Failed Demo Attempt

Ok so here is a building that they tried to demolish, but failed.
Failed Attempt


Now when looking at building 7 of the WTC. How can a fire and minor structural damage cause a building to fall into its own foot print? yet a building like this, purposely trying to be demolished, not as structurally sound as the WTC 7 not fall? It has all its weight collapsing on its self and all it does is turn into the leaning air traffic control of failed demo attempt?


I'm no pro, just wondering what everyone else thinks.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by RandomThought]

reply to post by RandomThought

How can a fire and minor structural damage...

Now I realize if this thread catches on, it will be like all the other WTC7 threads.

......your quote is misleading and not accurate.

"a fire" Do you mean only one?

"minor structural damage" - Can you back up this with a source?

I didn't quote anything. Notice no Quotation marks . Now My sources...this website and forums. WTC 7 is claimed to have fallen by a fire...sorry "Fires" according to the official story right?

Now don't flame me or anything because I said in my post. I'm no pro, I just want to know others opinions...is that ok? or is that a problem? that's what these forums are for right? Discussion.


care to elaborate more on my OP or are u just going to pick and choose what you want to reply to?


why not explain in your opinion why this building didnt fall compared to wtc 7?

[edit on 21-3-2008 by RandomThought]

reply to post by RandomThought


Random... I am quoting you. Hence the quotation marks. I'm one of the very few skeptics in here and will ask for at least some evidence to back up your claims.

If you would like information on the condition of WTC7. I can link you to eyewitness statements from FDNY, EMS, other first reposnders, media outlets. Etc.

I can also link you to video and photographic evidence to the condition of WTC7.

From there, you sholod be able to draw a more informative opinion as to the condition of the 47 story building.

Seeing that there isn't even an official report completed as of today.... saying that the cause was fires, is not accurate.

Thanks

C.O.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If you would like information on the condition of WTC7. I can link you to eyewitness statements from FDNY, EMS, other first reposnders, media outlets. Etc.

And there are plenty of statements that contradict these statements.

I can also link you to video and photographic evidence to the condition of WTC7.

Please do. I have yet to see anything other than superficial damage that would cause a steel framed building to collapse near freefall into it's footprint.

Seeing that there isn't even an official report completed as of today.... saying that the cause was fires, is not accurate.

And just what else is there?

If you say structural damage, you'd be wrong because if it was structural damage, it would have collapsed along with tower 2. Not 7 or so hours later.

reply to post by Griff


Sorry Griff... I should have said "only" fires.

The original NIST estimates on the damage was much more than superficial. Again..I don't want to get into a pissing contest just yet. Maybe if the NIST report comes out this decade, we will have more to go on.

As far as contradicting statements in regards to the condition of WTC7 and the fires... I would like you to point them to me.

Thanks brutha

C.O.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Maybe if the NIST report comes out this decade, we will have more to go on.

I wonder what's taking so long? Since all you debunkers have it figured out already, you'd think an agency like NIST could figure it out too, right?

As far as contradicting statements in regards to the condition of WTC7 and the fires... I would like you to point them to me.

There have been plenty of quotes posted around here that contradict the "severe" damage. Unfortunately, I don't have them handy.

Originally posted by Griff
[
I wonder what's taking so long? Since all you debunkers have it figured out already, you'd think an agency like NIST could figure it out too, right?

I don't have it figured out. 100% anyway. I have not seen ANY evidence to show that there were bombs in WTC7.

Now, I get the humor.
This video is on college humor web site.
I was checking the link that I posted (on another forum) and then I figured it out.
The joke is, someone was stupid enough to believe the 9-11 government/Bush explaination of how the towers fell, and applied those same "laws of physics" to another building.
Did not work.

I was watching Travel channel, last night, and they ran a show about the Colombia River Gorge.
It cuts through the cascades and there are all these great waterfalls.
One day, a rock the size of a bus fell from the top of a fall (couple hundred feet)and landed in the pool below.
Someone took a picture of the splash it made and they figured it went 70 feet high.
A lot of power there.
Think about what you are watching when you see the video of the WTC towers coming down.
You see a hundred of these splashes of concrete and steel shooting straight into the air, from the top of the collapse.
What amount of energy was nessisary to cause that?
More than they are telling us about.

All I'm saying is this building in the link i posted had bombs set in it to deliberately bring it down...the bottom of it pretty much blew out and some bombs went off inside as well....now with all the weight and explosions being set off in the control tower...the building still stood. Actually leaned and never toppled.

So how is it that WTC 7 can fall into its own footprint? one would think with less damage than bombs that it wouldn't have fell like that. I personally think bombs. I live in vegas and I have seen many different demo's and WTC 7 shows all the signs of one.

So how is it that WTC 7 can fall into its own footprint? one would think with less damage than bombs that it wouldn't have fell like that. I personally think bombs. I live in vegas and I have seen many different demo's and WTC 7 shows all the signs of one.

If WTC7 collapsed in "own" footprint - why did all this debris cross
Barclay St and smash 30 West Broadway?



Damage to Verizon building (after debris removal)



Controlled demolition?



This is what a building rigged for demolition looks like

Know numerous people who worked in WTC 7 that day - none of my
friends report anything that looked like that!

Accounts of damage to WTC 7 from FDNY members

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Originally posted by thedman
If WTC7 collapsed in "own" footprint - why did all this debris cross
Barclay St and smash 30 West Broadway?

The biggest CD in history. With superficial damage to the south facade. One would expect a collapse to lean in that direction.

But, it still stands that 95% of that building collapsed in on itself.

Think of how much prep work and explosives it takes to bring a building down like that. Then explain to me how damage and fire can copy it.

Damage to Verizon building (after debris removal)

Who's to say that damage wasn't caused by WTC 2? If the debris from 2 was enough to severly damage 7, then one would imagine nearby buildings would also be affected, right?

Controlled demolition?



This is what a building rigged for demolition looks like

Know numerous people who worked in WTC 7 that day - none of my
friends report anything that looked like that!

Could you explain this further please? Do you mean before or after the building came down?

Accounts of damage to WTC 7 from FDNY members

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

I'm sorry but going by the news footage of building 7 shot from the north, it does not appear that the building was "fully inveloped in fire". Maybe the south facade was, but judging by the amount of smoke seen in that footage, I would imagine that a "fully engulfed fire" would produce slightly more smoke?

As a fireman, could you agree?

This video sums up a little of what I'm saying. It can be argued that the real fully engulfed building was made of concrete also and I'll agree to this. The point is the "fully engulfed fire" of the one in the video vs. what we see of building 7 when it drops.

Is that "fully engulfed"? If not, I can't come to any other conclusion than the firemen quoted in your links are exagerating. Just a little?

www.youtube.com...

Just because firemen say so. doesn't mean anything.

My family doctor said my grandpa has Alzheimer's, but he was wrong too. He's getting better btw, lucky someone found the real problem which was alcohol dementia.

Hopefully someone finds the real problem with 9/11 and brings it to light.


What about the firemen who heard explosions?

What about the report of the building falling before it actually fell?

What about the instruction to "Pull It" and the building fell? (and don't tell me they meant pull the firefighters out) thats BS.

I've never heard the term "Pull it" when calling back a firefighter operation but I have heard the term "Pull it" when bringing a building down.



[edit on 24-3-2008 by RandomThought]