Very simple: The firefighters didn't know the design or didn't trust it... It is called precaution...
WTC Building 7 Anomalies
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
Very simple: The firefighters didn't know the design or didn't trust it... It is called precaution...
So why did Silverstein tell the fire department to "pull"? I guess the fire department was supposed to tell the "intelligence community" to blow the building?
He was on NATIONAL FREAKING TV!! Ooops! I just admitted to blowing up my own building.
Of course there is no such thing...just a term from JREF. You said the collapse looked like a cd...the only thing you left out..it didn't sound like a cd. Every single video of a building implosion features extremely loud, clear explosive sounds that start seconds before the collapse. (like this) The videos of WTC7 collapse lack these tale-tell explosive sounds. How do you explain that?
I guess it was NF that mentioned insurance fraud.
Last edited:
what kind of question is this?
i would have to have inside information to answer it and besides do you seriously believe that i would tell you if i did?
Natl Geo did a story on it (the people sifting through the rubble and all they found), shouldn't be hard to find and then a quick search shows items recovered:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=41
There were of couse many more, including dozens of pictures from that morning showing the streets and sidewalks around the area littered with office papers, which is why demolishing a building is no guarantee that the contents will be destroyed.
Arthur
I'd have to do some digging to find it, but I've seen at least one guy who's involved in building forensics, or engineering or something along those lines who has stated that there came a point where collapse became inevitable - I don't remember all of the details, but it had to do with the lean of the upper part of the building, or something similar.
Apparently there's some critical angle for most/all buildings that if the lean exceeds that point, collapse becomes a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'.
Anyway, the point is maybe they made judgement calls based on the evidence they had available to them, and came to the conclusion that global collapse was inevitable.
I seem to recall camera crews in helicopters saying the same thing, or something similar anyway.
No, it wasn't. It was designed to withstand the impact of ONE of the largest aircraft of the time, a 707 - and it was assumed that it would not hit it as close to full speed.
Even so, the tower did indeed survive the impact of a fully fueled 767 going at close to its full speed for hours. It, unfortunately, could not survive the resulting fire.
Because the OMB understands that burning buildings collapse sometimes. It happens quite regularly.
Except it didn't look at all like a CD.
Not only from the lack of explosive sounds.
The windows are NOT blown out, like they would be in the overpressure from explosives.
NIST did the work to see what it would take to sever the 79th column with explosives and they concluded that it would take 9 lbs of RDX and would have blown out lots of windows.
This was not observerd or heard.
See NISTAR WTC 7 Final Report Appd D.
Arthur
Except the failures were internal, with little leaning.
They were concerned that it was going to collapse because they could see quite a bit of external damage (though not really that significant structurally), the fires were not being fought and they kept hearing loud noises from the building as the internal braces (floors supported by long floor girders) failed. The building floors around the central area collapsed internally over a fairly long period of time until the critical vertical column #79 failed, leading to a rather swift propagation of the global collapse.
Note, that's a gross over-simplification and so for the actual details you simply have to read the NIST WTC 7 report.
Arthur
So the suggestion is that buildings containing sensitive information are secretely rigged with explosive charges to demolish them - and that this rigging is done while the building is occupied, in secret? And that then they wait until there happens to be some nearby disaster, and then collapse the building and blame it on that disaster?
If so, then why didn't they go to the trouble to rig these explosives in a way that would demolish the building without such being (putatively) an obvious example of controlled demolition, to any layman who sees a video of such? Seems like you are attributing a superhuman level of skill and capability to the supposed perpetrators one moment, and then insisting that they are idiots who didn't even think to conceal basic, obvious facets of the alleged plot.
Yes, Quad...genius morons these "perps" were. Somehow these guys were smart enough to pull off the biggest "rube goldberg" conspiracy in the history of man...involving 100's if not 1000's of people who all stayed quiet...but the mastermind goes on pbs and admits to "pulling" the building.
Also consider scale.
The CIA and the IRS occupied but ONE floor (25th) of that 47 story building.
The idea that to "protect" the contents of part of a floor you would choose as your method, to secretly plant CD explosives (and keep them hidden for 15 years) is simply nuts.
Arthur
The CIA and the IRS occupied but ONE floor (25th) of that 47 story building.
The idea that to "protect" the contents of part of a floor you would choose as your method, to secretly plant CD explosives (and keep them hidden for 15 years) is simply nuts.
Arthur
That's what happens when you hire Michael Bay as your security chief.
And what did you find about the Authors and their Motivations?
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/rgann.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/ssunder.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/tmcallister.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/fsadek.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/kbutler.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/jgross.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/kmcgrattan.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/mml/metallurgy/materials_performance/william-luecke.cfm
Shall I go on?
Yeah, I'd like a link to some explanation of how they knew, that day, that hour, that the twin towers were coming down. Who knew, how they knew, when they knew, etc. It's always putting the burden of proof on the skeptical, but really, it's the commission report that is unbelievable.
Buildings like that just don't fall. The never have, and never will. Yet they pulled the rescue personnel out. It doesn't make sense. WTC 7 was completely unoccupied, and the in twin towers, they were telling the fire fighters to abandon it, when there are reports from some fire fighters that they were getting the blaze under control. So what gives. Who made that call, and how did they come to that conclusion?
I know, I didn't say that it was a lot, did I? I should clarify that I primarily meant 1&2, but it occurs to me that the lean on 7, although it may not have been much was both measurable and visible. Again, I'm somewhat hazy on the details, and every time I go looking for specific information, it gets harder and harder to find because it's being drowned out by the dross.
It wasn't leaning at all.
You might be thinking about the well publisized comment about the firefighters saying they were "putting a transit on it", but what they found was, it wasn't leaning.
The NIST report shows the movement of the building that starts AFTER the global collapse is underway (by doing frame subtraction of sequential images from videos), but there is no leaning until that starts.
Arthur
Like I said, it was 1&2 (or primarily 1&2) that I was thinking of as being on a lean.
You don't get me, do you? You do realize that NIST is a government agency? Thinking logically is something you aren't very good at, so I don't think there is any point in continuing with this discussion with you. It won't be fruitful. There are many others in this thread that deserve my attention. I will get to them when I have the time. I will leave you with this video, maybe you will get it.
George Carlin comments on 9/11