Should we just focus on Building 7?

a reply to: TheBolt

Whoops. You jumped into the middle of my replies to Zcust.

a reply to: soulwaxer

You expect me to read through that wall of crap… why?

And that is why you will never understand the truth behind the events of 9/11, you are not even going to look at the other side of the argument.

No problem. Glad it was useful. I find it at the very least gives some extremely reasonable doubt about the validity of the information the official story is based on. a reply to: Jchristopher5

a reply to: soulwaxer

No problem. Glad it was useful. Like you said, I find it at the very least gives some extremely reasonable doubt about the validity of the information the official story is based on.

I see. No problem. a reply to: cardinalfan0596

a reply to: Flatcoat

That thread is over 10,000 words long, you are going to need to do better than picking out one line if you want to debunk it.

I've read the whole thing and I'll start by saying that I appreciate how much effort it is to make a thread like that. I also say that I believe your sincerity of asking people to form their own opinion to a point. However, as you yourself said in one of your responses, each point could be individually debated for eternity so asking someone to debunk everything point by point is quite unfair. For this same reason I'll only give two generalities:

1)official story promoters, not all but generally. and you specifically, say that NIST has a theory that is the best so far so until someone else comes along with a better one I'm going to promote it. I always see conspiracy theorists responded to with "as you can see I've proven part of your theory wrong and therefore the whole thing easily falls apart, so I'm going to go with the official story thank you." Yet even though this conspiracy theorist has a solid argument against one point in the official story, because they can't debunk it all that must mean the whole thing is true. They can't have it both ways. My biggest problem with that is FEMA who was there that day and who did the initial report says things that were different than what appeared in the NIST report a few years later. Forget science for a second. They don't even agree on whether there was properly identified building 7 steel to analyze and use for the collapse models. To me that alone is enough to at least ask for another investigation. This isn't a point for controlled demolition. This is a point for incompetence in the investigation and a question of the validity of the information used to form a conclusion. Settling for the official story just because you don't see evidence for controlled demolition isn't good reasoning. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

2)people from both sides cite the damage to surrounding buildings as evidence. You yourself claim that "saying building 7 shouldn't have collapsed because no other buildings did implies that all fires are the same which isn't true" is not a bad point. The statement itself is true I think. But then to say that three buildings who had damage points at different locations, different amounts of fires, different types of damages, etc can fall the same way quite a stretch too. I'd like to see evidence that all the other buildings with partial collapses appear from the outside to stay perfectly in tact, then have all the partial collapse points give way at the exact same time in less than 20 seconds instead of gradually here and there. Are these the exact same buildings? No. But neither are 7 and the two towers.

My last generality has to do with firemen clearing out and believing the building is about to fall/blow up/pick your wording. Both sides have used this to prove their own arguments. My interpretation is that the fire department wasn't in on anything so them saying this is not evidence to me of prior or insider knowledge of any kind. It very well could be a legitimate assessment of the situation as they saw it. This also doesn't prove to me that the collapse as it happened was expected by them and a logical conclusion. If they had said "clear out, this building will fall very quickly, straight down and have a complete and total collapse" I'd buy that. I'm going to guess that they expected to see partial collapses and sections of the building fall or topple like they've seen at every other structural failure due to fire before this day.

Conclusion: I'm not fully sold on controlled demolition necessarily, but I've not seen enough to completely accept natural collapse.

reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

a reply to: TheBolt

Conclusion: I'm not fully sold on controlled demolition necessarily, but I've not seen enough to completely accept natural collapse.

Two points that conspiracy believers keep over looking about 7.

1. It was perched over top of a sub station. Not sitting on a typical foundation.
2. Structural steel loses 51% of it's strength at 500C.

a reply to: TheBolt

Well said. What are you opinions on how Building 6 collapsed from what you've read so far?

Simply put...if you beleive the Governments version of events you are a fool. We just had a hi rise burn in Mumbai.....it"s still standing. 5 frames of footage from the Pentagon....frames, not seconds. In most photos of pentagon you can readily count at least 11 cameras.....the most secure building in the USA....Yea...19 Arab terrorists did it for sure. But that's how America works......a wave of indignation thru the populace..gets those war drums a beating. Works each and every time. I dont fear Islam or Arabs....cant say as much for my own Government.

I'm afraid I don't understand.
1) the structure of 7 collapsed from the top or middle down from my understanding. Unless I'm missing something in this case the base would be irrelevant as it doesn't explain why the top of the building fell straight through the rest of the structure. Please expand on your first point so I can fully understand what you're implying.

2)I'm fully aware that steel can weaken. I don't need to know what temperature that happens at. I just need to know why the steel weakening in the case of building 7 was enough to cause the whole building to cave at once as opposed to every other example of a steel building fire. Other steel structures have weakened and partially collapsed and I don't think anyone has denied that, proving that it's an accepted fact that steel weakens at whatever temperature you want to suggest. This alone doesn't draw me to a conclusion of natural collapse.

a reply to: samkent

a reply to: TheBolt
The heaviest damage to 7 was at the base. FDNY reported that pieces of the building were falling off all afternoon. Everything about the collapse indicates that the failures occurred at the base of the building. More specifically, around the area where the building was perched above the substation. NIST, made an educated guess. And due to the lack of recording devices to record the specific sequence, that is all an investigation into 7 will be, an educated guess.

a reply to: openyourmind1262

Great! You had a highrise burn in Mumbai. Did an airliner crash into it? Did a building almost twice its height collapse into it?

a reply to: Philippines

A nearly 800 foot high section of WTC 1 fell and crushed the center of 6 as it was also carving a hole out of 7. Look at an overhead layout of the WTC site prior to 9/11. There is a direct line from 1, through 6, and into 7.

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
Simply put...if you beleive the Governments version of events you are a fool. We just had a hi rise burn in Mumbai.....it"s still standing. 5 frames of footage from the Pentagon....frames, not seconds. In most photos of pentagon you can readily count at least 11 cameras.....the most secure building in the USA....Yea...19 Arab terrorists did it for sure. But that's how America works......a wave of indignation thru the populace..gets those war drums a beating. Works each and every time. I dont fear Islam or Arabs....cant say as much for my own Government.

I guess I missed the evidence portion of this post. All I saw was hand waving and ad hominem, really.

I agree with you that it's an educated guess. I worry that the educated guess was only to determine one already accepted outcome instead of exploring options. Like I said I have an open mind so I'm willing to entertain the idea of a bottom up collapse although to be honest in all the papers and reports I've read this is the first I've heard of it(as far as natural collapse that is). Do you have anything to back your claim of the heaviest damage being at the base for me to consider? Another point against that is even NIST says that any inititial structural damage they considered played no relevant part in the eventual collapse. The fires eventually weakened what was still a sturdy structure. Since I'm not exactly convinced of anything else about that report I'm not quoting that as proof but It is a document toted by the official side and it doesn't support what you've told me. I also agree that everything about the collapse points to failures at or towards the base of the building. I'd love to know what your theory is on the cause of this damage to the base. It can't be the official story because they don't mention any such damage. If you don't believe explosives them you're bringing a new and very welcome option to consider. To clarify, are you proposing that damage from the debris of the other buildings caused enough damage at the base to promote a natural and total structural failure of building 7? reply to: cardinalfan0596

a reply to: TheBolt

There is an aerial photo of the SW corner of 7, after the collapse of 1. About halfway down, the damage starts, and where the view "disappears" behind the building next to 7, the damage extends past where the second vertical row of windows are, the corner is just....gone.
www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html &h=570&w=724&tbnid=7Odi0WZIjVNkLM:&zoom=1&docid=LVe6R5oSRXFJcM&hl=en&ei=bk7rVMrGMsOfgwTLkYDgCA&tbm=isch&ved=0CB4QMygAMAA

I really don't know enough about the other buildings to commit to anything to be honest. I just see the pictures and wonder how completely gutted frames were still standing and only suffered partial collapses when the others did not. What about you? a reply to: Philippines

The stupid thing is the most likely and biggest conspiracy might be that corners and costs were cut during construction meaning the buildings weren't up to spec.
I've always been annoyed that the material was shipped off (unless I'm wrong on that?) because it could have gone a long way to helping these stupid and increasingly pointless arguments. But if it was for an ulterior motive I'm pretty sure the most likely thing is something we know happens, covering up 'cost saving' so the money can go elsewhere.

Not comparing the failures themselves here to what happened on 9/11 obviously, but just pointing out construction failures where buildings fully or partially fail in what one would imagine are normal conditions:

Defective concrete caused collapse - Paris airport terminal - False flag?

The jury trial continues Monday in the Multnomah County lawsuit against the companies that installed faulty decking on the Morrison Bridge. - False flag?

Steel bolts break on Cheesegrater skyscraper, reveals British Land - False Flag?

Faulty foundation may be to blame for collapse - False flag?

Faulty soil analysis may be the cause - False flag?

Snow blamed for building collapse in Shortsville - False flag?

60 Evacuated After Partial Roof Collapse at New Hampshire Apartment Building - False flag?

Axiom building collapses, catches fire in Portland

More than 100 buildings damaged or collapsed in 2 weeks - Over 100 false flags?

Building collapse 'kills 13 men' as team of 50 worked on construction site in coastal village in Goa - False flag?

10 killed in South Korea building collapse at college retreat - False flag?

At least 44 dead in Nigeria church building collapse, official says - False flag?

At least 18 killed in Cairo building collapse - False flag?

a reply to: TheBolt

Like I said I have an open mind so I'm willing to entertain the idea of a bottom up collapse although to be honest in all the papers and reports I've read this is the first I've heard of it(as far as natural collapse that is). Do you have anything to back your claim of the heaviest damage being at the base for me to consider? Another point against that is even NIST says that any inititial structural damage they considered played no relevant part in the eventual collapse.

Since the bottom up support for the builds was perched over the sub station, if that support fails you will have a collapse at the bottom which has an appearance like CD.

No one denies the fires on the lower floors of 7. There's video of them.
The report says that thermal expansion cause floor framing and connections to buckle on one of the floors 12 - 14. That floor(s) fell to lower (weakened) floors. Which also failed. Those floors provided lateral support for beam 79 which buckled like a nail hit off center. This started the progressive collapse.

Yes there is a certain amount of speculation that went into the computer modeling for the collapse.
But there is zero proof to explosive charges being planted and set off.
I'll stick with the OS and computer model until someone PROVES explosives.