What happened to WTC 7 again?

Originally posted by BigTrain
In this damage map provided by the city of New York, you can the see the buildings that completely collapsed, buildings that sustained major structural damage and also minor structural damage. This is a great photo and shows the extent of the debris damage.

Hey how come none of the blue building have been pulled or come down or whatever? Is it because Silverstein doesn't own them...yet?

What about the little WTC buildings around the base of the twin towers did they collapse? Why didn't they? This isn't making any sense anymore?

One quick search on the ground zero photos comes up with enough photos to solve your need. All you have to do is look. The red buildings were smashed by the falling debris, obliterated. The blue buildings were farther away, yet still sustained major damage. Heres some interesting photos.


Take notice of photo 12, this building was literally sliced in two from the falling tower.

Photo 13 shows one of the american express buildings with a long steel beam sticking out of it, and you can see where it sliced down about 5 stories of the building. That is one of the blue buildings.

Photo 22 shows another blue building with a very large hole in the side running about 10 stories high, which is even more closely zoomed on photo 46.

These are just a few examples..

www.w3.org...

Heres an upclose shot of the sticking out debris

www.parrhesia.com...

Lastly, one of the best asfter photos i could find of ground zero.

www.israelnewsagency.com...

[edit on 27-3-2006 by BigTrain]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by BigTrain]

Originally posted by BigTrain

Take notice of photo 12, this building was literally sliced in two from the falling tower.

And this doesn't bother you in the least? Being a structural engineer you should be able to discern that a building only having 1/3 of its facade damaged is not going to fall if a building is torn in half and doesn't? Hmmm...I guess they built building 6 a heck of a lot stronger than 7.

Train,

You know you are giving the conspiracy side more credence don't you? If all those buildings sustained as much or more damage as Building 7....then why were they still standing?

edit: I know...apples to oranges...blah, blah, blah

I say we can compare other buildings with the towers and 7....you know why? Because structural engineering came about from studying other buildings. The building materials have differences only in strengths and similar things. The engineering principles behind designing with these materials is the same though. Don't believe me? Take some design courses. I've taken steel, concrete and timber design. I took them in the same semester and actually it was easier than taking them seperate because it's all the same engineering principles...only certain factors of safety differ for different materials. Also, the obvious differences like you can't design a timber bolt (well you could but it wouldn't work). That last part wasn't towards you Train.

edit again: changed can to can't design a timber bolt.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by BigTrain
In this damage map provided by the city of New York, you can the see the buildings that completely collapsed, buildings that sustained major structural damage and also minor structural damage. This is a great photo and shows the extent of the debris damage.

I wonder, the buildings marked with the blue tag.
Any pictures of them on how much damage they have sustain.
It would look like they are closer than building 7, 1 of them at least.
So I wonder how much damage was inflicted to them.
Base, top, side, what kind of damage?


[edit on 27-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by truthseeka
All I know is...

I've seen video where you can SEE squibs run up the building.
I've heard audio on video of booming explosions.

You didnt see "squibs" because squibs are a type of explosives used in things like pyrotechnics, display fireworks, and movie sets they are NOT used in building demolitions.

squibs

These must have been some magical explosives as well. Im going out on a limb but I would bet you've never seen a building demolition in person.

I have and it was a building a tenth the size of the WTC7. This building was gutted shell of a building, beams were cut , holes were drilled it was a massive process you could never hide. This is done for many reason one of which is that it allows a demo team to use the bare minimum of explosives for a controlled demolition. Without that work it would require even more explosives to do the same job.

Ill tell you when thats done even on a 10 story building with all the prep work there is not going to be any if, an or but if explosives went off. 1/4 mile away you can easily feel the explosion through your body. Anyone within a mile would clearly hear explosives used.

The amount required to bring done the WTC7 without the gutting prep work would have been greatly larger then most demolitions ever seen. Every single person in the area would say explosives were used there would be no doubt for anyone not deaf and even the deaf would fell the shock waves.

There wouldnt be a few people here and there saying I think I heard explosives, Unless you are suggesting a cover up with the thousands of people near the area that didnt hear these explosives all in on it.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by BigTrain

Take notice of photo 12, this building was literally sliced in two from the falling tower.

And this doesn't bother you in the least? Being a structural engineer you should be able to discern that a building only having 1/3 of its facade damaged is not going to fall if a building is torn in half and doesn't? Hmmm...I guess they built building 6 a heck of a lot stronger than 7.

The building torn in half griff was only 5 stories tall and was a steel moment frame design. Why in the world would you compare this to a tube design 110 story skyscraper?

As for why wtc 7 was damaged and not the other, is is due to the fact that wtc north collapsed toward wtc 7 and that is why you see a heavy debris pattern in that direction, even the bottom exterior of the wtc north tower is leaning over on top of wtc 6. Did you guys even look at the photos?

Another thing, maybe you conspiracy buffs can solve this one for me, why do i find it impossible to locate a photo of the wtc 7 building facing the wtc after collapse of wtc north and south? Is there one out there that some has? All I could find is a photo of the backside showing how the fire had burned all the way through to the other side.

Train

[edit on 27-3-2006 by BigTrain]

Originally posted by toasted
I'll let his words speak for themselves



" If the American people ever give up their FREEDOM

in exchange for security , they'll end up with neither " !

Man if your going to qoute the guy atleast get his words right its.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Its likely he didnt even write it anyway in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it.

en.wikiquote.org...

Buiding 7 was pulled, I dont see the comotion when silverstine admited to it.
Controled demolition.
Look at the colapse of the towers, 1 and 2.
There is no significant objects big as a quorter of a plane flying out of the towers towards any direction.
The objects flying out of the towers are small, we got the towers colapsing, I seen them over and over again, so we saw what you saw.
The big dust is only present after the colapse, you all can wach over and over the colapse of the towers and see there are no big objects going torwards building 7.
All the big objects go down hardly in other direction, there may be small things flying around , but I dont think hiting buiding 7 with small little rocks will make it colapse
Please be my guest wach the colapse of the towers over and over from diferent angles and point to me if there is any significant big object that flys on a diferent direction.


[edit on 27-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
Buiding 7 was pulled, I dont see the comotion when silverstine admited to it.
Controled demolition.

Why do people keep using this term "pulled"? The assertion that "pull" is industry slang for demolition is a myth.

Anyone that knows about firefighters knows thats a common term used by them "Pull it" means “PULL” the operations out…Exactly what firefighters did at WTC7, Ask any firefighter.

Dont believe me? Watch Spiderman 2 and the scene where Peter Parker saves a small girl from the buring building. After he saves her and the fire is put out and the firefighters have cleared the building, the head firefighter says "pull it" hes not talking about bringing down the building with explosives. Hes talking about pulling his men out of the building.

Believe whatever theory you want but dont use that term because you sound uninformed to anyone with basic information on firefighters.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Uhh.. there is one very big thing that everyone is missing here in this demo story and theory and that is when legit demos are done the idea is to minimize damage to other buildings.

That is why there is so much prep work and so much time and explosives used to ensure that as little damage as possible to neighbouring buildings. This limits insurance costs and potential lawsuits.

I assume that is why demo companies are so careful and what they do so difficult.

Now ask those same guys to take down a building fast and quick with a lot more damage in the area and I bet they can do it.

The idea of this being a natural disaster eg. the planes crashing in by terrorists worked as the cover to CRUDELY PULL THESE BUILDINGS and STILL EVADE LEGAL AND INSURANCE LIABILITIES.

The bottom line is this: we are gonna win this battle, the truth is coming out and it is coming soon.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Uhh.. there is one very big thing that everyone is missing here in this demo story and theory and that is when legit demos are done the idea is to minimize damage to other buildings.

That is why there is so much prep work and so much time and explosives used to ensure that as little damage as possible to neighbouring buildings. This limits insurance costs and potential lawsuits.

But all that prep work allows them to uses far less explosives. The less explosives the more control you have, when they want more control they dont use more explosives. Thats the whole point why they weaken structures, remove supports and drill holes inside supports to plant explosives inside the supports which allows you to use far less explosives.

A good demo team could have brought down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building with a fraction of the explosives use in the Oklahoma city bombing which failed to bring the whole building down. But if would have required alot of prep work.


So if the WTC7 wasnt gutted and all prep work done before 9-11 then it would have required substantial more explosives then if a normal demo team was bringing it down.


[edit on 27-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
So if the WTC7 wasnt gutted and all prep work done before 9-11 then it would have required substantial more explosives then if a normal demo team was bringing it down.

Why are you assuming a normal demo team brought it down?

Since when would the technology the military industrial complex can provide make for a normal demolition? And what makes you think such technology wouldn't be used if it would make the job that much easier?

So what are you suggesting some secret military explosive now? Not counting nukes high explosives are pretty much all the same for military and civilian applications their is no huge difference.

The primary military demolition explosives used are TNT, Composition C4, SEMTEX and M1 Military dynamite RDX.

These are all "High explosives" these are pretty much the same things comerical demo teams use. RDX ,TNT, SEMTEX are all used both by military and civilian applications

You still need the same total force of explosive power no matter what you use.

So in other words you have no reason to believe they could have only used conventional charges.

Do you any sources or anything that outlines all the military's technology? Everything they have at their disposal, including things that the public wouldn't know about? Lists of everything they've been up in those secretive bases all around the country? And their in labs and all of that? I'd like to see that kind of info. Maybe you can get that kind of info on the Russians too and send it in to Washington while you're at it.

Here's something to think about, too: over 60 years after the first nukes were detonated, what makes you think that that tech hasn't been revised for a higher fissure % of the critical mass? That would offer a lot more control over the size of a detonation, and there would be much less radiation floating around since most of the mass would've been converted directly to energy. That would easily lead to a so-called mini-nuke, and wouldn't be much of a development over your conventional nuke.

The truth's coming out huh, whats it been, almost 5 years. So whens that truth coming out dude, 2050? The only truth you will accept the is the truth you want to accept. You have already made up your mind about it being a military/bush conspiracy so why would you even look at facts, you wouldnt and thats why i am done with this thread. Good job guys, nice debate. Dont bother responding, im not coming back to see it.

Train

Originally posted by bsbray11


Here's something to think about, too: over 60 years after the first nukes were detonated, what makes you think that that tech hasn't been revised for a higher fissure % of the critical mass? That would offer a lot more control over the size of a detonation, and there would be much less radiation floating around since most of the mass would've been converted directly to energy. That would easily lead to a so-called mini-nuke, and wouldn't be much of a development over your conventional nuke.

I cant believe your honestly suggesting something like mini nukes and clean radiation ones could have been used in the WTC Come on why not just say the building was brought down with anti-matter charges while your at it.

This is just absurd speculation

Woh woh woh woh woh.... let's not get too far ahead of ourselves pointing fingers or making this a partisan issue just yet.

Originally posted by BigTrain
You have already made up your mind about it being a military/bush conspiracy ........

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Why do people keep using this term "pulled"? The assertion that "pull" is industry slang for demolition is a myth.

Anyone that knows about firefighters knows thats a common term used by them "Pull it" means “PULL” the operations out…Exactly what firefighters did at WTC7, Ask any firefighter.

Dont believe me? Watch Spiderman 2 and the scene where Peter Parker saves a small girl from the buring building. After he saves her and the fire is put out and the firefighters have cleared the building, the head firefighter says "pull it" hes not talking about bringing down the building with explosives. Hes talking about pulling his men out of the building.

Believe whatever theory you want but dont use that term because you sound uninformed to anyone with basic information on firefighters.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

I'm not sure if using Spiderman 2 brings much credibility to your argument, Shadow. In that PBS documentary the NYC engineer used the term 'pull it' describing the demolition of WTC 6, so that's good enough for me. Even if the firefighters do use that term, they certainly don't consult with the owner of the building before they 'pull' their men out.

Train - show me where any report states major damage to the first five floors of WTC 7 from the collapses of the towers. I've looked, and I can't find it. I saw the photo you spoke of, and agree there was damage, but not enough apparently for the government to notice.

As for the collapse... it simply happened too much like a controlled demolition. Think about it. The odds of simultaneous failures resulting in a near free fall of a 47 story building are enormous. Regardless of the damage the building has suffered. Consider then that this is on the same day that the same thing has happened to two 110 story buildings just across the way... truly defines the word incredible.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Why do people keep using this term "pulled"? The assertion that "pull" is industry slang for demolition is a myth.
Anyone that knows about firefighters knows thats a common term used by them "Pull it" means “PULL” the operations out…Exactly what firefighters did at WTC7, Ask any firefighter.

Prove it. Prove to us once and for all "pull it" means "pull out".

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."

If it meant evacuate why were there still people in the building when it came down?

'Weaver: "We lost Craig Miller, an employee that we still can’t find his body has never been recovered. People here are still grief stricken." (first quarter, 2002)

Steve Carey – SS special agent in charge or recreating task force.

"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished, and the entire Secret Service office was buried in that building. Yet, despite the devastation, the New York Electronic Crime Task Force has stepped up its operations in credit card fraud and for Osama Bin Laden's money"

"We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that morning, "and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

www.prisonplanet.com...

How did they know it was going to collapse?

What is the owner of the building doing telling the NYPD what to do?

When is a fire team refered to as it?

Spider man

Now I'm beggining to understand

[edit on 27/3/2006 by ANOK]