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.

 

WTC 7 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   


You've admitted that the NIST report is just an educated guess and that we may never know if it was Column 79 that failed.


Actually, I would say it is quite likely that column did fail. Whether it was the first to fail or the second or the third, I do not know.




posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 





You're not able to prove anything about the alleged transit on WTC 7.


And I doubt that a paper record which would satisfy you, exists. But, if it did...Im sure you would dismiss it too.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by tezzajw
 



You're not able to prove anything about the alleged transit on WTC 7.

And I doubt that a paper record which would satisfy you, exists. But, if it did...Im sure you would dismiss it too.

The only reason I would dismiss a paper record of it, would be if it failed the chain of custody standards that you demand. Remember, that you've defined all standards for evidence, a proper chain of custody must exist.

Failure to prove the tranist story doesn't look too good for those people who are trying to prove the claim that WTC 7 was leaning for hours, all afternoon.

Seven pages into the thread and so far there's been no proof that WTC 7 was leaning all afternoon. Hearsay and possible transit stories have been mentioned, but no real proof. I'm not surprised.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



Swampfox, I asked for them earlier in the thread, but has anyone been able to post the transit results taken for WTC 7? I've yet to see any proof that it was leaning all afternoon


So talk to Peter Hayden


I hope that we all have all ready talked to Peter Hayden by way of proxy through NIST. I would hope he was one of the 100 FDNY members NIST was planning to interview to gain more knowledge of, as they state, "observations of fire and smoke conditions or structural damage from within the building" I would hope that Vincent Dunn, John Hodgens and Kevin Malley would have recognized the importance of the information that would have been contained in the transit information and I would hope that they would have consulted that this should have been in fact pursued as it directly pertained to the condition of one of the buildings which was under consideration.

But, alas, the only thing I can confirm is that Peter Hayden met a NIST committe on November 22, 2004 to present "his statement on behalf of the New York City Fire Department and submit[ted] the Department’s Strategic Plan for 2004-2005."



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
As for the report, they took the photos, the videos, the witness statements and came up with the most plausible explanation for what happened. I can accept that, because I know that for engineering investigations, they normally have all sorts of data from sensors, cameras, etc to help them determine what happened. For the WTC buildings....they dont have all that.


Tezzajw has been asking YOU for the transit information. The same information that you blindly accept without question. Have you even seen this information?

If you know that engineering investigations normally have all sorts of data from sensors (i.e. transit data), why is the transit data ommitted from NIST's engineering investigation?

Yet, you feel they are top notch and believe every word they say?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by tezzajw
 





You're not able to prove anything about the alleged transit on WTC 7.


And I doubt that a paper record which would satisfy you, exists. But, if it did...Im sure you would dismiss it too.


So, you just admitted for everyone to see that YOU just believe hearsay. You doubt a record of the leaning exists? So then why do you faithfully believe in such things?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



Tezzie, is a pet name, if you dont like it, I will stop using it..
.

You have no business calling anyone names in fact I don’t know why the Mods haven’t stepped in on this. What s up? You cannot debate because you have no facts to support your theories, or opinions and you are angry and hurt because you know we are right. Stop the name-calling.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   


So talk to Peter Hayden



I have at a seminar in Feb 2002 featuring several of the FDNY chiefs
who were in command that date....



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
I have at a seminar in Feb 2002 featuring several of the FDNY chiefs
who were in command that date....

Great! Seriously, great!

So, can you supply proof about his transit claims?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


First, you are not qualified to say that the information in the NIST report was false.


That is not for you to determine, furthermore, you do not know what I am qualified at.
One dose not need to be educated as an engineer to read NIST findings to know they are fraudulent. Obviously, you must have a reading comprehension problem to see the erroneous logic that NIST was trying to pass off as factual. However, when simple science was applied it fell apart. So don’t lecture me that I am not qualified to know when fraud has been used to deceive the public.


NIST REPORT IS A FRAUD!


Also, do not make comparisons to the initial FEMA report and the NIST report which many people do.


Why not, they were edited by the same people.


NIST is an organization that is put in place to research catastrophic incident and then offer suggestions to make sure that it does not happen again.



Your definition is not quit right!
NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a unit of the U.S. Commerce Department. Formerly known as the National Bureau of Standards, NIST promotes and maintains measurement standards. It also has active programs for encouraging and assisting industry and science to develop and use these standards.


They were not there to provide a definitive report to ANY government agency as to the true collapse.


They were not? Then what where they hired for? If that’s the case then why are all the debunkers supporting this as scientific evidences to what caused the WTC to fall?


Sunder identified several existing, emerging or even anticipated capabilities that could have helped prevent WTC 7’s collapse. He cautioned that the degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.

Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

www.nist.gov...


What a joke! Funny, how no laws were passed to prevent it from ever happening again. Furthmore, no one has taken it seriously have they, or they would have past mandatory laws that all buildings are to be brought up to code and all new buildings had to follow the same.


There were 2 nobel prize winners on the NIST commission that investigated 9/11. There are many others who have worked or do work with NIST in other capacities.


Really, wich two? If I was a Nobel prize winner I would distance myself as far away from that report as I could if I wanted to salvage what little dignity I had left.


Multiple pictures easily found in books and the internet show the kink


Show me?


Go back on watch the video....there was on in there which tells me you did not pay attention or never watched the video.


Tell you what show me the min and sec into the video where this alleged “kink” is.


I am not spreading disinformation so please calm down your
you might live longer.


In my opinion you are spreading disinformation, furthermore I have a right to be angry especially when one is not being genuine.


This is all just information that reputable and respected people did.


Reputable not any longer and as of being “respected” they lost that when they submitted their ERRONEOUS REPORT!


You can flame and smiley all you want and offer your own opinions.


Thank you, I will.


As far as the why it took 7 hours to bring down WTC7, maybe it was because there were no explosives


Maybe there were explosives used and that is what all the videos show. How else did every floor blast away so fast without residences (remember no residences) and I guess the firemen are liars to. The firemen went on record stating they witnessed molten steel running down in pools under the WTC. Sorry, but you and the NIST report of office fires could not scientifically explain this .


Also, do not compare one building to another as they are ALL different. WTC 7 was a hybrid building that was built upon something older.


It doesn’t matter what I compare it with, Towers do not fall faster than freefall. Fires alone do not cause an on set of rapid freefall. What happened to the resistance between the floors eh? Why hasn’t NIST scientifically explain this?

I will tell you why because the ONLY thing that will explain “rapid freefall” is demolition. There is no other scientific way to pursue this and NIST know this, and they have avoided studying or looking into demolition from the start. Despite the hundreds of eyewitness testimonies, including firemen who witness FLASHES and EXPLOSIONS going around WTC 7 and the rest of the Trade Centers.


To see how a new building should be built, please take a look at the new WTC 7.


We are not discussing the new WTC 7 in here, are we? What dose the new WTC have to do with the old one being demolished on 911.


It incorporated many of the initial findings that were given by NIST in the WTC 1 and 2 report.


This has nothing to do with our topic.





[edit on 8-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



The kink was the first outer sign of the imminent collapse.


So you understand, there was no collapse only demolition, you are free to believe in a fairytale if you want, that is your business.


As far as my boat, it is far from sunk


No it is at the bottom of the sea.


I think some people just started dancing up front.


That’s what you get for thinking.


The only urban legend that I feel is associated with 9/11 is the gun battle in front of the Pentagon??? Anyone remember that new report.


Totally off topic.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Tezzajw, is more than able to defend himself without your help. Ive already told him that if he did not like "tezzie" I would stop using it.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





Thanks for re-emphasizing that the only evidence that WTC7 was "leaning" is in fact hearsay. You have no idea what those guys saw, so you can't argue on behalf of them.


Now, reread the title of the thread, then reread Tezzajw's first post..where he quoted me. Tezzajw is the one that introduced "leaning" into the conversation. Not me.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Foxy Nutz
 


No, I relied on a witness statement given under legal obligations. Thats called evidence.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
For those who don't believe in CD's in the towers, if it makes you feel better..forget about it and read elsewhere about other stone cold hard facts. You CANNOT escape the reality of the overwhelming proof that a true and real investigation with 3rd party commissioners with NO connections as lawyers or otherwise to the airlines involved,Bush or Clinton insiders,etc...is not only needed, but crucial to put an end to the tryrrany that is happening today because of what has evolved from what happened on 9/11.


--Stonewalling and blocking several pre-9/11 FBI investigations including John O'Neil's investigation into the USS Cole/Bin Laden case.

--Highest level officials putting a stop to the U.S. military's pre-9/11 Intelligence operation called ABLE DANGER & ordering all their data mining evidence that identified Atta and other hijackers, destroyed.Then later lying about Lt. Col. Tony Schaeffer's information & gagging him,discrediting him,and destroying his career.


--Several of the alleged hijackers trained at a military flight school in Pensacola,Florida.Several reported alive pos-9/11 by several credible UK news sources.


--Hundreds of ignored warnings as outlined in THE TERROR TIMELINE & on Paul Thompson's Historycommons.org website


--Commission and Cheney himself blatantly lied about Cheney's arrival time to the PEOC (bunker). 9:58am as opposed to Mineta and Clarke's eyewitnessed testimony that he was already there by 9:20am.


--The fact that Rumsfeld and Brig.Gen Winfield BOTH had rookies stand in for them during the attacks but returned to the military command center when all the events/attacks had ended.How convenient!Not to mentioned that Rummy was photographed out on the Pentagon lawn helping 10 guys carry one victim of average size on a stretcher.As a 20 year veteran ff/Paramedic, you don't need any more than four.

--Larry Silverstein invests millions,and close to billion/s, on unstable asbestos laden towers -- making the deal just several weeks prior to 9/11, including insuring the towers against terrorist attacks. Lucky Larry collects billions AFTER the attacks and after three key towers collapse into dust. The asbestos problem is taken care of. Then the EPA is ordered by the Whitehouse to lie about the air quality, and thus leading to 1st responders,ff's,etc to getting sick daily and many dying.The asbestos problem is removed from the City of New York and Larry Silverstein transfered to the innocent people's lungs.

--Numerous exercises are completed by NORAD prior to 9/11 simulating terrorist hijacking planes and flying them into buildings,the towers,and the Pentagon. Bush himself receives a threat of a terrorist attack involving flying a hijacked plane into the hotel he is staying at in Italy for the G8 summit months before 9/11. The threat causes officials to move Bush to stay on a Yacht anchored to shore.
Despite of this, Bush, Rice,and other officials go on national tv AFTER 9/11, telling the world that they had no idea planes could be used as weapons into buildings.


--On the early morning of 9/11, the three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl (who were part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with General Ahmad, the Pakistan ISI Chief (their version of the CIA) who had ordered the wiring of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11. Also present at this meeting were Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.


--The FBI's most-wanted list does not mention 9/11 as a crime that Osama bin Laden is sought for. An FBI spokesperson has stated that this is because of no hard evidence.


--Max Cleland, the one squeaky wheel on the commission, referred to the limited scope of their work as a "national scandal." President Bush then appointed him to the board of the U.S. Export-Import Bank and there was no longer a squeaky wheel on the commission.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
So the way I see how things stand on this transit issue is either

a) NIST did talk with Peter Hayden and did get the information about what the transit was showing, but found there was nothing in the results of consequence to the collapse so they didn't include it in their description of the condition of the building,

b) the disciplined men of science preferred subjective descriptions of the damage, such as "huge gouge" and "big chunk," over objective data about the condition of the building,

c) they simply overlooked it, or

d) they could not verify Peter Hayden's story.

Hopefully "d" is true, as I'm not sure any of the other options reflect well on NIST or the credibility of its report. But then "d" also doesn't speak well for Peter Hayden's story, either.

Am I missing any options here?

Edited to add: Okay, so option "d" doesn't look good for NIST either, as, if they couldn't verify the story about the transit, why would they unconditionally include the quote that mentions the transit? So the best option is probably "c" which just makes me all bubbly with confidence in the report.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

reply to post by esdad71
The kink was the first outer sign of the imminent collapse.


And you all keep ignoring the fact that your 'kink' is a classic sign of controlled demolition.

When they have little space to collapse a building into they make the outer walls fall inwards by collapsing the center columns first, which causes the outer wall to fall inwards. Don't pretend you haven't been told this before.

Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I don't see where anyone has said it before so I'll point it out now.


1) Legally when designing equipment using most types of steel the temperature where you have to start using a lower yield strenght because of temperature effects is 600F, though some types of steel are as low as 300-400F.
2) As the temperature goes up the yield strenght goes down very quickly.

As an example I will talk about SA-516-70N a fairly common high grade steel used for fabricated items (it's created as a sheet and then either rolled into a tube or cut and welded into other shapes. AI will also look at SA-106B a common extruded pipe used in pipelines and sometimes as a structural column.

Using a fairly common safety factor of 3.5 (yield strenght divided by safety factor gives allowable yield strenght). All values below are in tension, I don't remember the ompression ones off my head.

SA-516-70N has an value of 20,000 PSI at room temp till 500F
SA-106B has an value of 17,100 PSI at room temp till 650F (not recommended above this temp)

SA-516-70N has an value of 18,100 PSI at 700F (above this it is not recommended)

SA-516-70N has an value of 12,000 PSI at 800F
SA-106B has an value of 10,800 PSI at 800F

SA-516-70N has an value of 6,700 PSI at 900F
SA-106B has an value of 5,900 PSI at 900F

SA-516-70N has an value of 4,000 PSI at 950F
SA-106B has an value of 4,000 PSI at 950F

SA-516-70N has an value of 2,500 PSI at 1000F
SA-106B has an value of 2,500 PSI at 1000F

You can see that above 800F the strenght drops off really quickly. Anything more than a 4% deformation in a hollow steel column will also reduce the strenght of the column.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
>The kink in the roof was visible for hours. Firefighters were told to >evactuate and leave. Please give me the logic as to why anyone would >wait 7 hours to collapse the building?

>We do not know and NO ONE REALLY KNOWS why it took 7 hour >to blow up WTC 7.

WTC 7 was an arson fire, and it was not blown up until much later so it would appear (being that it was not hit by a plane) that the building collapsed due to fire. Simple!
Was Barry Jennings just a whistleblower? Or was he killed because he,being essentially the last one in this building, was the one who was ordered to set the fires and thus had to be silenced for what he knew and for what he was involved in.

After all he was one of Guiliani's men being that he was the manager of emergency operations of Rudy's billion dollar bust of a bunker that was housed in the most complicit Government building in America.



[edit on 8-6-2009 by madtruth09]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by madtruth09]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You are not qualified to say who is or is not qualified to say that information in the NIST report is false. We are all qualified. Especially where quoted in the OP, NIST states that WTC1 caused the ignition of fires in WTC7. That is complete and utter falseness as publicly available images prove that wrong. Both towers (especially WTC1) are clearly still standing as the fires on the lower floors are visible inside WTC7:

What makes you think this is fire? It looks like a reflection to me. Your second picture is taken well into the day and is post collapse.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe YOU should and describe how exactly their mechanism works to me.

Here's a hint (from NIST):

Are these actually from NIST? I was under the impression these were from PBS. Not only this but these refer to WTC1 and 2 where the failure mode was completely different. Your source please?


Originally posted by impressme

Originally posted by exponent
Sure, no building exists in the area that could cast that shadow.

really, can you prove that?

How would you like me to prove it? Look at a picture of manhatten. Surely you understand that the rays from the sun strike the earth within a fraction of parallel, and as a result no building can cast a discrete shadow thinner than it's minimum dimension. None of the buildings near WTC7 are anywhere near this slender, nor was the sun in a favourable position to project a shadow which extends to the top of the building.

What I find strange is that you then claim this:

No my “opinion” the photo is photo shopped.

So is it a shadow or not? You have no evidence that it is, and you have no evidence that it, the photos from Steve Spak, the NYPD, FDNY or the independent news choppers are faked. Why is it so hard to accept that this is actual damage caused by debris impact from WTC1?


Perhaps, you should go talk to these firemen who witness the demise of the WTC with their own eyes.

How many have you talked to and how many believe that it was a controlled demolition? I am a UK resident and so Ground Zero is quite a trip, but there are many people who go there frequently and indicate that firemen do not share your opinion. I would be impressed if you even know the source of the quotes you're pointing out, or if you simply read the title of "118 accounts of explosions and flashes" and decided that it was probably right?


Originally posted by tezzajw
Let me try and understand this. You admit that the NIST report is, in many instances, an educated guess - yet you're not criticial of it?

You're happy to accept hand-waved guesses in an official government report because that report agrees with your opinion?

How have you managed to devolve from "educated guess" to "hand-waved guess" in one sentence? Even if NISTs report was only an educated guess (it is not), that is a long way away from a hand-waved guess, several million dollars and years of study away in fact.

If I missed any other replies to this thread please call me out on it, I may be slow, but hopefully I will get there in the end to anyone I have missed.




top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join