WTC7 Question For Official Story Believers

A friend of mine had never known that WTC7 collapsed on 9/11 and was dumbfounded the first time he saw the video of the collapse. He asked, "How do they explain how that building fell down?"

I told him that I'm not sure that anybody has come up with a feasible explanation at this point.

So over 5 years later, I ask those of you who believe that WTC7 collapsed from only fire and structural damage:


How did all four corner steel support beams failed simultaneously due to a gash in the center of the building, and damage to the SW corner of the building?


How did every single verticle support beam along the north face of WTC7 failed simultaneously?


In other words, with everything that's known to date about WTC7, what is the most likely explanation for the simultaneous failures of dozens of vertical steel support beams spanning the entire perimeter of WTC7?

Although i am not a official story believer,

I think your question is not a question but an answer.

There is no explanations that rules out a form of controlled demolitions.

Well only my opinion.

Originally posted by selfless
Although i am not a official story believer,

I think your question is not a question but an answer.

There is no explanations that rules out a form of controlled demolitions.

Well only my opinion.

It seems that there is a definite lack of explanations forthcoming to these questions. I've honestly lost track of the latest NIST "theory" at this point. And as much as some members here have argued back and forth about the damage, or the gash, or the fires, etc., I've yet to read any reasonable explanation to the simultaneous failure of dozens of undamaged vertical columns on the north face of WTC7, or how the 3 undamaged corners happened to fail at precisely the same moment as the damaged SW corner.

Maybe Gwion and Cam are having a cookout together tonight.

Originally posted by nick7261

How did all four corner steel support beams failed simultaneously due to a gash in the center of the building, and damage to the SW corner of the building?


How did every single verticle support beam along the north face of WTC7 failed simultaneously?

Hmmm...

Interesting...


Did not the WTC 7 tower collapse from the center first (near the "Gash") ???

Not from the 4 corners ???

Doth I smell a contradiction here ???

I am not a supporter of the 'official' version of events, nor am I an engineer, but I understand the current working hypothesis is that the failure of structural elements on the east side of the building led to a horizontal load transfer, from east to west, resulting in a progressive collapse. This occurred around the lower floors, perhaps floor 7.

Sorry for being vague - I couldn't be bothered to go locate it again to check my facts but I will if you want more.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Did not the WTC 7 tower collapse from the center first (near the "Gash") ???

The roofline kink appeared towards the east edge. Because of this, NIST is wedded to an east-west horizontal failure.

Yes...and...

Did not the collapse happen toward the center first (near the gash)???

I don't care about the NIST right now, what do you think ???

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Jedi_Master]

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Yes...and...

Did not the collapse happen toward the center first (near the gash)???

I don't care about the NIST right now, what do you think ???

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Jedi_Master]

No, the kink was definitely at the east end, just a couple of columns in.

Sorry...pal...

The collapse happened at/near the "gash"...



This is the South Side, not the North Side

If you watch the video (I'm sure you can find it, I don't have a link that's working at this time), you'll see it's at near/the same place...

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Jedi_Master]

No, the kink was towards the east, as you can clearly see in this video.

I guess the Penthouse don't count does it ???

*shrugs*

Originally posted by Jedi_MasterI guess the Penthouse don't count does it ???
*shrugs*

The east penthouse was the first structure to fail. It disappeared into the roof. The kink is not so obvious in videos shot from the south. You need to see the ones shot from the north.

ETA spelling
[edit on 21-5-2007 by coughymachine]

[edit on 21-5-2007 by coughymachine]

Originally posted by coughymachine
The east penthouse was the first structure to fail. It disappeared into the roof. The kink is not so obvious in videos shot from the south. You need to see the ones shot from the north.

Was there a East Penthouse ???


The video I got only shows a West Penthouse and it is from the North side ( the Naudet video ), and it shows the West side collapsing first, and no East Penthouse...




[edit on 21-5-2007 by Jedi_Master]

I'm not sure it really matters where the collapse started. Wherever it started, how can the simultaneous collapse of the four corners, and the entire perimeter columns be explained?

If you watch the video from the north you can see that the entire top 20 or so floors of the building collapse parallel to each other. It makes no sense to me that any type of horizonal failure could suddenly transfer to all the vertical support columns of the entire structure. Is this really the latest NIST theory?

Seriously, does this make sense to anybody?

Originally posted by nick7261

Seriously, does this make sense to anybody?

Quite frankly, no it doesn't. I've been thinking of having some T-shirts printed up with "WTC7?" on the front and "Whats your theory?" on the back. Just to see what kind of response I would get from people. I wonder how many would ask simply what the hell WTC7 stands for! Alot of people I try to engage in discussion about it say "o yeah I kinda forgot about that" then they give me that "your kinda crazy look" when I say "you know it wasn't hit by an airplane, but somehow callapsed in on itself in less than 10 seconds". I guess the laws of physics were suspended that day.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by nick7261

Seriously, does this make sense to anybody?

Quite frankly, no it doesn't. I've been thinking of having some T-shirts printed up with "WTC7?" on the front and "Whats your theory?" on the back. Just to see what kind of response I would get from people. I wonder how many would ask simply what the hell WTC7 stands for! Alot of people I try to engage in discussion about it say "o yeah I kinda forgot about that" then they give me that "your kinda crazy look" when I say "you know it wasn't hit by an airplane, but somehow callapsed in on itself in less than 10 seconds". I guess the laws of physics were suspended that day.

I'm usually pretty good at being able to see both sides of an argument, but for the life of me I can't make heads or tails of any of the theories that try to explain the simultaneous global failure of every vertical support beam in the entire building, caused by localized damage and fires.

Here's the best theory I can think of, and I'm not sure that it even comes close to reflecting the actual construction of WTC7:

Suppose there was some sort of core at the center, with horizontal support beams extending to the perimeter. Now suppose this core collapses from damage and fire. Imagine this core dropping in the center beneath the penthouse.

Now what if the horizontal beams extending to the perimeter were fastened differently at the perimeter than at the core? What if the horizontal beams were weakly fastened at the perimeter and strongly fastened at the core?

The result would be that all the horizontal beams would pull inward detaching from the perimeter while staying attached to the core, causing the simultaneous collapse of every vertical beam along the perimeter of WTC7.

I know this is completely far-fetched and probably doesn't match with the construction of WTC7, but it's the only explanation I can think of.

PS ATTN NIST! Please do not steal this theory for you next report!

ETA: Posted in wrong thread

[edit on 22-5-2007 by coughymachine]

Originally posted by nick7261
I know this is completely far-fetched and probably doesn't match with the construction of WTC7, but it's the only explanation I can think of.

It's not as far fetched as you may think. Although it is not really how the building was constructed, it's about the only way it could have happened (if you believe the official version). The problem is that there wasn't a core but column lines like in most other buildings. Now, the problem lies with how did all those columns fail at the same time because that's the only way to take the facade columns down at once.

You can't explain why the WTC7 fell without knowing the true facts. If I didn't come here to ATS I would have never known why this building collapsed.

Tell him this-

Larry Silverstein himself said this.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

He is talking about WTC7. A little gash in the side of the building isn't going to make it collapse. It was destroyed because it had thousands of documents of great importance inside. What better way to get rid of evidence- demo the building.

The WTC7 was demoed ordered by Larry Silverstein.







[edit on 5/22/2007 by Leyla]

I've been looking for that quote for a short while.

He is referring to demo'ing the building, not the removal of fire fighters.

Why do people think he is referring only to the "pulling" of the fire fighters? Is there a piece of unedited film we haven't seen somewhere that clarifies this point? Where is it?

[edit on 22-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]