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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

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


Please substantiate your claim. Even NIST disagrees with you.


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.


So? On highrise buildings the water supply is on the roof of the building. Are you saying this water supply to the rest of the building was cut off too?


Ever try climbing stairs wearing
full bunker gear, SCBA and carrying hose and tools. Try it sometime...


Boo, Hoo. Try another profession it's too difficult for you then.


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



Since when did any part of WTC 2 hit WTC 7. Please elaborate with proof.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

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...


With that analogy then it would be the smoke from the WTC that made #7 collapse.

Like I stated in my following post...


Originally posted by ThaLoccster

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, 29 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


So NIST is wrong in their educated guess at what happened to WTC. Your point is?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Reread it. He is speaking of the TOWERS. Back to the point, name five other highrises that were built with the same type of design as the towers.


BTW, just being on fire doesnt qualify as a match to any of the three buildings that fell that day. Although, we could discuss steel frame buildings that have had collapses due to only fire........



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Nutter
 


So NIST is wrong in their educated guess at what happened to WTC. Your point is?


So, you admit that there needs to be a further investigation? Since they are incorrect in their educated guess, most scientists with any kind of scrupples would start over.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Reread it. He is speaking of the TOWERS. Back to the point, name five other highrises that were built with the same type of design as the towers.


There is no need to reread it. I can name one that was on fire far worse than the towers. First Insterstate Bank. A tube within a tube structure.

www.usfa.dhs.gov...

page 24 of 41. I'm sure there are others, it's not like Robertson and Skilling had a patent on the design.



BTW, just being on fire doesnt qualify as a match to any of the three buildings that fell that day. Although, we could discuss steel frame buildings that have had collapses due to only fire........


Like what? Temporary structures built in China were there are no building codes?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Um, no, Im not saying that we need to waste time with another investigation. No one, will ever know the exact sequences involved in the collapse of WTC7, you can do a dozen investigations and they will all be educated guesses.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





A tube within a tube structure


Not quite..its close, but not quite the same. However, could you point out where the 767 crashed into the bank building at high speed?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


First Interstate Bank fire was actively fought by 400 members of LA
Fire. Decision made at WTC 7 to abandon building do to problems with
water supply and structural damage

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Explain how similar if one fire actively and sucessfully fought and other
abandoned?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
However, could you point out where the 767 crashed into the bank building at high speed?


Not the question. The question was what buildings have the same type of design as the towers. I have fullfilled my part in answering said question. Now you want to move the goalposts?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Good point. And fair to bring it up.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Explain how similar if one fire actively and sucessfully fought and other
abandoned?


The 56 floor Caracas Tower in Venezuela which burned fiercely for over 17 hours on Oct 15, 2004 is an example of a steel framed high rise fire that burned without effective firefighting intervention.

Sprinklers and standpipes did not function, due to poor maintenance, there was a lack of fire extinguishers inside the building and the intensity of the fire prevented firefighters from reaching the tower's upper floors.

Engineers who inspected the building's structure when the fire was out reported that it was "very solid."

Pictured here: aa-1177.blogspot.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


While details are sparse can see some similarly to 1990 Meridian Plaza fire
in Philadelphia.

FD in both cases suffered from low water pressure - in Meridian Plaza
restrictor valves in standpipes were set incorectly. Talked to Philadephia
fireman who was there.

What is unknown is framing of Caracas tower (or more correctly Parque
Tower East - there are 2 ). Is a conventional steel frame or more exotic
design like WTC 7 which had long span cantilever truss to support structure over Con Edison sub station.

Also what was fire load in building? Questions like this effect resistance
to fire.

Truthers often take any building fire and scream "See it didn't collapse
like WTC .....!" without considering other factors


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:10 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.
There was no speculation. The CIA informed them the building was going to come down roughly an hour and twenty minutes before it did.


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.
yes, she probably heard about it second hand; but probably not by chance.


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.
False analogy. No one claims that Building 7 was hit by an airplane.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Your explanation sounds logical, expect that only one side of the building was damaged. Any structural failure would collapse toward the damaged section...not systematically crumble nearly evenly throughout the entire structure. Can you explain the questions against the OS that go against the theory that there was structural damage so the whole building imploded more or less?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by thedman
Explain how similar if one fire actively and sucessfully fought and other
abandoned?


The 56 floor Caracas Tower in Venezuela which burned fiercely for over 17 hours on Oct 15, 2004 is an example of a steel framed high rise fire that burned without effective firefighting intervention.

Sprinklers and standpipes did not function, due to poor maintenance, there was a lack of fire extinguishers inside the building and the intensity of the fire prevented firefighters from reaching the tower's upper floors.

Engineers who inspected the building's structure when the fire was out reported that it was "very solid."

Pictured here: aa-1177.blogspot.com...


Building 7 was poorly made and the other building had a air conditioner that keep the steel from melting.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Don't expect an answer too soon, I've asked hooper to explain the symmetrical collapse on two threads now, and have yet to receive an answer.

In fact I have yet to hear a valid explanation from anyone as to how this could occur.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
Building 7 was poorly made and the other building had a air conditioner that keep the steel from melting.


I'm guessing that post was satirical?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by corvin77
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...



corvin 77

I don't know what your take is on this because you don't say. But it never ceases to amaze me that some people keep bringing it up as something sinister and evidence of an inside job.

The BBC say that on a dramatic and confusing day, when the collapse of WTC 7 had been expected for hours, they passed on an incorrect report from Reuters that the collapse had already happened.

What is the alternative ? That the perpetrators of this inside job, who would all face the hangman or the firing squad if the truth got out, decided it would be a good idea to forewarn a foreign news outlet of what was planned. Why ???

Anyone who goes for the second alternative presumably also believes the BBC is " in on it "



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Anyone who goes for the second alternative presumably also believes the BBC is " in on it "


Agreed, it's obvious the BBC realised the error of their ways when they cut the feed from Jane Standley at around 6 mins 45 seconds.

The BBC's problem was that they didn't know which building they were talking about, the BBC were reliant on the information they were being fed.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Koka]



new topics




 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join