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: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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

Oh I have.


You are entitltled to think you have, but you haven't convinced too many that you would need to convince to get a new investigation.


You just choose to ignore the facts. There's a difference there.


No. I asked you to support your claim, pointed to the NIST collapse mechanism, and you finally came back and said you didn't believe it.

Fine, that's OK, you are entitled to your opinion. But you haven't refuted NIST. That's the difference


It is a fact that fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to completely and totally collapse.


Strawman. That's completely irrelevant. WTC 7 was a unique event.


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.


You're entitlement to your own opinion but not your own facts. You believe that is the case but you have neither demonstrated it nor have you refuted NIST.


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


There is nothing for me prove, nothing for me to speculate about, nothing to theorize, and nothing to deny. You're the one making claims that are just your opinion and "belief" for which you have not provided evidence.

You're perfectly welcome to refute NIST but if you don't want to refute NIST on WTC 7 that's perfectly fine. I don't agree with your opinion and find nothing about it to accept as fact.

Sorry.




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
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...



First, when it was retrofitted and updated to create more office space, the buildings lower floors had spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements that is gypsum-based and had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and truss, and a three-hour rating for columns.. The fires burned on the lower floors for over 7 hours. Above those first few open floors the next 5 to 6 floors held ALL of the machinery for the building. This is the some spot where the initiating collapse is described as starting. So if you have fires burning for 7 hours (5 hours after the rated fireproofing) do we not see where it may weaken and cause the dropping of the upper floors, in this case 5-10. This is where the rest of the structure is binded to the 'new' part of the building. It does not matter what is constructed, if the load is too much for too long it will fail. Sorry if this is simplified but anyone who knows this subject should understand.

Second, there is no money trail. This was a simple way that at the time, when money talked and it was plentiful, a company bought the leasing rights to the building. The Salomon Investment firm bought it and then they were dissolved in scandal. Nothing to see here and maybe some money washing for the government but I would see no non white collar crime.

Now the conspiracy theorist could say that it was bought at that time and converted to carry out 9/11 but then why were the WTC bombed in 93? It is a trip down the rabbit hole when the simple truth is it was a building that burned for 7 hours and finally collapsed.

It is true that it was a building within a building but it was for no other reason that greed to make more space for Salomon Smith Barney and the rest of the investors. It was as close to the heart of the district as you can get and if you are from or lived in NY it is about status.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
First, when it was retrofitted and updated to create more office space,


350 tons of steel for more office space? I know paper weights can have an impact on executive decision...but that seems a bit much...




the buildings lower floors had spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements that is gypsum-based and had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and truss, and a three-hour rating for columns..


Where did the fires start?



Second, there is no money trail.


Do you think think that democracy is a given? Do you as well think that the financial situation didn't think that, and I am talking pre-internet, they didn't have to account themselves to anyone who wasn't in the industry...whom wasn't directly involved? I am saying that the unique social transfer that was the internet allows for a retroactive sociological consideration.

Billions of dollars whom did not feel the prolatariat was in the loop would not have acted as if they were. Queue the internet...



This was a simple way that at the time, when money talked and it was plentiful, a company bought the leasing rights to the building. The Salomon Investment firm bought it and then they were dissolved in scandal. Nothing to see here and maybe some money washing for the government but I would see no non white collar crime.


Do you know the history of Salomon? Incorporated in 1910 and intriniscally associated with Citibank...one of the major winners in the bailouts....



Now the conspiracy theorist could say that it was bought at that time and converted to carry out 9/11 but then why were the WTC bombed in 93?


A multi decade conspiracy would suggest forethought. Billionaires? Or Terrorists? Especially since the term "terrorist" was popularized during the Bush administration(s)...A family name that associates with early twentieth century bankings and subsequent CIA Director/White House occupations.



It is a trip down the rabbit hole when the simple truth is it was a building that burned for 7 hours and finally collapsed.


Simple Truth?

Rethink your stance.

Billionaires or Terrorists?

Whom owns the media?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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

I used to work in an office (the French Bloomberg - I'm French) where there were many computers, at least one per person (and often two), not to mention the scanners, faxes, telephones, external hard drives... One night, a fire started and it burnt totally two rooms, but the firefighters arrived after maybe 10 minutes after the alarm was given and had no problem at all to extinguish it. In the morning we could go back to work to tidy up all the ashes.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
That's completely irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? Either fire has caused steel-structured highrises to collapse or it hasn't. We know that fire hasn't, so it's perfectly relevant.



Originally posted by jthomas
WTC 7 was a unique event.

That sounds like a BS denial-fueled cop-out. There is very little "unique" about WTC 7 than any other steel-structured highrise.



Originally posted by jthomas
You're entitlement to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Can you find a single video of a steel-structured highrise anywhere on the net that shows a building collapsing similar to WTC 7 that fell due to fires? A news story, perhaps?

I guess the answer will be no because none exist because steel-structured highrises do not globally collapse from fire. They have only collapsed like that all throughout history from explosives.

You can't prove otherwise. Why you would call facts "opinions" is beyond me. Especially when you can't prove the facts wrong.



Originally posted by jthomas
You believe that is the case but you have neither demonstrated it nor have you refuted NIST.

History has refuted NIST by proving no steel-structured highrise has ever globally collapsed from fires. Controlled demolition companies have refuted NIST by using explosives to bring steel-structured highrises down because, well, fire can't.

Sorry you can't accept those facts. But those facts don't go away just because you don't agree with them.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
It is a trip down the rabbit hole when the simple truth is it was a building that burned for 7 hours and finally collapsed.

Oozyism has sufficiently shown on the last page the other steel-structured highrises have burned for far longer and didn't collapse. You can check their post out here since you skipped over it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
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."


"They were of structural designs that differed from WTC 7." Yes, indeed.


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."


"...before they were extinguished". WTC 7's fires were never extinguished.


"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event," said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. "Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

www.nist.gov...



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.



4.2 SUMMARY
Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed

WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 – 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 – persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.

wtc.nist.gov...


So, WTC 7 was unique in it's design. We already knew that.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
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.

What if the "found document" happened to be an alleged terrorist passport, in almost pristine condition?

I guess they only find what they want to find!



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The fires burned on the lower floors for over 7 hours.

That's a misleading statement. The entirety of the lower floors were not engulfed for seven hours, according to NIST.

The NIST report states that between 12.10pm and 1pm, there were fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30. By 1pm there was no evidence of these fires on most sides of the building. Some of these floors may have been controlled by water sprinklers.

Between roughly 2pm and 5.20pm there were fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13. The intensity of fires on floors 11, 12 and 13 was higher, due to more combustibles.

Floors 7 and 8: The fires appeared to travel clockwise heading East from the North face.

Floor 9: There was no visible fires until around 4pm, where it appeared to start and spread from the West to the East.

Floor 11: Appeared to spread counterclockwise. For a two hour period, the images showed no visible signs of burning.

Floor 12: Similar to Floor 11, showed more signs of continous burning.

Floor 13: Similar to Floors 11 and 12. At 4.38pm, the fire had died down to the East.

Floor 14: Flames seen briefly after 5pm on the North face.


Which part of the building was exposed to fires for 7 continuous hours?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
That's completely irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? Either fire has caused steel-structured highrises to collapse or it hasn't. We know that fire hasn't, so it's perfectly relevant.


Not really. NIST showed the difference in design and circumstance between other buildings and WTC 7. It was a unique design under unique circumstances.


Originally posted by jthomas
WTC 7 was a unique event.

That sounds like a BS denial-fueled cop-out. There is very little "unique" about WTC 7 than any other steel-structured highrise.


You'll have to refute NIST on that:


The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. The collapse could not have been prevented without controlling the fires before most of the combustible building contents were consumed.

• WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 – 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 – persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.

wtc.nist.gov...



Originally posted by jthomas
You're entitlement to your own opinion but not your own facts.


Can you find a single video of a steel-structured highrise anywhere on the net that shows a building collapsing similar to WTC 7 that fell due to fires? A news story, perhaps?


See NIST above: "The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires." Do you not accept NIST's statement?



Originally posted by jthomas
You believe that is the case but you have neither demonstrated it nor have you refuted NIST.

History has refuted NIST by proving no steel-structured highrise has ever globally collapsed from fires. Controlled demolition companies have refuted NIST by using explosives to bring steel-structured highrises down because, well, fire can't.

Sorry you can't accept those facts. But those facts don't go away just because you don't agree with them.


I am not sure why you are confused. NIST stated in the WTC 7 report that I am now convinced you never read:

"The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by MemoryShock
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.

What if the "found document" happened to be an alleged terrorist passport, in almost pristine condition?

I guess they only find what they want to find!

 

Are you suggesting that such a document was found?

Otherwise...I'm thinking a clean up crew isn't looking at the words that their shovels are allocating with the WTC 7 dust...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
See NIST above: "The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires." Do you not accept NIST's statement?

No, and neither should you. NIST is not "god". NIST is not the law of the land. NIST is a government-funded agency and their findings will always be in support of the government agenda, no matter the evidence.

Just because NIST says that WTC 7 was a "unique" structure doesn't make it so. Their report is based on theory and computer models only. There is zero fact to any of the NIST reports.

Oh, and you forgot this part in the NIST report:

NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction, the properties and condition of the materials used, or changes to the original construction made over the life of the buildings.


Since NIST could not verify the construction or changes to the construction of the buildings, how could they possibly say WTC 7 was "unique"? Because they are only guessing. They made up something that makes their story fit.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The NISt staement about WTC7 being the first steel building to collapse due to fire is patently not correct since WTC 1 and 2 had already collapsed we are told due to fire.

Anyway whilst fire might weaken steel it cannot cause it to suddenly fail all over the building at the same time. One point might fail and the rest would twist and buckle and tilt over.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a few questions....

Why is it that sometimes NIST is right and sometimes they are wrong? They are correct to report when the fires were burning but not for how long or to why the building collapsed?

Since this had never happened(precedent for the collapse of a 100 story building) before NIST was bought in. That is the point. They are used when there is such a disaster that it must be investigated to make sure that it does not happen again. They not only looked at the structure but emergency routes, size of stairwells, etc and these were included in the new WTC 7.

Mem Shock, yes, I am aware of Salomon and the eventual buyout by Citibank but to me there was nothing to gain on 9/11. The contracts were already in to prepare to invade Iraq. We did not need anything to let us do it. It was in the news. The Nuclear inspectors and the UN threats just like Iran right now. France is making money and so is Russia and so is China and in a few months maybe Israel will bomb them and then we can go in and rebuild and make the rest of the money. This is the way the world works. Do I like it, no, but it is the way it is. It is all about money. When the big guys are losing money drop the Dow, raise oil and let there be a terror attack in Africa and you get rid of the little guy who sells short and the big guy wins. It was not hidden that Bin Laden wanted to hit us and when the warning was out I am sure if you look back to mid 2001 there were multiple sales of airline stock. Why not? If there is inside news of a terror attack why not prepare now....again it is not right but it is the world that we live in.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I do not understand why anyone is using NIST in supporting there argument to begin with.

NIST has already been proven a fallacy, a fraud. Don’t believe me, read how NIST refuse to make serious changes in their faulty science and their fraudulent mathematics, NIST have chosen to remain silent and collected their blood money and move on.
Here is the proof:


Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth

www.ae911truth.org...

NIST sold us out, along with Bush & Cheney, they sold us out on lies, lies about the war, lies about 911, lies from NIST, all lairs. Most people already know we have been screwed by the Bush administration. NIST did their bidding for George Bush and Dick Cheney in helping them into covering up the truth of the WTC demolitions.

There is an old saying, when it looks like a demolition, and sounds like a demolition, and acts like a demolition, then it is a demolition.


[edit on 17-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Why is it that sometimes NIST is right and sometimes they are wrong?

Because it's not either/or. You have to add a little truth to the lies or inaccuracies to give the inaccuracies more credibility. Especially for those that don't fully understand what they are reading, or those that are too lazy to check whether everything is 100% credible and factual or not.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 





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..


Overwhelming? I dont think so - basic truther distortion/un truths

First Interstate Bank - fire was fought, operative word fought by 400 LA
Firefighterswho suceeded in extinguishing fire. Unlike WTC building was not damaged prior to fire, fire proofing intact and most important water system was operating

Analysis showed that effective fire proofing was able to resist fire until extinguished



It was also shown that if fire protection to structural members is adequately designed and applied with quality control, fire damage to fire exposed members will be minimised and structural collapse can be prevented.


Windsor Tower - unlike WTC 7 building was composed of concrete core
not steel.



The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction

The building featured two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) between the 2nd and 3rd Floors, and between the 16th and 17th Floors respectively. The original cladding system was fixed to the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs. The perimeter columns were supported by the transfer structures at the 17th and 3rd Floor levels.


Steel section above 17th floor collapsed from fire. Something truthers omit in their rants



The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.


Building had to be torn down

Meridan Plaza - now this came the closest to collapse. Flow restrictor valves in standpipe system prevented sufficent water from reaching fire
Power failures forced FF to walk up stairs to reach fire

Unlike WTC building was of conventional steel construction - no long span
cantilever truss and transfer beams

Building was abandoned when large cracks appeared in signalling
becoming unstable

Fire was extinguished on 30th floor by sprinklers - again WTC 7 had no operating sprinklers



All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24. At the time of the evacuation, the fire appeared to be under control on the 22nd though 24th floors. It continued to bum on floors 25 and 26 and was spreading upward. There was a heavy smoke condition throughout most of the upper floors. The evacuation was completed by 0730.





The fire was stopped when it reached the 30th floor, which was protected by automatic sprinklers. As the fire ignited in different points this floor level through the floor assembly and by autoexposure through the windows, 10 sprinkler heads activated and the fires were extinguished at each point of penetration. The vertical spread of the fire was stopped solely by the action of the automatic sprinkler system, which was being supplied by Fire Department pumpers.


Building was condemmed and torn down



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
See NIST above: "The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires." Do you not accept NIST's statement?

No, and neither should you.


The record shows that you agreed with NIST on that point which you have not acknowledged, surprisingly. It shows that you haven't read or understood the NIST report yet.

When, and if, you are ready to refute the NIST report on WTC 7, then we will have something to discuss.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


It's funny that you know that I haven't read the NIST report and that you know that I don't understand it, just like you know that the OS is true even though the NIST report is only theories and guesses anyway.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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


No it doesn't have to melt, but it did.



also here another video for you




new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join