WTC7 - 20 story gash

Originally posted by Disclosed
Cutting beams to rescue people...does not equal planting explosives to bring down a 47 story building.

Where did i say explosives were planted ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No explosives then? You are saying zero explosives were used to bring WTC7 down?

Want to make sure i'm clear on what you are stating now..before I reply.



[edit on 4-4-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
No explosives then? You are saying zero explosives were used to bring WTC7 down?

You did not need explosives to bring down building 7. The type of constuction and it already having some damage would have made it easy to bring down other ways. Plus if thermite was used it would explain the molten steel in the basement and debris.

I've been thinking about this for just about 2 years now, and right when there's some little rustle of possible evidence surfacing to support the official story just enough for me to turn my head, I notice that the evidence always addresses usually only one aspect of the story, like some guy who analyzed the video and the photos, and by usuing a certain mathematical method, he's discovered some contortion of outer columns, or some guy who says that firefighters reported greater damage than was seen, or people misinterpretted pull or put for demolish or whatever...

the simple fact remains. How can uneven damage created from a supposedly very chaotic and unforetold event, create a record breaking building collapse that falls almost perfectly evenly straight down into itsself? How? You've seen buildings damaged by fire and bombs and earthquakes and whatnot collapse before some time in your life. They don't collapse evenly! If there was damage to that building, it should have fallen in accordance to where and how it was damaged. The weakest parts being within the area around the damage site, and being where the initial point of collapse began.

It's not rocket science. Really its's not. Everybody in the intelligence community thats's in the know about this must be literally HOLDING their breath, praying that all their cointelpro has tied up and confused any loose ends enough to a point where a dangerous majority can be kept a minority that's borderline trustworthy in the mainstream. As long as you can keep the issue off the pallet of the average citizen, you're cool.

So.... this issue needs to stop being about the specifics, which nobody really knows for sure so they can speculate and create theories that fit all they WANT. It needs to be about what's obvious about WTC7.

What was obvious about the collapse? It's obvious that the collapse was rather mysterious, and really deserved a thorough study. It's obvious that it has not been fully explained, and it's obvious that a full and thorough explanation has PURPOSELY been avoided.

That's enough for anyone who's willing to open their eyes and ears for just a bloody frickin' moment to see that the official explanation is a lie. Why does our country have to lie to us about who's attacking us and why, unless they are not fully innocent of crimes commited on that day. If the powers that be were not leading us somewhere, that would in normal circumstances be against our will, without our knowledge, they would eventually admit their mistakes.... not take advantage of the tragedy and loss and misfortune that lay in it's wake.

Everybody wants to argue about dotting of I's and crossing of T's. seven years later, we're all still arguing, and waiting for more flak to throw at the other side to show how wrong they are.

What do we agree upon with this scenario?

Maybe I should start my own thread, asking what everyone agrees was not right about what they say supposedly happened that day to those buildings and people. Although it would probably end in an argument over who agrees with who and how wrong they are. So nevermind.

Really, the problem lies within apathy. The problem is "How do we keep people caring about what happened seven years ago, when people have a hard time even caring about best friends they had seven years ago, when people are more worried about how much fake money and fake wealth tomorrow will not really bring them?"

The problem is that you aren't gunna affect change by shouting endlessly about September 11th. You've gotta remind people about what it means to be a part of the animal kingdom living here ALL TOGETHER on this one little dustball that's managed to spawn into a giant living organism.

In order to remind people of this togetherness, we've gotta start finding common ground about all things. If this site wants to actually make some progress finding out the truth, then we all need to start agreeing more often. What can we agree about???

(I do notice than 9/11 debunkers have a hard time keeping ground in the WTC7 threads... hmmm I wonder why. Kind of hard to prove the behaviour of gravity wrong, I guess. I just wish 9/11 debunkers were a little more open minded, and more willing to agree.)

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You did not need explosives to bring down building 7. The type of constuction and it already having some damage would have made it easy to bring down other ways. Plus if thermite was used it would explain the molten steel in the basement and debris.

So how did the demolitions teams bring the building down then? Remote controlled thermite cutting devices?

Why bother hiding this? If the building was structurally unsound, and was dangerous....why not say it was brought down by a demolitions team? What is to gain by not telling the truth?

I would think the demo teams would be heroes....going into an unsafe burning building, which endangered other structures, cutting steel beams with thermite devices, and bringing the building down without loss of life.

Sounds heroic to me.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
So how did the demolitions teams bring the building down then? Remote controlled thermite cutting devices?

Yes, there are chemical and thermite beam cutters.

besides any of this, do you believe this type of damage is possible from a falling antenna that fell south? I am starting to think perhaps this line of damage was infact because a fuel line in the building exploded. This would make sense.



Fuel line went boom? Could anyone find out if the EMS emergency back line was located down this column? And also, what sort of fuel would we expect to find in it?

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Fuel line went boom? Could anyone find out if the EMS emergency back line was located down this column? And also, what sort of fuel would we expect to find in it?

The EPA recovered all the fuel in the Silverstein tanks, stating because they recovered it all there was no fire on the ground floor.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

This stuff is rather intriguing. Listen to what the fire chiefs on the scene said that saw this gash in 7.

Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer:

It had some damage to it but nothing like what they're saying...nothing to account for what we saw. I am shocked at the story we've heard about it, to be quite honest.

I believe he is shocked because the reports of the damage were so down played.

2. Captain Chris Boyle:

Boyle:"...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building"

Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

So as well as the images we have a few firefighters on the scene who actually got to inspect the damage to the south facade of 7 and describe this hole.

www.studyof911.com...

Might have to look up some more reports from people at the scene, I am sure there are plenty more.

However on that site I referenced above there is not one single picture showing the extend of damage to the south facade, the only one they have is cropped. Why is this? Whitewash of the damage and down playing it as something its not it seems.

I really want to rationalize this damage, but can't see as how falling debris would cut it like this so perfectly. If it were a fuelline running down the inside of the building that may explain it. Perhaps explosives also, but it looks so neat.

Do you think if a steel beam some how got wedged inbetween 7 and the towers on its way down that may do it? Also, can anyone tell me where exactly they found the antenna?

Well the FEMA report has reports from firemen saying 10 floors were damaged.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well the FEMA report has reports from firemen saying 10 floors were damaged.

Fema also says the following floors were damaged prior to the collapse:
8 to 20, 24, 25 and 39-46.

Sounds like a lot of damage. Photographic evidence was presented as well to document that damage.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, there are chemical and thermite beam cutters.

That wasnt my question. Are the operated by remote control?

Plus you dodged my question aout why they would need to hide this fact? After all, this courageous demolition team, going into a burning building to keep it from falling on other structures, should be praised as heroes.


[edit on 4-4-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


I believe if you look up regulations, fire marshalls and fire chiefs have the authority to demo buildings. Specailly if they believe its going to casue damage or loss of life.

Demo buildings? You do not know what you are talking about? They would let a building burn because of safety of the firefighters.

Please point out where the regulations are that you speak of. And while your at it, were you going to respond to my posts. You have cherry picked the Silverstein quote to death and still didn't get that right.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by Disclosed
I would think the demo teams would be heroes....going into an unsafe burning building, which endangered other structures, cutting steel beams with thermite devices, and bringing the building down without loss of life.

Sounds heroic to me.

You are assuming that a demo team could be assembled along with the correct types / amounts of explosives needed, placement of charges throughout, detonation timing established, miles of detonation wiring installed throughout all floors (several of which were burning at the time), all within the space of hours?

Perhaps in a movie. This building came down with picture perfect precision. Not a few haphazardly placed charges to "knock it over". The amount of effort and planning required to drop a building of this size with such precision would have been immense.

Obviously, you are open to the possibility that charges "may" have been used. You just need to accept that if so, they would have needed to be placed in advance of 9/11.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The EPA recovered all the fuel in the Silverstein tanks, stating because they recovered it all there was no fire on the ground floor.

But that's not the whole story and all the fuel in the building was not recovered.
What about the Salomon Brothers 2 x 6000 gallon tanks that were found empty and damaged but no sign that the fuel had leaked out of them - the silt and clay around and under those tanks was studied and the fuel simply wasn't there even though those tanks were maintained full at all times.

That's at least 12000 gallons of diesel plus the contents of all the 'day tanks' on the upper floors that could only have been consumed within the building before and after the building collapsed.

The longest fuel line only ran up to the 9th floor (Ambassador system)

Originally posted by Pilgrum
But that's not the whole story and all the fuel in the building was not recovered.

www.wtc7.net...

However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7. It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

The biggest majority of the fuel was recovered, and since the missing fuel was from underground tanks its safe to say the fuel probably leaked into ground.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I notice you are avoiding my questions. I'm guessing you have no reason why the fire dept just didnt say "we had a demolition bring down the building for safety reasons".

After all....no other building had ever collapsed befoe due to fire. Why demo it then....then cover it up?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The biggest majority of the fuel was recovered, and since the missing fuel was from underground tanks its safe to say the fuel probably leaked into ground.

From Dr. S. Shyam Sunder's testimony before NYC Council 12/8/06

NIST reviewed the report of an environmental contractor hired in the months after the collapse of WTC 7 to recover remaining fuel and mitigate any environmental damage from the second system’s two 6,000 gal tanks. The tanks were damaged and appeared to be empty and the report stated that neither the underground storage tanks nor their associated piping contained any residual petroleum product. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either underground storage tank. Evidence suggests that this fuel did not leak into the underground soil and contaminate it, and, therefore, could have been consumed in the building.

12000 gallons plus the contents of the 'day tanks' on upper floors were not recovered. The day tanks had overflow pans so their fuel would not have been released until the building collapsed. Also the 100000+ gallons of mineral oil in the transformers on site was not recovered. That's more than 10 times the estimated liquid fuel introduced to the each large tower by impacting aircraft.

Just in case there's any suggestion of fuel being in short supply there...

[edit on 5/4/2008 by Pilgrum]

[edit on 5/4/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Disclosed
I notice you are avoiding my questions. I'm guessing you have no reason why the fire dept just didnt say "we had a demolition bring down the building for safety reasons".

I have answered your questions, you just do not want to exept them or do the research to see that i have answered them.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The day tanks had overflow pans so their fuel would not have been released until the building collapsed.

So the fuel was emptied after the buidlings collapsed and not burned off in the fire ? Thier were reports also that the fuel was run out through the pumps that were still running before and during the collapse.

Except for the larger amounts that were recovered by the EPA.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]