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.

 

Why did building 7 fall?

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jthomas
So, please support your claim.

Claim of what?


Obviously, your claim that, "WTC 7 definitely was pulled, and it is obvious if people look at the roof line,..." So far, you haven't provided anything to support your claim.




posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

I do not have to. Anyone who knows the very basic laws of physics knows I am correct. Resistance always hinders velocity and momentum regardless of weight, mass, or amount of gravity. That's a given.


Of course, you don't have to. You've been unwilling to support any of your claims, which begs the question: what is your purpose in posting here and making claims that contradict physics and observed events about WTC 2?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Well we do have a good idea that builidng 7 was PULLED since Fire Chief Nigro's statement proved that Silverstein lied when he stated that PULL IT meant the firemen.

Fire Chief Nigro evacuated the firemen elarly in the day without talking to anyone.

Also Fire Chief Hayden's statement about they were worried about fire jumping to other builidngs.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Silverstein had nothing to do with WTC 7 that day. It's amazing that myth is still going around.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Silverstein had nothing to do with WTC 7 that day. It's amazing that myth is still going around.


Yes, he did not have anything to do with what happened to the builidng.

But he did lie when he stated that when he siad PULL IT he was tallking about the firemen, since the firemen were already out of the building before the fire chief called.

So when the fire chief decidecd to PULL IT he was talking about the building.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
reply to post by Damocles
 


Read my posts again, specifically the paper, the minimum safe distance for a 1W cell phone is 3 metres (10 foot). Read it in black and white, don't take my word for it.

oh i read your paper, have you bothered to find a copy of fm 5-34 yet? MY reference material says 30m and when dealing with an explosive device i didnt set up personally, im going to err on the side of safety. to me 30m is much safer than 3m. is it possible that fm 5-34 needs to be updated? sure it is but 30m is still safer than 3m so im going to stick with what the military teaches on the subject and not what the local civillians are willing to risk.



oh theres a great idea. we dont want the radio signals to detonate our charges so we'll pump MORE RF energy into the air around our blast site.

im at a loss........


"Why not keep the suspect from detonating an explosive remotely..."

Better tell those bomb squad guys it's a bad idea before one gets hurt!

i dont have to. thats a civillian product marketed on their website. ive never seen a military team use one. ive never seen a CT team use one (ive been a member of both by the way) and ive never seen an EOD team use one (and ive done joint training with EOD many times) though in abstract i can see why they would think it was a good idea what with terrorists using cellphones and pagers as triggers more and more (i myself constructed a "training aid" model nearly 10 years ago that used a pager as a trigger long before the terrorists realized it was a good idea)
but the FACT remains that pumping more RF energy into the vicinity of an electric blasting cap is a BAD IDEA.

why dont you try talking to some real EOD guys (see if they use cell jammers on their scenes) vs relying on stuff you find online that could be written by 13yo's who watch too much tv?


10/10 for foot-in-mouth.

but 20/10 for being right even if my reference material disagrees with yours. im still ahead of the game



EDIT: You're missing the point by a long shot.

no, im really not, the only point i was trying to make was that YOU had stated that a cell phone cannot trigger a bomb and the implication wasnt that it was the trigger but that the stray RF energy wouldnt set off an electronic blasting cap. that is false. i provided a reference to support my post. so if im guilty of anything its of nitpicking. ill admit that. but i did quote you accurately so i dont feel ive done anything wrong.


He said "no CD cos a cell would set it off", this is false because nobody knows how it was demolished, if it was indeed a CD.

now, this statement ill agree with and im sorry to say to defcon that this is in fact incorrect and you adjay are correct in this assertion. but adjay, if you read my last post in this thread youd see that i did in fact discuss how it WOULD HAVE BEEN possible to create a firing system for a CD that was not succeptable to RF radiation.

so, i stand by my posts. if you want to contest my reference material thats your right but that doesnt make ME wrong per se. im going to stand by the fact that 30m is safer than 3m and when decidign just how close i wanna get to a bomb with my cell phone im going to err on the side of safety. but before you go out to prove my reference materials wrong i have to ask about yours. are they basing in theory or field tests? may wanna find that out before you go after that windmill.



Those of you who can read, have no excuse!


couldnt agree more.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes, he did not have anything to do with what happened to the builidng.

But he did lie when he stated that when he siad PULL IT he was tallking about the firemen, since the firemen were already out of the building before the fire chief called.

So when the fire chief decidecd to PULL IT he was talking about the building.


Yet, something somewhat different from Larry Silverstein's own mouth. At one point, I cannot determine whether he said, "I said pull it." vs. "They said pull it." What is clearly heard is Silverstein saying, "They (fire department) made the decision to pull it." Larry Silverstein was directly involved in the fate of WTC 7. He admits it was controlled demolition implosion (industry slang is "Pull it"). That is why I do not understand why people are still arguing over how WTC 7 came down by controlled demolition implosion.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Of course, you don't have to. You've been unwilling to support any of your claims, which begs the question: what is your purpose in posting here and making claims that contradict physics and observed events about WTC 2?


Anyone, who remembers being taught the very basics of the laws of physics in elementary school, is probably getting a smile or laugh at the absurdity of your comment. Prove the laws of physics? Natural laws we all live by 24/7 have to proved to you when you can easily test and prove them yourself?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Obviously, your claim that, "WTC 7 definitely was pulled, and it is obvious if people look at the roof line,..." So far, you haven't provided anything to support your claim.


That is yet another strawman false allegation of deliberate detraction.

I provided a link to a video of it showing the center of the roof sagging first, plus, explanation of what was occurring and why . Did you miss it?

I also quite recently linked a video of Larry Silverstein admitting he and the fire department agreed to pull building 7. He was lying when he said fires were out of control in 7, because they were not, based on fireman and other witness accountings of how much fire was left in WTC. The fires were almost all out. They were not that heavy to begin with, and were quite sporatic throughout the building.

What moron is going to set demolitions is a building with a raging fire still going on?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well we do have a good idea that builidng 7 was PULLED since Fire Chief Nigro's statement proved that Silverstein lied when he stated that PULL IT meant the firemen.

Fire Chief Nigro evacuated the firemen elarly in the day without talking to anyone.

Also Fire Chief Hayden's statement about they were worried about fire jumping to other builidngs.


And please back this up with some kind of evidence aside from here-say.

You know how many things were going on that day? Do you know how many times during a large project I have had as supervisor tell me to do something once, twice, then a fifth time? Simply because he forgot that he already told me....

He could have also been making a reference to any form of firefighting still going on - to just pull the whole operation out to get clear of any debris (as, you know, they do sometimes try to fight fires from the outside).

And, of course; these firemen would be involved in killing their own countrymen for money. While I have often thought the life of a mercenary would be quite entertaining - there are lines that you just don't cross. And firemen aren't exactly what you would call mercenaries, to begin with - so they wouldn't likely even consider killing anything for money, let alone their own countrymen.

Or even participating in some sort of plot that involved it. Even if they weren't directly involved in the demolition.

You asked me earlier, probably in another thread, "what I had problems with" - it's this kind of stuff. "He-said-she-said". Do you know how intelligent I sound when I'm in a stressful situation and trying to talk? I don't always say the smartest things, or the most accurate things. I simply get the message across to get something done.

That is what was going on all over the nation that day. You've got everything kicking it into "turbo mode" to respond to what is happening and keep from getting completely consumed in chaos. You have logs that get neglected to keep up with more pertinent matters relating to relaying information and other communication-related operations. Then they are filled in later with "just fill it out to the best of your ability."



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

And, of course; these firemen would be involved in killing their own countrymen for money. While I have often thought the life of a mercenary would be quite entertaining - there are lines that you just don't cross. And firemen aren't exactly what you would call mercenaries, to begin with - so they wouldn't likely even consider killing anything for money, let alone their own countrymen.

Or even participating in some sort of plot that involved it. Even if they weren't directly involved in the demolition.


No one is accusing the firemen of being in on a plot. The issue is how did WTC 7 drop like it did. Larry Silverstein did a flip-flop when he first stated he and the fire department agreed to pull WTC 7. He then started hedging as time moved on. Yet, there he is on a video admitting he knew WTC 7 came down by controlled demolition implosion.

Everyone was already evacuted from WTC 7 long before the building collapsed.

What was in WTC 7, of extremely high importance, was investigation records on Enron held by the SEC and IRS. Enron was under heavy investigation at the time. That all went bye-bye when 7 was pulled, most likely without notifying SEC or IRS.

Silverstein was in the thick of all that corruption. I do not know about any high level figure(s) in the NYFD being in on it also. However, it would certainly not be unheard of in either the NYPD or NYFD. The top echelon of both NYPD and NYFD are highly political, and they will do what they are told by those in charge of pulling their strings - if they wish to keep their jobs and not have a public scandal, to throw the corruption limelight off those pulling their strings and onto them.

Silverstein is certainly not beyond shifting any blame to others. If they wish to keep their jobs and out of the corruption limelight, they will keep their mouths shut and take it.

Then there there is this. Marvin Bush's company was responsible for security at the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Airport.

Forum, please allow me to introduce you to a member of the Carlye Group:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
How so? Lots of structural engineers and scientists have shown that it was inevitable. Many hundreds of thousands of others do not disagree.

Why should we accept your assertion, ANOK?


How so? Physics is how so...There is nothing they could have based the claim on that the collapse was inevitable. Nothing, nada...Physics tells us that their assertion isn't realistic, history tells us there is no precedence to base that claim on. So how can that claim be made? And then turned into 'fact' by de-bunkers? Because you want to believe...

Who cares who said it? Can't you use your own judgment and research? Or do you only believe what you're told by people you assume have authority on this and assume are telling you the truth?

How about the 'Many hundreds of thousands of others do disagree?'

How do you decide who's telling you the truth? Your own personal knowledge and research, or that they just tell you what you want to believe?

No you shouldn't except my assertions, you need to learn how to research without referring to 911myths...
Everything I'm saying can be verified if you can be bothered to check...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Perhaps people are missing a major factor here. The purpose of controlled demolitions is control. When not contolled, buildings will just drop as they feel like dropping, and not according to how some human desires them to drop. Using a cell phone would make a real mess from total lack of control.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Using a cell phone would make a real mess from total lack of control.


How? Like I've said so many times, all you have to do is invest a few more dollars per device on a wireless receiver waiting for a certain analog code before applying a larger power source across a relatively larger voltage drop representing the primary of some theoretical explosive. You could not set that off accidentally with a cell phone if it is properly designed.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Using a cell phone would make a real mess from total lack of control.


Cell phones work on a very limited band width, the 850 and 1850MHz band.

A good quality receiver/transceiver, set to a frequency well out of cell phones range, and you would solve that problem, no?

[edit on 18/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Apparently building 7 was pulled because of massive loss of life from the twin towers prior. Now if building 7 was on fire and no one in the building then why would it be so hard to put out building 7's fires?? I just don't understand their decision and way of thinking. Instead of fire fighting lets just blow it up!


[edit on 18-12-2007 by sean]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
^ Yeah especially as other buildings around the towers had far more real obvious damage and none of them were 'pulled' on 9-11...

They obviously didn't care about lives around WTC 5?...



Or 6?...




posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How so? Physics is how so...There is nothing they could have based the claim on that the collapse was inevitable. Nothing, nada...Physics tells us that their assertion isn't realistic, history tells us there is no precedence to base that claim on.


What physics would you be talking about? Please, share with a fellow engineer how physics goes counter to 9/11. You keep saying that it doesn't allow for it... yet you can't even provide a link. I mean - hell, the least I do is use procedural thought and analysis - which is based off of my own courses in engineering, as well as my personal experience. I've even got a boolean operation going, right now, in the CAD program I use, so that I can create a decent model of a mesh structure and demonstrate, further, through pictures, how various parts of a building react to changes in the support structure.

The least you could do is share some of your superior insight with us mortals.


Who cares who said it? Can't you use your own judgment and research? Or do you only believe what you're told by people you assume have authority on this and assume are telling you the truth?


I'm not sure about the person you are replying to - but, I can use my own judgment ... and it doesn't favor your own conclusions.


How about the 'Many hundreds of thousands of others do disagree?'


Hundreds of thousands? Of experts, or teenagers who got lured in by YouTube videos? If you're talking 'experts'... the list is pretty darn short. Maybe a hundred - with only about ten or fifteen actually being able to provide evidence that they have any authority in the field (or proficiency with the subject matter they are discussing). And I have yet to see any of them provide an actual analysis - an explanation - of how it could not have been the 'official story', or it had to be 'controlled demolition', or anything else.


How do you decide who's telling you the truth? Your own personal knowledge and research, or that they just tell you what you want to believe?


And what is it you want to believe? I can at least back up my claims with an explanation of how I arrived at the conclusion. I have not seen anything similar to that in years from the 9/11 "Truth" movement.


No you shouldn't except my assertions, you need to learn how to research without referring to 911myths...
Everything I'm saying can be verified if you can be bothered to check...


It can? How? I keep checking in all of my college books for any blaring evidence .... I have gone back through my structural analysis workbooks, textbooks, etc. I've tried to think of everything that I might not have been considering in my analysis - an additional means of support, somewhere; one of my own presumptions about the damage... everything.... but so far.... I can't find anything that insinuates I'm wrong. Except for the narrator of those videos on YouTube - but he doesn't back up anything he says with something other than "Doctor Wassername, an expert in clinical orthodontics, claims that the events of 9/11 'defy the laws of physics.'"

So... who am I supposed to believe, here? You're insinuating, strongly, that we should believe your side of the story; and that we should go do our research on the matter and see you're right. But I keep finding everything to be to the contrary.

So... it seems we're at odds, here.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


i cant really disagree with you on this post however i still believe if it was a cd they went simpler. why would you bother putting individual recievers on each charge and risk a failure and leave behind evidence? run a simple ring main to a central location that would control the blast of each floor and you'd have just about a 100% chance of success.

yeah it would take longer on scene to set up but its the best way to do it. remember the KISS philosophy.

but past that, yes, youre correct that it COULD have been done.

reply to post by ANOK
 


the issue isnt with the frequency as it is with the wattage. except for the problem of using a cellphone as a trigger, people DO dial wrong numbers all the time, but outside of that its more about the wattage.

STANDARD (in deference to bsb) electric blasting caps are succeptable to itinerant radio waves causing a spark to jump across the gap inside the cap and setting it off early due to induction. as bsb points out you can engineer ways around this but there are pretty simple ways around it as well. use non-electric caps on each charge connected in a ring main by detcord and have the dc run to a central location where your firing device sets off sheilded electric caps and it goes like clock work.

in the end it comes down to how complex they would have wanted to get. i prefer to keep it simple but who's to say that "their" demo guy didnt love his james bond like toys i guess.


still dont think it was a cd though



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join