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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Cameron, you care way too much what the "movement" is doing, ie a small handful of people that are otherwise nobody's mouthing off more publicly than everyone else (Alex Jones, Loose Change guys, other documentary creators), to really be paying much attention to the actual science, don't you think? Because what those guys say has absolutely no bearing on what really happened. If you realize this, then ignore them!, and focus on the actual science behind the events you're seeing in photos and video.


The way I see it is: something happened. What happened? Well, how do you figure that out? The most reliable way is relying on logic and known physics. The least reliable way is hearsay and who said what/who thinks what, heads-up-our-asses making bad generalizations, reinventing what we think we know about buildings, and trying to find a shepherd to lead our pitiful selves to an easier "truth".

No one is EVER going to tell you what happened!

If anyone wants to know what really happened, they are left only with video records of the events, a handful of various laws used in physics and engineering that have been tried and true for the past few hundred years, some common sense, and a mass of other fellow human beings that are just bitching and moaning and spouting out nonsense half the time trying to assert their beliefs onto others. And what's sad is that man is very susceptible to mass social stupidity because they have too much faith in each other at all the wrong times.

I want to know what happened, but I want to talk about it in a different way, because more than anything anymore I'm interested in realizing how this was technically accomplished. You don't find many discussions like that on here though, and it annoys me and leads me to posting things like this. People focus on the most trivial and useless CRAP that you could possibly focus your attention on. Loose Change can bite my ass.



As far as the fires, once again, I still say they were puny. I don't think the problem is that we're moving the goal posts. I think the problem is that you are surprised by how much physical fire is still considered "puny" by standards of "burning down" a steel-framed structure.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I watched your video and here's what I HEARD... I heard You talking crap about engulfing fires. Here's what is shown in your video... NOTHING to indicate a raging enferno that was so powerful it violates the laws of physics and burns hotter than an office fire. Your video even shows burning black smoke indicating an oxygen starved fire, a low temperature fire. I SAW in your own video small isolated pockets of fire on a FEW floors with LOTS of smoke traveling up the side of the building. Perhaps this is what is making you believe your absurd viewpoint. From your own video I SEE smoke from a few floors traveling up the side of the building. I do NOT SEE massive fires in every floor. I only see the smoke from one or two very small fires.

FURTHER and FINAL: The SPEED of the fall of WTC 7 is the NUMBER ONE piece of evidence. It has been documented in numerous videos as falling at faster than freefall speed.

FACT: Buildings fall at TWO and ONLY TWO speeds: Gravity and FASTER THAN FREEFALL. A building that collapses due to fire only can ONLY fall at gravity speed.

The evidence is 100% conclusive: WTC7 fell at FASTER than freefall speed. Buildings that fall at faster than freefall speed can only fall in this manner because of explosive force. Demolition charges create a vacuum that "pulls" the building down at faster than freefall speeds. So all your TALK about a raging enferno is bull and the FACT that the building fell at faster than freefall speed DEBUNKS your entire argument. Next time pay attention in physics class before you speak like a fool.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Bsbray.... we all want to know what happened. I for one do not think we will get every answer we are looking for.

I draw my own conclusions though. I came in here believing many things that I have since changed my mind on.

I TOO get upset at the LC / Alex Jones cowards becasue of what they are after.

The physics... Heck I am not educated in that enough to discredit what NIST has published. Like I have said MANY times in the past. Although I don't think they are 100% accurate...its what we got to go on. They have the most evidence..etc etc.

I just feel that the wrong focus is being placed on the entire 911 CT's. People fill this site with Laser Beams and Staged Light poles.... The REAL questions are not answered..The George Bush do nothing fiasco.

In the mean time... I do like to point out discrepancies in the OTHER CT's people bring up in here.

Sorry if you don't like my threads... I try to post things that I believe are factual. If you do point out something that may be wrong. I will correct it.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I TOO get upset at the LC / Alex Jones cowards becasue of what they are after.


No, no, no, no, no. You missed my point entirely. I don't CARE about them -- ANY of them -- AT ALL. I don't keep up with them, I don't care what they have to say, I certainly don't get upset.

I figure if they say anything worth-while then it'll make its rounds among the sources I've come to find more logical. Why don't you just IGNORE them, unless you don't really care what happened on 9/11 but just care about who's saying what and all this drama? Even posts on this board, Loose Change this-and-that, Alex Jones blah blah blah, I usually ignore them. It's the people that are talking about the behaviors of the falling buildings, and the direct stuff like that, that interest me, because everything you need to know about how they came down is encoded into the videos and photos of them falling. You just have to know how to extract the information via physics, though it's apparently not very easy to do.


Although I don't think they are 100% accurate...its what we got to go on. They have the most evidence..etc etc.


What is "the most evidence" in quantitative terms? Lay it out for me.

They said buckling. So simple to prove! Stand up some perimeter columns connected by trusses, heat the trusses, and show the perimeter columns bowing inward as a result of the sag. Why didn't they just do it?

The obvious problem here is that they DID try it -- and failed miserably. And -- published the same theory anyway. And have backed it since they published it, of course.

We could be critical in much more detail, of course, but what does it matter? That's what it ultimately boils down to, because that's all NIST even tried to demonstrate.


Is that really the most evidence available? That NIST couldn't reproduce the failures in their labs, working under their own theories? Yet there is not a single analysis of collapses times or accelerations or general energy expenditures (which always come out ridiculously offset indicating additional energy than what should have been available) in their reports. Why? It's all thousands of pages of run-around, and even proving themselves wrong but not bothering to connect those dots for you.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I just feel that the wrong focus is being placed on the entire 911 CT's. People fill this site with Laser Beams and Staged Light poles.... The REAL questions are not answered..The George Bush do nothing fiasco.


Oh you mean questions like the physics of the 'South Tower Tilt'...


I've tried to get you personally to focus on that, a very important point to the whole collapse mechanism, and you repeatedly ignore the question.
Except your one failed attempt to appease me, which you know didn't work.

So you're right, the real questions are not answered because you refuse to even look at the stuff that's not in your precious NIST report.
Maybe you should teach yourself some basic physics, shouldn't take you long. Seeing as you're so interested in learning the truth wouldn't that be a good idea? Then maybe you would see where the physics contradicts the official story. Otherwise all your postings and opinions and crap pulled from government sources mean absolutely NOTHING.

(Btw did you go to high school? That's all the physics you need. I think you are telling fibs so as to have an excuse to ignore the physics anomaly's.)



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Anok.... I u2u'd my explination.... gave you a link to the thread where i explained it. Im not sure if your trying to get a rise out of me... its not going to work.

When are you going to tell ME how my explination is wrong?

Yes YOU! tell me why or how my explination CAN NOT work. Your afraid to look at my post and tell me whats wrong. If you fail to back up your pathetic posts with facts... you will go on ignore. I am so sick of your assanine posts. U2U me your explination.. .I sent it to you a couple weeks ago AGAIN. Not sure how many times I have to post it.


Bsbray... not disrespect... the reason why I go after the idiots like Alex Jones... Avery... Jack Tripper... are so that others will see that crap for what it is... And MAYBE look into other more important events that CANT be explained.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Not knowing how a building collapses must be from lack of engineering
skill which shows how jobs are passed out.

Of course engineering seems lacking to me in many ways.

Consider a car. A mechanical analysis starting point is the weight is
distributed evenly on all four wheels. But the engine is in the front
and empty trunk in the back. I see the front wheels bulge out more than
the backs. I never liked that starting point. But thats how its done.

Same with a building support. Now if a corner gave out due to fire
the stress might bring down the building, unheard of and one of a kind
except for the WTC 1 & 2 of course.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
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...?


I like that video, but the falling mass increases in the fall.
They better show the calculus solution if they wanted to prove
what they said.

In the rocket equation the mass decrease.

Science can befuddled the best of us and the WTC towers collapse
should have been explained better.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
When are you going to tell ME how my explination is wrong?


I already did numerous times, like I said in my U2U you must have a short memory cause I answered your 'explination' (sic) almost immediately.

Your 'explination' (sic) , or actually the vid you linked to, DID NOT COVER, LET ALONE EXPLAIN, THE TILT WHATSOEVER.

OK is that clear enough?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Tesla,

not to seem stupid but...HUH?

im not sure where u were going with quoting my whole post and your comments. could you clarify?

MY point in posting a link to that wtc video was to point out that all of the speculation over the "squibs" being explosives was pretty much debunked in the first 2 mins of the video.

but if you could clarify why you quoted my whole post and your comments id appreciate it


im slow today, sorry



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
every 20 mins and the building stood all day? hmmmm


More seismic energy was released a few seconds before it fell than was released AS it fell. So we should realize that energy being released, even massive amounts of energy, are not necessarily going to bring the building down immediately, and on 9/11 they did not, until the building finally came down evenly.

Thanks for the other info, too. Not that it rules anything out for me, as I'm sure you realize (
) but good to know nonetheless.



Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I like that video, but the falling mass increases in the fall.


Are you talking about the mass falling onto each consecutive floor?

Because that decreased during the fall. More and more mass was ejected outwards, and less and less fell directly down onto the floor below. You can prove this by looking at where all of the debris eventually landed at Ground Zero. The vast majority (80-90%) landed outside of the footprints, with steel sections weighing many tons making it as far as ~600 feet laterally.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
Tesla,

not to seem stupid but...HUH?

im not sure where u were going with quoting my whole post and your comments. could you clarify?

MY point in posting a link to that wtc video was to point out that all of the speculation over the "squibs" being explosives was pretty much debunked in the first 2 mins of the video.

but if you could clarify why you quoted my whole post and your comments id appreciate it


im slow today, sorry


Yeah, I just wanted the video.
Very good. My bad about the post. Lets hope I tell this right.

No, I was into the calculation of the fall time.

I'm not sure if the mass increase means anything but floor after floor
is a increasing weight that is falling.

Weight = mass of floor,M, times gravity,g.

Force on next floor is M1 mass of first falling floor x g plus an Impact shock.

There are perhaps a few ways to analyze the fall beyond the video
statements. Perhaps the commission gave up on why free fall was
matched or exceeded. Forgot already, probably not exceeded.

The head engineer was still recalculation the Golden Gate Bridge stresses
when the Chief Project Engineer said lets build this thing.
Lack of detail and backup seems common, but seems the bridge worked
out ok.

I mean the strength of each floor in a known or calculated quantity.
If the calculation didn't work out right, then it was not given for a reason.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Your model is way off. I'll give four quick and easy reasons as to why.


First, as I posted before (go back and read that), the mass could not possibly have increased per floor as you have defined it.

Secondly, it has not been established how each floor could fall as a unit, as each "floor" is actually many steel trusses that are all independent of each other and separately connected to separate columns, which are themselves connected via spandrel plates on the perimeter and I-beam bracing in the core. Where does this come into play in your mathematical model? You have generalized very badly.

Thirdly there were no free-fall drops, every inch of the fall should have been resisted by the actual vertical supports if the columns fell with the floors (and we know that the outer columns at least did). You have to take this into account as well. Even flat impacts directly onto the trusses, if the floors somehow did fall uniformly on their own, would have force taken away from the trusses and transferred down the supporting columns.

Fourthly, as there were no free-fall drops, there were also no transfers of ALL of that potential energy of each non-existant drop per floor. Even if one uniform free-fall drop existed, the force would transferred to the base of the tower once and ONLY once. There is no way that the energy would not be transferred down those steel columns if they were impacted from above.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
9/11, WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING 7:

This building was indeed blown up by prepositioned demolitions. As reported by the New York Times, Building 7 was the New York City headquarters of the CIA. Top Secret documents and media were deliberately destroyed by demolition and fire after it became apparent that the destruction of the other buildings could spread to the Central Intelligence Agency building. This was confirmed by the fact that the debris from # 7 was removed by special contractors from the site and neither police nor firemen were allowed near it.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Change my opinion? Nope. If anything, further reinforces it. So what? Fires do not collapse steel framed buildings completely and neatly, reducing them to piles of rubble.

There are pictures of several other building fires that show buildings that look like blazing torches, far worse than the little flames in wtc7. Those building's remained standing after.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Cam IMO, "This video has been removed by the user."

Apparently YouTube shares the same opinion... Didn't Steve Spak copyright and sell a DVD of that?

www.youtube.com... yBouvCjE3kDgBPL4dQLt2SZk6CEYVt68mt8uZC4xTQwgTssSuAyIkd-PN5eONgZJ79TksNqOSX79S-OLgzrL2AXkULNoMBWFHGw7aiI1pK7fTtqb2zh7xdzdPhIPFaWYc2nby6aWP-PalfbHzd7RKp Y75GQmoK0cXvS94VIkriSp9IPW-4t5fcD4P0I3yuwQk



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
"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."




"Debunkers" often try to use that picture as some kind of proof that Building 7 didn't fall like a demolition job. That pic is taken from the South West at an angle that blurs the remains of 1. the North Tower 2. Building 6 and 3. Building 7, in the shot. However, there are MANY photos showing the debris fields of all of the World Trade Center complex, and you can clearly see that Building 7 fell, pretty much, into it's own footprint.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by nick7261
 



posted by nick7261



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.



Great explanation.

The collapse appears parallel to the ground on all sides of the roofline. Now NIST admits freefall for 2.25 seconds. All the supporting structure failed at exactly the same time. Only planned demolition could accomplish this.




post by ashamedamerican
 

1. A highschool teacher had to point out government "experts" "mistakes."

2. Freefall speed proves that there was no resistance, which means that the supporting columns all suddenly stopped holding the building up, which is exactly what would happen if they had been cut with thermite demolition charges.

3. That NIST came to conclusions first, then "cooked" the supposed "evidence" to support their false claims, and was caught in the act, and then had to refute their own lies because even a highschool teacher could see through them.

4. The "crackpot 911 truthers" as our friends the debunk parrots love to call us, are not such crackpots afterall.

5. That the 'official story parrots' need to step back, take a deep breath and admit they were wrong.

6 That the 'official story parrots' need to step back, take a deep breath and decide how many more 'official story' lies they are willing to prop up as if they were actual facts, knowing that now those lies are starting to be proven.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join