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: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
It's hard for the debunkers to concede, because any 'expert' that disagrees with them is a conspiracy nut or a kook.


yeah but that soooo goes both ways. those of us who KNOW explosives, their uses, their capabilies and their tell-tale signs who dont agree with the 'truthers' are automatically disinfoagents, spooks, sheeple, or a whole list of other derogetory labels.

i stand by my statements. i wont rule out the POSSIBILITY of explosives playing a role in 911 but, AS a demolitions guy, i dont see it.

so, apply labels as neccesary but until i get new evidence, i stand by my assertations.

oh eyah, i said i was done with this thread, my apologies, please continue your name calling fest as ive not seen anything pertinent to the actual discussion in some time now.




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
So it's resolved; WTC 1,2 and 7 were controlled demolitions. The "Debunkers" have conceded. Hallelujah!



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I stand by Damocles statements too. There's no solid evidence that these buildings came down with demolition explosives. Has anyone ever heated a skyscraper to the heat that the WTC towers were, with all that jet fuel burning inside? Plus you have to take into consideration the structure of the buildings. No one knows just how a building is gonna react to that kind of stress, pressure and heat. I blame it on the terrorists who flew those planes into the buildings and will never forget the people who lost their lives on that horrible day.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   


Has anyone ever heated a skyscraper to the heat that the WTC towers were, with all that jet fuel burning inside?


Answer: Yes. The 32 Story Windsor building in Madrid, Spain burned at much hotter temperatures for much longer - guess what - it didn't collapse.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Before someone knee-jerks something misleading, parts of the Windsor did collapse.

Specifically, very thin beams of steel, looking to be about 3 inches or so in diameter, that served to support the outer wall (nothing like the much larger box columns used for the WTC perimeter columns) eventually failed, and exposed the core of the building from a certain floor upwards.

But as noted, this took many hours of much more intense fire to accomplish.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Thanks for the clarification.


My point is that it did not suffer the symmetric and complete collapse we observed in NYC on 9/11. it is a characteristic completely unique to the three buildings that fell on 9/11 - the three owned by Silverstein.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Smack]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
It's no problem, the reason I posted that is because someone usually knee-jerks a "but it DID collapse, and only the steel part!" or something along those lines, which is more misleading than saying it didn't collapse at all. Steel is very hard to fail with heat. It takes lots of heat, over a long period of time. That's what the Windsor Tower illustrates with its thin little exterior beams.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Someone brought up the McCormick collapse.

That only involved the roof.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Like I said - they have conceded the argument. Building 7 is the linchpin - they cannot refute it logically.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Just to add something on this building 7.

I was reading about its design further and I am sorry, there is NO ARGUMENT and there No way that building could have, should have, or would have, fallen the way it did.

www.emporis.com...



-As the existing foundations through the substation building were mostly not aligned with the perimeter colonnade of the new tower, they had to be fitted with concrete caps to allow transfer of loads to the foundations.


-For the core, the loads were transferred through a heavily braced foundation slab. 50 new foundation "caissons" were built, most of which had to be squeezed through the substation building.


-The building's appearance and its alternating facing -- horizontal glass striping on the Barclay and Vesey Street sides and red granite, holed by smaller windows, on the other two -- set it apart also visually from the Twin Towers of the late 1960s.



Then to think they built the *bunker* there, I mean its obvious. The building was extremely redundant, it was designed for this type of thing for heavens sake.

To answer an earlier question as to why would a demolition crew make Building 7 look like a demolition?

The answer is simple:

The fact is a straight down collapse would lend itself to a *QUICKER* clean up.


The aftermath for Building 7 was scrubbed fast.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
To answer an earlier question as to why would a demolition crew make Building 7 look like a demolition?

The answer is simple:

The fact is a straight down collapse would lend itself to a *QUICKER* clean up.


The aftermath for Building 7 was scrubbed fast.


Not only that, the cleanup of 7 was finished way before the towers. Even though, there could have possibly been survivors left. I guess getting the evidence out was more important than rescue.




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Griff

The fact they would clean it up before the survivors, is gotta be one of the most damning things in all of this.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Also, they cleaned 7 before they even searched for bodies around 1 & 2. Why? No one perished in 7. So, why the need to clean 7 up before even finding bodies? Unless you know that there wouldn't be any bodies.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by talisman
The aftermath for Building 7 was scrubbed fast.


Not only that, the cleanup of 7 was finished way before the towers. Even though, there could have possibly been survivors left. I guess getting the evidence out was more important than rescue.



Building 7, last to blow, first to go.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Also, they cleaned 7 before they even searched for bodies around 1 & 2. Why? No one perished in 7. So, why the need to clean 7 up before even finding bodies? Unless you know that there wouldn't be any bodies.


I sure hope no NYFD reads this. That is just wrong, man.


Originally posted by In Nothing We Trust
Building 7, last to blow, first to go.


I am out of this thread....pretty disgusted.



[edit on 6-3-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I sure hope no NYFD reads this. That is just wrong, man.


Actually, the FDNY raised HELL over what you're responding to. They literally rioted when the orders were made to start hauling out debris, bodies and all, so soon after the collapses.


NEW YORK (AP) -- Three fire union officials were arrested Friday after a scuffle with police at ground zero, where firefighters denounced cutbacks in the number of people searching for remains.

``Mayor Giuliani, let us bring our brothers home,'' read one sign at the rally near the the collapsed World Trade Center towers, where 343 firefighters and 23 New York City police officers were among the thousands of people lost Sept. 11.

The arrests came when firefighters on a protest march tangled with police who initially refused to allow them into the sealed-off area that is hallowed ground to so many. After a few minutes, the firefighters continued on their march and held a minute of silence at the site.


www.firehouse.com...


Just thought you might like to know.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Oh Hell no! bsbray. The firefighters were trying to search for fellow firefighters and civilians buried under WTC 1&2 Debris...This is before, then at the initial stages the clean-up in NOVEMBER 2001. They were upset that their numbers were reduced by Guilliani (citing health concerns) IOW more rescue workers were compelled to work ground zero in a recovery and rescue effort...To twist that into they wanted to get some government files, evidence, whatever..out of the WTC 7 debris instead of concentrating on the people who were buried under the towers is incorrect and irresponsible!

As for Clean-up efforts: Of course WTC 7 was the first to be completed. BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE HUMAN REMAINS TO BE CONCIOUS OF.

To twist that into some uncaring distorted picture is WRONG.

What could be the agenda for a claim like that?


EDIT: the firefighters recovery efforts were doubled a few days after bsbrays linked quotations (above and below this post); This is on NOVEMBER 8 2001:

server.firehouse.com...


I am disgusted, and I am OUT!






[edit on 7-3-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Gwion, what you just posted doesn't half make sense to me, but I think you're trying to say that they weren't upset because of what I said.

From the same source:


Firefighter Bob McGuire, whose nephew Richard Allen was among those missing in the rubble, said remains had been loaded into trash bins. ``I don't want him to end up in a Dumpster,'' McGuire said.

[...]

The firefighters' union says it fears that would turn the recovery effort into a ``full-time construction scoop-and-dump operation.''

``That site, besides containing roughly 250 firefighter bodies, also contains many, many, many civilian bodies as well,'' said Michael Carter, vice president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association.



Can't get much clearer than that. They were upset because the rescue operation was becoming, and did become, just what they said: a "scoop-and-dump operation".

Debris began being hauled out bodies and all.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Don't know if this helps but here is a video with a huge explosion heard.And also a fireman stating theres a bomb in the building
hope this helps edit:The video seems to be after 1 or both wtcs north and south already collapsed due to the dust everywhere.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by crowpruitt]


What many people against the concept of a CD are failing to miss is the fact that the demolitions of these buildings will not have been set off in a normal 'obvious' manner. The evidence is overwhelming. The CDs were set off in a random process to begin the weakening process and to 'hopefully' cover it up in all of the distress and mayhem that was occuring on this fateful day. After the big charges were set off then it is just a matter of starting the collapse.

Sorry, I still have yet to see any debunker give a verifiable reason for the uniform collapse of the buildings (most importantly WTC7). Seriously, the collapse from various fires throughout would have been just as random as the fires. One side maybe if anything but not the entire rectangular shaped massive building.

The arguments are becoming weaker and weaker. I can feel the swell in support of uncovering this coverup and I can feel a swell of panic from the people responsible. Why are so many 'rats' jumping ship from this current administration when there is still another 21 months left!???



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
What about the Caracas Tower? A 54 Story building that burned for more then 17 hours, almost a full day without sprinkler systems.

It was Steel.








It never collapsed.



www.alia2.net...




The Chief of Caracas firefighters, Rodolfo Briceño said that they could not control the fire for lack of water. Also, the internal sprinkler system failed to function. Briceño noted that years ago, a huge water tank with a capacity to hold millions of liters of water was built in a nearby neighborhood, but it never worked.

He also said that each floor of the building lacked sufficient fire extinguishing systems and that the existing water pumps could not keep up with demand and failed to bring water up to the top floors.

Briceño said that firefighters reached only floor 15 by elevator and then climbed up the stairs to the top floors with 400 and 500 meter long hoses and pumps that weighed 100 kilograms.

The fire chief said that floors 35-48 sustained structural damage.





So what again was buidling 7's excuse for a freefall>?







It was also said of the Building

www.construction.com...



The building’s interior is in "terrible" shape," he says, adding he has never anything "this bad" in his 20 years as a fire protection engineer working in Latin America.





Sources studying the 225-meter-tall East Tower of the Parque Central in Caracas say it appears that floor beams in the most-damaged areas of the tower did not collapse, as previously reported, but deflected during the Oct. 15 fire. Suppliers of the fireproofing on the tower’s intermediate steel frames report the material did not contain asbestos.



[edit on 7-3-2007 by talisman]




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join