WTC Challenge

Originally posted by ANOK


And so what? The columns in building 7 suffered NO DAMAGE from from flying aircraft. Yet it fell also.

There is eye witness testimony that WTC 7 suffered structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1.

So did the Banker's Trust building.



only it didn't catch on fire.

Yes Howard there are also witnesses that say there was minor damage and only small fires in building 7.
There were eye witnesses that said Jean Charles de Menezes had wires sticking out of his shirt...So much for "eye witnesses" eh?....

Yes don't you find it odd that buildings closer to WTC 1&2, such as the wankers trust building you kindly pointed out for us, DID NOT FALL DOWN...Even though they received damage?
How about the oddity that ALL the buildings that collapsed on the 11th of Sept, and in the days after, were ALL owned by Lazarus SilverSteiner?(sic)

Yes it didn't catch fire, hmmmmm, could that be cause it wasn't supposed to? Can't you see the obvious patterns here Howwie? You know what's worse than a corrupt government howard? People that blindly follow them for fear of a manufactured enemy!!

And it goes on Blah, blah de blah...

[edit on 2/8/2005 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes Howard there are also witnesses that say there was minor damage and only small fires in building 7.
There were eye witnesses that said Jean Charles de Menezes had wires sticking out of his shirt...So much for "eye witnesses" eh?....

Yes don't you find it odd that buildings closer to WTC 1&2, such as the wankers trust building

you kindly pointed out for us, DID NOT FALL DOWN...Even though they received damage?
How about the oddity that ALL the buildings that collapsed on the 11th of Sept, and in the days after, were ALL owned by Lazarus SilverSteiner?(sic)

Now choose, which building would be more secure, protected and watched? The Bankers building or The Central Intelligence Agencies HQ??

How come there is minimal damage to building 7 yet we are led to believe it collapsed from fire, though on the other hand The Bankers trust building remained standing even though it had a hole ripped down the side of it??

Now what really gets me is, WTC7 caught fire and it was furthest away and it had building 6 protecting it. Yet the Bankers trust building DID NOT catch fire?? And it was pretty much closest to WTC 1 & 2.



~Peace ~

[edit on 2/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]

[edit on 2/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Originally posted by svenglezz
Uhmm (again) how do we know the temp. of the fire "unless you w'r there", plus if not mistaken th'r a picture showing "MELTING STEEL" "Driping" from the fire.

...

Again how you know the "exact" number of coloums left standing (unless you w'r there to count) and sorry some picture from the outside does not cut it.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

If you can't figure that out, then I can't help you in your utter ignorance. There have been FEMA reports telling us how many columns were knocked out. There are plenty of pictures. I have posted all of this information before. I have also posted info on why there is no evidence of the fires being much beyond 800 degrees Celsius at any given point, and that they were probably much lower for most of the morning. The sustained fires were certainly not beyond 800 degrees Celsius.

How do you know China exists, Sven? Have you been there? Then you don't know. I don't think it does exist. What do you think about that? Oh, you can post all the information and pictures that you want; I still say there is no China!

I find it ironic that you won't believe information on the columns that is well-known and even reported by FEMA, and yet you say there was dripping steel, which is utter bs. There was no steel dripping from the fires, and if you can provide any evidence that there was, then I will leave this post and never return to it.

Btw, pictures from the outside do count, as the perimeter columns are those big, silver beams you see going down all faces of the building. Shouldn't you know that? I mean, that's sort of freaking obvious. The core columns we don't know about (especially the North Tower's), but if you are familiar with the trajectory of the plane that hit the second tower, you would not make such ignorant remarks.

Why am I even still responding to you? I was supposed to have put you on my ignore list a good while ago. Ah well... better late than never.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Oh, no, guys! That thing is certainly going to collapse! In fact, I suspect it will even collapse in a textbook example of a demolition!





Nope, not a demo job at all.

Hell, if you watch the video, you can even see the roof collapse, and the walls of the building expand horizontally, before it starts falling vertically! How is that not suggestive of demolition charges going off in it??

Building 7 Video

What do you think they make these buildings out of? Cards?

man some people need to go back....and re-read the threads.....


I have stated that building 7 was taken down by the fire department. We must remember that the building was a "MAIN" headquarters for many people FBI etc. etc......THUS there would have been "LOTS" of Deisel fuel in that building...enough for weeks to run on it's own electricity.....so the amount of oil would be truck loads....and as stated before....bet the fire department did not want to risk losing anymore of it's men.

But the WTC 1 and 2 are in my 20 years experience in buildings....simple.....the planes took em down and there is enough proof to show this (as noted in the treads) plus a PICTURE of melting (dripping) steal (so take a look and see for your self).

Still have not seen ONE Structural Engineer on this site that believes this crazy TNT of WTC 1 and 2. or anyone else in the industry that supports this.

And as stated (again and again) we (all of us) can not discuss this without a Structural Engineer present....we (us hackers) just don't know enough to say either way.....(but all the movie coverage that day helps).

Anyway...anyone who ignores me due to the fact they want to insult and then run away .......I say good riden's to y'a (y'r in denial and that shows it)

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

^^ please post the photos of the melted steel. im not down to track back 38 pages.

also, if there were such an abundance of fuel/gas as you said, wouldn't it blow up or show some sign of a fireball being caused by all this amount of fuel/gas in the building? im no expert but i know if you light up a tank of oil it's going to blow up not slowly simmer.

and please take a look at the video of the tower 7 collapsing as posted previous to you and analyze it.

does it look like a structural collapse due to fire or does it seem like it were multiple explosions set off to make it collapse?

your not even allowing yourself to look at other angles or at least for more then a second. so please, spend the same amount of energy you did building your case as other people who are stating the contrary and start assimilating that to your opinion.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

How come there is minimal damage to building 7 yet we are led to believe it collapsed from fire, though on the other hand The Bankers trust building remained standing even though it had a hole ripped down the side of it??

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Capt. Chris Boyle, an 18 year veteran of the FDNY.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, a 33 year veteran.

Are you calling these men liars?

Originally posted by svenglezz
man some people need to go back....and re-read the threads.....

I have stated that building 7 was taken down by the fire department.

Just becuase you have stated it, doesn't mean it's true.
Basically how can a fire dept. place all the explosives on all the main beams throughout the building within hours. Planning and deploying a demolition of even a small building takes WEEKS. This was a building almost half the size of the WTC towers standing 47 floors high.

So is it safe to say that the charges were placed before the 911 attacks. Personally I would say YES.

That means forknowledge. That also means high treason and conspiracy to commit murder.

We must remember that the building was a "MAIN" headquarters for many people FBI etc. etc......THUS there would have been "LOTS" of Deisel fuel in that building...enough for weeks to run on it's own electricity.....so the amount of oil would be truck loads....and as stated before....bet the fire department did not want to risk losing anymore of it's men.

Its got NOTHING to do with the fire depts. the thing about Silvertein and the "pull it" comment is quite funny. Since when do fire commanders contact owners of buildings to ask them to "pull" the building?

But the WTC 1 and 2 are in my 20 years experience in buildings....simple.....the planes took em down and there is enough proof to show this (as noted in the treads) plus a PICTURE of melting (dripping) steal (so take a look and see for your self).

Please do show the picture of (ahem) melting, dripping steel. NO WAY was there enough heat pressure to cause steel to melt like butter.

Anyway...anyone who ignores me due to the fact they want to insult and then run away .......I say good riden's to y'a (y'r in denial and that shows it)

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

In Denial. How Ironic.

According to FEMA. "We do not know what caused building 7 to collapse."

This is FEMA. The people who take over if the United States gets decapitated, they don't know what caused building 7 to collapse. Yet the all powerful Silversten said it was "pulled".

C'mon sven, it doesn't take a structural engineer to realise the entire 911 report STINKS!!! If it does then, my friend the western world is in more trouble than anyone ever expected.

~Peace ~

[edit on 2/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Wouldn't it fall backwards then?

Why did we see a textbook example of demolition from this damage to the back of the building, and why did the roof collapse first? And what exactly caused the walls of the building to suddenly expand and form creases just before falling? Just watch the video clip I posted. This was not a gravity-driven collapse. The damned thing fell straight down onto its footprint just like a demo job would, and just like both of the Twin Towers.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Wouldn't it fall backwards then?

Damn. You took the words right off my keyboard.

Why did we see a textbook example of demolition from this damage to the back of the building, and why did the roof collapse first?

Ahhh well you see the rotating ginglesprocket in the diesel generator.....blah blah blah.....

And what exactly caused the walls of the building to suddenly expand and form creases just before falling? Just watch the video clip I posted. This was not a gravity-driven collapse. The damned thing fell straight down onto its footprint just like a demo job would, and just like both of the Twin Towers.

Funny that. Don't you think.

~Peace ~

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Are you calling these men liars?

Yes.

like previously posted, it's a blatant lie. look up for yourself how long it takes to 'pull' a building, then add the additional pesky fire to the equation and give me your assumption of how long would it take for them to place explosives strategically and have it go off PERFECTLY without a hitch.

come on, your relying on the words of men (who can easily be manipulated to say something else) rather then looking for your own interpretation of the events


FEMA: "We don't know what happened *shrugs*

how can a govt. agency who investigates such events not even give you an answer?
if you can't smell pure BS on this, your far more gullible then what i first thought.

Originally posted by Conspicuouz

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Are you calling these men liars?

Yes.

like previously posted, it's a blatant lie. look up for yourself how long it takes to 'pull' a building, then add the additional pesky fire to the equation and give me your assumption of how long would it take for them to place explosives strategically and have it go off PERFECTLY without a hitch.

come on, your relying on the words of men (who can easily be manipulated to say something else) rather then looking for your own interpretation of the events


FEMA: "We don't know what happened *shrugs*

how can a govt. agency who investigates such events not even give you an answer?
if you can't smell pure BS on this, your far more gullible then what i first thought.

Just to clarify and get this on record. You are calling two men who, between them, have over 50 years of service in the New York Fire department, liars about the details of an event that cost the lives of 343 of their friends and co-workers.

What motives could they possibly have to lie about this?

The only B.S. I smell is from your posts.

(additional comments deleted)

On and on we go (and luv'ing every minute of it)

1.
Good point by Howard .....sure they are telling the truth (no reason to lie esp. with all the deaths)

2.
The fuel used for generators are Diesel (not an expert in fuels) but pretty sure it's not that flamable compared to others (has a high flash point), that's prob. why we use it rather'than gas unleaded. Plus the odds are that the Diesel Fuel Tank would be in the Lower Levels (basement etc.).
Now they do have natural gas generators (that would be a different story)....but I assume they would be oil type in WTC (mainly due to cost)

3.
"please post the photos of the melted steel. im not down to track back 38pages. " & "Please do show the picture of (ahem) melting, dripping steel. NO WAY was there enough heat pressure to cause steel to melt like butter" Now I got'a find a picture for y'a (page 28 show LOTS of Butter Melting) but oh y'a prob. just the "aluminum" office furniture (in the one picture from FAR you can see the melting butter fall like over 10 storys....that's got'a be "A LOT OF IT" for us to see in a picture from far away).

4. quote: Anyway...anyone who ignores me due to the fact they want to insult and then run away .......I say good riden's to y'a (y'r in denial and that shows it) "In Denial. How Ironic." Uhmmm......was trying to point out how someone "ingores" someone because they dissagree.......I would never do that and always read the other side of the storey....me'z not in denial

5. "C'mon sven, it doesn't take a structural engineer to realise the entire 911 report STINKS!!! If it does then my friend. The western world is in more trouble than anyone ever expected." That's my point the only one to realy say either way is someone with the experience of Structural Engineering (min 20 years) in "SUPER HIGH RISE" buildings....plus they would also need the experience in Planes / Crashing into buildings......what points that so many things prob. happening with the structural elements we can't even forsee.

6. What is the "demolition squibs" ? the smoke/dust coming out midway down the building ? If that's what you mean....I def. see the force from the collapes pushing the air out sideways "many" floors below...that would be normal...esp. the fact that the elev. shafts stop (not to mention all the debry that would fall down shafts and block the shaft etc.)

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Yo, Sven, the fuel tank system for WTC 7.

So if the firemen are not lying and we are relying on witnesses here why not take a look at what this woman has to say.....

Witness

~Peace ~

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
So if the firemen are not lying and we are relying on witnesses here why not take a look at what this woman has to say.....

Witness

~Peace

~

1) she is not a witness herself, what she is claiming is hearsay.

2) What were the police and firemen doing on cell phones? They had jobs to do, they would have been too busy to call home.

Thanx for the link to the WTC7 fuel storage...but notice it does not say anything about w'r they w'r in particular....it's like it's writen from the point of view of "How to Install" the system similar to the Codes.....(guess they cut and paste).
But it does say they would be on the lower levels (if not the basement levels)

And def. the lady's "view" of what happened is a bit different then a experienced firefighter....(like mentioned before)....I could see someone like my Mom in that situation she'd say.... "It was like a nuclear bomb....even bigger" ....."shure sounded like one" lol

Y'r Canadian Friend,
Sven

There were a number of day tanks on the upper floors, and one system used presurized supply lines.

If the systems were designed and installed properly, then there would have been about 250 gallons from the day tank present on the floor.

Firefighters interview

Secondary explosions
...Then they a saw secondary explosions and then the subsequent collapses...

Heavy duty explosion
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway,
there was a heavy duty explosion."

Witness to explosion
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard
a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we
had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building
might not last."

Secondary devices
"The Chief of Safety of the fire department of New York City told me
he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device--that is,
another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he
could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices
that were planted in the building."

Eye witness
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions ... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of ... tip
over and fall in on itself."

Eye witness
"... and then all of a sudden it started like ... it sounded like
gunfire ... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all
of a sudden three big explosions."

Eye witness
"45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, there was an
explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."

Eyewitness Louie Cacchioli, FDNY firefighter:

""
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I
was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in
position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We
think there was bombs set in the building

BBC

I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to BBC News Online.

"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.

(...)

Stephen Evans, BBC's North America business correspondent, was on the ground floor of the centre when the first plane crashed.

"There was a huge bang and the building physically shook," he said. "Seconds later there were two or three similar huge explosions and the building literally shook again.

(...)

Computer networks analyst Boris Ozersky said he was on the 70th floor of one of the buildings when he felt an explosion.

Prison planet

""
... I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police
Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul,
along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious
cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was
stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center
in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of
the towers. He explained to me that, "many other firemen know there
were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to
admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact."
Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as
the Fire Department's Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag
order down the ranks. "There were definitely bombs in those
buildings," he told me.

WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High; Eye Witness Testimony Is Conclusive That North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition

Are You you calling these people liars?

People who WERE there. They were IN the buildings. You know what. I would take the witness account of these people more seriously than that of ANY Federal institution.

~Peace ~

[edit on 3/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]

[edit on 3/8/05 by Hunting Veritas]