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.

 

South/North Tower Collapse & WTC-7

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
#1. IF the collapse of the TOWERS caused the damage to WTC-7. Where's the damage to the NORTH TOWER from the SOUTH TOWER when the SOUTH TOWER collapsed?
There should have been extensive damage to the NORTH TOWER evident on video due to the steel being ejected outwards at such high velocity in all directions. IF the claim is that WTC-7 had so much of its structure 'ripped out' from the collapse then how is the lack of visible damage to the NORTH TOWER from the SOUTH TOWER'S collapse explained?

#2. Where is the evidence that WTC-7 received most of its damage due to the collapsing Towers?
On the surface this does seem to be a logical deduction, however when one factors in the lack of visible such damage on the NORTH TOWER from the SOUTH TOWER'S collapse then this calls into question the explanation for WTC-7

#3. IF the SOUTH TOWER could not inflict enormous damage on the NORTH TOWER during collapse, does this not argue for the strength of the NORTH TOWER and its steel?
Would this not also call into question the amount of damage that was done to the core due to the plane crash?




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
here is the supposed damage and suspected collapse areas.
i38.photobucket.com...

Here is the best shot of the roof line (notice the penthouse)(cut paste without space)
http:// wtc7.net/docs/June2004WTC7_Page_15_cropped.jpg

Heres the collapse: (skip to 4:10) The penthouse collapses like a #tty soufflé.
video.google.com...

*shakes head




you can also see flashes in the wtc7 as its falling.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by Retikx]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by Retikx]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
#1. IF the collapse of the TOWERS caused the damage to WTC-7. Where's the damage to the NORTH TOWER from the SOUTH TOWER when the SOUTH TOWER collapsed?


In the FEMA report, firemen reported some damage to floors 8-18.



[edit on 20-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Do we have any pictures of the damage? I want to see how building-7 supposedly damaged from the Towers compares to the North Tower damage as the North Tower was much closer.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   


#1. IF the collapse of the TOWERS caused the damage to WTC-7. Where's the damage to the NORTH TOWER from the SOUTH TOWER when the SOUTH TOWER collapsed?


Collapse of South Tower started at the South/east faces of the building
the corner away from the North Tower. If you look at the video of North
Tower collapse can see top section of building break off as it buckled
and fall on WTC 7. The debris from Tower 1, which included steel
sections of the outer wall and floor. Ripped huge gash in the south face
of WTC 7.




'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's Sunder tells PM. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.'NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."


[url=http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf[/url]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
look at this photo

http:// wtc7.net/docs/June2004WTC7_Page_15_cropped.jpg (cut paste and remove space)

do tell where this 25% SCOOP is?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Retikx
 

About 10 or so stories under where the parapet damage is. Look at some of the videos of WTC7 that are posted on other threads.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
No tops broke free of any towers. That is self-evident from videos. No top of either twin tower landed on WTC 7. No video of WTC 7 being pulled shows either tower top falling on WTC 7.

Please keep in mind WTC 7 was still standing hours after 1 and 2 were demolished in 10 seconds or less. Had either top fallen on WTC 7, that building would not have been standing hours later, until it was pulled by the order of Silverstein.

WTC 7 was approximately 360' from WTC 2 and further from WTC 1, leaving not nearly enough top of either building to make it to WTC 7, much less fall on the WTC 7 roof.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Plenty close enough for large pieces of the exterior of WTC1 to hit WTC7 though, maybe not the top, but still close enough to get hit.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Steel facade and outside wall frames hardly made up the complete top of either tower. Plus, those were flung into other buildings, and those buildings did not collapse from damage of anything attached to the outside of 1 and 2.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The story constantly changes, first its massive damage to the roof (for which it has been proven to be completely false) And now the only explanation for where this 25% scoop is located is "oh its 10 story's below the roof line" the only place on the building for which there is no image or video that might substantiate this claim.

now if this were the case, if there was MASSIVE damage done to the side facing the towers how then could it be that this MASSIVE 25% scoop somehow magicly evaded the roof line and only gouged out the parts below??

Towers = 110 st

WTC7 = 42 st ?

Please tell me how it could possibly make sense for EJECTED debris 68 stories higher then wtc7 to do almost no damage to the roof but somehow take a 25% scoop out of the buildings 38'ish floor?


And by the way fox you grossly underestimate the available power of the us govts military, may they be black ops or registered.
"you read too many spy novels" Its comments like this that dissolve your credibility. The pentagon has every possible angle covered with cameras, not to mention satellite imagery that feeds live video of the surrounding area. You prey on the fact that certain things are not public knowledge, and you know that certain information is nearly unattainable at almost every level. Are you also going to contest the fact that the fbi seized 80+ videos that may have shown the full impact?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
So far I see no good reason for the damage to WTC-7 that we are to believe came from the Towers when in fact the South Tower collapsed and its debris did in fact hit the NORTH TOWER, and according to FEMA did some damage, but it certainly isn't so noticeable on any video I have seen so far.

So, for WTC-7 to have that much of its wall torn out by the debris, and the NORTH TOWER not showing such a wide gash, then this just doesn't add up.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Please keep in mind WTC 7 was still standing hours after 1 and 2 were demolished in 10 seconds or less. Had either top fallen on WTC 7, that building would not have been standing hours later, until it was pulled by the order of Silverstein.


Silverstein did not order building 7 to be pulled. He could not, he had no authority over what was going on that day.

The incident commander decided to pull the building after calling Silverstein to tell him he could not save the building.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Yes, Silverstein had the authority to order WTC 7 pulle. He owned it. Now, whether or not he cleared it with the insurance companies before it was done, was between Silverstein and the insurance companies.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Yes, Silverstein had the authority to order WTC 7 pulle. He owned it.


No your wrong. In an emergency situation like on 9/11 Silverstein had no authority over what was going on.

The only reason the incident commander called Silverstein was to let him know they could not save the building. The incident commander could have pulled the building anytime he wanted, he did not need Silversteins ok. Chief Nigro evacuated the firemen out of the building without talking to anyone, he had the authority. Silverstein had no authority to tell the fire chief what to do.

Silversteins own statement was "They (meaning the incident command) decided to "PULL IT" and we watched the building collapse"



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
Please tell me how it could possibly make sense for EJECTED debris 68 stories higher then wtc7 to do almost no damage to the roof but somehow take a 25% scoop out of the buildings 38'ish floor?

Consider the forces at work IE a fixed horizontal component and gravitational acceleration. The combination of the two makes the ejected material move in a standard ballistic arc so a heavy section of steel outer wall could easily have done the damage claimed without hitting the WTC7 roof.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
yes, i wrote this in an earlier post - with some metrics...
HERE
About half way down...



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join