Building 7, the untold story *slide show*

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Marriot Hotel (WTC 3) did not so much as collapse as was flattened by
the collapse of the Towers on top of it. The only thing left standing
was a steel "cage" which was constructed to support the building
following the 1993 bombing which severely damaged the building
putting it danger of collapsing. Several dozen firemen were killed
when Towers collpased on it.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Picture you posted is following collapse of Tower 2 on the Marriott Hotel

Debris from WTC 2 struck the building with sufficient force to crush approximately 16 stories in the center of the building, as shown in Figure 3-7. In spite of this extensive damage, the collapse did not continue down to the foundations or extend horizontally to the edges of the structure. In fact, the two northernmost bays (approximately 60 feet) remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays. Even in the center of the building, the collapse stopped at approximately the 7th floor. This arrested collapse implies that the structure was sufficiently strong and robust to absorb the energy of the falling debris and collapsed floors, but at the same time the connections between the destroyed and remaining framing were able to break apart without pulling down the rest of the structure. This complex behavior resulted in the survival of large portions of the building following the collapse of WTC 2.

This is what building looked like after second collapse

The second loading event was the collapse of WTC 1. Debris from WTC 1 fell along the entire length of the hotel. Lower floors at the southwest end of WTC 3 survived although they suffered extensive damage.

Question is why are you being dishonest in posting the first picture, but
not the second?

Look at how close World Trade Center 7 was to it's neighbours. A junior demolition company could not do what those "fires" did to WTC 7.

Quite obvious that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and an excellent one at that.




Thedman, what is your take on the close proximity of the buildings and minimal damage to them. Do you believe it was a random collapse that cause a almost perfect controlled demoltion implosion?

You only need your eyes and a little common sense to see it for what it is -- a controlled demolition.
You'd need a theoretical quantum physics professor to explain how this could happen without a controlled demolition, because on 911, apparently the laws of physics were suspended.

Steel framed skyscrapers don't just fall down all at once. It just never happens. EVER! ...except for 3 buildings, on 9/11/2001, in New York City.

Those who would argue otherwise are either: in complete denial or are actively trying to derail any serious discussion about what really happened on 911.
If you are in denial, all you need to understand is that there are some really evil people in this world, that think nothing of killing a million people if it advances their agenda, much less 3k people.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Jeff Riff

 

Marriot Hotel (WTC 3) did not so much as collapse as was flattened by
the collapse of the Towers on top of it. The only thing left standing
was a steel "cage" which was constructed to support the building
following the 1993 bombing which severely damaged the building
putting it danger of collapsing. Several dozen firemen were killed
when Towers collpased on it.

It's amazing how the steel "cage" of the WTC 3 was still standing after it had debris from the tower fall on it from some height (some height above 12 feet). But, the far stronger WTC tower's steel "cage" can't hold up debris falling a mere 12 feet at each level?

Remember that when calculating kinetic energy, the distance is the freefall distance and NOT the entire height of the building. That means there was a new kinetic energy at each floor.

That's some strong steel "cage" in WTC 3 if you ask me.

I'm sure I'll hear:

But, but....it wasn't on fire when the towers collapsed on it. Or something just as outrageous.

[edit on 2/22/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 2/22/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by IvanZana

Look at how close World Trade Center 7 was to it's neighbours. A junior demolition company could not do what those "fires" did to WTC 7.

Quite obvious that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and an excellent one at that.

Now all you need is evidence. 6 years and no evidence to support this failed idea of CD on WTC7. The silent explosives, the lack of a single piece of evidence of blast effects seen, or still on the steel. Wow, just to make up a story out of the blue, and state it, is incredible; As soon as you put together the evidence to support your idea, you can also apply for a Pulitzer Prize. Famous is only evidence away but at least you have a very good imagination, no facts but outstanding imagination. Very funny post, and when you figure out silent explosives only exist in the imagination. You may want to look at how fire quickly destroys the strength of steel. A boring concept but not an imagination thing.

The funny part is "quite obvious". lol No evidence, just make it up.

reply to post by beachnut


Only a person who was completely ignorant of the facts would make such a comment. Silent explosives? There were hundreds of witnesses that said they heard explosions and said they sounded like demo charges (boom, boom, boom - one after another.)
No evidence? Perhaps you mean, you haven't looked into it AT ALL and just summarily dismissed the idea, preferring to bury your head in the sand. You present NO ARGUMENT.
I won't waste any more time with you.

Dismissed!

reply to post by thedman


I wasnt being dishonest, I was just showing that the building withstood all of that damage and remained standing until the 2nd tower collapsed and leveled it. I know that the pic showed the Marriott after the first collapse.

My point is, if the damage to the Marriott was that extreme, yet it remained standing, what damage to 7 was there that caused it to fall?
Is this it?
www.debunking911.com...

I see heavier damage to this building

i232.photobucket.com...

and this one
thewebfairy.com...

They didnt collapse.

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
[My point is, if the damage to the Marriott was that extreme, yet it remained standing, what damage to 7 was there that caused it to fall?
Is this it?
www.debunking911.com...

All your proving with that picture is that the World Trade Center 7 should of fell over like a tree and it clearly didnt, whats your point ??

My point is that the freaking building should not have even collapsed. Those other buildings withstood 10 times the damage yet they were still standing.

now if the thing fell over like a tree....then I could see it as collapsing due to damage.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Jeff Riff]

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Different building, different conditions. Marriott (WTC 3) built to different
layout than WTC 7. Building 7 was built over a CON ED substation -
because land is scarce in NYC was envisioned that building would be
constructed over it. Pilings were constructed over substation to act
as supports for it. WTC 7 was twice what was originally envisioned
for that site. To support the much larger structure a cantilever truss,
almost like a bridge, was constructed over the original pilings to act
as platform for the building. Complex system of transfer girders was
needed to handle load.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation, which had been on the site since 1967.[3] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building on the site of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.[5]

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[3] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[4]

Diagram of structural beams



The Marriott was constructed to a more conventional plan. After 1993
bombing the lower floors were reinforced with heavy steel "cage" to
prevent collapse as the structure was severely weakened by the bomb.

Structural engineers still working out exact sequence of collapse of WTC 7
Current scenario has a failure of one of the transfer girders causing
a cascading failure of the building. The start of the failure is the visible
"kink" in the roof followed by the collapse of the mechanical penthouse
on the roof.

reply to post by thedman


Too bad we can't verify this as accurate. Just that we've been told how it was constructed.

Originally posted by beachnut
Now all you need is evidence. 6 years and no evidence to support this failed idea of CD on WTC7.

Physics is evidence enough. Visual evidence is enough. Evidence enough that fire and asymmetrical damage didn't collapse WTC 7, simply because physics proves it's not possible and visual evidence contradicts it.

Do we have to prove it was a 'controlled demolition'? No.

All we have to do is prove the official story wrong and that has been done. Now you want us to prove it was collapsed with explosives. Well I think we all know that that is probably not going to happen, but does it matter? No.

If it's been proved, which I believe it has, that the official story is a lie then what other method do you think collapsed the WTC buildings? Allah?
Does it matter if we know? I don't think it does. All we had to do is prove what didn't and I believe that has been done. The extra evidence you're asking for is not necessary and you are just prolonging the argument by asking for it.

Look at the facts that we do have, and stop asking for evidence that's not available.

reply to post by ANOK


I dont think that I could have put it better myself. Star for you sir, great job.

There were hundreds of witnesses that said they heard explosions and said they sounded like demo charges (boom, boom, boom - one after another.)

Really? Name one witness to WTC 7 who, 1. said it sounded like demolition charges and 2. KNEW was demolition charges sound like. Because Im pretty sure that there are a few hundred more witnesses that observed the damage to WTC 7 and figured it was going to collapse that DID NOT hear "demolition charges"

Not to mention, if you think a building is going to collapse (breaking gas lines etc......) and not make popping noises........you should find another website to hang out at.

Thanx Jeff...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Well if the steel support columns got hot enough to fail globally, how much would be left of copper and/or plastic piping do you think?

If we are hearing piping making 'popping' noises then what noise was all that steel making?

Everything you suggest contradicts the visual evidence and what we know about basic physics.

I would think also firefighters would know what a building on fire and collapsing would sound like, don't you think? So why would they be surprised about hearing popping noises if an internet jockey can just blow it off as normal?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ANOK


Oooooh internet jockey..that one hurt. Everything Ive suggested FITS with the evidence and the videos. Wild ass theories about demolition crews running into the building that day and wiring it up for demolition doesnt. Neither does a covert action over many months for a crew to secretly wire the building.

reply to post by beachnut


So, riddle me this? Why did the collapse pile of WTC 7 have those infamous lingering thermal hot-spots and molten steel--as hot as any area on the WTC site? (You surely know those NASA/USGS satellite photos, so I won't bother to dust them off yet again; if not, Google is your friend.)

This is evidence of a normal building collapse?

Try to answer without the sound & the fury, please.

[typos]

[edit on 23-2-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
...Wild ass theories about demolition crews running into the building that day and wiring it up for demolition doesnt. Neither does a covert action over many months for a crew to secretly wire the building...

Oh says you. Well yes its silly to think anyone wired the building that day, I haven't heard anyone suggest that.

But its just as silly to think they couldn't have done it prior, whatever your opinion is.

But anyway it doesn't matter. The building could not have fell the way it did from sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage. You have yet to offer anything that refutes that fact, whether you think it could be done or not is irrelevant. In fact no one, including NIST, has yet explained how the buildings, all three, could have globally collapse from sporadic office fires and asymmetrical damage, while not slowing down from friction/resistance.

Whether you think it could be done or not, until someone can explain how it was done without explosives of some kind, then we have to assume the obvious...It's not my fault some people can't see the obvious...

(What I'm looking for is an explanation of the lack of resistance, i.e. how the columns ahead of the collapse wave gave out so easily, evenly, instantly and globally. So far it's been ignored and deflected by other irrelevant arguments, if you don't believe me research ATS 9-11 threads and the proof is right in there.)

Maybe you're the one I'll have to bow down to swampy, seeing as you are so sure of the official story an'll...We'll see...

Edit: oh yeah btw, I noticed you didn't have much to say about the firefighters in that video? You're not choosing who to believe now are we? I thought you were smarter than that... You deflected by setting up a strawman. Wanna go back and watch it then give us your HONEST opinion? You can't just dismiss what they're saying.
You also didn't comment on the other points I made, are you dropping that line of argument now? You'll be running out pretty soon bud...

[edit on 23/2/2008 by ANOK]

what I see happening over and over again is lack of PROOF that the building collapsed due to fire and damage. There is nobody that can provide evidence that there was enough damage, or that the fire was significant enough to cause the collapse. We have seen historically that fire does NOT cause steel framed buildings to collapse, yet miraculously it happened three times that day. we see that other buildings suffered MORE damage than the WTC 1, 2, and 7, yet they did not collapse.

They are resorting to personal attacks AGAIN to prove thier point. They also share the reasoning that we are crazy because we dont trust our government.....silly us