Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof of the Gash on WTC-7 ?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Ferret,


There was a seismic event around 15 seconds before a plane visibly struck either tower, and this has been proven for anyone who can follow a line of logic for more than 15 seconds (I can link it for you if you think you can be objective for that long).

How in the HELL would an impact so many floors up cause such a massive seismic shock, anyway? Do you know how that would have to happen, how that stuff works? It would have to change directions twice, and that energy wasn't absorbed by the buildings in the process? The planes were puny compared to the building structure they would have to have transferred energy through, and the buildings didn't even budge: they absorbed ALL of the energy of the impacts. Something happened at the bases that caused that massive seismic energy.

Read witness reports from people working there. They weren't any blocks away, they were right there watching it unfold in front of their eyes and they tell quite a different story than the one you believe. They were convinced that a bomb had gone off on the parking garage again, just like '93, and that's about what would have had to have happened, especially when the seismic spikes don't line up with the impacts.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by bsbray11]




posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
How can you tell that the columns weren't severed? Are you seeing something in the photo that I'm missing?


This is just my opinion of a photograph, but the reason you can see clear straight lines (which is what makes it appear "perfect") is because the columns are still standing on both sides of that damage. This tells me that the columns weren't severed and that the facade between the columns is what was damaged. Not that the columns couldn't be damaged also (you can't tell from the photo) but they are still visible and not severed I believe.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
WOW.... sorry Inannamute! It was an Italian website that you asked to be translated. I did translate it for you,(i have it in a word document that I can post if you wish) but it appears to be a debunking website that has taken MOST of its information from www.debunking911.com(an american website) Sorry it took you hours to find stuff thats been around for a month or so now.

I'm not here gathering WATS or points. Please MODS... i am donating any points from this thread to Inannamute. And if your still giving out WATS...give the guy one!



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
*sigh*.. if it's been around for a month, how come you only post it the day after I post the images?



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
Got a link to the video you are referring to? Since the towers collapsed into their own footprints in a cloud of ultrafine dust particles do to the collapsing weight of floors, according to the official party line, what could have been ejected perpendicularly with such force and at such a great distance and possibly bypassing the building in between? If there actually was a big gash in the base of 7WTC it was most likely caused by some of Lucky Larry's pre-planted explosives.


No the two towers did not collapse on its own "footprint", much of the debris were ejected and damaged several buildings around the perimeter.

Various pictures of other buildings damaged by debris proves it, as well as various videos. Let me find some videos and pics to show it.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
The video of the gash has actually been available for some time on ABC archives. YOUTUBE had it posted in April i believe.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
ratskywatsky ...please look at these pictures and tell me if anything hit WTC7

It's pretty obvious.









posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Griff - you have obviously never been to New York or Downtown for that matter to make such a stupid statement.


First, I've been to NYC plenty of times. Have you ever been on window washing scaffolding 34 stories up looking down on Broadway (Times Square) doing Local Law 11 investigations? Then don't tell me my statement was stupid.

Just for some proof.



This is one from 34 stories looking down at Times Square.



This is another building closer to Central Park. This shows the type of scaffolding I'm talking about.



This is the same building, only now I'm 30 stories up and on the side of the building.

Anyway, I never intended to get into a pissing match.


My building was a little over 3 blocks away not 9.


Google Earth must be wrong then because I count 7-9 blocks depending on what streets you want to count.


Most of the buildings downtown are low buildings, The building I was in was 24 stories, there was not much to block the shockwave from the inital explosion, and if you actually recall numerous windows were blown out at buildings closer to the towers.


I never discounted your shockwave experience. Just thought that it was some shockwave to travel so far and cause a building to shake.


Oh but that's right I was fooled and didn't watch the second plane hit the towers nor when I was a block away at the corner of Liberty and Trinity the 4th generation nuke failed to vaporize me.

Get a life.


I never said you weren't and didn't. Maybe you should get a life because it's very obvious to me since you have first hand trauma from this experience that you are very biased when it comes to 9/11 threads. But, that's just my take on it.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   











posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Not to mention the 50 some odd page Mega Thread over on JREF.

It has been posted back in January. Dealing with WTC &, gashes, and all that.. This really isn't breaking news.

Here is the link to the giant thread with over 2,200 individual posts:

forums.randi.org...




[edit on 15-5-2007 by GwionX]



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


Nice try in trying to decieve there Deltaboy. That is the Bankers Building and NOT WTC 7. If the columns of WTC 7 were severed, the OP photo would have looked something like this and not straight lined damaged.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Nice try in trying to decieve there Deltaboy. That is the Bankers Building and NOT WTC 7. If the columns of WTC 7 were severed, the OP photo would have looked something like this and not straight lined damaged.


Deceiving? I never say that building was WTC7. Look at my post in discussing about how other buildings were damaged by debris from the towers.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Deceiving? I never say that building was WTC7. Look at my post in discussing about how other buildings were damaged by debris from the towers.


OK. Sorry for taking it the wrong way. Anyway, does that building look like it's about to collapse? The original photo showing the gash in the OP show's less damage than that building. So, why did "everyone" know that WTC 7 was going to come down from less damage than surrounding buildings? Why did they fight fires in surrounding buildings but abandoned WTC 7?



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Sorry if this was already posted - I'm just scrambling to drop in what I have.

According to the NIST the gash was deep.



It's often confused with the shorter SW corner damage, which was more visible. This center gash was photod less becuase of the massive smoke puring out. No closeups I've seen at all. It seems to go up to the roof and down to at leat the 30s. My numering here may be a floor off...



I believe the working theory is it was caused by faling debris.

Now I will read the thread.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

OK. Sorry for taking it the wrong way. Anyway, does that building look like it's about to collapse? The original photo showing the gash in the OP show's less damage than that building. So, why did "everyone" know that WTC 7 was going to come down from less damage than surrounding buildings? Why did they fight fires in surrounding buildings but abandoned WTC 7?


Those are some very good questions.

The damage in the Bankers Trust building does look much more severe than any of the available picks from WTC7. It even appears a column was severed. It also looks like it was much closer to the towers than building 7 was.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So anybody figured out how this thing caused a collapse from the bottom floor yet?

(Not a one-liner.
)

[edit on 15-5-2007 by bsbray11]


That's a good Q BSB. I've herd people say this is what damaged the columns, but 20 floors from the roof down? The collapse initiated, If I remember right, in the lower floors below 13 according to the NIST. That's below even the corner damage.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
*sigh*.. if it's been around for a month, how come you only post it the day after I post the images?



Beause he saw the pictures and was like "wow!" I'm guessing. Sorry I missed your thread too, I was watching like a hawk for anything new last night, and got up late today after you were buried apparently. You got a backup thread if this one gets derailed. I't great to have Cameron back tho.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic





Thanks for posting this. You can see where again NIST has overestimated the damage. Count the column lines. The damage is between column line 5 and 6 from the s-w corner. This is the little "box" that NIST has shown in their sketch. Now, where is the rest of the damage that they show? I don't see any (at least worth mentioning structurally).



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
OK. Sorry for taking it the wrong way. Anyway, does that building look like it's about to collapse?
If I remember correctly, there were fears of its structural soundness. The fact that the Bankers building didn't catch on fire *could* have been wat saved it.


The original photo showing the gash in the OP show's less damage than that building.


I have to disagree. I think Fire is damage, fire causes damage, and since there was fire as well as structural damage I feel that WTC 7 was far MORE damaged. Not to mention that the smoke from the fire never really allowed cameras to capture the full extent of damage. Only glimpses, and I can tell you from those glimpses (when the smoke cleared momentarily) the South face of WTC 7 was badly damaged.

The uninformed always want to look at the "backside" of WTC 7 to assess damage. Those that peddle WTC 7 Conspiracy theories never/rarely show the South face of WTC 7-- Reminiscent of an unscrupulous used car salesman who stands in front of a badly damaged section of a car he is trying to sell, while saying the vehicle is in good condition with just a couple of "scratches, and dings." Constantly trying to keep the potential buyer from seeing the "bad parts" and downplaying them, or changing the subject when they do see.


So, why did "everyone" know that WTC 7 was going to come down from less damage than surrounding buildings?


Because of the extent of the damage-- The firefighters weren't looking at WTC 7 from a camera 10 blocks to the North. They were on the ground at its base, and I have come to the informed conclusion that the firefighters were able to assess a badly damaged and rapidly deteriorating building standing within feet of them.


Why did they fight fires in surrounding buildings but abandoned WTC 7?


WTC 7 was known to have been cleared of human life before its collapse. If you were a firefighter and you knew there might be trapped people still alive in say the rubble of WTC 1 or under the caved in roof of WTC 6..Where would you concentrate your efforts--provided you only had the water to do one or the other?

[edit on 15-5-2007 by GwionX]



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I cant say for certain that NIST "over estimated". They are showing from a top view. I believe the photos that show the damage at the 48th floor shows wider damage.








top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join