What happened to WTC 7 again?

Originally posted by Griff
Were did I ever state that Dexpan was used in the towers?

So, three thousand people doesn't equate to thousands? Just because I said brothers in arms doesn't mean I ment just the firefighters.

Hmm...also there is a quote around here that has a DEMOLITIONS EXPERT saying that they are getting ready to "pull" building 6. Laughable indeed.

You linked to DEXPAN for some reason when you talking about this technology existing. Why the DEXPAN link then if that wasnt suppose to be some kind of evidence?

When you say Brothers in arms about firefighters what where you talking about? Firefighters are a brotherhood they dont consider just anyone part of it.

I was also talking about the whole concept of it the WTC7 as a demo concerning demolition experts. They really dont care if some guy that has no demo experience said "pull it" while talking to firefighters, its laughable because of a million technical reasons.

If you dont trust me contact a site that deals with demolitons. I linked too one and you can see the response of the staff in a thread that was already posted. But by all means go out and find other demoliton sites and ask them, and im not talking about 9-11 sites go to the real experts that do this stuff for a living.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

You linked to DEXPAN for some reason when you talking about this technology existing. Why the DEXPAN link then if that wasnt suppose to be some kind of evidence?

I linked to Dexpan just to show that there is tech out there that doesn't need to explode. I guess it was a little confusing..I was ina hurry and that was the first thing that came up.

When you say Brothers in arms about firefighters what where you talking about? Firefighters are a brotherhood they dont consider just anyone part of it.

I shouldn't have used that term.

I'm really not concerned with the "pull it" terminology. And you said best...it wasn't a demolitions expert saying it...it was Silverstein. So, the question is...what did Silverstein mean. Because frankly, pulling the firefighters doesn't fit and demolitions doesn't fit (according to you and your sources). Could it be that Silverstein doesn't know terminology and said pull it meaning demolish? How would he know that pull it is lingo for firefighters anyway? Oh, I forgot he was a fire chief that has the authority to pull out firefighters.

I understand theres stuff like DEXPAN out there but it has little to do with the WTC7 because it couldnt have been used.

In theory sound waves or anti-matter can bring down a building, but Im not going to suggest that could have been used at WTC7 because thats just as crazy as clean mini-nukes.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

You almost got me, I guess you are splitting hairs again In my post

Prior to the WTC collpase, WTC 7's lobby was used as a staging area for rescue operations in the other 2 towers. Firefighters did not fight the blaze, but rather let itself burn since it was evacuated and there was a greater rescue effort in finding survivors from WTC 1 and 2. It collapsed at 5:20.

I state that there was no firefighting going on, so I am not sure what you mean.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I understand theres stuff like DEXPAN out there but it has little to do with the WTC7 because it couldnt have been used.

In theory sound waves or anti-matter can bring down a building, but Im not going to suggest that could have been used at WTC7 because thats just as crazy as clean mini-nukes.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Not the least bit crazy man if you have CIA, NSA and others involved.

Anthing that is fast and effective will work.

Remember no insurance or legal costs to pay due to the natural disaster theme going eg. blame it on the terrorists.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
In theory sound waves or anti-matter can bring down a building, but Im not going to suggest that could have been used at WTC7 because thats just as crazy as clean mini-nukes.

If our military were to have this kind of tech at its disposal, would they avoid using it just because it would sound "crazy" to the general public? Sounds more like that much more of a reason to use those sorts of explosives.

Have you seen the charred vehicles around Ground Zero? Like vast amounts of heat had somehow torched them from the base of the building during the collapses? Or what about clean-up workers' hair falling out, among cancer and other more unusual illnesses, as described by civilian medic Indira Singh? And the huge white cloud that rose out of Ground Zero in the wake of the collapses, distinct from the gray hydrocarbon fire smoke and concrete dust?

All of that would be circumstantial evidence for the use of some kind of modern nuclear weapon, 3rd or 4th generation as LaBTop says. And again, why would our military not use that kind of tech just because it would sound silly to people such as yourself? You should be more open-minded.

It would be no astronomical advance just to make nukes detonate a higher percentage of their critical mass, and to use plutonium instead of uranium for that mass. Given 60 years and the huge budgets they've had, if they don't have tech like that yet then I'd like to know wtf they've been doing all this time. It seriously would not be a major advance at all. Hell, they considered using plutonium bombs on Japan. Baby steps.

Originally posted by esdad71
You almost got me, I guess you are splitting hairs again In my post

Prior to the WTC collpase, WTC 7's lobby was used as a staging area for rescue operations in the other 2 towers. Firefighters did not fight the blaze, but rather let itself burn since it was evacuated and there was a greater rescue effort in finding survivors from WTC 1 and 2. It collapsed at 5:20.

I state that there was no firefighting going on, so I am not sure what you mean.

I can tell I almost had you by your dance moves.

First, you ask ME to post links because I said there was no firefighting going on. This was because YOU already knew this, but you wanted me to reassure you/not be able to back up my claims/not sure why you did this. I think you're just backpedaling.

But, I digress. You CLEARLY stated that there was no firefighting going on, right? I have your words. Then, please explain WHO THE HELL were they "pulling" from the building per Silverstein's comment? Were these invisible firefighters to everyone except Silverstein because he's a) a mutant from the Marvel Universe or b) he was high on PCP when he made the comment?

Again, the evidence points to the elusive "it" being the building.

Originally posted by bsbray11
If our military were to have this kind of tech at its disposal, would they avoid using it just because it would sound "crazy" to the general public? Sounds more like that much more of a reason to use those sorts of explosives.

Im sorry anti-matter bombs,clean mini-nukes and sound weapons that can bring down whole buildings are pure fantasy right now and you have no evidence to back up your claims.

For all the years we have been making anti-matter the entire global production is about a one-trillionth of a gram. You would be lucky to to knock over a house of playing cards with the combined anti-matter humans have ever made. You would also need magentic containment fields to keep the anti-matter from blowing up as soon as you made it that would have to be miniturized to such a extent its impossible now.

Absurb to even suggest something like that and a sound weapon that could bring down a 40 plus story steel building is even more insane.

Originally posted by bsbray11
All of that would be circumstantial evidence for the use of some kind of modern nuclear weapon, 3rd or 4th generation as LaBTop says. And again, why would our military not use that kind of tech just because it would sound silly to people such as yourself? You should be more open-minded.
It would be no astronomical advance just to make nukes detonate a higher percentage of their critical mass, and to use plutonium instead of uranium for that mass.

circumstantial evidence HA more like a showcase for a poor understanding of the subject

There is a physical limits too how small you could make nuclear weapons. Scientist agree there has to be a set amount of nuclear material or it wouldnt work. There is alittle debate on just how small these can be made but they all agree the smallest nuke would still produce a explostion equal to many tons of TNT.

That wouldnt produce little puffs of smoke it would blow up whole buildings.

Given 60 years and the huge budgets they've had, if they don't have tech like that yet then I'd like to know wtf they've been doing all this time. It seriously would not be a major advance at all. Hell, they considered using plutonium bombs on Japan. Baby steps.

They did use a Plutonium weapon in Japan they didnt consider it. Fat Man" was an implosion type weapon using plutonium. Just the fact that you said that shows you have a poor understanding of nuclear weapons.

Alot of modern nuclear weapons today use plutonium and have for years and theres nothing magical or clean about them. There has been huge advancements in nuclear weapons since WW2 they have increase the yeild of these weapons hundreds of times and have moved on to Hydrogen bombs and have created "small" nuclear weapons that a person could carry but they still have yields equal to hundreds of tons of TNT.

I wish you would start a new thread about how these Mini clean nukes could have been used in the WTC7. Please do because I would love to see how that goes when people on ATS that know alittle something about nuclear weapons read it.

This is classic and deserves its own thread not to be buried on page 8 of a 9-11 thread. Please bsbray11 start a new thread about this theory of yours.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Im sorry anti-matter bombs,clean mini-nukes and sound weapons that can bring down whole buildings are pure fantasy right now and you have no evidence to back up your claims.

For all the years we have been making anti-matter the entire global production is about a one-trillionth of a gram. You would be lucky to to knock over a house of playing cards with the combined anti-matter humans have ever made. You would also need magentic containment fields to keep the anti-matter from blowing up as soon as you made it that would have to be miniturized to such a extent its impossible now.

Absurd to even suggest something like that and a sound weapon that could bring down a 40 plus story steel building is even more insane.

Sorry, but can you show me where I have ever mentioned an "anti-matter bomb"? Or a sound weapon?

I think I was talking about nuclear technology.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It would be no astronomical advance just to make nukes detonate a higher percentage of their critical mass, and to use plutonium instead of uranium for that mass. Given 60 years and the huge budgets they've had, if they don't have tech like that yet then I'd like to know wtf they've been doing all this time. It seriously would not be a major advance at all. Hell, they considered using plutonium bombs on Japan. Baby steps.

Yep. Nuclear technology. Not anti-matter.

Maybe I should start going on about how you think fires fueled by clowns brought the towers down? I mean if you're going to go on about things I never posted, I should be able to, too.

It's just absurd to think clowns were the magic fuel that properly heated the steel.

There is a physical limits too how small you could make nuclear weapons. Scientist agree there has to be a set amount of nuclear material or it wouldnt work. There is alittle debate on just how small these can be made but they all agree the smallest nuke would still produce a explostion equal to many tons of TNT.

And these scientists have had access to nuclear technology and have detonated various amounts of mass to prove their hypothesizing, right? And of course if we're talking government labs here, they would never release false information. So there's not much point here unless these guys are independent and have detonated their own nukes to show the smallest possible critical mass that can still be used in a nuke.

That wouldnt produce little puffs of smoke it would blow up whole buildings.

Where have I suggested that these explosives would've been responsible for the squibs? I don't think the charges in both towers were all nukes. I don't even know where they would've been used.

But what else makes peoples' hair fall out, Shadow? And what else would fry firetrucks on ground level during collapse? All I can think of are explosives that emit a lot of thermal energy. Falling steel doesn't scorch streets of firetrucks.

They did use a Plutonium weapon in Japan they didnt consider it.

I was thinking of Little Boy. My mistake. But even better -- they've already used plutonium, which is a clean detonation when it's handled comptetently. Mostly alpha radiation, which doesn't go far, and can't penetrate skin. Alpha can't be detected without special equipment, either. Your standard devices won't pick it up.

Info on Alpha radiation (a government website btw)

Alot of modern nuclear weapons today use plutonium and have for years and theres nothing magical or clean about them.

Plutonium emits mainly alpha radiation (I can provide sources if you want, or do a Google search), and that doesn't go far at all. There's less gamma from plutonium, and that's what travels and is usually detected. With less of that, and a higher % of the critical mass converted to energy, you'll have less radiation traveling less distance in general. If, in 60 years and with trillions of dollars in all that time, our military hasn't learned what it takes to get most of the critical mass detonated, or even more of it than past detonations, which seems like it would be the efficient and humane way to go, then I've been misguided in thinking that the US has a very competent military.

There has been huge advancements in nuclear weapons since WW2 they have increase the yeild of these weapons hundreds of times and have moved on to Hydrogen bombs and have created "small" nuclear weapons that a person could carry but they still have yields equal to hundreds of tons of TNT.

I think you're just taking everything that's more common knowledge and taking it to be everything the military has researched in terms of nukes here. You do get that I'm suggesting this tech isn't general knowledge, right? Joe Vialls did a lot of articles on bombings that illustrate why they might not want this tech out in the open. This stuff wouldn't be in textbooks.

I wish you would start a new thread about how these Mini clean nukes could have been used in the WTC7.

Ooops, I'm talking about WTC1 and 2.

But sure; would love to see what everybody with textbook knowledge of nukes from the 40's and 50's have to say. Too bad we're 50 or 60 years down the road.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11


I was thinking of Little Boy. My mistake. But even better -- they've already used plutonium, which is a clean detonation.

LOL a FATMAN was a clean detonation? Your just making this stuff up and its really sad.. Tell that too the people that died from the radiation and they people that still live with its effects today.

There was only 2 Atomic bombs dropped on Japan and you couldn't even get that right LOL I was thinking of the other atomic bomb LOL sure its real hard to get confused with 2 of them.

They were thinking of dropping a plutonium bomb on japan LOL CLASSIC!

The closer any nuclear bomb is to the ground the more dirty of a weapon it is because more small particles of radioactive "dust" are created. Airburst can be much cleaner then a groundburst but they are still very deadly with raidation. Both bombs dropped on Japan were airburst.

What your suggesting is a ground burst on the WTC and that would make the effects much much worse.

But what else makes peoples' hair fall out, Shadow?

Any number of things even male pattern baldness The effects of radiation poisoning are well documented doctors know what that is and can produced evidence if any took place. Show me one doctor that claims anyone from the 9-11 area suffered from poisoning from uranium or plutonium used in nuclear weapons.


I see you still dont want to start a thread on this 9-11 nuke theory of yours Wonder why your not doing that Come on bsbray11 its a new one on ATS share it with the people. It really deserves its own thread.

Ill stay out of it I promise. I just want to see what others on ATS say too you.




[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Shadow - since you seem to be the only current poster denying a controlled demolition of WTC 7, I'll post this question directly to you: What was your first impression upon seeing WTC 7 fall for the first time?

And let's let the advanced weaponry consideration have it's own thread. I think it deserves it.

As an aside I think it's dangerously naive to believe that we, the population in general have access to the latest technologies, especially those with military applications.

Originally posted by Oddzon
My question is why?

What is the need to implode WTC7?

Who gains from doing this and why does it need to be covered up?

What is the motive?

I do not see the point when you consider the events of the day.

why bring down WTC 7, many theories the one used most is that the tenants in the building had controversial information that was desired destroyed and it was.

but I think it went down also as part of Silverstein's redevelopment plans. It was a purely business decision to a degree. Afterall he made the call and we all know it. So it was about dollars and cents too. I think that the twin towers coming down went so well that Silverstein thought, I can redevelope the whole damn complex now and nobody will sufficiently question it. That is more money in his pockets for the long run. If there had been any problems with WTC twins coming down then he may have held back on pulling WTC-7 due to inability to pass it off as a natural disaster for insurance purposes.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There was only 2 Atomic bombs dropped on Japan and you couldn't even get that right LOL I was thinking of the other atomic bomb LOL sure its real hard to get confused with 2 of them.

Getting the critical masses of the bombs dropped on Japan mixed up (not how many were dropped) isn't half as bad as some of the crap you've suggested, but I've never felt obligated to be such an ass to you. At least I wasn't trying too hard to have a decent discussion with you; I at least saved myself some trouble.

They've had over 60 years, some 1,050 tests and insane amounts of cash. I'm not saying small nuke devices were used as explosives at the WTC but I am open to the possibility and I do believe small-yield nukes are available to the US military and have been for at least a few years by now. Arguing by textbook definitions of how larger nukes are supposed to work and what they do and etc. seems pretty damned stupid to me in light of the advances that would've been made in the past few decades with these things and all the variables that can be manipulated with such explosives.

I'll drop the topic here for the sake of saving myself the trouble of trying to communicate sensibly with an ass, but if anyone wants to actually look into this stuff, there are physics forums online where the topic has been discussed by people that know what they're talking about, and independent researcher articles into the explosives behind certain 'terrorist' bombings and etc.

My understanding is that small dirty nuke devices could be literally mass produced could they not? I could see the military desiring such devices and not making it publicly known that they existed or were being used.

Was there radiation testing done during and after 911?

Originally posted by Hammer51

My question is why?

Wasn't it going to cost silverstein millions to get rid of the asbestos in the buildings?

If so it seems like he benefited big time from the demolitions.

[edit on 29/3/2006 by ANOK]

Touchy using the word A$$ bsbray11


Your were indeed suggesting that a weapon like that could have been used in the WTC. Thats what im trying to point out is to put it frankly ridiculous.

If you were talking just talking about the feasibility of semi-clean micro nukes that would be different. Theres a great weapons forum right here on ATS.

The only hypothetical weapon that could come close to what your are suggesting would use no plutonium or uranium. They would be called "Pure fusion weapons " You can ask any physicist around the world and they will tell you they cant even establish the scientific feasibility of such devices.

Even if they could work a pure-fusion weapon would still emit large amounts of killing radiation, but as short-lived neutrons. Neutron radiation is nasty stuff worse then beta and gamma per millirad. You might be able to go into the area of one of these devices 48 hours after it went off which is alot cleaner then nuclear weapons.

People in the area of WTC would have gotten deadly doses of neutrons when this went off.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by jimmytango
Shadow - since you seem to be the only current poster denying a controlled demolition of WTC 7, I'll post this question directly to you: What was your first impression upon seeing WTC 7 fall for the first time?

SHADOW - did I not ask nicely enough? Pretty please answer my question?

Originally posted by jimmytango
Pretty please answer my question?

I'll answer your question.

My first impression was that the collapse looked like what a controlled demolition would look like.

My first impression was thank god there was no more loss of life. The collapse took over 30 seconds, start to finish also, so stop wathcing the video that circulates so much on the web. I have read previews of NIST's WTC 7 report and it is conclusive. There is more damage to the tower 7 than

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.