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: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 






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


There it is. All the synthetic materials inside the offices made the heat so hot, that it actually melted through the steel and brought down WT7 to nothing more then a bunch of rubble and debris.

HOW DID WE NOT SEE THIS!?

I'll tell you why. Because IF all synthetic materials inside offices did this to buildings, and became this hot, then it would be a VERY unsafe enviroment inside your typical office, don't you think? Yes, it would. SO I Highly doubt that the petroleum inside the plastics, inside WT7, is what brought the building down.

Because if this were the case, then A HELL OF A LOT of office buildings would be falling down. But they're not, and WT7 would be the first, right?

Yeppers


SO.....Pretty sure it wasn't burning office appliances that brought down WT7


[edit on 19 17uSaturday10 20 by vanhippi]




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
How can you complain that NIST's response about the fires not being credible, when you use their evidence stating the the debris from WTC1 didn't have much impact on the building? I'm all for an investigation, but you can't pick and choose which evidence to use to support your argument.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Most friends/family that i've talked to about 9/11 being an inside job didn't believe me when i told them that three towers fell that day. the government knows how to brainwash people well, lol.

I'm an AWS certified welder. the "I" beams in wtc 7 are probably more than 2 inches thick. a couple office fires could never even start the steel burning, not even close. and the piledriver senario? its laughable, steel doesn't behave like that. even if there was sufficient heat to compromise the structure, it would bend and warp, then topple to the side. all you have to do is look at the 100 plus office fires that burned for 10-15 HOURS and didn't collapse, one tower mentioned in the youtube documentary "Loose Change" was practically 100% engulfed in flame, and after 19 some hours, the top few floors (about 4) bent to the side and fell, so you're telling me that 100 minutes of sporatic burning caused a perfectly controlled collapse? get real.

no evidence for controlled collapse? lol, you apparently haven't seen the video of wtc 7 being demolished. i suggest you watch Loose Change, while i don't think he has everything right, i think hes got most of it down. especially the slow motion shots showing charges going off.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Clearly, small office fires destroyed the structural integrity of the steel in Building 7. Factor in a perfect storm of small gusts of wind throughout the day, and there you have it. LOL!



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin

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 ...........


UA 93 was on a .ing for Washington and there have been terrorist references to the target being " the dome " which have generally been taken to be the White House or Capitol. That also makes sense in that the attacks would then have covered financial, military and political targets.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Loose Change was a good documentary about this subject...I think the part that really applies to this argument is when they go over the other buildings that had office fires in the area of the years and not a single one of them collapsed. In fact, I believe the fact stated was only 3 steel structure buildings have ever collapsed due to fires in the last decade or two...those three buildings all collapsed on 9/11. Fires just don't bring down steel structure buildings.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 





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


Plane took off from Newark - right across Hudson from WTC complex

If so why did it fly all way to Ohio before making turn - and then .ed
not east to NYC but south toward Washington

Explain that......



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by vanhippi
 






There it is. All the synthetic materials inside the offices made the heat so hot, that it actually melted through the steel and brought down WT7 to nothing more then a bunch of rubble and debris.

HOW DID WE NOT SEE THIS!?

I'll tell you why. Because IF all synthetic materials inside offices did this to buildings, and became this hot, then it would be a VERY unsafe enviroment inside your typical office, don't you think? Yes, it would. SO I Highly doubt that the petroleum inside the plastics, inside WT7, is what brought the building down.

Because if this were the case, then A HELL OF A LOT of office buildings would be falling down. But they're not, and WT7 would be the first, right?



One most fires are fought........

First by the sprinkler system which contains and prevents from spreading

Then by the FD....

Both of these were absent at WTC 7 - sprinkler system was disabled by
lack of water when WTC 1 & 2 collapsed and destroyed the water mains

FDNY commanders concerned about lack of water and structural instability
of WTC 7 evacuated their men and let WTC 7 burn

Also for the millionth time - steel DOES NOT have to melt. Only to reach
critical temperature to lose it structural stenght and begin to deform



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
This is one of the very few conspiracies I believe in. why peiple do not think the gov. Is not capable of this is beyond me... We know for a fact that our governments past track record is not perfect so why are they now? They haven't asnwered any questions which would be easy to do if their story was true.

Here's my two cents. I never even thought that it was our gov for two seconds until a couple years ago. I have several friends in the engineering program as well as a room mate and their very own strength of materials professor told them that their is no way that the buildings would have came down the way they did according to the governments story. Apparently this is a shared feeling among many professors, but very few speak of it let alone tell an entire class that.

I forget what other class it was that my engineering room mate had, but that professor also told that entire class that he believed coc aine was engineered by the CIA for experiments on blacks. So I guess take it for what its worth.


Its just funny that all the time I see debunkers provide the governments report as evidence and they don't do any
research on their own. They just sit behind a computer all day and think they are smarted than the college educated using wikipedia as a main source and any bias they can find.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.


So it is your opinion. You have not demonstrated factually that NIST's conclusions and collapse mechanism are incorrect. That's perfectly ok. I haven't seen anyone refute the NIST conclusion yet nor have I seen any CD company disagree with NIST's explanation either.

What distinguishes the WTC 7 from "normal office fires" is the circumstances in a unique case, some of which are:

1. The nature of the design.
2. Fires on multiple floors started when debris from the collapsing WTC 1 hit the south face of WTC 7.
3. Non-functioning sprinkler systems.
4. Inability for firefighters to fight fire since water system had been damaged when WTC 1 collapsed.
5. Almost 7 full hours of uncontrolled fire on multiple floors weakening key structural element.

There was nothing "normal" about the WTC 7 circumstances. It is fallacious to call the WTC 7 circumstances and office fires "normal". It is not possible to extrapolate what happened to WTC 7 to a blanket claim as you have done, bone_z.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You have not demonstrated factually that NIST's conclusions and collapse mechanism are incorrect.

Oh I have. You just choose to ignore the facts. There's a difference there. It is a fact that fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to completely and totally collapse. It is a fact that controlled demolition companies use explosives to accomplish what we saw WTC 7 do because fire cannot accomplish the same task.

See, facts. Not opinions, not theories. And what's more, you cannot prove any different. All you can do is speculate, theorize, and deny.



Originally posted by jthomas
nor have I seen any CD company disagree with NIST's explanation either

I'm going to add a "yet" to your statement above because I will be contacting CD companies for my documentary.




Originally posted by jthomas
The nature of the design.

I already posted the nature of the design in the OP. WTC 7 was overbuilt with redundancies to be able to handle floors removed without affecting the structural integrity of the building. And not only were floors removed, 357-tons of steel support columns were added.

They even made mention that it was a building within a building. You could translate that as double the structural integrity of one building.



Originally posted by jthomas
Almost 7 full hours of uncontrolled fire on multiple floors weakening key structural element.

And as I've stated more than once, start your own CD company and use fire to bring down steel-structured highrises. The world would love to see how it could be done.



Originally posted by jthomas
It is not possible to extrapolate what happened to WTC 7 to a blanket claim as you have done, bone_z.

It's not possible to extrapolate what happened to WTC 7 with NIST's theories or claims as you have done.

And it's BoneZ. There's nothing between the "e" or "Z".



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Bonez, I would take these claims of no sprinklers and no firefighting attempts as making the case of WTC 7 unique as pure junk. It's clearly stated in NCSTAR 1A on page 63:

"Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were SIMILAR TO THOSE THAT HAVE OCCURED PREVIOUSLY IN SEVERAL TALL BUILDINGS WHERE THE SPRINKLERS DID NOT FUNCTION OR WERE NOT PRESENT. These buildings did not succumb to the fires and collapse because they were of structural designs that differed from that of WTC 7."


Then they go on to compare the WTC 7 fire to other similar fires. Or as they state in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1:

"The other two buildings had contents fires that were not suppressed initially by sprinklers and grew to involve multiple floors before they were extinguished."

They mention about the One Meridian Plaza on the same page something that sounds so familiar about WTC 7:

"Fire fighting operations were suspended when it was determined that there was a possibility of a major structural collapse: the fire was extinguished only when it reached the 30th floor, which had a functioning automatic sprinkler system."

The firefighters evacuated the building at 7:00 am, ten and half hours after it began, and it continued to burn for 7 and half hours more, eerily similar to WTC 7.

The point being, it's obvious to me that NIST is claiming the structural design is the sole reason for collapse. If the fire had been in a differently designed building, I think they are claiming, there would have been no collapse.

So I would pay no mind to opinions from people who obviously have not read the report.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I'm sorry to say but the evidence is overwhelming in the sense that no steel structure has ever been brought down by fire. Fires have lasted in steel structure for up to 24 hours and still the structure stands..


In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse



In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse



In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing



Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing

For two freaking day, you have to be either stupid, or blind to not notice cover up by the corrupt rogue government..



It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours


www.serendipity.li...



In 1945, the Empire State Building withstood the impact of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bomber. Fourteen lives were lost, but the steel structure remained standing after the unarmed trainer plane slammed into the building’s 79th floor.

www.tms.org...

Planes don't bring down steel structures, not even fuel, as evident suggests in this example, the B-25 also had fuel..



"its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames"


The evidence being presented makes it clear to us that it just isn't true..

Chickens lay eggs, until I see them give birth, I will stick to believing that chickens lay eggs.

I'm not falling for propaganda, and for an organization which is funded by the government, who are the main suspects..

I'm not stupid, nor am I blind..

oz

[edit on 17-4-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
So I would pay no mind to opinions from people who obviously have not read the report.

Trust me, I don't. And that's all they are is opinions. For WTC 7 to have fallen straight down like it did, every single support column had to have been severed at the exact same moment. Fire cannot do that, explosives can and are the only explanation. Anyone that says otherwise is in denial or trying to cover up the truth.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The Salomon retrofitting of WTC 7 is relevant in that it gave many months of construction. If the bailouts are any indication of an impending financial collapse...then the the conspiracy just took on a whole new level...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



For WTC 7 to have fallen straight down like it did, every single support column had to have been severed at the exact same moment.



I have seen this nearly same statement, repeated ad infintum on so-called 'Truth" sites many times.

Yet, there are plenty of competing theories, some with video evidence, that describe how various components inside, not seen from the exterior videos so often repeated by the "Truth" sites and proponents, were failing and not "all at the exact same moment", but in a sequence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That was clumsy writing -- I have seen valid arguments for the internal failures proceeding well before the apparent exterior portions initiated collapse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Even in actual, verified known CD, the explosive charges don't remove the key structural members "all at the exact same moment" either.

This is obvious to anyone who cares to watch the dozens of examples out there.

In fact, the "art" of CD involves targeting certain 'key' areas, and severing them, in a sequence, timed to facilitate the planned collapse.

YOU should be aware of this simple fact, _BoneZ_!

Planned CD looks very similar to the collapse of the WTC 7, because planned CD actually maximimes the normal forces of nature (aka, gravity) and uses gravity as a tool, in a sense.



Be that as it may, however, a VERY important question is constantly dodged, on this topic, by the "Truth" believers. I would to hear the answers, theories, and concepts to solve a simple logical dilemma:

HOW was the building (focusing on WTC 7, for just the moment) "rigged" for this alleged planned CD?

WHEN did this alleged "rigging" occur?

WHY are there no indications seen, as are seen in every other example of a known CD, of the explosive charges being set off?


The "HOW" requires an answer (or at least a valid, logical opinion) because of the general knowledge that ANY such endeavor amounts to a LOT of work, in terms of man-hours involved. Yes?

That connects, also, to the "WHEN" part of the question.

Then, the "WHY" has to be addressed, as well.

To me, that ties up, with the first two, the illogic of this entire argument.







[edit on 17 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

The financial interests involved should be the focus, in my opinion.

The physics are tired.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
WHEN did this alleged "rigging" occur?


During the Salomon retrofitting. The implication is that the impending finacial crisis was well understood and being planned for.

Conspiracy Theory for sure...but billions and billions of dollars beget such...

[edit on Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:34:07 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


I see....was 1998 when the Soloman Bros. requested the re-model?

Seems a bit prescient, but nevertheless...


If this is about the SEC ongoing investigations, and Enron, etc (I take it to be part of your point) then it seems to me the building was burning merrily away, and could quite possibly have been thoroughly gutted, anyway. Thus, destroying all contents.

In fact, by "demolishing" it, did not have the effect of extinguishing fires?

What I mean is, SOME papers or documents might have survived, in the rubble of the 'demolition'.

I'd think those trying to hide, or divert inquiries, and destroy evidence, would have prefered a full-blown fire.

Of course, I have read that most of the data was backed up, on computer hard drives off-site. Most has been re-collated, by now....

(BTW, the fires in the building could not have been predicted, nor 'planned' for, since the falling debris of WTC 1 could not have been accurately predicted. Physics, again though...)

Perhaps there's some other financial angle that I am missing?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

The contention that "unpredictable fires" would have spared a paper or two is fairly lame since the mindset that would have prevailed during the cleanup in the aftermath would have had little context to discern any "found document"...pfft.

As well, the history of the financial giants associated with WTC 7 suggest some collusion...and yes...if one wants to make money in the financial markets then presience is required...why do you think there have been so many scandals? In order to predict the future (make money) one has to make the future...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Even in actual, verified known CD, the explosive charges don't remove the key structural members "all at the exact same moment" either.

That statement shows your incredible lack of research. There are many types of demolitions and many types of explosives to carry out those demolitions. I've seen just about every implosion/cd video on the net and there are many where all the supports were taken out at the same time, then the building falls.

You should do some actual research and look around the net a little bit. Might do you some good.




Originally posted by weedwhacker
Be that as it may, however, a VERY important question is constantly dodged, on this topic, by the "Truth" believers. I would to hear the answers, theories, and concepts to solve a simple logical dilemma:

We haven't the slightest idea how, when, or why. That's what a new investigation is for.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
WHY are there no indications seen, as are seen in every other example of a known CD, of the explosive charges being set off?

Not every CD has "indications". You are still showing your lack of research regarding controlled demolitions.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
To me, that ties up, with the first two, the illogic of this entire argument.

And that's part of your problem. You would rather ignore the fact that fire cannot bring down steel-structured highrises, because you don't know how explosives would have been set or by who, or why.

Now who's illogical?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join