9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

[kevin]

Right again. The taller the building, the beefer the lower framework.

and the taller the building the more energy the upper floors gain as they fall through all that height and hit the beefier lower framework. and the more mass (and therefore energy) it has when it strikes the beefier framework.

frameworks in buildings are designed to keep buildings standing in place, not have massive weights dropped on them. Nor are they designed to have many of their columns completely severed by a plane going through them, then severely heated by fire.

 

[kevin]

the fact that wtc7 looks like a CD?

There are only so many ways a building can fall if it's supports fail. Gravity pretty much only pulls one way.

If the lower structure of WTC 7 was damaged by non-explosive means and then failed how would the video of the collapse be different?

 

[Trifikas]

Geez, I just noticed that it was my Dad's old company that did the Architecture on it.

Wierd. It was my dad (and his company) who put the fire alarm system in the building...next to it.

But there you go, C7, - The building was not rebuilt with the same steel.

but at this point, can we all agree the "No steel high-rise building has collapsed due to fire..." Argument doesn't really mean anything with respect to 9/11? Between the fact that it's not technicaly true (See prior examples), and that the WTC buildings had structural damage as well as fire, The argument is not really valid.

 

[kevin]

Um... for fire safety. Not for structural integrity. It lacked sprinklers and insulation on the steel.

WTC 7 had no fire proofing on the steel? Wow, they're lucky they never had a regular office fire around the steel supports. Even that could've done some damage.

 

[Mancman]

WTC 7 had no fire proofing on the steel? Wow, they're lucky they never had a regular office fire around the steel supports. Even that could've done some damage.

I think gumboot was referring to the Kader factory fire. Though WTC7 apparently had no fireproofing in mechanical levels around the cantilever trusses.

 

[gumboot]

I think gumboot was referring to the Kader factory fire. Though WTC7 apparently had no fireproofing in mechanical levels around the cantilever trusses.

Having said that, I read somewhere that in a fire inspection prior to 9/11 the floor of WTC7 with the diesel tank on it was found to be well below spec - with no sprinklers and significant amounts of exposed steel where the fireproofing had come off.

-Andrew

 

[kevin]

Having said that, I read somewhere that in a fire inspection prior to 9/11 the floor of WTC7 with the diesel tank on it was found to be well below spec - with no sprinklers and significant amounts of exposed steel where the fireproofing had come off.

not sure on sprinklers (I doubt they had them, sprinkler coverage really wasn't being pushed by building codes until later in the 70's and 80's, at least here in the midwest) but WTC 1/2 also had significant amounts of exposed steel. Mainly in the floor joists. The NIST report has photos from building inspections where bare steel is visible. And that was just in the visible areas. Who knows what was going on behind the drywall on the columns.

 

[Mancman]

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/archive/nist_wtc7.html

"• In a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor framing above main lobby; possible repair not confirmed.
• A majority of the 5th floor was not protected by sprinkler systems, with the exception of mechanical space to east and office area to north side of building; no evidence of sprinklers in enclosures on 5th floor (also on floors 7, 8, and 9) which housed OEM generators and day tanks. Seventh floor generator room may have been sprinklered, conflicting data.
• Two of the three sprinkler risers which were located next to stairs (#1 and #2) on the west side of the building transferred towards center on the 5th floor along with stairs.
• Sprinkler systems on floors 1 through 20 were supplied directly from the city distribution system through an automatic pump located on the 1st floor; water supply could be interrupted by loss of power to fire pump or significant damage to underground city main in vicinity of building."

 

[Woody-]

Time to take on this "it looked like a controlled demolition" fallacy

I did a quick search on youtube and google videos and found some clips of different CD events.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153

This one is probably the closest to what we saw in WTC7, it is the landmark tower in Fort Worth. It does fall in a very small area but besides that not much is the same. First of all you can hear numerous explosions going off before the collapse starts, then when the main charges go off their is a huge explosion at the base. Neither of these was observed at WTC7. Also you can see the building breaking into smaller sections as it falls.

Here are some others

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4616350698094286697
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7185526538684391362
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2451439718308727518
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8022906563501761454
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR7sTc0ghY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85gFpJqRQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oASHTpbTeUw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1YfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdiDV3MF1k

Besides the fact you cant find any example of a building being blown up from the top down there are two things that really stand out. First, in all the videos with sound you can hear numerous small distinct explosions going off before the main charge. Second, in nearly all cases the building is brought down in sections, not in one big piece.

Of course both of those things are the very reason that they call it a "Controlled" demolition. They use the small charges to weaken the building in key spots so when they fire the main charges it will break up and fall where they want it to.

This brings me to another point, controlled demolition does not mean "drop in its own footprint". Several of those videos show buildings falling over instead of down, the "control" part is getting it to fall in the direction you want.

 

[pgwenthold]

Time to take on this "it looked like a controlled demolition" fallacy

In terms of how the building falls, I think WTC7 at least looks more like a CD than the other towers, which do not resemble buildings falling by CD in any way.

Of course, calling WTC7 a CD has its own problems, most importantly, as you note, the lack of explosives or even testimony that suggests there were explosions (like we hear about the other towers). Meanwhile, the fact that the building falling due to structural damage was predicted hours before it occured is fairly good confirmation that it fell due to damage.

There is, of course, the other problem, which is why they would coverup a CD of WTC7. They didn't hide their CD of the other WTC buildings that were damaged. Why not just destroy WTC7 as part of the cleanup?

This brings me to another point, controlled demolition does not mean "drop in its own footprint". Several of those videos show buildings falling over instead of down, the "control" part is getting it to fall in the direction you want.

It's a lot cheaper and easier to just tip a building over and have it smash than to pulverize it all at once, that is for sure.

 

[pgwenthold]

I want to repost this so it doesn't get lost. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Talk about an argument that recoils. It shows just the level of thoughtlessness that goes into the CT argument.

Christopher7 wrote:

How about the molten metal in the basement ...

Show me a CD that produced molten metal in a basement. Just one will do. Thanks.

 

[T.A.M.]

the following is not my belief, I am a Debunker, but to play devils advocate, this is how the CTers will reply to your posts...

CTer:
Yes, what you say may be true, but that is why the govt used Thermite, which does not emitt loud detonation sounds when it cuts the steel. Thermite is also the reason for the molten steel. Professor Steven Jones has done experiments which conclusively show the presence of Thermite in the WTC rubble.

Of course the above is Shaite, incorrect unprovable nonsense, but it is how they will answer you...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

the following is not my belief, I am a Debunker, but to play devils advocate, this is how the CTers will reply to your posts...

CTer:
Yes, what you say may be true, but that is why the govt used Thermite, which does not emitt loud detonation sounds when it cuts the steel. Thermite is also the reason for the molten steel. Professor Steven Jones has done experiments which conclusively show the presence of Thermite in the WTC rubble.

Of course the above is Shaite, incorrect unprovable nonsense, but it is how they will answer you...

Once again highlighting the frustration of having to use pages and pages of real science to debunk one good soundbite that is full of woo.

 

[pgwenthold]

the following is not my belief, I am a Debunker, but to play devils advocate, this is how the CTers will reply to your posts...

CTer:
Yes, what you say may be true, but that is why the govt used Thermite, which does not emitt loud detonation sounds when it cuts the steel. Thermite is also the reason for the molten steel. Professor Steven Jones has done experiments which conclusively show the presence of Thermite in the WTC rubble.

Of course the above is Shaite, incorrect unprovable nonsense, but it is how they will answer you...

It's the old "It was a CD unlike any other CD ever done" argument.

 

[T.A.M.]

Exactly...oh, and the CTer would have gone on to their latest, which is that the Thermite was set at every level, and they had a remote control, so that they could set off the Thermite at the very level the planes hit first...that is why it doesn't look like a standard CD...

 

[Pardalis]

Time to take on this "it looked like a controlled demolition" fallacy

I did a quick search on youtube and google videos and found some clips of different CD events.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4616350698094286697
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7185526538684391362
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2451439718308727518
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8022906563501761454
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR7sTc0ghY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85gFpJqRQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oASHTpbTeUw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1YfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdiDV3MF1k

Dang, these are cool to watch, especially when you know nobody is in them.

 

[Sentinel]

The north tower collapse

Chief picciotto states that collapse started around the 6th floor.




Sentinel

 

[Gravy]

Sentinel, shouldn't you have more respect for the truth than that? Piccioto was in the stairwell between 6 & 7 when the tower collapsed around him, Ladder 6, and Josephine Harris. He doesn't think the collapse started there, for chrissakes. Get a grip.

 

[Christopher7]

In post 125 pg 4 Gravy posted a picture of a section of wtc7 framework pointing out where it sheared off.
Since steel bends and doesen't just break off, these beams must have been cut.

Here's a closeup of a beam behind the above mentoind framework section.
If you enlarge and center on the large hole in the Vorizon bldg. you can see this beam behind the framework section.

DanielsNews, wtc7, 9/11 and after, beam closeup

 

[LashL]

What's the deal with Sentinel here, if I may ask? Having skimmed through the thread, it's not clear to me.

(I hope this query does not violate any rules, I'm just genuinely curious but can't make heads nor tails of it from skimming this thread and thought perhaps this would be an efficient way of cutting to the chase, as it were.)