What happened to WTC 7 again?

Wow anok, how did I know you wouldn't respond to that last comment.

Before I go over your ridiculous post, please give us a step by step analysis and timeline of what happened. You say you're not an expert yet you talk as if you know what happened. Common sense? Common sense is planes exploding into buildings isn't just a regular occurance and so you can't possibly compare demolitions to what happened. Anyway, I'll go over all that later. For now, I'll ask you again, please give tell us what happened step by step. Spare no details on the hows, the whys, the whos, etc.

Originally posted by bsbray11
How many times are you going to make a fool of yourself with this assertion before you give it up? Prove that most of the debris fell within the footprints.

?
You and millions if not billions around the world have seen the videos by now. Just because the walls or shell of the building spread outwards as each floor fell (again I said this before but, get a book, place a bunch of dust or whatever on that book, slam another book on top of that book. What happens? Put your face near it when you do it, what do you feel) doesn't mean the actual floors fell outward. How is that even possible?

Does being so high up in the air prevent explosives from working or something?

It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.

2. The collapse started at the impact points which means
a) whoever place the explosives would have had to been a psychic.
b) these explosives had to survive the plane impact, the resulting explosion, and the fires.
Extremely improbable.

Prove that it would've been extremely improbable. If you watch the impacts, you can see concrete dust being ejected perpendicular to the building faces just as it was when the buildings were collapsing.

And you can throw thermite or C4 or a number explosives directly into fire and they won't necessarily combust. Thermite won't ignite at such low temperatures, and C4, for example, can have plasticizers added to require higher temps to set off, even though I doubt most C4 would be set off in open-atmosphere, sooty fires like that in the first place.
lol
So...are you saying a psychic did in fact place the explosives there or were the explosives placed after the planes crashed?

Then you don't use wires.

There's no way you can place the amount of explosives needed to bring down the wtc unnoticed. Especially on the floors where the planes went in.

I'll just mention the obvious that the planes didn't bring the towers down. Anyone watching the tower impacts and the subsequent few seconds could realize this. NIST blames the fires. Maybe you should catch up to them and argue the same thing.

?
Every report I have seen has said that it was a combo of factors. Where in the NIST does it blame fires alone?

Comparing houses to steel skyscrapers and saying the mechanics are basically the same? That's like comparing a canoe to an aircraft carrier.

Prove it's not the same...
If there's a large fire on the top floor(s) of a house, what happens? The house is completely gutted and/or collapses. Why?

If you have an evidence that the central steel core was undamaged by the planes impact, please present it now.

There are two types of building collaspes, one is called implosion, the other, explosion.

During implosion, the interior of the struture is damaged, it fails, and it falls inward. This is generally seen during fires and construction accidents due t opoor construction.

During explsoion, outside forces are causing the collapse, and this is generally caused during an earthquake.

The fact that the WTC was not cut in half is an engineering marvel. However, it was not designed to with stand that damage it sustained. Go to Seattle and look at the IBM building. Look familiar?

www.emporis.com...

The WTC was a unique design, never made to withstand the power of a jetliner at 500+ mph. This is why you are hard pressed to find another building that has burned down, and certainly not one filled with that much jet fuel.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Before I go over your ridiculous post, please give us a step by step analysis and timeline of what happened. Spare no details on the hows, the whys, the whos, etc.

LOL...Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what you want me to tell you, my personal theory on what happened? What good is that to you?

The how's? How can I, or you, or anybody know how it was done?
All we know is that it is physically impossible for 3 buildings to collapse in their own footprints from fire, and or aircraft impacts, in the manner that the 3 WTC buildings did. That's the argument, who did it we can only guess at, BUT it is almost certain that it had to have been an inside job and certain ppl would have had to be in on it.

The whys? If you can't see the why's then you need to read more 9-11 threads, maybe you just skip over the posts that make you question your beliefs? I think the why's have been done to death before...a few times, no?
There are lots of them, and it doesn't take a genious to see them. Take a look.

The who's? Again I can only speculate on the who's, so what good is my speculation to you? I can make some educated guesses and I have my suspicions.
I'll leave the who's up to your imagination, I'm sure you can figure it out.
All I can say is I very much doubt it was who they say it was, unless they were allowed access to the WTC buildings prior to 9-11.

Do you really think members of the esteemed government are above doing acts like this? I'm sure you know all about 'Operation Northwoods' right?
That proves the mind set for an operation such as 9-11 was in our government years ago. Do you think they create these plans for fun?
"Let's waste our valuable time and tax payers money creating a plan that we would never dream of carrying out. Just for fun let's kill our own citizens, and down our own planes in this plan." "But Sir?" "Yes" "Why?" "Er....I don't know".

Look, when you have firefighters and other witnesses saying they heard and thought there were explosives in the buildings, and then we have video with audio of explosives, how can you say there is no evidence of explosives?
You ignore the raging evidence and continue with stupid debates about things NOBODY can agree about on either side of the fence.
You say there's no evidence? You ain't looking hard enough.
You say there is a problem with the demo theory? Then pls outline your expertise on how buildings fall vertically with no resistance or friction of any kind from lower floors? Nobody has done that yet, not NIST, not the unpopular mechanics rag, nobody!

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
?
You and millions if not billions around the world have seen the videos by now. Just because the walls or shell of the building spread outwards as each floor fell (again I said this before but, get a book, place a bunch of dust or whatever on that book, slam another book on top of that book. What happens? Put your face near it when you do it, what do you feel) doesn't mean the actual floors fell outward. How is that even possible?

It wasn't just dust. It was steel columns. I just told you to look at pics of Ground Zero but obviously you haven't done so.

I'm asking for proof that most of the debris fell straight down, and you aren't giving it to me.

It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.

Where did I suggest that? Have a link?

So...are you saying a psychic did in fact place the explosives there or were the explosives placed after the planes crashed?

And where did I suggest this?

A simple solution that any jackass could think of would be to just detonate the charges from the impacted foors down. Like I said, electronics is a wonderful technology. That kind of stuff can be organized on computers today and everything. It's just a matter of when you set each charge off, and for the added dimension of "from what floor," you exclude sets of charges from higher floors.

There's no way you can place the amount of explosives needed to bring down the wtc unnoticed. Especially on the floors where the planes went in.

You're thinking in terms of this being a conventional demolition, with conventional explosives. That would be totally asinine. Anything you can cram in the roof/floor between columns that can be triggered to detonate upon a certain signal could work, and you'd neither have to have a lot of explosives, nor a lot of wires running across floors.

?
Every report I have seen has said that it was a combo of factors. Where in the NIST does it blame fires alone?

You didn't just suggest it was a combo; you just suggested it was the planes.

But the NIST Report's figures on the weight each floor could support/etc. work out showing that the fires would've had to have caused 4x more damage to the structure of a single floor than the impacts did. As an example, less than 15% of the support columns were knocked out by the impacts, and the safety factor ratings (of the core and perimeter columns appropriately weighted) work out showing there would've had to have been about 75% failure on average on the upper floors of WTC1. That means over 60% from fire in addition to the initial >15% from an impact, and 15.

If there's a large fire on the top floor(s) of a house, what happens? The house is completely gutted and/or collapses. Why?

Because houses are usually two or three story and are made of wood?

Say, that might have something to do with why no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, too! Despite hundreds of skyscraper fires. Hm. Oh, except on 9/11. On that day, three of them collapsed in forms that were previously only known to controlled demolition. Must have been coincidence.

If you have an evidence that the central steel core was undamaged by the planes impact, please present it now.

First, this is totally off topic; second, I never suggested there was no damage to the core; third, science doesn't work by saying "prove me wrong."

[edit on 13-4-2006 by bsbray11]

Here's the simple version as to why it couldn't happen naturally: (Er, with the fires, IE w/o explosives)

The inside coloumns would of had to all collapse at the exact same time, and then all the support coloumns would have to collapse at the exact same time, milliseconds after the inside coloumns.

Why? Because the fall consits of the middle going down first, then the outside.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

You and millions if not billions around the world have seen the videos by now. Just because the walls or shell of the building spread outwards as each floor fell (again I said this before but, get a book, place a bunch of dust or whatever on that book, slam another book on top of that book. What happens? Put your face near it when you do it, what do you feel) doesn't mean the actual floors fell outward. How is that even possible?

Try this. Place a book with some dust on it and then slam a HOLLOWED out book on top of it. Any difference? Yeah, thought so.

It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.

Hmmm...but a few floors falling would? I don't get your reasoning here. A CD would do the SAME EXACT thing as haveing a few floors fall. So, it's either they can or they can't. Take your pick but please quit the double standards.

Prove that it would've been extremely improbable. If you watch the impacts, you can see concrete dust being ejected perpendicular to the building faces just as it was when the buildings were collapsing.

Maybe some of the explosives didn't make it through the impact as you suggest. This would account for puffs of dust at the impact sites wouldn't it?

So...are you saying a psychic did in fact place the explosives there or were the explosives placed after the planes crashed?

Hmm...how about GPS location and the foreknowledge that that is where they would hit? It IS reasonable and doable.

There's no way you can place the amount of explosives needed to bring down the wtc unnoticed. Especially on the floors where the planes went in.

I'll say it again I guess. How can you believe that a few floors collapsing can bring the buildings down, but refuse to believe that the buildings wouldn't need that much extra help demo style? Again, circular logic. Either a few floors can bring down the whole towers or they can't...make up your mind would ya.

Every report I have seen has said that it was a combo of factors. Where in the NIST does it blame fires alone?

It doesn't and he never said that. The plane damage was minimal in structural engineering terms. Minimal damage is damage that does not cause collapse. NIST is stating that the maximum damage was the fires.

Prove it's not the same...
If there's a large fire on the top floor(s) of a house, what happens? The house is completely gutted and/or collapses. Why?

Hmm...funny how you can compare a wood house to the steel skyscrapers but we can't compare a steel skyscraper that has some concrete columns to a steel skyscraper? Again, circular logic.

If you have an evidence that the central steel core was undamaged by the planes impact, please present it now.

If you have any evidence that the central steel core WAS DAMAGED by the planes impact, please present it now. Thank you.

Edit: sorry to steel your steam bsbray...I didn't get to your response before i responded.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]

That morning no one knew what was going on. There were reports of people firing RPG's from rooftops and many people in the second tower thought that it was another bombing like 93.

Read the book 102 minutes about the people who were there, survived and died. It is a good book that will explain alot of the reported inconsistencies, and open my eyes to some other factors that led to the collapse.

Helicopter pilots were the first to report the slipping of the upper floors of the first tower to collapse. It can be seen in pictures..

Again, I will ask, if it was not the 'pancake theory' as you call it, where is the explosives evidence, Have you ever seen how much it takes to bring down even a 10 story building?

Originally posted by esdad71
Again, I will ask, if it was not the 'pancake theory' as you call it, where is the explosives evidence, Have you ever seen how much it takes to bring down even a 10 story building?

Why do people not get my point? I'll say it again....STOP the circular logic. If you believe that a few floors collapsing brought the towers down, then it shouldn't be too hard to believe that a few floors say 3/4 up and then a few floors 1/2 up and then the bottom of the core columns would be all it would take. Why can't people get this threw their heads? It's either a few floors CAN bring down the buildings or a few floors CAN'T. So, this is a call to everyone.....please stop with the "it would take millions of explosives to bring the towers down"...especially if you believe that a few floors brought the towers down. Can't you people see the huge hypocricy in those statements?

Edit: To add....there's a huge difference between the potential energy of a 10 story building than a 110 story building. So, yes, that's why they have to place explosives on every floor of a 10 story building.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]

There was not minimal damamge to the inner core. Each inner core of the WTC was supported by columns, and there were also outer columns, which is hte desigh you see o the outside of the WTC. It was found that close to half of the supports in each tower were damamged, and fewer than a 1/4 of them were destroyed. This can be found in the NIST report I believe, when they recreated the impact. THere are pitures that show the buckling from the floors that collapsed. I don 't understand why it is so hard to accept that these towers were hit,and a combination of weakened stucture from the contact and subsequent fires that further weakened the floors. The fire that burned uncotrlloed for 7 hours eventually bought down WTC 7. I mean, wouldn't hey have jsut done it when 1 and 2 feel to make is more plausible?

There is no way that you could have wired the WTC to collapse without notice. None.

www.howstuffworks.com...

Read this simple article and it shows that there would have been no way to bring down the WTC with explosives.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Take a look at the picture that shows how the explosives are set up. Can you fathom what would ahve had to been done in the WTC for a controlled demo?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Wow anok, how did I know you wouldn't respond to that last comment.

Before I go over your ridiculous post, please give us a step by step analysis and timeline of what happened. You say you're not an expert yet you talk as if you know what happened. Common sense? Common sense is planes exploding into buildings isn't just a regular occurance and so you can't possibly compare demolitions to what happened. Anyway, I'll go over all that later. For now, I'll ask you again, please give tell us what happened step by step. Spare no details on the hows, the whys, the whos, etc.

TJW, esdad, Train, etc.

Do you support the gov't's theory or are you espousing your own? If you have your own theories then we can engage in a 'your evidence vs. our evidence' debate. If you support the gov't's theory, then I think the onus is on you to provide the evidence. The gov't has all the evidence, the experts, and the resources to uncover this mystery - get out the NIST and FEMA reports and show me where they give ANY conclusive evidence proving their hypotheses.

Still waiting for an answer to my question - does the WTC7 collapse LOOK like a controlled demolition to you guys/girls?

Come to think of it, if your theories are different than NIST's or FEMA's, give them a call. After reading their reports they need all the help they can get. After 4+ years all they have come up with is that they THINK that intense fires on the 5th (or 6th, or 4th) floor (intense fires they have yet to find evidence of) caused one of three structural columns (they're not sure which one) to fail, causing the whole building to collapse. Of course for this to be the case it would mean little or no fireproofing and sprinkler systems on the 5th floor, where the main fuel line ran through the building.

These are just the type of conditions I would be looking for if I was setting NYC's emergency bunker. Or an office of the secret service. Or the DoD, or the CIA for that matter....

Does that girl/guy look hot at the club only to wake up to a nightmare. It is all perception.

Yes, it looks like a implosion, which is what it was. but that does not mean it was a demo. The inner structure failed, and the building began to collapse inward. It started with the 'penthouses' as they call them on the roof, and in pictures you can see the building 'buckling' before the collapse. I thought that was what the demo was for?

Again. No way of them doing it in a controlled demolition style? Jees. If only a few floors can bring them down, why would every floor need to be wired? Why is this so hard for you esdad? The only thing they would have needed to do is sever the inner columns at a few places and at the base and the towers would come down. Don't believe me? Pay for some demo team to come up with a scope of work to demo a 110 story building.

I bet they don't plan on placing charges at every single floor. My bet would be that they would start the collapse from the bottom of the core structure (which if you believe eyewitness accounts...they did). Then have a few charges at say the top, middle and bottom and whalla...you have a building falling the exact same way the towers did. The only reason to place demolitions on every floor is to have it more controlled so it doesn't destroy the surroundings. To make it look more natural (i.e have debris flying into other buildings) all you need is what I suggested above. See, the problem is, you need to sever the core columns because they had lateral support and would have stood on their own even if the floors and outer columns fell around them. Hence the need for about 3 to 4 areas of demo. Hmm...how many squibs (for lack of a better word for them) were there? About 3 or 4 in each tower. Coincidence? I highly doubt it.

As for WTC7 (which is what the topic is about) you can see the squibs running up the building as in a controlled demolition. So, yeah, they would have had to have more charges in WTC7. But, someone put out the theory of charges already in place in that building because of the highly secretive tenents in the building. I for one think this theory plausible because of the highly important information contained in that building. I would bet that the other government buildings have this set up too. Like the CIA building (which ironically is called the George Bush Center For Intellegence...which I laugh every time I pass that sign). Or the State Department. What do you think they would do if there was a fire at the State Department and papers and such were flying everywhere? It would be easier to just destroy the building before anything could leak out. My theory is based on someone else's posts on here somewhere....so it's just speculation on my part. Oh, and that's why they are keeping the controlled demolition of WTC7 a secret. Would you feel safe working in a building that you know has already been set to be destroyed when any damage to the building occurs?

So, instead of attempting to 'salvage' the important info that was housed at WTC 7, including a few CIA front companies, they 'destroy' it with preplaced explosives to be used in just such type of event? There has been speculation and i have read it in books, where there are EMP type weapons that would destory server rooms and such, but to my knowledge, I don't think the government builds buildings wtih explosives built in.


Do any of you realize that this was attempted in 93 also? So you are stating that it took 8 years to wire it? I understand the basic premise of demolition, i was hoping to maybe enlighten those who are not with those very simple links.

Originally posted by esdad71
Do any of you realize that this was attempted in 93 also? So you are stating that it took 8 years to wire it? I understand the basic premise of demolition, i was hoping to maybe enlighten those who are not with those very simple links.

Are you talking about WTC7? I don't think that building was attempted in '93. So, that doesn't have anything to do with it. What do they give spies (at least in the movies...who knows just thinking here)? Cyanide tablets in case they get caught. Wouldn't they have a fail safe plan for a building that might be under attack and have much much more information contained in it than a single person would have?

Edit: If the fires are so raging as you guys say, how are they going to "salvage" anything? At the very least, the documents would be flooded with water. But, also think about if they actually did want to destroy these documents (evidence). What would you do? Have firefighters in your very secretive building or demolish it while no one was in there?

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]

esdad

so it looks like an implosion. Thanks for answering. The FEMA and NIST reports have no conclusive evidence of the implosion being caused by structural failure, so why do you think this is the case?

In the history of man no steel framed building has collapsed due to structural failure caused by fire. Zero precedent, no conclusive evidence, save for the visual which you yourself said looked like an implosion. Why then do you argue the coincidental failure argument?

Originally posted by ANOK
LOL...Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what you want me to tell you, my personal theory on what happened? What good is that to you?

Well you all keep saying what didn't happen, so obviously you all know what did.

bs here claims that the bombs were planted and they were somehow unnoticed. He still hasn't explained how though. He's also suggesting that the bombs were placed on every floor.

A simple solution that any jackass could think of would be to just detonate the charges from the impacted foors down.

So the charges were still in place and undamaged on the impacted floors on down according to him.
1. Do anyone of you realize how much explosives that is?
2. Again, how do you hide something like that?
bs fails to address this, all he says is

That kind of stuff can be organized on computers today and everything. It's just a matter of when you set each charge off, and for the added dimension of "from what floor," you exclude sets of charges from higher floors.

Who the 'f' cares how they went off. It's WHAT went off that we're talking about. Were these bombs placed when the building was constructed?

The how's? How can I, or you, or anybody know how it was done?
All we know is that it is physically impossible for 3 buildings to collapse in their own footprints from fire, and or aircraft impacts, in the manner that the 3 WTC buildings did.

BASED ON WHAT!?
This has NEVER happened before so how could you POSSIBLY know that!?!?!?
This is what I'm talking about. You say you're not an "expert" yet you talk as if you know everything.

Look, when you have firefighters and other witnesses saying they heard and thought there were explosives in the buildings

You have no CLUE as to how much confusion there was that day. I was in the middle of the mass hysteria here in DC, there were reports of bombs going off, planted bombs, etc. everywhere. I imagine it was worse up in NY.

and then we have video with audio of explosives, how can you say there is no evidence of explosives?

I have not seen one video where they showed explosives. I have not heard one piece of audio with explosives. Please provide links.

OK there must be more damage to building 7 that I haven't seen, are you privy to pics we aren't?

Nope, the side that was damaged was on the south side. The side facing the towers. Getting to that side was impossible. We could only see glimpses. These are the south west corner...

In this situation, no matter how weak the floors were, you're going to get resistance from the floors that were not damaged. A huge percentage of the lower floors were not damaged AT ALL. Do you really think 5 floors on fire could heat up the steel, many yards bellow, enough for them to collapse?
Do you think the approx 20% top portion had enough weight to pulverize the rest of the building with no sign of resistance al all? In fact the top portion was pulverized into dust before it even impacted the lower floors, how do you explain this? With another smiley?

Again, what we're seeing is on the outside. You have no clue to what was happening on the inside.
Also, watch the videos of the collapse again. The rate at which they fell would be consistant with the floors pancaking.
I know you all were claiming earlier that when the south tower fell the top tilted then fell straight down or whatever, but seriously look at the videos again. That top part (impact point upwards) started falling and fell into the lower part for at least 2 or 3 seconds before the lower part started to fall.
www.youtube.com...
Focus on the building itself not the debris falling from the top part.
With the North Tower, the whole top part (impact point and up) almost disappeared into the building before the rest of it started to fall.
www.youtube.com...

LOL So? No one put a man on the moon before but they did it. You reasoning is err a little niave. Obviously it did work.

If you're going to do something like that, why would you pick that time to experiment? That doesn't make sense. You would go with something that has proven to work time and time again.

Look at building 7 collapsing, does that start at the impact point We are talking about WTC7. But look at a video of building 2 collapse, you can see it starts above the impact point.

We were talking about the twin towers.
Building two collapses where most of the fire is.

I never said I did.
I don't. Except the designers of the buildings said it should have survived multiple hits by a 707.

If I remember correctly he said it was designed to take a hit from a 707. He believed it could take multiple aircraft (he didn't specify which kind) but I don't ever recall him saying it was designed for that. These weren't 707s btw....
And if you don't know if a plane can or can not do that then why in the world are you saying that it didn't do it. You just said you didn't know!

Either you do know or you don't. Which is it?

It's the fuel from the planes burning up. And you should know that controlled demo is a totally different deal than a random explosion.

How different? The explosions will have the same effect no?
The plane exploded IN the building
www.youtube.com...
How is it that much different?

The evidence has been presented, you refuse to see common sense, not much I can help you with there. How many more times does it have to be explained?

lol, what evidence? No evidence has been presented. You know why? Because this hasn't happened before!!!!!
Common sense?
Common sense is when a plane EXPLODES in a building like that...it's going to cause some damage. Critical dammage. Then when the fires continue to burn and spread like that it's going to cause more critical damage and weaken the structure further. That's common sense.

Oh I know, it's made up for you, no need to think, or risk seeming too liberal or lefty. Now go be a good little boy, and do and think as your government tells you.

The government didn't tell me a thing. This is based on my own research. (to tell you the truth I still haven't even read the FEMA or NIST reports)
How did you come to your conclusion? Based on "evidence" presented at biased anti government websites?
How is that different from someone listening to the government??


Back to bs:

You didn't just suggest it was a combo; you just suggested it was the planes.

Where?

Say, that might have something to do with why no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, too! Despite hundreds of skyscraper fires. Hm. Oh, except on 9/11.

No building has ever had a plane that large slammed into it on purpose either.

On that day, three of them collapsed in forms that were previously only known to controlled demolition.

I have NEVER seen one demolition ever fall like towers 1 and 2 did. Since you said that the type of collaspe that happened is known, surely you have evidence to support such a claim.

third, science doesn't work by saying "prove me wrong."

Where did I say that?
I asked you to present evidence. You made a claim, tell/show me why I should believe your claim.

griff:

Hmmm...but a few floors falling would? I don't get your reasoning here. A CD would do the SAME EXACT thing as haveing a few floors fall. So, it's either they can or they can't. Take your pick but please quit the double standards.

What?
CDs are done to prevent the spread of debris and dust, that's why they place the charges in certain areas. In tall buildings like that they always start from the bottom and work their way up to allow the building to collapse inward.

Hmm...how about GPS location and the foreknowledge that that is where they would hit? It IS reasonable and doable.

So while traveling at 500 mph in a major city, the pilots had time to count up 80 or so floors and manuvered the plane just right as to not hit the explosives?

I'll say it again I guess. How can you believe that a few floors collapsing can bring the buildings down, but refuse to believe that the buildings wouldn't need that much extra help demo style? Again, circular logic. Either a few floors can bring down the whole towers or they can't...make up your mind would ya.

None of what you just said made sense.
I said there's no way you can hide that much explosives on those top floors. What are you talking about?

Anyway, look at the videos again. The top parts fell as one. So that's at least 13 floors falling on one floor which was of course damaged already, and as the chain reaction continued again, more weight and more momentum was being picked up. Why would it need help?


[edit on 14-4-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
What?
CDs are done to prevent the spread of debris and dust, that's why they place the charges in certain areas. In tall buildings like that they always start from the bottom and work their way up to allow the building to collapse inward.

You forgot to quote the part in my statement where I explain this. Yes, a controlled demolition is used with many explosives when you don't want debris flying into the neighbor buildings. If you want it to look more natural, you would only need to sever the columns in a few places and let gravity do it's job with no regaurd of the neighboring buildings.

So while traveling at 500 mph in a major city, the pilots had time to count up 80 or so floors and manuvered the plane just right as to not hit the explosives?

Or how about this. The actual sequence that the official story is correct. Meaning that planes and fire damage did initiate collapse. But, to make sure that the rest of the building goes down, you place strategic charges down further in the building. That way you don't need any charges up in the building. This could account for the cover up. Because they don't want it known that the security of the towers was breached along with the airlines. These are only theories of mine.

None of what you just said made sense.
I said there's no way you can hide that much explosives on those top floors. What are you talking about?

Maybe I can put it differently. I'm talking about people believing that a few floors can bring the towers down but won't believe that a few floors plus a few explosives can. Understand now? English is not my strong suit and I have problems sometimes getting my thoughts out clearly. This way you wouldn't need to hide that many explosives in the building.

Anyway, look at the videos again. The top parts fell as one. So that's at least 13 floors falling on one floor which was of course damaged already, and as the chain reaction continued again, more weight and more momentum was being picked up. Why would it need help?

IMO it would need help because of the core column structure. It was designed to stand on it's own basically. Even though it didn't have diagonal bracing, it did have lateral bracing. This means it could withstand horizontal forces and buckling resistance even though it wasn't designed for horizontal forces. Diagonal bracing is for shear forces. Although, it can be argued that the floors and outer columns failing had enough shear force to tear the inner columns apart. So, basically, I'm not so set in my theories that I can't change my point of view.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]

Implosion is a demolition or structural term for the collapse of a building that begins internally, and not created by outside forces. Everything collpases in an many times will fall into it's own foundation with minimal damamge to surronding structure.

Buildings 'implode' without fire or plane crashes. Many of them are in the construction phase, but do collapse They do not need to have explosives to 'implode'. Funny how a word can different meanings, it is just a matter of perception and understanding of the word in the correct context.

Thanks for clearing that up, esdad.

Now how about the conclusive evidence from the NIST and FEMA reports? How about answering just one of my questions simply and not around them?

Does WTC7's collapse look like a controlled demolition?

Where is the government's conclusive evidence of what caused WTC 7 to fall?

Can you provide me evidence of any other steel framed building that collapsed due to damage caused by fire?