And maybe it's just me, but #7 (pinkish-brown building, center) sure looks like it's burning.
Posted on 11/04/2001 5:59:00 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Did anyone wonder why the authorities refused to have news heliocopters in the area?....and that pictures were forbidden?
You must be kidding. #7 was burning like a mofo all afternoon until it collapsed. You could see it easily on television.
It was the farthest away in the complex from the Twin Towers.
But at 40+ stories it was the tallest except for the Twin Towers. More surface to be struck. It was hit by more debris from the plane impact on Tower 1, and also as the tower collapsed, and they believe that is what started the fire.
Building #3, a hotel, did not come until it was later demolished.
The Marriot (22 stories) was right at the foot of both towers and was COMPLETELY destroyed when the towers fell on top of it. There was very little of the structure still standing, and it was the first building cleared away. There was no trace of it left by the weekend.
The other buildings had roof damage from the rubble.
A lot more than roof damage, since #4 was torn down several weeks ago (that's the newly-clear where the memorial service was held last weekend, and where the Bank of Nova Scotia gold was retrieved this Wednesday), and #6 is scheduled to come down soon. The damage was way more than superficial, I've seen pictures that show they were completely torn open in places. But those buildings were only about 10 stories each, and didn't totally collapse.
Did anyone wonder why the authorities refused to have news heliocopters in the area?....and that pictures were forbidden?
No, I wonder where you were on 9/11 if you weren't watching television, and what your purpose is in putting forward a premise that can be so easily contradicted by anyone with a TV set. Where do you supposed all the news footage came from as it was happening? News helicopters. And there were THOUSANDS of pictures and videos taken, both professional and amateur. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
And maybe it's just me, but #7 (pinkish-brown building, center) sure looks like it's burning.
*What* is "after the fact"? Bottom photo is #7 BURNING on 9/11 before it collapsed, contrary to your claim. The top photo shows the "roof damage" to which you referred, and clearly shows how the Tower One debris (some of it flaming) was able to fall right over low buildings #5 & #6 and strike #7, just north across the street. You can see huge chunks of the Tower framework on Vesey St where #7 used to be. Look to the left of #6.
The Winter Garden (across West St. near the Hudson) is further away from the Towers than #7, and it was also set on fire from falling debris. I suppose you think the CIA had something to do with that too.
Yes, they did, which is why I get really torqued when certain people deliberately lie about what happened that day (in MY city, mind you) in order to prolong their tiny little conspiracy-theory hard-ons.
"Roof damage", my @$$. Those are huge holes punched all the way through to the floor, and into the basement in places.
It was also a blatant lie to say that the hotel didn't come down until it was taken down later. The overhead shot was taken after 9/11 but before the remnants of the Marriott were demolished; between what it left of Tower One and Tower Two you can see a small part of the foundation and lower floors (it appears as a dark rust shape, angled, casting a small shadow to the left; I recognize the shape from many visits to this area or I never would have been able to find it in this picture). That's all that was left to demolish of a 22-story hotel. It wasn't "taken down later", it was completely destroyed on 9/11. The wrecking ball just did a little cleanup.
Anyone who knows this area and understands the scale of the Twin Towers realizes that those flying pieces of facade from Tower 2, in this picture, are already WAY across the street. They did not fall gently or neatly.
Just doing my bit to contradict deliberate disinformation. You will notice he hasn't been back to address any of the points I made. He cannot defend any part of his original post, because the only part of it that was true is that "7 WTC collapsed at 5:00 in the afternoon".
Building #7 IMPLODED at 5PM, September 11.
If you didn't see it--and you're the one who said news choppers and photographs were forbidden, so you obviously couldn't have seen it if that were true--how do you know the building imploded? Maybe it just fell down, hmm? And it sure was messy for an "implosion"; there's a huge breach in the building *behind* #7 from all that imploding..
From the exterior no fires were seen at the time of implosion.
Apparently they were only "not seen" by you. Does that huge plume of smoke count for nothing? If there were no fires, why were there firemen in the building who had to rush out and clear the area (for the third time that day) before it collapsed?
Building #3, a hotel, did not come until it was later demolished.
I have just provided visual evidence that you are dead wrong.
The other buildings had roof damage from the rubble.
I have just provided visual evidence that you are dead wrong.
Did anyone wonder why the authorities refused to have news heliocopters in the area?....
Maybe you should talk to the pilots if they weren't close enough to #7 at the time of its collapse to suit you. They have a thing about flying into areas of zero visibilty, go figure. But I saw it, and it certainly looked like a building on fire to me. I don't care if the cameras were on helicopters or on a rooftop. The images were broadcast, and that building was on fire.
and that pictures were forbidden?
There were photographers everywhere all day long on the 11th, and you know it. How else could I have found the "forbidden" photographs so easily? There are plenty of others online. Find them yourself.
Meanwhile I'm still waiting for you to explain why you posted what you did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.