The Improbable WTC 7 Collapse

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by D_Elijah_MorganWood, Oct 13, 2006.

  1. D_Elijah_MorganWood

    D_Elijah_MorganWood New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    6
    Last night I started thinking about the collapse of WTC 7, once again. Why? Perhaps the recent 5th anniversary of the WTC tragedy spurred my discontent. Perhaps it was a photo like this taken about two hours before the collapse:
    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar0602.jpg

    I never bought FEMA's inundation by fire explanation for the collapse of WTC 7. This building was a steel core structure. These types of buildings are built to withstand far more fire than WTC 7 experienced. Here are some pics of the fires:
    http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc7/wtc7_nypd2001.jpg
    http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_fire.jpg

    I've personally witnessed demolitions of buildings similar to WTC 7. This one went down in exactly the same fashion. Is it an unfathomable leap to believe WTC 7 was brought down by a few hours of fire which did not inundate a majority of the structure? I think so. Here are some examples of how buildings come down, including WTC 7. This one came down like a Vegas Casino making way for something newer and more ostentatious. :
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

    The new and improved 7 WTC was opened not long ago:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Wtc7_jan06.jpg/450px-Wtc7_jan06.jpg

    Check this building with the same design as WTC 7, standing after 2 days of fires, not just a few hours:
    http://judicial-inc.biz/Madrid_skyscraper.htm

    The infamous Popular Mechanics March 2005 article debunking any and all 9/11 conspiracy theorists (without naming a specific group) was a herculean swallowing feat. There were glaring omissions and slippery slope arguments. Read it here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

    The inevitable and expected backlash followed. I believe much of what's in the following article but by no means accept it's arguments wholeheartedly. See Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Truth rebuttal here:
    http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

    We've had many threads here reagarding 9/11 Conspiracy. My current thoughts are on this one piece of glaring evidence. No plane hit WTC 7. Steel core buildings can withstand monumental amounts of fire and heat. No building of this type has ever collapsed as a result of fire. Here's one more photo of the building at 3pm, just before the collapse. A picture is worth a thousand words:
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_3pm.jpg
     
  2. Simon9

    Simon9 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    98
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Princeton (NJ, US)
    Yeah, Sorcerer, for what it's worth I think the way all three WTC buidings went down defies logic. Some people can see it and some can't.

    But if burning jet fuel wasn't near hot enough to melt or even significantly weaken the steel frames of these buildings (and it wasn't by over 1000° at impact) , what did? WTC 7 wasn't even hit by aircraft. Tremors? Bad karma? An amazing coincidence? The towers were built to withstand the impact of a jet (so said one of WTC's chief designers who died on 9/11). So if it wasn't the impact and it wasn't the fire, what then?

    And that leads us down conspiracy lane and everybody knows it's booneyland mouth-breathing whack jobs who talk about conspiracies, right? No, no. Safer to believe the official version that Islamic fascists on their own conspired to do it. Yeah, I said conspired....
     
  3. dolf250

    dolf250 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Great White North
    I am of a split mind. There would seem to be evidence that blows holes in the “official” version. Yet I try not to think too hard about the alternative, because if true, it is far worse than any other conspiracy (JFK included) that has happened in history. How #7 collapsed is one question, but when you look at the pentagon it seems to look even more suspicious. I have been to various conspiracy websites on 9/11 and there are many open questions that do not seem to have an easy answer and if the government thinks that by not discussing it the groups will loose credibility they are wrong. By not giving explanations (if they can) it leaves us all (ar at least it leaves some of us) wondering.
     
  4. agnslz

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    14
    If explosives brought down WTC 7 then whomever did it needs to let the Loizeaux family (the family behind CDI, the company that has imploded most the old hotels in Las Vegas) know how to do something in less than a day that normally takes them months of preparation to do!:rolleyes:

    Also, the WTC towers were designed to sustain the impact of smaller aircraft traveling at much slower speed accidentally hitting into them. The planes that hit them on 9/11 were bigger, traveling at much faster speeds and intentionally aimed for and barreled into the buildings!

    Warning: Rant segment below!




    Lastly, why did Osama Bin Laden openly claim responsibility and talk jovially about a 'job well done' if HE and Al-Qaeda were not the ones responsible? Don't you think he out of anybody would like to expose the U.S. government for killing its own people?

    I hate George W. Bush as much as anybody but it's utter fuckin' nonsense to believe that he and our government had anything to do with planning, perpetrating or facilitating the terrorist acts of 9/11! No, it was Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the 19 bastard sons of bitches that hijacked four planes on 9/11 who are responsible for killing those people!
     
  5. D_alex8

    D_alex8 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    8,602
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Your comment supposes that WTC7 had not been rigged for demolition in advance of events. Some form of unexplained work indeed took place on the building after Larry Silverstein became its new owner and invested, specifically, in Insurance Against Terrorism (thus claiming $500 million after the 'collapse').

    In September 2002, Silverstein made the following statement (I have highlighted the final portion for stress):

    [source]
     
  6. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    The quote was taken out of context:

    (source)

    Incidentally, I'm neutral with regard to WTC 7 (and other aspects of 9/11). I cannot "just accept" the officially-sanctioned version of what happened, because I have justifiably lost confidence in the present administration's honesty. However, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and "conspiracy" sites like whatreallyhappened and 911review have not critically scrutinized the evidence. Evidence that supports their claims gets a "free pass", while evidence that refutes their claims is dismissed too quickly.
     
  7. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    You have forgotten they claim it to be faked, quoting any other conspiracy theorist, or digging out some "expert", who'll support them by saying anything for a small amount of bucks.

    One thing is that just because something looks like being professionally demolished, it doesn't have to be. Tall or large buildings are being demolished by exploding them in a way so they collapse rather than tipping over, because tipping over would litter some vast pieces of land with debris. A pile of debris, left over from a collapsed building saves a lot of space, especially if you don't have much free space around the building in question. Now to make a building collapse, the framework is exploded at the points that support most of its own weight, so it can't support itself any more. Now if that happens in the case of an accident, like a plane crashing into a building, you have just the same effect.

    A specialty of the WTC structures was that the floors and ceiling frames played a leading role in stabilizing the building and transferring the loads between the corner points, and the outer/inner structure. These frames were attached to the outer structure by braces, which were softened by the fires. So, eventually the ceilings would collapse, drop to the next below, and taking the stability from the building, causing the whole structure to give in and drop. So I don't really give a lot about conspiracy theorists talking about demolition charges hidden in the days before 9/11, it was just a flaw of the structural design.
     
  8. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    The vexing thing about 9/11 conspiracies is that individually, they can be accounted for as coincidence, bad luck, or naturally-occurring events that looked staged. Which is fine - shit does happen.

    But taken as a whole... it stretches the bounds of credibility to say that there isn't some kind of cover-up going on. Buildings don't fall by themselves. Explosions don't come out of nowhere. Planes don't disappear. Steel doesn't get hotter than the fire that "melted" it. And so on. If one or two of these things happened, I could accept the official/unofficial explanations. But as a whole... no way.
     
  9. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Same for me. I'm interested in facts. I'm not at all confident that all the pertinent facts about what happened (and their timelines) have been published.

    Given the lying that goes on, I'm loathe to uncritically accept the official version of events. The government has made chumps of us before. At the same time I do have a hard time believing that no one noticed or questioned teams of demolition experts rigging explosives in buildings beforehand

    :confused: :confused: .
     
  10. hungthickdc

    hungthickdc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Caribbean
    You can disect the "evidence" all you want. In my mind the simplest answer is usually the right one. I hear all this stupid talk about how it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon... where did the plane go? Blah blah blah... I lived in DC and worked in Arlington VA on 9/11 and personally watched the plane hit the Pentagon. I was in my car on the highway on my way to work. You can say all you want but I know what I saw! There are hundreds if not thousands like me that saw it happen... so when I see these web sites claiming it was a conspiracy and that it couldn't have been a plane... I just laugh... and it proves to me that these conspiracy theorists are idiots with too much spare time on their hands.
     
  11. fratpack

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    7,085
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    79
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    nyc
    I know what I saw that day.
    I know what I heard that day.
    I know what I smelled that day.
    This was not viewed from the safety of a living room watching televison or from a distance of another city or country. I lived and worked in that area. All those sights, sounds, smells, etc were all quite real. There is no real way to understand the intensity of that situation wihtout having been there. There is nothing to compare it. For myself, I cannot buy into any conspiracy theory. When they are still finding body parts and pieces of airplanes and pieces of other office buildings scattered throughout the World Trade Center area, I know in my heart of hearts what really happened that day.
     
  12. Dave NoCal

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,994
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    248
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sacramento (CA, US)
    A colleague's daughter is studying engineering at a prestigious university. She wrote her dad that they had been studying the WTC collapse. The consensus of the class was that it was a controlled demolition. She sent him a fifty, or so, page document examining the question from an engineer's standpoint, which he sent on to me. It's still in my e-mail at work if anyone is interested.

    What I think is interesting is that this question is moving beyond conspiracy websites to engineering departments at major universities.
     
  13. Rikter8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,488
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI
    It's good that the educated people in the world see that it was a controlled demolition, and realize that there's more to it than a terrorist plot.

    Whats sad is hard core republicans blind themselves from the truth to save face.

    The current administration, will do ANYTHING, even murder of thousands of people to get ahead of the game, and that's exactly what they intended to do, and succeeded.

    Until they are out of office completely the murders will continue (We're still in IRAQ for unknown reasons)
     
  14. JMeister

    JMeister Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    16
  15. hungthickdc

    hungthickdc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Caribbean
    I know I'm repeating myself... but here you are giving us a link to a site claiming this:

    Did a plane hit the Pentagon?
    Photographic evidence suggests not

    I saw the freakin' plane hit the freakin' building.... it's irrefutable. Why would I believe anything on that site when I saw with my own eyes what happened?
     
  16. WestSiderNYC

    WestSiderNYC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manhattan
    The new WTC 7 building looks good though. And they have FINALLY started construction on the other ones... soon the tourists who go down there en masse will have something to look at besides a big hole in the ground.

    The building people should be talking about is the shrouded, eyesore, shell of the DB building across the street from the WTC site. That SHOULD be demolished now, but it's so contaminated with toxic dust that they have to slowly dismantle it... piece by piece....
     
  17. agnslz

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    14
    Uh huh! So Larry Silverstein knew that terrorists were planning an attack on the WTC and decided he may as well help them and bring down ALL of the WTC complex?:confused: No, wait, Larry Silverstein was part of the whole conspiracy (for which Al-Qaeda had no part in) from the beginning. Along with the U.S. government, the Port Authority of NY and NJ, the city of New York and its police and fire agencies - who ALL decided that the loss of ordinary citizens not to mention even some of their own colleauges and friends, was worth the payoff they would get from insurance and the prize of a bigger, better, more profitable and lucrative WTC? That's it! No? Alright then, how 'bout this: They conspired to get rid of the old WTC to replace it with a smaller complex with less commercial space, that would take about five years to even agree on a plan for?:rolleyes: The Pentagon was blown up for dramatic effect, I guess. Oh yeah... they did all of this not just to make Larry Silverstein money, but to also blame Osama Bin Laden for it and start wars. Right?:eek: To quote the movie Clueless: "As if!" "I don't think sooo!":rolleyes:



    *wonders how long it will take for someone to call ME clueless now*:rolleyes:
     
  18. B_capslock

    B_capslock New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,038
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    rear view mirror!
    I think the shock of that day makes it hard for folks to accept the truth..that we were attack..and the severity of the attack...

    Folks say that those buildings were supposed to survive an airplane hit.. they did... For at least an hour... People say that a fire can't affects a steel building, that the fuel burned out in 10 mins or so. Look at the photos & videos.. epecially notice the difference between just minutes after the impact to seconds before collapse: The amount of fire engulfing the buildings by secondary fires is beyond belief. remember, these buildings housed tons of documents.. Tons.. All of that served as fuel... So you consider steel being compromised, even by just a percentage, over such a large area as evident by the fire, its starts putting into perespective the amount of comprimise there was to the structure.

    Folks comparing this fire to those of building which have survived their top floors being consumed did not put into consideration the impact damage from the planes. So the comparisons were not apples to apples.

    Impact damage, in relation to the design of the wtc structure, seems to be misunderstood by conspiracy theorist. Load bearing structures in the wtc were spread around its exterior, as opposed to interspersed throughout the internal structure.. which was mostly open office space. So load distribution, while wide, is accross the exterior of the building, not interior.

    considering that, look at the damage done by just the explosive force of the blast,.,,,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx7CZl89mWg
    Look at the camera facing side of the buildings... how its blown out after the plane impacts.. that was just from the explosive force, not impact but explosive force. So you take that into consideration in addition to the impact, and the damage is more severe.

    The collapse. Structureally buidings can withstand the potential force of their weight, but not kinetic. what collapsed that towers was the combination of the impact from the top floors with the design the structure. The wide are of floor space offered little protection from kinetic forces. With load bearing structures spread apart in wide areas of the building, as opposed to being distributed evenly, there wasn't much redundancy once the structure was compromised by the combination of impact damage, blast damage and fire damage. What you were seeing in the video is the top of the building plowing through the structure.. not just a collapse. Since the building was mostly air.. that air was being compressed and blown out through any openings.. like windows and vents throughout the lower portions. Folks in the north tower staircase when the south tower collapsed noted a gush of air going up the stairs.... thats how much air pressure there was..

    What I often see is that conspiracy theorist will try to disprove facts base on one variable, and not the others. i.e. That the fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel.. meanwhile they ignore the impact damage, blast damage and the fact that the steel ddin't need to melt, but be partially weakend in combination with the impact damage and the blast damage. They are too busy tryong to prove that the fired didn't collpase the buildings while ignoring everything else.

    Also, the internet doesn't help with the propagation of such misrepresented facts.

    WTC 7's biggest problem was the construction of the base. it was built around the coned building, distributing the load to just one side of the building. So imagine stand on just one foot.. thats how the building supported itself. look in this video at the gouge created by the collapse of the larger towers..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4
    Thats damage created by debris falling about 40 stories.. all steel and shaped like shards. And that command to pull? that was well understood to pull firefighters and support personel from the site.. not the "pull" demolition.. which I never heard before.
     
  19. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets
    I read it all, seems perfectly reasonable to me. I read all of the 9/11 Truth rebuttal as well, seemed poorly argued by comparison.
     
  20. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets
    Seriously. Jesus, look at that video... and the morons over at 9/11 Truth were actually claiming it was inconceivable that debris from the building could have been found 500 ft away without the assistance of explosives. 500 feet?? That's nothing. From 80 stories up?? Have any of these people taken a physics class?

    and buying insurance against terrorist attack for structures that had been previously targeted by terrorist attack multipe times seems... what's that word... oh yeah, reasonable?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted