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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay

Originally posted by albie
Jowenko also said that the twin towers was brought down by the planes alone. No bombs needed.

Do you trust him on that one?

If not, then he can make mistakes. Which calls into question him saying building 7 was demolished by bombs.

You can't have it both ways.


Oh, yes I can. It isn't about trust. It's about finding out the evidence for myself, if he disagree's with me on WTC1 or WTC2, that's fine. In fact, let's see where he said that, and see if he said it with such conviction as he did regarding WTC7.

One major point is that WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by planes, more likely his expert opinion is valid that he cannot say they were CD for sure without more evidence, but we don't have that. The story may be different if we did.

I want to see this link of him flat out denying WTC1 and WTC2 was not CD, not a vague reference in the documentary where he says something like "not like the others".


uk.youtube.com...

He is in fact just as sure.

And in fact, int he video of him saying that building 7 fell on the same day as the twin towers he is surprised. He seems to think it would require more time than was necessary. he seems to think it occured days later.

Presumably he thinks it would require that much time to plant the bombs.

Jowenko does not agree with you on the towers. In your eyes he must be making a mistake.

If he can be mistaken about the twin towers, he can be wrong about building 7.

Simple as that.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by albie]




posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by albie
 


No, he is definitely not as sure.

After he see's the fireman's statements about the floors "popping out" and the "boom boom boom boom boom", the dialog is:

Interviewer: "But he says it was as if ... [explosives had been used]"
Jawenko: "That's what it looks like"
Jawenko: "But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's not possible."
Interviewer: "Why not?"
Jawenko: "Of course it isn't."
Interviwer: "You wouldn't do it like that?"
Jawenko: "It would take a year."
Interviwer: "A year to place all those explosives?"
Jawenko: "And prepare them and hook them up. With all the cables down there."

This is a much different picture to him saying "absolutely" repeatedly regarding whether explosives were used on WTC7. With regards to his comments above, his opinion hinges on "But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors." - but what if there was? This hints that his opinion may be different. He assumes traditional (cables) demolition techniques as well, when the evidence points to thermite, and the hypothesis could include any number of different ways of using "explosives".

Also as I pointed out before, WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by planes which could provide a "cover" for any controlled demolitions work, but that is another thread (this one is about WTC7).



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   


See WTC7 damage:



You being dishonest - the shot is of the North face of WTC 7. The damage
and fires were on the south face of the building. It is easy to tell the
2 sides apart - north face is black granite, south is red. When someone
claims there is no damage/fire and starts the insane rant about CD
or MIB or Jews then shows you the NORTH side of WTC 7 know they
are lying.

Here is some info from people on the SOUTH side who witnessed the
damage/fires in the building



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


I'm not calling for an end to debate. I am calling an end to the kind of discourse that is not intellectually genuine in nature. Meaning; some people use the 9-11 discussions as a cover for ranting and/or raving.

This is not a personal attack against anyone. It is a suggestion that making absurd statements as facts, when they are really your opinion not bound by any laws of physics or reality, is not helpful to anyone.

This thread has been positively full of posters making definitive statements like "...this is the only way it could have happened..." without a single bit of evidence supporting their position.

Look guys; conjecture, opinions, ideas stated firmly don't make them facts. That's all I am trying to say. I am not attacking anyone and I hope everyone says all that they have to say on the subject.

My opinion is everyone is allowed to say pretty much what they want on ATS; in the realm of idea discussion.

The right to say something does not relieve you of the responsibility of your words. That is, if you say something that others may find preposterous then you have the right to say it and the responsibility to take criticism like a man.

Cowboy up and get back in the saddle. =)

A lot of people take my ideas as pure lunacy - and have said so! I feel that a lot of the truth movement is totally, utterly off kilter. The movement itself is fringe and there is a large contingent within the fringe who are even further fringe (hologram/thermite crowd IMHO). This really fringe group does nothing but discredit the whole truth movement.

Holograms? Cell phone setting off det-cord thermite? Shaped charges? Seriously? Do I think there is more to 9-11 than the official story? Possibly. In so much as how things developed, or how much our intelligence agencies knew and when they knew it, etc. That there was a massive conspiracy involving military jets carrying "pods" of explosives, etc? No. These positions are - in my mind - purely fanciful imaginations. Interesting? Sure the various theories are interesting...as a fictional read.

I do not think the actual posters who believe this stuff are crazy. Not at all. My beef is with the ideas, not the people.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
You being dishonest - the shot is of the North face of WTC 7. The damage
and fires were on the south face of the building.


Yes there was some damage and fire on the south side, but isolated fires in the other parts of the building.

Here are reports from firemen that were there.
www.wtc7.net...

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   


Yes there was some damage and fire on the south side, but isolated fires in the other parts of the building.


Here are the real quotes from FDNY men on the scene - not the
cherry -picked, edited out of context stuff you see on the "truther" sites


wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Actually listened to lecture and talked to several of these FDNY chiefs



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
No explosions reported for WTC7.. why was it so weak?

And if all the fire chiefs saw the video of the collapse, or pseudo pancake,

what would they say?


ED: Wireless detonators apparently is the only way to go without wiring.
Used in IRAQ against us. Improved radios delayed in the WTC because
more important Illuminati radio comm had to be installed.
Lets not leave our owners and leaders out of this.


[edit on 12/15/2007 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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]


Makes you wonder what some of these black programs or projects are about.

Workers on radio controlled fire works every fourth of July is a potential
black project engineering recruit.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I always wondered about building #7 and how it all came down at the same time. So the fire must have been burning at the same temp all over the building for the same amount of time and it all collapsed at the same time. Now the building at the Oklahoma City bombing stood after the explosion and why is that? I would think it suffered more damage than building #7.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Hey guys,
I see there is a lot of stuff on here for me to respond too, I’ll try and get to it tomorrow. I had to do the "Christmas shopping thing" for a couple days, and I have to head off for a bit again here in a few. I do want to respond to this absolutely hilarious post first though, as I just cannot resist spending a few minutes to on it.

reply to post by adjay
 

Originally posted by adjay
This is where I draw the line. You first state frequency "controls how much electricity is generated", and then after I correct you (after you try and educate me on something you have no idea about) you change it to this, and state you were correct. When I in fact showed you this, you then claim it as your initial statement.



What a friggen joke, considering he quoted me on posting absolutely the opposite


Originally posted by adjay

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!


I believe that I stated right off that it has nothing to do with the frequency, did I not?

Here let me check:
defcon5: “It has nothing to do with the frequency.”
But now you got caught you're trying to say:
adjay: “You first state frequency "controls how much electricity is generated"
I believe that I said, later on, that it controls how much current is generated. As an electronics person you should know the difference between current, and amplitude. You’re not being truthful, and its kind’a funny that you waited quite a long time to put up this post, maybe until after you thought I was not coming back to this thread?

Your trying like heck to disprove me on a what might possibly be a syntax error, and that is all it is. I stated that it had nothing to do with frequency, many posts before you “educated me”…


While I may not be a radio technician, and thus my jargon may be off, my understanding of electronics is sound. When I typed out my post initially I did it in a simple fashion that was easy to understand for a layman. What I said that this:


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

Which is a true statement, and requires no education from you…

EEG technicians spend half of their time at work fighting inductance sources, whether they be from cell phones, florescent lighting, fax machines, other EEG leads, or thousands of other things. Allow me to better translate this for you. The frequency of the radio waves is not what causes the inductance, it’s the signal itself. Frequency will not effect amplitude of the current, it will effect the frequency of the current, or the “ripple factor”. Lets see if I mentioned current as opposed to amplitude, shall we?


Originally posted by defcon5
It has to do with the RF Signal of the cell phone inducing a current in the wiring to the system.
Originally posted by defcon5
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.

I am obviously referring to the current, not the amplitude, which is why you truncated my post. Misquoting is a common truther tactic.

You know I can turn my “Function Generator” from 1hz to 10Khz, and I have yet to see it turn a 10 volt “peak to peak” into a 10.5 volt “peak to peak” on either my “O-Scope”, or my “EEG Machine” which is little more then 32 oscilloscopes hooked up in parallel…

The truth is that you got caught trying to be the expert, and you were in fact wrong. You tried to catch me in a “gotcha moment” and it backfired on you massively.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Hi Defcon,
I read through the entire thread very carefully and it's obvious you are "debating" with some (not all) people who are not looking for honest discussion. They are, however, looking for "gotcha" moments.

I also wanted to take a second to reply to this post, because it’s an excellent post. Not only is it true, but it brought up many fantastic points that had not occurred to me. See, I generally am a straight-forward person, and I do not prescribe to subterfuge online or in real life. I tell it like it is, and that is obviously against the creed of many truthers, so I missed many of the things that you have pointed out to me. I gave you a star, and if I had the ability I would give you an applause as well.

I will try and get to the other questions later on if possible.

[edit on 12/16/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I have no idea why we are arguing over frequency... but, since I do happen to be an electronics technician, I believe I can straighten this whole mess out.

First, you must understand the dynamics of frequency transmission. To properly transmit a signal, you must have an antenna that is at least one half the wavelength of your lowest frequency you expect to transmit/receive.

The discerning eye and quick mind will have already perked an eyebrow. Obviously, a number of our systems out there use antennae that are far shorter than half the received wavelength. This is utilizing the 'quarter wavelength shunted stub' - which is something like two antennae connected in parallel... or a myriad of other arrangements. Anyway - it's not all that important - just that you understand we can use this nice little phenomena to get what we want out of it.

So, that begins to determine what frequencies we can transmit at efficiently.

Now, we have to look at the process of induction. For the sake of radios - you aren't really getting much in the way of electrical current flow. You use a system of amplifiers, filters, detectors, etc to get what you finally put out at your stereo speakers. For all intents and purposes - a single wire exposed to an oscillating magnetic field of a radio transmitter does not generate any current. It's so small that you cannot utilize it without an amplifier (or you are standing dangerously close to the transmitter).

As for the raw process of induction, here is what happens, a magnetic field expands across a wire (so called magnetic 'lines of flux' pass over it... magic lines/flow of particles that exist based off of a concept that Gauss or someone following his lead developed). This generates a voltage difference at the extremities of the wire, and, ultimately, current will flow.

Now, we need to discuss the difference between voltage and current. Voltage is the potential for movement. Current is the volume of movement. Watts is the expression of how much total power is in the system - taking Voltage times the Current. From now on, I will refer to current as (I), Voltage as (V) Watts as (W).

V=IxR
I=V/R
R=V/I

That is known as Ohm's Law. As an electronics technician - you learn to love that relationship. It's fundamental in troubleshooting a system - as, if anything is shorted, you will be getting much less resistance than you should be getting. If something is open (no connection) - you get an infinite reading.

Now, more on induction. When you coil a wire up, you increase the area over which the magnetic field has to pass through the wire - thus increasing your induced potential. You have also formed what is known as an inductor (hmm... wonder where they got that name from...). So, it's safe to say that the more windings (number of 'loops' in the wire) I place on this inductor, the more voltage it will be capable of inducing, right?

Now we start getting into transformers. That is two coils of wires placed right next to each other (often wrapped around a shared soft iron core). The ratio of each winding's turns to the other winding determines the voltage/current ratios allowed.

For instance a 1:1 ratio is known as an isolation transformer because the VAC present on one winding will be present on the other - and the same maximum current will exist.

In a 1:2 turns ratio - your secondary winding (the one the current is being induced in) will have twice the voltage potential, but half the current maximum (since its source of energy is limited to the total power of the primary winding).

And, in a 2:1 turns ratio - your secondary winding, having half as many turns as your primary, has half the voltage, and twice the maximum current flow (again, maximum power of the secondary is limited to the total power the primary can provide).

Frequency is irrelevant to the voltage induced or the current. The exception being when you are considering RF frequencies. Inductors resist a change in current. I could go on to explain this further - but that's not important. Inductors resist a change in the current - so, at some point, the frequency would begin to encounter problems trying to rapidly change the direction of current flow while going through this inductor, right?

Turns out, this is a fundamental concept in electronic filters and radio communications (along with the concept that capacitors resist a change in voltage). As the frequency increases, the inductor increases in resistance (or, reactance, as it's called). So, transformers can be 'tuned' to reject frequencies (this is a filter) in a number of ways - just as antennas can be tuned to reject or accept certain frequencies.

Because every real-world circuit possesses both inductance, capacitance, and resistance - every circuit has a 'resonance frequency' that will cause it to offer minimal resistance to the flow of current. While this frequency band may be quite narrow, depending upon the circuit, this minimal resistance to current at that frequency means that just about anything transmitting at that frequency can induce a current in the circuit.

But, ultimately, what we end up with is that frequency has no real effect on voltage (until you start getting into waveguides... which we can save for another day - because that's radars and microwaves - not your civie and mil-spec RF bands) induced in a circuit. The only time this is of concern is when you are dealing with tuned systems designed to receive a signal or range of signals. At which point, there is no automatic correlation between frequency and voltage - it depends upon what the circuit is designed to accept/reject.

What about that quarter-wavelength shunted stub? Well, again - whatever frequency ranges this is tuned to will have an effect on the total power you can transmit. If you are attempting to broadcast outside of its frequency response range... then you lose power, fast.

Although I am still in the dark as why this was a point of debate. Wireless detonators for demolition is unheard of. It's a waste of receivers, money, and time. Remote detonations "commando style" are also the thing of Hollywood. Wires are used because of the KISS principle and their reliability.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
If you break off a chair leg will the chair not fall in the direction of the missing leg? Building 7 went straight down as if it were a giant elevator. The concrete was pulverised into dust just like the Twin Towers. They all fell at almost free fall speed. We are not told what the military has developed in the way of remote blasting. It is said that they are 25 years ahead of common knowledge. On 911 the military was running drills about the same type attack. Just like in Europe where the busses were being blown while they were running the same drills about the same type of attack. What are the odds of that?
What are the odds that..
Chaney would take over the "shoot down orders from the Generals on May 1st of 2001?
June 1st the pilots were told they could no longer carry a gun in the cockpit lock box?
Silverstein would buy the Towers knowing they were full of asbestos and the cleanup would be in the Billions.
Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on the twins specifically for terrorist attacks.
No 767 plane engines have been found at any of the locations.
The F.B.I. web site does not list Osama as the guilty party of 911.
The PENAC doc. written by the Bush gang in 1999 says that in order to transform the US into the top military power of the world it would take a long time provided there wasn't an event like a Pearl Harbor.
Chaney and Bush insisted to testify(they said visit) to the 911 commission not under oath and together.
Fighting terrorism we are the ones losing our rights.
Google "The Ten Steps To Fascism" and see we are through 9 steps and one to go.
Prescott Bush was funding the Nazi military through his bank.
Germany didn't lose the war they just moved to America!



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
*canned response*

The WTC was a steel-mesh structure. Steel has a tensile strength that exceeds the compression and torsion strength (geometry providing). This forced the structure to collapse in its own footprint because the exterior mesh constrained the collapse. This same tensile strength (eventually expressed on the lower floors) kept the top of the WTC from continuing its rotation, and also prevented it from toppling off the tower.

It's more like tying the top chair to the bottom chair (and any chairs in between) and then breaking that leg off like you said. It won't plummet off the top of the structure (not if your string is taut to begin with) and it will come right down on top of the chair below it.

The physics are a little different because the mass of the WTC would be shifting from a solid to a particulate flow as it obliterated itself - but you get the idea.

Now... after saying that for like the ten milionth time....



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Although I am still in the dark as why this was a point of debate. Wireless detonators for demolition is unheard of. It's a waste of receivers, money, and time. Remote detonations "commando style" are also the thing of Hollywood. Wires are used because of the KISS principle and their reliability.

Awesome post - thank you.

I do not want to get into this particular side of the debate other than to ask you a simple question:

If money and time were no object, would there be any technical reason why wireless detonators could definitely not be used in a demolition?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
The WTC was a steel-mesh structure. Steel has a tensile strength that exceeds the compression and torsion strength (geometry providing). This forced the structure to collapse in its own footprint because the exterior mesh constrained the collapse. This same tensile strength (eventually expressed on the lower floors) kept the top of the WTC from continuing its rotation, and also prevented it from toppling off the tower.


Ok, have you had any statics or strengths of materials classes? If I'm not mistaken, English isn't your first language, and maybe that's somehow the problem here.

A tensile strength for steel is not a force that is necessarily acting at any point in time. Neither are any of the other strengths. Those figures represent the amount of force required to begin to deform the steel. Nothing else. A column or beam can only be in tension or compression at once, not both at the same time. The columns would have normally been in compression, not tension. There would have been a tension on some of the perimeter columns as WTC2's top leaned, but the other side would have been in compression. Also, these tensile forces created around the one side of the tilt would be largest near the floor the rotation was centered around, and would decrease in magnitude further away from there, as the bottom-most columns were still all in compression the whole time.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Although I am still in the dark as why this was a point of debate. Wireless detonators for demolition is unheard of. It's a waste of receivers, money, and time. Remote detonations "commando style" are also the thing of Hollywood. Wires are used because of the KISS principle and their reliability.


There is no point of debate. Wireless detonators are unheard of for demolition, but if there is a reason to use them, then there's no reason as to why they wouldn't be used. A good example is the remotely triggered IED's found in the middle East right now.

If you read over my posts, you'll see Defcon5 claimed that controlled demolition was impossible due to a mobile setting it all off, yet without any more details obviously nobody here would know the system used, if it was in fact a controlled demolition, and therefore is still a possibility.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
If you read over my posts, you'll see Defcon5 claimed that controlled demolition was impossible due to a mobile setting it all off, yet without any more details obviously nobody here would know the system used, if it was in fact a controlled demolition, and therefore is still a possibility.


All they would have to do is use a frequency well out of the range of 'mobiles' and it wouldn't be a problem, right?

Cell phones use a pretty narrow range...


Cell phones communicate in frequency range of 806-890 MHZ and 1850-1990 MHZ for the newly allocated “PCS” frequency range.

Source

To say it couldn't be done because of mobile phones is a little unrealistic...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman


Here are the real quotes from FDNY men on the scene - not the
cherry -picked, edited out of context stuff you see on the "truther" sites



Personally,, when I read those they all seemed canned like the whole thing is exaggerated "The whole building is engulfed in flames"

Thats a crock and the all most bannana unpeeling look which begins at the top all the way down of the first two buildings was often used to dispell the CD while 7 didn't have that. It's been 6-7 years now I would think most of those quotes would have seen the light of day. Even IF the building was in flames they were telling people to leave there saying it was going to be "Brought" down at noon time that has been seen in mainstream news casts and pvt vids taken from same.

Apparently we don't need a team of experts using high tech explosives to implode buildings to demolish them. No need for months a preparation no computer run times for explosives to, cutter charges to correct how they fall,,

we can just hire any old arson guy and wha la!

Pffft gimee a break

Looks dressed up to me



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jondular
We are not told what the military has developed in the way of remote blasting. It is said that they are 25 years ahead of common knowledge.


Wow that is the second time this week I had heard that phrase. I was watching a TV program on PBS about UFO's and most of it was debunked as stealth bombers, fighters etc. Then while they were talking to this Air force zero they showed these weird round dish shaped flying things and they had 11 of em going but only 3 showed on radar. They were testing the stealth capabilities.

The host asked the AF guy if the military had things that people had seen in that area calling them UFO's the AF guy responded not acknowledging what they might have seen but saying let me put it this way,, the military has projects they have right now that are 50 years ahead of what anyone could imagine..



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I believe that WTC7 fell because somewhere, somebody pressed a button...




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join