Building 7, the untold story *slide show*

Oh Swampy the molten metal? There's plenty about wtc7 in here and it's not too long.

Google Video Link

reply to post by Jeff Riff


A video taken from several blocks away is not going to show you what is happening on the inside of the building. So, it is MORE than possible that inside wtc7 the collapse started several seconds prior to being able to see anything on the outside. Not to mention, the CBS video that shows roughly 15 seconds of visible collapse.

honestly I have watched the video and I am not satisfied with saying that its 15 seconds. Also, there is no reason that building should have collapsed period. It just not possible for everything to have happened that way unless there were dmo charges inside the building.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


You really dont want to head down the "molten" metal path. Because it does not end at the door of demolition charges or thermite, it ends at the door of aluminum subjected to a hot fire, nothing more.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Jeff, just what would it take for you to accept it? I mean, you have literaly dozens of firemen and policemen that have talked about the massive damage that WTC 7 suffered and their concerns it was going to collapse, you have pictures showing a lot of the damage, the seismic records suggest that WTC 7 took at least 18 seconds from the first failures to the end of the collapse...I mean, you are close to the guys that will never accept any of the facts about 9/11 because nobody took them by the hand and led them through each of the crash sites.

You know there is a big difference between thinking a building might collapse to it collapsing globally with no sign of resistance, as if all the supporting columns were 'pulled' at the same time (actually central columns failed seconds before the rest).

There were lots of local collapses at ground zero and I'm sure that is what fire-fighters actually expected...

[edit on 18/2/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You really dont want to head down the "molten" metal path. Because it does not end at the door of demolition charges or thermite, it ends at the door of aluminum subjected to a hot fire, nothing more.

You know this as fact how? No one tested the steel's mysterious corrosion. So, you to sit there and say aluminum subjected to hot fire and nothing else is a complete mistatement at best, lie (by now, you know it's a lie) at worst.

Originally posted by Griff

It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7.

www.fema.gov...

Are we still going to argue that there was/wasn't melted steel at Ground Zero? Please read that report and tell me, even if it was the sulfur from the drywall (gypsum board), how we could have evaporated steel without having melted steel?

That is definite proof that there was melted steel at ground zero. If you want to argue that it was only microscopic, you still have to admit that there WAS melted steel found and analysed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you still want to mislead us swamp?

reply to post by Griff


Griff, why do you continue to respond to my threads? You have already said that you will not accept anything I post? Demolition charges dont apply heat long enough for metal to melt. Thermite is an extremely localized reaction and to use enough thermite to collapse a building would take weeks of prepping the building.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Griff

 

to collapse a building would take weeks of prepping the building.

Weeks? why rush it? They had all the time in the world.

reply to post by ANOK

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

www.nytimes.com...

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse

www.firehouse.com...

Yeah....sure sounds like they are talking about little bitty collapses there....

"...pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse....."

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ANOK

 

"...pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse....."

For the first time agree with you Swampy, They damn well knew it was going to collapse.
Here is the video to prove it.



[edit on 18-2-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 18-2-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Okay....now im concerned......youre agreeing with me.....whats next? Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
and to use enough thermite to collapse a building would take weeks of prepping the building.

But, sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage on a few floors can? Yup. I don't listen to you anymore.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria...

Who ya gonna call?

Ghost Busters!

Thanks for the laugh.

reply to post by Griff


Except, as has been shown many times on ATS, the fires werent sporadic or only on a couple floors. Nor was the major damage "asymmetrical".

So the damage was symetrical? I not sure I follow you here Swampy, what type of damage are you talking about?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


they use thermite cutter charges to cut the steel.
the buildings were prepped in advance. no other reasonable explanation for the molten metal.

Dr Stephen Jones, physicist, has footage of the cutter charges going off with molten metal pouring out - in his movie Improbable Collapse.

He also analyzed some samples and exacr match for Thermate the 'mate" is when they add sulphur to thermite to make it burn better. Thermate is the "brand" used curiously enough for demolition cutter charges.

Go figure.

oh yeah I said....

Pull It

The point is that I dont think that some of the most experienced demolition companies could of pulled WTC 7 down any better than the fires and damage did.

I want to believe that we are still in Kansas, I do, but is aint so.
I wish the official story made sense, but It would mean we would have to dumb ourselves down, bigtime.

Come on Swamp, you know better than we do that wtc 7 was a controlled demo. When you're ready we will accept you regardless of your past doings.





[edit on 18-2-2008 by IvanZana]

THere is no way that random fire in a building could bring down that massive 47 story building in such a small pile.

There is mabey one or 2 companies STUPID enough to even attempt something that close to another building. But to think that fire did that 3 times that day is just pure lunacy.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by IvanZana]

Compelling stuff alright.

All that's missing is evidence of the devices that brought about such destruction and if this (WTC7) were a typical office building with typical office building contents in a quiet neighbourhood it would be unbelievable that fire could bring it down.

The building had an extraordinary amount of volatile fuel inside it to support fires intense enough to cause severe damage and combined with damage from the collapsing tower (WTC1) what happened to it is not an impossibility without extra demo charges being used. It contained emergency diesel powered motor-generators with a capacity exceeding 20 megawatts mainly on the 5th floor - about a dozen of the larger units were powered by 2500 HP motors and each MG set had its own transformer (~2000kVA) also on the 5th floor. There was a total fuel storage capacity of around 48000 gallons of diesel at ground level and the 10 major transformers in the Con Edison substation within the building, each 35' tall, containing a combined total of over 100000 gallons of mineral oil with their tanks, cooling fins and conservators.

It's no skin off my nose if absolute proof of it being deliberately demolished eventually surfaces but, as yet, there's really nothing but conjecture with the major observation suggesting it was a CD being that it looked like one.