BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

i can understand that the building might have collapsed due to damaged caused from falling debris and internal fires

but not in that fashion , and not that quickly.

it was identical to a controlled demolition.

the building had significant damage to one corner , then given the laws of physics this corner should have collapsed first.

you can show us all the bent government reports in the world

if it looks like sh*t , smells like sh*t then it is sh*t

Originally posted by XPhiles

Originally posted by tombangelta
this sound is from wtc 7

sounds like a explosive demolition, much like this one...

So, is that how WTC7 went down? Not like towers 1 + 2 which fell from the top down, but the bottom gave way?

And I'm not saying you are wrong, but maybe some video clips of successful demolitions would give a fairer comparison. Also, WTC7 was not in a wide open space like the second video so sound could travel differently.

On the other side, you hear two bangs from your first video, and one in the second. Could the second bang have just been an echo?

[edit on 28/2/2007 by Muppetus Galacticus]

funny how the second building didn't collapse even when the base was blown out completely , not just just on the corner.

and even then remained standing

Originally posted by tombangelta
i can understand that the building might have collapsed due to damaged caused from falling debris and internal fires

but not in that fashion , and not that quickly.

it was identical to a controlled demolition.

the building had significant damage to one corner , then given the laws of physics this corner should have collapsed first.

you can show us all the bent government reports in the world

if it looks like sh*t , smells like sh*t then it is sh*t

The science makes perfect sense. I don't know if you have had many physics classes or building studies classes or not but the truss failure on floors 5 and 7 do in fact explain it all very nicely.

Don't trust the report. Trust the science. Look at the plans yourself and do the science yourself. think for yourself. The fact is that you can't disprove with science that a truss failure wouldn't do this. And without other evidence of a demolition you can't say that the FEMA theory or the NIST theory or countless other theories don't work unless you have done the science.

this is why millions of people will not except this BS about these building falling at free fall speed.

IT JUST DOESNT HAPPEN

Originally posted by tombangelta
this is why millions of people will not except this BS about these building falling at free fall speed.

IT JUST DOESNT HAPPEN

It's just a shame so many believe the official story when it is so flawed.

Originally posted by tombangelta
this is why millions of people will not except this BS about these building falling at free fall speed.

IT JUST DOESNT HAPPEN

Is the building suppose to go sideways naturally? Don't be mad if not enough evidence of supposed demolition.





[edit on 28-2-2007 by deltaboy]

NIST report in 5 steps

One vertical collapsed, causing...umm....all the other verticals to collapse, in a smooth and rapid succession. So now on top of the pancake theory, we've got the domino theory.

My they certainly don't build em like they used to.

And those diagrams are rubbish. Shouldnt they have some mechanical physics, some vectors and forces? What are they trying to do, structural engineering for dummies? Lazy at best.

Originally posted by Identified

But a normal conclusion on that day would have been it collapsed because of the well-reported FIRE or from another ATTACK!

50/50.

a fire is a fire, a collapse is something distinctly different if you haven't noticed already. i wonder why people would equate fire with collapse when only three heavily disputed examples are known which happened the same day to boot and under the same questionable circumstances.

what i don't really get is how one can prossibly try to weasel your way out of reporting, in the past tense what, happened roughly half an hour later. if you say it (47 floors, salomon bros. building - no chance to talk yourself out of this one) has collapsed, i'd imagine they'd have needed some trigger of sorts - an event which could have been misunderstood. but no, the towers' collapses had happened hours ago, the rest remained (partially) standing.

if you are unwilling to get it, let me use another analogy, let's say a plane is reported missing and someone comes up with an accurate casualty figure and a description of the terrain where the plane went down and how - you'd get a visit, for sure.

PS: i'd love to know how you arrived at your 50/50 figure for guessing right. hint: try it next time you see a report of a burning highrise building and you'll see what i mean.

identified

i don't think we will ever agree on this point , hopefully further evidence will come to light.

unlike you i don't trust the government and that's probably were we differ.

Unfortunately the people who conduct the official reports are working for the government and vise verse.

so i don't trust them either.

if there had been a truly independent investigation into 911 we wouldn't be having this conversation now

Originally posted by tombangelta

Originally posted by Identified

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Identified]

why build rudy giuliani command bunker in that building then.

if it was such a badly designed building

I made that exact same point about two weeks ago in a different thread.
Its about anomaly 250 on a GROWING LIST.

Deltaboy.


What most people forget, choose to ignore or don't know about contolled demolition is it a science. So yes, if they wanted it to go sideways they would set it up to collapse sideways. It all depends on where the explosives were placed in the building and what support systems.

That is why I always shake my head when people say that the building fell like it was a controlled demolition and it couldn't be anything but controlled because of the way it fell. You can say that about any manner of buildings regardless of how they fell because it all depends on the manner of demolition.

I am still waiting for evidence that it was a demolition other than the way it fell and this BBC video sure didn't do anything to prove it.

And thanks for the videos.

on the flip side you provide evidence of another building falling in this manner from damage and fires

Originally posted by tombangelta
on the flip side you provide evidence of another building falling in this manner from damage and fires

They can't do that because no modern steel building has been brought down from fires.

Long Lance you are assuming an awful lot here.

Did the reporter at the BBC know what type of structure WTC 7 was? I doubt any but a few knew it was a steel framed building with cantilever transfer girders. In fact the didn't even know that looking right out the window was WTC 7 standing tall!

Most people would assume that uncontrolled fire = eventually structural failure and at the very least partial collapse. Comparing a highrise fire where fire-fighters are on the scene isn't the same. Watching a burning highrise with no attempt to stop it would be a better comparison here.

How they jumped to Collapse story so soon I don't know. Neither do you.

All I know is that 40 minutes before the BBC made their mistake they were most likely in reciept of the WTC 7 fire and evacuation report.

[offtopic]It's been reported that on many sites discussing this specific issue there are people disrupting the discussions and they are apparently saying the same things at each site.[/offtopic]

Originally posted by tombangelta
identified

i don't think we will ever agree on this point , hopefully further evidence will come to light.

unlike you i don't trust the government and that's probably were we differ.

Unfortunately the people who conduct the official reports are working for the government and vise verse.

so i don't trust them either.

if there had been a truly independent investigation into 911 we wouldn't be having this conversation now

I don't take anyone's word for anything without some of my own investigation but I also don't out and out dismiss a person simply because they are government or whatever.

That is fine tho. We don't have to agree on this. The subject was still interesting and informative.

Originally posted by tombangelta
on the flip side you provide evidence of another building falling in this manner from damage and fires

So you expect me to find another building that was steel frame built with cantilver transfer girders, that was near 50 stories tall, had tons of debris dumped on the top, had the bottom several floors crushed by tons of debris, had one corner demolished and fire burning on several floors for several hours and that fell in this same manner?

Lets just do the science rather than show and tell.

We know that the chances of finding an exact comparison are slim.

Even I've got caught up in this change of direction. A lot of what has been said lately has had nothing to do with the BBC video. I think this thread is officially off course!

Originally posted by r4758

Originally posted by tombangelta
on the flip side you provide evidence of another building falling in this manner from damage and fires

They can't do that because no modern steel building has been brought down from fires.

You are correct that no other steel frame building has been brought down by just fire. But then I and NIST and FEMA and many scientists didn't say that WTC 7 was brought down by just fire. And no one can tell me that the BBC knew what sort of builing WTC 7 was before they were reporting or what the ramifications of it being that sort of building on fire would be.