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.

 

CNN News Reports WTC Building 7 collapse Minutes before it collapses

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
Why am i 100% certain there were no bombs in any buildings is that it takes months and months to prepare a building for demolition using explosives and there is NO way they could have secretly done it.


THAT is the only reason you are 100% certain?!?! WOW!

Let me correct your statement....

"It takes months and months to PLAN a building for demolition."

The actuall prep work, if done with a big crew, would only take a week, even less, depending on how fast you are, and how many are helping.

Even then, it takes so long to plan conventional demolitions, because they want absolutly ZERO damage to surrounding buildings. There is a lot that has to be done. They have to get permits to close off near by streets, re-route phone, internet, and power lines, prep window faces on surrounding buildings so they dont shatter, and much much more stuff that takes a while to plan, other than the actual studying of the building and strapping with explosives.

BUT, with 9/11. There was a bunch of stuff they didn't have to worry about. If they wanted the building to look like it collapsed on its own, they aren't going to have to do months and months of planing. They can just study the blueprints, and strap it with explosives. They don't exactly have to worry about damage to surrounding buildings, or getting permits to close the streets, or make sure half of the citys power grid wont shut down if the wrong wire is cut during the collapse, or all the little stuff that usualy matters when CD'ing a building.

They didn't have to do it perfectly, because if they did, it would be more obvious that it was CD. They wouldn't spend months and months to prep the building when they don't even have to make it look nice, or be safe.



Anyway, WTC7 was a controlled demo, no questions asked.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
"It takes months and months to PLAN a building for demolition."



The Port Authority was having experts analyze the towers, looking for weaknesses for terrorists to exploit, as far back as the 1980's. The information gathered was released in reports.



The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center” late in 1985 (see November 1985).


Port Authority's OSP Unit assesses WTC Towers for attack, 1984



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Thanks bsbray11 for letting me know that if the government was behind 911 that they did all the "months and months of planning" in 1984.

Their "study" most probably found many many weaknesses, yet for the sake of national security they release quotes that say otherwise.


So, lizzie, there is your answer, they already had experts come in, take notes, and study the place for weaknesses, in 1984. Then probably used those notes for 911.

nice.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Connected]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
They did not pull people from the building. They pulled everyone back from the aread around the building.

Please read my last post.

Or even better read the thread where this is being discussed.

Pull It

Or perhaps a this .pdf file that exposes most of the lies some of you are espousing.

www.911myths.com...


Wrong again, champ. You appear to be the one mistaken in your facts which are "categorically false".



"Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

Source

Seeing how that is a pretty official source - especially in your eyes I'm sure - I'd like to see YOUR SOURCES as to where you saw that his comments meant pulling people back from around the building, not within the building.

And again, I ask you, What did he mean by pulling firefighters out when there was clear consensus that manual firefighting operations were suspended early in the day?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good point.... but were ANY of those buildings showered with debris from a 110 story skyscraper collapsing?


You might want to look at the buildings on this page, see the major fires and structural damge done to them. They did not collapse even after burning longer then the WTC buildings put together.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...



[edit on 28-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good point.... but were ANY of those buildings showered with debris from a 110 story skyscraper collapsing?


You might want to look at the buildings on this page, see the major fires and structural damge done to them. They did not collapse even after burning longer then the WTC buildings put together.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...



[edit on 28-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]


I don't know how many people make this argument, but it's not valid. How many of those building were hit by large passenger jets at extremely high speed? how many of those buildings were build like the twin towers were, with the building support being on the OUTSIDE of the building, which was heavily damanged by the planes?

As for WTC7, it was heavily damanged from falling debris from the south (I think) tower. There are many firefighters that say they saw a GAPING hole on one side of the building due to damage.

You can't compare apples and oranges.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good point.... but were ANY of those buildings showered with debris from a 110 story skyscraper collapsing?


You might want to look at the buildings on this page, see the major fires and structural damge done to them. They did not collapse even after burning longer then the WTC buildings put together.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...



[edit on 28-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Link does not mention about 2 large planes crashing into those steel buildings, and debris damage from north tower into WTC7.

Past information comparing to something that has never before happened is irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
I don't know how many people make this argument, but it's not valid. How many of those building were hit by large passenger jets at extremely high speed? how many of those buildings were build like the twin towers were, with the building support being on the OUTSIDE of the building, which was heavily damanged by the planes?

As for WTC7, it was heavily damanged from falling debris from the south (I think) tower. There are many firefighters that say they saw a GAPING hole on one side of the building due to damage.

You can't compare apples and oranges.



You might want to look the the NIST and FEMA reports that state that the planes impacts did not cause the towers to collapse. Also the Empire State building was hit by a B-25 causing fires and structural damage and it did not collapse.

No you missed the point, NO steel building like building 7 has ever collaped due to fire and or structural damage. Also the buildings i posted also had major structural damge caused by fires that burned longer then any of the WTC fires. Maybe i should let you read the dicriptions so you will know. Unless you can prove the fire department is wrong.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...


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.

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.

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.



Photo: New York Board of Underwriters


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.

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 28-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good point.... but were ANY of those buildings showered with debris from a 110 story skyscraper collapsing?


You might want to look at the buildings on this page, see the major fires and structural damge done to them. They did not collapse even after burning longer then the WTC buildings put together.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...



[edit on 28-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]


I don't know how many people make this argument, but it's not valid. How many of those building were hit by large passenger jets at extremely high speed? how many of those buildings were build like the twin towers were, with the building support being on the OUTSIDE of the building, which was heavily damanged by the planes?

As for WTC7, it was heavily damanged from falling debris from the south (I think) tower. There are many firefighters that say they saw a GAPING hole on one side of the building due to damage.

You can't compare apples and oranges.

Let's not forget the reinforced core in the centre of the building, nor the fact that both towers were designed to withstand the collision of a large passenger jet. And also, wouldn't a 'gaping hole on one side of the building' cause an uneven collapse?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev
Let's not forget the reinforced core in the centre of the building, nor the fact that both towers were designed to withstand the collision of a large passenger jet. And also, wouldn't a 'gaping hole on one side of the building' cause an uneven collapse?


And the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side, not doing much if any damge to the center core.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
I don't know how many people make this argument, but it's not valid. How many of those building were hit by large passenger jets at extremely high speed? how many of those buildings were build like the twin towers were, with the building support being on the OUTSIDE of the building, which was heavily damanged by the planes?

As for WTC7, it was heavily damanged from falling debris from the south (I think) tower. There are many firefighters that say they saw a GAPING hole on one side of the building due to damage.

You can't compare apples and oranges.


So... If building is hit by "large passenger jets at extremely high speed" it will collapse symetricly after about an hour in about 10 seconds at his own footprint ?

As for WTC7.... "It was heavily damanged from falling debris from the south (I think) tower. There are many firefighters that say they saw a GAPING hole on one side of the building due to damage..."
If so then why the hell this building also collapsed symetricly at his own footprint in about 6 seconds ?

Come on....

[edit on 28-2-2007 by STolarZ]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by TheStev
Let's not forget the reinforced core in the centre of the building, nor the fact that both towers were designed to withstand the collision of a large passenger jet. And also, wouldn't a 'gaping hole on one side of the building' cause an uneven collapse?


And the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side, not doing much if any damge to the center core.

Exactly - watch the video and you'll see the majority of the jet fuel allegedly responsible for the weakening of the supports combusting outside the tower.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev
Exactly - watch the video and you'll see the majority of the jet fuel allegedly responsible for the weakening of the supports combusting outside the tower.


Yes the FEMA and NIST report state that the majority of the fuel exploded on the exterior of the building causing little or no structural damge.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev
Let's not forget the reinforced core in the centre of the building, nor the fact that both towers were designed to withstand the collision of a large passenger jet. And also, wouldn't a 'gaping hole on one side of the building' cause an uneven collapse?


If I remember correctly, the WTC South Tower where the plane hit on the left side of the tower (on my left when seeing it).







Uneven collapse you say?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Did the fire sprinklers malfunction on building 7 by debris?
Here's an interesting artical on it.
911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 28-2-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Why are you talking about WTC 1 and 2? My comment about an uneven collapse was in reference to the 'gaping hole' in WTC 7.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
What gaping hole? I have not seen anything of the kind, apart from the damage to the lower corner of WTC7.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
What gaping hole? I have not seen anything of the kind, apart from the damage to the lower corner of WTC7.





posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I don't see a gaping hole, I see a lot of smoke coming from the fire and the fires and dust of the WTC. There is nothing there to suggest that Building 7 should fall free-fall.

Look at this way, Sampoong Dept Store which did collapse, concrete and slab, it wasn't even a design that had redundancy.

A 5 story building took between 20-30 seconds for a full collapse top to bottom.

How the hell is a 47 story Steel Superstructure building going to come down in only 6 seconds, when a 5 story building took over 20??

Something had to clear out the mass for the top to freefall. The only thing logically is explosives.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
What gaping hole? I have not seen anything of the kind, apart from the damage to the lower corner of WTC7.




You've got to be kidding me with this video, right d-boy? The only thing I can make out from that is a gash on top of the building, the man asked to see a hole. The whole side is smoking but that could be from superficial damage to the facade at lower levels, show me a hole. Show me damage that was not enough to destroy the building at first, but severe enough to let fires producing all that black smoke to finish the job some 8 hours later.

You can keep making your snide, ignorant, and irrelevant comments telling us to find a video of a building collapsing on another that burns for hours and hours and then collapses. We'll never find a video like that ever d-boy, yanno why? Because it never happened, and will never happen again my friend. This collapse was planned and executed when the time was right by external forces.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join