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 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
I said it DOESN'T result in SHEAR failures. How else do you think you're going to get a massive 47 story building moving at free-fall speeds? Did it sag to the ground? Really?

Perhaps you should re-read NCSTAR 1-9A.


Maybe YOU should and describe how exactly their mechanism works to me.

Here's a hint (from NIST):








Now as you look at these images of SHEAR failures, and think about them, and maybe realize how silly they are, do you feel like defending them to me if I start asking critical questions in relation to them? Or do you agree that NIST should have tested this mechanism in a lab, before just ASSUMING that this is what must have happened? Remember, still no proof of it whatsoever, unless somebody's word is now "proof."


This is not what NIST suggested nor tested.


Well I just posted images of NIST's theory from the PBS NOVA program, so now there is nothing to argue about.




posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



You don't see any damage?


No!


You're joking right?


Not at all.


Not only is there clearly debris and a missing section in the above photo,


Wow, someone convinced you to see something that’s not there.


but this corresponds to external damage progressing the whole length of the building.


No it doesn’t, that is your “opinion,” and I disagree with you.


Sure, no building exists in the area that could cast that shadow.


really, can you prove that?


You surely have googled around and found that no building exists that could possibly have cast that shadow, and what you are asking me to prove is a negative.


Negative! Were in this statement I ask you to prove a negative? How about answering my question that I ask you FIRST!


One cannot prove that photos have not been photoshopped, only whether they have.


No one knows what they are looking at. You only assume you are looking at gash. I see a straight shadow in a haze of smoke. No one has been able to prove what it is, furthermore, where’s the close ups of this alleged gash. Funny, how they got close up of the firer at all the three sides of the WTC, but not the side of this allege gash. No my “opinion” the photo is photo shopped. Funny, how they got the photos of close up of the building gash across the street and the building stood. Funny, they had “ ALL DAY ” to film or take close up pictures of this “alleged gash on WTC 7.


Perhaps you should go and talk to the firefighters who viewed WTC7 with their own eyes,


You mean all the firemen that went on record, who saw explosions and flashing going around the WTC as they were exploding to pieces, hurling steel girders and still beams hundreds of feet in the air. You mean these firemen that heard pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, and explosions in the basements of the WTC, you mean the explosions in the lobbies in all the WTC towers that these firemen all wittiness, and even caught on video before the WTC came down. Perhaps, you should go talk to these firemen who witness the demise of the WTC with their own eyes.


perhaps you should admit you are wrong


If I am wrong I can admit, because, I am a grown up. However, I know that I am RIGHT! but, this thread is not about me is it.


and indeed WTC7 was damaged by debris impacts from WTC1.


No, you are wrong. All the WTC were blown to pieces and that is a fact.


[edit on 7-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 





It looks like we can count on you, Swampfox, being the staunch government story supporter that you are, as another person who is critical of the NIST report? Welcome to the ranks!


Again, reading something into the statement that just isnt there. Tezzie, Im not critical of the report. I say it is an educated guess because to have a comprehensive report, the building would have had to been full of sensors to show exactly what was going on inside the building, without them, ANY report is going to be an educated guess.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Please show me some video of fires PRIOR to collapse and post them. This is complete fallacy also.

I posted 2 images showing fires in the lower levels of WTC7 and the towers are clearly still standing at least in the first image. I don't know what video would do other than show what I already posted. And I'm not sure if video exists of the fires before the collapse of the towers.



Originally posted by esdad71
Here is youir kink though....

I just went and watched a video of the full collapse and either you're not very researched or you just tried to pull a fast one on me which is very dishonest. First off, that is the Penthouse on top of WTC7 and not the actual roof like you and others have claimed. Secondly, there was never a kink in that Penthouse either.

The image you show is a still-shot taken during the actual collapse of the Penthouse on top of WTC7 which happened seconds before the complete collapse of WTC7.

I'm disappointed that you would resort to such dishonesty to try to prove a point which happens to be proven false. Here's a video of the collapse of WTC7. At :20 the Penthouse collapses and it is clear that there is no kink in it before it collapses:

video.google.com...



Originally posted by esdad71
Do you think you guys can kill a party on my boat...fat Chance...

I just killed the party and your boat just sunk. You have no credibility left. You should move on now before you make yourself look worse than you already have.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
You can see the gash in some photos:



But even NIST, who had access to tens of thousands of photos and video clips that were never released publicly, and had access to all the structural documentation which no one else has seen, admits this damage wasn't critical to the structure in any way.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


LOL,man, do you really think that anything you wrote discredits me? I should move on? You would like that then there is no one to offer an opposing view. I am talking to the OP.

Yes, the kink, as I had read, was visible for more than an hour. I clarifiy as I did not mean it was like that the entire 7 hours.

Nothing is sunk.....
Just wondering where you come up with this stuff. There is nothing wrong with the video you just choose to discredit it. Your choice. However, WHERE is ONE of the explosive detonators or caps or trace of squib from the collapse? Jsut one. There is no need to ship them to China as steel. Where are they? Just one....your boat just caught on fire....

This is no urban myth. We both use firefighters as examples of what happened so who is telling the truth?

NIST stated that is was not the damage from the WTC collapse that CAUSED the collapse but assisted it.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Yes, the kink, as I had read, was visible for more than an hour. I clarifiy as I did not mean it was like that the entire 7 hours.


I think you are confusing what the word "kink" refers to. It refers to this:



It served to direct the weight of that side towards the center of the building, minimizing how much fell outwards onto surrounding structures. Remember that WTC7 fell into all 4 surrounding streets and its center of gravity was still easily within its footprint. Similarly, if you describe its acceleration with a vector, the largest component would be a VERTICAL vector, not any horizontal one, etc.


But anyway, that feature was definitely NOT present for over an hour before collapse.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Tezzie,

You and pteridine must read from the same debunker manual, Swampfox. He called me tezzalini and you call me tezzie.

It's a well known, common debunker tactic to use personal insults against the poster, instead of attacking their arguments.

Both of your tactics are so boring and transparent, I don't know why you still persist with them.

As long as you think that they're working, then go right ahead!


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Im not critical of the report. I say it is an educated guess because to have a comprehensive report, the building would have had to been full of sensors to show exactly what was going on inside the building, without them, ANY report is going to be an educated guess.

Let me try and understand this. You admit that the NIST report is, in many instances, an educated guess - yet you're not criticial of it?

You're happy to accept hand-waved guesses in an official government report because that report agrees with your opinion?

Why do you appear to enjoy thinking up new contradictions for us to read on a regular basis, Swampfox?

At least in the above paragraph, Swampfox has admitted that it was only an educated guess that Column 79 failed. It might not have happened like that because it was inside the building and we don't know if it happened that way, according to him. Yet, despite that, there's no reason to be critical of the report - ahhh-huh.

Swampfox, I asked for them earlier in the thread, but has anyone been able to post the transit results taken for WTC 7? I've yet to see any proof that it was leaning all afternoon.


pteridine - it's been 39 hours now and I have not been able to access the NIST website to download that file. I hope that the NIST website servers haven't caught on fire.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Yes, the kink, as I had read, was visible for more than an hour.

So now you read it somewhere? In this post here you claimed the kink was there for hours. Now you change your story to say that you read it somewhere and now it's "more than an hour". Which is it? Why can't you keep your story straight? I told you you should've moved on before you make yourself look worse. Now look what you've done.


The image you showed in your post was taken from a video of the collapse in progress. There was no kink. Here's a close-up of the video I posted in my last post:

whatreallyhappened.com...



Originally posted by esdad71
WHERE is ONE of the explosive detonators or caps or trace of squib from the collapse?

You should ask the federal authorities who secured the area and started scooping up the debris within hours.



Originally posted by esdad71
NIST stated that is was not the damage from the WTC collapse that CAUSED the collapse but assisted it.

No NIST did not:


WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires...


Even without the structural damage WTC7 still would've collapsed. That means WTC1 had zero impact on WTC7 according to NIST.

You keep being proved wrong time and time again. Ready to move on yet?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezzie, is a pet name, if you dont like it, I will stop using it...

As for the report, they took the photos, the videos, the witness statements and came up with the most plausible explanation for what happened. I can accept that, because I know that for engineering investigations, they normally have all sorts of data from sensors, cameras, etc to help them determine what happened. For the WTC buildings....they dont have all that.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
dp removed


[edit on 7-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   


Swampfox, I asked for them earlier in the thread, but has anyone been able to post the transit results taken for WTC 7? I've yet to see any proof that it was leaning all afternoon


So talk to Peter Hayden



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So talk to Peter Hayden


Thanks for re-emphasizing that the only evidence that WTC7 was "leaning" is in fact hearsay. You have no idea what those guys saw, so you can't argue on behalf of them.

What we DO know, is that the entire building was NOT leaning. Maybe where it was damaged, sure, but the whole thing is obviously not leaning. If anyone wants to argue with that, they can post the photos.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Tezzie, is a pet name, if you dont like it, I will stop using it...

I don't ever recall being your pet, Swampfox.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So talk to Peter Hayden

See, that's where you lose credibility, again, Swampfox. In my OP, I explained to the ATS readers that you demand chain of custody for evidence, while Reheat demands that all claims need to be proven.

I asked the general ATS readers for proof about the alleged transit that was placed on WTC 7, hoping to have someone provide the data - yet all I get is your reply for me to 'talk to Peter Hayden'.

You have not supported your claim, Swampfox. You do not walk Reheat's talk when it comes to proving claims. Why?

If there was a transit placed on WTC 7, then where are the results? Is it such a taboo question for me to ask, that no one is willing to supply the results? Is it that difficult for some people to prove that WTC 7 was leaning, even though they claim that it was?

[edit on 7-6-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What we DO know, is that the entire building was NOT leaning. Maybe where it was damaged, sure, but the whole thing is obviously not leaning.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

Given that WTC 7 did suffer some damage to the SW corner, the localised area might have looked to be skewed or leaning, without a true straight edge to use for a reference.

I wouldn't blame some firefighters for thinking that WTC 7 was leaning, by visually inspecting the localised damage that they were seeing.

However, to make a claim that the whole building was leaning, all afternoon, requires far more proof than the eyewitness statements of a handful of firefighters at the scene.

Where are the alleged transit results?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Direct statements from the witnesses that were there is not hearsay.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


You're not the witness, though, so it IS hearsay.


If what's-his-name was on here defending himself, then it would be another story. YOU wouldn't be allowed to testify on his behalf in court, either. Also hearsay.

As it stands, all YOU have is hearsay. Come on, Swamp, you can see the freaking building in pictures and video all the way until the time it collapses. You aren't REALLY trying to say the whole thing was leaning for hours are you?

[edit on 7-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
And again, a failure to comprehend what was written strikes..




See, that's where you lose credibility, again, Swampfox. In my OP, I explained to the ATS readers that you demand chain of custody for evidence, while Reheat demands that all claims need to be proven.


As I have replied many, many, times when you post this, I posted that I had decided to act like truthers that day. Why you cannot understand or comprehend this I do not know.

As for creditability with the "truther" crowd not to worried about that...the only way I would earn that would be if I posted that I was a member of the conspiracy and was coming forward...THEN you would believe everything I said.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
As for creditability with the "truther" crowd not to worried about that...the only way I would earn that would be if I posted that I was a member of the conspiracy and was coming forward...THEN you would believe everything I said.

Well, you're part way there to becoming a truther.

You've admitted that the NIST report is just an educated guess and that we may never know if it was Column 79 that failed.

You're not able to prove anything about the alleged transit on WTC 7.

Maybe one day you'll start to ask your own questions in order to discover the truth about the building?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   


You've admitted that the NIST report is just an educated guess and that we may never know if it was Column 79 that failed.


Actually, I would say it is quite likely that column did fail. Whether it was the first to fail or the second or the third, I do not know.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join