According to Dylan Avery/Alex Jones, they have a person who was in WTC7 on 9/11, and will testify to what he saw/heard, which was explosions going off in the building..

Fires are irrelevant really, especially considering WTC 7. It was a government building, with its own command bunker and all the things that it requires, like its own air supply etc.. to think that fire could make this building to collapse is absolutely absurd.

To think fire could make any steel frame building collapse is absurd..

The laws of physics changed magically on 9/11.. either that, or WTC 7 was demolished with preplanted explosives..

I know which one i choose.

I have a feeling its not WTC 7, but WTC 6, or whichever one is that smaller cube shaped one.

agreed, not wtc7.

but since im here...let meask:

why DID 'fires' break out in 7 in the first place. fires IN the building...doesnt make sense that falling debris would end up seting fires IN the building and not outside of the building. IMO, more evidence of explosive devices.

Originally posted by ready4truth
why DID 'fires' break out in 7 in the first place. fires IN the building...doesnt make sense that falling debris would end up seting fires IN the building and not outside of the building. IMO, more evidence of explosive devices.

Indeed, it makes no sense at all

Given that WTC 7 was clearly demolished, and was not a natural building collapse, i think its safe to assume that there were other devices planted within the building.. and from what i've heard, some guy who was in WTC 7 on 9/11 is going to testify to the fact of other devices exploding inside 7 very soon.

Originally posted by bmnats
Everyone talks about little fires in wtc7, but whats about this one (left/bottom)?

That's WTC5. It was across the street.


Btw, it didn't collapse. It had smaller columns and beams, too, and burned much longer.





And impacted by enormous debris, obviously:






People call foul on the comparison but honestly, no offense but this is like comparing an amputee to an olympic runner and saying it may be reasonable when the amputee wins a race.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by bsbray11]

Yes comparing a 10 story building, to a 47 story building built on an electrical substation is just like comparing an olympic runner to an amputee.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Yes comparing a 10 story building, to a 47 story building built on an electrical substation is just like comparing an olympic runner to an amputee.

The famous and only debunker last resort...

"No comparison can be made to ANY of the WTC buildings... NONE. No Madrid, Not 4,5,6 WFC 1 and 2... NONE.

So slap nuts, should we write off your reply as the typical 9-11 denial response that a 10 story building and a 47 story building are exactly the same?

The Madrid fire is a great comparison. All of the steel columns failed in a fire, while the reinforced concrete sections did not. According to the logic of many 9-11 denial sites, there were also bombs in the Madrid building since it is impossible for steel columns to fail in a fire.

WTC 5 was not supporting the same amount of floors as 7. A failure on the ninth floor of 5 would not affect the structural integrity of the building the way a failure on the ninth floor of seven would.


It's like wondering why the shrub didn't collapse in a fire, when the tree next to it did.

Ultimately though it doesn't matter, because if five collapsed I'm sure someone would be claiming that it was also full of silent fireproof bombs.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by Pootie

The famous and only debunker last resort...

"No comparison can be made to ANY of the WTC buildings... NONE. No Madrid, Not 4,5,6 WFC 1 and 2... NONE.

Last resort? No Pootie, it is not logical to compare any other fire to what happened to the towers or wtc7.... Because the events at 911 NEVER happened before...EVER !

The furniture store in South Carolina was a steel building...it collapsed. Is it fair to compare them? Nope. No plane hit that building nor was it showered with tons of debris from a falling skyscraper.

So why couldn't NIST get a failure when they tested their WTC floor assemblies? Was 9/11 too unprecedented for laboratory testing after the fact?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The furniture store in South Carolina was a steel building...it collapsed.

It was one-story and its columns were still standing.

You guys must be desperate for precedent by now, you can't even get it in a lab test so you twist real fires into doing things that they really didn't. They caused the roof of the building to collapse, that's it. And depending on the damage the fire may not have actually even done that. The bridge in CA failed due to thermal expansion causing too much tension between some horizontal components in all likelihood, but I don't suppose you bother to go into the fine details when you cherry-pick your comparisons.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by bsbray11]

Bsbray,

Maybe one of these days, you will concede that two VERY LARGE PLANES going VERY FAST.... just MIGHT have contributed to the collapse.

Just a question...have you written to NIST with your explanations, or do you just troll on the internet trying to convince other truthers that your studies are in fact superior to that of NIST and their studies?

Prove that they made a mistake by submitting a paper to your peers as to what is WRONG with the NIST report and their hypothisis. Dr. Jones tried it with his thermite fantasy and was all but laughed at. Please go for it though! I will be the first to congratulate you!

Please keep in mind that NIST had a draft open to public comment for almost an entire year. Members of both the public and scientific community were invited to give their comments on the report, challenge methods, point out indiscretions and request that inaccuracies be addressed. NIST held dozens of public hearings, presented their drafts to congress, professional societies and public groups, and made corrections as they saw fit to their report. Did anyone in this forum submit theirs?





[edit on 22-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So slap nuts, should we write off your reply as the typical 9-11 denial response that a 10 story building and a 47 story building are exactly the same?

No... but the steel members of 5 held up under far more tremendous heat and damage...

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The Madrid fire is a great comparison. All of the steel columns failed in a fire, while the reinforced concrete sections did not. According to the logic of many 9-11 denial sites, there were also bombs in the Madrid building since it is impossible for steel columns to fail in a fire.

ALL of the steel columns? More "debunker lies. Proof please.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
WTC 5 was not supporting the same amount of floors as 7. A failure on the ninth floor of 5 would not affect the structural integrity of the building the way a failure on the ninth floor of seven would.

Ratios my friend. 5 had far smaller and far fewer supports with a smaller safety factor (i.e. less redundancies)... But it stayed standing even after a very intense fire and FAR mor damage was inflicted upon it.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's like wondering why the shrub didn't collapse in a fire, when the tree next to it did.

No, it's not.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ultimately though it doesn't matter, because if five collapsed I'm sure someone would be claiming that it was also full of silent fireproof bombs.

Just you.

Originally posted by Pootie
I see PLENTY of intact steel in Madrid above 17:


Also notice the WHOLE BUILDING was on fie and the failure of beams at the top did NOT crush the building below?

WTC 1,2 and 7 had:

Fireproofing
Sprinklers...

What is your point other than the concrete?

First of all Show me the steel above the 17th floor. And please remember I used the term PARTIAL collapse.

Please read my thread where i pointed out that that : the building was made out of a concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

Please look at where the collapse stopped.

Now... how well were the sprinklers working at ALL 3 buildings? I don't want to have to tell you that. Most truthers know that the main lines were severed at the impact points. Water was flowing BELOW the fires @wtc 1&2. After the collpse i believe that water lines were severed and there was zero sprinklers working in WTC7.

Again, if you READ my post you will see that I pointed out that at the Windsor building.. where there WASNT fireproofing on the steel, it either failed of buckled.

HEre are a couple pictures that AREN'T taken from below the building... please feel free to point out the steel that is remaining about the 17th floor.