new WTC7 video with the raging inferno.

Also, how much was tower 7 insured for by silverstein? i know he cleaned up a fair bit from tower 1 & 2 but havent heard of any payout on #7 yet.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

1. According to the firefighters who were actually there, the structural damage was more than the removal of "part of the outer face." You guys seem obsessed with the fires alone bringing down the building. Not sure why. Neither of the reports stated that.

You might want to read the FEMA report that quotes the firemen.

www.wtc7.net...

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree.

Also the WTC buildings have been the only steel buildings to collapse from fires and structural damage in about 30 years. Their have been steel buildings with as bad or worse structural damage and fires lasting longer then the 3 buildings at WTC and they did not collapse.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by bsbray11
By refusing to accept the validity of precedent and actual research, you're just making it impossible for anyone to reason with you.

Now you must be joking.

Precedent?

Precedent has nothing to do with an event that has never happened before.

But, hell, lets follow your logic there on the precedent factor.

No building the size of seven or especially one or two has ever been demolished with explosives.

According to your brilliant logic that makes it impossible,

Wow you just proved that all the buildings did not fall due to explosives. Well done.

Masi your pictures are simplistic and have nothing to do with what actually happened to seven. According to the official report the damage that really hurt the structural integrity of the building was on the lower floors.

Buildings never fell to fire alone huh?

Thats great, however that does not apply to building seven as it was also hit by debris from a 100+ story building. That would be more than just fire no matter how much the so called truthers want to ignore it.

Please point out to me a building the size of seven that was hit by a 100+ story building, burned uncontrolled for hours and then didn't fail.

Remember five and six were no where near the size of seven.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please point out to me a building the size of seven that was hit by a 100+ story building, burned uncontrolled for hours and then didn't fail.

Remember five and six were no where near the size of seven.

Please get it right Building 7 was hit by debris from the building not the building, It only caused some damage to 1 side of the building on about 10 floors.

Here are other steel buildings that burned longer then the WTC building and suffered major structural damage and still did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

1.One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a 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.
Photo: New York Board of Underwriters


3. 1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Masi your pictures are simplistic and have nothing to do with what actually happened to seven. According to the official report the damage that really hurt the structural integrity of the building was on the lower floors.

Frodo, of course it doesn't But it does.

I'm trying to highlight the damage done to one of the faces of WTC 7, if those willing to argue for it can describe exactly what was done.

And as for you saying the damage that hurt the structural integrity, are you saying the fires? Or from debris?

Or are you just talking about the SE damage in this instance.

Thats great, however that does not apply to building seven as it was also hit by debris from a 100+ story building. That would be more than just fire no matter how much the so called truthers want to ignore it.

K where's the damage to the building besides the SE corner?

Please point out to me a building the size of seven that was hit by a 100+ story building, burned uncontrolled for hours and then didn't fail.

I forgot WTC debris took chunks out of WTC 7 (which is blatently obvious by the way) instead of gracefully free falling onto the building.

I'm curious, Left Behind, if WTC 7 was perhaps damaged at its bottom floors, then that would point to, without a doubt, lateral force of debris actually making sufficient damage to the structure.

But from what I understand, because the Debris from 1 and 2 free fell down, how would you have such hard core lateral projections into WTC 7 to damage it sufficiently enough to cause note for imminent collapse.

Or am I getting you wrong.

Be specific Frodo, I need details, details!!


[edit on 4/28/2007 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by Masisoar
And as for you saying the damage that hurt the structural integrity, are you saying the fires? Or from debris?

Or are you just talking about the SE damage in this instance.

I am saying both.

Are you implying that the building was brought down by explosives?

If so, I hope that you hold yourself to the same standard of evidence and can actually prove that explosive/nanothermate/nukes were used to demolish the building.

The evidence shows that 7 was damaged and that it burned uncontrolled for many hours.

It is easy to link those to the collapse.

There is no evidence that bombs/thermate/nukes were used, so it very unlikely that they were used.

K where's the damage to the building besides the SE corner?

SE corner? If thats all that you see in those pictures than it is obvious that you are not interested in the truth.

Be specific . . . I need details, details!!

Well, there is only so much that was recorded about the collapses. All the available evidence points to the building being damaged and then burning for hours and then collapsing.

If you need details, maybe you can provide your counter theory to us.

Please provide some details, unless of course you just have faith in your theories.

Ultima

As I stated, precedent has nothing to do with it.

No building the size of one, two, or seven has ever been demolished with explosives, so according to that logic it is clear that they were not demolished with explosives.

Precedent should not be a factor in unprecedented events.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ultima
No building the size of one, two, or seven has ever been demolished with explosives, so according to that logic it is clear that they were not demolished with explosives.

So you are just going to ignore the facts that other buildings with as bad or worse damage and fires have never collapsed ? Oh and by the way i never said anything about explosives. The facts are that fires in the towers did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel or to cause the molten steel in the basements.

That's not conclusive for argument's sake for your side LeftBehind, which I was hoping you could provide.

So what is it now, a shifting back of forth of "You provide the evidence!".

Contrary to how you choose to look at it, the balls in the court of the Official Story to prove the building fell to fire and damage, but according to such things as collapse videos and reports of where the fires were that day, it doesn't seem anything amountable to be enough to show the building collapsed to the alloted story that we are suppose to believe.

Collapse videos - Showed us the velocity at which it collapsed (tell us of resistance factors (which evidently wasn't much) and where the building relatively lost its composure first (hinting at where it might be most damaged).
The video also shows a simultaneous loss of structural components within a relatively rather short time period.

Location of fires - Not as major and spread as we'd like them to be.

-------------------------------

I would like to point your attention to this thread and offer you to put your input in thus.

LeftBehind, I don't like to argue too much on WTC 7 because there isn't enough evidence and its foolish to argue such, and the same with World Trade Centers 1 and 2.

But from what we do know of all three collapses are interesting aspects.
The aspects of WTC 7 I'd like you to take a look at:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's basically a discussion to figure out (either side) the collapse mechanism of WTC 7 in an informative thread.

Go for it, work some magic.

Originally posted by piacenza
It looked to me that it would have been quite easy to save the building what do you guys think?

Demolition expert sees WTC7 for first time
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's interesting.

It's just the velocity and lack of resistance it appeared to encounter on the way down is quite impressive for a building claimed to of fell mostly due to fire. (Note there was damage to the SE corner of the building).

When looking at collapse videos it looks as if everything just gave out at once and hit the ground.

As I've said previously in another post is the immaturety of letting the building burn, uncontrolled and imminent of collapse.

What if WTC 7 was to hit a nearby building? It would make more sense for Controlled Demolition to of happened than just fires and debris damage for a safety factor.

Just for comparison purposes, here's some pics of other buildings around WTC 7 and the towers. Notice that none of them, which have far more damage than 7, globally collapsed.







Now where are the pics of this 'fatal damage' to WTC 7?

[edit on 28/4/2007 by ANOK]

So what happened to the debunkers on this one?

I'm waiting to hear, 'But they're different buildings, WTC 7 was a unique design, blah, blah, bullcrap, blah...