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.

 

"That building is going to come down Next" Wtc-7

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Nutter
 


It is the problem of fighting a fire(s) in a high raise building

At WTC 7 the fires were out of reach of ground based fire apparatus
WTC 4,5 & 6 were low raise buildings (WTC 4 /5 - 9 story, WTC 6 - 8 story) withing range of ground based aerial ladders,

In this video can see FDNY fighting fire at WTC 6 using an master stream
from engine to pour water on fires

Clip 8

www.911myths.com...


Again. I submit the NIST report.

And I quote:


The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors, however, only the fires on floors 7 through 9, and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of collapse.


wtc.nist.gov...

Your equipment can't reach that far?



Fires in WTC 7 were on upper floors out of reach - only way to fight them
would be from inside.


False. See above




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Why dose everyone who defends,that fire and the damage,brought down the tower, have the mentality that these very tall big,buildings where made out of pikie stcks,?

Buildings of anykind dont implode and explode at the same time when they collapse,with just gravity.

Hell, the leaning tower of Pisa leans every day.en.wikipedia.org...


These things!where huge .(think about it for a min) !

en.wikipedia.org...

They took about ( WTC 1, 2, & 7 ) 4 years each to build.

They had a combined 10,600,000 , square feet of floor space(every foot
ball field ,is about 1 acre in size) (think about that for a min)

Each floor, of the world trade center, was an acre in size.(think ABOUT that for a min).

It takes same amount of energy to destroy something as it dose to build something, nothing comes for free.(think about that for a min)

I have 2 acres of glass covered greenhouses,free span ,gutter connected (so you can stand at one corner and look out across 1 full acre of concrete floor,) each acre is like that with a road in between each acre.

Most, that visit my greenhouses are impressed ,and say WOW, then, I tell them that village farms, tomato farm, has 200 of these all gutter connected,which means, you can stand in one corner and look out across 200 acres of concrete floor( think about that for a min)

It takes lots and lots of energy to just keep my 2 acres heated and cooled, Imagine doing to 266 acres,which is what WTC 1,2,and 7 had combined.Imagine cooling and heating ,to a regulated temperature,each floor, of those buildings.Imagine the energy need, and that is just to keep the air conditioned!

So to put things in perspective.

It took a combined amount of energy of 12 years to just build the 3 buildings.
And it will take the same accumulative energy to destroy them,that is physics, no one can change that.
Whether that accumulative amount, of energy takes 10 secs, or it takes 12 years, to release ,the energy is the same.BUT the method to create that energy can very greatly , from man made physical energy, or controlled demolition .Energy is Energy.
Its form is the only difference ( A water jet creating 5 million PSI is the same as a hydraulic press creating 5 million PSI. PSI is PSI.
ENERGY is ENERGY )

No amount jet fuel, in those planes, that day or combined with, free falling debris, had the potential stored energy, to bring WTC 7, strait down, at just about free fall speed.The building itself had far greater energy to withstand that. Thats why it was only damaged after hit with debris, and did not collapse after being hit by that debris.

The only thing that can release 4 years worth of stored energy in less time (just a few seconds ), is some form of external energy.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Aerial ladders only reach to 9th floor

How many high raise fires you been too?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I browsed this thread and didnt see it, so apologies if this has been mentioned.

The bbc also spoke of the collapse 20 mins before it did, hope my video embedding works...




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
How many high raise fires you been too?


Except for 9/11, how many steel framed hirise buildings globally collapsed at freefall?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


But the deer dying is not unsual. A building that is not hit by a plane, and is the house of the "COMMAND BUNKER" and also houses the CIA, then it is strange.

It seems to me that the motive of Bldg-7's collapse, was to remove the Command and Control in New York City.



[edit on 26-10-2009 by talisman]


I thought this thread was just in regards to the video, and not the "conspiracy of 7" per se.

I think that considering the events that day, building 7 coming down would be "normal" in the context of something unexpected happening. Considering that 2 buildings that pretty much noone expected to come down, collapsed. I'd say that for people in the immediate area to "expect" that building to also come down, considering the damage, was "normal".

Overall I think there is something amiss with building 7. I'm just commenting on the video.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





Except for 9/11, how many steel framed hirise buildings globally collapsed at freefall?


Seem to ignore (like most other truthers) fact that WTC towers were hit by aircraft first and WTC 7 had North Tower fall on it and heavily damge south face

Did you forget or are purposedly ignoring anything which doesnt fit the
conspiracy fantasies?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

Seem to ignore (like most other truthers) fact that WTC towers were hit by aircraft first and WTC 7 had North Tower fall on it and heavily damge south face


Not to mention, that the towers were the only ones on the planet which used that peculiar type of design. Each tower was way bigger than the Empire state building and yet used less steel, but the design had a very ugly Achilles heel noone realized was there until 9/11.

You simply can't compare the towers with how other buildings should or should not behave. It's akin to comparing a balloon with a bowling ball simply becuase they're both round.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Seem to ignore (like most other truthers) fact that WTC towers were hit by aircraft first and WTC 7 had North Tower fall on it and heavily damge south face

Did you forget or are purposedly ignoring anything which doesnt fit the
conspiracy fantasies?


I'm not ignoring anything. NIST specifically states that this massive damage to the south face (which no one seems to have any photographic proof of except for a grainy smoke cover gash that we can barely see between 2 columns) had NOTHING to do with the collapse.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You simply can't compare the towers with how other buildings should or should not behave. It's akin to comparing a balloon with a bowling ball simply becuase they're both round.


This is toatally erroneous at best, a lie at worst. So structural engineers don't use the same formulas for all the buildings they design? I can tell you for a fact that they do.....even for different materials. It's the strength of said material that governs the physics in the calculations, not whether it is steel, wood, concrete, titanium etc.

How about materials engineering? I guess that science is a farse since we can't compare anything to anything else. That logic is just stupid.

Steel acts the same whether it is in this building or that building. Period.

BTW, nice cheerleading squad you got going there. 4 stars for a post full of crap.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not to mention, that the towers were the only ones on the planet which used that peculiar type of design.


This is also erroneous. There have been plenty of highrises built this way.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 



I understand your point, but the thread obviously will branch or touch other topics in regard to the video. Keep in mind, that in a lot of the testimony there as expected a partial collapse and some were surprised that the building actually globally collapsed.

But the key thing in here as well is Silverstein's quote considering what happened, as well as what Barry Jennings had said.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Read the interviews with the firefighters. The describe building 7 as "free burning" does that sound like a few localized fires?


No, it sounds like they were letting what fires were in WTC7 burn unattended.

Is that the point you were trying to make or do you interpret that as "the fires were burning in a unified and consistent manner across the entire breadth and width of the building to such a degree it initiated a symmetrical collapse"?

Would you like to address the "symmetrical collapse" as you left the other thread without addressing it?

Richard Gage argues 9/11 with a box of rocks in front of the White House

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Koka]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


How many steel framed buildings have had either an aircraft or another building collapse into them? Easy to make statements like that isnt it?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not to mention, that the towers were the only ones on the planet which used that peculiar type of design.


This is also erroneous. There have been plenty of highrises built this way.



Really? Name five.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





I'm not ignoring anything. NIST specifically states that this massive damage to the south face (which no one seems to have any photographic proof of except for a grainy smoke cover gash that we can barely see between 2 columns) had NOTHING to do with the collapse


Nothing to do with collapse? While impact damage may not have been
directly responsible it did initiate the collapse in other ways.

Impact ripped away building facade and kindled numerous fires inside,
damaged standpipe system to pump water through building. The
elevators in that section were wrecked preventing FF from accessing
floors without long exhausting climb. Ever try climbing stairs wearing
full bunker gear, SCBA and carrying hose and tools. Try it sometime...

Sprinklers had been disabled by collapse of WTC 1 & 2 which prevent sprinklers from controlling spread of fires.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
From what I've garnered from firefighter interviews was that atleast an hour before 7 fell there was speculation, atleast among some people, that it might.

I could take her statement as just feeding off the information she has available to her and comments made either to her, or ones she was able to hear.

I could see three deer who had been shot, after watching 2 die I wouldn't need a veternerian for me to say that deer is going to be the next one to die.


Except that only 2 deer got shot and blood from one deer splattered onto a 3rd and suddenly he just died.......


Yea that makes total sense...



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

World Exclusive: WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account


www.youtube.com...

Anyone who has heard Barry Jennings tells of his experience of what he witness while being in WTC 7 knows he was standing on floor # 8 that blew out from under him and left him on the six floor, Barry was told by a fireman to not to look down as he was being help out the building. Barry mentions it was like walking on dead bodies and I believe him. We know there were people in the WTC7 and Barry tell it like it is.

I believe what Barry is telling us is the WTC 7 just blew up and from the inside of the tower, after the first explosion in the WTC 7 Barry said both WTC were still standing.

So, why did WTC 7 start exploding before the other two WTC came down?

Sure, looks like demolition to me.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Nutter
 


How many steel framed buildings have had either an aircraft or another building collapse into them? Easy to make statements like that isnt it?


Did you miss the part where the NIST specifically states that the damage to WTC 7 had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the building? How many times does this need to be stated until it sinks in?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not to mention, that the towers were the only ones on the planet which used that peculiar type of design.


This is also erroneous. There have been plenty of highrises built this way.



Really? Name five.


Why do I need to do your research for you. Look it up. At least ONE has been on fire. For several hours longer than WTC 7 and far worse. Do some research and then we'll talk.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join