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.

 

They are now saying that WTC 7

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Anyone else notice this? What is that? Is it the building facade? I don't think it's the facade because we are looking at the building orthogonally and the south facade would have a slight diagonal to it opposite what we see on the west facade there. Anyway, what is that?





posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Looks like a copyright that's been faded for whatever reason. The last word is "Photos".


Originally posted by Griff

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.


Good call, and I hope mods won't care if I quote this much so that posters won't have to go back a page to reference these images. People tend to forget about WTC4, 5, and 6, especially since they were of steel construction, much WEAKER steel construction (both relatively and absolutely; skyscrapers are built with more redundancy for obvious safety reasons), and suffered the fires seen, but did not collapse except in localized areas from warping, and only after some hours of fire.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Looks like a copyright that's been faded for whatever reason. The last word is "Photos".


I'm actually talking about the part of the facade that I have circled.

After looking at it a little more, it could be the facade. I have drawn in what I think would be the window "lines" of the facade. See what you think compared to the original.



Could be nothing but could also be something.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
www.nytimes.com...


Steve Mosiello and Chief Turi told me they had
been looking for Chief Ganci. They thought they knew where
he was, unsuccessfully, and they were going back to - I
walked back down to the area where he was and sometime
after that they found Chief Ganci. He was like the first
person that I knew of that they found in the rubble. He
was somewhere across West Street from the Trade Center.
The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate
at the scene until probably somewhere around

www.nytimes.com...

here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I
S
guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to

S get everybody out of there.,
S
Q. Initially when you were there, you had said

5 you heard a few Maydays?
? A. Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.
S
Q. You were getting radio transmissions?
S A. There were people talking. The guys Iíve
S
talked to that were with us heard voices and were
? shouting to people. We had heard pass alarms, but then
a
we didnít hear voices, no more pass alarms. The heat
S
p must have been tremendous. There was so much #ing

S fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy.
S
Just the heat and the smoke from all the other

? buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything.

So it took us a while and we ended up backing
p
p everybody out, and thatís when 7 collapsed. Then,

? basically, after 7 collapsed, I went over and told the
I
p Chief that -- by then they had companies with

I handie-talkies, masks. Youíve got to remember, the

first 200 guys went in there with no handie-talkies, no


www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: Which building was that?

Visconti: Building 6. So I had put a battalion chief with each of the groups that went into 6. I kept trying to talk to him, walking over there, walking down a little bit into the ramp they went down, the door they went down into and how are you doing? You know we�re trying, we can�t find it.

I don�t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn�t see any fire at that time.

I kept walking back and forth. I walked over to where Rescue 1�s rig was underneath the bridge and over to that area. There were people trying to make access. They were trying to search. What I didn�t mention when I was walking down West Street, all the paper and debris in the street. I said what the hell is this from, but there was a tremendous amount of papers. When you walked you were kicking papers and checks and there was dust, real thick dust all over the place, and everybody was covered. Anybody that was there when the collapses occurred was covered in this dust, so I must have looked relatively clean.


Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they�re not trying to put this fire out? I didn�t realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we�ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that�s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you�ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we�ve got to get those people out of there.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'm actually talking about the part of the facade that I have circled.


Nevermind then lol, you have better eyes than me anyway apparently. The only thing I can make out about that smoke is that it's blowing South as soon as it reaches the top of WTC7.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Yeah, that's actually around the 30th or so floor. I was going for that if it was the facade, it is an entire facade (i.e. no structural damage to that part of the facade). But even if it is, that part of the facade wasn't suppossed to be damaged anyway. So, back to square one.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
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.
\

Well your partially wrong, they did not get hit by a plane but they did suffer structural damage from several hours of fires.

Its hard to believe that a lot of debris hit building 7 since the towers fell straight down and building 7 is at least a block away.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Griff, that is a watermark.

It says magnum photos like the other one in the upper left corner.

Ultima, how I can I be partially right about it?

The planes and debris caused damage before the fires. None of the buildings you presented suffered anything like that.

Why do so many of you think that the firefighters who described massive fires and massive damage at WTC 7 are liars?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ultima, how I can I be partially right about it?

The planes and debris caused damage before the fires. None of the buildings you presented suffered anything like that.

Why do so many of you think that the firefighters who described massive fires and massive damage at WTC 7 are liars?


You should read the post more carefully, you will see that the buidlings i posted suffered a lot of structural damage due to several hours of fires.

I am not saying the firefighters are liers but according to the statements they made in the FEMA report thier was only some basic damage to about 10 floors, floors 8-18.

And if thier was so much damage to the side of the buidling as you suggest why did the buidling collapse straght down and not fall to the side that was damaged ?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Griff, that is a watermark.

It says magnum photos like the other one in the upper left corner.


Can people not see where I drew on the south facade of the building? How can I be talking about the facade of the building in the upper left corner of the picture floating in mid air? Yes, I can read that it says Magnum Photos. I'm talking about the part of the facade, in the smoke, where I have drawn a box around.

Edit: I don't mean to sound irritated. I'm seriously asking if people can see where I drew on the picture.


[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why do so many of you think that the firefighters who described massive fires and massive damage at WTC 7 are liars?


We are not. We are not argueing whether there was damage or not. We are argueing whether asymmetrical damage causes symmetrical collapses.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
You might not be Griff, but the ones who claim all that smoke is from building six are calling the eyewitnesses liars.

How would assymetrical damage cause symetrical collapse?

Well, once a column or two in the middle failed, it brought down the middle of the building. This is observed when the penthouse collapses. This in turn brings the rest of the building down with it.

And the collapse was not as neat as some of you claim. It severely damaged the buildings around it, piling huge amounts of debris in the streets. Not exactly falling into it's footprint.

WTC 7 Lies.pdf



[edit on 30-1-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How would assymetrical damage cause symetrical collapse?

Well, once a column or two in the middle failed, it brought down the middle of the building. This is observed when the penthouse collapses. This in turn brings the rest of the building down with it.


So, you are saying that Controlled Demolitions, Inc. does it all wrong? They just need to fail a few columns in the middle of a building and the building comes down lickity split?


And the collapse was not as neat as some of you claim. It severely damaged the buildings around it, piling huge amounts of debris in the streets. Not exactly falling into it's footprint.


Can you show some pictures of this damage to other buildings (I'm not refuting you) and huge amounts of debris piles in the streets? Thanks.

Edit: nevermind, your link has done exactly what I asked.

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, you are saying that Controlled Demolitions, Inc. does it all wrong? They just need to fail a few columns in the middle of a building and the building comes down lickity split?


No. Controlled Demolitions makes buildings fall in a controlled manner to not damage other buildings. This is the opposite of what happened at 1, 2 and 7.



[edit on 30-1-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
No. Controlled Demolitions makes buildings fall in a controlled manner to not damage other buildings. This is the opposite of what happened at 1, 2 and 7.


Only if you want them to. If you want it to look accidental, then you don't need to. We've argued this before.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Right, and structures can also fail on their own when hit by skyscrapers and left to burn for hours.

What's your point? That it's possible? It's possible that hundreds of midgets with pick axes and rotohammers were attacking the foundation and that's why it collapsed, but it certainly doesn't make it true.

So, since on this thread your stance is pro demolition perhaps you can provide some actual evidence for bombs in 7?

Or will you switch back and say you never supported bombs and that the "official story is impossible" because you have no real evidence to support any other theory.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Right, and structures can also fail on their own when hit by skyscrapers and left to burn for hours.


Prove this scientifically. Why do YOU keep dodging this?


So, since on this thread your stance is pro demolition perhaps you can provide some actual evidence for bombs in 7?


Quote me where I said bombs were used and I might start taking you seriously.


Or will you switch back and say you never supported bombs and that the "official story is impossible" because you have no real evidence to support any other theory.



The point is for the hundreth time. The official story IS impossible. Until they show some calculations showing how it IS possible, I will continue to call foul. Or will you switch back and ask me for proof of bombs?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
Im tired of these conspiracys by people whoever never even seen the WTC in person...I was there the day after the attack...working....there was no bombs...not internal explosions...I have a magnitude of friends who were in all of the buildings as it was happening...and Im just sick and tired of all this conspiracy BS...


That's utterly amazing considering there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts and interview where people say there WERE secondary explosions, so what's BS about it?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Right, and structures can also fail on their own when hit by skyscrapers and left to burn for hours.


Please show me any steel building before or after 911 that has completly collapsed due to fire and or structural damage.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Prove this scientifically. Why do YOU keep dodging this?

. . .


The point is for the hundreth time. The official story IS impossible. Until they show some calculations showing how it IS possible, I will continue to call foul. Or will you switch back and ask me for proof of bombs?


Sorry, I have yet to see any of you prove that the official story "IS impossible, and no amount of capilization will prove this. Show me links proving it impossible.

Since I know that you can't or won't I will just do what you guys do and pretend that I don't have any theory I endorse, I just know the bomb theory is wrong.

Does that work for you?

I don't believe in any particular theory so I never have to prove anything, but I will continue to call foul on the controlled demolition theories.

Ok, now you can stop asking for evidence, since you seem to think that the above stance excuses one from showing any.



Ultima, that is a logical fallacy. Just because something hasn't happened does not mean it never will.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join