Trumps head ...until then... we can all just continue to speculate.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The bottom line is... NO ONE knows EXACTLY how WTC7 collapsed. Just by saying that does not prove in anyway that explosives were used. Or not used for that matter.

We will all wait to hear what NIST has to say..and I'm sure it will be combed over and over like Donald Trumps head ...until then... we can all just continue to speculate.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join