Why did building 7 fall?

Hello all,

My 1st post here, just looking at he 9/11 forum and call me blind but I didn't see any recent postings on building 7, and its "collapse".

So to get the ball rolling (obviously again) I believe the crux of the 9/11 debate should start on the point of building 7 and why it actually fell, and what exactly was in building 7 at the time of its "collapse".

Without stating my opinion (yet) I would like to ask any (hopefully all) believers of the "official" story why it fell?

thanks,

watchZEITGEISTnow

Ill go ahead and call you blind

I suggest you watch this movie called 911 road to tyranny by alex jones even though he shouts to much

911 Road to tyranny

A ats building 7 link

What happened to building 7 again?

And another link

Link

As i recall there was allot in building 7 stuff like giuliani's command bunker from with they could have orchestrated the attack. All kinds of secret services. As I heard there was allot of proof for a wall street scam that the bush's pulled of..

Thankyou Hot_Wings but WHY did building 7 fall? Do you know why?

Thanks again

watchZEITGEISTnow

Calm down there Hot_Wings the guy just wants some info on his quest for the truth. And for someone maybe just beginning his research 911 is a good start. Also we shouldnt stop discussing 911 for it is the beginning of the end and people should all be informed on it. So we can act against it.

If everyone would think like you we would even be further away from the truth. I cant help you being sick of 911 conspiracy's but you can help yourself by not clicking on the topic -_-

I have stopped researching 911 aswell and I also think 911 conspiracy's are getting a bit tiring. But I still feel its important for people to know and correct me if im wrong but this would be the place to do some research?

Edit: I see his post is deleted now

[edit on 13/12/07 by Neoblade]

It fell because of gravity.It was struck and weakened by debris from the towers and fires further weakened the mechanical penthouse on the roof started the collapse and gravity took over. Simple really.

mikell

Thanks mikellmikell. Do you have any proof of this?

thanks,

watchZEITGEISTnow

Im sorry but building 7 was a state of the art building capable of resisting even boeings. It was almost a damn bunker... Debris hardly touched it and the building fell straight down because of a small fire :S This only happened 3 times in history WTC 1,2 and 7. It was obviously a controlled demolition. Other buildings burning would burn for days even weeks and then it wouldnt even collapse

This should be easy…
In a nutshell...

Gravity.



Maybe we should blame Sir Isaac Newton for inventing it.



[edit on 12/13/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Neoblade
Im sorry but building 7 was a state of the art building capable of resisting even boeings. It was almost a damn bunker... Debris hardly touched it and the building fell straight down because of a small fire :S

Actually, this is incorrect. Building 7 was a truss structure that was built weaker due to an electrical substation that was under it. The substation was built with a footing designed to hold a building much smaller then what building 7 ended up being. In order to accommodate this larger structure on a smaller footing, they used trusses. There is an old saying in the fire department, “never trust a truss”, as they are weaker structures. TO make matters even worse the fire department was ineffective at fighting the fire in the building because they had lost such a significant number of their force when the towers collapsed.

hmmn I didnt know that but I did see Larry Silverstein say that they would "pull" the building because they had allot of losses allready that day... Seems kinda silly to me to pull a building worth some milions and then see it comming straight down. Something that is only possible with >prepared< demolition.

Thankyou defcon5,

You are saying it was because building 7 was made of trusses and fire caused it to fall?

Do you have any plans of the structure of building 7 that especially outlines the trusses in particular so we can study this theory?

Also you say the fire caused the building to collapse like it did? Do you have any examples of a building fall from fire?

thanks,

watchZEITGEISTnow

Originally posted by Neoblade
hmmn I didnt know that but I did see Larry Silverstein say that they would "pull" the building because they had allot of losses allready that day... Seems kinda silly to me to pull a building worth some milions and then see it comming straight down. Something that is only possible with >prepared< demolition.

Because when the fire department is referring to pulling a building, they mean, “pulling the plug” or “pulling out”. Basically meaning that they were going to cease to even attempt to fight the fire any longer, cut their losses, and allow the fire to consume the structure until it failed on its own.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
You are saying it was because building 7 was made of trusses and fire caused it to fall?

Yes, the fire would weaken the trusses, and because a truss structure is a weaker structure to begin with, it will fail quicker then a structure that has pilings driven hundreds of feet into the ground.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Do you have any plans of the structure of building 7 that especially outlines the trusses in particular so we can study this theory?

There are some on wikipedia:


Building 7

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Also you say the fire caused the building to collapse like it did? Do you have any examples of a building fall from fire?

And the real truth shall set you free from the fallacies of the truth movement:

Never Trust a Truss, Bad Week For Our Safety Stand Down

Every day it is getting more and more dangerous with fires burning hotter due to the use of synthetic materials that put off more BTUs coupled with the combination of cheaper building using light weight construction, mainly the truss. Charlston, SC firefighters battled their commercial fire in a light-weight truss constructed commercial structure that failed in just 30 minutes! I know many brothers can remember back in the 1970s battling fires for hours in structures due to their solid heavy construction, however those days are over. I can only see our industry going towards fighting fires from the outside as long as there is no life hazard. It is just too dangers anymore, so as safety stand down week passes hopefully we have gotten a real good idea of the dangers of our job and just how dangerous it is fighting fires in light weight construction as well as what we interpret as just easily getting off a ladder. Hopefully these very tragic incidents will show us just how important is is to look at safety.
I can not say all was tragic this week, seeing my cousin graduating probie school! My cousin will join myself on Engine 33-12 and continue our family tradition of firefighting. As the lead instructor said at the ceremony, “Welcome to the greatest profession on earth” and this is by far still true. I just hope my brothers have a safe stand-down week and continue to stay safe. Remember: “Never Trust a Truss!”

[edit on 12/13/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Neoblade
Im sorry but building 7 was a state of the art building capable of resisting even boeings. It was almost a damn bunker... Debris hardly touched it and the building fell straight down because of a small fire :S This only happened 3 times in history WTC 1,2 and 7. It was obviously a controlled demolition. Other buildings burning would burn for days even weeks and then it wouldnt even collapse

Small fire?




www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by Neoblade
hmmn I didnt know that but I did see Larry Silverstein say that they would "pull" the building because they had allot of losses allready that day... Seems kinda silly to me to pull a building worth some milions and then see it comming straight down. Something that is only possible with >prepared< demolition.

Ive spent about a year in conspiracy forums and that is old hat. It's been debunked ages.

Don't you even try to debunk theories before you believe them?

[edit on 13-12-2007 by albie]

Originally posted by albie
Ive spent about a year in conspiracy forums and that is old hat. It's been debunked ages.

I can't say that I'm convinced one way or the other about the best interpretation of Silverstein's 'pull it' comment, but I'm not sure I agree that the conspiracist's angle has been debunked. It's been challenged for sure, but there have been plenty of counter-arguments, which is why the debate still runs.

If you do know of a definitive debunking, I'd like to see it please.

Originally posted by albie
Ive spent about a year in conspiracy forums and that is old hat. It's been debunked ages.

Sources? The quote is as follows:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

The FIRE DEPARTMENT did not say this. This was not the FD's words. These were Larry Silverstein's words.

Believe what you want, but anybody that doesn't see Building 7 was controlled demolition, is kidding themselves.

The conspiracy is not the pull it term, but that there was nobody in the building to pull at the time.

Which is rot. There is witness testimony from firefighters who were in the building well up to before it fell.

The mistake comes from the FAA report that there was no firefighting in the building. There was no firefighting, but there were still firefighters looking for survivors in the building when it was decided to pull it.

Sliverstein is saying the words, but is he quoting a firefighter etc?

That's what you've got to ask yourself.

This is not good evidence and the fact you are still going on about it leads me to believe you are hobbyists in this.

Originally posted by albie
Sliverstein is saying the words, but is he quoting a firefighter etc?

And I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Your insult about us being hobbyists, is hypocritical to the maximum when you try and warp evidence as if you lack basic reading comprehension, which I know you don't. And I'm sure you wouldn't be calling Danny Jawenko a hobbyist now, would you?