Please search earlier threads for conversation relating to this building as it has been covered numerous times.

Since I realize no one will do this because it's not as much fun as saying the government blew up buildings in New York i'll just add my comments on this article here.

Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street, -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)

Let's see. Firstly, the report of a gas leak was rather prominently mentioned on at least 4 different agencies' radio frequencies. Secondly, I personally saw a plane engine quite a few blocks from the towers. Do I know which tower it hit? Nope. Do I know precisely how far it flew? Nope. Is it possible for a part of a plane that impacted many hundreds of feet in the air at a high rate of speed to go "355 feet"? I'd say so.

The author uses a very sarcastic tone in describing some of the events such as debris "making the journey" across the street which i find very out of line for someone who did not witness any part of the event. It is a rather well known fact that a scientist should not make a hypothesis based on something has not had any experience with. Establishing credibility is imperative to making a hypothesis - why should anyone believe you - and I fail to see how these authors everyone posts do that.

My FAVORITE part of this "article" is the following statement.

The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.

First, is it such a shock that a fire was able to get fuel to ignite? Haven't you ever seen the signs "Don't smoke near the gas pump"? Why would that be? And the clincher here is his idiotic statement about the sprinkler system malfunctioning. Yes we all know how effective water is when putting out an oil based fire. This is hysterical. The expectation was that the water sprinkler system was going to put out fuel fires such as the ones that might have spread into OEM's generators? Nice blunder.

Could the collapse of this building have been prevented? Maybe. I couldn't tell you for sure, as I'm not an architect, a fire expert, or anything else of that sort. What I can tell you is that I 1) saw fires raging in that building for a few hours and 2) saw an engine quite a distance away from the towers. I'd suggest the author rethinking his tone of voice when calling eyewitnessed events "unlikely".

Originally posted by Djarums
Please search earlier threads for conversation relating to this building as it has been covered numerous times.

1) The search pretty much sucks here

2) You try it. Enter "WTC building #7" and see how many results you get.

I hate it when people suggest using that crippled search engine. Even if you find a thread with the terms you're looking for, clicking it won't take you to the page with relevant info. It'll only go to page one.

......hey guys ease up will ya? I'm just tryin' to do my job here.

No problem. I did address the issue here anyways. My problem is (and maybe it's just from being a longtime member) that a lot of threads, such as speculation about the downing of all 7 of the buildings in the WTC complex have been covered in at least 30 different places on this site. Every few weeks another thread comes up showing the exact same opinions over and over again (explosions, timing, and why each "expert" feels the government did it). That's fine, but since it's something important to me I do try and reply to threads dealing with 9/11 (i have firsthand experience as a volunteer rescue worker who was down there 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13) with my personal perspectives and what i saw myself. I was just saying that it gets kind of frustrating to see the same thing so many times.

It totally was nothing personal against the originator of this thread.

Look everyone you need no more proof than the following:

Within months of the Trade Centre being levelled a new owner of the 99 year lease was declared. When the towers went down did he cry? did he complain? did he show public anguish or remorse? No!

Why? because the complex was slated for redevelopment so that he could MAKE MORE MONEY during the term of the lease.

So you have decided that Larry Silverstein in a mass project worked together with numerous government intelligence agencies and was able to get the manpower necessary, and people willing to kill themselves in order to accomplish the goal of clearing the land at the world trade center. Alrighty then.

Your point is interesting to me.
Firstly, you misuse a term in a horrible way. Remorse is defined in the 2000 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "Moral anguish arising from repentance for past misdeeds; bitter regret". You criticize Silverstein for not feeling remorse for what exactly? For the fact that you decided he blew up the trade center? I wouldn't feel remorse either.
Secondly, how dare you decide what another man's reaction to this event was. Would it have made you happy to see the man on tv bawling for public sympathy? Is that what we were looking for in all of this? So your justification for your outrageous accusation of this man is that he didn't cry on Television for the benefit of the news channels. You don't know him, you don't know how he reacted.
He happens to be in court with insurance companies now trying to get 7 Billion as opposed to 3.5 Billion for the events to be considered 2 different happenings. Sounds like he needs some money for redevelopment right? If things were as you decided they are, wouldn't he have had such bases covered? I believe you are quite wrong in your attack and accusation of Mr. Silverstein and if anyone should have remorse for an event it should be you for the slander you just posted.

That tower could not collapse by that fore, and it should not be pulled down so shortly after the attack. On that day chaos was everywhere, no possible chance was to put bombs to every core and bring the building down. If the specialists woul fail, massive disaster would occur. To pull down such a building, at least one week engineering work is required. Something else occured, I assume.

Originally posted by Satyr
I hate it when people suggest using that crippled search engine. Even if you find a thread with the terms you're looking for, clicking it won't take you to the page with relevant info. It'll only go to page one.

Yep, know what you mean there, I find it really hard and useless to use. Maybe I'm just stupid or something, but I can never find anything with it, it was much better before when it was just like a normal search engine.
One other thing I used to like was you could just type in a username and see all that persons posts, useful to see what you have posted or the nature of someone you are thinking of offering to 'adopt'!
I give up with the stupid thing, when I do do a search I try and use the 'Use google to search' function. You try typing in a one word search term and the damn thing complains back 'please enter 2 or more search terms' damn it I don't want to! jeezz I suppose it must just be me being thick because no-one else seems to have complained before but I hate it! O don't want fancy 'boolean search' I want normal search back! I think there should at least be an option to choose!

Sorry....

The general public will always think that the WTC 1, 2, 7 collapsed due to the terrorist attack and fire. But secret teams are still investigating the whereabouts of the attacks, and still know the least.

Several floors of the WTC buildings were reconstructed using the original materials from the rubble, ignited with kerosine inside, and the structure was stressed to immitate the forces of a high rise building's loads. The structure was proven to withstand the fire and it didn't buckle at all. The perimeter columns, which were believed to be responsible for the collapse didn't even heat up to any critical degree.

Very interesting, that there is still no explanation to the collapse, but information is being hidden from the public.

For example, those infos being public one or two years ago, are now missing. More and more useful websites relating to the 911 are disappearing. Interesting.

Originally posted by Vertu
Several floors of the WTC buildings were reconstructed using the original materials from the rubble, ignited with kerosine inside, and the structure was stressed to immitate the forces of a high rise building's loads. The structure was proven to withstand the fire and it didn't buckle at all. The perimeter columns, which were believed to be responsible for the collapse didn't even heat up to any critical degree.

really.... where did you hear this ? It's the first I've heard of it.. .

so its those jews again heh ? the silversteins, rothschilds, mossad, they'll stop at nothing to up the rent !

Originally posted by elevatedone
really.... where did you hear this ? It's the first I've heard of it.. .

I have read it on several websites, and seen pics too. Those sites disappeared, but I think there are still some sources. If I find any I'll get the link.

...It's funny how the demolition crews from New Mexico were already in manhattan before the mess was made.