Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by danielsil18

---

Read page 67-68. Looks to me that the NIST states that damage done to WTC7 from WTC1 could have been part of the reason for the collapse.

The conditions that led to the collapse of WTC7 arose from fires, perhaps combined with structural damage that followed the impact of debris from WTC1.....

page 67-68
Dont know why I bother even arguing. Show me some real proof and I will gladly rethink what I believe happened. And I am not stating a conspiracy isnt out of the question, I just believe it is highly unlikely and is just speculation on your part. Anyway guess this is getting way OT. My original point is you cannot compare the two different scenarios. We are talking two totally different stuctures built at two totally different times. WTC was built over 38 years ago. Anyone who thinks buildings arent built better today then 38 years ago is delusional.

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by king9072

---

I have no idea. Unfortunalty those buildings were torn down so we will never know. To me it looks as though wtc7 would collapse easier then wtc6. The base of wtc6 looks more sound to me and is also much wider the wtc7. Simple physics would state that a taller thinner building would collapse much easier than a wider shorter building.
wtcwtc7 before 911

Originally posted by phushion
reply to post by danielsil18

---

On topic - my origonal argument was the OP never mentioned WTC 1 or 2 however tide had brought those into the equation when it was only WTC 7 that was mentioned - the end!

Off topic - the map provided by the responder ive responded to clearly shows a thinnnnnner building (WTC 3) than WTC 7 right next door to WTC 2, this was pulled down, did not collapse, end of script there, so why did WTC 7 drop.

BBC report, dated with time - (cant find vid at the mo 3g dongle to crap and im near my limit for the month) - reporter clearly states solomon building collapsed (WTC 7 - look it up) however in the real world, the building is still standing right behind her right shoulder (our left) whilst the broadcast is being fed to the public, how did they know it was going to collapse before it collapsed.

Don't tell me, its a hoax, its fake, photoshop, cgi blah blah blah - im a nut...

Debunk that

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by phushion

---

Okay so I am sure you have already read this article from implosionworld.com But in case you havent. here is itNO DEMO Now these guys are experts. Were they in on it too? Pretty much explains every question or concern that has been stated here.

This is why blasters alway concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of the structure

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by danielsil18

---

Read page 67-68. Looks to me that the NIST states that damage done to WTC7 from WTC1 could have been part of the reason for the collapse.

That's it says in my last post:
“while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

It never said that the debris wasn't part of the collapse, it said that it had little effect. It was part part of the collapse but it had little effect.

You are just saying was I said and trying to make it as if I'm wrong.

My original point is you cannot compare the two different scenarios. We are talking two totally different stuctures built at two totally different times.

We are talking about a building that collapsed by mostly with fire while the other one didn't collapse but had an inferno inside.

WTC was built over 38 years ago. Anyone who thinks buildings arent built better today then 38 years ago is delusional.

If your point right here is that the newer the building the better and stronger the building is. Then how do you explain when I tell you that The windsor tower was built in 1979 and WTC 7 was built in 1987. Both had fires (The windsor tower had it worse) but The older building didn't collapse. Does the damage (that has little effect) in the corner make the trick?





[edit on 9-2-2009 by danielsil18]

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by dragonridr

---

2nd time:

No one is talking about WTC 1 or WTC 2. We are talking about WTC 7. That's where you can compare it with the building in Beijing.

Both had something similar: Fire

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by Arsenis

---

Of course those explostion could of been the tank of desiel fules used to run the multiple generators in the basement. Also they specifically state in that article that any detonation of explosive in wtc7 would have been detected by seismographs monitoring ground vibration. There was no detection of these spikes according to them.