Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Third Tower

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Ooooh an awful lot of fire,, huh.

And to thedman...just how did falling debris from a pancaking building get ejected so far like out of a cannon so it could stick like arrows into the buildings that far away...i guess its that amazing kinetic energy again...




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



I have little to add to this thread other then a FYI of a media campaign going on in NY about building 7. It is directing people to buildingwhat.org. Surely this will open peoples eyes to the fact that fire can't melt a steel building.

Rhain



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Rhain
 



It is directing people to buildingwhat.org. Surely this will open peoples eyes to the fact that fire can't melt a steel building.



You are right,
and this will help people who have not heard about WTC 7.
The more people start to wake up, then the more uncomfortable pressure is put on our government to investigate the WTC destructions.

My opinion is, I do not trust our government to investigated 911, when circumstantial evidence points to an inside job and a major cover-up.

Hopefully, we will see a panel of top experts outside our government to be allowed to investigate the WTC, with subpoena power.
edit on 22-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


That so called "opinion" is judgement of professional engineer who examined building damage as part of
reconstruction effort at Verizon.....

What are you qualifications ?



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Are you forgetting that WTC towers were over 1300 ft tall (1368 ft for Tower 1) ?

Any debris dropped from upper floors had plenty of distance to accellerate and pick up speed.

Are you overlooking violence of the collapse ? As the upper floors impacted those underneath the steel exterior
columns were torn loose and ejected laterally .....

Or are you one of those idiots who say WTC collapsed in nice neat pile ?

Evidence says otherwise given the distance at which impact damage was recorded



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Are you forgetting that WTC towers were over 1300 ft tall (1368 ft for Tower 1) ?

Any debris dropped from upper floors had plenty of distance to accellerate and pick up speed.

Are you overlooking violence of the collapse ? As the upper floors impacted those underneath the steel exterior
columns were torn loose and ejected laterally .....

Or are you one of those idiots who say WTC collapsed in nice neat pile ?

Evidence says otherwise given the distance at which impact damage was recorded



Dream on buddy...however you are right about violence, incredible power of ejections are going on, by EXPLOSIVES.

Yeah man, so much weight is directly smashing down on something and somehow it is tearing loose and ejecting sideways despite being smashed DOWN,, seems you are the idiot...all that incredible mass is tearing it loose and then what,, just passing by ?? pieces of steel are not being dragged down to smash the rest of the building ??

The building looks just like an atomic bomb going off...but to you and your ilk it is ignored yet you expect me to believe chunks of building are just slingshotting off into the air is normal.

Your kind is full of rubbish, and we are not going to put up with it ever again...so get ready to be called on your crap on a daily basis...your CRAP.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I totally believe everything the government and the media told us about the events on 9/11.
I'm so glad we invaded Iraq before Saddam could use his WMD's on us, if Osama could do all this damage with boxcutters, just imagine what Saddam could have done with all those bad ole' WMDs.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I find it hard to trust a pic than has "composite image" clearly stated on it..
Why has it been altered? Looks a little off to be honest..



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
"So we go back to Fire Chief Hayden about the bulge witnessed by the NYFD."

Only one guy notices a three story (approx. 30 feet) bulge in WTC 7? And nobody bothered to snap a picture of this? Okey dokey.


"Also which side of the exterior are you talking about? Did you forget that a building has FOUR sides?"

How about all four sides? Watch out for those raging fires! I can probably roast some marshmallows with that fire, but for it to cause a global symmetrical collapse of a 47 story steel framed modern skyscraper, maybe in your wildest dreams.

Also, in the second video you posted, can you explain why there are only four floors (8,9,12,13 or whatever) which have windows blown out with fires and the other floors are practically untouched from the exterior, no broken windows, etc.? Is this how debris randomly falls onto another building? I know, maybe this debris from the two towers was remote controlled to only affect those four floors on WTC 7. Or maybe the alien space lasers guided this debris to only those four floors.



"Wow, is right! Just when I was about to give up hope on GoodOlDave, he has a breakthrough. I guess we could see it coming, back when he was calling truthers trusters"

It's called burnout and it is a common condition when you are no longer able to keep your lies straight.

If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. ~Mark Twain



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
"I find it hard to trust a pic than has "composite image" clearly stated on it..Why has it been altered? Looks a little off to be honest.."


By definition a composite image is a photograph or other image that is made from the combination of multiple images merged into a single plane. I guess somebody forgot to Photoshop the text "Composite Image" out of that photo.


Do you really have to ask why it's been altered? What I would ask is couldn't they find another flunky graphic designer with basic skill in using Photoshop to do a better job?

Anyway, thanks for the fake photo, even though it is quite a painful eyesore for someone who has knowledge in proper Photoshopping techniques.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



That so called "opinion" is judgement of professional engineer who examined building damage as part of
reconstruction effort at Verizon.....

What are you qualifications ?



www.ae911truth.org...

Care to dispute their science with me?
This is not just “opinions” they are supported by real science.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Man, I notice the "composite Image" tag...
You quote me and get the stars???
That's a conspiracy I's tell ya!!



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Is it too soon to be mentioning the huge high rise fire in china?
Ithink it was in Shanghai but it is the worst looking blaze ive ever seen....perhaps some comparison can be drawn structurally, between the buildings?
I realise it was a horrific loss of life....
The fires in WTC7 are puny by comparison.
From what ive heard the office furniture fires cannot even come close to melting or weakening steel in such a short burn time if ever....
The fires were not raging throughout all the floors....
Why and how dave, did this building collapse so swiftly into its own footprint?What about the firefighters who experienced explsions?
Why did the BBC announce twenty minutes in advance of it happening, that WTC 7had already collapsed!?
What of the testimony of the army ordinance Colonel who survived the pentagon indicate she smelled cordite after the explosion, rather than jet fuel etc....?
Why are there no wing marks on the pentagon walls?
Why did the pentagon lawn not have giant skidmaarks from the engine nacelles?
How do you account for the presence of wire spools against the base of the walls of the pentagon when a catastrophic crash should have scattered them like nine pins?
Why do the base of the walls where the plane went in, look blown outward in photos?
Why have separate scientists now found thermate residue in the WTC dust, and steel?
Why did Cheney fail to order defense of the pentagon?When he had ample warning?
(See testimony of govt official attending bunker...lou minetta perhaps?)
Who were the people or agencies bought put options on certain stocks to reap millions?This happened world wide, and why is there not an interpol investigation of this alone?This is inssider trading on a massive scale, and forknowlkedge of the plot would be required to make such a number of concerted moves over the wotld financial markets....
These crooks made money off this murder robbery, in most of the major markets of the world......
20 countries minimum....There is evdence of this in somebodys hands....
Why is the investigation by the securities and exchange commission not taking place?
The aftermath of 9/11 has shown consistently that the goverment, has blocked honest inquiry at every turn.Their analysis is faulty and doesnt even begin to examine the circumstances .in an unbiased manner....
The amount of obfuscation by these agencies, which ultimately are here to protect us...leads any rationa;l person to doubt the OS, and begin to doubt a lot of other stuff weve been told too.........
And here i add i think the smoking gun is NOT WTC 7.....
It is the put options and the trades on the stock markets that are ultimately traceable to their buyers with ease....!
What about those who made immense profits by just knowing in advance and making phone calls to their brokers?
Who are these bastards that watched themselves become millionares many times over as they watched towers tpple and the people die?
These are people who could have easily been summoned to tell how they knew....
NOBODY truthers or trusters eben talks about it....
.....



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I asked for YOUR qualifications , not Richard Gage and his clown show.......



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


So explain if debris can not travel that far why the standard for collapse zone around a building is MINIMUM of
1 1/2 times the height of the building. At WTC the danger zone would have been at least 2000 ft for this reason

It is to protect people and equipment from flying debris which can fly for considerable distances

Did you READ the engineering report from Columbia University detailing the damage caused by flying debris ?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



So we go back to Fire Chief Hayden about the bulge witnessed by the NYFD."

Only one guy notices a three story (approx. 30 feet) bulge in WTC 7? And nobody bothered to snap a picture of this? Okey dokey.



So you dont want to believe the statements of preofessional Fire fighters . As per protocol had set up a
surveyors transit to watch the building for signs of movements. After watching bulge on Southwest corner
begin to expand determined that WTC 7 was becoming unstable. Is reason established collapse zone and cleared area around WTC 7

As for photographs - FDNY was a little busy that day . Even if had photographs your crack team of analysts
in mommy's basement would find reason it was faked.....



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



So, let’s look at what science has to say instead of he said, she said and assumptions, opinions, ...


Science ? Since when , has stacking cardboard boxes on top of each other , to represent the collapse of a 110 story building , become accepted as "science" ?

You link to a 'truther' site , that is chock-full of "he-said , she-said and assumptions , opinions ..." and you somehow attempt to equate this with Science ?

Your double-standard hypocrisy has gotten very old . yawn .



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 



and FIRE cannot melt steel. it takes a mixture and of oxy/acetalene and a torch to concentrate the flame just to cut steel open flame CAN NOT melt steel so the fires are meaningless.


Please humor me for a moment and show me some PROOF of molten steel .

I don't want to see clips of the material that is falling from the corner of the tower , I don't want to see clips of firefighters who say they saw material that LOOKED LIKE molten steel , I don't want to see those FAKED photos of firefighters peering into the FAKED brightness , and I don't want to see the questionable image of the glowing material in the clamshell . Funny , I can't find that image anywhere other than truther sites . hmmm ...

No , I don't want to see any of the above , as I have seen it thousands of times , and none of it actually PROVES molten steel . Show me something that proves it . Show me a re-solidified chunk of molten steel . DO NOT show me images of the meteorite . That is NOT a chunk of molten steel . That is a chunk of several materials that so happens to contain pieces of steel which , by the way , have not been molten . This chunk should not be called 'The Meteorite' anyway , it should be refered to as a 'fulgurite' .

So , go ahead , show me something from WTC that has been proven to be re-solidified steel . Prove to me that steel melted from those fires .

Otherwise , it is pointless for you to ask us to prove how those fires melted steel , until you actually prove that steel was melted .

If steel was melted , you should be able to show me pictures of re-solidified steel . There are plenty of truthers on here who tout the same fairy-tale , maybe they can help you .

And by the way , loud noises do not always equal explosives . Anyone who has ever been around a fabrication shop can tell you that if plate-steel (or any other steel , for that matter) is dropped , it will sound like an explosion .

And those trucks you may have seen driving around town with the steel containers on the back , they are called roll-offs . If one of those trucks hits a pothole , or a bump in the road , or crosses a train track too fast , with an empty container on the truck , well guess what ? It sounds like an explosion .

Loud noises do not = explosions . Show me proof of molten steel .
edit on 23-11-2010 by okbmd because: ETA



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueFalse

as your link doesnt really work, ive searched for a picture of the alleged bulge.

are you reffering to this one ?



if yes, then please explain why the building didnt fall to the side, as the bulge was right on the corner of the building. The only possible way would be for it to tip to the side... PLease explain how it was able to fall in the manner it did...


I'm not referring to any photos of the bulge, I'm referring to the Deputy Fire chief Hayden's eyewitness account of what was happening to WTC 7. Up until now, the truthers have been relying on vague, one sentence snips of eyewitness accounts, but here's a full blown interview of what he saw in detail and it's crystal clear as it gets. I'm being told to listen to the eyewitness accounts and I'm doing it, so how about YOU answering the question that sparked this whole topic to begin with- if the fires were able to cause such blatant visible structural damage like this, then why wouldn't it have caused similar unseen damage further inside the structure?

As for the specific moment by moment physical mechanics of the progression of the collapse of WTC 7, sorry, can't help you there. Nobody knows that. not even NIST, so if you're getting to the point where you have to resort to arguing over minute details of whether some specific brick should have fallen 50 feet away vs 75 feet away, or whether a specific column should have fallen left vs fallen right, this isn't research. This is grasping at straws in the hopes you'll still be able to find your hidden conspiracy "somewhere" in the mix, the harder you look. Regardless of whether you subscribe to these conspiracy stories or not, one thing is certain- you're not going to find evidence of it by arguing whether a brick should have fallen 50 feet away vs 75 feet away or whether a column should have fallen left vs fallen right.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
This may be a stupid question, but how does Mr. Jennings' eyewitness account prove the claim that there was a three story bulge in WTC 7? Why would there be all this damage to the interior lobby of WTC 7, while the exterior of the building only showed some isolated fires on about four floors? Could it be that the damage to the interior lobby of WTC 7 was cause by bombs within that building?


It doesn't It proves there was massive damage to the building before it collapsed, which the truthers are religiously denying for their perverse "no planes hit WTC 7" propaganda. A plane may not have hit WTC 7, but it's perfectly obvious that wreckage from WTC 1 *did* hit WTC 7...unless you think King Kong really did come through the WTC 7 lobby and wrecked the place, as Jennings described the damage as looking like...?

The bombs excuse is getting tired. It's blatantly obvious there were fire fighters, police, rescue workers, reporters, etc, and Jennings himself said the lobby was chock full of such people. Not a single person seems to know anything about any massive explosion in WTC 7 powerful enough to take out the lobby before WTC 1 collapsed, and it's ridiculous to claim everyone in Manhattan simply just forgot about it.

WTC 1 was just flipping huge, and when it fell, falling wreckage even smashed up a church several blocks away. Why is anyone even argung over such a ridiculous point?.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join