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 - The Salomon Solution: A Building Within a Building

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+19 more 
posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
In 1988, Salomon Brothers' lease was going to be up in 2 years and needed to relocate.

Gedale B. Horowitz, senior executive director of Salomon:

"We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors.''


Salomon had found what they were looking for in WTC 7. But WTC 7 would need some renovating:

To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.


In most office buildings, the kind of alteration to a building that Salomon needed would be impossible. But Silverstein Properties foresaw the needs of potential tennants when WTC 7 was designed.

Larry Silverstein:

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need."


But not only were three floors taken out, more steel columns were brought in for extra support:

More than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment.


John D. Spassoff, district manager of Silverstein Properties:

''Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building..."
The New York Times, February 19, 1989



A building within a building. WTC 7 was built to have floors removed and not affect the structural integrity of the building. And on top of that, 375 tons of extra steel support columns were added for even more structural support.

I want to make this absolutely clear for those that haven't looked into WTC 7's collapse: NIST has stated that:

"while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

In other words, the damage sustained to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 was structurally insignificant.

The sole reason of the collapse of WTC 7, according to NIST, is normal office fires. That is not a joke. That sends a message to every controlled demolition company around the world that if you set normal office fires in a building, you can have the same result that explosives have only ever accomplished in the past:





This should be great news for controlled demolition companies as they would save millions of dollars by not having to pay large teams of people to prep buildings and set explosives, or purchase the actual explosives.

Anyone can own their own controlled demolition company now. All it takes is one or two people to set some office fires and watch the complete building collapse. Office fires will now cause every support column in a building to fail simultaneously so that the building can come straight down without affecting the buildings around it. Something that's only ever been accomplished by explosives in the past.

Re-investigate 9/11.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


We all know that WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 and fires were started which burned unfought for hours.

Now, as you know, WTC 1 and WTC 7 were not immediately adjacent to each other so I would suggest that no-one could have assumed beforehand that the collapse of WTC 1 would have automatically set fires in WTC 7. It was a matter of happenstance. So what could the perps have had in mind if they rigged WTC 7 for demolition ? That they would just bring it down willy nilly while the world and his wife watched ?

If you eliminate the fires, the firefighters, the leaning and bulging of WTC 7 how on earth could the perps have hoped to cd it without totally exposing themselves ?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
We all know that WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris from WTC 1

According to NIST, the damage from WTC 1 was insignificant and had "little effect" on the collapse of WTC 7, so your point is moot.

NIST says normal office fires are the sole reason why WTC 7 collapsed. And any controlled demolition professional will tell you that you cannot cause all of a steel-structured building's supports to fail simultaneously with fire. That's why they don't use fire. They use explosives.

The why, the when, the how, can all be answered with a new investigation.





[edit on 16-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

In other words, the damage sustained to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 was structurally insignificant.


Correct.


The sole reason of the collapse of WTC 7, according to NIST, is normal office fires. That is not a joke.


Incorrect. What is "normal?" Normal means sprinkler systems work and firefighters are able to fight the fires, wouldn't you agree?

It seems you haven't fully read or understood the NIST report on WTC 7. Please read the following and get back to us with what it actually says:

"Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7"

2.4 THE PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE.


wtc.nist.gov...

Let us know what it concludes. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
We all know that WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris from WTC 1

According to NIST, the damage from WTC 1 was insignificant and had "little effect" on the collapse of WTC 7, so your point is moot.

NIST says normal office fires are the sole reason why WTC 7 collapsed. And any controlled demolition professional will tell you that you cannot cause all of a steel-structured building's supports to fail simultaneously with fire. That's why they don't use fire. They use explosives.

The why, the when, the how, can all be answered with a new investigation.





[edit on 16-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]


If you are going to quote one of my sentences you might at least finish it. The rest of the sentence said " and fires were started which burned unfought for hours ".

You haven't answered my point at all. If it wasn't for the accident that debris from WTC 1 started fires in WTC 7 how could the perps have possibly gone ahead with controlled demolition without any semblance of cover ? What conceivable plan could there have been ?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Incorrect. What is "normal?" Normal means sprinkler systems work and firefighters are able to fight the fires, wouldn't you agree?

Negative. Normal office fires are fires fueled by office contents such as paper, furniture, etc., and not fueled by other incendiaries such as diesel fuel, kerosene, etc.

And just to comment on the part of sprinklers and firefighters not fighting the fires, it's irrelevant. Controlled demolition experts still use explosives because fire cannot do what we saw WTC 7 do on 9/11. If fire could do what we saw, then controlled demolition companies would simply use fire. It's not possible whether you like it or not.

Why don't you start your own controlled demolition company if you're so confident in NIST's findings? Set some fires on every floor in a steel-structured highrise. Let it burn all day. I guarantee it will still remain standing.

Just because a government organization like NIST says fire can do that, doesn't mean that fire actually can.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
If you are going to quote one of my sentences you might at least finish it. The rest of the sentence said " and fires were started which burned unfought for hours ".

I didn't need to comment on that part. Especially when I already had that part in the OP. You're obviously not aware of the rules regarding quoting.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
If you are going to quote one of my sentences you might at least finish it. The rest of the sentence said " and fires were started which burned unfought for hours ".

I didn't need to comment on that part. Especially when I already had that part in the OP. You're obviously not aware of the rules regarding quoting.






Still evading my point then. Have you no answer at all ?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
Incorrect. What is "normal?" Normal means sprinkler systems work and firefighters are able to fight the fires, wouldn't you agree?

Negative. Normal office fires are fires fueled by office contents such as paper, furniture, etc., and not fueled by other incendiaries such as diesel fuel, kerosene, etc.


Yes, fires burn the contents, no mystery there.

But you failed to address the topic of your own thread. I repeat:

It seems you haven't fully read or understood the NIST report on WTC 7. Please read the following and get back to us with what it actually says:

"Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7"

2.4 THE PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE.


wtc.nist.gov...

Let us know what it concludes. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Still evading my point then. Have you no answer at all ?

You didn't have a point. You asked questions that cannot be answered. I have no idea what the perps would or would not do and it doesn't matter. Evidence is evidence. Support the evidence or continue to remain in denial. Your choice.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
But you failed to address the topic of your own thread.

The topic of my thread is that WTC 7 was structurally sound and that it could not have possibly collapsed totally and completely due to fire. Controlled demolition companies use explosives to do what WTC 7 did on 9/11. What part of that do you not understand?



Originally posted by jthomas
It seems you haven't fully read or understood the NIST report on WTC 7. Please read the following and get back to us with what it actually says:

I think you should read it yourself. What it actually says in a nutshell is posted in the OP of this thread with a link to NIST's website. I'll even quote the headline for you from NIST's own website:


NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse


See that? Simple and to the point. Fire caused the collapse of WTC 7. Now, either CD companies can now start using fire to bring steel-structured highrises down, or NIST is wrong. Take your pick.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
But you failed to address the topic of your own thread.

The topic of my thread is that WTC 7 was structurally sound and that it could not have possibly collapsed totally and completely due to fire.


It did collapse and the collapse mechanism is explained. It hasn't been refuted. Why haven't you read the link I gave you? Why would you not read it?


Controlled demolition companies use explosives to do what WTC 7 did on 9/11. What part of that do you not understand?


It's easy to understand that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition. Didn't you watch the coverage on 9/11 or since and see the fires? Why won't you read the NIST Report on WTC 7?


Originally posted by jthomas
It seems you haven't fully read or understood the NIST report on WTC 7. Please read the following and get back to us with what it actually says:

I think you should read it yourself. What it actually says in a nutshell is posted in the OP of this thread with a link to NIST's website. I'll even quote the headline for you from NIST's own website:


NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse


Yes, but since you haven't read the link I gave you, you can't explain to us why we should be surprised at the sequence of events that caused WTC 7 to collapse. Instead of reading the section I gave you, you are repeating appeals to ignorance and incredulity instead of trying to learn why WTC 7 collapsed as a result of unfought fires. It is clearly explained to you and I have asked you to read it and report back.

One cannot refute NIST's explanation if one has not read and understood it. How can you be searching for the truth unless you do the research that would help you understand the collapse mechanism as NIST explained it?

I'll be happy to discuss your refutation or challenge to the collapse mechanism of WTC 7 once you've read it and can point to specifics with which you disagree - if you end up disagreeing with it after reading it.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I'll be happy to discuss your refutation or challenge to the collapse mechanism of WTC 7 once you've read it and can point to specifics with which you disagree

I have read it. I understand it. I do not agree that fires could weaken the structure to total and complete collapse. Which brings me right back to either CD companies can now start using fire to bring steel-structured highrises down, or NIST is wrong. Take your pick.

Please stop playing these games. If you're so confident in the NIST report that fire can weaken a steel-structured highrise to total and complete collapse, then start a CD company and show us how it's done. If not, we could use you on our side.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It did collapse and the collapse mechanism is explained. It hasn't been refuted.

It did collapse and the collapse mechanism, according to NIST, is only a working theory. It hasn't been proven true.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I have read it. I understand it. I do not agree that fires could weaken the structure to total and complete collapse.


Then you cannot understand it.


Which brings me right back to either CD companies can now start using fire to bring steel-structured highrises down or NIST is wrong. Take your pick.


Either fires do not pose a risk to steel framed structures and the entire fire engineering field of study is a waste, or NIST is correct. Take your pick.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
What NIST again? Who in here still believes the proven lies of NIST?
Most people know that the WTC7 was brought down by a control demolition.

Proof? Well let’s see, there were molten pools of running steel found under WTC7 weeks later and everyone knows office fires cannot melt steel. Let us not forget the supper nano thermite & nano Thermate, which should not have been found in the dust samples at ground zero.

NIST cannot say demolition did not take down the WTC7, because NIST did not do any research into it. NIST admitted they didn’t do any testing into WTC7 steel or look for demolition chemicals, at the WTC 7 rubble, they did nothing, in fact NIST did everything in their power to avoid looking into demolitions.

NIST lie for not looking into demolitions was there were no eyewitnesses that claim to have seen explosions at the WTC. What a lie, how can NIST hold their heads up after insulting people who were in these explosions and survived to go on record into telling what they witnessed? Far too many credible people who saw the flashes going around the WTC as the explosions were going off.

NIST lost all credibility when they told that lie. You only need to lie once and when you are caught, one cannot trust anything else you have to say, because if you have to lie about one thing, then how many other things are you lying about as well.

If NIST was on the up & up they would have never told that lie to begin with.


[edit on 17-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Negative. Normal office fires are fires fueled by office contents such as paper, furniture, etc., and not fueled by other incendiaries such as diesel fuel, kerosene, etc.


Problem is that most office furnishings are made of synthethic (aka plastics) material.

Almost everything is synthethic - from the computers/monitors to the
desk (particle board bonded with synthethic glue), chairs with urethene
foam (know as solid gasoline). Cubicle dividers are either styrafoam or
urethene sound deadening materials.

Plastics are derived from petroleum - when burned produce some 12,000
to 16,000 btu per lb. This is some 50 - 100 % more heat energy than that
produced by organic (wood, papaer, cloth which generate some 8000 -
8500 btu).

Modern offices have a very heavy fuel load and once ignited is almost
impossible to extinguish



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
Still evading my point then. Have you no answer at all ?

You didn't have a point. You asked questions that cannot be answered. I have no idea what the perps would or would not do and it doesn't matter. Evidence is evidence. Support the evidence or continue to remain in denial. Your choice.





There is not actually any evidence for controlled demolition of WTC 7. No evidence of any explosives being taken there, no evidence of any explosives being installed, no evidence of them in the rubble and no-one has talked, however slender their involvement.

On top of that, NIST's highly qualified team, many of them independent of government, are satisfied that fire was the cause.

However, if you still want to put forward the theory that it was a cd then I think it is reasonable to consider all the circumstances and reasonable to expect you to suggest a scenario which has some credibility.

If 9/11 was an inside job then surely everyone agrees that it was a covert operation. It was a literal matter of life and death that the truth be concealed and that the blame be placed on muslim terrorists. According to some truther theories the perps went to enormous lengths to conceal the truth by faking plane crashes, phone calls, flight data recorders etc etc.

So far as WTC 1 & 2 and the Pentagon are concerned the supposed perps covered any installation of explosives by arranging to have planes flown into them. But what did they arrange as cover for WTC 7, which you maintain was also rigged for cd ? Absolutely nothing apparently. So perps who could arrange for such small scale detail as faking phone calls never got around to providing any cover for the planned cd of a major building. Is that remotely credible ?

The only reason most people accept the demise of WTC 7 is because of the accident of debris from WTC 1 starting fires within it which burned for hours. This accident could not have been planned for and I would suggest that the idea that perps would have cd'd an undamaged bulding is ludicrous.

Whether you believe 9/11 was a terrorist attack or an inside job I suggest it is obvious that WTC 7 was collateral damage along with WTC 3,4,5 & 6.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Can't believe people still think wtc just fell down vertical over fires!



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


We all know that WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 and fires were started which burned unfought for hours.

Now, as you know, WTC 1 and WTC 7 were not immediately adjacent to each other so I would suggest that no-one could have assumed beforehand that the collapse of WTC 1 would have automatically set fires in WTC 7. It was a matter of happenstance. So what could the perps have had in mind if they rigged WTC 7 for demolition ? That they would just bring it down willy nilly while the world and his wife watched ?

If you eliminate the fires, the firefighters, the leaning and bulging of WTC 7 how on earth could the perps have hoped to cd it without totally exposing themselves ?




Is it possible that Flight 93 was destined for WTC 7 before it got shot down ?

......... 2nd line ...........



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join