The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

Windsor Tower is by no means the only one.

911research.wtc7.net...

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire was particularly spectacular.....




And still, no collapse.

Geez even the Chinese put us to shame in steel frame expertise.....

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

]Have you noticed the same signature collapse profile between the Jon Stone Rose Tower and the WTC7 . It's unmistakeable .WMD2008 might very well be associated with a structural engineering firm and has great insight into structural steel structures , but I don' t think even he believes that building 7 collapsed because of the sporadic fires in that building . He mentioned that the building was leaning ,insinuating that there was damage enough to have caused a weakening on the damaged side . Yet the building collapsed straight down on top of 75 very strong steel columns . This would have required the columns to fail in long column failure or bucking twisting etc. With the floor beams intact the columns would resist and the building wouldn't free fall or fall straight down . The leaning building would fail first in the direction of the weak side .

Yes I have seen the side-by-side comparison.

The premise that this could happen from sporadic fires is as absurd as anything I can imagine, but that doesn't stop OS'ers from attempting to ram it down the throat of anyone who has the audacity to question it. It's straight out of an Orwellian novel, no question about it.

The Hotel Mandarin Oriental blazes

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire mandarin fire

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


You do realize that ATS is heavily infiltrated with people who believe either way on any topic ,and there are those that are shills for the powers that pay to affect the outcome of the topic . On this site you can use some official jargon and be a rocket scientist if you want . People live in their own little world that they create by ignoring facts and accepting rumor as fact .
Also I believe that this site is heavily monitored by the Government , FBI and Homeland Insecurity to pick out trouble makers , domestic terrorist and if you will Red, Blue and Yellow tag people . Those FEMA Camps ain't no joke . I have followed the contracts for their construction .
I guess I have caught their eye for sure . Building 7 must in the end fall from the fires or the whole WTC thing will cast a shadow of deception on the US government as a whole .

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by thegameisup

 

I take it you missed these a few posts above then.

Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Quotes from firemen at the scene!!!!

Not quite as YOU think it was

I don't ever recall seeing any photographic, or video evidence of a 20 story hole! That would be a hole half the size of the building! I might actually believe you if you have any video footage, or clear photographic images to show a hole half the size of the building.

With the OS in serious question, any hearsay or falsified statements are worthless without visual proof to go with it. I could say the Empire State building has a 20 story hole in it, but unless there is some visual evidence to prove that statement, then the statement is just a worthless statement.

Jennifer Oberstein ex news reporter calls into the Today show during the first moments of 911


She looked up at the twin towers and saw the first explosion, and she was surprised that the Today presenters were telling here that they had been told it was a plane. You would think a person who was actually there as the when the first tower was impacted would have heard a plane, they are very loud!

So because you say a fireman saw a 20 story hole in WTC7, which you have provided no hard evidence for, does that therefore mean that because Jennifer Oberstein heard no plane, then there was no plane? I'm just using the same process to reach a conclusion as you, except at least in this video there is actually an audio recording and not just some words on a computer screen.

WTC7 was not directly underneath the tower collaping, it suffered some exterior damage from some of the debris that was mysteriously blasted outwards when the tower came down, but as we know, the tower came apart and there was nothing that substancial that would have, or could have caused a 20 story hole.

Even the buildings that were closer to the towers when they came down did not collapse, and the Marriott hotel (WTC3) that was spliced almost in half because it was in the direct path, was still standing. Did they put a transit on that? Did they put a transit of WTC5 & WTC6 because they were closer to the towers than WTC7 and suffered a lot of damage? I will post some overhead ariel photos of ground zero and the building orientations in a short while.

Originally posted by thegameisup
I don't ever recall seeing any photographic, or video evidence of a 20 story hole! That would be a hole half the size of the building! I might actually believe you if you have any video footage, or clear photographic images to show a hole half the size of the building.

So let me get this right. If firefighters say that they saw 'explosions'. You twist that to mean they saw 'explosives'. However, when they say they saw a '20 storey hole' you deny its existence without video or 'clear' photographs?

Your bias could not be more prominent.

With the OS in serious question, any hearsay or falsified statements are worthless without visual proof to go with it. I could say the Empire State building has a 20 story hole in it, but unless there is some visual evidence to prove that statement, then the statement is just a worthless statement.

Here you dismiss everything that disagrees with you, and for some bizarre reason decide that photographs are the benchmark of truth, despite the fact that it's a common truther claim that photographs are faked.

In essence here you state quite plainly that if any evidence disagrees with you, it will be accused of being fake and you will try and turn the burden of proof around.

So because you say a fireman saw a 20 story hole in WTC7, which you have provided no hard evidence for, does that therefore mean that because Jennifer Oberstein heard no plane, then there was no plane? I'm just using the same process to reach a conclusion as you, except at least in this video there is actually an audio recording and not just some words on a computer screen.

If you think that this is the same process, you do not understand the very basis of logical thinking. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

but as we know, the tower came apart and there was nothing that substancial that would have, or could have caused a 20 story hole.

Exterior wall panels?

Even the buildings that were closer to the towers when they came down did not collapse, and the Marriott hotel (WTC3) that was spliced almost in half because it was in the direct path, was still standing. Did they put a transit on that? Did they put a transit of WTC5 & WTC6 because they were closer to the towers than WTC7 and suffered a lot of damage? I will post some overhead ariel photos of ground zero and the building orientations in a short while.

What's the point? You're not basing your opinions on any fact, you've already dismissed the firefighter accounts so that you can maintain your ignorance. Instead of posting some overhead photos and your own distorted views, why don't you find some way of distinguishing what evidence you'll accept other than 'It agrees with me so it must be right!'

Just a thought.

reply to post by exponent


911 was an inside job and the whole world knows it.

reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady


You know what your problem is? You lack critical thinking skills.

That building was not damaged prior to the fire. Thus far in the history of skyscrapers, when a skyscraper is damaged and catches fire, it is far more susceptible to collapse. I would also add that the particular skyscraper in your picture was developed based on the building code changes that NIST made after 9/11. It was designed to not be as susceptible to fire.

I guess it worked, but hey, if you want 9/11 to be a conspiracy to fill some egotistic void in your soul, go right ahead.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

You know what your problem is? You lack critical thinking skills.

Translation:

Don't think independently, the gubmint don't like that.

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
reply to post by exponent

 

911 was an inside job and the whole world knows it.

Bush was not impeached. Obama was elected. Buildings are built with the lessons learned from the NIST report.

A few people believe it was an inside job, but a few people believe they are aliens and will soon travel to the stars. I put little weight on irrational beliefs. The rest of the world continues on as normal. Engineers do their work mindful of the lessons learned, and buildings are made safer.

You realise that people who believe in JFK conspiracies, or Moon Landing conspiracies say the exact same as you right? I bet you're about to reveal you believe in those too.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

You know what your problem is? You lack critical thinking skills.

Translation:

Don't think independently, the gubmint don't like that.

I explained why. Did you not read my post, or was it too complicated for you to even respond to intelligently?

It really gets irritating to even explain stuff to you and the other believers in this section. I went into the details of the differences between that building and the situation on 9/11, the primary factors being:

1. The building was not damaged first.

2. The building was designed using NIST's post-9/11 building codes.

3. Parts of the building did collapse, it just didn't totally collapse.

Am I lying here? Am I being foggy or misleading?

Originally posted by exponent
You realise that people who believe in JFK conspiracies

Holy Good God, here it is 2012 and we still have someone clinging for dear life to the Magic Bullet.... No way, no how did our own government want JFK dead for threatening to break up the CIA into a thousand pieces and abolish the Fed and start printing real money.

It boggles the mind.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by exponent
You realise that people who believe in JFK conspiracies

Holy Good God, here it is 2012 and we still have someone clinging for dear life to the Magic Bullet.... No way, no how did our own government want JFK dead for threatening to break up the CIA into a thousand pieces and abolish the Fed and start printing real money.

It boggles the mind.

Ah, so you do believe everything conspiracy videos say. Doesn't matter if the facts are different. If the conspiracy people say it's so, you'll take their word for it!

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
I don't ever recall seeing any photographic, or video evidence of a 20 story hole! That would be a hole half the size of the building! I might actually believe you if you have any video footage, or clear photographic images to show a hole half the size of the building.

So let me get this right. If firefighters say that they saw 'explosions'. You twist that to mean they saw 'explosives'. However, when they say they saw a '20 storey hole' you deny its existence without video or 'clear' photographs?

Your bias could not be more prominent.

With the OS in serious question, any hearsay or falsified statements are worthless without visual proof to go with it. I could say the Empire State building has a 20 story hole in it, but unless there is some visual evidence to prove that statement, then the statement is just a worthless statement.

Here you dismiss everything that disagrees with you, and for some bizarre reason decide that photographs are the benchmark of truth, despite the fact that it's a common truther claim that photographs are faked.

In essence here you state quite plainly that if any evidence disagrees with you, it will be accused of being fake and you will try and turn the burden of proof around.

So because you say a fireman saw a 20 story hole in WTC7, which you have provided no hard evidence for, does that therefore mean that because Jennifer Oberstein heard no plane, then there was no plane? I'm just using the same process to reach a conclusion as you, except at least in this video there is actually an audio recording and not just some words on a computer screen.

If you think that this is the same process, you do not understand the very basis of logical thinking. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

but as we know, the tower came apart and there was nothing that substancial that would have, or could have caused a 20 story hole.

Exterior wall panels?

Even the buildings that were closer to the towers when they came down did not collapse, and the Marriott hotel (WTC3) that was spliced almost in half because it was in the direct path, was still standing. Did they put a transit on that? Did they put a transit of WTC5 & WTC6 because they were closer to the towers than WTC7 and suffered a lot of damage? I will post some overhead ariel photos of ground zero and the building orientations in a short while.

What's the point? You're not basing your opinions on any fact, you've already dismissed the firefighter accounts so that you can maintain your ignorance. Instead of posting some overhead photos and your own distorted views, why don't you find some way of distinguishing what evidence you'll accept other than 'It agrees with me so it must be right!'

Just a thought.

I'me very confused again by your comments. You isolate a quote I made about WTC7, and you then proceed to say that I am twisting words around relating to explosives/explosions? Where in that quote you highlighted do I mention explosions or explosives? Why would you highlight my words, then write a response that bares no relevance to those words? It seems you are rather confused.

Yes, I will deny the existence of a 20 story hole until visual evidence is provided. Why would anyone take a few words on a computer screen as fact without verifiable visual evidence to back up those words? That is surely common sense? In a court of law hearsay is invalid without considerable proof to go with the hearsay. I do not see why asking for verifiable visual evidence would make me biased?

I really don't get some of the things you say, they don't seem coherent at times. Yes, I do not believe the OS, does that make me biased, well on some aspects yes, I've never said all the OS is a lie, but many aspects of it appear to be that way, and I have come to that conclusion based on the official evidence that is available to all. I approach any OS claims with caution, and will always need verifiable evidence, such as visual evidence to go with copy and pasted words, otherwise that evidence is worthless. Do you not work that way, or do you just take everything you are presented by the government agencies as truth? It appears that you are very biased to all the OS, I however have an open mind, and do take some of it as truth, but there are many aspects of their reports and their evidence that do not hold up. Maybe you should scrutinise the OS a little more.

How is asking for visual evidence, about this alleged 20 story hole, that you or nobody has yet to provide 'dismissing everything that disagrees with me', as you put it?
I am not a gullible person that would just believe any words that are written on a forum, or anything the media presents to me. I like that have all the evidence about something before I make my conclusions, if you can post some video evidence of this hole, or some verifiable photographs, then I will be more than happy to believe that the 20 story hole exists. As I say, I have an open mind, and do not believe everything people tell me with out all the evidence, unlike some people.

You are making a lot of false allegations in your comments here, and you are making a lot of assumptions, these are not the actions of an intelligent mind, I don't feel there is much to be learnt from you if you have that demeanour. I have not said that the 20 story hole is a fake claim, I just find it very bizarre, that I have never seen this 'hole' that is half the size of the WTC7, and I have seen a lot of WTC7 images. If anyone is twisting things around it is you, you are making a lot of false claims about what I have written, and my words are there for all to read, as are yours.

You made this remark: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but absence of verifiable visual evidenc ethat WTC7 had a 20 story hole in it mean I cannot take that claim seriously until someone provides that evidence. You might take everything someone says as fact without needing to see some physical evidence, that is up to you, but I like to be a little more cautious before I decide what did and didnt happen. I think my way is a more thorough way of examining the evidence, and this is the way I will continue to work. If you have the verifiable evidence in visual form that there was a 20 story hole in WTC7, half the size of the building, then we can put this matter to bed and move on from it. Until then it is unverifiable and worthless.

I used the example of Jennifer Oberstein saying she was surprised to hear a plane hit the tower, because the audio is verifiable evidence, it was not just some text on the screen. I feel I am a good judge of character, and her report on the first explosion, to me, seemed genuine, and I would consider that particular news report as a sound witness statement. On the other hand, someone random on a forum just saying in a few lines of text there was a 20 story hole in WTC7, is not enough for me, and I would hope most people would not take that serious until some visual evidence was provided? Do you have any?

You say: "what's the point! What do you mean by this? Do you what is the point of asking if WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6 also had transits put on them? Or what is the point of me posting ariel photographs?

Well, there is a point becuase if people are saying WTC7 had a transit put on it, then it would seem obvious that they would also put them on WTC 3, 4, 5, & 6.
And there is a point in posting ariel photographs of WTC7 because they show the extent of the damage to WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6, and from what I can see they show that WTC7 has relatively little damage to it, and until I see visual evidence to prove otherwise then I will continue to believe that WTC7 should not have come down the way it did.

reply to post by thegameisup


But in asserting that there was no 20 story hole until you see it is completely ignoring the firefighter testimony. You have to believe the firefighters were literally lying to avoid accepting that WTC 7 was damaged. There are pictures that show some of the damage, to give an idea, though they still don't show the Eastern half of the building.

911myths.com...

I think with that much damage on one side, it's safe to assume that the other side was at least similarly damaged, and the firefighter testimony supports that assumption. The smoke kinda does too.

reply to post by thegameisup

I'me very confused again by your comments. You isolate a quote I made about WTC7, and you then proceed to say that I am twisting words around relating to explosives/explosions? Where in that quote you highlighted do I mention explosions or explosives? Why would you highlight my words, then write a response that bares no relevance to those words? It seems you are rather confused.

He is trying to bog you down in trivia. It is about derailing discussion. Eventually he will drill down to your character and bait you until feel you are being witch-hunted. The dumber characters amongst the OSers will start baiting you as well until you get angry and say something you shouldn't. This is when the mods arrive and start penalising you and trivialise your frustration as "911 Madness".

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

You know what your problem is? You lack critical thinking skills.

That building was not damaged prior to the fire. Thus far in the history of skyscrapers, when a skyscraper is damaged and catches fire, it is far more susceptible to collapse. I would also add that the particular skyscraper in your picture was developed based on the building code changes that NIST made after 9/11. It was designed to not be as susceptible to fire.

I guess it worked, but hey, if you want 9/11 to be a conspiracy to fill some egotistic void in your soul, go right ahead.

I have enough ownership of my own mind to figure out that 9/11 was an inside job.

What is fascinating is that this offends you so much that you feel the need to impugn my intellect when you know almost nothing about me. This is very telling.

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady


He is trying to bog you down in trivia.

Translation: he's trying to get you to explore the details and implications of your ideas.

An uncomfortable feeling for a Truther because it never adds up. So it's best to just pretend he's doing something that breaks the rules of the argument and ignore.

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
I have enough ownership of my own mind to figure out that 9/11 was an inside job.

What is fascinating is that this offends you so much that you feel the need to impugn my intellect when you know almost nothing about me. This is very telling.

Look, man. I'm not offended by you. I'm just trying to correct your misuse of events and assertions. You post a burning building and act like you're so smart and "holier than thou" for your ability to see things that I and others here apparently cannot. I correct you, and in two posts I say why.

Instead of responding to my correction, you try to satisfy your pride by talking about how smart you are for "knowing" that 9/11 was an inside job. That's what's telling in this situation, not my attempts to bring the truth to the table.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

Are you saying that all steel buildings are exactly identical?

I smell another lame obfuscation coming.

Please. show us how WTC7 was designed by idiots.

edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

You claimed that steel buildings are "the same" in New York and Madrid. I find it highly unlikely that they're identical and can thus be expected to behave in identical ways.

An I find it quite funny that you think a concrete core would make no difference to a building's performance.