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.

 

East Penthouse atop WTC 7 imploded too!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
What are the odds that the East Mechanical Penthouse on top of
the WTC 7 imploded before the rest of the building implodes?






"5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to "disappear" completely." - FEMA (05/02)






The rest of the WTC 7 perfectly imploding:






~5:21:08 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

~5:21:09 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south "kink" or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

~5:21:10 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25). The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall." - FEMA (05/02)



WTC 7 perfectly imploded on it's own footprint:




"The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south... The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." - FEMA (05/02)


"...when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a...skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint." - HowStuffWorks.com



And just in case you forgot:


America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero -PBS (09/10/02)

Narrator: "World Trade Center 7 had always been considered the starting point for rebuilding.

Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder: "I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." - Audio

-----------------

(Unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area." - Audio






posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
The collapse of the penthouse is part of the collapse of the entire building. In fact, it is the START OF THE COLLAPSE!


In fact, for all of those who claim that there was no “resistance” to the collapse, How come you never include the start of the collapse in your calculations?

Surely there is “resistance” of the frame to the failure from the point when the penthouse roof starts to sag and the point at which the rest of the building fails?



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Nice Killtown, you jsut killed your own theory. It imploded after internal strucutral failure. During demo work, the primary charges are on the lower floors, with subsequent charges if needed farther up the buildings structure. Where are the explsoions when the Penthouse collapses?

Also, Don't put quotes from WTC 6, which they did destroy, in the same thread. WTC 6 was heavily damaged and was bought down. Let's not confuse them.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
In fact, for all of those who claim that there was no “resistance” to the collapse, How come you never include the start of the collapse in your calculations?


Because there was no resistance for the roof of the building, and everything else besides the penthouse, as it fell. It all fell at the rate of free fall, even as the steel structure would have theoretically have been hitting the ground. So where was the resistance? There wasn't any. Free fall pretty much means no resistance.

Unless you're suggesting that the penthouse fell and took out every single column in the building, and then the building continued to stand for some time before collapsing at free fall, then what you're saying doesn't even matter Howard. And if you are suggesting that, then you're ignorant. But I don't think you're trying to actually suggest that.


Surely there is “resistance” of the frame to the failure from the point when the penthouse roof starts to sag and the point at which the rest of the building fails?


And then what? The whole structure can no longer bear the immense weight of that little penthouse, and all collapses at free fall?



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
its interesting to say the least. its got some substance to it but seems like it needs to be checked out further by experts....o wait experts never agree anymore so i guess that wont matter.

anyway check this out, my own research to point to the demolition of the WTC, in a unique way never bothered to be seen:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The collapse of the penthouse is part of the collapse of the entire building. In fact, it is the START OF THE COLLAPSE!



Yes, totally consistent with a controlled demo of a skyscraper where they blow the internal part of the building before the rest so the rest of the building will fall in on itself.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
1) Nice Killtown, you jsut killed your own theory. It imploded after internal strucutral failure. During demo work, the primary charges are on the lower floors, with subsequent charges if needed farther up the buildings structure. Where are the explsoions when the Penthouse collapses?

2) Also, Don't put quotes from WTC 6, which they did destroy, in the same thread. WTC 6 was heavily damaged and was bought down. Let's not confuse them.



1) Again, totally consistent with a controlled demo of a skyscraper where they blow the internal part of the building before the rest so the rest of the building will fall in on itself.

2) Same thing happened to the 7.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
It is totally consistent with the failure of an internal column line.

The collapse started with the "kink" forming in the roof of the penthouse, and ended when the building hit the ground. It did NOT start when the roof of the building started to drop, since the penthouse had alread dissapeared by that time, the collapse was well underway.

Those that use the start of the roofline movment to time the collapse are incorrect in doing so.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   


the usual suspects arrive at the scene...

this info on the real estate deal from the link below:

"The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [2] and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th. Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack."

Wikipedia on Larry Silverstein

--seems like lucky Larry had lotsa time to wire up #7 if he wanted to...

'Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers[5].'

--sounds like a great return on investment to me...

'In March 2006, during talks about the future of the World Trade Center site and the division of roles in the re-development for the Port Authority and Silverstein, New York State officials charged that Silverstein's greed was responsible for the breakdown in talks just minutes before a midnight deadline[6]. The Port Authority described Silverstein’s last-minute proposal as “outrageous,” and more:'

--obviously money was the most important thing to Larry despite the big payoff.

"'It was clearly an indication of the greed involved and not really in the public interest," said Port Authority Vice Chairman Charles Gargano. "This is not a traditional real estate project. This is a project where thousands of people lost their lives. This was an attack on New York City and America, and we expect Larry Silverstein and his group to understand the importance of this public project.'"

--yeah but Larry and his buddies set up the attack so they own the moment and the aftermath that resulted...

'A spokesman for Silverstein said that he was willing to negotiate at any time, and saw the deadlock as temporary.'

--we shall see

-- check this out...

"Then it was about 5:00, because I was getting hungry. We were eating oatmeal cookies and watered-down Gatorade from the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. ... We walked back. We didn't do any further because building number seven was coming down. That was another problem, to wait for building seven to come down, because that was unsecure. It was about 5:30 that building came down." [WTC Task Force Interview]'

WTC to be pulled



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
"Then it was about 5:00, because I was getting hungry. We were eating oatmeal cookies and watered-down Gatorade from the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. ... We walked back. We didn't do any further because building number seven was coming down. That was another problem, to wait for building seven to come down, because that was unsecure. It was about 5:30 that building came down." [WTC Task Force Interview]'


Which fits nicely with:



from Paul Thompson "The Terror Timeline" (pp. 466)

4:30 pm: WTC Building 7 Area is Evacuated

The area around WTC Building 7 is evacuated at this time. New York fire department chief officers, who have surveyed the building, have determined it is in danger of collapsing. Several senior firefighters have described this decision-making process. According to fire chief Daniel Nigro, "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire offices and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."


Controlled demo or structural failure?



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
Controlled demo or structural failure?



FEMA: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."



The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical collapses have indeed occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)


www.infowars.com...

So, it's a cut and dry conclusion huh? Natural collapse due to small fires and mininal damage? I doubt the honesty and accuresy of your quote.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I can't believe anybody still thinks the 7 WASN'T demo'd after seeing this! I mean the 7 imploded so perfectly.

I mean the penthouse kinks toward the middle of it just like the entire building did:





So both penthouses collapses into the building before the main building starts to fall which is consistent with demoing the internal part of a building to make it easier for the outside to fall in on itself and then the sides of the building falls inward exactly how a demo is described:


The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.


Then throw in Larry's pull order and all the accounts of the ground crews being told that the 7 is coming down and waiting around for it to collapse. Man, how much more evidence does one need?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Getting off topic how come the 9/11 commission ignored all of the WTC 7 issue?

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   

In fact, for all of those who claim that there was no “resistance” to the collapse, How come you never include the start of the collapse in your calculations?


If you don't count the second a bit the pent house takes to collapse, the building fell at the rate of free fall in a total vaccuum.

Howard is right, that IF the building fell because of fire, that when the pent house started collapsing other sections within the building probably would of been collapsing too.

Can anyone get any info on how WTC 7 was constructed? We have a bit on the Towers but not building 7.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangaraeIf you don't count the second a bit the pent house takes to collapse, the building fell at the rate of free fall in a total vaccuum.

Howard is right, that IF the building fell because of fire, that when the pent house started collapsing other sections within the building probably would of been collapsing too.

Can anyone get any info on how WTC 7 was constructed? We have a bit on the Towers but not building 7.


I can't even begin to calculate the odds of a fire doing what a careful labor intensive controlled demolition tries to do. If fire can do that with no problem, demo companies are wasting their time and money. Why don't they just torch buildings from now on?

Come on, the landlord said out of his own mouth he ordered IT pulled.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Someone needs to make an animation illustrating how NIST is trying to say WTC7 fell.

It's so ridiculous, that such an animation would speak for itself. A vertical column fails straight down upon itself through the whole building because of localized fires, and then as a result, other columns later fall simultaneously, and straight down upon themselves, somehow bringing the whole building straight down upon itself in a symmetrical fashion. It all lands in a neat pile at the base. Falls at free-fall speed.

I understand that no amount of talk or discussion will get through to you guys about how ridiculous this would be without explosives. But maybe any illustration would. If not, then you don't really care for the truth. This is getting to become basic common sense. Once you begin to twist that to protect your beliefs, you're hopeless.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Someone needs to make an animation illustrating how NIST is trying to say WTC7 fell.

It's so ridiculous, that such an animation would speak for itself. A vertical column fails straight down upon itself through the whole building because of localized fires, and then as a result, other columns later fall simultaneously, and straight down upon themselves, somehow bringing the whole building straight down upon itself in a symmetrical fashion. It all lands in a neat pile at the base. Falls at free-fall speed.

I understand that no amount of talk or discussion will get through to you guys about how ridiculous this would be without explosives. But maybe any illustration would. If not, then you don't really care for the truth. This is getting to become basic common sense. Once you begin to twist that to protect your beliefs, you're hopeless.


and also the owner said he ordered it pulled and the rescue crew said they were waiting around because they were told the entire building was coming down! How much more evidence do we need?!



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I'm sure this is only another in the long line of many many coincidences surrounding 9/11:


Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC

A secret office operated by the CIA was destroyed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting intelligence operations.

The undercover station was in 7 World Trade Center, a smaller office tower that fell several hours after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, a U.S. government official said.

The New York station was believed to have been the largest and most important CIA domestic station outside the Washington area.

www.cbsnews.com...



And I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with it:


Cheney, CIA Long at Odds

The vice president’s history of tension with the agency may help explain why his office is an area of interest in the blown-cover probe.

By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, LA Times, October 20, 2005

WASHINGTON — For more than a decade, Dick Cheney has tussled with the CIA, first as secretary of Defense and later as vice president. Now that long and tortured history forms the backdrop of a federal probe into who named an undercover agency officer — an inquiry that is centering in part on Cheney’s office.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Can one of you critique this simple program I wrote which uses the principle of conservation of momentum to calculate a minimum fall time of WTC7 of 8.58 seconds. Steven Jones, in an interview here,

Steven Jones interview (17 mins into audio)

says a mathematician friend of his came up with a min collapse time of 8.5-9 secs. My program assumes no air or building resistance, and the building collapses into a pile of rubble 47*0.62 meters high (the total of the assumed floor and roof widths):

int stories = 47;
double meters = 174.0;
double g = 9.8; //acceleration of gravity
double metersPFloor = 0.62; //floor and roof width
double mps = (meters - stories*metersPFloor) / stories;

double speed = 0.0; //speed of collapsing floors
double cMass = 1.0; //current mass of collapsing structure
double totalTime = 0.0;
double time; //time for floor to get to next

for (int i=0; i < stories; i++) //counts roof collapsing onto highest story
[
time = (Math.sqrt (speed*speed + 2.0*g*mps) - speed) / g;
totalTime += time;
speed += g*time;
//speed decreases after collision (conservation of momentum (mass*speed))
speed *= cMass / (1.0+cMass);
cMass++; //set current mass to include new floor
]
System.out.println ("Total time: "+totalTime);


[edit on 4-6-2006 by guest100]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's so ridiculous, that such an animation would speak for itself. A vertical column fails straight down upon itself through the whole building because of localized fires,


Localized fires?



Is that what you call localized fires?



Originally posted by bsbray11

Once you begin to twist that to protect your beliefs, you're hopeless.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join