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.

 

WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Here is a CBS video from September 11th that shows massive fires on the NORTH side of WTC-7. The camera man zooms in and you can see there are entire floors on fire.



www.youtube.com...




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Interesting .... 3 hours and not one response. I thought people searching for the truth would find the truth to be... there were MASSIVE unfought fires in WTC-7 !!


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Hmmm MASSIVE fires?

This is massive fire...









But regardless sporadic office fires and asymmetrical damage does not cause global collapse of buildings into their own footprint. There is only one way that can happen...

Pic of a perfect controlled demo of a building...



This is a building after asymmetrical damage from a bomb...



It's not building design it's physics, and WTC 7 defied the laws of physics by collapsing into the path of most resistance without any friction/resistance from undamaged building structure. For that to happen all columns would have to fail at the same time, otherwise you would end up with a steel burned out shell and a partial collapse.

There is only one way a building will fall straight down and that's if all the columns fail at the same time, and that doesn't happen unless it was controlled.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok... This is the Northside of WTC7.... where most truthers claim that there was no damage and or fires. If you watch the videos, there are MANY vehicles on the street that were damaged by fire and or debris.

Yes the photos you posted are of a building fully engulfed in flames.

Again...these are of the NORTH side of WTC where you can see a substatial amount of fire.








posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Great post and great video find


The only thing, at this point, that continues to surprise me is the rather large amount of ignorance concerning WTC7. I'm not talking about people being stupid; a lack of intellect.

I am referring to the number of people who feel absolutely no hesitation citing so-called "facts", when their basic understanding of even the most mundane details is so lacking.



[edit on 24-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Slightly,

I am still waiting for the posters that say physics were ignored, to come up with a peer reviewed paper to back up what they state.

:TY:



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Those are clearly holographic flames.

You have nothing.


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Windsor...

That is all I have to say... just so i dont get tagged with a 1 line.. I will add an image.


Before:


After:



Before:



After:






I have a question.. Why don't this add up again??

And dont give me the diesel argument we been thru that a million times.. FEMA STATED IT GOT ALL THE FUEL OUT.




[edit on 6/24/2008 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Take a look at WTC7's unique support structure and you'll have your answer, you're comparing apples and oranges here.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Of course I am...

Just like you guys compare a freeway overpass with WTC..

Here we are again.. it don't stand.. fire don't melt steel face it.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


So all those government agencies decided to pick a house of cards?

They also decided to put the terrorism bunker in a house of cards?

Not to mention reinforced to the hilt. Or so I've heard from Silverstein.

BTW, I'd love to study the unique foundation of WTC 7. Got the plans?



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
No one has been able to prove that WTC 7 came down with anything but controlled demoltions.



How does a 47 story building collapse without destroying building feet away?



No doubt about it, World trade center 7 was brought down by controlled demolitions.















Building 7's Rubble Pile


Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

* its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building


What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?

Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features. 1
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.
www.wtc7.net...




Great, we all agree that WTC 7 was controlled demoltions.

Anyone care to entertain us with their wild idiotic, tabloid type of conspiracy on how World trade center 7 was brought down with anything but CONTROLLED DEMOLTIONS?


[edit on 24-6-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I'm somewhat weary of this. Anyone who has seriously studied WTC 7 has seen all these videos many times already.

First the topic title - MASSIVE fires. The fires don't get bigger by using capitals. Relative to many high rise fires they were both small and of short duration and were limited to the 11th and 12th floors.

Second - what difference does the size of the fires make? Big fires don't cause steel high rises to implode any more than small ones.

A basic knowledge of physics, construction engineering and the history of steel framed skyscrapers tells us they can be severely damaged by fire; that a fire burning hot and long enough can cause partial collapses (see Windsor Tower). It's not clear how much damage a fire could do to the central support structure of one of these towers if it was allowed to burn indefinitely. I assume there would be insufficient heat and fuel to have much effect upon it. There is no example of a high rise being gradually raised to the ground in this way.

More relevantly, we have no historical precedent (unless you count WTC 1, 2 or 7) nor any known physical mechanism for a fire (however severe) causing a high rise to implode (i.e. collapse precipitately and globally).

Compare and contrast:

47 floor WTC 7
Fire on Sept 11, 2001
Duration 6 hours

after collapse


38 floor Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia
Fire on Feb 23, 1991
Duration 19 hours
Was later demolished floor by floor with explosives.






56 floor Caracas Tower, Caracus
Fire on Oct 15, 2004
Duration over 17 hours





Sprinklers and standpipes reportedly did not function, due to poor maintenance. The intensity of the fire prevented firefighters from reaching the tower's upper floors. No floor beams collapsed.
Engineers who inspected the building's structure when the fire was out reported that it was "very solid."


32 floor Windsor Tower, Madrid
Fire on Feb 12, 2005
Duration almost 24 hours



This is what remained. The steel core did not disintegrate, but had to be disassembled column by column.




47 floor Al Salam Tecom Tower, Dubai
Fire on May 14, 2008 (tower was under construction)
Duration almost four hours
Construction continues on the tower.




[edit on 24-6-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Your post Ivan, as usual is not accurate. In the three videos you present. None of them show the entire collapse.

Heck though, I am used to it with you.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
As ThichHeaded had stated,"And dont give me the diesel argument we been thru that a million times.. FEMA STATED IT GOT ALL THE FUEL OUT."

And add the hundreds of arguements stating that debris from the collapse of the towers caused the fires and such.

Then why is emergency official Barry Jennings stating there were multiple "explosions" well before the collapse of the 2 towers?

Watch for yourself....



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


So all those government agencies decided to pick a house of cards?

They also decided to put the terrorism bunker in a house of cards?

Not to mention reinforced to the hilt. Or so I've heard from Silverstein.

BTW, I'd love to study the unique foundation of WTC 7. Got the plans?





Hi Griff,

I was wondering if you got the chance to read this article Single Point Of Failure.

This is a paper that was published in Structure MAgazine by two engineers. Ramon Gilsanz and Willa Ng.

I am interested in your opinion.

Thanks,

:TY:



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Well, it's a good theory.

I'm interested in knowing why on page 1 they state that FEMA and NIST formed a team to analyze WTC 7. Then they state that "the effort began with the collection of structural pieces". Hmm....that's not what NIST themselves say.


No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST’s possession.


wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I thought people searching for the truth

Yes, so let me fix that title for you:

"WTC-7 North Side PUNY Fires .... CBS News"



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
What happen to the Sprinkler System in the WTC7 to put out the
fires on those floors.

Also, the fire department had plenty of time to put out the fires. Were
talking about a building that housed alot of government agencies.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by im_being_censored
"WTC-7 North Side PUNY Fires .... CBS News"


That's what I was thinking; that video was anti-climactic for the OP's title.


I guess for someone not used to seeing any fire at all in WTC7 and already thinking it should have completely collapsed, it might look significant, but that's all I got out of this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join