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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro


"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Localized fires?



How do you know that is 'smoke' from fires in WTC 7, or dust from the collapse of one of the towers?

Do you see any flames? Enough to equaly heat up all the columns to the point of failure? If any one of those culumns didn't fail at the same time the building would not have collapsed straight down.

You would have seen something simular to this...




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I know that smoke is from fires, because that is a still image from the Screw Loose Change video.

Watch it, see for yourself. Don't take my word for it.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I know that smoke is from fires, because that is a still image from the Screw Loose Change video.

Watch it, see for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Fires don't implode the internal parts of a building and then implode the rest like a well done controlled demo. The odds on that are astronomical.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Localized fires?


Praise Jesus that you were able to pick out two words from my post to address.

For the sake of argument I'll say WOWEE GEE SUPER FIRES so you can actually address the meat of my post, if you'll even return to it now.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Well, if your going to pretend that a few fires were all that happened to WTC7 that's a pretty big stretch.

Would you listen to me if I said "the planes hit the buildings with the force of a nuclear blast so of course they fell down."

Of course not.

If the basic assumptions are wrong, what else is there to address?

Maybe I'm tired of having to point out the same facts to the same group of people over and over, only to have the same wrong information posted.

It's a kneejerk reaction, just like when I hear people bring up Scott Forbes.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Would you listen to me if I said "the planes hit the buildings with the force of a nuclear blast so of course they fell down."

No, especially since no plane hit the 7.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
The fires were really irrelevant to the basic problem I was pointing out, and not a basic assumption, and yet that's exactly what you focused on.

Here it is, slimmed down that much more:





NIST says one column, the one under the penthouse, failed and fell straight down all the way to the bottom, and then a bit later all of the other columns failed instantly and also fell straight down, all the way down to the bottom.

That's sure what it looked like, but the problem is, wtf causes that besides controlled demolition?



Columns suddenly failing at once and dropping straight down at free-fall, all the way to the bottom of the building?



How much more suspicious can a building collapse be? Do we even know what controlled demolitions are?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Isn't the east penthouse on the opposite side of the bottom corner of the "20 stories" that got gashed on the 7? Wasn't that the southwest corner?

I bring it up because people say the 20 story corner gash played a big part of the entire collapse. However, it looks like it didn't!



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Why are explosives the only possible thing that could cause a column to fail when the entire south side of the building was burning?

So let's see.

Two giant skyscrapers fall down close by, causing debris to gouge huge flaming holes in the side of the building.

But only pre-planted explosives could possibly cause a structural failure.


Does that really sound like the most likely explanation, or is it what you want to believe?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why are explosives the only possible thing that could cause a column to fail when the entire south side of the building was burning?
So let's see.
Two giant skyscrapers fall down close by, causing debris to gouge huge flaming holes in the side of the building.
But only pre-planted explosives could possibly cause a structural failure.
Does that really sound like the most likely explanation, or is it what you want to believe?

To me it's not so much that they all fell, it's that all 3 COMPLETELY fell down in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition. If the WTC 7 partially collapsed or tipped over toward it's southwest corner (you know, where that great big gouge was you guys love to bring up), then I would think the fire and debris caused it to fall.

One thing you ACT's never include in your equations, is the ASTRONOMICAL ODDS that the official story could be they way it claims. See here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plus, there is so much evidence the 7 was pulled, what more do you need?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
How many times does the physics have to be explained for you to get it?

A gaping hole and huge fires on one side of a building does not cause ALL structural columns to fail at the same time.

No time in history has this ever happend. Look at any building that has been bombed or had huge fires, they don't fall straight down, they have partial collapses because not all columns will fail equaly at the same time, unless it was carefuly planned that way


Also as far as these huge holes and huge fire, I've yet to see any proof of this.
Just because NIST called them huge doesn't prove they were. Show the proof, if there is any



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE STILL DEBATING WTC7. The owner of the building said with his own mouth, they "pulled" the building. That means they DID use explosives.

PROOF WTC 7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMO


Do you really think they had time to set up explosives after they said "the fires are out of control, the best thing to do is pull it"? NO, the explosives were ALREADY PLANTED.

If that is the case WTC 1 and 2 were most likly "pulled" as well.


[edit on 5-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How many times does the physics have to be explained for you to get it?

A gaping hole and huge fires on one side of a building does not cause ALL structural columns to fail at the same time.



They did not all fail simultaneously. The fall of the penthouse prior to the rest of the building clearly indicates that the collapse was initiated by a failure in the center of the building. That propagated outward to the rest of the building.

Given the unique structural design of the transfer trusses used in this building, this is not that unusual.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They did not all fail simultaneously. The fall of the penthouse prior to the rest of the building clearly indicates that the collapse was initiated by a failure in the center of the building. That propagated outward to the rest of the building.

So the 20 story gouge in the southwest corner (the opposite side where the east penthouse began to collapse) didn't have much to do about the collapse?


Given the unique structural design of the transfer trusses used in this building, this is not that unusual.

Says who, our gov't? It's like you guys just regurgitat what they say.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They did not all fail simultaneously. The fall of the penthouse prior to the rest of the building clearly indicates that the collapse was initiated by a failure in the center of the building. That propagated outward to the rest of the building.

Given the unique structural design of the transfer trusses used in this building, this is not that unusual.


1. Please post a reference for your "transfer truss" information.
2. Are you trying to say that a failure in the center of a building will cause an inward and total collapse?

How then do you explain WTC 6?





posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
In the pictures above from the NIST... how do they explain the:

HOROZONTAL PROGRESSION noted on their graphic??? MAGIC VOODOO WICCAN SPELLS?

The building should have been pulled down from the left if only on colum failed, not straight down.

Am I to believe that if a single column fails in a skyscraper that the whole damn thing is coming down? What if a truck slams into on in the basement garage? Universal collapse all but guaranteed?

GIVE ME A BREAK NIST.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They did not all fail simultaneously.


Most of them did according to NIST's theory, apparently.

Did you see their slides? One column fell all the way down to the bottom of the building, and then later the others failed simultaneously and did the same, and thus you get a perfect implosion that lands in a neat pile a few stories high at the base. At free-fall speed.

And you say that isn't a demolition?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   


Notice that the above timeline ends when the global collapse begins. So if we add another 6 seconds or so we get a total collapse time of about 14 seconds, which is twice as long as it takes an object to fall 600 feet, or the original height of WTC 7.

In fact, a free falling object would have to start out at 3,214 feet to take 14 seconds to fall.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Howard, please post support for your assertion that the failure of one column means that none of the others will be resisted as they fall.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join