| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Witchfinder General
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 134
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm sorry it's just a silhouetted image, which is what you get with objects with the light coming from behind them. It's a clear September morning, the sun is bright in the South East (to the left side of the frame). Flight 175 comes in from the South West (from the right side of the frame). The view on Fox news looks pretty much South, the North Tower obscuring the South Tower, and we see the plane come in at almost right angles to the camera. Of course it looks silhouetted. It's what you'd expect.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Looking at that aerial layout of the complex, how could WTC7 sustain such serious damage from a vertically falling tower, with WTC6 in between and being so far away? A 20 storey gash???? How?? And where is all the rubble that would have to flow horizontally into WTC7 to cause it? There was a lot of "magic" happening that day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Looking at that aerial layout of the complex, how could WTC7 sustain such serious damage from a vertically falling tower, with WTC6 in between and being so far away? A 20 storey gash???? How?? And where is all the rubble that would have to flow horizontally into WTC7 to cause it? There was a lot of "magic" happening that day. |
Here's one of the better images I can find of the dust/debris cloud hitting the south wall of WTC7 following the 'collapse' of the North Tower. Hard to say what debris got ejected as far as WTC7 but given the way the tower spills outwards as it comes down it seems probable that some large debris may have reached it.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
WTC 6 was only 7 stories, so it didn't provide a substantial obstacle to any debris that hit WTC7, which was 47 stories.
Note the scrubbed spot where WTC7 used to be - that smoking pile certainly got priority over the rest of the site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_WTC.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsum
Moderate Poster
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EmptyBee wrote: | | blackcat wrote: | | Looking at that aerial layout of the complex, how could WTC7 sustain such serious damage from a vertically falling tower, with WTC6 in between and being so far away? A 20 storey gash???? How?? And where is all the rubble that would have to flow horizontally into WTC7 to cause it? There was a lot of "magic" happening that day. |
Hard to say what debris got ejected as far as WTC7 but given the way the tower spills outwards as it comes down it seems probable that some large debris may have reached it.
|
Surely that would take a sh!tload of energy for any debris to cause that much damage.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gypsum wrote: |
Surely that would take a sh!tload of energy for any debris to cause that much damage. |
Well the nature of the Twin Tower collapses and ejection of debris is a whole different can of worms, but it's pretty clear that debris was pushed out considerable distances.
It's hard to say exactly what the extent of the damage was to the South face of WTC7, as the photographic evidence isn't very clear, and the eyewitness evidence is rather conflicting, but it seems reasonable to assume that some heavy debris may have struck WTC7. That doesn't explain the manner of the collapse though, not by a long shot.
It's interesting how the supposed explanation for one anomaly just leads back to another anomaly.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Banish
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm sorry it's just a silhouetted image, which is what you get with objects with the light coming from behind them. |
No, it's daylight. Light is all around. Light bounces up down and sideways. It also reflects from big shiny aluminium objects.
If it had passed in front of the sun there would be a silhouette. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's morning, which means the sun was low in the sky, making one side of the plane in shadow.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Banish wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm sorry it's just a silhouetted image, which is what you get with objects with the light coming from behind them. |
No, it's daylight. Light is all around. Light bounces up down and sideways. It also reflects from big shiny aluminium objects.
If it had passed in front of the sun there would be a silhouette. |
Jesus wept! When was the last time you left the house and took a look at the world with your own eyes? Because I'm struggling to find any other explanation for the disconnect between your perceptions and observable reality here.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EmptyBee wrote: | | Banish wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm sorry it's just a silhouetted image, which is what you get with objects with the light coming from behind them. |
No, it's daylight. Light is all around. Light bounces up down and sideways. It also reflects from big shiny aluminium objects.
If it had passed in front of the sun there would be a silhouette. |
Jesus wept! When was the last time you left the house and took a look at the world with your own eyes? Because I'm struggling to find any other explanation for the disconnect between your perceptions and observable reality here. |
I see your starting to grasp the terrible cosmic horror of what your up against here emptybee....
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
I see your starting to grasp the terrible cosmic horror of what your up against here emptybee.... |
I wish I could say I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm afraid I'm beginning to understand. 
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EmptyBee wrote: | | gypsum wrote: |
Surely that would take a sh!tload of energy for any debris to cause that much damage. |
Well the nature of the Twin Tower collapses and ejection of debris is a whole different can of worms, but it's pretty clear that debris was pushed out considerable distances.
It's hard to say exactly what the extent of the damage was to the South face of WTC7, as the photographic evidence isn't very clear, and the eyewitness evidence is rather conflicting, but it seems reasonable to assume that some heavy debris may have struck WTC7. That doesn't explain the manner of the collapse though, not by a long shot.
It's interesting how the supposed explanation for one anomaly just leads back to another anomaly. |
There is also no evidence that the damage immediately after the 2nd collapse matches the damage reported when collapse was imminent. Or given that WTC7 was on fire before the first collapse, maybe it was just suffering from "Unlucky Building Syndrome". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
