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.

 

What started the fires in 7?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I am not going to play this old game with you, so I will give you the link that will answer all your questions about building seven and explosions. If you have any viable evidence to refute these scientists and engineers, please provide it.


What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What does this report have anything to do with the exact initial source of the fire that started in WTC 7? That IS the topic of this thread, after all.




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Larry had 'people' in 7 supposedly checking out the structure, but they were probably starting the fires. You can see them walking about in the upper floors at 13:00 on 9/11 in my video upload at the 4:40ish mark.






posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The original question that started this thread is "what was the initial source of the fire" which is something we're almost certainly never going to know.

You admit that it may never be known what caused those fires on 7. Therefore, it may not have been 'burning debris' from 1 that started the fires on 7. Thanks for your long-winded way of finally answering the OP and admitting that you don't know what started the fires on 7.

By the way, Dave... the WTC buildings have nothing to do with the Titanic. Your off-topic drift is still noted.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

What Started The Fires In 7

If you have any viable evidence to refute these scientists and engineers, please provide it.



Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

www.911blogger.com...

Obviously, GoodOlDave, you didn’t read the link that I sent you, not only do these scientist talk about WTC 7 but in there findings they have punched holes in the NIST report using science. These educated minds have confronted NIST, and have ask them to make changes in their fraudulent reports


The NIST report may indeed be flawed,


Then why do you support it?


You claim that this does not "stand up to real science", so I invite you to explain what science you have that refutes this.


You challenge me to debate you about NIST findings, and you ask me to explain what science I have to refute my claims, and when I give you my sources that I support, that shows NIST report does not stand up to real science, this is your response below.


What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What does this report have anything to do with the exact initial source of the fire that started in WTC 7? That IS the topic of this thread, after all.


Looks to me, that you cannot challenge these Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers
It is obviously, these scientist believe explosives were used to take down the WTC and WTC 7.


The NIST report may indeed be flawed, I don't know, but it at least sounds more plausible than most of the other alternative scenarios based upon nothing but armchair sleuthing and too much television watching.


Why don’t you tell that to the Scientists, Scholars, and Architects & Engineers?


For someone who is gleefully swinging his "it's all a pack of lies" bat around, you certainly have the audacity to spread a lie yourself. Your own quote says that Barry Jennings heard and saw explosions, *not* bombs. Of course he heard explosions.


My mistake. You are correct he did not use the word bomb.


Fire fighters heard explosions. Passersby heard explosions. Television crews heard explosions. Everyone in Manhattan heard explosions. I do not know of anyone who is refuting there were explosions. That does not mean the explosions were from bombs. it only means that something that had the power to go BOOM actually went BOOM. This "he saw and head bombs" is entirely your own invention, and once we recognize that, we see there is nothing in Jennings' statement which refutes the NIST report.


So, Berry Jennings goes in WTC 7 the buildings is fine and when Berry was leaving it just BLEW UP with him in it! What caused the building to “explode”? Nothing hit the building! WTC1 & WTC2 were still standing, there is no reason to dismiss Berry Jennings statement, Berry comes off very sincere.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
In short the fires were started by falling debris. That is the most likely and probable answer.

whoever stated that falling debris can't start fires is just being silly.

No one is trying to start a conversation about the titanic. It is a tool to illustrate that you don't need to know exactly where the debris fell and what it lit up first to know that it caused the destruction of WTC7.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biscuit
In short the fires were started by falling debris. That is the most likely and probable answer.

'most likely' and 'probable' are not definitive.



No one is trying to start a conversation about the titanic.

Dave has twice made references to the Titanic in two different posts. To me, that's trying to start a conversation about the Titanic. Twice I have informed him that it's off-topic.



It is a tool to illustrate

It's a poor tool, trying to equate the sinking of a luxury liner to the collapse of a building.


that you don't need to know exactly where the debris fell and what it lit up first to know that it caused the destruction of WTC7.

So, you don't need to know anything about the fires to know that they caused the global, symmetric collapse of 7, with 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration early in the collapse sequence? Wow...

... and they say that 9/11 truthers are easily led...

[edit on 14-4-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


So what is the problem? Have multiple floors in each tower on fire when
buildings collapsed. debris smashed the windows on south/west sides
of WTC 7 (sides facing WTC 1), allowing burning debris to penetrate
Consider that the debris piles burned for more than 3 months showing
having plenty of ignition sources available.

Having been in fire fighting for over 20 years have seen all manner of
fires started by many different means - it doesn't take a lot to start
a fire....



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Biscuit
 


In short the fires were started by falling debris. That is the most likely and probable answer.


Biscuit, you did not even read my post of Berry Jennings stating the “facts” that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing when WTC 7 exploded with Jennings in the building.

What building debris are you talking about? Remember, WTC 1 & 2 were still standing.


whoever stated that falling debris can't start fires is just being silly.


No one is saying that, however, eyewitness have made statements that, WTC 7 was on firer before WTC 1&2 ever fell. So the question here is probably who set the fires in WTC7 and why did Berry Jennings get caught in an explosion, he said that when he look up out side a blown out window, he saw “both” WTC still standing. The Firemen had to rescue him, and a friend and pull them both through a hole in what was left of the lobby. Berry said, they where walking on dead bodies in the lobby with the firemen. Funny how that was conveniently left out of the white wash 911-commission report, the FEMA reports, and the fraudulent NIST report.


It is a tool to illustrate that you don't need to know exactly where the debris fell and what it lit up first to know that it caused the destruction of WTC7.


Wow, with an analogy like that, so what you are saying is if a man was murdered and investigators were trying to solve their case, it is not important to know what killed him.
The fact that he is dead, and looking for the murder weapon is not important. (Strange logic)



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

You admit that it may never be known what caused those fires on 7. Therefore, it may not have been 'burning debris' from 1 that started the fires on 7. Thanks for your long-winded way of finally answering the OP and admitting that you don't know what started the fires on 7.


You're welcome. Now, if we can only get you yourself to admit that *you* don't know what started the fires, either.

At the end of the day, I suppose it really doesn't matter. The ultimate answer to what started the fires is really "a bunch of terrorists flying a hijacked airplane into a skyscraper". Everything else is simply an explained or unexplained part of a chain reaction thereof.


By the way, Dave... the WTC buildings have nothing to do with the Titanic. Your off-topic drift is still noted.


You do understand what the definition of, "analogy" is, right?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You're welcome. Now, if we can only get you yourself to admit that *you* don't know what started the fires, either.

Dave, have you been reading the thread at all? At what point did I ever claim that I knew what started the fires on 7? Of course I don't know, that's why I am interested in this thread.

Speculation about 'burning debree' is amusing, especially when it can't be proven to be the cause.



At the end of the day, I suppose it really doesn't matter.

Of course it matters.

If the initial fires on 7 could have been contained, then why weren't they? There's too many 'ifs' to consider, instead of claiming ignorance.



The ultimate answer to what started the fires is really "a bunch of terrorists flying a hijacked airplane into a skyscraper". Everything else is simply an explained or unexplained part of a chain reaction thereof.

That's not really good enough for an answer, is it? It's hand waving over the official story, which is pointless and unproven.


You do understand what the definition of, "analogy" is, right?

Using an analogy is a method of avoidance and deflection from the original scenario. It is pointless to speculate about the Titanic being sunk, when this thread is about the initiation of the fires on 7.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Then why do you support it?


Because out of all the explanations being put forth, it's the most plausible one. For one thing, it doesn't require armies of secret agents planted throughout all walks of life nor any never-ending chain of conspiracies within coverups on top of secret plots for it to be plausible.



So, Berry Jennings goes in WTC 7 the buildings is fine and when Berry was leaving it just BLEW UP with him in it! What caused the building to “explode”? Nothing hit the building! WTC1 & WTC2 were still standing, there is no reason to dismiss Berry Jennings statement, Berry comes off very sincere.



Ah yes, thank you for bringing that up, I had forgotten about him. I have a big, BIG problem with Berry Jennings' statements, since the things he claims does not mesh with the know facts...

a) Flight 11 crashed into the North tower at 8:46, and the 4,000 occupants of WTC 7 began evacuating almost immediatly. This took about an hour. Jennings claims that when he went into WTC 7 the building was empty, so he would necessarily have needed to come in on or after 9:46 or he would've encountered all the hordes of people leaving the building. The north tower then collapsed at 10:28, meanign that there was only a forty five minute window between all the people leaving, and WTC 7 being whacked by falling debris. He then said "he was trapped in there for several hours when the towers fell". There's no way he could have been trapped there for several hours. There's no way he could have been trapped for even one hour. He could only have been trapped for 45 minutes before the towers fell. By his own testimony, he was already on the 23rd floor by the time he was trapped so it probably would have been only a half hour.

b) For any explosions to have gone off trapping him before the towers fell, as he said, it would necessarilly be during those 45 minutes. Problem is, there is NO OTHER film footage, eyewitness accounts, nothing, that even remotely shows there was any explosions in WTC 7 during this time. Remember, the north tower was still upright and there wouldn't be any debris blocking anyone's view, especially to the helicopters circling overhead videotaping everything. He likewise claims there were "police cars burning outside" so the police certainly had to have been there.

c) Here's the kicker- he reported to the fire fighters trying to rescue him that he was trapped in the stairwell on the north side of WTC 7. This was the far side -away- from where all the debris was hitting the building, and is also the side that most of the video footage of the collapse of WTC 7 is showing. Did *you* see any massive damage to that side, as he claimed there was? I didn't.

d) He THEN says that as he was leaving, he stepped over a lot of bodies. There were no fatalities in WTC 7 nor even any missing persons in WTC 7 becuase everyone had already evacuated before WTC 1 collapsed. Not even any fire fighters died there. There's no way he could have been stepping over any bodies as he claimed becuase there were no bodies.

I can't second guess Jennings becuase I wasn't there, but his testimony doesn't conform with the known facts. Either he is getting his time table all mixed up, or he is embellishing, but in either case his testimony cannot be taken at face value, as you clearly are doing.

By all means, please double check everything I just said. If I am in error, or if you can explain his glaring discrepencies, I'd like to know, but I suspect you're only going to find something you will not want to admit to.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Speculation about 'burning debree' is amusing, especially when it can't be proven to be the cause.


It is far from speculation. I can't post it becuase of copyright issues, but photos of ground zero after the collapse are easy to find. In the roof of WTC 5 there is a gigantic crater where falling debris from WTC 1 fell on it. Take a look on the map, and you will see the distance from this crater to WTC 1 is the same as WTC 7 is to WTC 1. If debris can reach WTC 5 it could certainly reach WTC 7.


[If the initial fires on 7 could have been contained, then why weren't they? There's too many 'ifs' to consider, instead of claiming ignorance.


You are forgetting the details of your own conspiracies. Silverstein supposedly gave the order to "pull it" becuase the NYFD told him the fires *couldn't* be contained.



That's not really good enough for an answer, is it? It's hand waving over the official story, which is pointless and unproven..


It is definitely proven that aircraft hit the towers, it is definitely proven the towers fell down, it is definitely proven that when they fell down they threw gigantic amounts of debris every which way, and it is definitely proven that the debris smashed up the neighboring buildings. This is not any "official story". This is irrefutably what happened. It is these conspriacies that are pointless and unproven becuase the theorists are attempting to squeeze them into what we know irrefutably happened, and quite often, they simply won't fit.


Using an analogy is a method of avoidance and deflection from the original scenario. It is pointless to speculate about the Titanic being sunk, when this thread is about the initiation of the fires on 7.


I'm tempted to ask if you're claiming it's like comparing apples and oranges, but the fires in WTC 7 have nothing to do with apples and they certainly have nothing to do with oranges, either.

Please simply accept the fact that, yes, people do sometimes use analogies to clarify their point and to get their message across, and please get on with the discussion at hand already. You are doing your claims of conspiracy no favors, with this bit.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Because out of all the explanations being put forth, it's the most plausible one. For one thing, it doesn't require armies of secret agents planted throughout all walks of life nor any never-ending chain of conspiracies within coverups on top of secret plots for it to be plausible.

So, you don't care about the truth, as long as you have a logical explaination?
Why even bother posting in these forums then? Why try to convince others that what is logical for you should be accepted as truth for them?



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
So, you don't care about the truth, as long as you have a logical explaination?
Why even bother posting in these forums then? Why try to convince others that what is logical for you should be accepted as truth for them?


Ahem... becuase in most cases, among the list of logical explanations, one of them actually will be the truth. At any rate it certainly won't be found among the list of illogical explanations.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

You have desperately resorted to twisting everything Berry Jennings said and everyone reading your post can clearly see that.


Jennings claims that when he went into WTC 7 the building was empty,


That is a lie!
Berry Jennings said when he arrived at the Mayors bunker it was empty, there was a cup of coffee with steam coming out of it, and a half eaten sandwich still on the table, Berry makes us aware that everyone just left the bunker.

Furthermore, when the firemen where helping Berry out of the WTC Berry talks about walking on dead bodies in the lobby so obviously the WTC was not empty as YOU claimed.

You are twisting Berry story so it fits the OS garbage, Berry said when the WTC 7 blew up he remember looking out a broken widow and BOTH WTC 1&2 WERE STILL STANDING! No debris fell on WTC7 ..NOTHING nada, zero, zilch.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It is far from speculation. I can't post it becuase of copyright issues, but photos of ground zero after the collapse are easy to find. In the roof of WTC 5 there is a gigantic crater where falling debris from WTC 1 fell on it. Take a look on the map, and you will see the distance from this crater to WTC 1 is the same as WTC 7 is to WTC 1. If debris can reach WTC 5 it could certainly reach WTC 7.

Stay on target, Dave. This thread is not about 5, it's about 7. At what point did I deny that 7 was hit by debris, Dave? Of course 7 was hit by debris. However, I'm not the one claiming that it was burning or that it ignited the fires on 7 with a specific description of the details involved.


You are forgetting the details of your own conspiracies. Silverstein supposedly gave the order to "pull it" becuase the NYFD told him the fires *couldn't* be contained.

Stay on target, Dave. This thread is not about the Silverstein 'pull'. There's plenty of other threads based around Silverstein, try one of those.



It is definitely proven that aircraft hit the towers,

Can you show me some recovered serial part numbers to prove the identity of the aircraft? Damn, don't you just hate it when your official story can't support itself, huh?



it is definitely proven the towers fell down, it is definitely proven that when they fell down they threw gigantic amounts of debris every which way, and it is definitely proven that the debris smashed up the neighboring buildings.

But was that debris 'burning' and was it the cause for the fires on 7?



This is not any "official story". This is irrefutably what happened. It is these conspriacies that are pointless and unproven becuase the theorists are attempting to squeeze them into what we know irrefutably happened, and quite often, they simply won't fit.

Stay on target, Dave. None of that paragraph informs me how the fires on 7 were ignited.


I'm tempted to ask if you're claiming it's like comparing apples and oranges, but the fires in WTC 7 have nothing to do with apples and they certainly have nothing to do with oranges, either.

Stay on target, Dave. We're not discussing a bowl of fruit.



Please simply accept the fact that...

No, I don't simply accept 'facts' until they are substantiated and proven. That's why the official story can't support itself and it's why this thread has shown that NO ONE has been able to specifically determine how the fires were ignited on 7.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Biscuit, you did not even read my post of Berry Jennings stating the “facts” that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing when WTC 7 exploded with Jennings in the building.

What building debris are you talking about? Remember, WTC 1 & 2 were still standing.

No one is saying that, however, eyewitness have made statements that, WTC 7 was on firer before WTC 1&2 ever fell. So the question here is probably who set the fires in WTC7 and why did Berry Jennings get caught in an explosion, he said that when he look up out side a blown out window, he saw “both” WTC still standing. The Firemen had to rescue him, and a friend and pull them both through a hole in what was left of the lobby. Berry said, they where walking on dead bodies in the lobby with the firemen. Funny how that was conveniently left out of the white wash 911-commission report, the FEMA reports, and the fraudulent NIST report.


I did read it. Recall that two planes smashed into the WTC causing a massive amount of debris. Also go back and watch footage of the towers burning, there is debris falling the entire time. From paper work to chunks of building, there was debris falling the entire time they were burning.

I am not going to address your thoughts on the validity of the reports. That is for other threads. Lets talk about what is the most likely cause of the fires started the fires.


Wow, with an analogy like that, so what you are saying is if a man was murdered and investigators were trying to solve their case, it is not important to know what killed him. The fact that he is dead, and looking for the murder weapon is not important. (Strange logic)


You completely miss the point. The cop does not care if the bullet killed him by puncturing a lung or the heart. The specifics of the wound are not needed if you know that a bullet wound was what did it. Just like in the case of the titanic (analogy not a off topic post) you know the ice burg did it but there is debate as to how the ice burg did it.. Follow me here - we know that flaming debris fell on WTC 7 from the very first plane impact all the way through the towers falling. That debris than started a fire or fires. We don't know were or what burned first but we don't need to in order to know that the falling debris started the fire. We will never know exactly how and asking for that is an unreasonable burden of proof.

Or you could believe that firemen who have dedicated their lives to stopping fires and saving lives intentionally set WTC 7 on fire. However you have no evidence for this at all.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw'most likely' and 'probable' are not definitive.


No they are not but you can't time travel so none of us will ever know with 100% certainty. However, if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

What do you think started the fires and do you have 100% certainty in your theory? Is your theory "most likely" or even "probable"? How about "possible"?


Dave has twice made references to the Titanic in two different posts. To me, that's trying to start a conversation about the Titanic. Twice I have informed him that it's off-topic.


No, he has twice tried to make you see an analogy which you either refuse to understand or simply don't understand. No one, i repeat no one, wants to talk about the titanic or compare the sinking of the titanic to WTC 7 I will try one more time below.



It's a poor tool, trying to equate the sinking of a luxury liner to the collapse of a building.


You, like others, refuse to see the analogy. It is not about a boat and a building. It is about knowing the over all cause of something while having a debate about the specifics.


So, you don't need to know anything about the fires to know that they caused the global, symmetric collapse of 7, with 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration early in the collapse sequence? Wow...

... and they say that 9/11 truthers are easily led...


By your statement I think you believe that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed using conventional demolition tactics. You also agree that WTC 7 burned on multiple levels for nearly 7 hours. How did that fire burn for 7 hours with igniting the demolition charges? A flammable demolition cord has to be run to each charge in a demolition, how did those not get lit by the fire ragging inside WTC 7.

I never said you don't need to know anything about the fires. I said we will never know what caught fire first but we don't need to in order to understand that falling debris started a fire in WTC 7. See the analogy of the titanic.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biscuit
What do you think started the fires and do you have 100% certainty in your theory? Is your theory "most likely" or even "probable"? How about "possible"?

I don't know what started the fires on 7, that's why I won't speculate about it. I was hoping that there would be some definitive answers from NIST but they just guessed and assumed.



No one, i repeat no one, wants to talk about the titanic or compare the sinking of the titanic to WTC 7 I will try one more time below.

Then why do some people in this thread continually reference the Titanic?



By your statement I think you believe that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed using conventional demolition tactics.

Well there's a leap of faith and logic. Please, show me where I ever stated this?



You also agree that WTC 7 burned on multiple levels for nearly 7 hours.

No, I don't believe that. Why is it that some official story believers always want to guess my motives and beliefs?

Read this link to see what I believe about the pattern of the fires in 7.



How did that fire burn for 7 hours with igniting the demolition charges? A flammable demolition cord has to be run to each charge in a demolition, how did those not get lit by the fire ragging inside WTC 7.

Huh? You tell me? It's your story. I've not once mentioned CD or charges, so you're the one making up the strawman story - not me.


See the analogy of the titanic.

You're still typing about the Titanic? Stick to the thread and type about the ignition of the fires in 7, instead. It's much more relevant than a sunken luxury cruise liner...

[edit on 16-4-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw I don't know what started the fires on 7, that's why I won't speculate about it. I was hoping that there would be some definitive answers from NIST but they just guessed and assumed.


No they did not. They looked at the evidence and concluded that falling debris caused the fires. Again, if you want 100% proof of this than you are going to be sadly disappointed because most of the evidence was destroyed when the building collapsed. Sometimes in science and investigations you can not be 100% certain but by analyzing the evidence you can come up with a likely cause.

If you have no idea what started the fire than why do you 100% deny that the fire was started by falling debris?




Then why do some people in this thread continually reference the Titanic?


Do you really not get what a metaphor is or are you just being willfully ignorant?


Well there's a leap of faith and logic. Please, show me where I ever stated this?


You did not, that is why I said "I think". You mentioned free fall speed and in my travels in the truth movement that is almost always followed with CD. If you do not think that WTC 7 was a CD than I fully apologize.

You seem to not have any opinion as to what happened, your only goal being to deny anything that has been offered up as explanations. Kind of a waste of time isn't it?



You also agree that WTC 7 burned on multiple levels for nearly 7 hours.

No, I don't believe that. Why is it that some official story believers always want to guess my motives and beliefs?


Well, sadly for you it is a fact that the building was on fire for that long. If you are going to deny facts than I am not sure where this debate can go. I apologize for guessing that you understood the facts.



How did that fire burn for 7 hours with igniting the demolition charges? A flammable demolition cord has to be run to each charge in a demolition, how did those not get lit by the fire ragging inside WTC 7.

Huh? You tell me? It's your story. I've not once mentioned CD or charges, so you're the one making up the strawman story - not me.

Fair enough. I wrongly assumed you believed that wtc 7 was a CD. I apologize.



You're still typing about the Titanic? Stick to the thread and type about the ignition of the fires in 7, instead. It's much more relevant than a sunken luxury cruise liner...[edit on 16-4-2009 by tezzajw]


It is about understanding the cause of an event while debating the specifics. We know flaming debris fell on WTC 7, we will never know how that debris started the fires. Just because we don't know how does not mean that flaming debris didn't start the fire!




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join