It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:01 AM
sorry if this has been posted previously in this thread, i've not got time to read through it all. anyway i think this is a link worth checking out:

It's a long article titled
'Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition'

[edit on 14-12-2007 by tetragrammation]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by tetragrammation

On forums with a few more signature space I cram in WRH.

Those WTC7 floor fires look like Hollywood natural gas burners by flaming house a fire windows.

Unless some fermite or fermate was sprinkled around for effect on the window ledges.
I mean no sprinklers in WTC7? WTC6 was burnt out hulk.

This writer is like a detective.

Of course I follow WR Lyne in his history of CT that hasn't bogged down
at all going into 9/11. Why should liers stop lying or controllers stop controlling.

Who owns you Americans?

Do you really think its that bad....

Watch out for the COINTELPRO....


posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

I mean no sprinklers in WTC7? WTC6 was burnt out hulk.

The water lines that fed the sprinlers were damaged/destroyed when the buildings fell. Sprinlkers are good to a point. Fires can, and will overwhelm a sprinkler system if the fire is large enough and the amount and type of fuel present.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by six

Interesting cause WTC7 was some sort of control center, and Giuliani was
still in the building up to perhaps the first tower came down.

Giuliani's time line escapes me.
(Stalin: Hitler escaped; US: body burnt up, can't id)

So why wasn't WTC7 fully functional though out, the mayor was in WTC7.

I thought the sprinklers of WTC 1 & 2 had sub basement explosions cutting them out.

Giuliani would have been cooked if another Hi Jack plane hit WTC7.

ED: Oh I get it, explosions started in WTC7 after Giuliani left.

[edit on 12/14/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by mikellmikell
It fell because of gravity.It was struck and weakened by debris from the towers and fires further weakened the mechanical penthouse on the roof started the collapse and gravity took over. Simple really.


Good one! Have any other jokes to tell?

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by KanehBosm

Yeah, if its that simple why are we here.

The COINTELPRO is a blessing, just like the wiz kids.

With TerrorStorm and Endgam3, 2008 should be a banner year for elite science goof balls the likes of Gore.
News from Alex Jones is always more than you asked for.

Bush, the biggest COINTERPRO... make Cheny and Connie jealous.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

They obviously left the building with Elvis.

But Giuliani was there, when did he remove himself?

That building had to go, more important than the other two.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by deltaboy

An interesting column of smoke or dust...still standing might be part
of the core beams that were thermated.

The only way to do it.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's at least another possibility:
It was damaged by heavy debris falling 100's of feet, was at ground zero of 2 seismic events and to top it off had uncontrolled fires going on inside with an above-average fuel source.

Why didn't this building fall then too? It was showered with heavy WTC 2 debris falling 100's of feet, was at ground zero of 2 seismic events. It also had extensive fire damage.

What "above average fuel source" are you talking about? The deisel? That was for the most part all recovered even according to the NIST report.

Had it collapsed without those factors I'd have less doubt about the cause but I'd still expect to have seen the sequenced demo charges being detonated.

Do you really think that if this was a CD that it would have been performed with conventional methods? I'd expect the perps to cover it up with every means possible. BUT- As I stated before;

It's quite simple according to NIST. . .

Columns 79, 80 and/or 81 were compromised. This caused a progressive horizontal collapse from east to west. The final result was a total vertical collapse as gravity was allowed to pull the structure to the ground in a few seconds. Now even though it looked exactly like a CD, it wasn't, because our government says so. This is the official explanation.

You would only have to breach three columns in this structure to bring it symetrically to it's knees according to NIST. Also, did you know this building survived another devastating fire in the interim and still didn't collapse?

On August 18, 2007 at approximately 3:40pm a 7-alarm fire broke out on the 17th floor of the building. The skyscraper, once 41 stories, had been reduced to 26, with crews removing a floor a week. At the time of the fire, crews were removing asbestos. A preliminary cause of the blaze has been found to be careless smoking by workers on the 17th floor even though smoking was prohibited. The fire spread in both directions, affecting a total of 10 floors. The floors were filled with a maze of protective polyurethane sheets which were designed to prevent the spread of asbestos. The sheets also helped to trap smoke making fighting the fire near impossible. Two firefighters, Joseph Graffagnino, 33, of Brooklyn, and Robert Beddia, 53, of Staten Island were found on the 14th floor. They suffered severe smoke inhalation and died from carbon monoxide poisoning. In addition to the nightmare conditions inside, the building did not have a functioning standpipe. Firefighters were forced to raise hoses up from the street to combat the flames. The building had not been inspected since March, when it should have been inspected every 15 days. The fire burned into the night before being put out. Plans to deconstruct the building will still continue as quickly as possible.

(emphasis mine)



bad sentence

[edit on 14-12-2007 by 2PacSade]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:36 AM
No matter how much thermate or thermite infested and molted derbies
from WTC1 came down on WTC 7, it should not have come down
like a demolition.

And Giuliani didn't wait around too long after the second plane crash
which signaled WTC 2 to go first so the close by WTC 1 gave the excuse
to escape.

Guess there was no threat of a plane #3 going into WTC 7 being so small.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by 2PacSade

WTC7 was closer. Makes you wonder how DB got damaged so badly.

See WTC7 damage:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:31 PM

Originally posted by defcon5

The building did collapse, whether that be in part or totally, that is by definition what “structural failure" means.

Again, you are being disingenuous. The wikipedia entry was NOT what you posted. I was commenting on the article that YOU posted on page one!

Here it is again:

Never Trust a Truss, Bad Week For Our Safety Stand Down

Every day it is getting more and more dangerous with fires burning hotter due to the use of synthetic materials that put off more BTUs coupled with the combination of cheaper building using light weight construction, mainly the truss. Charlston, SC firefighters battled their commercial fire in a light-weight truss constructed commercial structure that failed in just 30 minutes! I know many brothers can remember back in the 1970s battling fires for hours in structures due to their solid heavy construction, however those days are over. I can only see our industry going towards fighting fires from the outside as long as there is no life hazard. It is just too dangers anymore, so as safety stand down week passes hopefully we have gotten a real good idea of the dangers of our job and just how dangerous it is fighting fires in light weight construction as well as what we interpret as just easily getting off a ladder. Hopefully these very tragic incidents will show us just how important is is to look at safety.
I can not say all was tragic this week, seeing my cousin graduating probie school! My cousin will join myself on Engine 33-12 and continue our family tradition of firefighting. As the lead instructor said at the ceremony, “Welcome to the greatest profession on earth” and this is by far still true. I just hope my brothers have a safe stand-down week and continue to stay safe. Remember: “Never Trust a Truss!”

You tell me where in that article does it say "collapse" or "9 men killed". It doesn't. Futhermore, where do you get the hubris to compare a one story furniture store fire whose roof colllapsed to a 47 storey steel framed skycapper. A roof collapse of a commercial building or warehouse due to fire is probably a commonplace occurance. But to have a complete global collapse of a steel skycapper due to fire and limited damage, falling into its own footprint, is inconceivable.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by defcon5
The frequency controls how much electricity is generated in the wire, not that there is electricity generated in the wire.

After I set you straight...

Originally posted by defcon5
No my initial statement is correct:
Inductance is not reliant on frequency.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by defcon5

Well you have already accused me of living in some type of cuckoo land (being nuts), and of being a disinformation person of some form.

Neither is true defcon5. Reread the posts. I know the rules.

You do realize that both of those things are not allowed in the rules since the latest crackdown on personal insults came into being. Unless you can prove that I am a paid disinformation agent, or that I am insane, then I suggest you keep those thought to yourself. Besides just because someone does not personally agree with you does not make either of those two insults true.

Your own posts speak for themselves.

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

The owner, defcon5, in cloud cuckoo land, that's Larry, not you.

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.

Here's the original sentence misquoted by you above:

"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."

When you distort someone's words like that defcon5, it's a form of dishonesty. In the above you are lying by omission. You have already been accused elsewhere in this thread of being a liar. This is why you are not getting any respect and why people are not taking you seriously.

IF you want to comment on the associations, memberships, or any other PERSONAL LIFE/PERSONALITY aspect of anyone you must source the connection and then explain how and why that connection is valid and germane to your point.

See above. Consider it sourced.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by ipsedixit]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:07 PM
Great to see the debate still going. Those who call for closure on a debate such as this really shouldn't be in this thread.

I have to ask what exactly caused the fire/s to start in building 7?

Was it fallen debris from WTC 1 or WTC 2 after the planes 1st hit?


Was it when WTC 1 or WTC 2 or both fell? Or all of the above?

And is there any video of the fires starting at buliding 7?

Keep up the healthy debate


posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

The fires on WTC7 occurred on several floors. They may very well have been started by burning wreckage from the towers. (Just look at the slo-mo collapse videos of the towers if you want to see a lot of falling smoking wreckage.)

Here's a link with a brief overview of the WTC7 fires.

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Conundrum04

The building did collapse, whether that be in part or totally, that is by definition what “structural failure" means.

Charlston Sofa Super Store
The Charleston Sofa Super Store fire occurred on June 18, 2007, in Charleston, South Carolina, United States, in which a flashover and structural collapse contributed to the deaths of nine Charleston firefighters.

Despite efforts to confine and extinguish the fire, it continued to spread into the structure and ignited furniture in the showroom, growing more quickly than the few operating hose lines could control before additional water could be applied to the fire, however efforts to stretch and begin operating additional hose lines continued[4][3]. At 7:41 p.m. the showroom area of the store experienced a flashover while at least sixteen firefighters were still working inside. The flashover contributed to the rapid deterioration of the structural integrity of the building, leading to a near-complete collapse of the roof just minutes later. Many of the firefighters caught in the flashover were unable to escape and were trapped under the collapsed roof and shelving weakened by the fast-spreading fire. Several calls for help were made by trapped firefighters and efforts to rescue them were commenced. These efforts proved unsuccessful. By the time the fire was brought under control, nine Charleston firefighters had lost their lives.

"The flashover contributed to the rapid deterioration of the structural integrity of the building, leading to a near-complete collapse of the roof just minutes later." The preceding statement does not equate to this, "The building did collapsed,......." The roof is part of the building but not the entire building. Part of the roof collapsed which severely compromised the structural integrity of collapsed part of the roof. The article states nothing about the structural integrity of the balance of the roof which did not collapse. Nothing is stated related to the structrual integrity of the balance of the building.

Structural failure does not necessarily mean collapse. Bridge structures across the USA have had structural failures but did not collapse. It depends on the location and severity of the structural failure, and whether or not it can be remedied without bringing down an current bridge and erecting a new one.

The first mistake using the furniture store is that no comparison of full construction, including building materials, between WTC and the furniture store is available. In fact, what ignited the fire in the furniture store isn't stated. Those are only two, of a few other, points that make your furniture store analogy irrelevant to what occurred in NYC.

It appears you read into the anonymous article what you chose to read. Thus, negating your own argument, and making it much easier for your opponents, who didn't have to bother negating what you did to your own argument.

Generl point regarding debates: If anyone is going to present analogies to events and circumstances (comparable scenerios or otherwise), it is wise to at least make the analogies relevant to the event and circumstances being compared. In the case above, the fire in a furniture store in South Carolina had no relevant comparable value to what occurred at the WTC buildings in NYC on 9/11. Irrelevant analogies turn into red herring arguments. Red herrings are deliberate attempts to sway opponents from the primary topic/subject.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by OrionStars]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by defcon5
I simply mentioned that inductance in the blasting wires was why you cannot carry a cell phone on a site where explosives are being used, and thus it could potentially cause a premature trigger in the WTC.

This is not some unavoidable problem. I'm assuming it would just be too inconvenient to outfit explosives with more elaborate triggers for most commercial uses, because I'm sure circuits can be designed that are fail-safe against what you suggest would be a problem.

Each device could have its own receiver, waiting to receive a certain and very specific signal, and then the reception of this signal could turn "on" a voltage across the primary that could be set to a level much higher than could realistically be induced from stray EM radiation. Just put a bigger gap between the conductors across the primary, for example (if you're dealing with HE, as an example only). Nothing will bridge the gap under a certain voltage, and the only way the voltage would be produced would be with the reception of the specific, pre-programmed signal.

Is there anything wrong with that? If I could think of a way around that issue, don't you think any engineer recruited to such an operation as this would also be able to figure something out?

[edit on 14-12-2007 by bsbray11]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

Exactly, the only reason we don't see this kind of clever isolation and safety employed in current blasting circuits is because it's unnecessary when you are blowing something up! Why waste time and money developing this stuff when you can just stick a sign up!

There are so many ways it could be done, if the need was there to do it, which, in regards to WTC7, there obviously would be.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by adjay]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:39 PM
Are explosives dropped down on wires.

Or remote control... quite sophisticated.

The advance of many floors in advanced of falling debris is shown
in a video topic I posted.

Radio contact to the tower explosives would be needed in that case.
Done all the time in IRAQ.

ED: The same thing that got us to IRAQ is one of the weapons used against us in IRAQ.

[edit on 12/14/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in