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.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong... (WTC 7)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I thought that WTC 7 was widely acknowledged as a controlled demo because of the amount of damage that had occoured?

They wanted to "pull it" which means to take down a building with CD.

Although it takes a while to set the charges right for a CD right?

The holy grail indeed.

As far as the Desel fuel being stored. I have seen these tanks on large buildings yep they are a big consern but they don't use special fuel they use everyday regular desel fuel and the generators that run on them sound like airplane engines when they run. but desel fuel is pretty safe stuff you can throw a lit ciggarette into a pool of it and the ciggarette will just go out not ignite.




posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   


They wanted to "pull it" which means to take down a building with CD.


I believe this term has been associated with pulling the firefighters.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Problem is thier have been other steel buildings that have burned for several hours even over a day and did not collapse even with the fire causing structural damage to the building.

Kind of interesting how the official story says that tower 1 caused severe damage to builidng 7 to help it collapse when builidng 6 was in front of builidng 7 and sustained more damage but did not collapse, it was pulled later. Building 7 was at the very peremeter of tower 1s reach.


> This steel building that burned for hours...and over a day, did it have debris from a 100 story skyscraper tear into it?
> Was it built over an electrical substation?
> How was building 6 constructed?Have you ever seen the damage that building 6 took? It was massive, but true...it did not collapse. There was a MASSIVE hole in the middle of the building...any info on if there was a partial collapse?
> There was in fact extensive damage to WTC7.. I have posted numerous eyewitness reports from Firefighters, Policemen, EMT's, and Journalists confirming this.


According to the NIST report thier were 10 floors damaged, flooors 8 through 18 as reported by firemen on the scene. Thier have been buildings that burned longer and had more structural damage doen due to the fire and still not collapsed.


Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Problem is thier have been other steel buildings that have burned for several hours even over a day and did not collapse even with the fire causing structural damage to the building.

Kind of interesting how the official story says that tower 1 caused severe damage to builidng 7 to help it collapse when builidng 6 was in front of builidng 7 and sustained more damage but did not collapse, it was pulled later. Building 7 was at the very peremeter of tower 1s reach.


wait, let me guess. Don't tell me... *******drum roll*******

The Madrid Windsor???

The building like many other used as examples are actually concrete buildings with parts that are steel. And in the case of that building, the steel parts DID collapse. And that building suffered no structural damage at all. it also did not lose its fire protection, and it did not lose its sprinkler system. It was also being fought the entire time. Maybe WTC 7 could have lasted 26 hours if firefighters were trying to put the fires out.




Wrong, i was talking about a few other steel builidngs. Maybe you should do a little more research on this issue before posting something. Oh and do not forget the fire in the North Tower in 1975 that burned for over 3 hours and caused no damage to the steel beams but yet on 911 fires burned for less then an hour and caused several beames to weaken according to the official story.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.




[edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
OK guys you need to analyze what Silverstein said, not just buy what some web site tells you because it fits your official story fantasy.

"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."

First off the smartest thing to do to a building that is a raging inferno is not to quit fighting it. Secondly he used the term 'it' not 'them'. 'It' is an inanimate object, not people.
But the last part of the sentence clinches it for me. He said "and we watched the building collapse". That is the conclusion to his statement. He didn't say "And we watched the fire crew pull out". He WAS talking about the building NOT the fire crews.

Also note no surprise in his voice, no 'and amazingly we watched the building collapse', as you would expect for such an odd occurrence for a building under any condition.

But really the physics do not fit for such a collapse. Even under raging fire the building could not have collapsed in such a neat demo style. It fell in it's own footprint, don't try to tell me it didn't, look at the pics of it. An almost impossible situation in a chaotic, unevenly damaged building on fire. There is no precedence for this, but there is presendence for buildings to continue standing under raging fires.

The planes impacts could not have cause that much damage, especially if you look at the pentagoon attack. Supposedly the same plane, flying at the same speed, yet columns in the pentagoon survived and the massive central core, after the plane went through the outer steel facade remember, were supposed to have been sliced through?

Again, the wings at the pentagoon disappeared after hitting a wall, yet the ones at the WTC sliced through an outer steel facade and the 4" thick steel H beams in the core????

Can't you all see the contradictions in this fantasy story?

[edit on 13/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Anok.. what are your views on the document linked on the first page from implosinworld? As mentioned earlier in this thread it confused me. Do you have any resources you could recommend that will contradict it?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoknew
Anok.. what are your views on the document linked on the first page from implosinworld? As mentioned earlier in this thread it confused me. Do you have any resources you could recommend that will contradict it?


Well let's see.


With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downwards, there was no way for the perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, crating a giant "mushroom" effect around it's perimeter.


So if 95% of the debris is forced outwards what is actually crushing the floors, 5% of the building? And what is actauly causing the debris to be forced outwards, gravity?

The 'compressed air/squibs' has been discused here many times. The vids contradict the compressed air theory. First off 'squibs' are seen before the collapse begins, and seen well ahead of the collapse. Compressed air doesn't travel down floors before it finds a way of equalizing. Also as they admit 95% of the building was ejecting outwards thus opening up the building to the air and equalizing any air pressure. It's not an air tight cylinder that sprung leaks.
The compressed air story is just another attempt to cover up the lies imo.

The rest of it is just assumptions and opinions concluded within the framework of the official story. They don't mention the tilting of the top of WT2 at all, just like all the other 'official' explanations. I wonder why? Well let's take a guess, they can't explain it and make it fit the official story so they just ignore it instead. Take a good look at a vid of the South Tower collapsing and tell me how the top after it tilted about 30 deg could then cause a vertical collapse of the undamaged building under it?

How can you have a pancake collapse when all the debris is being ejected outwards and all the concrete is turning to dust? How does gravity cause steel columns to be ejected, with force, up to 600ft? How does gravity turn concrete, office furniture, computers, phones, people into a dust as fine as powdered sugar? They are still finding remains on the roofs of buildings, how does that happen from gravity?

They say a building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or emergency workers whether his building should be 'pulled' or demolished. Well he wouldn't be telling the fire crews to quit fighting the fire either. Consider this, old Lary made his fortune buying up old buildings and demolishing them to build newer more profitable complexes.
If 'Pull' was not a term to demolish a building why was it used by a worker to describe the inevitable man-made collapse of building 6?


If there was any doubt about what "pull it" means, it is put to rest by another quote in the same video: "... we're getting ready to pull building six."

www.serendipity.li...

And they don't even mention building 7.

That article doesn't even come close to explaining the collapses of 3 steel framed buildings in one day. Nothing new to offer, just a repeat of the official story. Just another group, like un-popular mechanics, with a vested interest in supporting the official story IMO.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
OK guys you need to analyze what Silverstein said, not just buy what some web site tells you because it fits your official story fantasy.

"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."

First off the smartest thing to do to a building that is a raging inferno is not to quit fighting it. Secondly he used the term 'it' not 'them'. 'It' is an inanimate object, not people.
But the last part of the sentence clinches it for me. He said "and we watched the building collapse". That is the conclusion to his statement. He didn't say "And we watched the fire crew pull out". He WAS talking about the building NOT the fire crews.

Also note no surprise in his voice, no 'and amazingly we watched the building collapse', as you would expect for such an odd occurrence for a building under any condition.

But really the physics do not fit for such a collapse. Even under raging fire the building could not have collapsed in such a neat demo style. It fell in it's own footprint, don't try to tell me it didn't, look at the pics of it. An almost impossible situation in a chaotic, unevenly damaged building on fire. There is no precedence for this, but there is presendence for buildings to continue standing under raging fires.


The Fanstasy is all yours. Simple... Silverstein WAS NOT at ground Zero. He was at home with his wife. So this statement you made could not be accurate:

He didn't say "And we watched the fire crew pull out". He WAS talking about the building NOT the fire crews.


He couldnt have watched the firemen been pulled becasue he WASNT THERE!
Do you HONESTLY think a Multi-Millionaire Real-Estate Tycoon would CONFESS to blowing up his building due to a Freudian Slip?

Anok... WHEN please tell me WHEN did the Fire Department get the authorization to blow up skyscrapers?

The smartest thing to do WAS to pull them out. Think about what you said! These men just watched hundreds of their brothers die in two other buildings. Why would they continue to keep Firemen in harms way after they determined that the building was unsafe to be in... and that there was a high probability of collapse.

Lets throw FEMA, NIST, me, you, and all the other theories out the window....these firemen put their lives on the line. The authorites that were in charge did NOT want further loss of life that day. They decided to STOP and developed a collapse zone to protect them. The firefighters basically stood there and watched it burn. FDNY does NOT have the authority to BLOW UP buildings...they were there to save lives....and by pulling their men away from that building AND rescuse efforts of other victims.... SAVED LIVES!

IF anyone .... ANYONE accuses Silverstein of orchestrating the destruction of WTC7, then they also have to concur that the FDNY played a roll in it as well..... Remember... your claim would be that Larry Silverstein ordered Chief Nigro to "pull it".

Also.... ANOK...if you do your homework you will find that the term "PULL" is NOT a term used for an explosive controlled demolition. PERIOD!

Yes buildind 6 used the term "pull"... becasue cables were attached to it! I suggest you watch the entire video and you will see the cables. Protec also stated that in addition to not knowing one company that uses that term, that using cables to destroy building 7 would not have been possible.

I am not a physics professor at all...but what I do understand was that WTC7 fell from below. If this is true...why would they have to blow up the top of the building? ( thats where these so call squibs are located)



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Anok... WHEN please tell me WHEN did the Fire Department get the authorization to blow up skyscrapers?


Why would the fire department need authorization to blow up anything when they had demo teams and excavation crews on scene ?

But don't forget the fire rescue units do have the kowledge and equiment to cut beams.

Which due to the condition of building 7 with all the structural and fire damage (according to the official story) probly all it would have taken is some cut beams to bring it down.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
Anok... WHEN please tell me WHEN did the Fire Department get the authorization to blow up skyscrapers?


Why would the fire department need authorization to blow up anything when they had demo teams and excavation crews on scene ?

But don't forget the fire rescue units do have the kowledge and equiment to cut beams.

Which due to the condition of building 7 with all the structural and fire damage (according to the official story) probly all it would have taken is some cut beams to bring it down.


So Genuis....you answered my question... the fire department gave the orders to the excavating crew on the scene....OR ...Chief Nigro told the firemen to go into the burning building with cutting torches to start cutting beams....


Sorry Mods........

Ultima...your are a twisted IDIOT to think the FDNY would demolish a building. Your PATHETIC attempt at trying to twist the truth to fit your agenda is MORONIC.
I take it personally when some d-head like this throws out unfounded accusations to a group of HEROS that died that day trying to rescue STRANGERS. You need your face PUNCHED by one of the wives or one of the children that no longer have a dad due ro what happened on 911. ASS!



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
Anok... WHEN please tell me WHEN did the Fire Department get the authorization to blow up skyscrapers?


Why would the fire department need authorization to blow up anything when they had demo teams and excavation crews on scene ?

But don't forget the fire rescue units do have the kowledge and equiment to cut beams.

Which due to the condition of building 7 with all the structural and fire damage (according to the official story) probly all it would have taken is some cut beams to bring it down.


So Genuis....you answered my question... the fire department gave the orders to the excavating crew on the scene....OR ...Chief Nigro told the firemen to go into the burning building with cutting torches to start cutting beams....


Sorry Mods........

Ultima...your are a twisted IDIOT to think the FDNY would demolish a building. Your PATHETIC attempt at trying to twist the truth to fit your agenda is MORONIC.
I take it personally when some d-head like this throws out unfounded accusations to a group of HEROS that died that day trying to rescue STRANGERS. You need your face PUNCHED by one of the wives or one of the children that no longer have a dad due ro what happened on 911. ASS!


Gee and all that from someone who has not provided any real evidence or official reports to back up thier side of the story.

So where did i say the firemen or fire chief gave orders to anyone ? You have to put to words in my mouth to make you look better, thats so sad.

At least i am on the side of the families looking for the truth of what happnened that day and not blindly following the media or others.

I still have not seen any credentials as to your expertise in any law enforcement or investigative status. Or knowledge in Emergency Incident Mangement.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
Anok... WHEN please tell me WHEN did the Fire Department get the authorization to blow up skyscrapers?


Why would the fire department need authorization to blow up anything when they had demo teams and excavation crews on scene ?

But don't forget the fire rescue units do have the kowledge and equiment to cut beams.

Which due to the condition of building 7 with all the structural and fire damage (according to the official story) probly all it would have taken is some cut beams to bring it down.


So Genuis....you answered my question... the fire department gave the orders to the excavating crew on the scene....OR ...Chief Nigro told the firemen to go into the burning building with cutting torches to start cutting beams....


Sorry Mods........

Ultima...your are a twisted IDIOT to think the FDNY would demolish a building. Your PATHETIC attempt at trying to twist the truth to fit your agenda is MORONIC.
I take it personally when some d-head like this throws out unfounded accusations to a group of HEROS that died that day trying to rescue STRANGERS. You need your face PUNCHED by one of the wives or one of the children that no longer have a dad due ro what happened on 911. ASS!


Gee and all that from someone who has not provided any real evidence or official reports to back up thier side of the story.

So where did i say the firemen or fire chief gave orders to anyone ? You have to put to words in my mouth to make you look better, thats so sad.

At least i am on the side of the families looking for the truth of what happnened that day and not blindly following the media or others.

I still have not seen any credentials as to your expertise in any law enforcement or investigative status. Or knowledge in Emergency Incident Mangement.



Tell me, Mr. "I care for the families".... IF Silverstein ordered Chief Nigro to blow up the building. (thats who he was talking to) Then you would HAVE to agree that the FDNY was invloved. So..I am NOT putting words into your mouth...YOU didn't think things through.

Oh...so you need to be an authority in Law Enforcement? Or Emergency Incident Management. How about common sence?

Re-Read what you posted and explain to me what you meant by the following statements the YOU WROTE:

>"Why would the fire department need authorization to blow up anything when they had demo teams and excavation crews on scene ?"

>"But don't forget the fire rescue units do have the kowledge and equiment to cut beams."

>"Which due to the condition of building 7 with all the structural and fire damage (according to the official story) probly all it would have taken is some cut beams to bring it down. "

Remember this started with my question to Anok....

"Anok... WHEN please tell me WHEN did the Fire Department get the authorization to blow up skyscrapers?"


THINK Ultima... Silverstein was on the phone with Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro...who in fact was in charge because Chief of Department Peter Ganci was killed in the Noth Tower collapse.

So, in thinking that Silverstein ordered his building demolished....he originally had planned on Peter Ganci to do it? Then he died...so Lucky Larry felt that he should recruit Chief Nigro?

See if I am putting words in your mouth...Im sorry...but please explain how in the HELL this would have worked!

It was the combined effort of MANY to abandon fire fighting efforts and RESCUE efforts. NOT Silverstein.


Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.
[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]


And Athother Interview:



The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the col-lapse [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 col-lapse, 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, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. Chief Of Operations Nigro

/g8c6y


I think you should go back to talking about the missile hitting the Pentagon...at least some buy your BS there.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Tell me, Mr. "I care for the families".... IF Silverstein ordered Chief Nigro to blow up the building. (thats who he was talking to) Then you would HAVE to agree that the FDNY was invloved. So..I am NOT putting words into your mouth...YOU didn't think things through.

Oh...so you need to be an authority in Law Enforcement? Or Emergency Incident Management. How about common sence?

Re-Read what you posted and explain to me what you meant by the following statements the YOU WROTE:

>"Why would the fire department need authorization to blow up anything when they had demo teams and excavation crews on scene ?"

>"But don't forget the fire rescue units do have the kowledge and equiment to cut beams."

>"Which due to the condition of building 7 with all the structural and fire damage (according to the official story) probly all it would have taken is some cut beams to bring it down. "

Remember this started with my question to Anok....

"Anok... WHEN please tell me WHEN did the Fire Department get the authorization to blow up skyscrapers?"


THINK Ultima... Silverstein was on the phone with Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro...who in fact was in charge because Chief of Department Peter Ganci was killed in the Noth Tower collapse.

So, in thinking that Silverstein ordered his building demolished....he originally had planned on Peter Ganci to do it? Then he died...so Lucky Larry felt that he should recruit Chief Nigro?

See if I am putting words in your mouth...Im sorry...but please explain how in the HELL this would have worked!

It was the combined effort of MANY to abandon fire fighting efforts and RESCUE efforts. NOT Silverstein.


Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.
[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]


And Athother Interview:



The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the col-lapse [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 col-lapse, 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, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. Chief Of Operations Nigro

/g8c6y


I think you should go back to talking about the missile hitting the Pentagon...at least some buy your BS there.





Well let me try to explains this again as simple as i can.

1. Silverstein has no authority to tell the incident commander what to do with firmen or the building. The incident commander is in charge and has ultimate control over any position no matter his rank or position. (If the incident commander is a fire chief he has command over all fire chiefs and police chiefs and any other units) The police department did not have a commander.

2. The fire department did not order anyone to blow anything up. Their were demo teams and excavation crews there that the "incident commander" had the authority to tell them what to do.

3. If the firmen and other people were backed away from builidng 7 why would the "incident commander" have to call silverstien (who has no authority) to ask if he could pull the firemen ? If Silverstrein was not talking about the firemen being pulled away then he must have been talking about the building and silverstein did not decide to pull the building the "incident commander" did.







[edit on 14-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
The Chief Of Operations was Chief Nigro. He had control of the area and made the final decision to make the collapse zone.... what does silverstein have to do with anything?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Anok thanks for your reply. You have lead me back to where my heart thinks this issue is going. Ultima and Cameron have quite the debate going here so let me pose my own question to either or both!

you continue to talk about the incident directly leading up to the collaspe. With firefighter this and crew chief that. 911mysteries has lead me to believe that the work was already done.

"banging on services levels" white powder on the window sills. internet cable being installed the weekend before. and so on. If these have any bearing would it just be a matter of presssing a button?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Whoknew...

WTC7 is our discussion. I THINK you are reffering to one of the towers.

Ask yourself...

Internet cables? So?? Constant upgrades... i know it happens in my building (100.000 sq. ft) all the time.... be it fiberoptics... cat5, or RG6.

White powder? Not sure where you heard that or by whom.

I do have a quote from a worker at WTC7....

An employee of Solomon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,
I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.
In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.
Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.
/n5xap



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I do have a quote from a worker at WTC7....

An employee of Solomon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,
I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.
In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.
Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.


Whoever that is, is full of crap. Maybe they had to leave from the North end, but it was not because debris has piled up and blocked the other entrance.

FEMA detailed where all the major plane debris went. Engine cores, landing gear, etc. are labeled on this diagram:



Now where does it show anything of significance landing around WTC7 from either plane? And notice that the plane that hit the North Tower had all its momentum going in the completely opposite direction of WTC7.

And let me say this, also: the parts identified there by FEMA weren't enough to block anything anywhere. They were pieces like this:





Biggest piece was probably this one near Murray Street:




And again, these are all listed on the FEMA diagram above. So what was blocking WTC7 after the planes hit? Even the South Tower collapsing sent no debris anywhere NEAR WTC7, and you can prove this by watching any video that shows the two at the same time.

WTC1's collapse was the only event to send debris into or around WTC7. And guess what? WTC7 collapsed symmetrically from the base (or the East side if you count the column under the Penthouse; perfectly opposite from where debris DID strike). So let's have some debris and fire damage that is consistent with that.

Also for reference, the South entrance:




Compare that with the plane debris pics above. This guy is full of crap when he says that this entrance was blocked by plane debris.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Whoknew...

WTC7 is our discussion. I THINK you are reffering to one of the towers.

Ask yourself...

Internet cables? So?? Constant upgrades... i know it happens in my building (100.000 sq. ft) all the time.... be it fiberoptics... cat5, or RG6.

White powder? Not sure where you heard that or by whom.

I do have a quote from a worker at WTC7....

An employee of Solomon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,
I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.
In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.
Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.
/n5xap


You are right that was one of the towers. however would CD in those towers make it possible that it was also in wtc7?

As for the powder it was referenced from 911mysteries. Someone who worked on the 87th floor if i recall correct.

And yes contsant upgrades are believable, I'm just raising these questions, when was it last done? who installed them? what floors was it done on?

As for you wtc7 worker... I followed the link you provided and it takes us to another thread on another site. There is no reference posted. At this point i agree with bsbray11 that he is a fake. If a source is provided this could mean a lot though.

lastly can anyone address the crimp in wt7?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Evil Dick

Remeber....the burden of proof is on you to provide since it is YOUR opinion ( I assume) that Silverstein told the Fire Department to blow up his building.


I wonder how many people who question the official (fantasy) story really believe that he fire dept blew up building 7...




ED, the only reason I'm responding to you and this time only is your ragging on people and saying that they need to have their faces punched because they are somehow. by your twisted logic, accusing the fire department of helping Larry Silverstein blow up building 7. If anyone comes punching my face especially based on your premise will get a whole HELL of alot more than that in return you punk.

Accusing Larry Silverstein of having something to do with the CD of building 7 does NOT = blaming the fire department of being involved. In FACT.. 99.9 percent of the people working in fire, police and other departments of assistance probably had not idea what was really going on.


Also, so "pull it" isn't a term used by demolition experts when CDing buildings?.. Oh really?



video.google.com...


I can find DOZENS of other references.

Stop lying to everyone you fool.


It is unlikely I will ever respond to you again on here so go ahead and flame away. I will however continue to enjoy watching you shoot yourself in the foot repeatedly.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   


Also, so "pull it" isn't a term used by demolition experts when CDing buildings?.. Oh really?



I can find DOZENS of other references.


Not to play devils advocate here as I question the term myself, but it was said earlier in the thread that wtc6 was pulled by cables. I watched the video and it did not shed doubt on this. It evens ends with a big crane like hook. The guy talking doesn't say one way or another. I'm sorry but this video does shed any light, even to one that believes that building was a cd.

Can you find another resource?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
WhoKnew,

I'll post some more references later concerning the industry use of the term 'pull it' later if I'm up to it. I'm not sure if I want to hold everyone's hand on that one because the information concerning this issue is all over the place and easy to find. Nothing personal, my patience has been slim here and this has been discussed and referenced in many different threads.

The only thing I will say for now is that the term "pull" IS a standard and generalized term used in the field of controlled demolition which means BRING DOWN A BUILDING INTENTIONALLY and in a controlled fashion, using WHATEVER means 'they' have at their disposal whether it be a crane, explosives... or by hook or by crook..



Impatience aside, I would like to contribute something positive.


Now.. my thoughts on Larry Silversteins 'pull it' comment..


Remember that certain speech from that certain someone, while stating that a plane hit the pentagon he accidentally used the word missile? You know who I'm talking about?


I'm not saying that a missile hit the pentagon, I'm merely stating that this certain someone had a missile on his mind at the time he was making this speech.. Now why he had that on his mind is anyone's guess.

The same dynamic applies here.

I fully believe that Larry did not intend to use the words 'pull it' during this particular context/interview/conversation but he definitely had it on his mind and it accidentally spilled out. Luckily for him it's a generalized term. Larry knew building 7 was going to come down before it came down, bottom line, even before the first two towers were hit by the planes.

You can dissect that however you wish but that's my angle as netral as I can make it.




[edit on 14-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join