Wtc 7

michaelr

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
101
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.
 
Werbung:

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
So here is my question to you, why did WTC7 collapse

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.
 

michaelr

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Here not there
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.

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.
interstate_fire_lg.gif
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."
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report?

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.

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.

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.

interstate_fire_lg.gif
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."

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:

Preparation operations for the implosion were more sophisticated than those required for a "normal implosion operation." When a structure is imploded, the contractor relies on the structural integrity of the building being demolished to assist in the control of the fall of the structure. In the case of the Murrah Building, the structural integrity of the building had been compromised by the terrorist blast, therefore, reconstructive operations had to be conducted to augment the structural integrity of the building in order to control its fall away from the adjacent parking garage.

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.
The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a building covering a significantly larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built. Between floors 5 and 7, the building had a system of transfer trusses and girders to transfer load to the smaller-sized foundation.
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:

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq. ft. (64% of the building) including floors 28–45.[14][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft).[14] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft), and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft).[14] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group, Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[14] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared floor #25 with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as well as the bottom 6 floors and part of floor #7.[6][15]

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.
 

Abraxis Axis

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
241
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.

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
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
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

So did you just ignore everything I wrote above, or are you simply not open-minded enough to debate your beliefs?
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
no such thing as debate here id call it Ambush

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.
 

Abraxis Axis

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
241
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?
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
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?

Fine, discussion then. Are you going to respond to what I posted or not?
 

Abraxis Axis

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
241
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.
Th reason it didnt get the play is they DONT have an explanation as to why it fell. They have Theories but NONE of them have been proven Neither the NIST or FEMA had the official "REASON" that the building collapsed Both official entities issues INCONCLUSIVE statements concerning building seven


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.

ahhhh there it is that same smug matter of factly "dosent burn as hot as JET Fuel....as if Jet fuel contained some magical high powered Burning capability.....its KEROSENE chap ......plain ole KEROSENE refined a bit more than the stuff you buy in the stores for your heaters and lamps...........

A stablized fuel that has been dumbed down so that the average person can work with it without blowing themselves up. you could burn Kerosene in an oven for 6 months and it wont melt....what a completly misleading opinion you have shared with us


Structural damage you say? Apparently your unamware of the MANY physical attributes that were in building seven at the time of collapse? yes even damage as described would not have brought the building down the way it did....it MAY have came down..but not in the controlled manner that it did


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.
again KEROSENE do you have statistical evidence to support your opinions of the tempratures achieved in the 2 fires you are comparing? or are we dealing in conjecture and opinion? Kerosene needs PERFECT conditions to burn at temps consistent enough to do any real damage the towers did NOT have the "perfect"
qualities needed for this to occur

Not to mention that 75% to 80 % of the Jet Fuel was burned off in the initial fireballs.....and there was NO jet fuel involved at building 7 at all..there were THEORIES on how mauch diesel fuel may or may not have been present in Building seven.


You refer to "Massive amounts of falling debris" where may I ask have you come to this conclusion? there were NO REPORTS to corroborate your theory?there are Varying reports of structural damage ....but they are inconsistent at best . No conclusive evidence supports massive amounts of debris hit building seven



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.


apparently your also Unaware that the world trade centers were in FACT designed to withstand Impacts from commercial airliners much in the manner that they did. It has ben widely accepted by engineers associated with the towers that the general concensus was that they could withstand MULTIPLE hits from commercial aircraft and still stood.


No steel framed structure in history before 9-11 collapsed due to fire..this per fire engineering magazine yet on 9-11 3 buildingd had this happen? there have been several OTHER buildings that have burned HOTTER and far far longer that the towers and they did NOT collapse


Even the towers themselves have had LARGER HOTTER fires BURN FOR HOURS longer than the fires on 9-11. the fires in the towers couldnt have been so bad there many many live people standing in the gashes of the towers..some of them JUMPED due to the INTENSE SMOKE hat was being generated by plenum rated materials in the building as well as other plastics etc

there were NO LARGE fires for any sustained period of time on that morning......modern building are bult to withstand "Normal "fires you say? wow how naive is that statement? you are kidding of course right? what is considered a "Normal" fire? thats again a ludicrous assumption on your part in my opinion






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.

it resembles one becuase it was one. you have fireman and police on scene BEFORE the collapse MOVING PEOPLE back away from the building telling them its coming down any minute...............

videos of firefighters discussing it being brought down......the owner of the building ADMITTING that they brought it down in order to save lives ....

then you have the time involved in the collapse falling at free fall speeds



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.

very good you have watched closely........now watch closer the amazing thing?...right after what you describe you can see the explosions begin and you can clearly see the top portion right itself before vapourizing

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.

the only self explanatory part is the reported time of collapse 5:33 p.m. or close to that .....

but we have a reporter from BBC who claimed the building had already fallen when it was clearly still standing the backround....

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:

FUNNY Controlled demolition Inc.!!!! thats exactly who was RESPONSIBLE for bringing down the 3 buildings that day.............they were in charge of all post demolition and removal contracts at the WTC site they just Happened to be in new york the morning of 9-11

they as you mentioned ALSO had the demo and removal contracts at the Murrah Federal Building....a strtling co-incidence eh? the federal government used them becuase they are the BEST

they Invented and patented a system called DREXS demolition system in short here is how drexs works.......
you need a building demoed....the physical chrectereistics dictate that there is only enough room to use 36 foot trailers and dumps and there is only a 50 foot margin of error without damaging other structures


DREXS GUARANTEES that NOT ONE PIECE of DEBRIS will be LONGER than 36 feet........and NONE of the building will fall outside of the 50 foot window...all of the structure will fall in the footprint with all pieces 36 feet or less afterwards.....

they are also masters at WIRELESS demolition they are the PIONEERS of this technology...on my side of the coin it was the OWNER of this company that broke the story of MOLTEN pools of metal weeks after the collapse



it is NO coincidence this company was there afterwards to clean up the "mess" that THEY created....

had to continue in another post
 
Werbung:

Abraxis Axis

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
241
part two of the response

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.


this is all of course based on YOUR THEORY of severe structural damage....which has not at this time determined to be true...building seven as i mentin has many interesting factors in its engineering design and construction.....the ONLY way it fell like it did was by controlled demo not to mention the 6.5 second collapse time diveded by the 47 stories a free fall scenarion indicatin little to NO resistance during the collapse....

do some digging on Building seven and its design and engineering you will discover what i say is true ...as well it had the thickest steel beams ever used in abuildings construction as it straddled a com-ed substation that powered manhattan....the substation is still operational as well!!


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.
ahhh i see you have it partially correct the actual truth of the matter is that the building was built on a cantilever system that helped span the substation and loading dock areas it was also supported by beams sunk to the bedrock spaced throughout the docks and substation areas......what you mention is the INTERIOR design of the building ...it was DESIGNED to be able to REMOVE FLOORS and CHANGE its configuration WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE BUILDINGS ENGINEERING

in other words those floors were designed on PURPOSE to be able to be removed the Official theory sites as you try to imply that this somehow compromised the inegrity of the building.....when in fact it was ENGINEERED into the structure by design


as well the substation was not OLD it helped to power the downtown area as well as the towers it still exists AFTER the demo and removal of debris


Why: Why would anyone conspire to destroy 7 WTC anyway? To examine this, we must look at two things: who benefits and who loses.
why? one thing always rings true in our lifetime....follow the money!! if you follow it you can clearly see that ALL who were probably involved have profited WILDLY by the events that occurred that morning...lets not forget the insider trading that took place that day as well...Silverstien profitted wildy by the collapse of 3 buildings as well a few other tidbit many interesting tenants were in building seven including Gulianis "Command Bunker" Built to with stand Bomblasts Hurricane force wiind attacks by aircraft etc....all of the paper work for scooter libbys trial and the enron debacle were "STORE" in wtc 7............and quite possibly the entire demolition and attcaks were "orchestrated" from this "command bunker".....in short the whys are numerable to GIVE THE PNAC the fuel or the "New Pearl Harbor event" that they mentioned in theyre 2000 report on re-building americas defenses....to move forward with theyre agenda

to galvanize the American public into Unbridled patriotism and un questioning the erosion of ensuing rights......for an excuse to go into the middle east to create even more profit and take us closer to one world government

the question you ask here is LUDICROUS because i could type for the next 9 days and STILL not begin to cover the WHY aspect of this .........of course many of you KNOW this and that why you continually ask for the readers digest version which simply is impossible



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.

Building 7's short list of tenants consisted entirely of government and financial institutions.

* Financial institutions
o Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
o Standard Chartered Bank
o Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
o First State Management Group
o TT Hartford Insurance Group
o American Express Bank International
o National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
* Government agencies
o Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
o Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
o Department of Defense (DOD)
o Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
o Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
o US Secret Service
o Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

==============================


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.



many interesting facets are involved here as well........far too many to answer or begin to address in a single post in a message board.....but i can begin the process here.....as i say many facets start with who di the demo?


I as i have stated am in complete confidence in MY MIND that it was Controlled Demolition Inc.....who orchestrated the whole plan? In my opinion this is Work of the PNAC or the NWO whatever youd like to call them.. those promoting Global consitency in government and all other areas....thousands payed to be quite? no on the morning of 9-11 there convienintly were SEVERAL "Training exercises" happening some of which COMPLETLY MIMICKED the attacks from every aspect......

there was confusion in all levels of the operations as people wondered if they were real world ....or exercise ...
as well Chaney was "Acting CIC" during these ops from the underground bunker at the whitehouse.......the flase flag exercises were a MAJOR contributing factor to the silence most people who serve take theyre vows seriously and wouldnt speak openly any how

there have been people who have come out and said what they saw heard or knew.they are all ridiculed scorned and labled NON-AMERICANS

there were NO REAL SCIENTIFIC studies done at the collpase sites and the vast majority of the steel was shipped out of the country almost immediatly the investigators were only allowed a few beams and pieces to sample for theyre conclusions the whole damn thing STINKS the official theory is ROTTEN and only a FOLL in MY OPINION would buy into this CRAP they are feeding Americans

you all should be ASHAMED of yourselves patriotic americans.......BIG DEAL

be an American Patriot thats where its at .............Question what neds to be questioned STAND IN THE FACE OF TYRANNY let the insults and ridicule run off your backs....many are AFRAID of what they may find if the Questions were ever REALLY answered ITS A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW..............................

learn the difference between being a patriotic american or an American Patriot

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.

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
 
Top