WTC 7 Collapse Due To Fire Only.

Every time I talk to a "official report believer" about how the WTC 7 tower collapsed, I always get the same result. They claim that it wasn't just fires that brought down WTC 7, but damage from the falling debris of WTC 1 and 2 as well.

They claim with absolute certainty that no where does it ever state that WTC 7 came down due to fire alone... well... eat this..

From FEMA them self, Chapter 5, IN THE INTRODUCTION!

www.fema.gov...

The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.

Well, what do you have to say about that?

The impact damage to WTC7 couldn't have caused it more damage than the planes caused the towers, and the planes caused relatively small amounts of actual structural damage. This is all according to other people, engineers, working under the common assumptions (ie, it had to be fire and damage only).

I don't get why people can't realize impact damage + fire doesn't automatically = WTC7's collapse. You don't just solve all its collapse problems by throwing in some columns hitting one side of it. But that's what people try to do.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't get why people can't realize impact damage + fire doesn't automatically = WTC7's collapse. You don't just solve all its collapse problems by throwing in some columns hitting one side of it. But that's what people try to do.

Because they're in denial? I see it everyday on here, usually from the same people we all know and love (to hate, er.. debate), telling us the damage was substantial and using quotes from NYFD and NYPD to back them up from what they saw at ground level. However, I have yet to see a spire falling onto WTC7 and leaving this "gaping gash" from the top-front of the building's facade and down as some like to state, you'd think with all the videos of the towers collapsing we could see something like that.

I do, however, see a ton of black smoke, I see scattered fires on several floors, but I've NEVER seen this so called "substantial structural damage" from falling tower debris. I'm not saying that debilitating damage wasn't done, but debris falling along the face of a building, prompting fires to break out on floors left unchecked for hours does NOT cause a building to collapse like that. Why didn't the building just keep burning until the fires were starved? I'll tell you what, universal physics weren't the only thing that was defied that day, apparently temperature levels only present on the surface of the sun were present too, what else could have slowly melted away at support columns like the fires of WTC7 did?

Well, I dont understand why nobody has said anything about this?

The thing here is that *IF* the damage caused some structural failure then wouldn't it be logical for the building to have tipped toward the area that got the damage?

I mean if its the south where the 'cut' to the center columns happened, you figure it would tip toward that area.

The straight down collapse still makes no sense either way.

Originally posted by Connected
Every time I talk to a "official report believer" about how the WTC 7 tower collapsed, I always get the same result. They claim that it wasn't just fires that brought down WTC 7, but damage from the falling debris of WTC 1 and 2 as well.

They claim with absolute certainty that no where does it ever state that WTC 7 came down due to fire alone... well... eat this..

From FEMA them self, Chapter 5, IN THE INTRODUCTION!

www.fema.gov...

The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.

Well, what do you have to say about that?

Because that's where all the important documents on enron and worldcom were plus it's where they had their controll pannel (The one with all the swiches on it) You know the controll pannel for flipping the swiches inside the WTC 1 & 2, then they must of set a timer for building 7 because there was a countdown on the Police and Firemen's radio's.

Well, what do you have to say about that?

i say its true, the fire from the heat of the bombs strapped in side

I don't know if everyone has had a chance to see this video, but this about building 7 and it has some testimony that I haven't heard before, one interesting testimony I think was by some woman who heard the Firefighters telling her that they were going to bring down the building.

There are some very interesting shots of Building 7 in this I haven't seen before as well a few clips from different angles. Its well worth it.

Its not that long, about 15 minutes or so, but it gets to the point and I found it to be compelling.

WTC7-VIDEO

[edit on 20-3-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Connected
Every time I talk to a "official report believer" about how the WTC 7 tower collapsed, I always get the same result. They claim that it wasn't just fires that brought down WTC 7, but damage from the falling debris of WTC 1 and 2 as well.

They claim with absolute certainty that no where does it ever state that WTC 7 came down due to fire alone... well... eat this..

From FEMA them self, Chapter 5, IN THE INTRODUCTION!

www.fema.gov...

The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.

Well, what do you have to say about that?

Not my scene, just one note: "primarily" doesn't mean "alone." And their mention of damage, even as a seconary factor, shows there was damage. And we agree, there re photos of it. But was it bad enough? Well, FEMA doesn't seem to think so...

The thing I find interesting is that half of the entire WTC7 building facing the Twin Towers could have been utterly destroyed for all I care and I still don’t think it should have collapsed the way it did.

If it was severely damaged on one side, why on earth would it fall straight down into its footprint symmetrically? This is just beyond the explanation of any ‘natural collapse’.

I'm still a skeptic, and Y'know, something about the colapse theorizing seems off - perhaps all the theories that conflict, the utter certainty of many, etc, but I have to admit...

straight-down, uniform, symmetrical collapses at about freefall speed? Yeah, it would be a bit obvious, and that might be the point, but the physics - I'm no expert, but but how is that not a controlled demolition of some type? I've not seen a great argument from debunkers to counter this. "the building was mostly air" WTF? I'm not thinkin about the air parts here. It's the metal parts that hld the building up and they fail globally in response to localized damage and fires?

Maybe there was a good debunkng and I missed it. It's not really my scene.

I liked the Dutch contractor's reactions. Just to paraphrase:

Dutchman: Definately a CD.
Reporter: Are you sure?
D: Yes.
R: It was done the same day.
D: (incredulous look) Are you sure it was the same day?
R: Yes, 7 hours after the first two fell.
D: (doubting look) 7 hours?
R: Yes. How many people would it take?
D: 30-40 well trained men that would work in concert with one another.
R: Oh yeah and the building is still on fire.
D: (look of blank pondering) Very strange. I have no explaination for it.

Again we have jumpcut editing in the interview, so manipulation to fit an idea. Question now becomes, was it the news show with an preconcieved perspective or the producers of the documentry?

Again I paraphrased the interview but in the end the Dutch contractor is clearly starting to doubt what he first said and is looking to either affirm his first thought of CD by contemplating the effort and danger it would have took to pull it under those conditions or is deciding that is was a natural fall. But that is my thought of the video.

Here is where someone will chime in with "cantilever" or "transfer" truss failure. This is why the NIST drew the "orange blob of damage" so largely in their report. They needed to have damage to certain columns (72 and "transfer truss #2) in order to advance their theory that if only a few key columns were to fail that global collapse could result. You will notice the blob was drawn to BARELY envelop these key components. Then they go on and on about 79, 80 and 81 which are nowhere NEAR the damage. The even state that:

Massive size of columns 79, 80, and 81 appears to require severe
fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures

and

The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated
to have occurred with the failure of core columns

NO #? The building fell because the columns were knocked out by something? What a bunch of bull #.


After careful examination of the photographic evidence it is simple to show that their representation of the location and depth of the damage is exaggerated at best and totally falsified at worst. Beyond that, even if the "special" truss system were to fail, we would expect to see something like OKC where the front of the building would "hollow out" or the building collapse would follow a "rotational vector" towards the damaged columns... like a falling tree.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Pootie]

Page 38 of the NIST final report on WTC 7 has the funniest one liner of them all:

This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.

how many #ing qualifiers can the NIST use in one sentence?

"I drove my car, therefore there is a possibility that I may or may not have allowed my self to potentially exceed the speed limit."



This is science!

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Pootie]



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

I didn't try to circumvent the censor... I let it put in the # sign... Is this not OK?

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Ahabstar

D: (doubting look) 7 hours?
R: Yes. How many people would it take?
D: 30-40 well trained men that would work in concert with one another.
R: Oh yeah and the building is still on fire.
D: (look of blank pondering) Very strange. I have no explaination for it.

I think its funny when people think they rigged the building with explosives ON 911. They didn't. The building was rigged BEFORE 911.

WT7 was badly damaged on one particular corner. think it was the south side. but that doesn't account for how the building fell straight down with no corner starting to fall before the other.

has anybody got the news clip where the police had found something suspicious like a secondary explosives. i have only seen it once

Originally posted by tombangelta
WT7 was badly damaged on one particular corner. think it was the south side.

Check out this thread for a thorough investigation of the actual damage to the building: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do not know where to find the video you reference.

Just think; if a few fires can do the same job as weeks of planning and expensive demolitions - why not just set fire to old buildings? It'd save a lot of time and money.

Set fire to any concrete and steel building and after the fire has gone out the building will still be left standing.

NO STEEL FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE ALONE.

Prior to 9/11, no steel building had ever collapsed due to fire. WTC2, was on fire for less than an hour when it collapsed.

Isn’t it odd, the WTC collapsed after an hour, and the black smoke indicates that fire wasn’t even burning hot.

WTC7, another building near the twin towers, it had two isolated fires, this building also collapsed on 9/11, even though it was not hit with an airliner!

In Madrid A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid.

In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.

I love these people who whole heartedly believe the official story without question.
As pointed out in the previous post, no building in the history of steel buildings has ever colapsed due to fire alone. IE its not a very feasable idea.

I draw your attention to the picture below which shows the layout of the trade centre site. Now as you can clearly see, WTC7 stands a building appart from the twin towers and between two other buildings...





Now I draw your attention to the second picture which shows the site after the attacks...
As you can see, WTC7 is clearly marked again on the photo...





As mentioned earlier, fire alone is not enough to bring down a steel structure, which leaves only one option and that is damage from the destroyed towers.
Now would one of you believers of the official story please explain to me how WTC7 was detroyed by debris from the towers when the two buildings standing DIRECTLY either side of it remain untouched?

Peace out...
DarkUK