WTC 7 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?

reply to post by esdad71

NIST is garbage...why? Because all of you say so?

Truth hurts doesn’t it.

The collective education of the NIST collaborative is, in fact, incredible.

Incredible false!

I will believe a nobel prize winner before I will a web poster.

Who is the Nobel prize winner?

far as the video, it is a video with STILL PICTURES in it?

But you just said that the STILL PICTURES of the damage of WTC 7 were never publish.

So esdad71, what lie are you trying to convince us of?

Did you watch it? It shows the pieces of the WTC falling into WTC 7 which is something that is never shown in your conspiracy pieces.

Yeah I watch it and the video shows WTC exploding, however, the video was taken so far away that you can NOT see what debris is hitting what? The narrator in the video is making a false claim, by his own assumptions. This video is nothing but a “desperate” attempt to support the OS. You are right about one thing, this video will not make it around the conspiracy sites, because it is laughable and not believeable.

My ship is sinking?

No, it just sunk!

Do any of you know why the planes hit the towers the way they did? It was to finish what they tried in 93, which was to have them fall INTO one another and come down.

Prove that? Were is your source for this information to back your ridiculous claim?

During the collapse, a large gash(stories high) was cut into the WTC 7. This is a factor in the collapse.

Sorry pale, but that was never proven. What appears to be your so call gash is nothing but a shadow since when did your erroneous gash become a perfect straight line that no one can really see because there is too much smoke in all the photos. Again the narrator is desperately trying to convince the viewers watching the video that something is there when in fact it is not. However, “you say” the alledge gash is the factor of the collapse of WTC 7. Can you show were NIST makes this claim? Or did you just make this up as you go?

There are numerous pictures that show this but it will not be on a Truther site

Wow, I would like YOU to show me those convincing photos. How would you know what is on the Truthers web site eh? One would think you never have read anything from a truthers web site.

it goes against your core belief that there was nano super hyper nuclear thermite in all the buildings.

Care to disprove that?

The WTC 7 was set up as the rally point also for the rescue. This is not fallacy you just choose not to believe it. As I said before this is your right to freethinking as well as coming to your own conclusion on what happened that day.

Your right and I choose to believe in the truth and not some fallacy that some desperate debunkers that makes ridiculous claim to without proof.

There is no urban myth, it is fact.

No the OS is a urban myth, that is a fact.

The kink in the roof was visible for hours. Firefighters were told to evactuate and leave. Please give me the logic as to why anyone would wait 7 hours to collapse the building?

We do not know and NO ONE REALLY KNOWS why it took 7 hour to blow up WTC 7. As far as your kink theory I have not seen any reliable photos that proves there was a kink in WTC 7. So stop spreading DISINFORMATION!

Originally posted by impressme
Sorry pale, but that was never proven. What appears to be your so call gash is nothing but a shadow since when did your erroneous gash become a perfect straight line that no one can really see because there is too much smoke in all the photos.

A shadow? Pretty funny stuff, I didn't know that shadows caused visible damage to buildings, or that Manhattan contained such a structure. Could you perhaps point out which structure is casting the shadow?

reply to post by exponent

A shadow?

Yeah, a showdow, you care to prove it is NOT?

I didn't know that shadows caused visible damage to buildings,

They don’t.

Could you perhaps point out which structure is casting the shadow?

Could you perhaps point out proof that it is not a shadow?

Originally posted by impressme
Yeah, a showdow, you care to prove it is NOT?

Sure, no building exists in the area that could cast that shadow.

They don’t.

Then how did the shadow do this?


or the damage seen at the top of this composite?

Originally posted by exponent
So if I were to travel back in time to the 1940s, I could proclaim that no nuclear bomb was possible, because history had proven it?

That's not even comparable. No steel-structured high-rise has ever collapsed due to fires. Our construction-grade steel gets better over time, not worse.

Originally posted by exponent
They already know how fire works, they also know that it's much cheaper and more efficient to use cutter charges. Do you really think this is an intelligent line of discussion?

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Did you actually use the word "intelligent" with the above statement?

How, in Holy Helsinki, is it "much cheaper" to purchase thousands of pounds of explosives and pay dozens of people over several weeks to months to prep buildings and plant explosives, than it is a couple/few people to light some fires in minutes? That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Originally posted by exponent
Do you honestly believe demolition companies don't set the buildings on fire only because fire is somehow incapable of bringing structures down?

I don't "believe" it, I know it. I've been researching controlled demolition for several years. I know that you know absolutely nothing about controlled demolitions or even basic knowledge of physics and building construction by what you've just typed.

I'd say you should get off your armchair-debunking asphalt and call up a demolition company like Controlled Demolition, Inc. and ask them why they don't use fire instead of explosives to bring buildings down. They'll probably laugh at you for a while before regaining their composure to answer you.

Originally posted by exponent
1. The fuel load was massively lowered, being only sheets of plastic designed to protect areas against asbestos
2. The building at the time was nearly half its original height, and nearly one third of WTC7s height
3. That the fire started and burned within a few floors of the top of the building.
4. The fire was fought despite its difficulty

1) Even if it was smaller, NO fuel load causes steel to start shearing, according to all other examples and all scientific studies ever done. Prove me wrong.
2) Irrelevant.
3) Irrelevant. WTC7 didn't have much fire compared to many other skyscraper fires, either.
4) Also irrelevant, because the fires are not going to cause these kinds of failures in the first place!

Fire does not make steel start breaking apart. Nor would the columns have lost significant yield strength, as even NIST will tell you.

Really? Could you tell me what caused the internal collapse of WTC5?

What internal collapse of WTC5 are you talking about? Are you sure you don't mean WTC6? WTC5 had a punch of holes in it from impacting debris -- the only parts of it that collapsed. WTC6's massive hole was supposedly caused by the upper portion of WTC1 (including the hat truss) falling into it.






Now that you mention those, though, they had fires too:

Or perhaps what proportion the yield strength will be reduced by at the temperatures seen in the Cardington test?

NIST even tells you that wasn't an issue. Have you seen how thick the steel was that they heated in those tests? And they heated it with a massive amount of controlled heat, and elevated entire sections of the steel until it was uniformly glowing. And all this directly applied, still took quite some time for the small samples used.

Here is all the data: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Only one of the columns is heated to over 300 degrees in their office fire demonstration, and those would be the relevant yield strengths.

Not quite as much steel to heat as in any WTC building, you'll agree:



So how much difference do you think that would have made? None?

[edit on 6-6-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's not even comparable. No steel-structured high-rise has ever collapsed due to fires. Our construction-grade steel gets better over time, not worse.

It's a ridiculous statement, because your statement is ridiculous. "History" does not prove anything, other than what has already happened. You know what else has escalated over time? Terrorist attack magnitude.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Did you actually use the word "intelligent" with the above statement?

How, in Holy Helsinki, is it "much cheaper" to purchase thousands of pounds of explosives and pay dozens of people over several weeks to months to prep buildings and plant explosives, than it is a couple/few people to light some fires in minutes? That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

This is incredibly silly, are you really so ill informed that you think this is somehow logical? Fire is uncontrolled, unpredictable and requires fuel, I think the requisite FEA simulations might somewhat increase the cost. Then of course they have to compensate all the people who own the surrounding buildings as none of the 3 WTC buildings collapsed perfectly.

I don't "believe" it, I know it. I've been researching controlled demolition for several years. I know that you know absolutely nothing about controlled demolitions or even basic knowledge of physics and building construction by what you've just typed.

Wait so I am actually accurate in quoting that you think the only reason controlled demolition companies don't use fire is that it is completely incapable of causing collapse? What about all those non high-rises that have failed from fire? What happened with those?

I'd say you should get off your armchair-debunking asphalt and call up a demolition company like Controlled Demolition, Inc. and ask them why they don't use fire instead of explosives to bring buildings down. They'll probably laugh at you for a while before regaining their composure to answer you.

Yes, I'm sure they would laugh at me, and then explain exactly as I already know, that fire is unpredictable and uncontrolled.

Honestly, this discussion is ludicrous and you have discredited yourself, I have no need to do more.

Originally posted by bsbray11
1) Even if it was smaller, NO fuel load causes steel to start shearing, according to all other examples and all scientific studies ever done. Prove me wrong.

I have no need to prove you wrong as I never suggested that fire = shear.

2) Irrelevant.
3) Irrelevant. WTC7 didn't have much fire compared to many other skyscraper fires, either.
4) Also irrelevant, because the fires are not going to cause these kinds of failures in the first place!

None of what I listed was irrelevant, could you perhaps be more explicit?

Fire does not make steel start breaking apart. Nor would the columns have lost significant yield strength, as even NIST will tell you.

Really? Could you tell me what caused the internal collapse of WTC5?

What internal collapse of WTC5 are you talking about? Are you sure you don't mean WTC6? WTC5 had a punch of holes in it from impacting debris -- the only parts of it that collapsed. WTC6's massive hole was supposedly caused by the upper portion of WTC1 (including the hat truss) falling into it.

I could be wrong, I am in the middle of a move at the moment so don't have some of my notes to hand, but I am fairly sure it was WTC5. A large internal section failed and collapsed downward soley due to fire damage. If needed I will find more details tomorrow.

Only one of the columns is heated to over 300 degrees in their office fire demonstration, and those would be the relevant yield strengths.

I am glad you are able to link to sources, but perhaps you could tell us what actually happened to column to beam connections in the Cardington tests? Was there any deformation? Did beams expand?

Once you have done that, please tell us NISTs proposed initial failure mode for WTC1,2 and 7, and show me how the reproduction of these forces in the Cardington tests are somehow impossible in WTC1,2 and 7.

Originally posted by esdad71
During the collapse, a large gash(stories high) was cut into the WTC 7. This is a factor in the collapse. There are numerous pictures that show this but it will not be on a Truther site...

Why would you ignore my OP, esdad?

On the first page, I quote NIST, regarding the damage caused to WTC 7 from the falling debris of WTC 1.

NIST mentioned that seven columns were cut. NIST also mentioned that WTC 7 withstood the impact and that the superficial damage was not the cause for collapse. Remember, it was fire that collapsed WTC 7, according to NIST.

Originally posted by exponent
"History" does not prove anything, other than what has already happened.

Exactly and what has already happened? Fires in many steel-structured high-rises over the years have already happened and not a single one has collapsed due to fire before 9/11 or after 9/11. If you think steel-structured high-rises can globally collapse due to fire, please show the audience some examples (besides 9/11). I'm sure we all would love to see you prove your claim.

Originally posted by exponent
You know what else has escalated over time? Terrorist attack magnitude.

And do you realize or remember when terrorist attack magnitude intensified? Right after we occupied two different countries. Rarely did you hear about terrorist attacks in the news before 9/11. Now it's almost on a daily basis and most of them are in countries we occupy. Go figure.

Originally posted by exponent
Fire is uncontrolled, unpredictable and requires fuel...none of the 3 WTC buildings collapsed perfectly.

The towers weren't meant to collapse perfectly, that was the whole point. But WTC7 looks awfully damn perfect to me and even moreso than the demolition it's being compared to:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]

Fire is so uncontrolled and unpredictable yet we're lead to believe it can cause the above? Give me a break. What are you on? You are completely clueless or so far in denial that it blinds you.

Originally posted by exponent
Honestly, this discussion is ludicrous and you have discredited yourself, I have no need to do more.

Truth and facts hurt, don't they? Looks like you are the one that's been discredited.

Originally posted by exponent
2. They already know how fire works, they also know that it's much cheaper and more efficient to use cutter charges.

Right, so we know how fire works...

Originally posted by exponent
Fire is uncontrolled, unpredictable and requires fuel,

Originally posted by exponent
Yes, I'm sure they would laugh at me, and then explain exactly as I already know, that fire is unpredictable and uncontrolled.

But wait, you just stated that we knew how fire worked, so how can it be unpredictable and uncontrolled?


Do you want to choose a position about fire and stick with it?

It looks rather silly when you contradict yourself like the above quotes show.

If they knew how fire worked, then why didn't they realise that an uncontrolled fire would have heated Column 79 to the point of failing? To me, your statement is an admission that there wasn't enough redundancy for fire suppression measures in WTC 7.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


I don't see a contradiction, Tezzalini. Knowing how building fires work is knowing that they are uncontrollable. I know that you have unsupressed urges to troll and can't help yourself. Maybe you can look ahead to your future and plan your college courses to take your mnd off things.

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't see a contradiction, Tezzalini.

Personal insult noted. You should read and spell my name correctly.

Knowing how building fires work is knowing that they are uncontrollable.

If they are uncontrollable, then why bother with fire suppression systems?

I know that you have unsupressed urges to troll and can't help yourself.

I'm the troll, but you're the one slinging the insults? Wow, how does that figure? You're in a losing position, pteridine, when you simultaneously contradict yourself and insult your opponent.

Maybe you can look ahead to your future and plan your college courses to take your mnd off things.

Again with the insults - yet I'm the troll? Go figure...

reply to post by tezzajw

Uncontrollable for demolition purposes. What insults? A term of endearment and a wish for your future. As you mature you will undoubtedly appreciate my comments, more.

Originally posted by pteridine
What insults? A term of endearment and a wish for your future. As you mature you will undoubtedly appreciate my comments, more.

You call me a troll and insult me and then you try to offer the above comment to justify yourself?

Wow, is that the best that you've got, pteridine?

Blind Freddy can see what you're trying to achieve with your personal insults directed at me.

Back on topic, I've been trying to download the NCSTAR Vol 1 that you informed me about a few pages ago. However, I find it strange that I'm not able to connect to the NIST homepage to access the file. Apparently, the NIST webpage has been down for at least the last 17 hours (that I've been trying to connect). Two nights ago I was on that page slowly downloading Volume 9, without any trouble.

Can anyone else connect to the NIST page to download Vol 1?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Can anyone else connect to the NIST page to download Vol 1?

I've been trying all day to access them without any luck.

reply to post by Foxy Nutz


Thanks for that. It's not just me then. I'm on 56K dial-up, so I can't download all of the files in one easy go. That's why I never had the chance to download Vol 1 before I typed this thread. It's also why I was asking anyone to show me where the witness statements were recorded in the NIST report. I'm better able to download what I need, if I'm directed straight there.

I'm keen to read the witness statements in Vol 1, but what timing and bad luck that the NIST website crashes shortly after I posted this thread!

I have a serious question: If you wanted to bring down WTC7 and make it look like an accident, why then would the tower fall that way? I mean, why wouldn't you make the charges/thermite take out the left side first, then the right side so it would topple over instead of coming straight down? Why on earth would "they" make it look like a controlled demolition when they would want it to appear just as the official story?

reply to post by exponent

Then how did the shadow do this?

It didn’t, in my opinion, that is part of the building design, I do not see any damage in your imposable to see smoke filled photos.

Sure, no building exists in the area that could cast that shadow.

Sure, it is, look how straight it is from top to bottom in fact these pictures could have been photo shop, care to prove they are not?

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Why on earth would "they" make it look like a controlled demolition when they would want it to appear just as the official story?

And what's the "official story" on how WTC7 should have collapsed? They still haven't figured it out. So there's your answer: there is no real "official story" for this building's collapse mechanism. Most people don't know about WTC7 anyway.