Mystery of Building 7 collapse, on 9/11

Yes according the the maps building 7 is at least a block away. A lot further then 4,5, and 6

Across the street is hardly a block away, although it does look closer to 300-400 feet, which again, isnt even HALF as high as the towers were.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Across the street is hardly a block away, although it does look closer to 300-400 feet, which again, isnt even HALF as high as the towers were.

But the towers collapsed almost straight down, They did not fall over ontoi the buildings.

Oh but you still forgetting about builidngs 4,5, and 6. they were closer had more damage and fire and did not collapse. So what is your excuse for them not collapsing?

You might want to look on this image and tell me again about how far 7 is away from the towers.

www.asecular.com...




[edit on 10-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Tower cladding (exterior parts of the towers) ended up on Barclay street, which is on the FAR side of WTC7. In other words, parts of the towers fell PAST WTC7.

Oh but you still forgetting about builidngs 4,5, and 6. they were closer had more damage and fire and did not collapse. So what is your excuse for them not collapsing?

Find some better pics of the aftermath for WTC6. A large part of the interior of the building was crushed, leaving the exterior walls standing.

Look at all the maps you want WTC7 WAS showered with debris and damage was extensive...

Originally posted by CameronFox
Look at all the maps you want WTC7 WAS showered with debris and damage was extensive...

Ok i see debris falling in front of the builidng but not on the building. And you not mentioned buildings 4,5, and 6. How did they stand with more damage and more fires?



[edit on 10-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Your kidding right? Look at the second picture! Hell look at the third picture..there is smoke pouring out of virtually EVERY window.. ( yes i know this does not mean it was ALL fire.

What photos there are. back up everything that the firefighters stated about the condition of WTC7

ETA... crop the 1st pic and enlarge it to 200%. You will see the debris hitting the top front of the roof. No question.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by CameronFox]

www.debunking911.com...

Okay, halfway (or so) down the page is a picture that shows the aftermath, you can see a large exterior section of the Tower 1 still standing, WTC6 which shows that the interior of WTC6 is basically gone and what is left of WTC7. So, Tower 1 knocked the middle of WTC6 into the basement during its collapse, as well as clobbering WTC7.

Rest of the page makes for good reading too.

In regards to the other buildings, I have not done enough studies on them to offer an opinion. (yet) This thread is about the WTC7 collapse. But you keep moving the goal posts... WTC7 WAS HIT by massive amounts of debris...there is no question.

Originally posted by CameronFox
What photos there are. back up everything that the firefighters stated about the condition of WTC7

Do you mean the firefighters that stated that 10 floors, 8-18 had some damage?

I am still waiting for your explanation of 4,5, and 6. Becuase if there was so much damage to building 7 to make it collapse how would smaller builidngs that were closer survive?




[edit on 10-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and 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

You mean Capt Chris Boyle from Engine 94 NYFD? 20 story hole....

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
What photos there are. back up everything that the firefighters stated about the condition of WTC7

Do you mean the firefighters that stated that 10 floors, 8-18 had some damage?

[edit on 10-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

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.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

www.firehouse.com...


I'd be more than happy to post more witness statements...there are many.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Across the street is hardly a block away, although it does look closer to 300-400 feet, which again, isnt even HALF as high as the towers were.

Something around 500 feet, and I don't know what you're trying to imply. The North Tower most certainly did not lean in WTC7's direction as it "fell", thus the height of the tower means nothing. The debris that hit it was singularly ejected by some lateral force from the perimeter of the building.

Originally posted by CameronFox
I'd be more than happy to post more witness statements...there are many.

Ok, i can post witnesses and photos too. Lets look at the FEMA report and what the firemen reported.

www.wtc7.net...
According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree.

Please show me the damage and fires in this photo.
www.jonesreport.com...





[edit on 10-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Lets get one fact straight. There were numerous PEOPLE who were hit by the that dust and stuff as it was falling as well, and some of those people are still standing, I surely would hope a Building of Steel would be a little more redundant then that!

Now, if building 7 collapsed because of what fell, why didn't it fall when it was damaged?
Obviously the building had no problems standing after the collapse. Next we are supposed to now believe *FIRE* then finished it?

That is ridiculous.



[edit on 11-3-2007 by talisman]

What else would you expect from a couple of FOX employees? Instead of putting their journalistic abilities to good use, they appear to have been enticed by the forces of e-ville. I wonder how many fold their salaries increased on/after 9/11? They're just trying to protect that gravy train.

Fox employee? I sure hope that wasnt directed at me....I mean, Ive been called a Government Agent, a New World Order conspirator, and even an Agent of Satan....all are supremely wrong.

I am a union factory worker, and I also fix F-16s one weekend a month and two weeks to 5 months a year. Well I guess that WOULD make me a government employee......

Bsbray, if the cladding on Barclay street was "ejected" by a lateral force, what about the cladding that ended up on the top of what was left of WTC 6 and that cladding which was across the street to WTC 7?

Better yet, go back and check the news tapes of that day......

Now, if building 7 collapsed because of what fell, why didn't it fall when it was damaged?

You are kidding right? I mean, that cannot be a serious question after all the events of that day...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Now, if building 7 collapsed because of what fell, why didn't it fall when it was damaged?

You are kidding right? I mean, that cannot be a serious question after all the events of that day...

Seriously, 2 steel structures had already collapsed because of fire, both being the first times EVER on Earth.. why not a 3rd?

Seriously, 2 steel structures had already collapsed because of fire, both being the first times EVER on Earth.. why not a 3rd?

2 steel structures had collapsed due to severe damage and fire, why do people always forget that it was a combination of damage and fire that brought down the three buildings. One group says fire and forgets the damage, another says damage and forgets the fires......

Originally posted by CameronFox
WTC7 WAS HIT by massive amounts of debris...there is no question.

The planes impacts into the towers also did "massive" damage, right?

And yet it barely affected the overall structures at all, and even NIST will tell you this, in more vague terms. The debris that hit WTC7 was in no way comparable to that kind of structural damage, even with WTC7's relative size taken into account, and you can rest assured of that.


What you should try to do is come up with numbers or diagrams showing the damage. No one has seen it. Plus, you're very biased against demolition theories.