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.
Originally posted by scrapple
These were very large steel, aluminum and concrete prefab units; the infamous ‘flap-jacks’ to the NIST pancake theory - which they now discount I believe. Regardless, few if any pancakes were recovered at ground zero, much less an acre sized 36’foot thick cake that would have been almost 4 stories of pure concrete ( ~110 floors x 4” concrete). A number that discounts the volume of steel spanning elements buttered in-between each concrete layer. So fine, if no pancake theory where are a thousand plus concrete floor sections? Unfortunately, the book doesn’t have much to say about WTC janitorial services, which evidently must have sucked, because AS steel towers ‘collapsed’ – we all saw just how 'dusty' they were inside!
Originally posted by Griff
Selfless,
I'm presumming that that photo is of the North facade? If so, that photo really doesn't show much as to how much fire was on the south or damage to the south. Anyway though, it DOES show that there was nothing wrong with the north facade. So, how did that portion of the building fail exactly with the rest of the building again? That's retorical and not aimed at you Selfless.
[edit on 5/13/2007 by Griff]
Originally posted by LeftBehind
The building did not fall perfectly into it's footprint, it fell to the south and to the east, damaging buildings across the street from it and filling the streets with debris.
In fact, the opposite of falling into it's footprint happened.
Also consider the debris. If the debris extended that far into the alley, imagine how far into the building it went.
Further evidence that there was enough damage to the building to bring it down without bombs.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the coverup.
Originally posted by Griff
Can you link to pics of this damage from across the street please. How do you know it's not damaged from the towers collapse?
The opposite of falling into it's footprint would be a straight over topple. Is that what happened?
Yes, cause we all know that WTC 7's facade and the rest of the building material gives no resistance to anything going through it. As confirmed by the no resistance collapse.
Try opening your eyes. Opening the mind also helps.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Because that is what happened, as numerous eyewitness and photographic data attest to. I didn't think this would need any backing up since if you would bother to look into it at all, you would already know this.
But here is one source for you.
WTC 7 Lies
Semantics. Ok maybe opposite is not the right term. But it certainly did not fall perfectly into it's own footprint, period.
I think I'll answer that with you own statement.
"Not really, just your opinion. Or would you like to post the calculations and/or computer model analysis to back up those statements?"
The electromagnetic force
Main article: electromagnetic force
The force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles, called the electromagnetic force, is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are the strong nuclear force (which holds atomic nuclei together), the weak nuclear force (which causes certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces.
As it turns out, the electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Roughly speaking, all the forces involved in interactions between atoms can be traced to the electromagnetic force acting on the electrically charged protons and electrons inside the atoms. This includes the forces we experience in "pushing" or "pulling" ordinary material objects, which come from the intermolecular forces between the individual molecules in our bodies and those in the objects. It also includes all forms of chemical phenomena, which arise from interactions between electron orbitals.
According to modern electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic forces are mediated by the transfer of virtual photons.
Yes, it is my opinion and the opinion of most of the experts working at NIST.
Really, you should try being civil, instead of a pompous arse. It really helps.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Originally posted by Griff
Can you link to pics of this damage from across the street please. How do you know it's not damaged from the towers collapse?
Because that is what happened, as numerous eyewitness and photographic data attest to. I didn't think this would need any backing up since if you would bother to look into it at all, you would already know this.
But here is one source for you.
WTC 7 Lies
Originally posted by LeftBehindBecause that is what happened, as numerous eyewitness and photographic data attest to. I didn't think this would need any backing up since if you would bother to look into it at all, you would already know this.
But here is one source for you.
WTC 7 Lies
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Because that is what happened, as numerous eyewitness and photographic data attest to. I didn't think this would need any backing up since if you would bother to look into it at all, you would already know this.
You stated that seeing the debris in the alley shows us how far the debris would be in the building. I said no way because of the resistance force the debris would be exposed to upon hitting the facade. Unless the facade was made of paper.
Originally posted by Inannamute
Scrap mate, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, I think in general it's best to try and keep on track - 9/11 threads have a tendency to try and hash out all issues in all threads.. this is a great one so far about WTC7, let's keep it going
quote: Originally posted by Caustic Logic
It doesn't even explain the middle of the building falling first and the rest falling into its footprint, does it? I'd expect a leaning collapse southwest into the rubble zone. Am I wrong?
quote: Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well, internal damage that caused supports in the middle of the building to fail would explain why the middle collapsed first. How do explosives/thermite/mininiukes account for the middle falling first?
The penthouse failure leads me to think that no bombs were used, but instead that key failures led to a progressive collapse.
The building did not fall perfectly into it's footprint, it fell to the south and to the east, damaging buildings across the street from it and filling the streets with debris. In fact, the opposite of falling into it's footprint happened.
These pictures clearly demonstrate where the damage starting at the 18th floor tapered out, proving that there was indeed major damage on the SW corner spanning over ten floors.
Also consider the debris. If the debris extended that far into the alley, imagine how far into the building it went. Further evidence that there was enough damage to the building to bring it down without bombs.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the coverup.
Originally posted by dariousg
Sigh, this is getting to be an old argument. You are not actually going off of any real data. This is evident in the lack of understanding on your part.
Yes, the middle crimping and collapsing inward is the CLASSIC telltale sign of explosives my friend. Damage to supports in the middle of this building will not cause the entire building to fall symmetrically. Old argument.
Yes it DID fall into its footprint. What the ‘debunkers’ keep forgetting is that there were 47 stories worth of building above the ground.
Yes, you are missing a LOT OF SOMETHINGS! And you don't SEE a cover up because you don't want to see one.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
his one shows the damage without the sun glare.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
No, it's a different shot from a different camera/man. George Miller with the NY Transit Authority took the first 2 I posted. One "Willie Chirone" took this angle, but I couldn't find much about him period.