New video of WTC7...well new in a way.

Don't see much, except WTC7 spouting out smoke from practically all floors.

Actually, most of the smoke was from burning WTC5 and WTC6 and was being blown by the wind into (then up) the south face of WTC7. There are photos available that prove this. I will try to find the URL.

Well lets have a close look up of WTC7 and where the smoke is coming from.

Couldnt see what you were referring to in the 1st video.

The second video is very good showing close up shots of the fire in WTC7.

Clearly from the 2nd video the steel building is largely unaffected & well intact. To claim it 'collapsed' from that fire is pure fantasy.

I just saw/heard on the news, CNN Headline news, that there were diesel tanks in #7 to run generators and this fuel fed the fire that weakened the steel, that lead to the collapse.

Why did contractors insulate steel load bearing beams with asbestos? Answer, to protect the steel from heat and collapse.

It's very simple.

Roper

Originally posted by Roper
I just saw/heard on the news, CNN Headline news, that there were diesel tanks in #7 to run generators and this fuel fed the fire that weakened the steel, that lead to the collapse.

Why did contractors insulate steel load bearing beams with asbestos? Answer, to protect the steel from heat and collapse.

It's very simple.

Roper

If this were true, why were none of the explosions recorded or mentioned by any witnesses or firefighters?

Why didnt we see holes blown out of the building prior to its 'collapse'? Why was the building visually in one piece prior to it coming down?

And were talking about a REINFORCED building here. Not just any old steel building portland.indymedia.org...

Your explanation may be simple, but I think you need to be a simpleton to accept it..



[edit on 7-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

Originally posted by Roper
I just saw/heard on the news, CNN Headline news, that there were diesel tanks in #7 to run generators and this fuel fed the fire that weakened the steel, that lead to the collapse.

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

Note that the size of a 12,000 gallon tank would be a little less than 12 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet (if built as a cube).

Source

Instead of just taking the word of the media, who lie and mislead, do some research.

It's very simple...

What I don't get is if that smoke is from fires on every floor then why is the smoke only coming from one side of the building? Why don't we see fire on the side there is no smoke? The windows on the far right share the same room as the ones on the smoking side (far left).

Sry but this looks more like smoke/dust from other buildings...It's pretty obvious WTC7 is NOT engulfed in flames.

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Couldnt see what you were referring to in the 1st video.

The second video is very good showing close up shots of the fire in WTC7.

Clearly from the 2nd video the steel building is largely unaffected & well intact. To claim it 'collapsed' from that fire is pure fantasy.

Maybe you wondering what caused the fire in the first place? Thats alot of fires on all floors...I wonder what caused it.

Maybe you wondering what caused the fire in the first place?

Thats alot of fires on all floors...I wonder what caused it.

According to official reports the fires were caused by debris from the twin towers. This has some merit as clearly other buildings were also visibly affected by debris. The only other possibility is they were deliberately lit.

As for the statement 'Thats alot of fires on all floors...' this is sheer nonsense. All eyewitness & video accounts suggest there were no more than a few spot fires. Unless your suggesting in the video above the smoke is indicative of other fires in the building? If this were the case smoke would also be visible from the windows (which I might add would have been 'blown out' from the heat) from the camera angle side of the building which clearly its not.

In fact Ive seen a video recently where an eye-witness is interviewed briefly by a reporter on the street late on 9/11 where he states 'the fires have been extinguished however the fire-fighters have just said the building is going to come down shortly'. So they werent even burning when it came down in one piece at free-fall speed. In looking for other evidence to support the buildings collapse, video is readily available of puffs of smoke moving UP the side of WTC7 just prior to the top of it dipping & the whole building collapsing. The evidence speaks for itself.



[edit on 7-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

Originally posted by Nonchalant

According to official reports the fires were caused by debris from the twin towers. This has some merit as clearly other buildings were also visibly affected by debris. The only other possibility is they were deliberately lit.

Some merit, but as you mentioned other possibility....that they were lit deliberately... okay so far.

As for the statement 'Thats alot of fires on all floors...' this is sheer nonsense. All eyewitness & video accounts suggest there were no more than a few spot fires. Unless your suggesting in the video above the smoke is indicative of other fires in the building? If this were the case smoke would also be visible from the windows (which I might add would have been 'blown out' from the heat) from the camera angle side of the building which clearly its not.

Few spot fires? Thats more smoke than just a few fires, we do not see the insides of the building to see where all the fires are at exactly, but we know that smoke was coming out of all the floors, video proves that.

In fact Ive seen a video recently where an eye-witness is interviewed briefly by a reporter on the street late on 9/11 where he states 'the fires have been extinguished however the fire-fighters have just said the building is going to come down shortly'. So they werent even burning when it came down in one piece at free-fall speed. In looking for other evidence to support the buildings collapse, video is readily available of puffs of smoke moving UP the side of WTC7 just prior to the top of it dipping & the whole building collapsing. The evidence speaks for itself.

Fires were extinguish? Didn't look like firefighters succeeded, in fact many firefighters say they let it burned and pulled out.

Just think, most of the Fuel was recovered. Yet we are to believe that a fire that couldn't even get to the diesel warped the steel in enough columns all at the same time to cause a global collapse in 6.5 seconds!

Originally posted by deltaboy

Few spot fires? Thats more smoke than just a few fires, we do not see the insides of the building to see where all the fires are at exactly, but we know that smoke was coming out of all the floors, video proves that.

No it doesnt. Point out to me where in all that video evidence smoke is clearly coming from WTC7. To me it looks like the smoke is simply blowing past the building from the direction of WTC1 & 2.

Fires were extinguish? Didn't look like firefighters succeeded, in fact many firefighters say they let it burned and pulled out.

Where is this evidence they said 'let it burn'? Ive seen a lot of videos on 9/11 & never heard this statement.

And yes Ive seen a video where an eye-witness says 'they have put out the fires but they say its still going to come down later'. I saw it on a web-site that no longer exists and I should have saved a link to it. Ive only ever seen it once but it was a reporter from one of the major networks talking to a guy who I believe was a caretaker in one of the centres for 20 years from memory.

Originally posted by ANOK


Instead of just taking the word of the media, who lie and mislead, do some research.

It's very simple...

Bingo jo, Bingo.

Well I'm sorry but only an idiot would believe that 9-11 is a US government conspiracy. There is no way that this big event could be kept out of the news. There is no way that the conspirators could keep quite. Too many people would have to be involved and people talk.

There is no way that the news media would not break this if any of what has been regurgitated on this board were true.

If it is a government conspiracy it is from a Islamic nation. A conspiracy to kill Americans that never did the Muslims any harm, a pure act of terror.

As far as doing research HA! There is so much spun junk out there that research is useless.

In this day and age anybody that breaks wind is a self appointed expert and won't hear anything that doesn't fit their tiny minds.

There are several Rosie on this board.

Originally posted by Roper
Well I'm sorry but only an idiot would believe that 9-11 is a US government conspiracy. There is no way that this big event could be kept out of the news. There is no way that the conspirators could keep quite. Too many people would have to be involved and people talk.
Roper

The official story is a conspiracy, 19 people planning to hijack planes is a conspiracy.

Besides thier is not enough evidence yet, the goverenment pulled off 911 but thier is enough evidence that they may have known and left it happen.

wtc7 suffered damages from debris from the twin towers. You can see it in the videos. Here is the link. Every conspiracy on 911 has been debunk.

www.911myths.com...

Here is even a better website debunking 911.

www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by amfirst
Here is even a better website debunking 911.

www.debunking911.com...

Instead of saying this site de-bunks whatever, tell us why you think the official story is what actually happened.

What you are giving us is second hand news, what's the point?
For every site you give a link to 'proving' the official is true, I can give you links to as many sites that 'prove' the official story is BS. We could ALL do that, and it would be the death of debate on ATS.

Anyway I'm assuming you have done your research before you came to your conclusion, or are you just parroting what other people say? I have a question for you...

First look at this...
911research.wtc7.net...

I want to know how you explain the top rotating, breaking up and starting to topple before the collapse began? Then I'd like to know how it had the energy to crush the rest of the undamaged building under it?

The top should have continued it's motion, as in Newtons 1st laws of motion (Inertia) and the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

What caused the angular momentum to stop and transfer too vertical momentum?

A body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it...An object that is in motion will not change velocity (accelerate) until a net force acts upon it.

What was that external unbalanced force? Gravity isn't the answer. I think we can all agree that the lower undamaged floors had the energy to hold the mass of the top. From what I've read the WTC was designed to take 2.5 times it's own mass. So what force caused the top, which was in motion, to change it's velocity?

[edit on 8/4/2007 by ANOK]

I've looked at all those debunking sites, and truthfully, they build straw men time and time again, they build them up to tear them down. They sometimes raise good points, but often it is straw man tactics.

Now, having said this I admit there are some issues that need to be resolved.

But I think only a person who is in denial can't see how strange it is...

That Bin Laden family and the Bush family go back in history with OIL deals., it just seems a little too close for comfort. There is more of course, but that is a good place to start.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by talisman]