Building 7 Explained

Originally posted by PW229
I tell you what, when I see a bucket load of PhD's telling me this happened and a bucket load of politicians telling me the opposite happened I know who I'm going with.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this entire event was pre-planned. No doubt at all.

I can't help but think your post here represents the true damage and long term tragedy of 9/11. Regardless of which side anyone is on, it's the fact there are sides at all. The damage that not having a true, open and credible investigation for all to watch and see won't be undone in my lifetime, I fear.

Your post just struck me as such a stark example of the absolute positions to which both sides have gone when, just maybe, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We'll never know, and that is the disaster.

I found no answers in your video for the following, perhaps you can shed some light for a more full 'explanation', if you would:

Could you explian the early reports of collapse 26 minutes prior to the event by both the BBC and FOX news whatreallyhappened.com...

Could you explain how a 47-storey reinforced skyscraper could collapse at freefall speed into it's own footprint as downforce meets with upward pressure from solid steel and concrete columns, rather than following the path of least resistance and collapsing to the side?

Could you explain why more than 1500 respected, reknowned, accomplished and accredited Architects and Engineers declare that the Salomon Brothers Building was a controlled demolition and providing evidence of centuries of combined industry expertise?

Could you explain how several videos have audible explosions, some showing dust/debris and the shockwave, moments before the collapse, verifiably date stamped, some with available exif data (though, not from FB, obviously)?

Please, explain as your title suggests you will... after that we can move on to any explanation, and my questions, for the pentagon and flight '93.

Thanks

Forgot to add: Why didn't this, uncontrolled fire raging for hours, bring down this skyscraper in Shanghai ?

or Beijing here

That's pretty raging, eh? WT7 is not unique in its flammability, it is unique in that it's the only skyscraper to collapse from fire - - ever. Even diesel fuel tanks stored for generators, admittedly by NIST, hadn't caught alight - surely they had to meet some pretty stringent structural integrity and fire safety codes, ensuring that fuel could be kept reliably on-site, even in the event that it caught fire? No?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
B) Even though WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of the north tower, they don't want to accept this is true

NIST stated that the damage to WTC 7 had no bearing on its collapse. Therefore, WTC 7 wasn't heavily damaged, or damage would've been a factor.

So, please state a source that you're using that counters NIST and that shows there was heavy damage to WTC 7 that should've factored into the collapse.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Even though eyewitnesses specifically said the lobby of WTC 7 looked as if "King Kong came through and destroyed it"

Exaggerating a bit. Not surprising. One witness stated the above, and he also stated that both towers were standing and that an explosion caused the damage inside WTC 7.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So now, even though a board of engineers put together an educated guess on how the building collapsed based upon physical evidence and eyewitness accouts, they don't want to accept this is true

Just like a whole lot more engineers put together an educated guess on how WTC 7 collapsed based upon physical evidence and eyewitness accounts. You don't want to accept that is true either because you don't want to accept the consequences of what the controlled demolition of WTC 7 entails.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
there is literally nothing under the sun you can show them, because to them, they don't want to believe it's true

That's correct. It doesn't matter what evidence for controlled demolition you are shown, or what eyewitnesses state they heard the booms and explosions from WTC 7 and saw a shock-wave rip through the building before it collapsed. You don't want to believe it's true because that would mean it was an inside job.

We can do this all night. There's plenty of eyewitness testimony along with the video evidence and history to prove that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. You dismiss it all out of fear, denial and ignorance.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by PW229
I tell you what, when I see a bucket load of PhD's telling me this happened and a bucket load of politicians telling me the opposite happened I know who I'm going with.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this entire event was pre-planned. No doubt at all.

I can't help but think your post here represents the true damage and long term tragedy of 9/11. Regardless of which side anyone is on, it's the fact there are sides at all. The damage that not having a true, open and credible investigation for all to watch and see won't be undone in my lifetime, I fear.

Your post just struck me as such a stark example of the absolute positions to which both sides have gone when, just maybe, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We'll never know, and that is the disaster.

edit on 7-9-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

I respect your viewpoint on this. It is unfortunate that as long as we both shall live, we'll never know the truth. Perhaps it is somewhere in the middle, equally it could be out on the fringes of conspiracy theories, we'll never know. My personal belief is strong, there is a lot more unexplained about 9/11 than there is explained.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
"WTC 7 burned uncontrolled for 7 hrs..." stated the guy in this video..

Windsor Tower Spain..

Enough said..

Let's say a little more. The Windsor Tower had a reinforced concrete core, with mostly fireproofed steel beams below the 17th floor and unprotected steel beams in floors 17 and above. After five hours, the upper (steel) sections collapsed. The steel sections below the 17th floor survived because they were fireproofed, except for two floors in which they buckled and transferred their load to the concrete. The concrete core survived.

(source)

WTC 7 lacked the Windsor's concrete core. It's steel was fireproofed, but the fireproofing could have been damaged by the When its steel went--whether due to damaged fireproofing or overwhelming heat--there was nothing to stop the collapse. The deformed steel elements could not transfer their load to concrete elements, nor was there a concrete core that could survive the collapse of the steel floors above it.

And bringing up an overpass and a steel building is like comparing apples and oranges.

Pot, meet kettle. I think you two are going to be great friends.

Originally posted by PW229
I tell you what, when I see a bucket load of PhD's telling me this happened and a bucket load of politicians telling me the opposite happened I know who I'm going with.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this entire event was pre-planned. No doubt at all.

Couldn't have said it better. How people can just out-right dismiss PhD's and other engineers, scientists, physicists that counter the official fairy tale, all out of fear, denial and ignorance is beyond me.

I keep hearing about these 1500 architects, who are these 1500 architects? Names, PHDs, accreditation?

The physics depicted in the OP video are not correct in accordance of WT7. 10 years later and people are still trying to blame it on fire and melted steel

CONTROLLED DEMOLITIOM!

Two things that make me question controlled demolitions on 9/11; 1st off, I've never seen a controlled demo put off as much smoke and debris as the twin tower and building 7. The 2nd thing is people said they heard explosions at the lower levels. Why didn't the buildings fall once they began to hear the explosions like during normal demolitions? I do believe we aren't getting the whole story about what happened. I believe the goverment, at the very least, dropped the ball that day but still not convienced about the government bringing them down. I mean come on, you really think the government could pull off something that big but couldn't plant WMDs in Iraq?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Actually, we DO know a lot more than what you admit to.
You think we will never know the truth because we will never AGREE on the truth. Big difference between that and where truth lies.
Only alternative media has given us a true and clear picture of events on 911. Not the traditional sources of news.
So, where does truth lie? Alternative media of course.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
B) Even though WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of the north tower, they don't want to accept this is true, so to them, the fact that WTC 7 was damaged by the north tower's collapse is simply gov't disinformation covering up the sinister plot that destroyed the building by secret controlled demolitions.

NIST report on WTC 7, page 39/130:

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours.

NIST report on WTC 7, page 58/130:

Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7.

We already know that GoodOlDave can live with the NIST report being flawed. Therefore, it's hardly surprising to see that GoodOlDave's speculative damage assessment for WTC 7 doesn't entirely agree with the descriptions that NIST use.

The simplest explanation to the collapse of Building 7 was when Larry Silvestein said that they pulled the building. What part of "pulled the building" don't people understand. It was a controlled demolition and so stated right out of Larry Silvestein's mouth. I guess people don't want to believe the owner of the building and come up with some nonsense on how it collapsed. Deny ignorance people.

What rubbish!

The Windsor Tower and the Hotel in Chins burned for how long?

And what exactly does collapse mean. The highway failure was the roadbed falling off the vertical supports. The vertical supports remained standing. There was nothing else under the roadbed that needed to come down.

So how did the roof line remain so straight during the fall? What a phenomenal coincidence.

psik

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
I keep hearing about these 1500 architects, who are these 1500 architects? Names, PHDs, accreditation?

They are referring to the 1500+ persons who have signed the petition at www.ae911truth.org. There are a few things to note, lest you get snowed by the impressive-looking number:

1. Some of these are "degreed only." For instance, they did a bachelor's degree then went on to a career like high school teacher or auto repair. AE911 is disingenuous when it calls these signers "engineering professionals."

2. Some of the signers who have engineering degrees have degrees in specialties not related to construction. I skimmed the list and saw a biomedical engineer, an electrical engineer, a paper engineer, and a software engineer. While I am sure these are brilliant people, they do not have any special insight into building collapses.

3. There are 1.6 million engineers in the United States and, if I remember correctly, 140,000 architects. (I pulled the BLS numbers in an earlier thread.*) If AE 911 Truth only allowed Americans to sign, their petition would represent less than 0.1% of the eligible signers. Since they allow signatures from other countries, their petition has been signed by far less than 0.1% of the eligible signers. The inclusion of non-engineers with engineering degrees among the signers inflates the pool of eligible signers, and reduces the fraction that signed, even more.

4. Some of the signers repeat debunked rumors and myths in their signing statements. We do not know if they would have signed, given correct information.


* Note that by "pull," I do not mean I conducted a controlled demolition of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I was using a different connotation. One of the connotations that the word actually has.

Go through section 2.27 to 2.32 frame by frame, and if you still cannot see how faked
and badly generated this 'footage' is, then there is little hope.

If you do not believe that 9/11 was a hoax, please explain away the blatant fabrications
told by these key figures in the clip below.

'Of course me and my men have nothing better to do (like aid the injured) than to
conduct this interview with you (of course we changed clothes after our lucky escape, to
look our best for the camera)


These people would not ACT like this (or even be there conducting interviews)
if 9/11 was really what it was sold to us as.
We were fed a fairystory endorsed by the likes of the above accomplices, and with help from a
complicit MSM in conjunction with video and victim fakery, absolute fiction became fact.
9/11 was the biggest hoax in history.
No terrorists-No Planes- Few, if any victims and tons of computer generated video and
victim fakery.

9/11 Video Fakery
Major Event Fakery

ps. Bonez...Down boy!! That's a good boy.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Actually, we DO know a lot more than what you admit to.
You think we will never know the truth because we will never AGREE on the truth. Big difference between that and where truth lies.
Only alternative media has given us a true and clear picture of events on 911. Not the traditional sources of news.
So, where does truth lie? Alternative media of course.

Fair enough on that, as far as it goes. I agree the MSM is about worthless if only because the whole concept of Journalism has been replaced by reading scripts and edited reports. Investigative work used to be at least a small part of even main stream news at one time, but without it, it isn't news it's just more entertainment that happens to be based on true events.

Alternative media does offer the best solution to finding aspects of an event that MSM totally ignores and 9/11 is certainly no exception. I wouldn't be at ATS and sites like it if I didn't put fair stock in alternative media. Having said that, alternative media is everywhere on the topic. It runs from reporting 9/11 was what it appeared to be and the U.S. Government dropped the ball on stopping it (Ala OK City), to knowingly allowing it to happen (Ala Pearl Harbor), to actually committing the acts as a U.S. Operation with U.S. training, personnel and control (Ala Firing Squad against a WELL used wall ). So, where does the truth lay? As much as each would like to feel their perspective IS the truth, even among the open minded I find the boundaries lay in VERY different areas. The extremes aren't even worth getting into.

I'm still out here just trying to look at whatever solid evidence comes down the pike to gain a better understanding of what happened that terrible day. The OP video here at the very least supplies an entirely different video perspective I've honestly never seen. How many other little things have EITHER side simply "left out" and failed to share.....leaving normal folks totally ignorant of some rather important aspects...like how this Penthouse went down a measurable time before anything else began to fall....

reply to post by wardk28

Nobody said the government brought it down. "Somebody" brought it down. Planned and purposely. Was it the government? Did they at least know about it? Good questions... Did they benefit from it? Yes! The problem is that our government and every government around the globe is corrupt, and there is historical evidence of government conspiracies, for ages and ages. So, should you trust your government? F*ck no. Should you question the "official" story? If you have a brain in your head, yes. And if you are smart you will realize the official story is full of holes... So take a corrupt government trying to push a story full of holes and everyone should be very suspicious. Suspicious and searching for the TRUTH.

Edit: Actually some people say our government "did" it, but imo that's just as crazy as believing the accused perpetrators did it. I believe the more reasonable assumption is simply, that the official story is bs and that it was planned and organized and nefarious. Just who did it and who knew is anybody's guess.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
How many other little things have EITHER side simply "left out" and failed to share.....leaving normal folks totally ignorant of some rather important aspects...like how this Penthouse went down a measurable time before anything else began to fall....

Normal folks who are interested should learn to verify facts for themselves or at least be willing to ask for assistance.

The falling Penthouse has been in the NIST report on WTC 7, since the report was released. There's a complete timeline for the collapse of WTC 7 in that report. The same time line also mentions the free fall acceleration that occured for 2.25 seconds.

Normal folks have a choice to remain ignorant and trust what they read on conspiracy forums, or to deny ignorance and research as much as they can. Probably easier for most normal folks to switch off the internet and turn on the TV or go watch some live sporting event in a gladitorial arena.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I'm stunned why everyone always brings up Building 7, but not of the Twin Towers.

reply to post by bluemirage5
Because like somebody already pointed out, building 7 is the smoking gun.