They are now saying that WTC 7

If it was only dust, then what caused all the damage to the south face.

Were the firemen lying when they described a twenty story hole in the building?

What according to your theory caused this?





Or are you trying to get us to believe that those are trick photographs?

Or will it be my favorite lie, that the smoke is actually from something else, it just appears to be coming from seven.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by LeftBehind]

LeftBehind that smoke is comming from WTC 1 and 2, according to the video you gave me, that smoke was being pushed towards WTC 7 by the wind, from WTC 1 and 2.

That smoke is not from the WTC 7 building.. Thank you... come again..



[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
that the smoke is actually from something else, it just appears to be coming from seven.

So you know the truth already?

Watch the whole thing.

When your done. Watch these two.

/f3tvd

/zg4un

Why do you think that the firemen are liars?

There was a large fire in building seven, no matter how much you'd like to deny it.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Watch the whole thing.

When your done. Watch these two.

/f3tvd

/zg4un

Why do you think that the firemen are liars?

There was a large fire in building seven, no matter how much you'd like to deny it.

I did watch the whole thing, and its proof that the wind was blowing towards WTC 7 south face. That angle is from behind WTC 1 and WTC 6 which were both on fire.

Also, there was only small fires in WTC 7. Not enough to make that much smoke. Just look at the charred windows on the side, there was smoke comming out of those at one point, but not anymore?

You videos are horrible angles, and you cant see that. The wind was blowing all the smoke from WTC 1 and 2 and 6 and other buildings, onto WTC 7 southface. Its obvious that you guys are reaching for any pictures and video that support your "official lies".


And those quotes can be faked, easly, get me proof they said it. Video proof.


On top of that, what are you trying to say...? Fires caused the collapse of the building?? Man you are running in circles, you still cant prove that its possible for a fireproofed modern skyscraper to collapse due to fire.



[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

If documented quotes and video are not good enough evidence for you, then you are not really interested in debating. It is absurd to demand video evidence for quotes.

I suppose all the firemen are in on it since they haven't come forward about their "fake" quotes, used in numerous websites, documentaries and reports.

I'm sure that video testimony does exist, however I have no interest in finding it for you, since I'm sure you'll respond that anyone could have made them.

you still cant prove that its possible for a fireproofed modern skyscraper to collapse due to fire.

It's entirely possible.

every modern steel-framed skyscraper that was subjected to these conditions has completely
collapsed:

Severe structural damage.

Damage to the thermal protection on its structural steel.

Enormous uncontrolled fires on multiple floors.

CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE

McCormick Fire

Determination of fire induced collapse mechanisms of multi-story steel framed structures.pdf

I'm curious as to why you think it's impossible.

Although if might be a little hard for you to explain anything with your extreme standards for evidence. It will be interesting though, to see you prove this with no links and only videotaped interviews.

Originally posted by BasementAddix
You guys dont remember the fallout when the buildings fell...the dusk and steel and everything else in the air blew out windows all around...and left holes in buildings adjacent to the towers...if you guys seen how close 7 was to the other two...then you'd know why it fell...hell...the hotel in front of the tower (which is huge) was tipping slightly and for a while thought to be in danger of collapsing...and its a hell of alot further away the 7 was....

How do you suppose the windows in area buildings were blown out,what kind of force would be needed to hurl big sections of steel beams through the air and stick into neighboring buildings?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If documented quotes and video are not good enough evidence for you, then you are not really interested in debating. It is absurd to demand video evidence for quotes.

CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE

McCormick Fire

Determination of fire induced collapse mechanisms of multi-story steel framed structures.pdf

I'm curious as to why you think it's impossible.

It's typical for you to link to two unfireproofed buildings that collapsed. The toy factory was not a perminant building, and also was not built to code, and also was over croweded with people. You should do your homework before you link...

www.wsws.org...

Companies such as Kader Holdings need to move their operations rapidly to take advantage of the newest areas of low-cost labour. That it why the Kader factory outside Bangkok was never intended to be a permanent structure. Cheap shoddy buildings, which failed to meet even the minimal Thai construction requirements, were simply packed to overflowing with workers and machines. Elementary safety precautions were deemed to be unnecessary overheads.

The other building was also un-fireproofed.

Show me a modern, perminent, fireproofed, designed to withstand fire,major storms, earthquakes, and much more, building that has collapsed due to cosmetic damage and fire...


also.. wow... look at this proof of explosives used on 9/11 from firefighters.. wow.. not a quote, but video EVIDENCE. My evidence is stronger than yours? I believe so...

Google Video Link

...can you say.. owned?





[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

Ok, heres one, although there was much more than cosmetic damage.

WTC 7

Not that it really matters. It's a logical fallacy to argue that because something never happened before it is impossible.

I'm sure you have some evidence that there was only "cosmetic damage" on a building with multi-story fires burning city blocks worth of office space.

Right?

BTW, you still haven't answered why you think the firemen are all liars and/or in on it.

Please explain how reports of explosions in a burning building equate to explosive demolition.

CD's use multiple bombs sequentially, not lots of little bombs.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I'm sure you have some evidence that there was only "cosmetic damage" on a building with multi-story fires burning city blocks worth of office space.

Right?

BTW, you still haven't answered why you think the firemen are all liars and/or in on it.

Once again your link is not working, it gives me all WTC 7 pictures, which one are you refering too?

Also, I did not call any firefighters liars, stop saying that!!! I'm saying that your quotes can be faked!!! YOU GOT THAT?!?!!


Here is cosmetic damage that the firefighters were talking about that was "storys high".

www.kolumbus.fi...

That is cosmetic.

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Please explain how reports of explosions in a burning building equate to explosive demolition.

CD's use multiple bombs sequentially, not lots of little bombs.

Now you are reaching....

Bombs in the building period, need to be explained. I am not the mastermind to 9/11. For all I know, they put lots of little bombs in key places, and set them off one at a time untill the building collapsed. Maybe to hide the explosive sounds better? People would notice multiple bombs sequentially, like the firefighters in the second video explain. They probably set little bombs off at different times to slowly weaken the building to make it look like it came down because of the jets, or fire.... or in WTC 7 case, cosmetic damage and small fires..

The firemen quotes are not faked.

If you insist on saying that the damage to 7 was "cosmetic", then you are calling all the eyewitnesses to the severe damage liars.

Lots of things that aren't bombs can make loud noises that sound like explosions. Those are in no way proof of bombs.

The only thing those prove is that they heard loud noises.

They probably set little bombs off at different times to slowly weaken the building to make it look like it came down because of the jets, or fire

What was that you said about really reaching?




[edit on 27-1-2007 by LeftBehind]

LeftBehind is now on ignore again...

He has nothing good to say, and zero evidence..

link Heres a good link that explains the physics of the WTC collapses.(note the pic on page nine of the debris being ejected)

[edit on 28-1-2007 by crowpruitt]

Originally posted by JCMinJapan

Originally posted by JD_Fisha
Lets think here, we have loads of ATS members, surely we can work this out right? My question is why would the goverment "plan" away to bring down the WTC? They were America's Economy!

Ok, first, I am not really into the WTC conspiracy and have not really studied it. I am just replying to give an answer to this question. If investigating, you need to look at every angle. You say that it was America`s Economy. Was it? America still have the strongest economy now. Next, why would someone want to do it? Well..... Get rid of the Taliban? Go into Iraq? Get bills that infringed on personal rights passed quickly? Get world support for anything deemed terrorist or terrorist in general?

Just a few ideas that spring up off the top of my head. Like I said, I am not really into the conspiracy issue on this whole issue, all I know is that enough innocent people have died already on both sides of the fence. But, you did ask the question.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by JCMinJapan]

It's answered in "Who Killed John O'Neill?", a video the person obviously didn't bother to watch and do some research before asking questions.
video.google.com...

Here is some more proof from a fire dept website that state several other steel buildings that have had major fire and structural damage did not collapse even with fires that burned longer then any of the WTC fires.


www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Ultima none of those buildings were hit with a plane, and none of those buildings were hit by debris from a 100+ story building falling on them.


It doesn't really matter though. It is a logical fallacy to say that something is impossible because it never happened before.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If it was only dust, then what caused all the damage to the south face.

Were the firemen lying when they described a twenty story hole in the building?

What according to your theory caused this?

Or are you trying to get us to believe that those are trick photographs?

Or will it be my favorite lie, that the smoke is actually from something else, it just appears to be coming from seven.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by LeftBehind]

LeftBehind,

Look at the photos you posted carefully. The dark smoke that you claim is coming from WTC7 would have to be coming out of the building horizontally, parallel with the ground, for several hundred yards without rising above the roofline of WTC7. The dark smoke, imo, is in the foreground, and is rising in front of WTC7.

In fact, if you look carefully at the blackened windows of WTC7, there is no smoke at all coming from these windows. And if you claim that the smoke is coming from the lower windows on the west side of WTC7, I believe you would also be mistaken since the smoke would appear to be moving horizontally, and perhaps even downward, and not rising at all above the windows.

How could smoke possilby come horizontally out of the windows of WTC7 and not rise vertically above the building? In fact, there is not a single video of WTC7 collapsing that shows plumes of smoke rising along any face of the building. There is no dark cloud of smoke to be seen above WTC7 like there was at WTC1 or WTC2. If the still photos actually showed smoke pouring from WTC7 horizontally, then surely there would be videos to corroborate this that would show a cloud of black smoke rising directly above WTC7. There are not any videos to corroborate this that I know of.

Guess what was behind WTC7, where all that smoke was gathering?

The smoldering footprints of the Twin Towers, and these:



WTC4





WTC6




WTC5





WTC5 especially was right where all that smoke was rising. Obviously, a lot of smoke was coming from WTC5. Two and two is not that hard.

I'm not saying there wasn't any smoke coming from WTC7, but look at the flames you can see in WTC7 compared to the flames you can see in WTC5.

Fires also emit light, btw, and you can see them through smoke.




, with emphasis.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

WTC5

Also notice that the smoke in your pictures is billowing up vertically out the windows. Not horizontally out the windows as shown in the WTC 7 pictures.