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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
"If the 'truss theory' were true then the force of the plane's impact would have knocked the inner core backwards, this would have crushed numerous trusses on the opposite side of the building and sheared off a massive number of truss connecting bolts.

Airliner & debris weight + bolt failures + catastrophic truss failures = immediate "pancake collapse" of all floors (but not the core).

History shows this didn't happen."

www.whatreallyhappened.com...




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

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


Originally posted by ipsedixit
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.

Hm, and you wonder why there is supposed to start being tighter scrutiny on these boards, here is the reason right here. What’s the matter you cannot engage in intelligent debate without going after the posters rather then the topic? I guess I should consider these tactics as a sign of how weak the position you’re arguing from really is. This is the truth movement in a nutshell right here, and why its not growing. There used to be civil debate on 911 in this forum before the movement showed up, and now anyone who disagrees with them has to be name called, insulted, or accused of being a government paid employee.

As to the topic, and the reason why they might have checked with him; it could simply be a matter of making a decision that since life was not at risk, was it worth bottling up the fire fighters to continue to fight a fire in which the damage was so great that cost of repair would be greater then the cost of letting it fail, and building a new building.


[edit on 12/13/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
"If the 'truss theory' were true then the force of the plane's impact would have knocked the inner core backwards, this would have crushed numerous trusses on the opposite side of the building and sheared off a massive number of truss connecting bolts.


the truss theory is true, because the aircraft did not hit WTC 7, it hit WTC 1&2. Bits of WTC 1&2 are what hit WTC7.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
I would expect you to find it very difficult, considering he is a professional demolitions expert and you are not.

I cannot think of any professional that would makes such an analysis without being there to examine the building itself. Obviously the Fire Department was already stating to the owner that the building was in danger of collapse before it fell, I would guess that they were more qualified to make such an assessment as they had “boots on the ground” at the location.


Originally posted by adjay
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


It has nothing to do with the frequency that the phones use, which is why I posted links to what I was referring to. It has to do with the RF Signal of the cell phone inducing a current in the wiring to the system. If you are not familiar with Electromagnetic inductance, then I suggest reading my link above, or doing a web search on the subject. Again it is posted at work sites using demolitions that you cannot use your cell phone within a certain radius of the work site, and the fact that cell phones are not IS is the reason why.


[edit on 12/13/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
It has nothing to do with the frequency that the phones use, which is why I posted links to what I was referring to. It has to do with the RF Signal of the cell phone inducing a current in the wiring to the system. If you are not familiar with Electromagnetic inductance, then I suggest reading my link above, or doing a web search on the subject. Again it is posted at work sites using demolitions that you cannot use your cell phone within a certain radius of the work site, and the fact that cell phones are not IS is the reason why.


On the contrary, I am an electrical engineer and I affirm to you the frequency (as well as the power) is a major factor in determining the safe distances, as this Guide to Radio Frequency Hazards with Electric Detonators clearly shows. It gives tables of safe distances for various pieces of equipment.

I highlight the following to you the following:


If there is a choice, use the higher frequency bands (450-470 MHz) for mobile transmitters. RF pickup is less efficient at these frequencies than at the lower frequencies.


Of note especially is Table V, which refers to Cellular Phones as being referenced to Table VI, which gives, for a 5 Watt transmitter, a minimum safe distance of 10 feet for "450-470Mhz Public Use Cellular, and Autmobile Telephones over 800Mhz"

It helps to know your subject matter when attempting to try the "educate yourself on this" line.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
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. In the enclosed area of a building which would have been pre-wired, the lines would be running an unsafe distance from workers who would be roaming within the shortest of those danger distances. Lets say that a typical hallway is 10 feet wide, anyone in the hallway using a phone who happened to pass a location where these supposedly concealed wires were, would cause a premature ignition hazard.

From your document:

Guide to radio frequency hazards
there have been authenticated cases in which detonators were prematurely initiated by RF transmission to the detonator wires. Subsequent investigations revealed that the instances would not have occurred if proper safe distances from the RF sources had been maintained.

If the electric detonator wires are located in a strong RF field (near a transmitter that is radiating RF power), the usually insulated but unshielded leg wires or circuit wires will act as an antenna similar to that on a radio or TV set. This antenna will absorb RF energy from the transmitter RF field and the electric current transmitted to the detonator wires will flow into the detonator. (See
figure 1.) Depending on the strength of the RF field and the antenna configuration formed by the detonator wires and its orientation, sufficient RF energy may be induced in the wires to fire the electric detonator.

Mobile radios and cellular telephones that transmit RF energy must be rated as a high potential hazard because, although their power is low, they can be brought directly into a blasting area. (See figure 4.) Transmitting pagers also need to be considered.

Keep mobile transmitters away from blasting areas. If transmitters are allowed on or near the
blasting area, a strict policy must be set to ensure that the transmitters are always turned off. This
precaution should be followed no matter what frequency or energy (watts) the transmitter employs.

CB radios and cellular telephones should not be operated by anyone on the property during blast hole loading operations.


You are also being very misleading about the distances, from your PDF:


450-470 Mhz Public Use cellular, Automobile telephones above 800Mhz:

Watts - feet
5-10
10-20
50-40
100-60
180-80
250-90
500-120
600-140
1000-180
10,000-560

So if the wattage is high enough on the device the distance can go all the way up to 560 feet.


[edit on 12/13/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Here is the trouble with cut and pasting things that you do not understand. The cables and circuitry can indeed be shielded but in most practical situations this is a waste of time and money as it will no longer be there when the detonation occurs (hence the paper assumes unshielded cables and circuits). In a situation where it is needed, there is no reason why it wouldn't be! Various other mechanisms can be used to protect against induced current in a circuit.

You really should educate yourself before making these statements, they are extremely misleading. The peak power of a GSM mobile phone is 2 Watts, the reason I used 5 is because older analog phones could be twice this. Typically, 1 Watt is about right, which would reduce the safe distance to 1/5 of 10 feet - 2 feet. Even a 2W maximum would give a 4 feet safe distance.

Now, please show me your 10 kilo-watt mobile phone, I'd love to see one!



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I have schooling in Computer engineering, which required basic electronics, solid state devices and so on, so don’t give me this stuff that I don’t know what I am talking about. I currently run EEG’s, which is greatly concerned with EM interference, and there is no amount of shielding that 100% dissipates it. There will always be some spot in the system, such as were the wires splice together.

In addition, phones vary in wattage according to their make, model, age, and use. A phone that someone owns to use on a boat, which requires a strong signal to reach a tower, will have a much higher wattage then a normal phone will, by way of example. You cannot just decide that someone will not have a stronger phone, especially when they are working in a tower that might require a stronger signal to break through the steel building structure to get a signal. Also, you should know that when you shield cable it makes it much less pliable, much thicker, and much harder to install in a hidden fashion.

When we start adding all these nagging little factors together, the case for a CD seems slimmer and slimmer.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Thanks for the clean debte thus far by all participants!

I too am aware of disinformation agents, and the agenda they spread, having said that to accuse a fellow debater of that without proof is a pretty nasty thing to do. If the believers of the official story are NOT disinfo agents, they would and should take that to heart. Having said that it leaves a damned if they do, or damned if they don't situation...

Now to get onto another aspect: WHAT WAS IN BUILDING 7 ?

Copied from www.wtc7.net...

Salomon Smith Barney Financial Institution
IRS Regional Council Government
U.S. Secret Service Government
C.I.A. N/A N/A Government
American Express Bank International Financial Institution
Standard Chartered Bank Financial Institution
Provident Financial Management Financial Institution
ITT Hartford Insurance Group [Insurance]
First State Management Group, Inc Insurance
Federal Home Loan Bank Financial Institution
NAIC Securities Insurance
Securities & Exchange Commission Government
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt Government

This list is based on a table published by CNN.com, which did not include CIA, whose tenancy was disclosed after the attack in the New York Times article. "

My question to the believers of the "official story" is a 2 parter:

1 Do you believe the downing of building 7 was planned by the alleged "terrorists"?

2 Do you believe anyone gained from the collapes of building 7 or any of those companies listed in building 7?

Thanks,

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
1 Do you believe the downing of building 7 was planned by the alleged "terrorists"?

No, I don’t think that it was intended, it just happened to be in the path of the debris.


Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow[/
2 Do you believe anyone gained from the collapes of building 7 or any of those companies listed in building 7?

As I asked earlier, why take down a building for something that you can do easier and less suspiciously through other methods if you have the tremendous assets that the government has at its disposal.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Did you not read my post above about how the SC fire department lost 10 members due to a fire in a truss structure similar to WTC7, which collapsed in 30 minutes?


I know this is a convo between you and adjay, but I had to add this.

I think you are being disingenuous when you made this comment. Never in that paragraph did it say collapse.



Charlston, SC firefighters battled their commercial fire in a light-weight truss constructed commercial structure that failed in just 30 minutes!


Now what exactly failed? It's not really clear in that sentence.

Also, I read the article. The South Carolins FD lost 10 fireman in a week. It never states they lost 10 in that fire. Again, you are being disingenuous.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by Conundrum04]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   


if building 7 fell due to fire and damage then why didnt the Marriott Hotel do the same?


The Marriott Hotel (23 story) between the Towers was struck by debris
as Tower 2 (south) collapsed just before 10AM. The building was
literally cut in half. 40 FDNY men died there, including family member
of one of my departments members. The 1993 truck bomb went off
right below the building (then know as the VISTA HOTEL) causing severe
structural damage - so much that it was feared it would collapse from
the damage. A steel "cage" was constructed to support the structure.
It was this "cage" structure which prevented the building from immediately
collapsing.

The picture you posted shows the Marriott shortly after the initial debris
strike from the South Tower. 30 minutes later when North Tower collapsed
the debris from this flattened what was left leaving only the remains
of the "cage" standing .

Here is picture of what remained after second collapse.




So why didn't Marriott collapse like WTC 7 ?

1) Different structure - ie no truss supporting building.

2) Building was heavily reinforced following 1993 bombing

3) Time - Building was severly damaged by initial impact then destroyed
by second impact 30 minutes later unlike WTC 7 which sustained impact
at 10:30AM from North Tower collapse then burned for some 7 hours
as FDNY didn't have resources (343 men dead/missing, hundreds more
injured, 99 pieces of equipment destroyed, water mains both under
the street and the standpipes in building destroyed meaning no water )
to adequately fight the fires.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I have schooling in Computer engineering, which required basic electronics, solid state devices and so on, so don’t give me this stuff that I don’t know what I am talking about.


You don't know what you are talking about. To recap:


Originally posted by defcon5It has nothing to do with the frequency that the phones use, which is why I posted links to what I was referring to. It has to do with the RF Signal of the cell phone


RF = Radio Frequency, your own statement disproves yourself here, despite acting like I need to educate myself!


Originally posted by defcon5So if the wattage is high enough on the device the distance can go all the way up to 560 feet.


Here's your misleading 10,000 Watts cell phone example, for clarity.


Originally posted by defcon5In addition, phones vary in wattage according to their make, model, age, and use. A phone that someone owns to use on a boat, which requires a strong signal to reach a tower, will have a much higher wattage then a normal phone will, by way of example. You cannot just decide that someone will not have a stronger phone, especially when they are working in a tower that might require a stronger signal to break through the steel building structure to get a signal.


I really can decide that nobody would be walking around WTC7 in a boat! Please provide links of common cell phones with more than 10W transmitting power. Or a picture of someone using a couple of these on their portable cell phone in an office.


Currently most cell phones are only 250 milliwatt of power ( 1/4 watt). In the old days ( a few years ago) the Bag Phone was king and they used to put out 3000 milliwatts or 3 watts of power.



Originally posted by defcon5Also, you should know that when you shield cable it makes it much less pliable, much thicker, and much harder to install in a hidden fashion.


Baseless, and wrong. They are less pliable than normal cable, not much thicker, and make no difference to difficulty of installation, hidden or not. The times I don't hide cables I can count on my digits. That's from personal experience as I have used this type of cable, and many others, many, many times. Termination of cable isn't an issue either if the cables are terminated properly, and you can achieve up to 80% reduction in RFI if so required.

For further proof on how easy it is to shield cellphone interference, check out this Mythbusters episode.


Benvenuto made the point that the electronics on the aircraft were very well-shielded


Your original claim that "some person in the building using a cell phone could have triggered the charges" is flat out wrong because:


  1. You do not know what circuit was used, or how much current would trigger
  2. You do not know if the circuit was shielded
  3. You do not know where the circuit was, or how close anyone could get to it
  4. Considering the above, you have no idea how close the cell could trigger it
  5. You have no proof that it even can trigger it
  6. You have no idea how powerful any cell phone was that day
  7. You assume the charges were placed way in advance
  8. You also assume an electrical and wired trigger circuit


The funniest thing, is wiring never even had to be used. I'm pretty sure I could come up with some designs for remote signalling, which could definitely be used to trigger devices, from a distance. I believe there's evidence of insurgents in Iraq doing this; so assuming this CD was done with wires is erroneous at best.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
It wasn't the people dancing afterwards because they were told to
film the event.

It wasn't Evelyn Rothschild cause he just got to new york after honeymooning in the white house.

It was the people who wired the explosives if it was explosives.

Eventially it would be gravity however that is petty.

Now anti gravity is another mystery brought to by perhaps the same people
who like to fool you. Thats electrical currents of a different kind.

The insurance companies can't be why the buildings fell.

I give up, they all did it.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
As to the topic, and the reason why they might have checked with him; it could simply be a matter of making a decision that since life was not at risk, was it worth bottling up the fire fighters to continue to fight a fire in which the damage was so great that cost of repair would be greater then the cost of letting it fail, and building a new building.
[edit on 12/13/2007 by defcon5]


defcon5, let me repeat, this is not the sort of thing that is going to be mulled over by a building owner and a fire chief. There are numerous other interests involved, not the least of which are the interests of the NYPD. One of the reasons you are not getting a lot of respect on this thread is that you don't seem to have a lot of understanding of things that you are presuming to teach us all about.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
RF = Radio Frequency, your own statement disproves yourself here, despite acting like I need to educate myself!

No sir, you are in fact the one who is wrong, let me explain.
The frequency controls how much electricity is generated in the wire, not that there is electricity generated in the wire. Something with a frequency of 1 will not induce as much current to flow in the wire as something with a frequency of 100K, but both will induce a current. The reason being due to the lines of flux that are cutting the wire, the more rapidly that it occurs the more current produced in the wire, but both induce a current.


Originally posted by adjay
Here's your misleading 10,000 Watts cell phone example, for clarity.

I never said that it had to be a cell phone which generated that much wattage, I just requoted your table. As truthers tend to do you only want to show the numbers that fit your story, instead of all the numbers. This could be a high wattage cell tower test unit, such as a friend of mine had in his car to test cell sites, and driving 560 feet away in the street it could induce a voltage. You’re the one who assumed it has to be hand held.


Originally posted by adjay
I really can decide that nobody would be walking around WTC7 in a boat! Please provide links of common cell phones with more than 10W transmitting power.

I believe that there is a phone called a brick phone which is a hand held phone that is made for use on boats, and operates at a higher wattage then a normal cell phone. How about satellite phones, what type of wattage do they output?


Originally posted by adjay
you can achieve up to 80% reduction in RFI if so required.

As I stated you cannot eliminate 100% which is why we cannot eliminate 100% in the lab either. Using EEG wire, if I bundle my wires together too tightly even the low amplitude, low frequency brain waves can induce themselves into other wires.


Originally posted by adjay
Baseless, and wrong. They are less pliable than normal cable, not much thicker, and make no difference to difficulty of installation, hidden or not.

Shielded cable is wire wrapped with layer of other wire, and as such is substantially thicker then normal wire and harder to bend.


Originally posted by adjay
· You do not know what circuit was used, or how much current would trigger
· You do not know if the circuit was shielded
· You do not know where the circuit was, or how close anyone could get to it
· Considering the above, you have no idea how close the cell could trigger it
· You have no proof that it even can trigger it
· You have no idea how powerful any cell phone was that day
· You assume the charges were placed way in advance
· You also assume an electrical and wired trigger circuit

You also assume these things. Anyone trying to execute such a plan have to assume several of them as well. They would never attempt it because there are to many factors which could go wrong, and they would be caught red handed.


[edit on 12/14/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
defcon5, let me repeat, this is not the sort of thing that is going to be mulled over by a building owner and a fire chief. There are numerous other interests involved, not the least of which are the interests of the NYPD.

When they are deciding to abandon a building of that magnitude, which they could possibly save at the cost of tying up units, and could potentially be called on the carpet for pulling folks off of it later by the owner, you bet your butt they are going to discuss the situation with the property owner.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
One of the reasons you are not getting a lot of respect on this thread is that you don't seem to have a lot of understanding of things that you are presuming to teach us all about.

Alternatively, it could be that I just don’t roll over and believe everything that the truth movement says, so I have to be debunked and again insulted by the truthers to silence me. You have a bad habit of breaking the rules on here about not attacking people; I don’t understand why you continue to get away with it. In truth the truth movement has been caught in more blatant lies then any other group on the 911 subject.


[edit on 12/14/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Defcon, I would like to know why you purposely tried to mislead adjay into thinking that a building collapsed in S.C. due to truss failure.

I guess you missed my post above(about 7 up).

I read that article you posted on page one and it never stated that the building collapsed. You also said that 10 firemen died in that fire which is also false.

I'm not going to let you get away with that. I'll be waiting for an answer.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
You have a bad habit of breaking the rules on here about not attacking people; I don’t understand why you continue to get away with it. In truth the truth movement has been caught in more blatant lies then any other group on the 911 subject.
[edit on 12/14/2007 by defcon5]


defcon5, I'm pretty careful about what I post on these forums. I don't have a bad habit of breaking the rules. If I did I would hear about it from the moderators. This is just typical of your style of agument. You can sum it up in one phrase, "no foundation in fact".



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   
It's interesting to me that a chap like defcon5, who's obviously very well educated, seeing how he's a computer engineer, cannot see the overwhelmingly unlikely scenario that ALL of the trusses would fail in exactly the same fashion at exactly the same time and somehow cause a 40some story STEEL building to just completely fall down perfectly into its footprint and completely shatter, and also just coincidentally, the building housed several agencies/institutions of federal and international importance, which all have something to hide, and no doubt had incriminating data stored in the building at the time, ALONG with Giulliani's emergency management bunker. First of all, why would Giulliani choose an "unstable" building to house a reinforced emergency center? Wouldn't he be concerned about bombings or possible earthquakes/floods/etc? What good is an emergency bunker if it can't withstand an emergency?ALSO, the building owner benefits from insurance money from the collapse... ALSO the collapse happens on an infamous day in human history where 2 OTHER steel structures collapse practically into their footprints (albeit, a 1300 foot skyscraper is a bit harder to contain, even if it were a controlled demolition...which ehem duh.).... also, the thousands of other perfectly coinciding events that happened on that day....

Did you take statistics class at all in high school and college? I'll bet you did. I didn't even graduate high school with a diploma, and I can do some simple every day cranial calculations in my head (much like you do when judging the distance it takes to make a basketball into a basket... do I need a BA in order to be able to make a basket?), and I can confidently state that, statistically, it's more likely that pigs will learn to fly in the next 30 seconds.

And your own story conflicts itsself. Either the building collapsed from the "huge gash" and the fires... or it collapsed from truss failure. Which is it? It can't be both, because then.... the chances of that all alligning in one perfect moment is pretty damn close to...absolute zero. Unless God himself was shining down upon Larry Silverstein at that very moment AND pigs were learning to fly in 30 seconds AND Michael Jackson decided to stop sleeping in beds with 12 year olds all at the same exact moment....
You are grasping onto a false hope in the validity of your love for a country that can do no wrong to the extent of murdering its own citizens and staging a "war on terror" to get the American people behind a right wing capitalist assault, both on the economies and religious foundations of the MiddleEastern world...

It's a hard thing to accept as truth...

I'm sorry, but it's true. We've been had, defcon. We've been raped and murdered bigtime by the hand that keeps us so "free".

It is time to accept this, for it is a fact that even the laymen are starting to grasp their minds around. For you to continue trumpeting out this... frantic propaghanda.... that you are posting here, it is an insult to YOUR intelligence.

You aren't offending anyone else...

Well maybe you are, but some people get offended way too easily.

Thanks for your hopefully honest efforts, though.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by indierockalien]

[edit on 14-12-2007 by indierockalien]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join