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: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
No explosions reported for WTC7.. why was it so weak?

[edit on 12/15/2007 by TeslaandLyne]


here see for yourself
www.youtube.com...&rel=1&border=0




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



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


Wow, from the title of your website, no one would suspect that website to be cherry picked and, biased would they? Pot meet kettle.

I can see it now. A bunch of high level political NYFD bureaucrats announcing, "Yes, we and Larry Silverstein discussed it, and agreed to pull building 7." After the public got done seeing what a controlled demolition looks like on 7 on the same day, it would very probably remind them 1 and 2 dropped the same way only a few brief seconds slower.

WTC 7 was fully engulfed in fire? Would you care to show us evidence of that?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
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.

Thanks you for that excellent post.

Originally posted by Aim64C
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).

I do have a question on this though, as I stated above, I am not so much of a radio expert, though I have had schooling and experience in electronics. If you are saying that the wire resistance in the circuit will cause the current to be almost zero, which may well be the case. Why do I pick up my cell phone in my car radio seconds before it rings, or when it switches between digital systems. Also I pick up peoples cell phones in EEG wires just prior to them ringing? Now admittedly in EEG we are dealing with amplified signals as brainwaves are in the microvolt range. Are both cases do to amplifiers in the system then?

Originally posted by Aim64C
Although I am still in the dark as why this was a point of debate.

Because I mentioned that they do not allow cell phone operation in areas were blasting equipment is used because they are not Intrinsically Safe Devices. This is of course a true statement, but then I got jumped on that they would be willing to just go ahead and take this risk, even though construction/demolition companies don’t, to wire up a building in advance.



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.

Can you please stop misquoting me, its painfully obvious every time you do this.
Here is my initial statement on cell phones, you show me where I said it was impossible?

What about the fact that if it had been wired in advance, as many claim, that some person in the building using a cell phone could have triggered the charges before the event happened?

How does “could have” equate to impossible in your mind?
Maybe the problem you and I are having is that you go on the attack without reading what is written carefully enough. That is not the first time in this thread that you have accused me of saying something I have not said.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Aim64C
Although I am still in the dark as why this was a point of debate.

Because I mentioned that they do not allow cell phone operation in areas were blasting equipment is used because they are not Intrinsically Safe Devices. This is of course a true statement, but then I got jumped on that they would be willing to just go ahead and take this risk, even though construction/demolition companies don’t, to wire up a building in advance.


And once again, there is nothing stopping anyone from customizing the triggers. They don't normally do it, because there are cheaper ways to avoid the problem (ie just have people keep cell phones away).



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
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).


"This is a much different picture to him saying "absolutely" repeatedly regarding whether explosives were used on WTC7"

How is it? Jowenko is not unsure at all in that video. On the contrary, when talking about building 7 he becomes unsure when he hears the building fell the same day as the twin towers.

You say he's not considering thermite. So you are saying he made an error? You are saying he is therefore unreliable.

Which goes the same for his view on building 7. It's catch 22.

The thermite angle is a dead duck. The thermite would drool away too quickly. There would be loads of it spilling out of the windows. It is not an explosive and no demolition expert would use it. That is why Jowenko, who IS a demolition expert, does not even consider it. There is not one jot of evidence that thermite was used.

There is not one jot of evidence that building 7 was blown up.

The building was bulging and leaning. How do you manage to fake that?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by albie
 


I didn't say he's not considering it, I don't know if he's aware of it or been shown evidence of it. I don't know how much evidence of WTC1 and WTC2 he looked at, neither does it matter. He looked at a lot of WTC7 evidence and his conclusion was obvious controlled demolition. The point is, that his expert opinion is worth a lot when absolutely saying a building came down as a controlled demolition, compared to saying it wasn't.

If a building comes down by controlled demolition, but due to other factors (large building damage) doesn't obviously look like it, that does not mean his expert opinion about the obvious controlled demolition is wrong. Nor does it mean there was no controlled demolitions on that building.

You understand this, but you are trying to act like it's some kind of proof that he's wrong, which is absurd. Simple application of logic as found in any real IQ test.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
He looked at no more evidence of building 7 then he did the twin towers.

You want to say he unreliable about one thing and reliable about another.

Cake and eating it.

He looked at the planes hitting the towers.

He knew that would be enough to fell them. That's all he NEEDED to see. It's not that he didn't have enough evidence.

He even explains the puffs of smoke that you would call squibs going off.

Leave it adjay. Try another angle. Another expert.

And why aren't you dealing with his confusion over building 7 falling the same day?

He seems to be thinking that it would require a massive amount of work. Taking days.

Ask yourself. Why will you find his video about building 7 on almost every conspiracy site, but the one of him saying planes brought down the towers is very, very rarely seen?

Ask yourself that one.

he's not reliable use for either of us.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by albie
 


Albie, your agenda is making itself clear. Discounting evidence like this is your choice, don't try and inflict the same misjudgement upon others.

There are many things an expert of the field can recognise, but the fact they might miss something is common and quite likely what happened in this situation.

It's the same deal with CGI experts - they will detect more CGI pictures than average folk can, and yet, some of those they say are not CGI will in fact, be CGI. The important part comes in their expertise being able to notice tell-tale signs that absolutely leave no other option than being CGI, and you will find far more CGI experts getting the answer wrong on a good CGI that covers its signature (thus wrongly labelled real), than getting the answer wrong on a real photo (wrongly labelled CGI, because the telltale signs are simply not there).

Trying to silence Jawenko's statements on WTC7 (the topic of this thread) due to his opinion on WTC1 or WTC2 is flaky and highlights a somewhat bigger picture of the aim of your posts here.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
It's not flakey.

It's reasonable. We are talking about his credentials here.

He's so mistaken about the twin towers in your view. Why?

He's so mistaken about one thing yet he couldn't be wrong when he's backing you up?

Drop it adjay.

This is looking desperate?

And what is my agenda?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
No explosions reported for WTC7.. why was it so weak?

[edit on 12/15/2007 by TeslaandLyne]


here see for yourself
www.youtube.com...&rel=1&border=0



teslaandlyne (2 seconds ago)
Why wasn't the mayor informed? Basically the explosions have never been explained. Overlooked like a slight of hand. A further trick by the Hi Jacker program that Osama said he didn't plan but is a outcrop of his 'Death to America' stance. This is sort of the Bush and USA government stance on 9/11/01 and did not change.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   


Why do I pick up my cell phone in my car radio seconds before it rings, or when it switches between digital systems. Also I pick up peoples cell phones in EEG wires just prior to them ringing? Now admittedly in EEG we are dealing with amplified signals as brainwaves are in the microvolt range. Are both cases do to amplifiers in the system then?


This is a little bit of a different issue. It doesn't have to deal with the frequency so much as it has to do with the presence/non-presence of a RF source. Cell phones today use digital transmission. There are two ways to communicate digitally. You can use pulse-modulate or pulse-transmit. Pulse modulation can yield higher speeds and yadda yadda - but it sucks up power because it is always on (or at least always on for transmission). Cell phones use pulse-transmission - which means they pulse turning on/off the carrier frequency.

We don't need to go into how the tower sorts all of this out... but it's similar to any wireless communication device - and, if all else fails - just accept that it works.

Now, the reason your speakers pick this up is because the wires (usually only in unshielded systems) going to the amplifier pick up this burst-communication. And, if you want to be technical, parts of your cellphone's transmission protocol (communication standard) has it turning itself on/off off at an audible frequency.

"But, Aim, you just said it frequency wasn't the issue!"

Well, there is more than one 'type' of frequency. This turning on/off the RF signal is, in and out of itself, a frequency. Since it is within the audible range - it will not be rejected by your speakers' amplifier filters. If you notice - it is only when you are close to the wires leading into your amplifier, or the amplifier itself (assuming it is not shielded within a Faraday cage), that you get these signals. Holding it close to an individual speaker, or its individual wire, does not yield these results.

And the reason cell phones are not allowed at demolition sites is not because of electric current in wires (percussion tubing is used nowadays because most explosives are set off using high-velocity percussion. You can shock it and burn it all you want to - it's not going to do anything...) - it's because of potential current developing between individual molecules and triggering an explosion.

While that is HIGHLY unlikely - and probably more of an urban-legend type of thing - you do have to look at it from the business standpoint. Employees.... setting up bombs... while chatting on their cell phones. We know there would be employees that would try it. And it wouldn't be a good thing, would it? We don't want people driving and talking on their cell phone... so why would we want them setting up bombs while on a cell phone?

Plus, most business owners do not like their employees chatting on their cell phone at work, anyway. They could/should be spending that time doing something related to the business while 'on the clock' rather than chatting to their friend about "No they di-n't!" Or texting their friend... or anything else.

Bombs are not triggered by electric current in today's world. Not in the case of controlled demolition. Spec-ops related C4 charges can/do - but that's because we're only dealing with a single bomb or a very small number of bombs - and the whole point of this is for something to be destroyed with little concern for the immediate population.

But in controlled demolition, the timing of each explosion is critical, as is the reliability. Having fuses that use electrons to initiate the explosion simply lack uniformity. One may take .02 seconds to trigger, the other may take .1.

Also, because of all of the RF signals flying around out there today, it doesn't sound like a very wise idea, does it?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   


And the reason cell phones are not allowed at demolition sites is not because of electric current in wires (percussion tubing is used nowadays because most explosives are set off using high-velocity percussion. You can shock it and burn it all you want to - it's not going to do anything...) - it's because of potential current developing between individual molecules and triggering an explosion.


Molecules.

Is not this the Tesla statement the he could explode the weapons of
on coming armies making their weapons useless. Well its back to hand
to hand combat then. Best to explode arms before they start heading
towards you.

This may not help the remote detonation by cell phone agenda but
helps the UFO with the beam detonator theory.

In any case since Tesla started sending electric fields and currents
through the air, guess the IllumiNazis turned another Tesla device
against us.

We must free these devices from the immoral holders and find out
how 9 /11/01 happened.

Pre wiring is to slow compared to plopping down plastic with a cellphone
detonator, just like later in IRAQ.

Was not there a used cell phone drive at one time for the poor or tax credit.
Osama's gangsters must have re programmed them and stuck them
around the WTC complex. I mean if we agree if explosions took place
not accounted for by plane fuel.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by albie
There is not one jot of evidence that building 7 was blown up.


This short clip might help;



How anyone can look at WT7 fall down that quickly and not suspect it was controlled demolition is beyond me.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ


How anyone can look at WT7 fall down that quickly and not suspect it was controlled demolition is beyond me.



How fast do tall buildings usually naturally falls?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
How fast do tall buildings usually naturally falls?


They dont.

Give me one example of a tall building which completely collapses. To save you the time, there are none.

That is before the three collapsed all on the same day, all the exact same way, on September 11th.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

They dont.

Give me one example of a tall building which completely collapses. To save you the time, there are none.

That is before the three collapsed all on the same day, all the exact same way, on September 11th.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]


Soooooooo... which means we can't compare to any pass events of another naturally falling tall building because it has never been done before so we just considered it a demolition instead eh?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Soooooooo... which means we can't compare to any pass events of another naturally falling tall building because it has never been done before so we just considered it a demolition instead eh?


C'mon that's kinda silly. No building has ever naturally globally collapsed because it just doesn't happen. Precedence tells us it doesn't and so does physics, where are you getting the idea it could happen from exactly?

That's the kind of ass covering crap the government would say, meaningless words designed to whitewash the reality.

Words in a thread are just a waste of bandwidth if they have nothing to back them up.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Is not this the Tesla statement the he could explode the weapons of
on coming armies making their weapons useless. Well its back to hand
to hand combat then. Best to explode arms before they start heading
towards you.

This may not help the remote detonation by cell phone agenda but
helps the UFO with the beam detonator theory.


Tesla had all kinds of strange inventions - mostly involving electromagnetic and electrostatic fields.... and harmonic resonance. He claimed he could completely destroy any piece of military equipment (which I assume would mean 'anything' - his objectives and values were against war) from extreme range. This has been interpreted to mean a "particle cannon" but others have speculated about some sort of device exploiting 'longitude waves' (I guess a different form of EM radiation - supposedly instantaneous). If I remember correctly, you could pretty much cause an area to heat up like it was exposed to a nuclear bomb in a matter of nanoseconds, or freeze it to absolute zero and vent the heat someplace else.... or somehow disrupt neural response and instantly kill everyone.

While it is a bit 'out there' - more practical/realistic effects of this supposed 'longitude wave' (or perhaps something else) are related to the Hutchison Effect (which is a subject of much scientific debate, itself).

It's an interesting thing to look into. Supposedly, it's caused organic substances to fuse with inorganic substances (a piece of wood merging into a piece of metal with no displacement), spontaneous appearance of other elements within a pure substance (copper globules found inside of a bar of lead, if I remember correctly). All kinds of interesting things. And it could all potentially become the next 'great leap' forward in industry and our understanding of physics, if it is all true, or can be reliably reproduced (imagine being able to 'perform alchemy' - creating very rare elements efficiently and reliably).


In any case since Tesla started sending electric fields and currents
through the air, guess the IllumiNazis turned another Tesla device
against us.


Essentially, he was building ridiculously high-powered radios. He dreamed of being able to project these fields all around the earth and use them for navigation, wireless power (you didn't need to have wires running all over the place - it was all induced into the device), and communication. And... really... it's possible - and, if done correctly, arguably more efficient than all of our current methods.


We must free these devices from the immoral holders and find out
how 9 /11/01 happened.


Sarcasm?


Pre wiring is to slow compared to plopping down plastic with a cellphone
detonator, just like later in IRAQ.


Except for the fact that you are placing these devices next to steel beams.... which are notorious for blocking RF signals......


Was not there a used cell phone drive at one time for the poor or tax credit.
Osama's gangsters must have re programmed them and stuck them
around the WTC complex. I mean if we agree if explosions took place
not accounted for by plane fuel.


There are still cell-phone drives. They give them to women or poor families because the 911 call feature will still work on them. This gives women in abusive homes or families without phones a way to contact emergency officials.

*gasp* they must be plotting to blow up more buildings!



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
C'mon that's kinda silly. No building has ever naturally globally collapsed because it just doesn't happen. Precedence tells us it doesn't and so does physics, where are you getting the idea it could happen from exactly?

That's the kind of ass covering crap the government would say, meaningless words designed to whitewash the reality.

Words in a thread are just a waste of bandwidth if they have nothing to back them up.


Ooo - but, while we're about the facts and putting them all together - let's not forget that the WTC buildings also incorporated a construction design that has never before been used by any building.

They used very mesh-like construction mechanics to allow for more complete distribution of the force in the event of a few columns being damaged.

However, because of this, any collapse triggers a global collapse - as the rest of the building is pulled down.

It's an interesting design. It allows for a lot of damage to be sustained before a collapse can occur, but it ensures that, once a collapse begins, it is global.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join