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.

 

“What about building 7?”

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Yusomad
 


actually I heard very plausible theory about the building 7 from a Southern wise man who spent his whole life studying small mammals.

what happened is that people from New Jersey trained for years more than 500 moles to dig in and ruin the foundations of New York buildings and on 9-11 they used all the mess and confusion to take down building 7 using hundreds of those highly trained moles.

that is about building 7, we all know what happened to other buildings on 9-11...




posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   

TheFlash
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


and even the 9/11 Commission concluded that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse.


Hitler concluded that Poland had just attacked him and started WWII !

Nothing that the 9/11 Commission says can be taken seriously unless other building the size of building 7 have been falling down due to the slightest damage from a fire. Buildings are catching fire all the time and many are in large apartments and they don't fall down.

I know, Maybe it was the angle of the wind at the time that made this a unique incident



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by VirusGuard
 


just a quick correction from the awesome work you are doing......the 9-11 Commission does not even mention the WTC7 building in their report....as far as they are concerned, WTC7 did not exist.

NIST was the only entity in this Country bestowed by an Act of Congress to scientifically determine how and why 3 buildings fell on 9-11...and they did not find one.


NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)


the 2005 NIST can't really see fire in WTC7 let alone have it be the cause of it's free fall accelerated collapse.


NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"



2005 finds no reason for collapse of these three, so they stall three years, enter a 2008 NIST hypothesis crew TRYING to pass/PUSH the collapse off as something else...until they are caught live on video webcast.

Shyam Sunder claiming fire not only caused collapse x3, but did so in such a way as "no other buildings have done before", stated at the NIST technical briefing.
Tech Briefing

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section at the end of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has never been a collapse like WTC7".
...they just refuse to prove it.


NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"


so, nothing to examine so we call it "brand new science"?

NO physical steel structural members were examined from WTC7, the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they refuse to release the data that tells the models what to do...how to behave....

This Tech briefing is after the NIST WTC7 rough draft came out in Aug. 08, to which there is NO mention of the "easily verifiable" free fall acceleration seen in WTC7 by others, lol...and TRYING desperately to pass it off as something else, a new kind of "thermal conductivity" which caused "brand new physics phenomenon" to only occur on 9-11.

they refuse to prove.

NIST '08 are the authors of the PUSHED official claims in this Country.....they are the only ones whom can verify, validate, PEER REVIEW their work that contains "brand new science" in order for these collapses to proceed.....no one else.

so any of these so-called 'peer reviews' the OS pushers like to throw out here, are WORTHLESS because ALL focus on the 'dynamics' of collapse that 'MIGHT' occur AFTER the WTC steel fails to allow collapse to ensue.
the only reason we are all here...no supporting evidence the 'FIRES PRESENT' allowed the collapse as claimed...x3.

all these pushed, so-called 'PEER REVIEWED papers base their claims on the unreleased 68,000+ data files, the NIST hypothesis of collapse that IGNORES the fact that 2005 NIST found the fires present did NOT allow collapse to ensue.

This is about facts and science to which you will never find an official story pusher using the SCIENCE and FACTS from 9-11, to push the claims of 9-11.

they would rather talk about "no planes"..."passports"...."thermite"....."truthers evidence"?. [ I have always found this amusing.....what evidence is needed demanding evidence of the official claims pushed?]

sorry for this rant, but after going through some of these 9-11 threads.....I have to shake my head because of all the nonsense some posters think are relevant to truth.....



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

hgfbob
reply to post by VirusGuard
 


just a quick correction from the awesome work you are doing......the 9-11 Commission does not even mention the WTC7 building in their report....as far as they are concerned, WTC7 did not exist.


Ooooh, naughty naughty! The commission report didn't mention WTC 7 because a) it was outside the scope of the work the commission set out to do. WTC 7 was caused by collateral damage along with the other buildings that were destroyed when the towers collapsed and those other buildings weren't mentioned either, and B) noone died in WTC 7.

I notice the report likewise didn't mention the name of the bomb dog (named "Sirius") that was killed when the towers collapsed, either. Yep, that TOTALLY proves conspiracy...
edit on 28-3-2014 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





The commission report didn't mention WTC 7 because a) it was outside the scope of the work the commission set out to do. WTC 7 was caused by collateral damage along with the other buildings that were destroyed when the towers collapsed and those other buildings weren't mentioned either, and B) noone died in WTC 7.


lol.....good ol' Dave...please tell me WHO claims falling tower debris hit 7 to cause collapse????

..NOT the 2005 NIST scientific investigation.


NCSTAR1A p.39/130 "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


WTC 3,4,5 and 6 were in the direct path of tons of free falling tower debris, yet NONE experienced what 7 did...

none of them occurred global unified collapse in a instant as 7 did.

I know you read my post right above yours here.....and YOU have nothing to say....

why don't you tell me how 2005 NIST can find NO scientific reason for these three collapses, and 2008 NIST is allowed to claim fire and "brand new physics" they refuse to prove....claimed at the live webcast tech briefing.

hey Dave.....why do ya think they removed this webcast video from their site?????



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by allthings2allmen
 


reminds me of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City after the bomb exploded.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


The smoking gun is building # 6www.youtube.com... then please attend the lecture on directed energy if you are curious how 1.3 million metric tons of debris can be turned into dust and never hit the ground. Remember the dust?

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hmmmm!



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I notice the report likewise didn't mention the name of the bomb dog (named "Sirius") that was killed when the towers collapsed, either. Yep, that TOTALLY proves conspiracy...


yea..I remember the website set up for him...


The morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Port Authority Police Station in the basement of the World Trade Center's Tower Two. When Officer Lim heard the sound of an explosion, he thought a bomb had gone off inside the building, and he commented to Sirius, " ... one must have gotten by us.", as he put the dog in it's cage and went to investigate... our.homewithgod.com/mkcathy/sirius.html



it's sweet how you remember that.....but NOT a bit of supporting EVIDENCE of the claims PUSHED as truth.....


There is a thread started on ATS about 'shills' running rampant here, pushing an agenda, distracting from discussions....have you seen it?.....it's wicked awesome
...maybe you can comment there.... ya know, throw in your two cents worth.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


You sound kind of worn out or tired. Do you get paid by post or by the hour? Either way son you are being exploited.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Logical one

Originally posted by Unity_99
Building 7 is the proof without anything else needed that they planned this as an inside job and the media was in on it.


Really?


I rather doubt it.

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department FDNY

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

So plenty of people knew that building 7 was likely to collapse well before the event occurred.
Given the confusion on the day..........it wouldn't be all that surprising if the BBC reporter was given messages of an imminent collapse........ but reported the collapse ahead of time in error.
edit on 12-7-2013 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


You really should reexamine your doubt then. If we are all being paranoid it should be easy for you to offer a reasonable explanation to some things which are apparent in any fire investigation.

First of all, no one has explained how the building caught fire. Can you provide ANY evidence that the impact of jet liners on buildings over 400 feet away could start multiple fires? Do you think being hit with a flying I beam with set you on fire?

Second of all, nobody explained how the all the buildings multiple and independent fire systems failed COMPLETELY. What are the odds of this? Turns out, very,very low.

Third of all nobody explained how the building caught fire.

Being hit with vaporized concrete dust and I beams does not set off a ragging inferno, that is anti logical. But the best way to explain an unexplainable fire is to recognize that humans can engineer fires when nature does not cooperate. That is logical, much more logical than the notion of a fire that defies all notions of physics, science and human experience.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

VirusGuard

TheFlash
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


and even the 9/11 Commission concluded that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse.


Hitler concluded that Poland had just attacked him and started WWII !

Nothing that the 9/11 Commission says can be taken seriously unless other building the size of building 7 have been falling down due to the slightest damage from a fire. Buildings are catching fire all the time and many are in large apartments and they don't fall down.

I know, Maybe it was the angle of the wind at the time that made this a unique incident


You've heard of smart bombs?

In this case it was smart I beams.

The planes that hit two buildings over a football field away, and shielded by another building was hit by flaming I beams. These Flaming I beams flew 400 feet, over another building and set off a raging inferno, but NOT before disabling the fire precautions in the building!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Flatcoat
reply to post by boncho
 





Ah yes, you guys are so awake, you were able to accuse, try and convict the thousands of some-odd government employees for their guilt. Geez, obvious they were all in on it. From the guy who hands me my parking tickets to the guy checking if my business files it's T57 Quotes to the registry.


Uh-huh...and how long did it take the U.S. Gov to accuse, try, convict and execute an entire country? Make that two countries. They were throwing around OBL's name an hour after the attack.......couldn't see it coming, but knew within an hour who did it.....yeah right.


if you fund and direct an organization you know beforehand what they do, so it is not surprising they knew right away, because they built, funded and directed Alquaeda since they drove out the soviets, continued to fund them when they delivered a pretext for war and are still funding them fighting in the middle east against Ghadaffi and now against Assad.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Why do people focus so much on how the buildings came down? What if the collapses were solely triggered by planes being slammed in buildings, by an alquaeda funded and directed from within America? Wouldnt you want those whom see scarifying 2000 people as justified to advance their geopolitical and national agendas being brought to justice instead of arguing over engineering without holding a degree?



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

There is multiple footage of WTC 1 impacting WTC 7. There was no building in the way. If you are referring to WTC 6, it was only 8 stories. It was never going to "shield" WTC 7 from the falling debris. And I believe WTC 7 was only 300ft from WTC 1, but I could be corrected on that. Regardless, due to collisions and spring, well within the arc of falling debris from a 110 story building.

There's no question debris impacted WTC 7. There's also no question that WTC 7 was significantly damaged by this debris. And that this debris contained either super heated steel members which caused the fires or flaming debris that entered the building after a path was cleared by the heavy beams.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

There have been virtually zero fires that resemble what occurred on 9/11: multiple fires lit simultaneously on multiple floors with zero fire fighting efforts. And in the case of WTCs 1 & 2, significant portions of the fire protection knocked off. So there are zero cases to compare them to. In all, the Towers behaved as well as could be hoped for, but there was no stopping global collapse once under way.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
reply to post by VirusGuard
 


just a quick correction from the awesome work you are doing......the 9-11 Commission does not even mention the WTC7 building in their report....as far as they are concerned, WTC7 did not exist.


As has been pointed out, the 9/11 Commission Report was not an engineering report, therefore WTC 7 was not relevant to their mandate since it was not directly involved in the attacks.


NIST was the only entity in this Country bestowed by an Act of Congress to scientifically determine how and why 3 buildings fell on 9-11...and they did not find one.


NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)


the 2005 NIST can't really see fire in WTC7 let alone have it be the cause of it's free fall accelerated collapse.


NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


I've pointed out page numbers and sections from the NIST WTC 7 Report with, IIRC, 80 pages of visible fire in WTC 7.



2005 finds no reason for collapse of these three, so they stall three years, enter a 2008 NIST hypothesis crew TRYING to pass/PUSH the collapse off as something else...until they are caught live on video webcast.


NIST "stalled" their WTC 7 Report because they were finishing their report on WTCs 1 & 2. They released initial findings and then returned to the job at hand.


Shyam Sunder claiming fire not only caused collapse x3, but did so in such a way as "no other buildings have done before", stated at the NIST technical briefing.
Tech Briefing

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section at the end of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has never been a collapse like WTC7".
...they just refuse to prove it.


It's been shown to you multiple times in their report how they determined WTC 7 collapsed.



NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"


so, nothing to examine so we call it "brand new science"?


They list exactly what methods and what physical evidence they had to work with in their determination.


NO physical steel structural members were examined from WTC7, the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they refuse to release the data that tells the models what to do...how to behave....


And video....And audio....And eyewitness testimony.....And seismic readings.


This Tech briefing is after the NIST WTC7 rough draft came out in Aug. 08, to which there is NO mention of the "easily verifiable" free fall acceleration seen in WTC7 by others, lol...and TRYING desperately to pass it off as something else, a new kind of "thermal conductivity" which caused "brand new physics phenomenon" to only occur on 9-11.


You are quoting them out of context. Thermal conductivity is not brand new science. He does not say this. It was new to have caused a structural failure for a high rise building.


they refuse to prove.


It has yet to be seriously questioned.


NIST '08 are the authors of the PUSHED official claims in this Country.....they are the only ones whom can verify, validate, PEER REVIEW their work that contains "brand new science" in order for these collapses to proceed.....no one else.


You are simply repeating falsehoods. The NIST WTC 7 Report has been made public for 6 years, reviewed by multiple engineering agencies, and enjoy the "full endorsement" from many of them.


so any of these so-called 'peer reviews' the OS pushers like to throw out here, are WORTHLESS because ALL focus on the 'dynamics' of collapse that 'MIGHT' occur AFTER the WTC steel fails to allow collapse to ensue.
the only reason we are all here...no supporting evidence the 'FIRES PRESENT' allowed the collapse as claimed...x3.


You're hand waving.



all these pushed, so-called 'PEER REVIEWED papers base their claims on the unreleased 68,000+ data files, the NIST hypothesis of collapse that IGNORES the fact that 2005 NIST found the fires present did NOT allow collapse to ensue.


Have you filed a judicial review to have these files released?


This is about facts and science to which you will never find an official story pusher using the SCIENCE and FACTS from 9-11, to push the claims of 9-11.


You have been given science and facts multiple times. You have never offered anything to counter them.


they would rather talk about "no planes"..."passports"...."thermite"....."truthers evidence"?. [ I have always found this amusing.....what evidence is needed demanding evidence of the official claims pushed?]


Since the "official claims" remain unchallenged, providing evidence that it isn't would be appropriate.


sorry for this rant, but after going through some of these 9-11 threads.....I have to shake my head because of all the nonsense some posters think are relevant to truth.....


No need to apologize. I'm used to it.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge



First of all, no one has explained how the building caught fire. Can you provide ANY evidence that the impact of jet liners on buildings over 400 feet away could start multiple fires? Do you think being hit with a flying I beam with set you on fire?

Second of all, nobody explained how the all the buildings multiple and independent fire systems failed COMPLETELY. What are the odds of this? Turns out, very,very low.

Third of all nobody explained how the building caught fire.

Uuuuh Yea they did explain it.
Even small commercial buildings run 480 volt service to them. Large buildings like the WTC's ? Same with 7.
I thought 7 have a power sub station under it. So it would have even higher voltages.
Slice into the high voltage wiring or transformers and see how fast things catch fire.
Maybe you should google transformer fires in NYC and see how many listing come up.
Here's one in January.
And you can't put out those fires with water. Which answers your other question.
When the first building collapsed it severed the water pipes. Which bled out ALL the pipes in the entire area.
No water to fight any fires.

Is this something you had no clue to before? It's very simple. Maybe so simple that there was no need to generate some complex report.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968

There is also no question that NIST said that debris did nothing to initiate the collapse of the building.
Yes it was hit by the debris cloud but I would love to see the footage of falling debris hitting 7....



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

So just making up your own reasons?
You don't think NIST would have came out with that reasoning if that is what happened? Or was it to simple for them as well.
The fires couldn't be put out because they were even fought.
For some reason the fire commander( which has never came forward) decided to let good ole larry decide that his building didn't need to have fire fighters go in there and fight the fires, he decided to just let it burn.
The building had the OEM in there, I am willing to bet it had it's own water source out side of the water pipes in the city.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join