Should we just focus on Building 7?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly, people will say "it looked like a controlled demolition" but when you think about what a controlled demolition really looks like, it was nothing like a controlled demolition.

In a controlled demolition you have months and months of prep work, leading up to the implosion and if you watch any video of high rise controlled demolition it does not even look like one.



that was a 31 story building, you can quite clearly see that there has been loads of prep work done before, as it falls you can see the flash's of light from the explosions and then hear lots of explosives going off one after the other. even the way the building falls is different.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly, people will say "it looked like a controlled demolition" but when you think about what a controlled demolition really looks like, it was nothing like a controlled demolition.

In a controlled demolition you have months and months of prep work, leading up to the implosion and if you watch any video of high rise controlled demolition it does not even look like one.

that was a 31 story building, you can quite clearly see that there has been loads of prep work done before, as it falls you can see the flash's of light from the explosions and then hear lots of explosives going off one after the other. even the way the building falls is different.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but the speed of which building 7 fell, and I have watched it side by side with several other demolitions, it looks everything like a controlled demolition to me.

It doesn't mean the same explosives were used to create the effect, but the effect was identical, IMHO.

a reply to: jaffo

Really? Says who, exactly?

The internet dumby dah.

Well gosh, a guy on the internet said "no they don't." I guess that clearly trumps science, lol...

Oops sorry I see you get it

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That's a steel-reinforced concrete building. WTC 7 had a massive steel frame.

Has it occurred to you that there are different demolition techniques for different types of construction/materials?

If it hasn't, then you are lagging far behind in your research.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: oxidadoblanco
a reply to: jaffo

I agree...

Simple physics brought those buildings down,,

If i make a 3 story building out of concrete and steel and jam a 64 chevy into it...

IT WILL FAIL.........

And.....It will "explode" debris out the sides............

Something is wrong with the video....Why is there "explosion" with a complete fail of a building?

It should have been a total ..................I do not know.................

All you experts might want to renegotiate your belief...Just a thought....

lol

No real expertise needed, just some critical thought and basic logic of how things work, but really no expertise needed to understand the bigger something the harder it will fall and the more damage it will create.


3 stories compared to 100 stories just shows you have great critical thinking skills.

exploding debris from a falling building is similar to like when you sit on whoopee cushion or does sitting on on one make no fart noise?

Just a thought..

One thought is about the limit many have concerning conspiracy theories have these days because thinking further than a thought hurts their belief and need to be open minded instead of having a sound mind that can differentiate fact from fiction.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but the speed of which building 7 fell, and I have watched it side by side with several other demolitions, it looks everything like a controlled demolition to me.

It doesn't mean the same explosives were used to create the effect, but the effect was identical, IMHO.

Similar to how Contrails and Chemtrails look alike yet some simply know by sight alone that its demolition and a chemtrail.

Amazing abilities that these people have are never explained to me when I ask where they get their super powers from, their bionic vision that can chemically analyse trails in the sky or know that explosives are going of when none can be seen or heard simply amazes me.

originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That's a steel-reinforced concrete building. WTC 7 had a massive steel frame.

Has it occurred to you that there are different demolition techniques for different types of construction/materials?

If it hasn't, then you are lagging far behind in your research.

soulwaxer

I know that, I was only using the video to illustrate a point.

Truthers have warped controlled demolition to suit the needs of their theories ignoring that a controlled implosion is not a straight down just happens with a few well placed explosives. They are complex engineering challenges that require lots of work, finance, labour and planning.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

It doesn't mean the same explosives were used to create the effect, but the effect was identical, IMHO.

Unless you can actually provide evidence however that there was some other external factors that contributed to the demise of the building that point means nothing.

NIST provided a complex explanation for why the building fell, this is a view backed by most of the worlds experts in high rise buildings.

If you believe otherwise, that is fine, if you believe for example that it was brought down by explosives, fair enough, go for it, but just know this that unless you have actual proof that explosives were used (or mini-nukes, space lasers, thermite, ect) then your belief that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition is just a that a belief. Your views hold no more strength or merit than me saying that I belief the world to be flat.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

My biggest gripe with the "controlled demolition" story is why did no one notice all the bombs being setup in the days leading up to 9/11? It is pretty obvious when you walk into a building that is wired for a controlled demolition that it is going to be blown up. The bombs used on all the main support columns are easy to pick out and many times in the middle of the building for anyone walking by to see. You could NEVER set all those bombs up before hand without anyone noticing. The whole damn building's employees would have to be in on the secret.

Exactly. The idea that ANY of the buildings were wired for demolition is so utterly laughable. It simply is not possible to wire an entire structure of that size for demolition without literally MONTHS of planning and TONS of cord and explosives and damage to the walls and floors of the building, utilizing hundreds of workers and creating thousands of pounds of debris which would have to be removed in advance of the demolition. ALL OF THIS would have been plain as day to anyone walking by the building, through the building, working in the building or working on the building or selling materials to destroy the building. The buildings WERE NOT wired for demolition. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that ANY of the buildings at the heart of this were brought down by anything other than structural failure caused by extensive damage which was itself caused by planes smashing into the buildings and fires that raged out of control for hours and hours. This conspiracy fails and it really should not be front page material any longer. It's been debunked OVER AND OVER. Seriously, the vast majority of ATS readers are tired of having to swat away the same flies at least once a month.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Jchristopher5

It doesn't mean the same explosives were used to create the effect, but the effect was identical, IMHO.

Unless you can actually provide evidence however that there was some other external factors that contributed to the demise of the building that point means nothing.

NIST provided a complex explanation for why the building fell, this is a view backed by most of the worlds experts in high rise buildings.

If you believe otherwise, that is fine, if you believe for example that it was brought down by explosives, fair enough, go for it, but just know this that unless you have actual proof that explosives were used (or mini-nukes, space lasers, thermite, ect) then your belief that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition is just a that a belief. Your views hold no more strength or merit than me saying that I belief the world to be flat.

NIST provided a comprehensive explanation of why the building fell? Are you kidding me? They didn't even disclose the model they used saying it might "jeopardize public safety".

Here is a hypothetical example. A police chief murders his wife, but is able to control the crime scene. He has a handy alibi and there is never any evidence to convict him. Does that mean he is innocent? Of course not, it means the the game was rigged.

Likewise the government controlled the crime scene in NYC, and they pick and choose what they wanted to establish as facts. Barry Jennings testimony, for example, was not part of the official story, to which its own co-chairs said was underfunded, politically motivated and setup to fail.

I get tired of repeating myself, but our government, and the powers behind it are very evil. Northwoods, MK Ultra, CIA global drug ring, complicit drug money laundering by HSBC and other banks. The game is rigged. How can you not see that?

Why do you trust the official story? They have given us no reason to trust them at their word. NONE.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

NIST provided a comprehensive explanation of why the building fell? Are you kidding me?

No I am not kidding you.

Shocker, but no I am not kidding you.

NIST highlight that throughout that day there were at least 10 fire’s burning inside WTC-7 with out of control fires raging on floors 7-9 and 11-13. The heat from these fires caused the steel beams supporting these floors to sag as a result of fire induced thermal expansion. Due to the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion between steel and concrete the connections holding floor 13 to column 79 failed resulting in the collapse of floor 13 when a girder connecting column 44 to 79 collapsed. The collapse of floor 13 caused a progressive collapse of the floors below it on until they reached the reinforced floor 5. However this action left column 79 (one of the 3 large support columns for the eastern portion of the building) without any lateral support cause it to buckle, the cause of the “kink” and then its failure. The Failure of column 79 resulted in an upwards progression of collapse of the floors it was supporting which caused the collapse of the East Penthouse. This put additional strain on the 2 remaining supporting interior columns, 80 and 81 which under the redistributed weight coupled with the debris and effects of fire also buckled causing the first and second transfer trusses to also fail. This redistributed the load of the building on to columns 58-7 and now the entire weight of the building was being supported by these interior columns which were insufficient (hence the need for the transfer trusses in the first place), and as such they also began to buckle and fail. The columns began to fail form east to west (as is evidence from the collapse of the east penthouse) this caused a progressive collapse of the core support of the building and the entire interior of the building collapsed. Eventually the building essentially became a hollow shell and the exterior support columns also failed and the building fell straight down. There was very little resistance because the interior of the building had already collapsed.

If you read the report you might learn a little something.

Barry Jennings testimony, for example, was not part of the official story

Actually he is mentioned in the NIST report, not by name but the story of him and Mr Hess being inside the building is in the report.

Why do you trust the official story?

because i have researched it, from both sides of this "truther vs os" debate.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wow. That's a lot of fancy words to backup your argument. If I posted a lot of documented skyscraper videos burning for many more hours than WTC7, that did not collapse, and I'm sure you probably know of them... How does your current theory apply to other towering infernos not falling because of fires?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

the entire interior of the building collapsed. Eventually the building essentially became a hollow shell and the exterior support columns also failed and the building fell straight down. There was very little resistance because the interior of the building had already collapsed.

We've all seen this theory many times, yet no-one can explain how that is even possible. Do you expect us to believe that the interior of the building wasn't attached to the exterior?

a reply to: Philippines

Those other towering infernos did not have a 1100 foot high skyscraper carve twenty story holes out of them. Again....why do people forget that 7 was heavily damaged........

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Philippines

Those other towering infernos did not have a 1100 foot high skyscraper carve twenty story holes out of them. Again....why do people forget that 7 was heavily damaged........

I don't doubt there was ambiguously explained damage that happened to WTC7, which was rather far from WTC1&2. It's not about "us people" forgetting what happened, but more like people who question "why" when reality shows that conventional fires do not melt steel enough for a collapse, but maybe in extreme cases some buckling.

Perhaps I need to post links for you to see steel buildings on fire and not collapsing?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I noticed that since I brought up the point about prep time for the controlled demolition, not a single truther has addressed that point and instead opted to go with the standard, "But it looks like a controlled demolition!" argument.

It doesn't matter WHAT the collapse looked like; if you can't explain how the bombs got into the building in the first place then it clearly wasn't a controlled demolition.

a reply to: Philippines

How does your current theory apply to other towering infernos not falling because of fires?

First of all it is not my theory, it is just my summary of the sequence of collapse as proposed by NIST in their report but yes it does explain why the building fell.

But to address your question,

I quite often get asked "why have no other buildings fell like this?", the answer is really quite simple but not entirely satisfying to those who believe that it must have been controlled demolition. Quite simply it is because WTC-7 like almost all other high rise building was unique, in this particular case the building had a number of weaknesses that were exposed that day, mostly this was because the buildings foundations were put in for a much smaller building which created a number of challenges for the engineers.

Essentially the only way that the argument "no other building has fell like that" would ever hold any merit would be if one were to recreate the exact building and the exact conditions that lead to his collapse. That is never going to happen.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Do you expect us to believe that the interior of the building wasn't attached to the exterior?

Its up to you what you believe, as I said to another member, this version of the collapse has widespread scientific support but there are alternatives with less proof. For example some argue that thermite was used to destroy WTC-7 despite the fact that there is actually zero evidence to support this. If you chose to believe that the building was demolished deliberately using some other external factor that is up to you, but if you have no proof then it will always just be a belief.

I on the other hand have a body of history and science standing behind my argument that is widely accepted as a "fact" (or as close to one as we can get). With out any solid evidence saying you believe it was a controlled demolition is a view point that holds no more strength or merit than me saying that I believe the world to be flat.

a reply to: Philippines

How does your current theory apply to other towering infernos not falling because of fires?

One little factor could be the other buildings( that I assume I know as they have all been brought up before ) weren't damaged by the collapse of other building falling around them and taking a chunk of the said other building being on fire you are thinking of.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Quite simply it is because WTC-7 like almost all other high rise building was unique, in this particular case the building had a number of weaknesses that were exposed that day, mostly this was because the buildings foundations were put in for a much smaller building which created a number of challenges for the engineers.

Here's a quote directly from Silverstein himself talking about WTC7..

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.