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.

 

What happened to WTC 7 again?

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX-
Theres a few places to contact people with building demolition experience. People that have done this type of work for a living.


Have these demo experts done ANY research into the WTC collapse?

Or are they just willing to except the official story without question, like you?

Even so called experts are not imune to denial.




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Theres a few places to contact people with building demolition experience. People that have done this type of work for a living.


I've contacted demolition companies without mentioning the WTC or thinking the Twin Towers or WTC7 were demolished, etc., and asked pretty specific questions that are relevant to the WTC collapses.

The only company that even responded to my requests for information first asked me why I wanted the information, and requested certain information on me for 'national security' reasons or some such. Afterwards, I was apologized to and then simply told to hire local contractors for help, and so they effectively refused to answer my questions. I received absolutely no specific information on unconventional demolition possibilities, despite the number of organizations I contacted.

It seems to me, from my personal experience, that trying to get any good information from these guys is about as pointless as asking NIST or the Port Authority for the WTC construction drawings.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The one thing I really like to point out to these 9/11 conspiracy debunk attempts is the official story that a 757 disappeared into a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon, and that the windows around the hole are fine and the lawn untouched, and that this plane punched through 9 feet of reinforced concrete. Hoo hoo hoo! Always makes me laugh.

I mean, the engines are the heaviest part of the plane and are made of titanium... shouldn't they have made a dent? Or did they stop abruptly when the inner wing made contact with the wall, reverse direction and move backwards folding back into the body, and then it all kind of crunched together and made this snake thing that then punched through the pentagon walls?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by bigpappadiaz]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   


9 feet of reinforced concrete


Yeah that part makes me laugh too, noone seems to be able to show where this 9 feet of reinforced concrete is. I guess everyone just overlooks any diagrams and info on how the pentagon in constructed. Instead they choose to buy into some made up garbage that some conspiracy theorist cooked up to make their arguement sound better.

Congrats, you bought into it as well.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Was is widely reported that Giuliani whose control centre was inside building 7 on floor 23 moved to a new command centre that had been conveniently built to command a drill that had been planned for the next day?

www.daanspeak.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Topic: What happened to WTC 7 again?


Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
The one thing I really like to point out to these 9/11 conspiracy debunk attempts is the official story that a 757 disappeared into a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon, and that the windows around the hole are fine and the lawn untouched, and that this plane punched through 9 feet of reinforced concrete.

Please, let's try to remember that the topic for this thread is the demise of WTC 7.

There are many, many, many other threads that discuss the Pentagon attack, wherein many ATSers have expressed their opinions on that topic and are more than welcome to continue doing so.

Also, let's please try to avoid off-topic discussion of fellow ATSers and refrain from the use of insulting terms such as "idiots" to describe members with differing points of view. That sort of behavior is contrary to the foundation of mutual respect upon which ATS is built.

It's okay to feel frustrated about this subject. It's emotional for everyone, regardless of what theories they may embrace. Good people can disagree about anything, even a subject as controversial as this.

To those members who have managed to avoid being driven off topic, I give my personal thanks. Nothing should distract those who seek the truth from pursuing it, wherever the facts may lead. I urge all members, regardless of opinions, to stay focused on the facts, and not let innuendo or ad hominem attacks distract you.

Remember: Every member deserves respect.

Attempting to win an argument by deriding other members is a cowardly tactic, and a good habit to get out of.

Focus on the topic and the merits of the facts and opinions under discussion, not other members themselves.

And now, back to the topic: What happened to WTC 7 again?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That's funny, you totaly ignore all the scientists, structural engineers, architects etc...Who do believe it was demolitions that bought the buildings down!


Please provide a list of the structural engineers and architects that you mention.

And only scientists with relevant experience and training in building construction and design, please (i.e. no theologians).



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Howard,

Would you admit that structural engineering is based upon physics? I don't know why you seem to think structural engineers would be more relevant to a falling building than a physics professor anyway.

It's said that structural engineers don't design buildings to fall, but to stand, and yet those are exactly the people you reference, rather than more qualified individuals.

Also, if you watch Jones' lecture that's been posted around here, he references some structural engineers that disagree with the "official story" there. He actually spends a great deal of time outlining the problems with NIST's theory in regards to the fire's effect upon the structure. It should satisfy you.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Why does the engineering department of BYU repudiate Jone's theories?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Why must you constantly avoid answering my questions by asking diverting questions of your own?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Three researchers at NIST have been awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, William D. Phillips Eric A. Cornell,John L. Hall.

I thought i would post this since there is so much 'non belief' in the NIST report yet so much acceptance of the scholars for truth.

www.nist.gov...

This is a nice list of engineers too....



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Do you know if the NIST report on WTC 7 is complete?


[Mod Edit: There is no need to quote the message above yours when responding. Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote. - Jak]

[edit on 1/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
wtc.nist.gov...

Go to page 6, and it gives the initial analysis, but I suggest you read it all.


I took a look at the whole report - I'll begin my comments at page 6.

The title of page 6 is 'Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7'. Their working hypothesis is that his is a classic progressive collapse. I'm sure we can all agree that hypothesis means assumption. Thus NIST is working from a starting point that does not include the possibility of a controlled demolition. At the bottom of the same page it says:

"NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7
was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."

That this statement is on the Working Hypothesis page is of great importance in my opinion. Most would take this to mean that NIST didn't see any evidence of bombs, etc. However since this is on the Hypothesis page it could also be taken to mean that this fact is part of their hypothesis. Thus their working assumption is that NIST has found no evidence of bombs, etc. If this is the case it closes off any investigation into bombs, missiles or controlled demolition. I know many will attack me for getting into semantics, but I'd like to hear a lawyer's point of view on how this page is laid out.

I wish Train was still reading this thread - the NIST report refutes everything he said about damage to WTC 7. Page 14 sums up the damage from the collapse of WTC 2:

- Some south face glass broken at lower floors
- Dust covered lobby areas at floors 1 and 3
- Power on in building, phones working
- No fires observed

Page 15 sums up the damage after WTC 1 collapsed:

Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
- No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
- SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
- South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level
down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known
- South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

No mention of heavy damage to the first five floors. No photographic evidence contained within shows any damage to the first 5 floors.

The report goes on to describe the fires in WTC 7 - again no fires observed in the first five floors. Page 26 sums up the timeline - this is confusing as the timeline ends at 8.2 seconds, the apparent start of the global collapse. The time it took for the building to fall from that point is omitted.

Many of pages of truss diagrams follow - I'm no expert so I won't comment. Page 38 details the Fuel System for Emergency Power in WTC 7.

Floor 5—which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only
pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor
areas—is considered a possible fire initiation location, subject to further data
and/or analysis that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area.
• The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.
• This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.

Keep the above in mind when reading the following - the Observations on the Fifth Floor:

The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power generators.
• Two 6,000 gallon fuel tanks supplying a pressurized line possibly contributed to fires; tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after collapse.
• In a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor framing above main lobby; possible repair not confirmed.
• A majority of the 5th floor was not protected by sprinkler systems, with the exception of mechanical space to east and office area to north side of building; no evidence of sprinklers in enclosures on 5th floor (also on floors 7, 8, and 9) which housed OEM generators and day tanks. Seventh floor
generator room may have been sprinklered, conflicting data.

So WTC 7, home of the CIA, Secret Service, SEC, the NYC Emergency bunker and many others, has one major fuel line running through it, on the 5th floor, and this floor has no fireproofing, and was not protected by sprinkler systems? Does this strike anyone else as just a little strange? Wouldn't any building with a pressurized fuel line running through one floor have at least sprinkler systems on that floor, let alone fireproofing? Now say this building is a whole city's emergency operation center - perhaps even more reason to have the building properly protected and fortified from fire?

Oddly the report ends there. I realise this is a work in progress, but with all due respects esdad I don't see anything definitive about this report, and neither do the authors. So far this report is full of speculation and mixed observations. It tends to raise more questions for me than it did answer them. Perhaps you could give your take on the report to make things clearer for me?

And to Shadow - what was your initial reaction upon seeing WTC 7 fall for the first time?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

You realize that 10th floor to ground means there was damage, right? THat is a nice synopsis of the report, but I suggest anyone reading this 'eidted version' read the whole thing.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
they had HOURS to take pictures of tower seven. i wonder why there are none.

from another thread...

what does this mean?

www.google.com..."tower+seven"

i get 14, 600 hits.

the first one that has anything to do with WTC7 is on the third page of results.
apparently, 911 searches are second only to porn searches on the net.

wierd. it's not like i searched, "antipasto aluminization"(zero hits), or, "frantic nun"(247, 000 hits).

so, now we not only have the question, 'what happened to WTC7, again?', but also, "why do the two words,
tower and seven HARDLY EVER appear together?'

i mean, "frantic nun" getting 17 times more hits than "tower seven" is kinda suspicious, and points at FILTERING/CENSORING by GOOGLE.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by billybob]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

You realize that 10th floor to ground means there was damage, right? THat is a nice synopsis of the report, but I suggest anyone reading this 'eidted version' read the whole thing.


It was a bad choice of words on my part. There was damage below the 5th floor, as you can see above. I should have said there wasn't significant structural damage below the 5th floor mentioned in the NIST report. As far as I know it's not the face of the building that provides the stability, it's the supports on the inside.

Now that we've cleared that up, are you prepared to clarify the comments below?

'I have read previews of NIST's WTC 7 report and it is conclusive."

Conclusive? There's nothing conclusive about it. That's the nature of an interim report - it's a work in progress.

"The building caved inward after the structure began to fail. You can see it buckle in photographs, before it falls. The government had alot of offices there including the CIA and CIA front enterprises. The building burned itself out, the fires are believed to have been fed by natrual gas lines under and throughout the WTC 7. "

What does 'burned itself out' mean?

I still can't get past the supposed lack of fireproofing and protection on the 5th floor - the one floor with a major gas line running through it. I don't see how the building could even meet code if this was in fact the case.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why does the engineering department of BYU repudiate Jone's theories?


Maybe because universities get money from the government...i.e. grants. If they went against the government, do you think that they'd get those grants?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
if you look into the ownership of the original WTC plans, they were interstate and did not need to adhere to local codes for NYC at the time. They 'promised' that it was sufficient, but on 9/11 we found out for sure. There have also been major and minor renovations which also added to the unique architecture found in WTC 7.

I apologize if I feel that it is conclusive, since there is not much there that I can disagree with. I am not looking at it from a conspiracy Point of view, but rather a common sense approach. There is no enough good or viable evidence to lead me to believe WTC 7 came down by anything other than burning out and collapsing.

There are not many pictures of WTC 7 jsut after collapse since the WTC 1 and 2 had collapsed and most people at that time were running for their lives and not thinking about taking pictures of WTC 7. NIST did however release a few pictures that show damage from 18 down, and it does not appear catastrophic, but it does not look stable either.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I'll be honest esdad - I think you're giving those who espouse this theory too much credit. The CIA, Secret Service, etc. are in this building, and it doesn't meet code due to some interstate ownership? If this is true then it was meant to be that way, you can bet on it. The only other possibility is that all of these organizations rented office space in a totally unsafe building and didn't realize it. Believe that and you are believing that the US is being run by total idiots.

It's all too convenient that there's no photographic evidence to support much of their working theory. My common sense tells me that if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck - it's probably a duck.

I know you mentioned that your first impression upon seeing WTC7 fall was that there was no more loss of life (when did you see it to think that? Had they said there was no one in the building? And one person did die, BTW). But what was your impression of the building collapse? Did it look at first blush like a controlled demolition to you?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
No need for demolition crews anymore. 9/11 proves you dont need explosives, thermite or anything other than a Bic lighter. Just set a few small fires and 8 hours later he building will fall straight down into itself.





top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join