Column Window?

So everybody posting that it's a fire extinguisher means we can't answer your question? You're the only one that can't see that it's a fire extinguisher.

I'm the ultimate troll now? Thanks! Glad to see that answering questions, and pointing out what things are makes me a troll.

Here, just for you. I cropped and enhanced your original picture somewhat. You can see both handles, and the hose coming off the front side.




Yeah, it's a little blurred, but if you look closely at it you can see the handle coming off the bottom, and the hose coming off the front. It's working from your original pic, so I can't do much about how blurry it is.

I am not ignoring what everyone is saying, i would say it was a fire extiguisher if the sides were straight, and if it had two levers.
The object in the gap, the sides are not straight the sides tapper.
It appears to have 1 lever, if it is a lever.


Thank you all for your input, i understand your position.
I won't go on and on about this.
I will acknowledge what you all believe is a fire extiguisher when somebody can show me a cone (tappered) fire extiguisher, with one lever, housed within a concrete column.

It appears to be a fire extinguisher lets put it that way.

but why is it in a beam? nobody has answered that question. If it is a box then why does it go from floor to floor? What is it's purpose?

Frankly it is not important either way there is nothing significant about this that I can see. The main issue is that the debunkers are on guard as usual to maintain the status quo at any cost. That is what is most revealling to me in this whole affair. One wonders what rewards they are getting for their loyalty.

The sides ARE straight. I don't know where you're getting tapered from. As far as the lever, look closer at the pic I enhanced. You can SEE the two handles in it if you look closely at it. You can see the bottom handle coming off it.

The box section of the wall goes from floor to ceiling because the load bearing portion is the column it's attached to. It's not supporting the weight of the building so there's no reason to run it all the way through.

[edit on 3/28/2006 by Zaphod58]

How can you people argue this long about a fire extinguisher? If that is not a fire extinguisher I'd be really surprised, I am very familiar with that shape and its pretty darned recognisable.

So, if a taxi was a fire extinguiser, would merc_the_link still be a troll?








Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

Also, see here
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/28/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

This is ATS, not BTS chit chat. Keep the discussion on topic or the thread may be closed.

Thank you.

It looks like the door to the extingusiher compartment is swung open to the left because its about the same size as the hole and its one of those doors with a small verticle window on it so you can see the extinguisher. Extinguisher it is! you lose

How'd that sea gull get in there?

They used to just hang extinguishers on the wall but people kept nocking them off as they passed and they would become missiles. I've seen it, quite entertaining. Then they started putting them in boxes on the wall but then folks would hurt themselves when they walked into them. So now they enclose them in a box in the wall. Not a conspiracy, just smart.

Originally posted by XD40
It looks like the door to the extingusiher compartment is swung open to the left because its about the same size as the hole and its one of those doors with a small verticle window on it so you can see the extinguisher. Extinguisher it is! you lose

Oh this is a game?? I suppose whoever did this thought the same thing. Don't be offended but some people are taking this stuff seriously for obvious reasons.

What is funny is that nobody has suggested why this box or whatever the extinguisher is in, continues through several floors. That is the part that is interesting to me here.

Now thats the most stupid place to house a fire extiguisher i have ever seen. Cut the centre out of a column to house an extiguisher

Perhaps the fire extinguishers were disguised bombs which helped bring the building down. Could these be the explosions the firefighters heard after entering the building? Can fire extinguishers blow up anyway if heated sufficiently?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Xeros]

Imagine my dismay to wake up this morning to find more petty name calling and digs in this thread.

No more namecalling from ANYONE

Can we please stick to comments helpful to the discussion - thanks.

How come the column on the second floor where the workers are doesnt really line up with the others? Is it possible that its not a support column? And is that a thermostat on it too? Although hard to tell, these columns appear to be only a few inches thick so maybe its just the way the interior of the building was designed. I dont know much about this stuff but why is it fishy or interesting that these columns run through all of the floors if that is the case???

Could somebody post the picture in it's original context please. Is it before or after the building collapsed? Is it in/near a load bearing pillar?

I believe this discussion is of the Pentagon.

Okay, I think this argument may be better approached from another angle.

What would it take to bring down a support column?

Mods, sorry for the croping, but it's nessescary for this pic



In this image, you can see three floors of the building, differentiated by the horizontal sections. The top is hard to make out, but you can see some sort of frame around the supports beam (colored teal). One the middle floor, you can see that, again, there are frames in front of the beam. As someone pointed out, these were likely to support drywall and electrical wiring.
Right below the disputed object is what could be concrete or drywall. I'm assuming drywall. One doesn't need two and a half feet of concrete to support a fire extinguisher box. However, it does seem that there are two additional layers of supporting beams for the box above the object.

On the first floor, you can see the whole setup with minimal damage. The support beam is no longer visible, covered as it was by a sheet of drywall. In the middle of the wall is an electrical outlet/thermostat/intercom which lends further weight to framing behind the walls. Electricians would need framing to set wires up the high on the wall.



That's a photoshop I thre together, showing a theoretical support beam (center) enclosed inbetween walls. On the right side, space is needed for electrical wiring. On the left, the wires were moved in order to make space for a fire extinguisher box. I'm no architecht, but It seems this would be the most logical setup for walls featuring support beams. (Notice, though, to the bottom and right of the first picture is an electrical outlet)

Now, there's that. What do you need to bring down a support column?
Shaped Charges.


Source

This is a shaped charge, the type which is used for building implosions. The shape of the charge focuses the energy of the blast, acting like a super cutting torch. The charges are placed directly on to the supports beams (not without previous arc-torch cutting) and when the time comes, they are blown using a highly complex system of radio transmitters. What I'm getting at, is that there is no way somebody would be able to plant shaped charges on the support beams without the work being noticed.

So what if they just REPLACED the fire extinguishers with extravagant replicas/bombs?
The shapes are still too different, and facing the wrong direction. If you are saying that the body itself is tapered ( I persoanally cannot see the angle) than the blast will either be focused upwards or downwards. While devastating, it will not bring down a support column. If the "handle" of the fire extinguisher is a cone-shaped explosive, then the blast will still be unfocused on the beam. It would blast to the right, down the hallway.

So, maybe it's just a big, cylindrical, bomb? Well, it may do damage to the support beam (bending) but it will not cut/snap it. My example here is Stalingrad, circa WWII. The Germans launched an all-out air offensive against the city, bombing the bejebus out of it. The bombing was initally incredibaly destructive, destroying whole floors and toppling walls. After that, the bombs had a lesser effect, no matter how many they dropped. Why?

Well, The first bombs hit the ceiling and exploded in an enclosed area. Imagine a box of water..poke the middle, and it will begin to ripple outwards, and bounce back against the sides, bounce back, hit another side, the same basic rule applies. Add some channels to the box, and the force of some ripples will dissipate out of them. The German bombs were losing their effectiveness because all the energy was flying directly out of the buildings without bouncing around.

The same rule applies to this setup. You have a cut inside the wall. It IS nestled up against the support beam, but there's a big rectangular box which will immediately dissipate 1/4-1/3 of the blast from a cylindrical bomb. The rest will explode, and the force will impact the support beam, damage it, and bounce out the other side.

Conclusion-Any bomb shaped like that, placed in the middle floor (as opposed to top or bottom, where it may knock the beam out of it's settings) would have minimal effect. That being the case, there is ample visual evidence that it matches 95% for a fire extinguisher, the rest can be written off as low-resolution digital photography. It looks like an extinguisher, it's where an extinguisher would be, and It is unlikely that a demolition expert (of which I am not) would choose that shape or location to set off a bomb.


[edit on 29-3-2006 by TheGoodDoctorFunk]

You can see it again in this picture:



But in this later picture it is gone, more importantly the column can be seen intact helping to illustrate the fact it was built into the surround or part of a wall that has since been removed not in the column itself.



Hope that helps to clarify things.

The original images are here:

www.photolibrary.fema.gov...

www.photolibrary.fema.gov...

Thank you TheGoodDoctorFunk for the time you spent on this, i believe you are correct, and everybody else that said it was a firextiguisher thank you too.
I must say that now as i have found an extiguisher in the wreckage that replicates the one in the original image, but for the tapered body i thought the outline showed.

[edit on 3-29-2006 by Springer]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by The Links]