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.

 

Image Of WTC 7 Shows Core Columns Neatly Piled after Demolition.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
This image is rare for I have not seen it. It show the core columns of the 47 story Building 7 that was part of the WTC complex. They are neatly piled as they look like they were demolitioned to failed at every floor. This building fell in a controlled manner around 5pm.


Amazing pic. Hard to believe that this was not controlled demolitioned and that it was caused by just fire. Impossible.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Good job finding this pic.

Very interesting indeed.

I must admit that fire must have been big, and very "explosive", and very strategically placed.

Crazy how those fires are eh?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Why ?

Once building loses structural integrity gravity will take over and pull building down - center of building fell first, as shown by penthouse on
roof falling first before rest of structure follows it




Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large—particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."


If was "controlled demolition" why no sounds of explosions? Hokey Smokes Bullwinkle - must have been using silent explosives!




Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


If it was gravity .

There would be buildings falling daily, fires in high rises , globally,

happen a lot.

link a few of those , and I might believe you , I'LL WAIT


(Whistles while waiting)

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Sean48]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I ams so with ya star !
Biggest question WHY yet to hear one real not fabricated answer i LIVE on long island right by NYC and i can tell ya the e suggestion that any thing other then two planes super heated jet fuel destroying the towers core and causing debris to fall on surrounding buildings igniting them is nothing short of an insult my brothers office is like four blocks from the WTC and my cousin a family freind were first response EMTs seen in the lobby video found(he died) you can clealry hear how the building fell from the top down and see it !! also there is absolutely no eyewiness testimony to support any explosions .the folks in the floors directly under the impact know what happend it was hit by an AIRPLANE!! full of fuel like a welding torch it burned right through to the core and weekend the structures main support.
The building seven fire burned all day !! the firefighters evacuated cause of many reason no water pressure for one and the building was damaged so severly they stated it was a total loss that would collapse??? and it did wheres the conspiracy ??? my own brother lied to me are you kidding. There are easier ways to start a war then killing thousands on your own soil and risking getting caught come on ???? seriuosly WHY????



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This image is rare for I have not seen it. It show the core columns of the 47 story Building 7 that was part of the WTC complex.


Ya mean the columns on top? The reddish ones?

Those would be exterior columns. One face of the ext columns were faced in red granite.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by triplescorpio
 


But the other side can say your refusal to investigate further is an even bigger insult to your so called "brothers and sisters" who died.

So honestly you could be totally wrong and actually helping their murderers.

Enjoy sleeping tonight with that one.

Nah, I doubt you will even consider it. I can tell already.

Honestly, there is NO way to know what happened. None.

How do you know what caused the structure to collapse anyways? You heard no explosions but that does not discount the many different ways of doing it silently.

Like putting a chemical on the steel that eats through it. That would be very silent.

Anything could be true when simply speculating. Your closed mind and hardened heart keeps you from ever realizing this I suppose.

There could be 100 different explanations to WTC7. I am glad you are convinced that only 1 of them is reasonable. Too bad you are short sighted.

Seriously WHY???



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This image is rare for I have not seen it. It show the core columns of the 47 story Building 7 that was part of the WTC complex.


Ya mean the columns on top? The reddish ones?

Those would be exterior columns. One face of the ext columns were faced in red granite.


I think he was referring to the columns visible on the bottom-left-middle area of the photo. I am just guessing though.

They are sticking out towards the left, from the huge pile in the center.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash


I think he was referring to the columns visible on the bottom-left-middle area of the photo. I am just guessing though.



The floor beams then?

How were these columns id'ed?

Wild guess?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


what is wrong with you a family freind of twenty years is the deceased in question i call him my cousin cause his mother is like my aunt. My brother is fine and unlike you who is probably a thousand miles away he saw the plane hit the building burn and.. You really dont like to hear that there might be no conspiracy research further so i can prove any idea i fabricate.

Maybe aliens did it

good luck youll be proving your conspiracy for a long time to come.....
so everything is a conspiracy correct?do you think the sky is falling



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


now i have a hardend heart and im closed minded your the one in the 9/11 clique sure it was metal eating acid so to what purpose was this great conspiracy im so blind to the war in iraq our govrnment would collapse if it was ever found to be guilty of something like 9/11 and that would benefit them how. and all the people in and around the train center must be blind to what imaginations the witnesses have you should find one and tell them they were imaging it all.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by triplescorpio
 


Honor your dead

Learn

Do some research



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

If was "controlled demolition" why no sounds of explosions? Hokey Smokes Bullwinkle - must have been using silent explosives!



Demolition does not necessarily imply that explosives were used. Thermite does not work by the force of explosion by through extreme heat that cuts the core columns. Which then coincidentally or not fall into a neat pile just the one shown above. If not taken down by thermite it looks remarkably similar to a building that had been brought down with it.

If coincidences only weighed one ounce each 9/11 would still have TONS of coincidences that ocurred ONLY on that on particular day.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by triplescorpio
 


The person is talking about WTC 7

Get with the program.......



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I could be wrong but as far as I've been able to confirm the only reason that thermite was put forward as a possible explanation is to satisfy the distinct lack of destructive explosions (IE it's quiet enough). The main problem is that thermite is used primarily for constructive purposes (welding) because it produces molten iron and it's very unpredictable in terms of speed so co-ordinating thermite induced failures on a large scale just isn't feasible as the first induced failures would re-weld themselves before the last ones completed. Also thermite does not act sideways so cutting vertical columns with it is going to be a challenge.

Do you have any example of large buildings being demolished with thermite to supply some sort of precedent?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I could be wrong but as far as I've been able to confirm the only reason that thermite was put forward as a possible explanation is to satisfy the distinct lack of destructive explosions (IE it's quiet enough). The main problem is that thermite is used primarily for constructive purposes (welding) because it produces molten iron and it's very unpredictable in terms of speed so co-ordinating thermite induced failures on a large scale just isn't feasible as the first induced failures would re-weld themselves before the last ones completed. Also thermite does not act sideways so cutting vertical columns with it is going to be a challenge.

Do you have any example of large buildings being demolished with thermite to supply some sort of precedent?


Actually , Thermite is being talked about because it was found in trace
amounts in the dust and debris.
A byproduct of Thermite is it is a quiet "burn', and it wont reweld, it turns
the metal to liquid, like the pools found in the bottom of the debris pile.

There are no other CD to compare it to. The use of thermite is not used
in a normal CD job. Normal CD jobs would have no need to be quiet
or stealth in their bring down of the structure, also the thermite would take
months to cool down because it is a chemical burn, again , like was the
case at the WTC ground zero site.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


If you're talking about the Steven Jones 'chips', they seem to remain unsupported to date as evidence of anything other than primer paint.

Thermite produces liquid iron at about 2500C which is highly effective for welding steel and iron pieces together - it solidifies as it cools but fuses its way into the surface of the metal forming a strong connection. Still commonly used for welding railway tracks together. To demolish a building with it you'd need to burn right through every critical connection at the same time so the sections can be separated before any of the breaks re-welded and that's a very short timeframe if you consider the heatsink effect of large steel components.

The reaction isn't explosive but only takes minutes at most to complete and the molten iron will cool just as fast as iron melted via any other means. Thermite does not explain the temperature or duration of the underground fires and thermal scanning of the hotspots revealed temperatures only half that required to melt steel at most so no, thermite was not a factor in the underground fires.

The only thing that fits for thermite here is the 'quiet' part, it has far more factors against its use in these building failures.

[edit on 17/1/2010 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I.m always willing to learn.

What could make molten metal flow, months after?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


What could make molten metal flow, months after?


At the risk of making a very short post I'll say 'heat' and there's no argument about the fires existing I hope.

That and the metal being melted of course but the main point is that thermite does not burn for months, not days or even hours



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
Actually , Thermite is being talked about because it was found in trace
amounts in the dust and debris.


actually, it was not.


A byproduct of Thermite is it is a quiet "burn', and it wont reweld, it turns the metal to liquid, like the pools found in the bottom of the debris pile.


another problem, there was actually no molten pools of metal found. - if there were, where are the photo's of solidified metal? They could not remove the "molten" metal any other way.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join