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.

 

August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

page: 19
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
If someone could get the N.Y. City plans for this area? For the water mains in the streets, this is puplic and info. we should be able to get.

Not sure back when these buildings (WT7, 1 & 2) w'r built? but now-a- day's you need min. 2 watermains to supply a high-rise and/or a Tank at the top of the tower. This info. will help figure out if water shortage was a factor for WT7.

Your Canadian friend,
Sven




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Page 322/323 of NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment.PDF

shows stills and "difference frames" of the collapse of WTC7.

Apart from the bit of leaning in towards the center of the building, it looks just like any demolition would, only this time verified by NIST.

I say this because the building practically falls vertically. The only differences in angle shown by NIST are the do with the corners of the building, as they lean in towards the center of the build, but crucially, they remain near parallel to where they started out, all the way down (just like a demolition).

A true, random, building collapse couldn't do this. Bits would fall at different rates, pile up on top of each other, and it would be chaotic.

In addition, this collapse was just like WTC1 and WTC 2, where they all fell straight down in their entirety, in near-identical ways (and that isn't because they were near-identical buildings).

I think NIST have successfully concluded that this isn't as it appears.

I also note that the examination of the actual collapse appears over 3/4 of the way into the document, in the last 80 pages!!!

I've yet to read what they have to say about this phenomenon, but no doubt it will be an insult to my intelligence.


EDIT TO ADD:

Page 334/404:


Table 5-3. Timeline for major WTC 7 collapse observation.

-3 sec = Dust and/or smoke are observed being pushed across West Broadway from the east side of the building.


-3 seconds before collapse is visible?

HOLY ****!!




[edit on 24-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
If someone could get the N.Y. City plans for this area? For the water mains in the streets, this is puplic and info. we should be able to get.


Here is some info on water mains and water supply.

www.firehouse.com...

We had fire in 50 and 7 World Trade Center. We had fire in 90 West. We had a smaller fire in one of the apartments in Battery Park City that we dispatched companies up there to put out. We had a water supply problem because I remember the water main was broken. Actually, to get water over in our sector over there at West and Liberty we got one of the fireboats to draft for us. It turned out it was the retired John J. Harvey that started drafting for us. That�s what got us water.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
(and before people start criticizing said videos, they are perfectly legitimate scientifically, as it is a recorded observation - something that is very important, especially when dealing with stuff like this).


I agree totally.

And since the videos don't have the 130-140 dB blasts on them that would be there for explosives, this is scientific proof that no explosives were used.

Nice catch...



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


i am just curious how you can tell from watching a video that the proper recording equipment was in place, and in proper use, and that audio has remained untanished, in order to catch and then portray said blasts.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by re22666]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 



And since the videos don't have the 130-140 dB blasts on them that would be there for explosives, this is scientific proof that no explosives were used.

Nice catch...

Look at this then...




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

For 7, it was a lateral displacement. They call it "walk-off" I believe. It's figure 12-24, on page 219/382.


Moment frames are designed with lateral dispacement in mind I believe. I.E. Earthquake forces.



So would 5-6" (guessing until I see your figures) be enough to cause walk-off?


Actually, it's 2 inches on either side of the beam.



Ha ha! Miscommunication rules!!

No, here's what I'm talking about, as far as lateral displacement, or "walk-off".

i286.photobucket.com...

The floor beams coming from the left are the 50 fters. The end not seen is butted into the ext columns, and since only an idiot would suggest that an exterior column, designed to carry about 1/120th of the 34floors of the building's load PLUS wind loads would only be as strong as a floor girder designed to carry only about 1/40th of a single floor, it's safe to say that 4" of push was on the end pictured.

ANyways, what it says is that the floor beams pushed the girder pictured off of column 79, resulting in the above floor to come down.

Hey, I also asked earlier in the thread about 7 being moment framed... you seem to affirm that here. So does that make your statement about a braced frame building falling to one side not applicable here, now?

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Yes, that's a perfect example of a video that shows absolutely NO EXPLOSIVE BLAST at the onset of collpase.

Another great find!

Starred!



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
(and before people start criticizing said videos, they are perfectly legitimate scientifically, as it is a recorded observation - something that is very important, especially when dealing with stuff like this).


I agree totally.

And since the videos don't have the 130-140 dB blasts on them that would be there for explosives, this is scientific proof that no explosives were used.

Nice catch...


let me try this again.

i am just curious how you can tell from watching a video that the proper recording equipment was in place, and in proper use, and that audio has remained untanished, in order to catch and then portray said blasts.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by re22666]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Thank you for that info...

Very interesting that with all that info on firehouse NOT ONE WORD on the fire panels? Monitoring systems etc. for ANY building.

Things are not adding up here for this WT7 and the status of the fire panels etc. (not to mention WT1 and WT2).

What time was WT7 struck with debri ? and on fire?

And please if someone can get this city water main info? even thow' will not have a big factor since they w'r able to bring water from the lake. But this info. will help, with other things' (times etc.).

Your Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by re22666

let me try this again.

i am just curious how you can tell from watching a video that the proper recording equipment was in place, and in proper use, and that audio has remained untanished, in order to catch and then portray said blasts.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by re22666]


Well, in MoD's video, we can see how quiet it was at the end, the FF could be clearly heard, so it follows that any explosive blast would be heard.

But you're right, this video was indeed tampered with, at least when I listen to it - there is no audio at the beginning. Of course I've seen other versions of this same video that did have audio, and indeed, on those, there is nothing.

So presumably, it's a troofer altering the video, trying to bolster claims that explosions couldn't be heard due to the noise of the collapse.

Of course, no one is saying the explosives going off DURING the collapse might be muted. But the RDX MUST be set off at the onset of the collapse. And there is none.

Great points!

You get a star too!



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by svenglezz
 


The only thing regarding fire panels that I can remember is a photo of the guys standing next to the panel in one of the towers. It was in the NIST report somewhere.... you'll need to find it yourself though, if you want to read what it says, LOL.

Ultima is correct for a change - they were indeed drafting from the river. There are photos of a few lines running after 1's collapse somewhere out there too, so this backs that up. They were hosing 7 with deluge nozzles from the exterior.

7's report has some info on fire alarms, etc, and when they went off. Not sure about the towers, but I would assume the same.

So whatever you're looking for, it's "out there" to some degree. You'll just have to do it yourself.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by re22666

let me try this again.

i am just curious how you can tell from watching a video that the proper recording equipment was in place, and in proper use, and that audio has remained untanished, in order to catch and then portray said blasts.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by re22666]


Well, in MoD's video, we can see how quiet it was at the end, the FF could be clearly heard, so it follows that any explosive blast would be heard.

But you're right, this video was indeed tampered with, at least when I listen to it - there is no audio at the beginning. Of course I've seen other versions of this same video that did have audio, and indeed, on those, there is nothing.

So presumably, it's a troofer altering the video, trying to bolster claims that explosions couldn't be heard due to the noise of the collapse.

Of course, no one is saying the explosives going off DURING the collapse might be muted. But the RDX MUST be set off at the onset of the collapse. And there is none.

Great points!

You get a star too!


do me a favor. go to a gun range. put any of the recording equipment that was there that day the exact same distance away from you and a gun. now have the shooter talk while he fires the gun. now when you get your heaing back, go watch the video. now see how different frequencies are recorded on sound?
or take any of that recording equipment and set it between you and an explosion. put it closer to the explosion than yourself by a distance of half. no set it off. now when you get your hearing back, go watch that video and see how that sounds.
you will be quite amazed at how crappy video is in portraying real world sound. see, because it is VIDEO. and sound recording is a bit more complicated. just because you can see things ,does not mean you can hear things.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


So then all the troofer videos that try and prove that explosives were used should be disregarded since the audio on these devices aren't up to snuff?

I like your reasoning. A star for you too.

Are you a debunker?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   


i am just curious how you can tell from watching a video that the proper recording equipment was in place, and in proper use, and that audio has remained untanished, in order to catch and then portray said blasts.


Explosives would have blown out windows for considerable distances, not
only those in WTC 7, but in nearby Verizon building and in World Financial
Center across street. You can see from this video by Steve Spak
windows failing from heat of fires - most of the windows are intact


www.911myths.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by re22666
 


So then all the troofer videos that try and prove that explosives were used should be disregarded since the audio on these devices aren't up to snuff?

I like your reasoning. A star for you too.

Are you a debunker?



absoloutely they should be disregarded. they do not matter anyway, there is enough witness testimony, you already stated there were explosions all over so why would we need any video to prove it anyway?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
That so-called "tampered troofer (sic) video" (as you put it) isn't demonstrating the audio AT ALL.

You obviously missed the part where it clearly shows clouds of dust emanating from the as-yet non-collapsed part of the building, running vertically.

It isn't audio you're looking at there, it's visual. It's the whole point of the video.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Just to show what a crock the official events surrounding WTC7 are, watch this video:




...and you can also imagine the difficulties faced by the emergency services on the streets of Manhatten, as they try to conduct their rescue efforts not knowing which of any of the buildings around them is also likely to collapse, in just that way.


He obviously wasn't in the news studio just 15 minutes before when they were reporting on its collapse ahead of time!!


Note carefully the time stamp in the corner of the picture - 2234 UTC = 1734 in NYC.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
That so-called "tampered troofer (sic) video" (as you put it) isn't demonstrating the audio AT ALL.

You obviously missed the part where it clearly shows clouds of dust emanating from the as-yet non-collapsed part of the building, running vertically.

It isn't audio you're looking at there, it's visual. It's the whole point of the video.


Dust? Ha ha!!!!

Your "dust" gets expelled and goes.... nowhere.

If anything, it follows the building down in lockstep.

If it was dust, you'd see some vortex effects, but there's none.

EPIC FAIL.......



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


So the lack of explosions imply there was no explosion, but dont imply there wasnt thermate. So you keep parroting what was said without dealing with the real issue at hand. typical contra-twoofer mentality.

You dont mind that they averted the scientific method as long as it produces the results you want to hear.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join