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.

 

Visible explosives 7 wtc

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
heres one nick




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
What I can tell you is that demolition explosives are exponentially louder than things blowing up in a fire. That's not opinion. That's a fact.


You're correct. Do you know why they are louder? Because getting a steel column to fail instantaneously with all other columns is a tricky situation. But, you believe mere fire could do the exact same thing?

Getting a building to collapse like 7 did takes a heck of alot more than fire and some structural damage. Even if the structural damage is severe.

Partial collapse I can see. Until someone shows me by using engineering priciples, calculations and models etc. that it can conclusively happen, I'll stand by those statements. I could be wrong so don't just take my word for it. Do the research. I'm not talking directly at you whiterabbit in the above paragraph.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
What I can tell you is that demolition explosives are exponentially louder than things blowing up in a fire. That's not opinion. That's a fact.


I'm not contesting that. What I want is your method of deducing how loud this sound is in context, and then figuring out where it came from, how loud it must have been initially, and then coming to your conclusion that it couldn't have been a high explosive.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
the bottom line is if someone is predicting that a building is about to 'blow up' or 'coming down soon', and you hear explosions in another clip, the news reports the collapse before it occurs....

Then a 47 Story structure of steel falls in 6.5 seconds toward its own footprint.

I can't honestly say the nay sayers have any argument.

If it was truly a random event of fire, then no-one would know the building is 'about to blow up'.

Its ridiculous to assume any of this unless there was a demolition job at hand.

BTW everyone who believes that fires and some damage took down Building 7 always seems to shy away from one fact.

The fact at how super redundant Building 7 was.

NEW YORK TIMES

NEW YORK TIMES




BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.




2 damn years of reinforcing the building!!!

The Bunker was there, the CIA had offices. The building was a *SUPER-STRUCTURE* It was indeed a building within a building, that is what they did essentially in the late 80's, the made that building much more redundant then before,

if anything part of that buidling might have come down, but it should never have in a uniform way all at once.

Considering the structure, it was a highly un-likely event.

Far beyond anything people realize.

You have to factor this into the *CIRCUMSTANTIAL* equation.



[edit on 5-3-2007 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh, ok! First it was no explosions, so no explosives, but now of course there were explosions, but of course they weren't from explosives! Gee whiz!


Reading comprehension---- Not too good. I said, and I quote "No Synchonized explosions that are a hallmark of a controlled demolition"

I DID mention the random transformer "Bangs" --and if you have ever heard a trasnsformer pop...you would know it isn't anything like a controlled Demo.




If you want audio explosions, I just gave them to you. But you're going to have to prove to me that they can't possibly be high explosives; I don't believe you.


You DO realize this logic is contrary to your theorys of every support being eliminated at the same time (read: rapid synchonized explosions)...through controlled demolition...Don't you?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Compare for yourselves:








posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
WTC 7 was at the wrong place..at the wrong time.

The towers did unknown and unmeasureable structural damage to WTC 7




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
GwinoX





WTC 7 didn't have the damage these buildings did, and there is stuff still standing. They were closer and suffered much more direct damage.

WTC 7 was a SuperStructure built with incredible redundancy.

So We have had Steel Structures on fire for more then 17 hours, we have had The Empire State Building hit by a b-25 bomber and suffer incredible damage and catch fire.

So what exactly was the excuse for WTC 7 again??

[edit on 5-3-2007 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Damocles is 100% right. Also, this video has been enlarged and cropped to give it the appearance that these "squibs" are larger than they actually are. I appears that this was doctored.

Here is the same video we have all watched a 1000 times over. You will see that the 'squibs" are not as large as the ones in the enlarged and cropped video.




No smoking gun here.... not even a b-b gun.


I have to agree with the sound arguments here. However what I still would like answered (and clearly) is how can a building with scattered fires on various floors cause a massive building such as this to collapse in such a smooth and equal manner? I mean the building is going to weaken at different points. One section would collapse at a time (if for the first time in history a steel structure falls from flames). Not all at once.

Does this video show anything? Not really. I can understand why it is a short loop. The collapse is so perfect and fast that there really is not much time to show anything.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
GwionX



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I DID mention the random transformer "Bangs" --and if you have ever heard a trasnsformer pop...you would know it isn't anything like a controlled Demo.


They also make pretty big messes when they explode, pouring a lot of smoke. That might explain why there was so much smoke but so little actual flame, right? And I guess all the other explosions every 15 or 20 minutes were just other transformers.



You DO realize this logic is contrary to your theorys of every support being eliminated at the same time (read: rapid synchonized explosions)...through controlled demolition...Don't you?


No, they aren't. Two different things. Think about this. Think hard. Building 7 started falling such that each corner of that building began falling straight down within fractions of a second of each other. That means, within fractions of a second, all of those columns lost their integrity, and lost all their connections to lateral bracing and etc. so that they could fall straight down.

Now does that mean they were at 100% of their integrity all the time before, and all of the lateral bracing was still intact right up to the very second before they lost their load-bearing capacity?

No.

Does it mean when they finally lost their abilities to carry their loads, they did so together, despite being at completely different ends of the building?

Yes, or else the corners would not fall together, giving the fall symmetry. Understand?

[edit on 6-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX

It was altered. Modified in 1989. Not to fortify it from falling debris, or safegaurd against uncontrolled widespread fire; but to gut several floors so tenents could have tall, asthetic ceilings. I would suspect this could contribute to the danger of fire damage resulting in catostrophic failure ..seeing as you have 6 floors with altered, displaced support..changing the load they had when first designed.



That where you need to get your facts striaght. WTC7 was designed and even remodeled to withstand huge fires, storms, earthquakes, and anything thrown at it. After all it housed the mayors safety bunker and many other government facilitys of high importance. It was the place to be in a major disaster, except for 911.


kix

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
What really gets me laughing is how they try to explain the unexplainable, Ill give a very small piece and try to debunk the CD theory with alien tech....

Lets say the building collapsed due to damage from above (WTC I and II CD also) and by fire..LETS PRETEND... THEN....

Then explain how the rooftop penthouse collapses first if there was no fire there? or how the rooftop Penthouse looks intact even if GAZILLIONS of tons of debris falled on top of it?

Open your eyes, its is NOT posible for a building to collapse from top down at gravity speed, and if the fire damage on lower floors was so bad the building would have toppled not collapsed, YOU CANT HAVE THE CAKE AND EAT IT TOO, either way its a CD...

Nice try but WTC 7 WAS pulled!



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
That is a huge leap of faith. WTC 7 had bigtime damage. It was taller --much taller, than WTC 5 or 6 and I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if WTC 5 or 6 were 40+ stories tall they too would have suffered TOTAL collapse..if they were taller and more narrow they would have suffered the same fate as WTC 3.


Jesus, people, we're about to start talking structural engineering with someone who just posted this when asked about members of the scholars groups:


Originally posted by GwionX
I have watched them all..my conclusion? They are all turds in a huge pile of crap.



Taller buildings do not equate to weaker builders, or more unstable buildings. Just the opposite! They're held to stricter code and are usually much more redundant than any smaller buildings, meaning built to carry much greater loads than they're designed for, for safety reasons.


WTC5 and 6 had much smaller columns, less columns, etc., because (a) they didn't need to support as much weight, and (b) they were more conventional structures and could be more easily planned for.

WTC7 had much more massive columns, more of them, and they were configured to offer more strength than the building actually needed, and moreso than for 5 or 6.



Gwion's logic is like this: Take WTC5 as is, and dump 40 more floors on it.

WTC5 wasn't designed for that!!

WTC7 was -- and THEN some. You could probably stack at least 40 more floors onto WTC7 before it would fail, just as you could probably stack 8 or 9 more floors onto WTC5 before it would fail. Actually, I know that they would take more, because NYC building code requires buildings to be able to support more than twice their weight for an extended period of time without damage, to be legal to open. Griff knows this information in more detail, WCIP has posted it in the post, and it's in the NIST report.

THAT is structural engineering. No houses of cards, and bigger buildings take bigger columns. Not all buildings use the same columns, so that bigger buildings are unstable and easy to knock down. It's just the opposite: bigger buildings are harder to knock down because they're more reinforced than smaller ones.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
WTC7 was -- and THEN some. You could probably stack at least 40 more floors onto WTC7 before it would fail, just as you could probably stack 8 or 9 more floors onto WTC5 before it would fail. Actually, I know that they would take more, because NYC building code requires buildings to be able to support more than twice their weight for an extended period of time without damage, to be legal to open. Griff knows this information in more detail, WCIP has posted it in the post, and it's in the NIST report.

THAT is structural engineering. No houses of cards, and bigger buildings take bigger columns. Not all buildings use the same columns, so that bigger buildings are unstable and easy to knock down. It's just the opposite: bigger buildings are harder to knock down because they're more reinforced than smaller ones.


I'd say you got it down. No need for me to go into more detail. Also, think about how much more redundant 7 had to of been to accomodate floors missing. Anyone have any details about how they reinforced the building? I'd like to see what they did to reinforce it.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I suppose all of the structural engineers, and civil engineers in the US are just wrong then..but you...are somehow right.

Nope..it is just a huge pile of crap..sorry.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I suppose all of the structural engineers, and civil engineers in the US are just wrong then..but you...are somehow right.


Please show me where ALL structural engineers and civil engineers believe you. I for one don't. That throws your ALL out the window.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I suppose all of the structural engineers, and civil engineers in the US are just wrong then..but you...are somehow right.

Nope..it is just a huge pile of crap..sorry.


The keywords here are "inside the US."

Use your internet tubes and see what structural engineers and demolition pros OUTSIDE the US have to say my friend..."heh"



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I suppose all of the structural engineers, and civil engineers in the US are just wrong then..but you...are somehow right.

Nope..it is just a huge pile of crap..sorry.


Here is a short list of Structural and Civil engineers that believe 911 was a controlled demo.

stj911.org...

I can show you more... but why even try? Its obvious you are posting knowingly wrong information to support your claims.

STOP LYING!



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Read this titled "Yet Another Civil Engineer Explains Why It Was Controlled Demolition".

This was written about 5 days ago.

www.soapblox.net...;jsessionid=7F8F9229C99361CA4EDFE25C670981B5?diaryId=15020



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join