Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Read page 67-68. Looks to me that the NIST states that damage done to WTC7 from WTC1 could have been part of the reason for the collapse.

The conditions that led to the collapse of WTC7 arose from fires, perhaps combined with structural damage that followed the impact of debris from WTC1.....

page 67-68
Dont know why I bother even arguing. Show me some real proof and I will gladly rethink what I believe happened. And I am not stating a conspiracy isnt out of the question, I just believe it is highly unlikely and is just speculation on your part. Anyway guess this is getting way OT. My original point is you cannot compare the two different scenarios. We are talking two totally different stuctures built at two totally different times. WTC was built over 38 years ago. Anyone who thinks buildings arent built better today then 38 years ago is delusional.

How is that proof or facts when it says perhaps combined with structural damage? that statement clearly says they are guessing but what they are sure of is fires, which were fire that didn't containe airplane fuel.

oh yeah but we can assume fires do to the fact that those buildings were all WTCs with numbers assigned to them.

They are also guessing, how are you so sure they are right? I makes sense that half of the building should had fallen not that perhaps fires and structural damage cause and excellent equivalent to a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Arsenis]

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by king9072

 

I have no idea. Unfortunalty those buildings were torn down so we will never know. To me it looks as though wtc7 would collapse easier then wtc6. The base of wtc6 looks more sound to me and is also much wider the wtc7. Simple physics would state that a taller thinner building would collapse much easier than a wider shorter building.
wtcwtc7 before 911

Oh apologies for my ignorance. I didn't know you were a physics professor. That does make sense, small skinny = bad, short wide = good. I know when I build lego towers that seems to be the case as well...


It's too bad that they decided to built a 50 story building, and didn't even bother to build it properly. You would think such a building which would go on to house such important people like the CIA, they would have built the building properly - more short, and more wide, so it wouldnt fall over...

These people that build that building are sooo like stupad.

edit: damnit i take back the end of second paragraph, it didn't fall over... it fell into itself

[edit on 9-2-2009 by king9072]

reply to post by phushion


Okay so I am sure you have already read this article from implosionworld.com But in case you havent. here is itNO DEMO Now these guys are experts. Were they in on it too? Pretty much explains every question or concern that has been stated here.

reply to post by danielsil18


On topic - my origonal argument was the OP never mentioned WTC 1 or 2 however tide had brought those into the equation when it was only WTC 7 that was mentioned - the end!

Off topic - the map provided by the responder ive responded to clearly shows a thinnnnnner building (WTC 3) than WTC 7 right next door to WTC 2, this was pulled down, did not collapse, end of script there, so why did WTC 7 drop.

BBC report, dated with time - (cant find vid at the mo 3g dongle to crap and im near my limit for the month) - reporter clearly states solomon building collapsed (WTC 7 - look it up) however in the real world, the building is still standing right behind her right shoulder (our left) whilst the broadcast is being fed to the public, how did they know it was going to collapse before it collapsed.

Don't tell me, its a hoax, its fake, photoshop, cgi blah blah blah - im a nut...

Debunk that

reply to post by king9072

Read my above link. It explains why the building would collapse the way it did. And these guys are experts, unlike any of us. I think I will take their explaination over yours. Unless you were directly involved in the investigation or are a demo expert of some sort.NO PROOF OF DEMO

Originally posted by phushion
reply to post by danielsil18

 

On topic - my origonal argument was the OP never mentioned WTC 1 or 2 however tide had brought those into the equation when it was only WTC 7 that was mentioned - the end!

Off topic - the map provided by the responder ive responded to clearly shows a thinnnnnner building (WTC 3) than WTC 7 right next door to WTC 2, this was pulled down, did not collapse, end of script there, so why did WTC 7 drop.

BBC report, dated with time - (cant find vid at the mo 3g dongle to crap and im near my limit for the month) - reporter clearly states solomon building collapsed (WTC 7 - look it up) however in the real world, the building is still standing right behind her right shoulder (our left) whilst the broadcast is being fed to the public, how did they know it was going to collapse before it collapsed.

Don't tell me, its a hoax, its fake, photoshop, cgi blah blah blah - im a nut...

Debunk that

That video of the reporter from the BBC has been discussed over and over again. First off, the anchor says that WTC7 collapse. Then the reporter say "details are very very sketchy" That day was filled with choas and to say reporters do not make mistakes is rediculous. If you are using the BBC newscast as proof you're going to have to do a lot better then that. here is the video. bbc report

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by phushion

 

Okay so I am sure you have already read this article from implosionworld.com But in case you havent. here is itNO DEMO Now these guys are experts. Were they in on it too? Pretty much explains every question or concern that has been stated here.

It appears to be, they must be in too, hell they got payed a substantial amount to write that... LOL

seriously, there is a paragrgh that say

This is why blasters alway concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of the structure

Since its a .pdf and won't let me copy and paste i just wrote that.

But tell me, doesn't it make more sense now the explotions on the basement.



[edit on 9-2-2009 by Arsenis]

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Read page 67-68. Looks to me that the NIST states that damage done to WTC7 from WTC1 could have been part of the reason for the collapse.

That's it says in my last post:
“while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

It never said that the debris wasn't part of the collapse, it said that it had little effect. It was part part of the collapse but it had little effect.

You are just saying was I said and trying to make it as if I'm wrong.

My original point is you cannot compare the two different scenarios. We are talking two totally different stuctures built at two totally different times.

We are talking about a building that collapsed by mostly with fire while the other one didn't collapse but had an inferno inside.

WTC was built over 38 years ago. Anyone who thinks buildings arent built better today then 38 years ago is delusional.

If your point right here is that the newer the building the better and stronger the building is. Then how do you explain when I tell you that The windsor tower was built in 1979 and WTC 7 was built in 1987. Both had fires (The windsor tower had it worse) but The older building didn't collapse. Does the damage (that has little effect) in the corner make the trick?





[edit on 9-2-2009 by danielsil18]

reply to post by talisman


Did i Miss a plane packed with jet fuel hitting the building? I might also note it was under construction so it didnt have office furniture plastic the weight of the office furniture etc didnt have a plane slam into structural supports sorry dont really see how this compares to the wtc do you?

reply to post by Arsenis
Of course those explostion could of been the tank of desiel fules used to run the multiple generators in the basement. Also they specifically state in that article that any detonation of explosive in wtc7 would have been detected by seismographs monitoring ground vibration. There was no detection of these spikes according to them.

Wow, what a surprise, a building didn't collapse due to fire and people are surprised.

How many mineralogists, architects, physicists, will it take for people to get the clear and obvious message?

You can show them all the video evidence you like, people stating secondary explosions, the sound of explosions on film, the image of a controlled demolition on film, the readings from earthquake monitoring stations, and they'll still deny.

They are completely deluded.

You could bring in the culprit, a man, physical and stating that he masterminded the entire thing, and they still wouldn't believe you.

Such is the power of the national media.

Seriously, America, grow the fu*k up and pay attention!

Land of the free and home of the brave my ass. Land of the controlled and land of the deceived is more like it.

reply to post by phushion


Why are you asking me to debunk that?

on topic: The building in Beijing was not even completed but it didn't collapse.

reply to post by dragonridr


2nd time:

No one is talking about WTC 1 or WTC 2. We are talking about WTC 7. That's where you can compare it with the building in Beijing.

Both had something similar: Fire

reply to post by detachedindividual


Did You wonder why they said it rendered the building unusable. Well Thats because of the damage the fire did to the structure and supports. Why would they have to demolish it if it didnt have an effect on the steel wow

reply to post by tide88


Not providing as proof, just as another notch on the bedpost for the variety of events that took place that day.

In response to your self there regarding the BBC report, how could they (the reports/broadcasters) be confused about the status of WTC 7 (The Solomon Building) when its clearly visable in the background, god before i'd even seen the video through i already knew which building i was looking at.

It certainly wasn't the first time the BBC had been filiming in the area throughout its broadcasting hisotry especially post WTC7 build, and as for making mistakes, were all human at the end of the day and i wont try and deny that mistakes can be made especially on that day, but being unsure as to weather a certain building had collapsed or not is a bit of a questionable mistake to have made.

However thats besides the point i made, firstly where did the woman get the information from - was it the french firemen that caught the first plane flying into the WTC on video? (sorry for the sarcasm but i couldnt help it) surely it would have come from the local police, firecrews, ambulance crews, american news reports which im sure would know which building WTC7 is/was and if it had collapsed or not, if they wernt sure then they should never have reported the information, it really is as simple as that, would you tell your brother or sister that your mothers dead if you wernt sure or if the information is "very very sketchy"?.

Perhaps you would...

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by dragonridr

 

2nd time:

No one is talking about WTC 1 or WTC 2. We are talking about WTC 7. That's where you can compare it with the building in Beijing.

Both had something similar: Fire

You cannot compare the two without bringing the whole scenario into play. But of course that is what the so called truthers are all about. Pick and choose the info you want to so it corresponds to your delusional theories.

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by Arsenis

 

Of course those explostion could of been the tank of desiel fules used to run the multiple generators in the basement. Also they specifically state in that article that any detonation of explosive in wtc7 would have been detected by seismographs monitoring ground vibration. There was no detection of these spikes according to them.

Not sure about WTC7 specifs here but seismic data was recorded before impact of WTC1 and 2 - on impact and after impact - data suggesting that explosions had taked place for at least the impacts of both WTC1/2 - anyone got any info on seismic data for WTC7?

reply to post by tide88


Why do you skip my replies?

The one in the 3rd page in the middle is waiting to be replied. Did you miss it or did you decide to skip it?



[edit on 9-2-2009 by danielsil18]

reply to post by danielsil18


Sorry last part was for tide88 not your self got a little bit excited there, appologies

reply to post by phushion


There are many different scenarios for the bbc situation. First off the guy brings it up. And then the lady says detail are very very sketchy. Someone could have told them the building was about to collapse and they could have misunderstood as it already collapsed. Reporters make mistakes all the time. They always want to be the first to report the news. Remember the 2004 presidential election? The news stations jumped the gun on that one too. And why would anyone call bbc and let them know ahead of time? What would be the point? Why not just let it collapse and then let them report it? This is the weakest point that there is proof of any conspiracy. It is almost comical.