Why did building 7 fall?

And... of course... let's use cell-phone (or RF) detonators in a giant Faraday cage, where signal reception is a little shoddy, at best.

Makes perfect sense.

And how does no one notice this elaborate setup of bombs in the hours prior to the plane impact?

reply to post by defcon5


lol my bad for not going back and rereading your post.

hell IF it was a cd i dont care what they used to trigger it, the point is that STANDARD electric blasting caps CAN be set off by nearly any radio transmitter.

that isnt to say they WILL be set off just that they CAN be set off.

he was saying essentially that this was false when you said it so i felt the need to back up your post saying they could. of course then he started posting information that also supports the fact that they can so i guess i really dont know what he's trying to assert here.

reply to post by Aim64C



um, not sure who youre replying here to but yeah, you could sheild the caps and put the reciever outside the sheilding with a wire running inside it.

not saying thats how it WAS done just that it could have been done that way. i myself am not a fan of any RC theories on CD as they just arent as efficient as a hard wire but hey, what do i know?

so if youre replying to me on this then you apparently dont know much of my posting history, but this is what i think of CD theories in general.

but just because i dont think it was a cd, and just becuase my opinion does have some fact backing it up, doesnt mean that i wont also agree with people on certain aspects of what can or cant be done with explosives or their triggers (or at least to the best of my own knowledge and experience)

thats just called being open minded and fair when discussing issues. im not afraid to put out information that supports ideas i dont agree with and im not afraid to support someone elses posts just becuase i disagree with their overall theories.

fair and balanced.

Originally posted by Damocles
he was saying essentially that this was false when you said it so i felt the need to back up your post saying they could. of course then he started posting information that also supports the fact that they can so i guess i really dont know what he's trying to assert here.

Exactly the point I was making….
Back when he first brought up that PDF file, I said the same thing, that he was actually confirming my original post. See:

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by adjay

 

Thank you for proving my point that not only can cellular phones cause inducted current to flow in blasting wires, but that they are also not permitted around blasting operations for this reason.

Then he tried a “bait and switch” using the distance to try and show that what I initially stated was incorrect in some way. That is what I mean by them not playing fair, they are looking to discredit through “gotcha quotes”. This "baiting thread" just happened to open within a very short time after the new, stricter, rules for the 911 forums went into effect, allowing for two warns then a ban. To me the intent is now clear, get some skeptics in here on a topic we have hashed over 100 millions times before, and start annoying them until they get themselves banned. The tactics are now obvious, and I refuse to play their game, and will not respond to anymore of those posts.

I also love how they continue to ignore the FM and VHF transmission tower that was in WTC1…


[edit on 12/19/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Aim64C
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.

Link for what exactly? All I've talked about is physics and I believe I've supplied plenty of links to said laws of physics? What other links do you want? Do you want me to do your research for you? There is nothing I've said that cannot be checked out if you cared to look, we all have the same internet.
I'm sure you understand Newtons laws? If you don't agree with my explanation of them please explain the physics yourself, so I can see where we differ in our interpretation of those laws.
I'm sure you understand how columns solidly bolted and welded together wouldn't just give up their structural integrity so easily? My explanation of Newtons laws explains why they wouldn't, how does your interpretation of those laws allow them to? And please no 'buts', no 'it was a unique event', or any other dodging of the issue.

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.

Oh really? We'll see when you answer the above question...

Hundreds of thousands? Of experts, or teenagers who got lured in by YouTube videos?

You obviously have never heard of 'Pilots for Truth', 'Veterans for Truth' 'Scholars for Truth', 'Architects and Engineers for Truth'...Yeah a bunch of kids...

I have not seen anything similar to that in years from the 9/11 "Truth" movement.

That's simply not true, and anyone who bothers to read threads on ATS would know that, so making stuff up to try to discredited people is a very low method of debate. BTW I'm not part of a movement, I'm just an individual who has some questions as to the events on 911, please keep the stereotyping out of it. Are you part of a 'de-bunker movement'?

Read my posts, I think I do a pretty good job at explaining my point and supply links when necessary, I can't help it if you don't understand. But anyway what links couldn't I supply exactly, I don't remember having been challenged to provide a link that I didn't provide?

It can? How? I keep checking in all of my college books for any blaring evidence ....
So... who am I supposed to believe, here? You're insinuating, strongly, that we should believe your side of the story

I don't why you keep referring to youtube, it seems you have more interest in it than I do. The laws of physics cannot be changed, and I don't need you tube to know how to put those laws into context.

What is it exactly do you see to the contrary? Pls refresh my memory and we can discus it, thanx.

No I'm not saying believe my side of the story I'm saying prove me wrong, you have yet to do that. All you have done is question my right to come here and make my claims, you haven't refuted my claims. So I'll be waiting for an answer to my questions and then the discussion can continue on a less personal level...Deal?

Anok. The structural engineering society is split by the falling of the twin towers.

How is you giving us a patronising lesson on physics going to change our view of that?

Tell me that the decapitated section of the towers couldn't have gained enough momentum to start a chain reaction.

How far did it fall through weakened floors before meeting resistance?

You don't know.

This is the ambiguity of the situation. We don't know what went on.

If it could have happened without bombs, and it could have, then why go on with this debate?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.

Silverstein's quote was months later on a taped interview for NOVA describing the events of that day. Firemen were in fact "pulled" from the firefighting effort.

Do you really think he was talking on live television on 9/11?

Furthermore, do you not think it odd, if Silverstein meant "pull the building down" that the film crew did not react in any way whatsoever, that PBS did not go to the authorities or release a news bulletin? Don't you think NOVA would have pressed him on what he meant?

It's high time to put the Silverstein "pull" myth to bed.

also, if it was brought down via demo by FDNY (which just seems really odd to me, ive been through incident command training and ive never been told i had the authority to drop a building for any reason) then it would be documented somewhere.

anyone who's been in law enforcement or ems KNOWS one thing as fact. if it isnt written down, it didnt happen. so IF fdny dropped the building, its written down somewhere.

anyone find such a document?

or, are we suggesting that FDNY is complicit in the events of 911?

Originally posted by jthomas
Silverstein's quote was months later on a taped interview for NOVA describing the events of that day. Firemen were in fact "pulled" from the firefighting effort.

Yes, the firemen were already evacuated from the building before the Fire Commander called Silverstein. Chief Nigor stated that he evacuated the firemen early in the day without talking to anyone.

So why would Silverstein make the statement that he was talking about the firemen when he stated PULL IT when the firemen were already out of the building?

Silverstein did not decide to PULL the builidng the Fire Commander did. (i am sure there were other people in on the decision)

Originally posted by Damocles
also, if it was brought down via demo by FDNY (which just seems really odd to me, ive been through incident command training and ive never been told i had the authority to drop a building for any reason) then it would be documented somewhere.

Who stated the the FDNY brought down the building? There were demo crews there.

Control Demolitions Inc. was one of the witness to the molten steel in the basements.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Who stated the the FDNY brought down the building? There were demo crews there.

Control Demolitions Inc. was one of the witness to the molten steel in the basements.

im a little suprised you would even make that statement? you are trained in IC, so, on a scene like that who's in charge? the incident commander yeah? in this case wasnt it the chief? so i dont care who actually did it, if it was "pulled" legitimatly, it went through the incident commander. if it went through the incident commander, its written down.

so, IF larry was talking to the chief and IF they "decided to pull it" THEN it had to go through the chief as it was still his scene. there is just no way around it if it was a legitimate demo.

so the flip side to this is that if it was a cd, and it was part of a covert op then larry implicated FDNY in it and as such id have thought the firefighters union would have had him in court the next day. i know if i was the chief and he implicated me in the horrors of the day id be going after a nice chunk of that insurance money.




[edit on 19-12-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
im a little suprised you would even make that statement? you are trained in IC, so, on a scene like that who's in charge? the incident commander yeah? in this case wasnt it the chief? so i dont care who actually did it, if it was "pulled" legitimatly, it went through the incident commander. if it went through the incident commander, its written down.

so, IF larry was talking to the chief and IF they "decided to pull it" THEN it had to go through the chief as it was still his scene. there is just no way around it if it was a legitimate demo.

In the incident command structure you are going to have others to help with decisions and doing things, correct?

Yes the incident commander is in charge, in this case it was the fire chief since the police did not have a commander. But you should also know that there is going to be others involved in the deciding factor to demo the building, he is not going to make that decision alone.

Larry did not decide to PULL IT the fire commander did. But Larry made the statement about PULLING IT but later stated he meant pulling out the firemen (but the firemen were already out of the building)

911research.wtc7.net...

"Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) appeared to be key player in the expedient removal and recycling of the steel. CDI was retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc, one of the site's four cleanup management contractors. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page "preliminary" document to New York City's Department of Design and Construction, which approved the plan. 7 The commissioner of New York City's Department of Design and Construction and the man in charge of Ground Zero cleanup efforts was Kenneth Holden."

reply to post by ULTIMA1



oh i agree he's going to have delegated a lot of it. but in the end, who's responsible for everything that happens on scene whether he knew about it or not? (and youd better believe that the decision to drop a building he's going to want to know about cuz if he didnt and it comes up later on, he's fired) i mean we're not talking about coordinating rest cycles, we're talking about dropping a very tall building...

see, i agree larry had nothing to do with it. i still contend he was just trying to insert himself into the chain after the fact so that he could give the impression that he's more important than he is.

i do disagree that FDNY or anyone else there dropped that building intentionally. but thats just me and we know why i think that as ive posted it enough times in various threads lol.

but, bottom line is that IF FDNY dropped that building, the IC was ultimatly responsible for it and regardless of if he made the call himself or if a subbordinate made the call, it is written down somewhere.

and im sure that with your training and experience you can agree with that yeah?

reply to post by OrionStars



nothing personal but...huh? why is that at all relevant particularly when you didnt put anything of your own in to make an actual point...

Originally posted by OrionStars
CDI was retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc, one of the site's four cleanup management contractors.

I have e-mailed Tully Construction, but they stated they could not answer my questions becasue of the 9/11 lawsuits.

Originally posted by Damocles
but, bottom line is that IF FDNY dropped that building, the IC was ultimatly responsible for it and regardless of if he made the call himself or if a subbordinate made the call, it is written down somewhere.

Well i am stating that it probably was someone over the IC that made the call to demo the building with the ICs knowledge and approval, but since it seems like no one wants to release most of that information we might not know for a while if ever.

I will have to check my information but i do believe that under emergencies Fire Marshalls can demo a building.

Remember also Chief Haydens statement that they were worried about the fire from builidng 7 jumping to other buildings.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i am stating that it probably was someone over the IC that made the call to demo the building with the ICs knowledge and approval, but since it seems like no one wants to release most of that information we might not know for a while if ever.

well i can see your point of view there. i was just illustrating that it would be a unique circumstance (and what about that day wasnt?) and that if it did happen its written down. now, until we have access to the files, its speculation as to if it IS written down, but you see my point about the old "if it isnt written down it didnt happen" yeah?

I will have to check my information but i do believe that under emergencies Fire Marshalls can demo a building.

id have to take your word on that. wasnt something that ever came up in our training but we werent exactly firefighters either. lol i just know if they ordered me into a burning building with demo charges ima give them a GFY and resign.

Remember also Chief Haydens statement that they were worried about the fire from builidng 7 jumping to other buildings.

but, if the fires in wtc7 werent that severe as many in the ct crowd would have us believe, is that even relevant? i mean i suppose the case could be made that "they" said they were worried about a jump to cover their tracks etc, but that just makes the conspiracies more convoluted IMO.

Originally posted by Damocles
but, if the fires in wtc7 werent that severe as many in the ct crowd would have us believe, is that even relevant? i mean i suppose the case could be made that "they" said they were worried about a jump to cover their tracks etc, but that just makes the conspiracies more convoluted IMO.

Unless maybe he meant they were worried if the building came down on its own that the debris would spread fire and damage other buildings?

I believe the only real big fires were just on the south side of building 7 where the debris had hit.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Unless maybe he meant they were worried if the building came down on its own that the debris would spread fire and damage other buildings?

and thats entirly within the realm of possibility in my mind. but if they were worried about it wouldnt a better option be to set up monitor hoses and try to attack the fire as well as they could from the outside as im sure there were a number of windows out (as well as this reported gash in the building) rather than trying to do a CD on the fly in a building that they are worried about its stability.

I believe the only real big fires were just on the south side of building 7 where the debris had hit.

and this is yet another reason why having ANY photos of the damaged side would sure settle a lot of the debates about building 7.

reply to post by OrionStars



nothing personal but...huh? why is that at all relevant particularly when you didnt put anything of your own in to make an actual point...


None taken. Your question is quite legitimate.

The NYFD would not involve their personnel in pulling buildings. They leave that up to the experts. CDI has contracts - federal, state, and local - to do controlled demolitions. NYFD has no legal standing to decide on ordering buildings pulled. That is entirely up to the owner(s) and insurance company or companies, with possible FD input as for necessity to do so.

Larry Silverstein, contrary to some calling him a mere lessee, was actually a primary owner of the WTC shortly prior to 9/11. Silverstein was the one buying billions of dollars of insurance on the WTC, including a terrorism addendum, in time to meet the grace period it would kick in before 9/11.

Terrorism, like flood and earthquake addendums, are highly costly when added. So what did Silverstein know at least 60 days before 9/11 that the vast majority of people did not know as well?

Businesses do not arbitrarily add terrorism addendums to their policies, unless there is history of high risk of terrorism occurring. The same way people do not normally add flood and earthquake addendums to their policies, unless they live in a higer risk areas for earthquakes and/or floods. It is unnecessarily costly and impractical without a higher percentage of risk to justify the cost.

If people read their home owners policies, they will normally find such occurrences as earthquakes, flood, and terrorism or war attacks are exclusions, unless addendums for those are purchased at extremely high cost.

Could someone please provide validation that steel buildings have ever collapsed from fire prior to or after 9/11? Thank you in advance.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by OrionStars]

reply to post by OrionStars


the thing is this, until the scene was released by the incident commander, he had full authority over said scene and it doesnt matter what company could have been hired to drop the building, he'd have had to approve it and it would be documented. also, if it was done legitimatly, there would have been no reason to hide the fact.

unless of course youre saying that larry had cdi (or some random group) come in under the noses of fdny and drop the building without telling them about it.

but as to the insurance, remember that the wtc's WERE a previous target for terrorists so it makes perfect sense to take out terrorism insurance. (i think i read that his financiers demanded the coverage as a condition of his financing but i also thought i was purple once so shows how valid what i think is huh?)