Command Bunker(Treefort) Building 7:Was this 9/11 Cockpit?

[eots]

the opening statemnt of the NIST wtc 7 report says that wtc 7 was the first steel framed building over 15 stories to ever collapse due to fire...but you like to pretend buildings still standing have actually collapsed

You know, I've seen DIRT smarter than you. Are you seriously so retarded you can't understand simple English? I am not disagreeing with the NIST report. I am saying structures UNDER fifteen stories have collapse purely due to fire. It is HARDER for a smaller structure to collapse than a larger structure because of the weights involved.

nice GUESS moron but its because over 15 stories requires much stricter building codes...and are MORE likely to collapse..lol...what a jerk off

As for the Windsor tower, the STEEL FRAMED portion of the building collapsed

.
The steel framed portion ? what was the rest framed with ? wood

Ten stories worth. Of course, you pretend that because the WHOLE didn't collapse that it is meaningless. Which is exactly what your claims are.... meaningless.

pieces of the structure failing is not a collapse...the building remained standing ...that is a simple fact

no you simpleton I am quoting NIST in its final briefing on wtc 7
where they stae the amount of explosives required to take out column 79 would haqve been as loud as a shot gun blast and no such sound was recorded or reported..so once again we have a debwunker that is in contradiction with the theory he claims to support

And like all truthtards, you leave out the critical facts. Explosives A HALF MILE AWAY would make the same sound as a shotgun blast shot right next to you. Did we hear that on any of the audio tapes? No. Not even close. Not even in the fake ones I've seen truthtards try and pass off.

And once again you leave out critical words that make your entire claim stand out as retarded. Why can't you add the part about half mile away in an urban setting?

idiot he is saying a sound shot gun blast could be head a mile away in a urban setting

I've heard a controlled demolition from about half a mile away. It was LOUD. There was no mistaking the explosives going off.

that would be a massive amount of explosive not the amount required to blow a column..try to focus

do wenhear that on any of the audio tapes? No.

a sound as loud as a shot gun blast? yes defiantly there were sounds that loud recorded and reported

So what has eots proven? That he has no clue how loud anything is.

so whats parrot 9/11 proven he has never read the final wtc7 report he claims to support and presents "evidence and facts" in contradiction with the findings of NIST

Wrong yet again, oh liar of liars. It is YOU who consistantly outright lies about what the NIST said. You pretend the blast at the point of origin would be as loud as a shotgun blast. That isn't what was said. Not even close. So you're a liar and incredibly dishonest. No shock there

that is exactly what they said.....

 

[Two Thumbs]

"This group mainly focused on counterterrorism."

Are you serious? Do you truly think that these men spent most of thier time talking about terrorism, before 9/11?

 

[eots]

Of course, as might be expected, the steel framed portion of the building collapsed. Gee.... who woulda thunk it?

As for fire ratings, here is the NYC code for buildings.[/QUOTE]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R6qGVZLT8[/ame]

 

[Obamerican]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7u22m9xlrq

as soon as i heard the voice of the narrator i knew this was a stupid video. Is that you on the audio, eots? It wouldn't surprise me.

I am working on another video now called Capt Obamerican..about a bugling "superhero" with incredible powers of denial...I just need a few more choice quotes from you to complete it and I will post it youtube soon

Hopefully it will stay on YouTube longer than the one we were talking about. Some of you "truthers" have a problem with not getting suspended from YouTube or pulling your videos. Why is that?

 

[Patriot911]

nice GUESS moron but its because over 15 stories requires much stricter building codes...and are MORE likely to collapse..lol...what a jerk off

So we are in agreement. Buildings over 15 stories are MORE likely to collapse. And keep your fantasies about me to yourself. You're a disgusting perv!

I've heard a controlled demolition from about half a mile away. It was LOUD. There was no mistaking the explosives going off.

that would be a massive amount of explosive not the amount required to blow a column..try to focus[/quote]
Well, like I already claimed, it is obvious you've never been to a controlled demolition. It isn't one big bang and then it's done. It is a whole series of explosions. And the quote from the NIST perfectly backs up what I observed first hand. Guess you STILL lose.

a sound as loud as a shot gun blast? yes defiantly there were sounds that loud recorded and reported

Again your inner retard is showing. There have been recordings where it sounds like a shotgun went off in the distance. What the NIST is talking about is like a shotgun going off RIGHT THERE. I have never heard such a recording.

Wrong yet again, oh liar of liars. It is YOU who consistantly outright lies about what the NIST said. You pretend the blast at the point of origin would be as loud as a shotgun blast. That isn't what was said. Not even close. So you're a liar and incredibly dishonest. No shock there

that is exactly what they said.....

OK. Since you insist that what you claimed is exactly what they said, I am going to have to once again make a fool out of you and prove you're nothing but a low life liar.

Verbatim from your video:

So assume that we actually can do that and as a result of that we have found that even the smallest charge would lead to an INCREDIBLY large sound half a mile away in an urban setting which would be as loud as a gun shot blast, as loud as a engine off a jet plane when it is flying, and ten times louder than being directly in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

The videos I have seen where you can hear an explosion are close to WTC 7. NONE of them were as far away as a half mile. Thus the sound should have been even LOUDER than a gun shot blast.

So tell us again how what you said is exactly what the NIST said.

 

[eots]

as soon as i heard the voice of the narrator i knew this was a stupid video. Is that you on the audio, eots? It wouldn't surprise me.

I am working on another video now called Capt Obamerican..about a bugling "superhero" with incredible powers of denial...I just need a few more choice quotes from you to complete it and I will post it youtube soon

Hopefully it will stay on YouTube longer than the one we were talking about. Some of you "truthers" have a problem with not getting suspended from YouTube or pulling your videos. Why is that?

uh... because you like making up little imaginings and pretend the are some how
a reflection of reality ?

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho&feature=related[/ame]

 

[eots]

if you are at all interested in reality

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg[/ame]

 

[creativedreams]

A very controversial Command Bunker was designed on the 23rd floor of Buiding 7.

This "Bunker" as described by the Press was highly criticized because of the cost of over $15 Million Dollars.

The 50,000 sq. ft. "Bunker" on the 23rd floor of WTC7 went through many construction renovations and upgrades putting in bulletproof windows, bomb resistant walls as well as its own air supply and back up generators.

This "Treefort" had rooms full of video monitors from where the Mayor could oversee City Emergency Planning.

This "Skybox" was staffed around the clock...

The Office of Emergency Management(OMC) was created by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in 1996 which he organized a team of High Ranking Emergency Officials from various agencies such as Police Department, Fire Department, FEMA, Port Authority, Counter Terrorism, Etc.

This new emergency group had their "Skybox" officially open in June 8, 1999.

This group mainly focused on counterterrorism.

This "Treefort" was greatly ridiculed for its cost, location, and other various reasons.

The Press dubbed it names such as "Bunker", "Skybox", "Treefort", etc.

Time Author Philip Shenon: "seemed the supreme example of how Guiliani's ego and arrogance knew no bounds"

WABC Radio mocked Guiliani with a "Name-That-Bunker" contest for its listeners.

This "Treefort" was highly criticized not only for its massive cost but also for its location right next to one of America's biggest terrorist targets the WTC Twin Towers.

In addition it was criticized for the high floor it was on making it vulnerable to power, water, and elevator outages.

Perhaps most controversial was the 6,000 gallon fuel tank placed in the building.

In 1998 & 1999, Fire Department Officials warned that the tank violated City Fire Codes and poses a hazard. According to one Fire Dept Memorandum, "if the tank were to leak or catch fire it would mean disaster".

The 6,000 gallon fuel tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor between the 2nd and 3rd floors and was near several lobby elevators.

This large tank of fuel was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd floor "Treefort" in the event of power failure.

Rudolph ("Rudy") Giuliani[/

Another good old thread...

 

[Freewill]

EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7) - YouTube

Hmmm, 9/11 wasn't a small office fire so what is the point?

 

[Freewill]

Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire

 

[creativedreams]

EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7) - YouTube

Hmmm, 9/11 wasn't a small office fire so what is the point?

Guess demolition companies would save billions in research and costs to bring down buildings into their own footprints...through their own vertical support columns on every level...by simply stacking a campfire next to one or two supports......

Building 7 was a block long building that had opposite ends of the block long building fall at the same time...

The top floor hit the ground almost as fast as a bowling ball would have if dropped right beside it...

Even though the top floor had to crush its way all the way down through its vertical support columns that were fastened and welded all the way up....

Not to mention the vertical support columns were tapered to be thicker and stronger as they go down.......

 

[Two Thumbs]

you'd think after this long, truthers would see that scientist have proven, multiple times that everything that went down has a logical explanation.

I get it, don't trust the government

but for fucks sake

 

[whitehall]

The first attack on the World Trade Center came in the first year of the Clinton administration. Evidence linked the 9-11 terrorists to the original bombers. President Clinton authorized the US Military to obliterate a defenseless country,in Europe Yugoslavia, while terrorists were attending flight school in the US. Clinton's Attorney General ordered the FBI not to exchange information with the the CIA prior to the 9-11 attack. Are you lefties sure you want to go down this path?

 

[Freewill]

EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7) - YouTube

Hmmm, 9/11 wasn't a small office fire so what is the point?

Guess demolition companies would save billions in research and costs to bring down buildings into their own footprints...through their own vertical support columns on every level...by simply stacking a campfire next to one or two supports......

Building 7 was a block long building that had opposite ends of the block long building fall at the same time...

The top floor hit the ground almost as fast as a bowling ball would have if dropped right beside it...

Even though the top floor had to crush its way all the way down through its vertical support columns that were fastened and welded all the way up....

Not to mention the vertical support columns were tapered to be thicker and stronger as they go down.......

How fast should the building have fallen?

When did the charges get planted without anyone even noticing?

How cold hearted do you really believe is our government to kill all those people by plan?

A link was provided concerning other building that have fallen due to fire. Does stuff like this happen often? Well not at all. We have two building struck by airplanes falling due to fire seems perfectly logical. WTC 7, fire fueled by diesel fuel again doesn't seem illogical. Are we to expect building not to fall due to fire? Or to topple over? Why?

 

[Freewill]

if you are at all interested in reality

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions - YouTube

What does a building sound like when it collapses? How many people know what an explosion sounds like?

 

[n0spam4me]

if you are at all interested in reality

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions - YouTube

What does a building sound like when it collapses? How many people know what an explosion sounds like?

When the BOOM was recorded, had the building started to fall yet?

or do you subscribe to the theory that specifies the magical gutting of the building
before the obvious falling of the North & West walls.

also, why should it be that the BOOM events are equally spaced in time?
6 detonations equally spaced in time. whats up with that?

 

[Freewill]

if you are at all interested in reality

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions - YouTube

What does a building sound like when it collapses? How many people know what an explosion sounds like?

When the BOOM was recorded, had the building started to fall yet?

or do you subscribe to the theory that specifies the magical gutting of the building
before the obvious falling of the North & West walls.

also, why should it be that the BOOM events are equally spaced in time?
6 detonations equally spaced in time. whats up with that?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[n0spam4me]

Quoted from the NIST propaganda page....

"Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"

Note that the building "collapsed" at free fall for 2.25 sec,
from the videos, we see the north & west walls descend,
and even if its ONLY the north & west wall, exclusive of anything else,
that still constitutes TONS of stuff to get ALL of the resistance kicked
out from under it and ALL at the same time to produce the observed result.

 

[Freewill]

From the above provided link:

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.