Revisiting Word Trade Center 7

reply to post by whatsecret


Well something we can agree on,

the debate about 9/11 will go back and forward for ever

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


It is an excellent thread you have put together. I have to take my hat off to you for that. You have gone to so much trouble so that alone speaks volumes for your interest and knowledge of this subject.

I hope this thread gets lots of attention. I think we all might learn something here.

Off to a good start any way.

I'm afraid I am going to sit out on this one and just observe.

reply to post by Revolution9


Thanks a lot for that response dude.

Means a lot but I really dont think this thread will go much further than this post

How do you explain the seismic record immediately preceding the collapse of WTC7? You must be very careful when examining the time stamps - extrapolating the time the waves were recorded at the monitoring station puts the time of the origin of the waves BEFORE anything visible occurred to the building (that is to say, before it actually collapsed).

The same thing occurred for WTC1 and WTC2. Immediately preceding their collapse, massive seismic events occurred.

Apologies if you did cover this - I did not read the entire post. IMHO 9/11 OS is BS.

If you are talking about the seismograph from Columbia University's Lamot-Doherty Earth Observatory I have an information packet with a 40 second graph that shows the readings from the seismograph.

I never paid much mind to it as I know nothing at all about seismology. However, the caption explains that the rumblings start small then accelerate as the towers fall. It looks quite cut and dry however, again I know nothing about this or know anyone that does. It could be a milk shake being stirred for all I know.

I guess I could scan it if no one has seen it.

So I read through everything and pretty much all that i was going to say has been covered so not going to bring it up. One thing that has been brought up and not addressed by coin is the fact there is record of office fires that were far worse then this one that did not demolish the building. I guess that theory that there was damage to the backside of the building was damaged by the debris cloud. And then the average office fires brought the steel building down. What about WTC 6 then? Wasn't it closer to 1&2? Also in front, connected even, to 7. Shouldn't the debris cloud have done similar damage to the building as a whole? The damage you described in your op looked pinpointed, didn't know clouds were precise in damage they caused. 6 had pretty much the center of the building collapse, falling debris right? Wouldn't there be the same fires in said building? Why didn't the rest of this weakened building collapse?

The cause of building 7's collapse is simple and straightforward.

You cannot have uniform, symmetrical collapse, without deformation (as depicted in NIST's model, which they refused to release) of the entire building structure, including a free fall period of 2.5 seconds at the onset of collapse, without simultaneously severing ALL the structural support columns near the base.

It's all dealt with in detail, in the documentary linked in my signature, below, which is a must watch when you have the time.

Here's the Barry Jennings interview, as the link didn't seem to be working in the OP

reply to post by Sremmos80

One thing that has been brought up and not addressed by coin is the fact there is record of office fires that were far worse then this one that did not demolish the building.

There is one huge problem with this argument, It implies that all building fires must be the same and that is simply not true. WTC-7 had a very unique design that meant it was venerable in the first place the details of this are outlined in the OP. Basically the only way this argument could ever hold any merit was if you were to find a carbon copy of WTC-7 and subject it to the exact same stresses it was under on 9/11. Otherwise your argument can be dismissed.

Sure this was a "first" but it was also the first time that a building had another building collapse almost on top of it after being hit by a plane then that very building burning uncontrollably for hours. The argument that "it was the first time" is meaningless unless you can prove foul play which I have yet to see any evidence for that stands up to scrutiny.

What about WTC 6 then?

This is a prime example of what i am talking about above, you are essentially asking why did WTC-7 collapse where WTC-6 did not, again it is a unfair comparison, WTC-6 was a 8 story building WTC-7 was 47 stories you quite simply just cannot compare the two as they are totally different.

Besides this is a picture of what WTC-6 looked like after the attacks.



As you can see there has been a huge partial collapse of the building its been gutted by fires and damage from the other falling buildings. This building is just as catastrophically damaged really at the rest of them it had to be totally destroyed after this picture was taken.

And it is not alone look at the rest of them



Just look at WTC-3 the Marriott that was a 22 story building and look at all that was left of it.

WTC-5 is the same i have seen pictures of that building after the attack and it looks like a hollowed out shell, Fema actually found some similar structural damage to WTC-5 as they did in WTC-7



As you can see in WTC-5 several of the steel columns and girders supporting the floor spans have collapsed, according to FEMA this was caused by fire.

Overall the argument of "well it never happened to any other building so it must have been explosives" is utter rubbish.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


All those pictures futher prove the point that there is no consistency on what seems to bring buildings down on the day of 9-11. All the buildings directly below 1&2 took more damage and fire and debris then 7 and NONE of them collapsed completely. But yet the building that wasn't hit by a plane and didn't didnt have debris falling on top of it collapsed. So since when do your average office fire cause steel to fail and collapse the whole building? And if the debris cloud was able to cause the damage the bottom of tower to sever the support beams to cause the 2.5 sec freefall. Please show me outside of 7 where a FIRE cause free fall collapse in the path of most resistance. Why don't we see that any where else? Because NIST made it up to make the collapse make sense. Once they show the world how they recreated the demolition I won't be convinced. Your post is like the OS with your own footnotes.

And in your picture of 5 having similar damage as 7.... Why aren't the support beams severed? That is what caused the collapse right? So why didn't the fires sever those beams like they seamed to do in 1,2 and 7? Those buildings took 2 towers falling on them and NO complete collapse.... 7 got the short end of the stick of all the collateral damage and it fell.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


So the video you posted with the secret service agent. Its titled lobby and south face at 1015. At 501 the camera pans up and looks at the side of the building. You say they don't really get a good shot of it, but right there is a pretty good one. I don't see a 20 story hole.. I don't see any damage..

reply to post by Sremmos80

Please show me outside of 7 where a FIRE cause free fall collapse in the path of most resistance

I wish i could but i can't because it has not happened before to my knowledge.

But this argument is mute, for this to have any credibility you would first need to show me a exact replica of WTC-7 subjected to the exact same stresses as the real WTC-7 was on 9/11. That will never happen each high rise fire is different because in general most of these buildings are different.

So the video you posted with the secret service agent. Its titled lobby and south face at 1015. At 501 the camera pans up and looks at the side of the building. You say they don't really get a good shot of it, but right there is a pretty good one. I don't see a 20 story hole.. I don't see any damage..

I think as you can probably appreciate the OP was massive, its well over 10,000 words i think so it would help if you could quote me directly.

In the video with the Secret Service agent, if my fallible memory serves, It was taken before the second tower fell, it was that tower which caused most of the damage. Like i say you will have to quote me directly on it so i can comment. There is however a rather good picture in the OP that shows what looks like significant structural damage to that area of the building further down in the OP and several quotes from firefighters whiteness to it.

Also it might be a video that fell out of sync with the rest of the thread.

my biggest regret with this thread was that i posted it when "new" ATS was coming online and as I was having problems uploading youtube videos so some of them either dont work or are in the wrong place or have been duplicated and so on. I find this very annoying but there was nothing i could do about it really once i hit "post".

I apologize if this causes any confusion.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


So its ok for NIST to say that it DID cause the collapse based on a computer reconstruction with info tell wont tell us any info about? And the only reason I'm not allowed to say that the fire didn't cause the collapse is because I can't take a carbon copy of 7 to put it against?

And why didn't 6 take as much damage as 7 did when it was hit by the cloud first almost blocking the path, sure its only 8 stories but that 8 stories on either side of the building don't show the type of damage that was cause to 7.

So the vid was in between the south and north collapses. But OP states that 7 took a knock then as well, and I don't see any damage. The title, im sure you can find it by title of the vid. Is Lobby and South side 10:15. First or second video, still frame is guy in secret service vest. got to 501 and pause

reply to post by Sremmos80


If you bother to finish reading the entire OP i do question NIST not providing a full release of all the data relating to the modeling as it would clear up quite a lot of the myths, I actually have a section of the OP criticizing the OS. The point however is that when you look at the sum of the evidence, there is overwhelming evidence to support the offical story and "debunk" many of the claims made by truthers.

And also regarding the video you are talking about I actually say that it shows only superficial damage to WTC-7 I do not say it caused any kind of catastrophic damage.

Again it would be very useful if you would quote me because you also seem to be misrepresenting some of what I said in the OP.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I finished it, and yes you do question the report, but then you quote the report to prove that 7 came down form fires and damage caused by the cloud. So how can you question it but then relay on what it has to say at the same time.

Its your post and your information it is a time line you created. I gave you a reference point, heck even an approximate time. Its your work, i'm sure you even have a faster way of getting to it before getting on ATS.
This OP doesn't look freelanced or spur of the moment.

reply to post by Sremmos80


I wrote it all almost 6 months ago I think, so you will have to excuse me for not remembering it verbatim.

Overall the NIST report is pretty solid, and yes i have read the debunks and the debunks of the debunks and so on but on the whole they provided a very good and reasonable account of how the buildings failed from a scientific point of view.

I do still have questions some of which i state in the OP however that is not enough to make the jump to inside job, it would be quite a jump to say "they did not provide some details of the modeling" to start saying..... "ohhh well then that is proof it was a inside job".

Jumping to such conclusions would be totally ignorant.

You have to look at the sum of the evidence and make a judgement, that's what I done with this thread, I watched all the conspiracy documentaries and read all the truther books first then i started to look at the OS and compare to the two. I found zero evidence to support any notion that WTC-7 was intentionally demolished. NONE. I did find some stuff that I thought was a little strange, but not anything that would prove it was a inside job.

If one day the 9/11 truth movement manages to actually prove (and i mean prove) that there was some kind of nefarious and sinister plot that is disclosed which proves government where behind 9/11 and hte demise of WTC-7 I will gladly incorporate that into my views. My views on the wider subject of 9/11 have changed before, there is no reason they could not change again however that will not happen until i see some solid evidence.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


What hard proof do you have outside of OS? The crucial "findings" the OS state can't be backed up with hard info because that is a conflict of national security and they won't release it. So why can't i use the same reasoning? Why can't I say I have hard proof but I cant tell you because it is a conflict with my families security.

NIST lets the info out that replicates the collapse with said factors then 7 is debunked. Outside of that, I don't see why 7 went down.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


This is the first I've seen this thread, read and watched the entire thing, and you did a great job of researching and reporting as well as denying ignorance. Nice work. WTC Building 7 has so many myths surrounding it now that it has become a meme, an event which defines 9/11 to many people. You've focused on it and gave it a valuable step by step analysis that, even though it runs counter to what many people either believe or imagine occurred, has few if any unanswered questions. The tragedy, memes, and mysteries of 9/11 should not overshadow factual reporting. Thanks.

reply to post by Sremmos80

What hard proof do you have outside of OS? The crucial "findings" the OS state can't be backed up with hard info because that is a conflict of national security and they won't release it

This is the problem anything i point to you will say is "OS propaganda", NIST and the Commission, report where by different groups about different aspects of the 9/11 saga yet you would say its all part of the OS, you will also probably try to argue that journalists who back the OS are either ignorant or "in on it".

For the most part they are acutely quite open but it is inevitable that some information cannot be made public in the interests of national security. that is not evidence of a inside job.

Why can't I say I have hard proof but I cant tell you because it is a conflict with my families security.

I have news for you, you read for this, its a shoker....

They do not care about what you post online, not a thing, you are not even a spec on their radar.

Your families safety is not compromised in anyway by what you think you know about 9/11

Also should i take from this comment that you do actually have proof WTC-7 was intentionally demolished but you cannot publish this proof for fear of your families safety?

NIST lets the info out that replicates the collapse with said factors then 7 is debunked. Outside of that, I don't see why 7 went down.

In other words, if you ignore NIST you cannot see why 7 went down. duh!

NIST provide the only reasonable explanation as to how 7 fell so far, so of course if you ignore it you are not going to see why 7 fell.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

What hard proof do you have outside of OS? The crucial "findings" the OS state can't be backed up with hard info because that is a conflict of national security and they won't release it

This is the problem anything i point to you will say is "OS propaganda", NIST and the Commission, report where by different groups about different aspects of the 9/11 saga yet you would say its all part of the OS, you will also probably try to argue that journalists who back the OS are either ignorant or "in on it".

For the most part they are acutely quite open but it is inevitable that some information cannot be made public in the interests of national security. that is not evidence of a inside job.

Why can't I say I have hard proof but I cant tell you because it is a conflict with my families security.

I have news for you, you read for this, its a shoker....

They do not care about what you post online, not a thing, you are not even a spec on their radar.

Your families safety is not compromised in anyway by what you think you know about 9/11

Also should i take from this comment that you do actually have proof WTC-7 was intentionally demolished but you cannot publish this proof for fear of your families safety?

NIST lets the info out that replicates the collapse with said factors then 7 is debunked. Outside of that, I don't see why 7 went down.

In other words, if you ignore NIST you cannot see why 7 went down. duh!

NIST provide the only reasonable explanation as to how 7 fell so far, so of course if you ignore it you are not going to see why 7 fell.

NIST provide a computer simulation that they wont release the info... Why is it illogical for me to not to believe them? If it is so cut and dry why not release it? What does an investigation of a murder of US citizens need to kept out of the public eye? They are already told us "WHO" did it and "WHY" they did it, why won't they tell us HOW?
And yes I won't take the word of the people that won't tell me how they how they figured out the most crucial parts of this tragic day. Lives were lost and the people deserve to know EXACTLY what happened. Not "trust us, we figured it out"