1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Wtc 7

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Debates' started by michaelr, Jun 8, 2007.

  1. michaelr

    michaelr New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Here not there
    Have you ever asked someone "what about WTC 7". I have and I usually get "what about it?". Ever ask people how many buildings fell at the WTC, I have and they usually say two. So here is my question to you, why did WTC7 collapse, and why is it not in the 9-11 cover up, whoops 9-11 commission report? I guess thats two questions, oh well.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm certainly not an engineer, so I'll leave it up to the experts:
    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    To some extent we really have to take the word of the firefighters who went
    in there and reported back that the building was in danger of collapse. They were inside. That almost makes the issue/resolution trivially self-evident: the fire fighters were afraid the fires would make it collapse - it collapsed - so the firefighters were probably right that it collapsed due to the fires.

    The sad thing is that without 100% undeniable proof of what happened, interviews, photos and the like will always be questioned and fuel the conspiracy theorists.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. michaelr

    michaelr New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Here not there
    Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report? How did the fires get so hot. Do you know that untill 9-11-01 a steel framed building never collapesed. 8 hours of fire, hell I've burnd my wood stove for 8 weeks, I still own it.
    [​IMG]This photo shows the First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles. Iklim Ltd. described the damage as follows: "In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans."
     
  4. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you didn't even bother to click the link?
     
  5. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Although not a main point, 7 WTC is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The reason it didn't get as much play is obvious: the building wasn't directly attacked on 9/11 and collapsed only as a result of the Towers collapsing.

    It wasn't just fire that brought down 7 WTC, it was also structural damage from falling debris. And anyway, I doubt your wood stove burns anywhere near as hot as jet fuel.

    Once again...no jet fuel involved. The Aon Center fire was an internal blaze that was neither as hot as the fires burning on 9/11 nor was it accompanied by massive amounts of falling debris.

    Modern buildings are built to withstand normal fires. They are not built to withstand airplanes hitting them, nor are they built to withstand having burning skyscrapers dropped on them. The collapse of 7 WTC is hardly surprising.

    As for watching the collapse itself, yes, it does resemble a controlled demolition. However, the videos that I can find of 7 WTC fail to capture a specific collapse point - that is, the floor where the structural damage was finally too much and the structure collapsed, resulting in the "free fall" of the building.

    Watch the videos of the Towers collapsing and, if you look closely enough, you can see which floor the collapse starts on. Look above that floor and you can see that the floors above the collapse remain intact as they fall. Were it possible to see that point in any of the 7 WTC videos we probably wouldn't be entertaining all these conspiracy theories about it.

    So, according the evidence videos presented, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by controlled demolition (and, in all fairness, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by fire and falling debris). So, let's look at the "W's" of the situation: When, where, what, why, who and how.

    When: Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to set up. Non load-baring walls are generally removed and charges have to be set into the walls on all floors - that's how they make sure the buildings fall straight. When did whoever was behind the "cover-up" have time to remove walls and set charges? Seems that there'd be a lot of people out there who would have seen it happening if it was going on for a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days, leading up to 9/11.

    Where: Pretty self-explanatory.

    What: Possibly the main debate: was it falling debris and fire that brought down 7 WTC or were explosives used in a controlled demolition?

    In order to get to the heart of the issue I went looking through a couple of Demolition websites. Here's a tidbit from Controlled Demolition, Inc, the people who brought down what remained of the Murrah Building after McVeigh's attack on it:

    In other words, in order to bring the building down safely, they needed to augment its weakened structure before imploding it. The same would have been true of 7 WTC - even if the contention that all the falling debris from the Towers wasn't enough to bring down 7 WTC, there still would have been significant structural damage to the building and they would have had to augment its structural integrity before attempting a controlled demolition. Otherwise it could not have been a controlled demolition.

    In addition, 7 WTC had a very strange structural makeup. The building was built on an old electrical substation that was designed with a foundation that would allow a building to be built on top of it someday.
    In other words, take out enough of floors 5-7 and you destabilize the base of the building.

    Why: Why would anyone conspire to destroy 7 WTC anyway? To examine this, we must look at two things: who benefits and who loses.

    First off, who was there? From Wikipedia:

    About what you'd expect from a large office building: financial institutions and a few government offices. A much more in-depth analysis than I have time for here would be required to really look into who our government might have had a grudge against on that list.

    What about benefits? If anyone knows of any beneficiaries of the collapse of 7 WTC I'd love to know who they are.

    Who: Another question that makes the controlled demolition theory a tough swallow: who did it? This applies to all facets of the theory. Who masterminded the whole thing? Who administered and organized the plot? Who set the charges and prepared the building for demolition? Who has been paid to present false evidence as true about the collapse? As the questions mount it becomes apparent that for the controlled demolition theory to be true there would have had to be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of conspirators involved.

    How:Refer to everything above. Everything from the unlikelihood of demolition experts assessing 7 WTC and setting it up for demolition without anyone noticing to the necessity of a strong structure not present in 7 WTC on 9/11 for demolition to the lack of a reason for destroying the building to the sheer size of the conspiracy were it true makes the controlled demolition theory extremely unlikely. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Remember, neither theory is fully proven - therefore it makes logical sense to go with the most logical, well-supported theory: 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11 as a result of falling debris and fire.
     
  6. Abraxis Axis

    Abraxis Axis New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ahhhh dont bother

    youll find the same brainwashing here you have found everywhere else


    blind support of the "official theory" and the same tired de-bunking website thats been around the world 876 time
     
  7. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    So did you just ignore everything I wrote above, or are you simply not open-minded enough to debate your beliefs?
     
  8. Abraxis Axis

    Abraxis Axis New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no such thing as debate here id call it Ambush
     
  9. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I've posted a number of things here about my views. If it's an invitation you need, here it is: Please discuss how and where the specific points I've raised are inaccurate. Cite examples where necessary. You may, if you wish, ask me to cite my sources, but that could take a while as there's a fairly long list.
     
  10. Abraxis Axis

    Abraxis Axis New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didnt say you were wrong anywhere did i?
     
  11. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    No. You didn't.

    Now, would you like to debate the points?
     
  12. Abraxis Axis

    Abraxis Axis New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually NO

    Im not wanting to "DEBATE" wtc7 or 9-11 I am more than willing to enter discussions about it but spare me the "DEBATE" side of it as i see no point in DEBATING something that the facts are still not set in stone

    I didnt place these posts in the DEBATES section? why must EVERYTHING here be a DEBATE? have you ever heard of political discussion?
     
  13. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Fine, discussion then. Are you going to respond to what I posted or not?
     
  14. Abraxis Axis

    Abraxis Axis New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    had to continue in another post
     
  15. Abraxis Axis

    Abraxis Axis New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    part two of the response

    I majorily disagree with your Hypothesis and your reasoning the LOGICAL way to look at this is what I wrote combined with what You wrote .let the readers read learn participate and decide on theyre own Im NOT forcing my ides on anyone nor am i saying im right and your wrong

    or vice versa there are FAR FAR to many UN-Answered questions to evein begin to come to a "Logical" conclusion
     

Share This Page