So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Yes it could have collapsed, but it would not have collapsed so fast and so perfectly like that,

Very wrong way of looking at things.

This is how all the wild speculative theories pop up and gain weight.

If it was to collapse it could have collapsed the way it did, slower and in parts.

Examining other instances is a good way to make comparisons but comparisons based on video data alone for a building collapse is ignorant to make any conclusions simply from observational comparisons.

Originally posted by Hopechest
It seems to me that the OP has proven it wasn't a controlled demolition.

From his own example, he states how impossible it is to create a freefall into the buildings own footprint. If even professional demolition people can't do this with all the time in the world and in total public view, how would you expect a bunch of guys sneaking around during the early morning hours to wire a 100% perfect demolition?

You wouldn't.

Therefore the only explanation left is that it was a freak of nature, not a controlled demolition.

"Therefore the only explanation left is that.."

Wow, you solved the entire 9/11 mystery in one paragraph! Congratulations!:@@

Good to know that *you* believe it was a freak of nature, alright guys let's pack 'er up, this poster solved it all. Their opinion is clearly an undeniable fact and we should always take what is said without links as the absolute proof, because people would never lie.

You see how petty and immature it is to simply attack a posters words rather than what they said?

Anyway, there are quite a few orginizations (that have been listed countless times in countess threads, don't play stupid) that believe it was a controlled demolition. They use things such as expertise in the field they've dedicated their lives to in order to form this conclusion, and unlike impossible to cite supposition and conjecture they've taken what happened, what we were told what happened, and examined the discrepancies which is now the backbone as to what really happened, how it happened, who constructed it, and to what gain.

But hey, lets always ignore many orginazations full of many people. Hopechest said on ATS that it wa a freak of nature.

I repeat: Hopechest said it was a freak of nature, everybody. Nothing to see here folks, move along. That mountain of inconsistencies and evidence (and non-evidence alike) mean absolutely nothing, Hopechest solved it for us.

Thanks for more hearsay to muddle up yet another thread that's against your agenda.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Well, according to NIST, the explosives would have only needed to dislodge one specific girder to bring the whole of WTC7 down like a house of cards, so it's not like the building would have had explosives spread about everywhere. Same with WTC1 and 2. If NIST can claim both buildings could collapse due to fire damage and structural failure from the plane impacts, they have to acknowledge that it wouldn't have taken a lot of explosives to give the buildings a bit of persuasion to drop sooner, rather than later.

edit on 2-6-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

If you are going to believe NIST's conclusions, then why would you believe in explosives at all? They are not needed in their hypothesis. One very important reason people believe in explosives is because "it could not have happened like that, the buildings would have offered way too much resistance". And in order to overcome this resistance, you need many strategically placed explosives.

Well, I mean there was molten steel found at ground zero for two weeks.

How did it get there when jet fuel cannot burn steel enough to form molten? While we're at it, if the OS is correct, jet fuel broke that barrier of impossibilities, melted steel, but didn't burn paper.

Should've made WTC buildings out of the material that passport was made out of. I mean, this is using the logic of the OS, like you said.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

It doesn't help that the first three buildings to ever collapse due to fire were WTC1, 2 and 7. And I do mean the first to collapse due to "fire" EVER! And yet we get labeled as conspiracy nuts for even daring to question the ridiculously false official story...

Silly me,

I thought 2 planes hit towers 1 and 2 also, but it was only fire.

Your not a nut, if it was only fire alone then something must be up

reply to post by RomeByFire


Explosive or thermite would also not be able to melt steel two weeks after 911. So that can't be the cause either. Maybe the conclusion is that there was no molten steel.

reply to post by freedom12


So exactly what do you scientifically think the collapse of of some 300,000+ tons of debris (the approximate weight of WTC 1) near an already damaged and weakened building would be?

And the image you alluded to as notching a tree. I am sure some better pictures are out there. But I am not morbidly obsessed with the idea of 9/11 being a government conspiracy. In fact, my opinion is that the only conspiracy here is that the Federal government used 9/11 as a power grab to push the Patriot Act much in the same way that Sandy Hook was used as an attempt for a gun grab/repeal of the Second Amendment. In both cases, the Federal Government should be admonished by We the People for overstepping their bounds and limitations specifically spelled out in the Constitution.



But to use your tree falling comparison: I know I have felt quite a jolt in my body from a 5-10 ton tree falling in a single thump upon the ground enough to rattle my teeth.

9/11 is just like the JFK assassination. No one really gives a hoot anymore.


Anyone defending the point that WTC 7 was brought down by natural fires obliviously failed physics in highschool.

First, WTC 7 was the first steel skyscraper in history to fall because of fire. Second, the building fell at free fall speeds, that means that every single critical core column at the exact same time had to be cut and destroyed. Can a fire literally destroy every single critical core column that's reinforced with steel?

Of course not. It's impossible. Furthermore, WTC 5 was a burning inferno and there was no collapse. There was also very few fires at all in WTC 7 before it's collapse.


Man I still can't believe people actually think WTC 7 was brought down by fires.

It's mind boggling.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by RomeByFire

 

Explosive or thermite would also not be able to melt steel two weeks after 911. So that can't be the cause either. Maybe the conclusion is that there was no molten steel.

That's not what I said. I said, that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to form molten out of steel.

It was found in the rubble for two weeks because it doesn't just disappear, something obviously caused it.

And if you don't believe there was molten, you're not debating with me; you're debating with the firefighters who saw it, reported it, and are part of any number of the orginizations I've listed three times in this thread.

Something obviously caused there to be molten, unless all dem pesky firefighters are just disguised truthers running amok with ambiguous disinformation.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Some of you have completely missed the point of this OP, re-watch that 40 second video until you get it.
Yes it could have collapsed, but it would not have collapsed so fast and so perfectly like that, that is the whole point of the video, to help you understand how buildings look when the structure is weakened and does collapse.

The only way it could have collapsed the way it did, would be for all the girders of the steel skeleton to collapse at the same level. From the video, it is obvious that the air is pushed upwards in the middle of the building.

That building contained a lot of evidence to financial fraud by the banks, as well as offices to several three-letter agencies. It also had emergency power generators and oil fuel tanks for those generators.

If there were trucks coming in at the middle of the night, they would have to be placing explosives around the foundation levels (sub-basements) where the steel skeleton is anchored into the bedrock.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


seems to me people either do not remember or were not old enough to see the Vegas demo's in the 90's on the then new channel FOX..

these were big live events on nationwide tv showing off the new implosion technique's clearing out huge old hotels making way for the new ones..

It stands to reason there would be no need for this attention to the new controlled demolition technique's if all you needed to do was clear everyone out & lite a simple fire to take down an entire steel structure building..

what would be the big deal? it would happen more often & be quite a common occurrence..

why even be in the demo business? anyone could do it.

if in fact it were that easy to take down a 50 story structure.. would that even pass safety standards?

would you feel safe in a building that would crash to the ground at free fall speed if your upstairs neighbor lit a smoke & started a fire that would crush you & your family? no. no you would not.

Deny Ignorance.

This is something i have never quite got either if they were going to use controlled demolition to bring down the buildings why make it look so "perfect" (yes i know it wasn't exactly perfect)

I have seen videos of CD were they deliberately have the building fall to the one side so why not do that with the world trade center buildings.

unless they didn't actually blow them up....

reply to post by RomeByFire


So if there really was molten steel, what do you propose caused it and how do you propose it was still there after two weeks?

As for me debating firemen. I don't doubt for a second they saw something there that was molten. I will await their evidence that it was really molten steel and not some other metal or material.

As that is what I go by, actual evidence, not anecdotes.

reply to post by Ahabstar

But to use your tree falling comparison: I know I have felt quite a jolt in my body from a 5-10 ton tree falling in a single thump upon the ground enough to rattle my teeth.

As have I, as it used to be the family business.

Using my comparison is a bad choice on your part-
A)none of the towers fell over like a tree, therefore, no "thump".
B) 1& 2 simply pulverized magically into huge clouds of dust.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Fall to one side? Are you referring to failed demolitions?

Your post is like some failed straw man tactics and I can't really figure it out. So, the reason why the building fell due to fires is because they made the demolition look to "perfect"?

In the words of Tommy Wiseau:

"I'm fed up with dis world!"


Furthermore, what's with the "I am the super shill?" What, have you been called out before and now you have to make it look like some joke?

lol hope chest, Sanarki, and you. I swear to god all of you guys are in some office cubicle space like in 1984 expect using computers.

reply to post by Kang69


No all i am doing is pointing out yet another inconsistency in the whole 9/11 conspiracy, if they were going to blow them up then why not have the buildings fall to one side it would have a bigger effect and cause less suspicion. Because as it stands one of the biggest reasons people are suspicious of the official 9/11 story is because of how the buildings fell. I would imagine that if "they" are able to go to the all the trouble of planning out this alleged false flag then they would have had the buildings fall onto one side as it would raise less suspicions after the event.

And yes i have seen CD's where they have the building collapse onto one side deliberately.


EDIT:

No this is not a "straw man" argument it is a perfectly reasonable point to be making.

and yes the "super-shill" is a joke because i got fed up of being accused of being a sill i figured i better just put it in my avatar and save people the time and effort of even bothering to call me a shill. Its called Sarcasm.

reply to post by Ahabstar


I agree with you absolutely !

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

But to use your tree falling comparison: I know I have felt quite a jolt in my body from a 5-10 ton tree falling in a single thump upon the ground enough to rattle my teeth.

As have I, as it used to be the family business.

Using my comparison is a bad choice on your part-
A)none of the towers fell over like a tree, therefore, no "thump".
B) 1& 2 simply pulverized magically into huge clouds of dust.

There were in fact considerable "thumps". The collapses of the Towers generated large seismic waves detected up to 428 km away :-

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

reply to post by Kang69

9/11 is just like the JFK assassination. No one really gives a hoot anymore.

That is what a combination of apathy and cognitive dissonance will get you, throw in a dash of fear of being thought of as being crazy, and people realizing no matter what they have to continue function in this world in a normal way.
And most will just disconnect from the whole process with a "I don't care, I can't change it" attitude.
And challenging it has not accomplished anything. Because if it did something would have transpired by now.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Something that most forget is that building 5 and 6 were closer to the Towers almost squashed and burned black by falling debris but had to be literally cut down . And building 7 had a corner of it's façade knocked off and it free falls just like a CD . The problem is that our leaders think we are stupid . They have underestimated some of us . Maybe the most of the people trust the government blindly . Cheney was involved because he was running the exercise that actually happened . The rules of chance says that would have never happened by coincidence .

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


So, by making a building fall to one side seems less suspicious? I think it would be more suspicious of a 47 story sky scraper collapsing due to fires, and collapsing anyway it wanted to. Skyscrapers on fire simply don't collapse on themselves. These aren't card board houses. They are reinforced steal structures.

And since were on this subject, can fire melt steel beams? The whole argument about the WTC 1 and 2 collapse was that the jet fuel melted the beams. But there was no jet fuel in/on WTC 7.

So even if the building fell "oddly", it would still be suspicious, because 47 story sky scrapers don't just collapse due to fires.

And you were called a shill? Well I'll guess I'll look through your posting history and find out why. Though, your signature thread about the Boston bombing conspiracy is really unnerving.

It seems like there's only two people on this website some times. People who jump the gun and yell conspiracy, and the other, who says no, it isn't. They are very firm in their belief systems.

But do you know why people jump the gun to conspiracy? Google Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin.

Words to live by on this forum:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

-Aristotle