Why did building 7 fall?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 

I recommend you start by viewing this site.It is called" Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth."It explains,in good detail ,the flaws in the official story.
edit:sp.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by crowpruitt]




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I like to read Doonesbury occasionally and he had a series about a student who was interning for the CIA, who spent some time in
Afganistan toting a shoulder held photo copy machine.

It was a neat idea and good for a few laughs, but it made me wonder if some of the people regurgitating the same old Bush droppings in these threads are actually students getting paid by the line to perpetuate certain absurd lines of thinking. Just a thought.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
WTC building 7 fell, because it was demolished, with explosives that were planted in it, at some point previous to 9/11/01. If you want evidence, watch videos of skyscrapers being demolished with explosives, and then watch videos of WTC 7 crashing. Next watch videos of skyscrapers falling due to causes other than controlled demo.

Oh wait there are none. Why because skyscrapers are designed not to fall down unless they are controlled demoed, or a real bad earthquake hits. When an earthquake hits, buildings usually just fall over. You can see this in Japan and other countries that have had bad quakes w/skyscrapers.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
It fell because of the big gash caused by debris from the North Tower, which many firefighters have confirmed there was damage to the building. And to the the poster above me, I've never seen the demolition of the Two Towers fall similar to what is normal demo........



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
It fell because of the big gash caused by debris from the North Tower, which many firefighters have confirmed there was damage to the building.

Exactly how many firefighters are we talking about and exactly what damage do they describe?

To what extent did the damage they describe compromise the structural integrity of the building and by what process did this lead to the initiation of a global collapse?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


I suppose we should obtain video evidence of the chunk of debris that hit WTC7, so in future we can do away with explosive charges and wires and people, and just throw a bit of building at another building to make it fall neatly onto its footprint.

This would revolutionise the controlled demolition industry, no further need for planning.. Just lob some bulding at the right part, and like magic, its gone!

I point out Jeff Riff's great post people seem to have overlooked, the Marriot Hotel:



I guess, the bits that hit this one, missed the magical beam responsible for holding the entire building erect, judging by the picture it seems to be in a corner, laughing at the bit of WTC1 or WTC2 that missed.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
graphics8.nytimes.com...


So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to
the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st
Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain
Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade
Center was badly damaged on the south side and
definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we
were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World
Trade Center, which we did.


www.firehouse.com...


Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.




You can see that some of the debris reaching towards WTC7.

Its too bad nobody had a camera to record from the other side at the time when it occurred, but then people were running for their lives.




[edit on 13-12-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 

So, to address the specific point you made earlier and my follow-up: there were three firefighters' accounts and none of them describes the damage in any meaningful detail. Further, it is not possible to establish from these accounts the extent to which the building's structural integrity was compromised, nor the process by which the collapse initiated.

Would that be fair?

If so, on what basis do you assert that the damage sustained during the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 led to its collapse?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
So, to address the specific point you made earlier and my follow-up: there were three firefighters' accounts and none of them describes the damage in any meaningful detail. Further, it is not possible to establish from these accounts the extent to which the building's structural integrity was compromised, nor the process by which the collapse initiated.


Would that be fair?


It would be fair to say that WTC7 didn't fall for a reason even though we have no accurate clear information since nobody in his/her mind would do when a building is still on fire.


If so, on what basis do you assert that the damage sustained during the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 led to its collapse?


On the firefighters' fear of its collapse based on their observation in which they knew.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
After watching WTC1 and WTC2 collapse the way they did, I'm thankful for the paranoia shown on that day by the firefighters. Making a collapse zone (equal to the height of the building, I believe - can any firefighter confirm this?) probably seemed a waste of time afterwards though, as the building sat in its own footprint.

Interesting they note the Marriott was in danger of collapse - looking at the picture I posted (thanks to Jeff Riff's post, I'd have to agree. However, this is a far different situation to WTC7's state, and it's interesting to note that it did not, in fact collapse (despite their worries) and WTC7 did.

Remember, regardless if you believe the official story or not, WTC1 and WTC2 done more to affect firefighting decisions with regards to WTC7 that day than anything in the history of man. Nobody made a collapse zone around the first tower to fall, as nobody expected it to.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
It would be fair to say that WTC7 didn't fall for a reason even though we have no accurate clear information since nobody in his/her mind would do when a building is still on fire.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you clarify please?

On the firefighters' fear of its collapse based on their observation in which they knew.

I guess it'll come as no surprise for you to learn this proves absolutely nothing to me and the vast majority of those who take this issue seriously.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
He can say it as he is a controlled demolitions expert that has looked at the building plans and structure. He makes a living from bringing down buildings in the most economical and safe manner possible, to preserve surrounding structures.

Unfortunately the structure was not in the same condition that it was in the blueprints at the time that it collapsed, it was highly damaged. So saying that he compared the situation to a set of blueprints is not going to tell how close the building was to collapse. I find it very difficult to believe that a professional would stick his neck out and make such a remark when he was not present to view the condition of the build at the point which the fire department made the decision to give up.


Originally posted by adjay
and your statement that someone using a cell phone could have triggered the charges is an outright falsehood. Please prove this "fact".

It is normally posted around blasting sites that you cannot use a cell phone in the area. This is due to the fact that cell phones are not Intrinsically safe devices. They emit a strong RF signal that can cause induction in nearby wiring. This is the same thing that happens when you hear your cell phone make odd noises in your radio speakers.


Originally posted by totallyhuman
defcon5,
Do you work for the Government?You seem to be trying to throw everybody off with the "Official" story.I am a firefighter and have been for 13 years and we have NEVER said we were going to "pull" a building because the fires were too much to control.Nobody says anything at all.If firefighters are in the building and the building looks like it might be ready to collapse or something they "laydown" on the airhorn for 1 long blast.


Oh please, I am sure that they only use absolute scripted language at all fire departments in all places at all times. “Pulling the plug” on an operation is a very common phrase used across many different industries, and I am sure that there is absolutely no way that they could have used that terminology when speaking with the owner of the building trying to decide what their best course of action was. I am sure that if the building was in emanate danger of collapse while the teams were still in it then they would have used the truck horns.

Ps. I take the government remark personally, so I suggest you stop that. Look in my profile and you will see that has been a pet peeve of mine for a very long time.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
Where I come from fire chiefs never consult with building owners like the oh so brainy Larry Silverstein in order to decide what to do about a building fire. Up here the fire chief tells you to get your fat butt out of the way. I guess things are different down in New York city.

Or it could be that this was the first time in history that a major chunk of an entire city fire department was killed in one single event. With this in mind they could have continued to fight the fire, or disperse their men to deal with other pressing matters. So there was a decision there to be made, whether it was worth keeping the manpower bottled up fighting a fire at one location, or if the owner felt that the damage was such that it was not worth the effort and they could recommit their men to other matters.



Originally posted by Jeff Riff
if building 7 fell due to fire and damage then why didnt the Marriott Hotel do the same?
perhaps because the people that reside in that building have nothing to hide.

Or maybe it’s because the Marriott did not have a footing too small from the structure that sits on it, and so it did not use a truss system. Also maybe the damage to that building was not as sever.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you clarify please?


No one is in his/her right mind would try to analyze the building in person for accurate assessment while its on fire.



I guess it'll come as no surprise for you to learn this proves absolutely nothing to me and the vast majority of those who take this issue seriously.


Then just pretend I'm like a truther that says it was a demolition because it looked like one.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
No one is in his/her right mind would try to analyze the building in person for accurate assessment while its on fire.

Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post, which shows that this is exactly what did happen. Here is the relevant quote, from NIST.

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.

So the best damage assessment you could produce was from firefighters outside the building who describe some external but unspecified damage. Yet there were a number of people inside the building assessing the extent of the fires and ensuring the building had been vacated who, to my knowledge, reported no severe internal traume despite being in the very best position to have done so.

Then just pretend I'm like a truther that says it was a demolition because it looked like one.

No need to pretend - that's exactly what you're doing. In which case, it would be disappointing to see you criticise them in future for lack of evidence.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
So the best damage assessment you could produce was from firefighters outside the building who describe some external but unspecified damage. Yet there were a number of people inside the building assessing the extent of the fires and ensuring the building had been vacated who, to my knowledge, reported no severe internal traume despite being in the very best position to have done so.


The best damage assessment you just provided shows firefighters being evacuated and confirming the reports of fires on multiple floors, not accurate detailed description of the structure. And to say just cause there was no internal trauma does not mean they can conclude its safe to stay, hence the evacuation in the first place.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Where I come from fire chiefs never consult with building owners like the oh so brainy Larry Silverstein in order to decide what to do about a building fire. Up here the fire chief tells you to get your fat butt out of the way. I guess things are different down in New York city.

Or it could be that this was the first time in history that a major chunk of an entire city fire department was killed in one single event. With this in mind they could have continued to fight the fire, or disperse their men to deal with other pressing matters. So there was a decision there to be made, whether it was worth keeping the manpower bottled up fighting a fire at one location, or if the owner felt that the damage was such that it was not worth the effort and they could recommit their men to other matters.


And that would be left up to the owner, wouldn't it defcon5, in cloud cuckoo land?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
The best damage assessment you just provided...

Just so we're clear - it's not encumbent upon me to provide evidence of anything here.

You made the claim that damage brought the buildings down. I asked you to substantiate this claim. You have, unless I've missed something, failed to do so on several occasions now.

Do you have anything to offer by way of specific evidence about the extent to which the structural integrity of Building 7 was compromised and how this led to the initiation of the collapse?

If not, would you be good enough to concede that your claim was, at best, a gut feeling?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Just so we're clear - it's not encumbent upon me to provide evidence of anything here.


O how embarassing for you, I didn't think about your well being, sorry. Just contradicting about your belief that firefighters can easily drink some coffee while observing the carnage all around them


You made the claim that damage brought the buildings down. I asked you to substantiate this claim. You have, unless I've missed something, failed to do so on several occasions now.


If the firefighters observations is not enough, then its your choice to accept or not accept it.


Do you have anything to offer by way of specific evidence about the extent to which the structural integrity of Building 7 was compromised and how this led to the initiation of the collapse?


Nobody, even me can provide clear and accurate assessment and final conclusion enough to make you happy.


If not, would you be good enough to concede that your claim was, at best, a gut feeling?


Gut feeling? Nah, just enough evidence like firefighters' reports and the visual damage shown.



[edit on 13-12-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Gut feeling? Nah, just enough evidence like firefighters' reports and the visual damage shown.

As we've seen, none of what you've presented thus far proves your claim that the building collapsed as the result of damage.

Which makes me wonder how you could possibly have arrived at such a conclusion.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Unfortunately the structure was not in the same condition that it was in the blueprints at the time that it collapsed, it was highly damaged. So saying that he compared the situation to a set of blueprints is not going to tell how close the building was to collapse. I find it very difficult to believe that a professional would stick his neck out and make such a remark when he was not present to view the condition of the build at the point which the fire department made the decision to give up.


I would expect you to find it very difficult, considering he is a professional demolitions expert and you are not. He is sticking "his neck out" as he has analysed the evidence, including but not limited to the building plans, and the video evidence, and absolutely agree's this is nothing else but a controlled demolition. The main factor being the way the building fell, regardless of any other damage it was suffering at the time. He consulted the construction plans and examined how the structure supported itself, and applied his expert experience and knowledge to formulate the absolute conclusion that the only way to achieve this eventuality was by controlled demolition.


Originally posted by defcon5
It is normally posted around blasting sites that you cannot use a cell phone in the area. This is due to the fact that cell phones are not Intrinsically safe devices. They emit a strong RF signal that can cause induction in nearby wiring. This is the same thing that happens when you hear your cell phone make odd noises in your radio speakers.


Blasting site safety signs are no proof that using a mobile phone can set off a charge. Radio frequencies used by mobile phones are very high, between 380 and 1990 MHz. I believe the minimum safe distance for a ~1W mobile phone and blasting circuitry is ~3M, so whoever was "talking on their mobile phone" would have to be almost sat on top of a charge, and it would not be a definite conclusion this would set off the charge. There are also many different ways this could be avoided altogether, RF jamming being one of them.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by adjay]






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join