Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof of the Gash on WTC-7 ?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
While you decide if that man is a liar, or if you've just fooled yourself into thinking you've had a realistic sample of testimonies, here's a reporter reporting explosions going off every 15-20 minutes after both tower collapses (consistent with the seismic records):

www.studyof911.com...


Notice about 15 minutes between the first two "further collapses", and about 15 minutes more between the 2nd and 3rd of the "further collapses":




Once again, I ask, do you think these things would make noises? Compare their spikes to the impact event spikes and remember that it scales logarithmically.

And is Craig Bartmer really lying about hearing explosions as WTC7 collapsed? Is the reporter in the clip above lying about hearing explosions lining up with the (pretty massively in their own right) seismic spikes illustrating "further collapses"?




posted on May, 19 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
BsBray,

I'm not discounting anyones reports at all. You are. You asked for a video of a firefighter discussing the condition of WTC7 ... i did that. I also showed the documentation with a link to the PROTEC company's paper on 911. If you have read it, or decide to read it, I would like to know what you think about it. I'd also like to know why you don't allow the interviews from firefighters that were at ground zero for hours to help you draw your conclusions.

You havent answered my question as to if you think the firefighters were covering something up.

I am quite certain that explosions were heard throughout the day at all different times. Can I tell you for certain what they are? No! There are several things that they could be. Firefighters reported car tires exploding, transformers can explode... blah blah.. we have been over all of this before. The point is, the evidence that I have read, watched..etc...does not offer ( in my opinion) evidence that supports controlled demolition.

I am not familiar with seismic activity...just from what i see on TV and read on line .etc..
What seismic activity was taking place just prior to the WTC7 Collapse are you questioning? The company that was operating thier equipment there on that day, state that there was nothing that showed a CD. This is stated by a company that has done more CD's than any other CD company in the world. Are oyu suggesting that they too are invovled in the cover up ?



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I'm not discounting anyones reports at all.


Then you now are satisfied that there were explosions coming from WTC7 as it collapsed, as per Bartmer's testimony.


You are.


Show me what I have discounted. I have not discounted the fire, I have not discounted the damage to the South face. What am I denying?


I also showed the documentation with a link to the PROTEC company's paper on 911. If you have read it, or decide to read it, I would like to know what you think about it.


I already told you that the paper is old news.

I made a thread about it a long time ago, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



You havent answered my question as to if you think the firefighters were covering something up.


I have too. You apparently just can't read or else have a hard time understanding what I'm saying. Go back and reread my posts and see if you can't find it. It's the last one on the last page we were posting on.


I am quite certain that explosions were heard throughout the day at all different times.


You mean generators?

A mass of generators popping out, boom boom boom boom boom, as WTC7 dropped to the ground at free-fall, right?



I am not familiar with seismic activity...just from what i see on TV and read on line .etc..


Then please never bring it up again, because you apparently fall back to an argument of ignorance every time I press you with very simple questions about the seismic events shown above.

If you can't have a discussion, then don't pretend like you can.


What seismic activity was taking place just prior to the WTC7 Collapse are you questioning? The company that was operating thier equipment there on that day, state that there was nothing that showed a CD.


And you can have blind faith in them, I don't give a damn.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
BsBray,

Allow me to correct myself. Although I don't "discount" eyewitnesses, I do like to read into them and not always take them as face value. That being said, your witness you stated, NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer. I have read the transcript of one of his interviews. I do have a couple issues with what he states. Let me start off though by saying I don't think he is lying.

1. Officer Bartmer claims his buddies got him a little drunk and made him watch Loose Change.


Officer Bartmer:"...and as I approached, came down, saw the big hub-bub going on around building 7. Walked around it. Saw a hole. I didn't see a hole big enough to knock a building down though."


How big was the hole? What size hole in his opinion (of a poilicce officer) would be the appropriate size to knock down a building?

2.

Officer Bartmer:"I saw, you know, there was definately fire in the building, you know, but ... um, I didn't hear any, and you know maybe this is movie crap, i didn't hear any creaking or i didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down, and all of a sudden the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, "Get away. Get away. Get away from it." and I was like a dear in the headlights. And I look up. "


I just find it a bit suspect that dozens of others are reported as to hearing the creaking. How much fire did he witness? What I also find interesting is that there was a collapse zone since 2pm. For three hours the EMS that was stationed there were pretty certain the building was going to come down.

3.

Officer Bartmer: "It was that moment, you know, "Get away", and I looked up... and... it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. And all the things started peeling in on itself and... I mean, there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running and the shi*ts hitting the ground behind me and the whole time your hearing "thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom." So. I think I know an explosion when I hear it."


So, as the building started to fall he started hearing "explosions?" Is that typically how a CD happens? Of all the CD's I have listened to/ watched. The VAST majority of the explosions are before the collapse.

This man in the interview starts spewing the typical LC crap.

His is suffering from an illness he claims is from the toxic fumes and PTSD. (post traumatic stress disorder). Thats sad! My brother also suffered from PTSD post 911. (was a grief counselor at GZ) And I tell you, you guys want to seek the truth. Find out why the EPA was ingored by the insurance companies at ground zero when they were told the air was not safe. This is a pretty sick man who in my opinion is being used by the CT people to further their agenda.

As far as the seismograph stuff. Hey, I ADMIT when I'm not a professional...and thats ALOT more than I can say for 99.9% of the Google junkies in this forum that know it ALL. This is a DISCUSSION forum where we talk about many subjects. IF I am wrong.. .you know i admit it. If my research involves information from professionals. KNOWN professionals... i will use my "blind faith" from them than that of someone on the internet. If thats wrong... so be it.





[edit on 19-5-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
"Gash"?? Do you mean the black line that is running down the center of the building, or am I missing something?? Looks like how the building looks to me.

I can't think of anything that could create that in a building and it not get noticed.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
BsBray,

Allow me to correct myself. Although I don't "discount" eyewitnesses, I do like to read into them and not always take them as face value.


Then you shouldn't have any problem when I think firefighters saying the damage in the back side of WTC7 was enough to bring it down, are talking out of their ass.


1. Officer Bartmer claims his buddies got him a little drunk and made him watch Loose Change.


What's wrong with that?


How big was the hole? What size hole in his opinion (of a poilicce officer) would be the appropriate size to knock down a building?


Ask him.


I just find it a bit suspect that dozens of others are reported as to hearing the creaking.


Maybe they did, but obviously it wasn't consistent.


So, as the building started to fall he started hearing "explosions?" Is that typically how a CD happens? Of all the CD's I have listened to/ watched. The VAST majority of the explosions are before the collapse.


So what's your point? Does the idea of trying to hide the charges make any sense to you, or do you intentionally ignore it to make your arguments? Why does everything have to be comparable for a stereotypical CD for it to have been a CD at all?

The answer is it doesn't, and you use fallacious logic because you're biased and you can't form a decent argument without resorting to that kind of crap. If you can, then do it.


This is a pretty sick man who in my opinion is being used by the CT people to further their agenda.


So you think this man is mentally ill, in other words, and that's why he thinks he heard explosions and thinks WTC7 had explosives in it. Imo, you're sicker than he is.


As far as the seismograph stuff. Hey, I ADMIT when I'm not a professional [...] IF I am wrong.. .you know i admit it.


No, you just avoid half of my questions and then say you're not qualified to answer when things aren't going where you like them.

I'm going to start doing that, too, ok? Just for you. Remember this.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
"Gash"?? Do you mean the black line that is running down the center of the building, or am I missing something?? Looks like how the building looks to me.

I can't think of anything that could create that in a building and it not get noticed.


The most on-topic point in a bit. The gash is there after the main towers' collapse, along with the SW corner damage. It's not part of the building. It has its "minor damage" at roof level, runs down tween columns 5+6 on the upper floors, also seems evident at the same spot down at about the 18th floor and at the 7th, seemingly cut in from roof to ground. I'm working up a graphic of the south face with all damage I can see mapped onto it. I'll have it done in a couple of days, should be cool.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then you shouldn't have any problem when I think firefighters saying the damage in the back side of WTC7 was enough to bring it down, are talking out of their ass.


Here's what I don't get. The chief of the FDNY, and countless others. Engineers, demolition experts, etc. are all there. They all see the situation at hand. They just watched two skyscrapers come down crushing their brothers to death. There were in FACT creaking noises coming from the building, SEVERAL eye witnesses stated this fact. The FDNY along with the other professionals that were there knew the building was coming down. It wasn't JUST becasue of the damage on the back side of the building, there were a few fires going on remember?
There was a piece of equipment that was used during the day that analyized the leaning of the building, I can't remember the name of it, but when I find it i'll let you know.




1. Officer Bartmer claims his buddies got him a little drunk and made him watch Loose Change.



Originally posted by bsbray11What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except I'm curious as to when he decided to come forward. Did he think it was an inside job before he watched LC? Did he think the falling of the towers suspect prior to watching LC?


How big was the hole? What size hole in his opinion (of a poilicce officer) would be the appropriate size to knock down a building?



Originally posted by bsbray11Ask him.


Good answer, we will go on the opinion of a Police Officer over the Chief of the FDNY as to the strctural integrity of a building. Heck, I'm sure there was a FedEx guy around that could have thrown in his 2 cents.


I just find it a bit suspect that dozens of others are reported as to hearing the creaking.



Originally posted by bsbray11Maybe they did, but obviously it wasn't consistent.


Not MAYBE...they did. Are they also talking out their asses?


So, as the building started to fall he started hearing "explosions?" Is that typically how a CD happens? Of all the CD's I have listened to/ watched. The VAST majority of the explosions are before the collapse.



Originally posted by bsbray11So what's your point? Does the idea of trying to hide the charges make any sense to you, or do you intentionally ignore it to make your arguments? Why does everything have to be comparable for a stereotypical CD for it to have been a CD at all?

The answer is it doesn't, and you use fallacious logic because you're biased and you can't form a decent argument without resorting to that kind of crap. If you can, then do it.

I am not using fallicious logic, I am using common sence! Buildings make noise as they are falling! Could there have been explosions? Hell yeah! We all know it! There is a video I posted some time ago about Big Blue, the crane that collapsed. Listen to that, you hear the steel twisting and falling, and my God it sounds like explosions!
The one that is biased here is you, you ignore the dozens of witnesses. YOU cherry pick the ones that dont agree with YOUR hypothisis.You then say they are all talking out their asses. You do however choose one. A police officer that we have no idea how long he was there at WTC7, who he had spoken to, and what his credentials are in analyzing a skyscraper that had been hit by tons of debris and had fires raging in it for hours.


This is a pretty sick man who in my opinion is being used by the CT people to further their agenda.



Originally posted by bsbray11So you think this man is mentally ill, in other words, and that's why he thinks he heard explosions and thinks WTC7 had explosives in it. Imo, you're sicker than he is.


Thats NOT what I said. The man is both Physically ill and mentally ill. As he states in his interview. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and he has issues with his lungs from the air he was breathing at ground zero. This poor guy wants answers to why this happened, why is he so sick, why was he allowed to stay at ground zero breathing in all those toxic fumes, why did his government let him down.In my OPINION, he is getting the answers he wants from the LC crowd who you KNOW are full of sh*t.


Originally posted by bsbray11As far as the seismograph stuff. Hey, I ADMIT when I'm not a professional [...] IF I am wrong.. .you know i admit it.

No, you just avoid half of my questions and then say you're not qualified to answer when things aren't going where you like them.

I'm going to start doing that, too, ok? Just for you. Remember this.


I'm not avoiding anything.... I dont try to make up 1/2 asses answers that I know nothing about!

I just need to know what you think happened that day. You appear to latch onto anyone that says BOMB. YET, you don't think bombs were used?? Was it 1/2 jellied thermate and 1/2 bombs? Just Thermate? I don't know where your going with this.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I assure you, you don't need any more intelligence than you possessed when in basic school, to follow my reasoning about the seismic anomalies.

So don't avoid it based on lack of seismic knowledge, because you don't need it !

It's all about GPS timestamps, and simple additions of available data from sources from 2 government institutes, LDEO and NIST.
Which both used the exact same GPS timestamps, but NIST can't fit theirs to cover the LDEO timestamps. Even after revamping, in quite a blatant manner, their original timestamps. They still are way off.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROOF ME WRONG.

EDIT: forgot the links,

www.abovetopsecret.com... and page 2,
and :
www.studyof911.com...

[edit on 20/5/07 by LaBTop]



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netstriker
It is amazing how people around here talk about this as if they were all structural engineers and experts on demolition and other related matters.


Well, bcause alot of people on here are infact very very knowlegedble in the fields in which they speak on.

The others, they just stayed at a holiday inn express.

I think there is some nice pics of some eveidence that there was exterior and some dameage to the middle and to some extent into the interiro of the building, however there were reports that there were only 3-4 fires in WTC7 before it went down, it would have to be a gigantic amount of structural damage to cause that, or just the right amount in certain places.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Protec was operating portable field seismographs at construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11, and these seismographs were recording groud vibrations throughout the timeframe of events at Ground Zero. These measurements, when combined with more specific and detailed seismic data recorded at Columbia University's Lamount-Doherty Earth Observatory, help to provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.


Have they ever supplied said siesmographs? Just curious as I've never heard of seeing them. Maybe you could forward them to Labtop for analysis? If not, why are they not in public view?



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
It is so funny to hear stuff proven false be trumpeted again and again by supposedly intelligent people.

Larry Silverstein was referring to the firefighters decision to pull the building. He has answered this question many times in several venues and I still hear people saying he never was asked what he meant. He was badly quoting what he was told by the NYFD and NYC city engineers. When they said pull it, it meant evacuate the fire personnel.

For those morons who thought the Towers fell neatly in their footprints you clearly never visited GZ or saw any of the aftermath pictures. I was on 42nd street the day of and managed to see the area from a friends apartment that day just outside the quarantine zone (before it was later expanded).

There was debris everywhere and it was about 5-7 stories high and it extended will outside the footprint of the buildings, it was pushed up against several of the buildings, some of which were later demolished intentionally. Did you ever see the pictures of the lesser WTC buildings? They were crushed.

Burning debris was piled up against the foundation of WTC-7 to about the 4th or 5th floor. It was exerting tremendous lateral pressure at the base. The base supports were being bent in as the burning debris continued to settle and heat up against the base. When the engineers saw this and heard the base buckling they knew was a matter of time. The building was a total loss anyway. It was burning from most of the floors, and there was nobody to fight the fire, at that time they needed to transition to search and rescue.

What the non-scientists will not know is that any collapse produces a tremendous amount of kinetic energy and the friction of the debris causes a lot of heat. It happens even in avalanches of snow and ice. The friction causes enough heat to vaporize all sorts of things. Do a little research.

If you have ever seen high-resolution photos of the collapse (not the useless grainy network cameras that seem to be the only ones you can find) you can see a huge about of ejected debris moving laterally in all directions. How can anyone say otherwise? It is disturbing how ignorant people will allow themselves to be just to believe in a myth.

WTC-7 was designed like any other building. It was designed to collapse as it did. This is an f-ing design parameter and gravity and modern steel frame construction does not physically allow a building to fall over on its side.

It shocks me. You say that it fell just like a controlled demolition. Please tell me how many skyscrapers you have seen fall where it DID NOT look like a controlled demotion?

Look at the photos from the KOBE earthquake or others where steel frame buildings came down. They come STRAIGHT down, even when the ground is shaking them sideways.

Was the Kobe earthquake a controlled demolition? I wish you people would try to at least learn some of the science involved. Engineers design buildings to collapse inward, and it is not hard. Because the girders are all attached to each other, the one that fails necessarily pulls the ones above DOWNWARD, as in the direction of gravity. This is not a game of JENGA!!!!

I hate to direct you to that right wing rag Popular Mechanics because that has already been thrown in your face so many times, but you will also be happy to know they dared put a Global Warming Is Real podcast on this week, so they must have switched sides....

Please people. It is called Physics, look it up.

We already know your "steel does not melt" is a load of garbage as recently proven by the Bay bridge fire.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
"Gash"?? Do you mean the black line that is running down the center of the building, or am I missing something?? Looks like how the building looks to me.

I can't think of anything that could create that in a building and it not get noticed.


The most on-topic point in a bit. The gash is there after the main towers' collapse, along with the SW corner damage. It's not part of the building. It has its "minor damage" at roof level, runs down tween columns 5+6 on the upper floors, also seems evident at the same spot down at about the 18th floor and at the 7th, seemingly cut in from roof to ground. I'm working up a graphic of the south face with all damage I can see mapped onto it. I'll have it done in a couple of days, should be cool.

Sorry for being a bit slow here, but first there was a hole in the building, now this gash? Which side was the hole on, and where is the gash relative to it, and the WTC?

Is the wall actually missing??? TBH I can't see it very clearly in those photos.



[edit on 20-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Before you go nuts and make fools of yourselves, make sure you understand that I am drawing the distinction between steel frame buildings and not simply reinforced concrete rebar construction.

There are pictures of sideways collapses from Kobe, but those buildings were ALL of reinforced concrete (i.e. not fully I beam interlocked steel frames.) Most high-rise buildings are unfortunately not steel frame. They will typically only have steel framing in the elevator shaft, if at all. Most are simply concrete with rebar through it.

Of the few that you can see are steel frame, there were only a few partial collapses and they were straight down.

A few buildings were turned over on their sides not due to collapse but because the landfill underneath them physically laid them over with out damaging the structure. Kind of cool actually....

Check out how building codes were changed after Kobe, that should tell you something....



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
""Check out how building codes were changed after Kobe, that should tell you something....""

Well, mr Sheldon, what about this then :

9/11: Five Years on - Changes in Tall Building Design?
www.civag.unimelb.edu.au...


ABSTRACT:
This article discusses the changes in tall building design practice after the World Trade Centre (WTC) buildings collapse. Although many suggestions were made post-9/11, regarding the improvement of the performance of buildings, no major changes have yet been implemented. These suggestions and the lessons learnt from the collapse are discussed in the paper.


Bolded text (by me) speaks for itself, ain't it so?

Mr Sheldon, I include you too in my list of people I challenge to proof me wrong on this :

www.abovetopsecret.com... and page 2.

Read both pages first, follow it to my external link, think about it for a week, try to counter all my proof if you don't agree with it.

Then try to confront me on the issue if you dare!



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mfsheldon
Of the few that you can see are steel frame, there were only a few partial collapses and they were straight down.


Reinforced concrete or completely steel-framed? Can you post some photos of what you're talking about?


A few buildings were turned over on their sides not due to collapse but because the landfill underneath them physically laid them over with out damaging the structure.


I've seen them tip without such problems. Even WTC2's upper block of floors began tipping, and during this same time it was not falling straight down. The angular momentum behind the tilt halted when the building began falling straight down, and this fall was also symmetrical. I haven't seen anyone claim on this thread that the debris fell into a neat pile in the footprints, but the actual direction of the collapse wave (and center of gravity) was obviously straight down. The fact that 80+% of the buildings' masses were thrown out of the footprints all over the site is proof that pancake theory is wrong if anything is.



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Bsbray - How should the buildings collasped? How about diagraming (artists rendition) the 'fall' pattern which you think should of happened.

What should the trade center looked like?



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Have they ever supplied said siesmographs? Just curious as I've never heard of seeing them. Maybe you could forward them to Labtop for analysis? If not, why are they not in public view?


NO.

Someone prove me wrong. It is a load of CRAP from the 9/11 Omission.

Even if they come out with it TODAY, who are you going to believe? LDEO (www.ldeo.columbia.edu...) or Protec 5+ years later?

From Protec's web site:


Protec is recognized as a global leader in the field of Vibration Prediction, Monitoring, and Structure Inspections.

For over 30 years, Protec personnel have studied the effects of vibrations on structures as related to construction, demolition and blasting operations. From the world’s largest building implosions to the smallest road-reconstruction jobs,


CONVENIENT how they just happened to be in NY for the biggest demo job ever....


[edit on 21-5-2007 by Pootie]



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This guy from Protec has written some sort of rebuttal on a debunking site.
He NEVER EVER delivered the seismic graphs from his hand held devices to the public domain.
He keeps talking and expect us to believe, about no seismic proof for standard demolitions, while we saw with our own eyes, a televised event, which definitely did not look as a standard demolition. That were 2 top down demo's, and 1 bottom up.

And I suspect him to have them NOT offered to dr. Kim from LDEO, to be included in dr. Kim's 2006 second seismic report, written for NIST, who hired dr. Kim to do so.
Or perhaps, he did, and then NIST was "not amused" with it?

And then NIST removed every hint to dr. Kim's 2006 ""NIST"" seismic report from all their sites.

Just as they did for a thorough report from an engineering firm they also hired to write a report on the causes and effects of the 9/11 collapses.
That report, by the way, did not fit AT ALL in the NIST "picture", so they removed it.

BTW, in my view, NIST is not an entity, made up by thousands of honest scientists.
The NIST I see and mention all the time, is a cluster of CEO's, who prescribe those honest researchers what to look at, and what to ignore. And if they step out of line, their career is toast.



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
I assure you, you don't need any more intelligence than you possessed when in basic school, to follow my reasoning about the seismic anomalies.

So don't avoid it based on lack of seismic knowledge, because you don't need it !

It's all about GPS timestamps, and simple additions of available data from sources from 2 government institutes, LDEO and NIST.
Which both used the exact same GPS timestamps, but NIST can't fit theirs to cover the LDEO timestamps. Even after revamping, in quite a blatant manner, their original timestamps. They still are way off.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROOF ME WRONG.

EDIT: forgot the links,

www.abovetopsecret.com... and page 2,
and :
www.studyof911.com...

[edit on 20/5/07 by LaBTop]


Hi LabTop.. sorry... been busy....Instead of me reading the hundreds of pages... can you compress these endless links to one simple page... Id love to give your challenge a shot.... (not saying I can prove or disprove) it's just that you reference MANY different sites and thread.... what is it that you want disproven?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join