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.

 

9/11 and building 7

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


This is what it looks like when you are on a budget and COST and SAFETY are your GOALS.

Low Cost.
Low Tech.
Quick and Dirty.

This is not how it would look if the GOALS were different.


Please enlighten us then.

Please tell us how you "low cost, low tech, quick and dirty" expose and then drill holes into support beams and then place charges in them.

I take it since we are talking low tech, there aren't those special radio-shielded-radio-control detonators?

Since you believe that this quick and dirty technique was used, are you saying that it was only used to initiate the collapse? If so, then we can disregard the squibs as what they are, jets of air?

I can't imagine how you can "low cost low tech quick and dirty" the theory that calls for charges on every single floor making it look like a collapse. I take it you don't believe in the "top-down" demolition?




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please enlighten us then.


Sure.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please tell us how you "low cost, low tech, quick and dirty" expose and then drill holes into support beams and then place charges in them.


That is the old, cheap, accepted way of doing things for the last hundred years.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
I take it since we are talking low tech, there aren't those special radio-shielded-radio-control detonators?


I am sure they are the lowest cost, non-military version as this was a private contract which would have had a bidding process.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Since you believe that this quick and dirty technique was used, are you saying that it was only used to initiate the collapse? If so, then we can disregard the squibs as what they are, jets of air?


2+2=5???


Originally posted by LeftBehind
I can't imagine how you can "low cost low tech quick and dirty" the theory that calls for charges on every single floor making it look like a collapse. I take it you don't believe in the "top-down" demolition?


Again, your assumptions are just that... assumptions. Why do you assume it had to be every floor? A navy seal demo expert on here seems to disagree with your assumption.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Well, if you believe that explosives were only needed to initiate the collapse, then they certainly were not used many stories down.

2+2=4

Sorry you have so much trouble following that logic.

On the contrary if you believe that every burst of air was an explosive, and that the puffs of air further down were caused by explosives going off early.

Assumptions eh?

Kind of like assuming the military has these devices. Assuming that it was an inside job. Assuming that they used the "low tech low cost" method.

The ones who say that the fall was helped along the entire way by explosives require thousands of charges placed on every floor to acheive a "natural" looking collapse. I am not a proponent of this theory.

It is impossible to pull off the above theory the "low cost low tech" way.

They are the ones assuming it would need that many charges.

Please explain how else you get the building to collapse faster than it should have as many here claim.


Edit: really, a navy seal demo expert? How many controlled demolitions are pulled off by Navy Seals? Secondly, does he proclaim knowledge of these "low tech" detonators that are wireless and yet block any other signals?

And remember it's not my assumption, it's the truth movements.


Maybe this Navy Seal "demo expert" should contact Steven Jones and add his "expertise" to his paper.


[edit on 1-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The ones who say that the fall was helped along the entire way by explosives require thousands of charges placed on every floor to acheive a "natural" looking collapse.


No, you say that. If a plane WITHOUT ANY charges can bring it down... why would it possibly take THOUSANDS of charges with the plane... there were only 42 core columns.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Because I'm not saying that any bombs were needed.

I'm not the one saying that every puff of air on multiple floors are explosives going off out of sequence.

If you are saying that explosives were only used to initiate the collapse, then yes, you only would need a few. But if you only need a few, why use them at all, couldnt the impact damage and fires initiate the collapse just as well?

Now if you are claiming that all the squibs are bombs, and that it was a topdown demolition, and that the towers fell much faster than they should, thats when you start getting into the realm of thousands of explosives.

Which one are you advancing here?

Are squibs air or bombs?

Was the fall after initiation as it should be? Or was it's speed and lack of resistance evidence for bombs?

Depending on which controlled demolitino scenario you are advancing, it either required very few bombs, so why bother, or it required thousands on multiple floors timed to look "natural".

Do you support both?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If you are saying that explosives were only used to initiate the collapse, then yes, you only would need a few. But if you only need a few, why use them at all, couldnt the impact damage and fires initiate the collapse just as well?


Because they would need to be in the proper locations throughout the buildings.

Initiating/maintaining a top down collapse could have been as simple as severing the core every ten floors or so in succession. The planes only affected a few floors.

Why do you assume that I subscribe to squibs, etc. when I have mentioned none of this?

Why would you write off experts that do not agree with you?

John Lear: The ONLY MAN to hold EVERY FAA flight cert... 19,000 flight hours in something like 40 different airframes... but you know more than him about flight trajectory, etc.

Laes: Navy seal demo expert... read his posts.

You: Master of Assumptons

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Please elaborate on how this every ten floors demo is "easy".

Please leave other threads out of this, it is off topic.

Please, answer the questions. If you don't subscribe to either theory that's fine. Why don't you explain to us how exactly they pulled this off and we can add your theory to the pile of competing demolition theories.



Originally posted by Slapnuts

Initiating/maintaining a top down collapse could have been as simple as severing the core every ten floors or so in succession. The planes only affected a few floors.


What was that you were saying about assumptions?

And please stick to the ideas, enough with the personal attacks.


[edit on 1-9-2006 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 1-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please leave other threads out of this, it is off topic.


Ohh... the irony is killing me. Use the magic 'search' function with my username as the demo of WTC 1 and 2 is OFF TOPIC for this thread.

edit: if you edit threads after you post them how can I properly respond anyway? I said 'could have'. You speak in EXACTING terms... look in a dictionary for the differences between ASSUMING and THEORIZING.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

John Lear: The ONLY MAN to hold EVERY FAA flight cert... 19,000 flight hours in something like 40 different airframes... but you know more than him about flight trajectory, etc.

Laes: Navy seal demo expert... read his posts.

You: Master of Assumptons



I suppose this tirade was on topic? What does John Lear have to do with this?

Sure.

Anyway, I'm anxiously awaiting your theory on this since you don't seem to agree with any that I have forwarded.

Please elaborate on how a "few" explosives every ten floors or so would be easy and how exactly that would work.

Thanks

[edit on 1-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by TG
I thought there might have been a fast way to demolish a building.


There is a fast way to demolish a building.

Incorporate the explosives right into the building while it is being built. Then when you are ready to proceeed with the demolition, lets say a week or so before hand, you send in your people to check the charges which were put into place 30 years prior.


Mind telling me what the average shelf life is for munitions that one could use to demo a building? This should be fun and interesting!



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Mind telling me what the average shelf life is for munitions that one could use to demo a building? This should be fun and interesting!


Not that I subscribe to the theory of built in explosives, there is a thread on this site concerning the shelf life of C4 when imbedded in concrete with citations. You will need to search some but you will find it.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Not that I subscribe to the theory of built in explosives, there is a thread on this site concerning the shelf life of C4 when imbedded in concrete with citations. You will need to search some but you will find it.


If someone can find this, I'd appreciate a link to it as well. All I've seen from web sites is that C4 has a shelf-life of "at least 10 years" or "at least 15 years" under "good conditions". What constitutes good conditions? What chemical processes make C4 unstable, exactly, and what are the prerequisities for these processes? I've also heard that additives are purposefully used in military C4 to reduce the shelf-life. So, additional information, specific information, would be appreciated.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Mind telling me what the average shelf life is for munitions that one could use to demo a building? This should be fun and interesting!


Not that I subscribe to the theory of built in explosives, there is a thread on this site concerning the shelf life of C4 when imbedded in concrete with citations. You will need to search some but you will find it.


I found the thread you're talking about.



Although there is no supporting link in his narrative, Brown theorizes in the section titled “How the WTC Was Secretly Demolished on 9-11-01” that the thick coatings on the rebar used on the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of the plastic explosive C4.


Although there is no supporting link, Brown theorizes. Oh I see, so this guy doesn't have any background in explosives? No actual 'hands on' experience? I'd love to hear how concrete preserves C4. How were the detonator or blasting caps perserved, or what's their shelf life? As far as I'm concerned he only touched on half the issue, I mean, C4 doesn't set itself off, as I'm sure many of you know.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Although there is no supporting link, Brown theorizes. Oh I see, so this guy doesn't have any background in explosives? No actual 'hands on' experience? I'd love to hear how concrete preserves C4. How were the detonator or blasting caps perserved, or what's their shelf life? As far as I'm concerned he only touched on half the issue, I mean, C4 doesn't set itself off, as I'm sure many of you know.


I think the theory is you preplace the explosives but not the detonators...

I also believe that since oxygen + heat + light breakdown C4 (again an example of HE) it is well preserved encased in concrete/steel. I believe Laes Yvan sp? can tell you more.

There is more than one thread here and also some articles on Google about it. Again, I do not subscribe to the built-in theory, but if you ask I will give you the best answer I can.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Because they would need to be in the proper locations throughout the buildings.

Initiating/maintaining a top down collapse could have been as simple as severing the core every ten floors or so in succession. The planes only affected a few floors.

Why do you assume that I subscribe to squibs, etc. when I have mentioned none of this?

Why would you write off experts that do not agree with you?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


The building was not simply damaged by a few floows (assuming you mean WTC7). 1/3-1/2 was gouged out of the back. Not to mention fires spread throuout. So they would have to simply be extremely lucky, or have planted the explosives after the first two twoers collapsed within the fire and collapsing building.

You seem to have no problem writing off experts. over 200 of the worlds top engineers investigated the events of 9/11 and you seem to write all of them off. Not to mention all the rest around the world who are keeping quiet about something that you yourself who has no such expertise can easily spot with no trouble.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the towers didnt collapse straight down. It was WTC 1 collapsing across WTC 5 and into WTC 7 that caused the damage that led to WTC 7's collapse.


At that distance I don't think it can be classified as "collapsing into". It is better described as "ejecting into".


i]Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Then explain the pics showing the large chunks of WTC 1 across WTC 5 to the pile of wreckage that was WTC 7.


See reason above.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You have NO factual information on where the "center of gravity" remained during the collapse. Nobody does, all anyone has is conjecture.


Every video I have ever seen shows all three buildings coming straight down. Even WTC 2, which started it's decent with it's top in angular momentum, and then against Newton's law, changed it's direction toward the earth.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Depending on which controlled demolitino scenario you are advancing, it either required very few bombs, so why bother, or it required thousands on multiple floors timed to look "natural".


Isn't it quite ironic that if they really wanted to make it look "natural", they should have had the buildings break apart in pieces, and topple over? Yet they fell at freefall+, and totally pulverize themselves into dust with pyroclastic flows. . .


Originally posted by Licio
So “I think” that, whoever “planed” 911 had as its primary goal to take down Building 7. Why? Because, in Building 7 there were many investigations against really important/influential/rich people. And the thing rich people hate the most is loosing their money. So “they” decided to erase all evidence against them by taking down the building. Why no one died? Because, then no one would ask questions about how their loved ones died on Building 7. In conclusion, make huge diversion as the twin towers falling and use it as a smoke screen and give absurd explanations about their collapse, to get people talking about the twin towers and not Building 7. So far it worked great since everyone is hung up on the towers and not on Building 7.


Good theory, but why go to such lengths to put on a show? They already said that all the diesel in the building helped to take it down. Why not do something simpler?
Towers were another agenda totally.



Originally posted by bsbray11
This gash was also right on the SW corner of the building, and away from any major structural components.


This is correct both structurally, and factually with respect to the accounts of firemen, etc..


Originally posted by snoopy
The building was not simply damaged by a few floows (assuming you mean WTC7). 1/3-1/2 was gouged out of the back. Not to mention fires spread throuout. So they would have to simply be extremely lucky, or have planted the explosives after the first two twoers collapsed within the fire and collapsing building.


Again, I don't think this was the case according to the firemen.

Edited to edit quote name.


[edit on 2-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

Edited for quotation marks.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Captain Chris Boyle


Engine 94 - 18 years


Boyle: ... 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.


Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.




Deputy Chief Peter Hayden


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. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
[url=http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html ]

Seems that the NYFD was aware of the damage and feared that WTC 7 was going to come down.....


Picture of the collapse, showing debris hitting WTC 7

www.911myths.com...



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
The SW corner damage, from photos, appears to be -- guess what? -- roughly 20 stories high.


The Steve Spak photo of the South facade of WTC7 shows this damage, as Slap Nuts and WCIP have shown on another thread. This can be determined by the angles in the photo, matching sooty marks on the building, and the amount of undisturbed south face shown in the photo.

You'll notice that in the photo, you can see obvious damage (the SW corner damage), and then you can see much of the rest of the South face, with no more visible damage. You can say that they just missed the other, hypothetical, huge gouge in the building, for whatever reason (even though it was supposed to be HUGE and therefore somehow justify the free-fall collapse of Building 7), but NIST placed that hole near the center of the building face. That creates some problems, as even one of the "debunking" sites points out that you can pick out most of the columns on the South face to the right of the SW damage. So then where was the gouge? It would have to be on one of the extreme sides of the face, as a quick column count will show it wasn't near the center (assuming it existed at all as something separate from the SW corner damage).

[edit on 2-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Isn't it quite ironic that if they really wanted to make it look "natural", they should have had the buildings break apart in pieces, and topple over? Yet they fell at freefall+, and totally pulverize themselves into dust with pyroclastic flows. . .



Actually they didnt fall at freefall+. They fell slower than that.



Secondly, pyroclasctic flows are extremely hot. The clouds that day were not pyroclastic, which is why we see people at ground zero covered in dust, not burned to a crisp.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You'll notice that in the photo, you can see obvious damage (the SW corner damage), and then you can see much of the rest of the South face, with no more visible damage.


Really, then where is all this smoke coming from?

It certainly isn't coming from 5 or 6, across the street from the buiding.









Notice that in these pictures we see the obvious damage to the south face of the building. A smoking hole is pretty obvious, for those of you who think it's "just smoke".


But strangely it is consistent with the firemen's description of a giant hole in the side of the building.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join