I second that.Originally Posted by frindevil
I second that.
Timeline is here:
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1025
Just some observational guessing here...
In the pics I mentioned, the photog is behind WTC7 and the towers stood in the "background"(south) - if there was considerable structural damage, it must have been on the other side of WTC7.
I have another shot of WTC7 that shows clearly, the fires burning within are the result of arson.
It looks to me that the largest inferno was engulfing the 7th or 8th floor. Here's the best part...in one of the pics I referenced above, it clearly shows the far side(north-east) of WTC7's 7th or 8th floor was engulfed and ablaze - windows long gone and flames shooting out #3073.
In another shot I have, the building is centered and the north face is shown. Strange thing is, right in the center of the building, fires are burning within, on what looks to be the 7th floor AS WELL as the 2nd floor some feet below. They are in their infancy as the glass has yet to pop out, that is obvious. I wish I knew how to post it!! In relation to the size of WTC7, this pic can't hide the fact that small, seperate fires are burning at points seperated by tons of steel, walls and distance.
Now if you factor in the visuals, there is no way these fires resulted from damage by the collapsing WTC towers.
I have to assume that the south side of WTC7 suffered the damage required to ignite/cause these fires. I have shots of the north-east and north sides which show NO signs of random, scattered damage that would result from falling debris. I'll even imagine the south side to be quite damaged - I'll give them that.
I'll ignore that in pic #3073, a good number of firefighters have gathered around the north-east, 7th floor fire, and are watching from below(as I look more closely it seems like the firefighters aren't too bothered by the blaze above, and look to have retreated back and are re-grouping. After witnessing the tower collapse, that isolated fire looks like child's play). If there was considerable damage and fires burning on the south side of WTC7, would the firefighters have pulled back this far?
I can't for the life of me, visualize falling debris hitting the south WTC7 facade leading to fires burning all the way on the other side of the building at different points some distance apart.
Pic #2606 shows that the fire is traveling north, towards the camera. OK. I can get that. It started on the damaged south side and is spreading north, popping out windows as it goes.
Yet in a different pic showing much of WTC7's north facade, there are two small fires burning - one on the same floor as above and another directly below on the 2nd, windows intact and smoke trapped within - dead center of the building. That was very nice of the fires to spread back in a tight line that left the surrounding offices intact. Amazing how they reached the north side of WTC7 to the point of being visible, and did so at the same time!
If I've lost you I understand. Without being able to see what I'm seeing, my descriptions are left to your imaginations.
In any case, having to express this mystery of WTC7 shouldn't be necessary. Random pockets of fire "may" produce the heat required for steel to soften and for support structures to fail, I'll give them that bullshit.
What random fires burning at various points can't do is melt/soften all the necessary support structures required to fail when a 47-storey, steel framed structure falls neatly right on top of itself. So perfect was the collapse, so smooth was its fall, just a few areas where support structures remained intact would have led to a much different result, yet none withstood the pockets of fire and damage from falling debris.
Whoever built WTC was either real good(built-in explosives) or real dumb(no sprinklers?)
Tired...
The brown one...
Hey Emcee, regarding the fires in WTC7 being caused by falling debris, there is no mention of fire, or any sign of fire in WTC7 until an hour before the collapse. The towers fell between 10-10:30 AM and the fires didn't occur in WTC7 until late in the afternoon. Like I said, there was no mention of anything going on downtown after the collapses and they had the cameras trained on the site all day, nothing going on but dust from the collapses.
Another note, several witnesses, including Giuliani, mentioned exiting the towers through another building which makes me think they were connected underground. Based on this, it wouldn't be too difficult for the necessary parties to get in and out of WTC7 undetected.
The CNN broadcast I've been watching was filmed from the roof of a building a few blocks away. I'm pretty sure they mentioned the building they were on which should help us to locate the location on the map you posted. From CNN's vantage point, there was no sign of fire, just lots of smoke and we had a clear shot of WTC7. Therefore, the fire had to be on the other side of the building. So, once we have all this information, you should be able to tell what side of the building the fire was on.
Thanks SBG. Just as I thought - WTC7 wasn't clearly damaged or showing signs of obvious bad predicament save for the multiple fires within. They give the damage from falling debris excuse because such damage wasn't captured by the media. The newsmen weren't gathered around WTC7 and covering its demise because no obvious signs of major damage attracted their hordes.
Pocket fires burning for less than 2 hours felled a 47-storey steel framed structure?
again...WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
I have no doubt that WTC7 was command and control for the cock-suckers who pressed the demolition switches. They were in there listening to the firemen's radio chatter and waiting until the right moment. They were forced to alter their plans, IMHO.
Think about this folks - WTC2 goes down before WTC1?
The north tower was hit dead-center 18 minutes before the south tower was hit off-center, with much of it's ignited kerosene blasting out of WTC2's north-east facade, for maximum psy-ops effect of course.
Although WTC2 was hit lower and a greater mass remained above the damaged area, is this the reasonable explanation for WTC2 collapsing to dust before the earlier damaged WTC1? Are you kidding me?!!
WTC1 was hit dead center and looked to be suffering quite a blow from the fires within. They tell us that the fires in both towers reached the necessary temps required for the steel supports to soften(now in place of melted) leading to the collapse.
Somehow, with greater speed and effect, the ignited kerosene in WTC2, that didn't burn up outside, was plenty enough to bring down the very tower that had been hit 18 minutes after the first strike on WTC1. Not only that, WTC1 collapsed almost a half-hour later!!
Here's what I believe happened without a doubt...
As the perps listened in to the firefighters' communications, they clearly heard that firemen in the south tower had reached the damaged floors and were engaging the fires. Without the "raging infernos hot enough to melt steel supports" the whole cover-story would be fucked beyond explanation.
"Yeah confirm that...A company has reached the area and is engaging the fire..."
"Oh no, oh shit...they made it up...they're gonna put the fire out in no time!!! We gotta level it now!!"
"But sir, if we take down that tower first, people are going to ask a lot of questions!"(logical assumption even for the American public)
"Those fires can't be put out!!! Do it now, do it now...we'll figure something out later!!!"
Down goes WTC2 not a second later, bringing the world's shock to an all-time high. In the ensuing verbal exchanges and reasoning between those controlling the demolitions, almost a half hour passes before they collect themselves and bring down WTC1 - even by then, the firefighters inside had yet to make it up to the fires, so effective was the induced blockage of their access routes.
The boys then gather up their gear and initiate the arson procedures to produce the "infernos" needed to make WTC7 go away quietly. Back door? I'm thinkin connecting tunnels that no blue-prints featured, as SBG mentioned.
On top of the Command-and-Control bunker in WTC7 that needed immediate destruction, I've heard that the building also housed various gov't documents of interest which needed to be destroyed if National Security was to remain intact. National, of course, has nothing to do with our safety, speaking more for the scum who pulled 9/11 off on their own people.
The collapse sequence all ads up as logical only if one takes these possibilities into account.
or
If one is incapable of independent thought and buys without question, the lame, simplistic the second tower fell first because it had more mass above the damaged floors, you moron...god you people are fucked up!! excuse...er...explanation.
They fucked up this live presentation royaly and must be amazed at how their pre-9/11 estimation of the American public's collective smarts was well below their most lofty assumptions.
Shock & Awe has a long shelf life when seasoned with fear and hate during the aging process. Throw in the absurd colour-coded Terror Alert system on the side, and top it all of with a fine bottle of vintage Republican Rhetoric(good for an 8 year serving), and here we remain. Some of us have excused ourselves from the feast of fear, vomited violently soon after, and have vowed to never return. The majority remain gobbling up dish after dish, not wanting to hear anything discrediting the 5-star rating of their favorite eatery.
Mmmmmm, good.
Hey Emcee, I believe the WTC7 held the Enron files among others.
Another interesting story, the photographer that got the picture of the firefighters hoisting the flag onto the flagpole, he had just been at the site of the WTC7 and the firefighters told him to clear out it was gonna collapse.
Picture this, a photographer does not stay to take pictures of a burning inferno ready to collapse??? But instead walks away????
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote