Originally posted by scrapple
These were very large steel, aluminum and concrete prefab units; the infamous ‘flap-jacks’ to the NIST pancake theory - which they now discount I believe. Regardless, few if any pancakes were recovered at ground zero, much less an acre sized 36’foot thick cake that would have been almost 4 stories of pure concrete ( ~110 floors x 4” concrete). A number that discounts the volume of steel spanning elements buttered in-between each concrete layer. So fine, if no pancake theory where are a thousand plus concrete floor sections? Unfortunately, the book doesn’t have much to say about WTC janitorial services, which evidently must have sucked, because AS steel towers ‘collapsed’ – we all saw just how 'dusty' they were inside!

There is more than enough evidence to prove that 911 was an inside job run by Israel and a hugh score of people profited from subsidiary events to that day.

You made a good point about debris because falling debris may break or even shatter but what leads to pulverization? I still wonder how the gold got out of the basement of the WTC and where it went to?

The pro-government side knows as long as a good percentage of the population wants to or needs to trust government, that they have a shot at confusing the issues enough to prevent wide acceptance of the truth by those not yet aware of it.

I think this thread has conclusively proven than NIST misled the public on the amount of damage to WTC7 and exaggerated it for purposes of justifying the structural failure of the building for its resultant collapse. This argument is highly flawed and suspect in itself without considering anything else that happened on that fateful murderous day.

I say murderous because thousands of people were murdered on that day. Think that the same number dying on 911 as died in Iraq for the US and they had a fighting chance to come back alive. But those murderers on 911 are worse than the people they declared war on as a solution to the destruction we witnessed on that day.

Scrap mate, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, I think in general it's best to try and keep on track - 9/11 threads have a tendency to try and hash out all issues in all threads.. this is a great one so far about WTC7, let's keep it going

Originally posted by Griff
Selfless,

I'm presumming that that photo is of the North facade? If so, that photo really doesn't show much as to how much fire was on the south or damage to the south. Anyway though, it DOES show that there was nothing wrong with the north facade. So, how did that portion of the building fail exactly with the rest of the building again? That's retorical and not aimed at you Selfless.

[edit on 5/13/2007 by Griff]

What it does show is that the windows are not even breaking... That must no be a very hot fire if the windows are not even cracking or breaking ON THE ENTIRE FACE.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The building did not fall perfectly into it's footprint, it fell to the south and to the east, damaging buildings across the street from it and filling the streets with debris.

Can you link to pics of this damage from across the street please. How do you know it's not damaged from the towers collapse?

In fact, the opposite of falling into it's footprint happened.

This statement is so wrong, I don't know where to begin. The opposite of falling into it's footprint would be a straight over topple. Is that what happened? Nice try though.

Also consider the debris. If the debris extended that far into the alley, imagine how far into the building it went.

Yes, cause we all know that WTC 7's facade and the rest of the building material gives no resistance to anything going through it. As confirmed by the no resistance collapse.

Further evidence that there was enough damage to the building to bring it down without bombs.

Not really, just your opinion. Or would you like to post the calculations and/or computer model analysis to back up those statements?

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the coverup.

Try opening your eyes. Opening the mind also helps.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Because that is what happened, as numerous eyewitness and photographic data attest to. I didn't think this would need any backing up since if you would bother to look into it at all, you would already know this.

You stated that seeing the debris in the alley shows us how far the debris would be in the building. I said no way because of the resistance force the debris would be exposed to upon hitting the facade. Unless the facade was made of paper.

Exterior columns 'triads' would penetrate the facade, and the 'new' images seem to show some of that, but that doesn't mean theyd go as far as the other debis in the alleyway (that would mean all the way thru the building). Most of that alleyway debris is "cladding" and other 'light' sheets / objects (by comparison to exterior columns, said debris is paperlike).

Those are called "floor decking" panels. You can see some in the OP photos (kind of rare sights actually).

EDIT: Wait, do you mean the entire units (trusses, "decking", supports, etc combined prefab sections) ??

The "decking" is the thick curvy sheetmetal that the concrete pours over.

To answer that question, no, I haven't yet seen any examples of complete 'units' intact, and doubt I will.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

quote: Originally posted by Caustic Logic

It doesn't even explain the middle of the building falling first and the rest falling into its footprint, does it? I'd expect a leaning collapse southwest into the rubble zone. Am I wrong?

quote: Originally posted by LeftBehind

Well, internal damage that caused supports in the middle of the building to fail would explain why the middle collapsed first. How do explosives/thermite/mininiukes account for the middle falling first?

Sigh, this is getting to be an old argument. You are not actually going off of any real data. This is evident in the lack of understanding on your part. Yes, the middle crimping and collapsing inward is the CLASSIC telltale sign of explosives my friend. Damage to supports in the middle of this building will not cause the entire building to fall symmetrically. Old argument.

The penthouse failure leads me to think that no bombs were used, but instead that key failures led to a progressive collapse.

Yup, a perfectly synchronized collapse that allowed the building to fall straight down. Go ahead, attack this statement with your next. I’m going to answer that one too.

The building did not fall perfectly into it's footprint, it fell to the south and to the east, damaging buildings across the street from it and filling the streets with debris. In fact, the opposite of falling into it's footprint happened.

Yes it DID fall into its footprint. What the ‘debunkers’ keep forgetting is that there were 47 stories worth of building above the ground. The majority fell into the footprint while the top half, which had nowhere else to go, fell outwards after the collapse and into the adjacent streets and buildings. The same thing happened with the towers. But you simply throw this argument out without really thinking it through.

These pictures clearly demonstrate where the damage starting at the 18th floor tapered out, proving that there was indeed major damage on the SW corner spanning over ten floors.

Yup, major damage in a massive building where the corner was scooped out. Yup, that’ll cause it to come straight down and not SLANT TOWARDS THE MASSIVE DAMAGE!

Also consider the debris. If the debris extended that far into the alley, imagine how far into the building it went. Further evidence that there was enough damage to the building to bring it down without bombs.

Dude, THAT DEBRIS was from the towers! Sheesh!

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the coverup.

Yes, you are missing a LOT OF SOMETHINGS! And you don't SEE a cover up because you don't want to see one.

Originally posted by dariousg
Sigh, this is getting to be an old argument. You are not actually going off of any real data. This is evident in the lack of understanding on your part.

Really? So are you saying that all the eyewitnesses who saw the damage at 7, and the firefighters who thought it would collapse from the fires burning uncontrolled are all liars?

There is a huge amount of data that points to WTC 7 being damaged by falling debris and then burning unconrolled for hours. What data are you counting as "real"? And why do you think the witnesses were liars?

Yes, the middle crimping and collapsing inward is the CLASSIC telltale sign of explosives my friend. Damage to supports in the middle of this building will not cause the entire building to fall symmetrically. Old argument.

That's great, who told you that Alex Jones? For the sake of argument let's say that that is indeed a sign of explosive demolition. So what? There are also many things that rule out the use of explosives, why do you ignore those in favor of one characteristic? Another CLASSIC telltale sign is visible and audible explosive charges, something completely missing from the collapse of 7. Controlled demolitions do not delay between explosives like the delay between the collapse of the penthouse and the collapse of the rest of the building.

So while one part of it seems to look like a controlled demolition, the missing parts necesary for such an implosion make it extremely unlikely. There is in fact no evidence that explosives were used at all, it is entirely speculation that you are basing your argument on.

Yes it DID fall into its footprint. What the ‘debunkers’ keep forgetting is that there were 47 stories worth of building above the ground.

It also fell outside of it's footprint and hit other buildings, exactly what a controlled demolition is designed to prevent from happening, another strike against your bomb theory.

Yes, you are missing a LOT OF SOMETHINGS! And you don't SEE a cover up because you don't want to see one.

I see, do you always insult people you don't agree with?

Again, I think that the Coverup alluded to by the original poster is elusive at best.

I am talking specifically about the coverup in this thread. I don't see a coverup that only shows some pictures of WTC 7 to promote speculation and disinfo.


Perhaps you can show me the proof for this coverup that I don't see. You know, the one this thread is about, that you seem to know so much about, and that I must be too blind to see.

Thanks.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
his one shows the damage without the sun glare.

the same photo, except the NIST version is overexposed thereby hiding the damaged part?

curiouser, and curiouser. i don't get it.

No, it's a different shot from a different camera/man. George Miller with the NY Transit Authority took the first 2 I posted. One "Willie Chirone" took this angle, but I couldn't find much about him period.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
No, it's a different shot from a different camera/man. George Miller with the NY Transit Authority took the first 2 I posted. One "Willie Chirone" took this angle, but I couldn't find much about him period.

okay, but NIST has ALL the photos. why would they not use this one in favour of the washed out one? are they building strawmen?

I never said they wouldn't.