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.

 

FOIA WTC-7 Video. No Question: MASSIVE FIRES!

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The following video puts to rest the claims that there were only "small fires" at WTC-7. As you will see there is amazing footage of the damages, fires, and smoke. At around the 5:15 mark of the video you can see that there is a massive amount of smoke billowing out of approximately 15 story's. The camera man zooms in on the fires and shows the incredible intensity.




+10 more 
posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Massive fires?
I see TWO floors on fire (which appear to be set) and billowing black smoke, which indicates a low-temperature, oxygen-starved fire. You actually think THIS caused WTC 7 to neatly collapse on it's footprint at free-fall speeds?

Do you understand that EVERY base support column would've had to fail within milliseconds of each other for WTC 7 to have collapsed the way it did?

Let's ask some REAL demolition experts to analyze the collapse of WTC 7:





Other Demolition Experts Questioning 9/11




edit on 9/13/2010 by GoldenFleece because: fixed links



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
That looks about like what my house looked like in December 09. We has a fire that put out volumes of smoke.. Only about 12 rafters and some plywood sheeting was destroyed by the fire, but the inside of the house was completely smoke damaged.. oh, wait.. wasn't that a steel framed building that collapsed? Strange, I don't see how.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Here we go with the straw man argument trying to say that fires caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Why are some people so naive?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 

Are you trying to imply that massive amounts of smoke means massive amount of fires? The video does not put to rest the claims that there were only "small fires".

These two videos show a massive fire without much smoke. How's that possible?





+15 more 
posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
And how is it possible that the Madrid Windsor building, the Beijing CCTV tower and the Hotel Mandarin (respectively) never collapsed...





...but WTC 7 did:





edit on 9/13/2010 by GoldenFleece because: fixed link



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
So you think that these fires were the first fires to ever collapse a steel frame building in the entire history of steel frame buildings...

Ok...

I rather side with the evidence I have seen that makes that story seem ridiculous.

But you want to believe that those "small" (yes I said small as you can plainly see in your video that they were small) fires did what no other fire in the history of "fire" have done.

Fair...

But I strongly suspect you are wrong.










edit on 13-9-2010 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Thanks for posting those photos...
They REALLY put the concept of 'massive' fire into perspective.

I had to flag this thread for that reason alone!

Seems only lucky larry "Pull It" silversteins steel towers collapse due to fire...massive or otherwise.


edit on 14-9-2010 by TaZCoN because: eta



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Sigh, why do people argue about building 7?

Fire melts steel.

But only the steel inside of WTC 1,2,7.

The rest of the steel in the world is perfectly safe from fire.

Oh look, it's raining doughnuts!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
is it just me or doe these fires look very uniform in shape its like to rows on to floors and all the windows above andbelow
are fine to me it looks like something started the fires from inside these floors and blew the windows out of the sied
floors
well that what it looks like to me



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
This is great evidence for a pyroclastic flow emanating from the collapse of the WTC towers. The air must have been superheated to burn those vehicles to a crisp which could not happened in the official version of why the towers collapsed.

As for building 7 those fire hardly look hot enough to bring down a steel frame skyscraper, nor did I see significant damage to the building from the collapse of the towers. Dark smoke is indicative of an oxygen starved fire, not a raging inferno. Same goes for the towers - as the fires were dwindling down they suddenly collapsed. Science is proven untrue for the third time in one day.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
If fire can weaken steel to a point that it would get soft and weaken. Than why is it that when I fire up the BBQ grill, the steel I put the meat on never melts and my grill never falls to the ground?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Wow, this thread has just got everything. Night pictures of external fires compared with day pictures of internal ones. People claiming that hundreds of square metres of fires aren't big. People denying that steel can be damaged by fire.

Please, if you are going to try and make ridiculous claims like this, at least do the research so you don't come across as completely ignorant.

Fire damages steel within minutes. Fireproofing is applied to steel to prevent this. Fireproofing has a number of hours rating which indicates for how long it will protect it. WTC7s steel did not melt to fail, it was simply heated a few hundred degrees.

If you want to remain ignorant then there's nothing I can say or do to help you, but the truth is actually available to you right now. All you have to do is stop congratulating yourself while thinking you're better than the 'sheeple' and instead do some actual research and investigation.

If even a single one of you changed your mind and actually agreed with the facts available. I would consider that a victory.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I am not sure I understand what you are saying......

Regardless the video is not proof of anything. Fires alone did not cause that building to collapse. If you watch it collapse you can see that it was CD.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Those were my thoughts. How were all of those cars - out on the streets - melted like that?
Has that ever been addressed? If so, can someone tell me please? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
did anyone hear the pow pow pow...pow pow pow... pow pow pow! then in the second seen when the cam is filming the "big fire" thud thud thud...thud thud thud. this could be the sounds of the columns being "pulled" or some one is shooting a 75 mm cannon, just my hearing i guess.


edit on 14-9-2010 by bekod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Those were my thoughts. How were all of those cars - out on the streets - melted like that?
Has that ever been addressed? If so, can someone tell me please? Thanks.


Been wondering the same thing... I have never seen a reasonable answer.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mecheng
 


Here's a thread on the melted cars by Sauron from a couple of years back - www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Here is also a post i did a while ago in 07... same thing about the cars I have been curious about this alot..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are busses and such that caught fire blocks from the incident area which leave one to wonder how those vehicles caught fire..



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Wow, this thread has just got everything. Night pictures of external fires compared with day pictures of internal ones.

Not sure what you mean by "external" fires, but if you want day photos, I'm happy to oblige:

Parque Central, Venezuela fire:



Windsor, Spain fire:


Yep, still no collapses from ANY steel-framed skyscraper fires, day or night.


Originally posted by exponent
If even a single one of you changed your mind and actually agreed with the facts available. I would consider that a victory.

Don't hold your breath. People aren't as gullible as you think.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join