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.

 

Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Whom do they ask permission to speak freely? I dont see whats keeping them.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

If just a portion of the pentagon was damage, a portion that was supposedly empty, a portion that was under current renovation at the time of the incident, the american people would not have banded together and offered the support that they did.

In other words.... the pulling of the towers and WTC7 was a psychological play to get the people of America wanting some kind of revenge or retribution.... which allows the governmental powers to easily enact a plan to go to war with nations under false pretense......

People forgot about the pentagon, the media still basically only refers to the Towers when talking about anything involving that incident.
edit on 21-5-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)


Well I have a hard time believing it isn't something bigger. If you really wanted to enrage the people, so that they back the government into taking revenge, then you would attack the civilians directly. Would you feel more anger if some supposed terrorists flew a plane into a fully packed football stadium, or if they flew the plane into a government building?

Buildings 1 and 2 kicked up the worlds supply of dust, they had plenty of opportunity to pull down 7 when the dust was up, claiming it got 'clipped' by debris or whatever. But they wait nearly half a day to 'pull it'. 20 minutes or so before they pull it, the BBC announced 7 had collapsed. Does it not strike you as a little too obvious a mistake in the game plan?

To me, it seem like they want people to find the mistakes, they want people to question it and look into it.
But that's just the way I see it.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


from the picture you posted it does look like most of WTC7, fell in on itself..
but that still doesnt rule out a normal structural failure.. the reports say that there was an internal failure, which would lead to a collapse drawn inward, would it not? but that aside I have found other pics that show what really happened.. the building did not fall straight down..






fires..





start of collapse



debris across barclay st



not a tidy pile



shows extent of debris pile as well as damage to other buildings

sites.google.com...

single point of failure: structure magazine

www.structuremag.org...

excellent analysis (half way down page)

www.debunking911.com...

WTC7, new evidence from old photos

11-settembre.blogspot.com...
edit on 22-5-2011 by pccat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Whom do they ask permission to speak freely? I dont see whats keeping them.


Careful, Cassius, when I asked that very question I was met with "here comes the heckling from the Peanut gallery" from some of the more zealous of the conspiracy theorists. Welcome to the Peanut gallery, enjoy your stay


What I'd like to know is, what makes your asking "why do they need to ask permission and who is it they need to ask permission from" a legitimate question and my asking ""why do they need to ask permission and who is it they need to ask permission from" " considered heckling from the peanut gallery? It's the same question word for word. It's like saying someone can't accept 2+2=4 if it's printed on blue paper but 2+2=4 is entirely believable if it's printed on yellow paper.

It's blatantly obvious there's an ulterior political agenda at work among the conspiracy mongors, here, and it has nothing to do with an honest desire to learn the facts of 9/11.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by ANOK
 


from the picture you posted it does look like most of WTC7, fell in on itself..
but that still doesnt rule out a normal structural failure.. the reports say that there was an internal failure, which would lead to a collapse drawn inward, would it not? but that aside I have found other pics that show what really happened.. the building did not fall straight down..


What certain people with ulterior political motives here refuses to acknowledge is that some six seconds before the WTC 7 collapsed, the penthouse section collapsed into the interior of the buildings and you can see from the windows breaking in the video of the collapse that the penhiouse collapsed pretty far down into the interior. The reason why the exterior wall were lying on top is simple- there was no longer sufficient interior strength to stop the walls from falling inward. His argument of "the internal mass would have prevented this" is false as there was no longer any internal mass at that point.

Now, why do I say there are ulterior political motives involved in the presentation of these conspiracy stories? The video of the collapse clearly shows that the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the structure, which obviously explains why witnesses heard explosions six seconds before the collapse and it obviously explains how the external walls could wind up on top of the rubble pile. Plus, it irrefutably rules out controlled demolitions because no CD on the face of the planet has ever demolished a building inside out like this. Those damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing these conspiracy stories know this, so their solution is simple- snip off the part of video showing the penthouse collapsing and feign ignorance, all so they can claim "witnesses heard explosions" and "the walls were suspiciously on the top of the rubble". There's no possibility in any way, shape, or form that this behavior is accidental. Someone is intentionally embellishing these conspiracy stories to give them false credibility.

Rather than enginners requestion permission to speak freely regarding WTC 7, the question really should be, "We request permission from the conspiracy mongors to speek freely regarding the penthouse collapse".



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Hi Dave, I think you are mostly right about these sites..
some seem to be true believers like Jim Hoffman..
and others seem to be just out to make a buck or two..
there are legitimate questions that truthers have, and the suspicions are at times warranted..
I dont trust the Government fully..
but I just dont see why 911 has to be so damn complicated..
4 planes hijacked by Saudies, funded by Bin Laden..
after the USS Cole, its not surprising..
but I do empathize with them.. I got started watching an Alex Jones film (hangs head in shame)..
yes I bought into it all, Fetzer, Reynolds and Wood, killtown, the web fairy.. etc
I was so naive I could not fathom that pictures and research posted on the web could possibly be false..
then I started actually looking myself.. wow.. so many intentional lies.. I was stupid enough to believe that everyone would be as objective as I was, so what they had to say must be at least based in truth..
well.. sucker no more.. not me..



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Thos engineers got it all wrong only because they can't explain what caused steel to turn to dust!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
The entire ENRON case, vanished in the dust of WTC7. To me thats a good enough reason for a controlled demolition of WTC7. Theres no way possible for that building to collapse, other than with a controlled demolition. Not unless gw had a word with god on the phone as hes reputed to have said.
Wasnt WTC7 a reinforced building? It was supposed to be the HQ of the emergency servises in case of such a disaster. Rudy should have been there on that day organising the emergency servises, responce to the so called attack.
edit on 22-5-2011 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Its not so unusual that so much happened on 9/11 when you think about the law of averages. If the PTB let this happen then they at least needed one of these events to come off. So letting it all happen ensured at least one major incident would happen and they then could take the US to war. As it turned out all events went off nearly as planned.

I say nearly as the WTC 7 building was meant to come down without it being demolished. Demolishing it was a last resort as no matter what it had to come down. Maybe their was a big bomb under it that never went off as planned or they were planning on the twin towers falling on it?

The fail safe was TPTB having the media in their pocket and NIST not reporting WTC 7 to start off with. It did eventually get investigated and we all know the white wash that was.

Nothing will change and these engineers will not see the light of day in the MSM. I have always believed deep down that its up to the people of New York and the victims family’s to demand the truth be told. Sadly as every day passes this seems less of a reality.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminnaughty
 



The entire ENRON case, vanished in the dust of WTC7.


Oh, really?? Is that just another internet rumor, spread by the 'conspiracy' cabal? I mean, just parroting something, or actually have sources that corroborate that claim?



Theres no way possible for that building to collapse....


Huh?/ "no" possible way? Under any circumstances, at all?? Wow...



Wasnt WTC7 a reinforced building?


More rumors, overheard?? Is this just innuendo-dropping? Source?

Oh, the tactics, they are transparent.....



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pccat
from the picture you posted it does look like most of WTC7, fell in on itself..
but that still doesnt rule out a normal structural failure.. the reports say that there was an internal failure, which would lead to a collapse drawn inward, would it not? but that aside I have found other pics that show what really happened.. the building did not fall straight down..


Saying it didn't fall straight down really is splitting hairs. If you can't say it fell straight down then you can't say it fell in any other direction either, because that is where most of the mass went. There is a huge pile right in the middle of that building's footprint where it used to stand. Only the fringes of the pile rolled out into the streets, and even then into all 4 surrounding streets, not like it tilted over in one direction or anything reasonable like that. Again this was a 47 story building that could have easily fell over and laid all the way to WTC1 or beyond it, yet didn't make it beyond the streets immediately surrounding it.


Also have you seen NIST's model for WTC7's collapse? That model is a computer simulation of their theory and it looks absolutely nothing like what actually happened. Specifically, their computer model, which is supposed to be an idealized representation of their theory, is actually much messier and more chaotic than the actual "collapse" was. How does that happen?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by ANOK
 

from the picture you posted it does look like most of WTC7, fell in on itself..
but that still doesnt rule out a normal structural failure.. the reports say that there was an internal failure, which would lead to a collapse drawn inward, would it not? but that aside I have found other pics that show what really happened.. the building did not fall straight down..


Regardless of whether it fell 'straight down' (it did) the point you keep ignoring is the FACT that the outer walls can not physically be on top of the debris pile unless the collapse was an implosion demolition. Pictures of fires makes no difference. Fire can not cause the an implosion demolition, no matter how hot or for how long, you're just grasping at straws with that line of argument. WTC 7 was not a simple collapse from structural failure, as that would have been a completely different outcome, and the post collapse would look completely different.

Simple internal failure would not cause a straight down collapse. Show me anywhere that had happened in the past to any other building, ever. And no I'm not saying because it hasn't happened before it can't ever happen, it hasn't happened before because it is a physical impossibility. The failure of any single columns would be compensated for by other columns, the weight would be redistributed. For the whole building to fall at once all the columns would have to fail equally and at the same time. It only takes a slight mistake for a implosion demo to go wrong, if the timing is slightly off the walls will not fall inwards.

You only have to know a little about demolition, and an understanding of the laws of motion to understand this.
I can explain it all day for you, but unless you understand what is involved you'll never get it.

If it was so easy to get a building to fall into it's footprint then why is it...


This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
??

science.howstuffworks.com...

Look at the gif halfway down that page, click on the red 'detonate' button.

Again I ask what is the chance that a natural collapse can mimic a perfect implosion demolition? If you think the extraordinary can happen in order to just believe the government then this discussion is pointless 'cause nothing is going to change your mind.


edit on 5/22/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
E

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Cassius666
Whom do they ask permission to speak freely? I dont see whats keeping them.


Careful, Cassius, when I asked that very question I was met with "here comes the heckling from the Peanut gallery" from some of the more zealous of the conspiracy theorists. Welcome to the Peanut gallery, enjoy your stay


What I'd like to know is, what makes your asking "why do they need to ask permission and who is it they need to ask permission from" a legitimate question and my asking ""why do they need to ask permission and who is it they need to ask permission from" " considered heckling from the peanut gallery? It's the same question word for word. It's like saying someone can't accept 2+2=4 if it's printed on blue paper but 2+2=4 is entirely believable if it's printed on yellow paper.

It's blatantly obvious there's an ulterior political agenda at work among the conspiracy mongors, here, and it has nothing to do with an honest desire to learn the facts of 9/11.
its not the same question word for word. The difference with you is you cant have an intelligent debate with out spewing the same dammed fooled conspiracy drivel and mentioning avery and jones in most of your posts. You cant simply ask a valid question like cassius did youv always gotta attack and tar every single person who doubts the os as "you conspiracy people"

I would like to know why they need permission



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
The entire ENRON case, vanished in the dust of WTC7. To me thats a good enough reason for a controlled demolition of WTC7. Theres no way possible for that building to collapse, other than with a controlled demolition. Not unless gw had a word with god on the phone as hes reputed to have said.
Wasnt WTC7 a reinforced building? It was supposed to be the HQ of the emergency servises in case of such a disaster. Rudy should have been there on that day organising the emergency servises, responce to the so called attack.
edit on 22-5-2011 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)


That's funny. How come the former CEO of Enron got 24 years then ?

money.cnn.com...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by illuminnaughty


Wasnt WTC7 a reinforced building?


More rumors, overheard?? Is this just innuendo-dropping? Source?

Actually, there were reports that WTC-7 had been reinforced on 22 floors to accomodate the needs of a new tenant - Salomon Brothers. This extract is from a three-page New York Times article, dated February 19th, 1989.


MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

To help shuttle Salomon employees between floors, construction crews are adding two escalators and four elevators inside the tower. And to help adjust the floor layouts to Salomon's needs, workers are moving sections of the tower's ''core'' area, which includes pipes up to two feet in diameter and air-handling equipment the size of delivery trucks.

''This is the first time I've every seen such dramatic interior changes being made in a new building,'' said Irwin G. Cantor, structural engineer for the project. ''And the whole world is watching.''


I should add that I am not in any way qualified to judge the implications of this. I only reference it to demonstrate illuminaughty was correct and not 'innuendo-dropping'.

New York Times, Feb 19, 1989



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


WTC7 also had a bunker built into it for Rudy Giuliani and the OEM. Aside from whatever structural integrity a "bunker" implies, it was hooked up with its own air purifier, water purification system and etc.

But I know, I know.... Bunkers are houses of cards, too.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Hi Dave, I think you are mostly right about these sites..
some seem to be true believers like Jim Hoffman..
and others seem to be just out to make a buck or two..
there are legitimate questions that truthers have, and the suspicions are at times warranted..
I dont trust the Government fully..


Neither do I. I can see that there definitely is a conspiracy afoot and I know right away what it is- someone, probably a bunch of people, dropped the ball on 9/11 and now they're runnig around trying to cover their butts. LEt's face it, if it turned out the attack succeeded becuase some dope in the FBI had a forgotten warning of the impending attack lyign underneath a pizza box in the corner of his office, he's not goign to come forward and admit he screwed up and alowed 3000 people to die. It's the whole reason why Bush was reluctant to testify to the 9/11 commission- he was a little boy sent to do a man's job and he was afraid he was going to get lyched for being asleep on the job.

I notice that the conspiracy people here don't really take my conspiracy seriously. It isn't sinister sounding enough for their tastes.


but I just dont see why 911 has to be so damn complicated..
4 planes hijacked by Saudies, funded by Bin Laden..
after the USS Cole, its not surprising..


Exactly. Not to mention, the entire muslim world went ape sh*t after those cartoons of Mohammed were printed in Danish newspapers. We're not talking about a culture that's big into forgiving and forgetting, here.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82
its not the same question word for word. The difference with you is you cant have an intelligent debate with out spewing the same dammed fooled conspiracy drivel and mentioning avery and jones in most of your posts. You cant simply ask a valid question like cassius did youv always gotta attack and tar every single person who doubts the os as "you conspiracy people"


You're one of those people who argues simply for the sake of arguing, aren't you? My question was, and I'm cutting and pasting it verbatim:

Just WHO do these engineers need to "request permission" from when Alex Jones and Dylan Avery aren't bothering to ask permission, and just WHAT is stopping them from "speaking freely" when nothing seems to be stopping Alex Jones or Dylan Avery from speaking freely?

Other than mentioning Jones and Avery...and even you have to acknowledge they aren't asking anyone permission to speak freely about 9/11...how is my question any different that Cassius'? Please, explain it to me, 'cause I sincerely don't know.


I would like to know why they need permission


The answer is obvious- they don't. The OP is simply embellishing his post to make it more sinister sounding. It's just that you don't want to acknowledge he's embellishing it.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


I would need an engineer's take on this, but.....adding all of that EXTRA mass, just to reinforce the floor (increase the load bearing capacities?) into a building not originally designed that way....seems it cold have the effect of incurring stresses not intended, nor anticipated, by the original architects.

The re-enforcements were in the floors, mostly? How are floors supported? Don't they usually spread the loads out, to vertical LOAD-BEARING supports?? Either central columns. or exterior...or combinations?

Further, regardless of any increased floor STATIC load bearing strength, a dynamic load (like, the upper floors, with the mass of the Penthouse structure) beginning to fall on them, and strike them....that is a dynamic force, and can easily exceed the designed static load bearing strength.

It becomes a cascade effect, very rapidly. ANY structure, when compromised sufficiently, can collapse. The amount of damage it can sustain before the onset of global collapse depends on many complex factors, and the over-all design must be a part of that.

Buildings are built with individual pieces, they aren't solid length beams, or solid chunks of steel. These components all have a weakness, at the connections. Those connections are designed to withstand loading in certain directions (usually, to counter the force of gravity, and in taller structures, to allow for the horizontal wind loads). But, section-by-section, in rapid succession, and connections being stressed beyond their design direction and levels, and they will fail......



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by coughymachine
 

I would need an engineer's take on this, but.....adding all of that EXTRA mass, just to reinforce the floor (increase the load bearing capacities?) into a building not originally designed that way....seems it cold have the effect of incurring stresses not intended, nor anticipated, by the original architects.
The re-enforcements were in the floors, mostly? How are floors supported? Don't they usually spread the loads out, to vertical LOAD-BEARING supports?? Either central columns. or exterior...or combinations?
Further, regardless of any increased floor STATIC load bearing strength, a dynamic load (like, the upper floors, with the mass of the Penthouse structure) beginning to fall on them, and strike them....that is a dynamic force, and can easily exceed the designed static load bearing strength.
It becomes a cascade effect, very rapidly. ANY structure, when compromised sufficiently, can collapse. The amount of damage it can sustain before the onset of global collapse depends on many complex factors, and the over-all design must be a part of that.
Buildings are built with individual pieces, they aren't solid length beams, or solid chunks of steel. These components all have a weakness, at the connections. Those connections are designed to withstand loading in certain directions (usually, to counter the force of gravity, and in taller structures, to allow for the horizontal wind loads). But, section-by-section, in rapid succession, and connections being stressed beyond their design direction and levels, and they will fail......


Are you an expert engineer now Weed or is that just an opinion based on NO facts??



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join