WTC 7 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?

I don't know about the rest of you, but as a person that grew up in the shadow of these monoliths, shame on you all and the families that gave rise to you're thinking.
It is, was, and shall always be a terroristic attack.
The persons you so quote have been shown to be sour-grapes types.
Al-Quiada hit us and there is nothing we did to stop it. Period........Go back to you're hole and stay there.
Jerks

reply to post by LAUGHING-CAT


So you don't have any pictures that show it leaning, either?

At least you got all that garbage off your chest.

Originally posted by thedman
Moving the goal posts again?

I didn't set the goal posts, thedman. NIST defined them in its report. I'm just trying to make sense out of the conflicting reports about the stability of WTC 7.

So what is the problem? The fire ground commander knows that WTC 7 is
badly damaged - he orders a surveyor transit set up and locked on
fixed location on the building.

I don't have a problem with this, if it happened. What I have a problem with is that as far as I can tell, this is not mentioned in the NIST report. Why not? I could be wrong. Please, prove me wrong. I'd like to see where this has been officially reported.

The firemen discovered that the building was starting to move or creep. This tells them that the structure is unsound and not to put any men inside.

Please post a link to these findings. Surely, if the firefighters made such a discovery, then it can be proven using facts? How much did the building move? Over what time frame did the building move?

Once the building was discovered to being moving the fireground commanders ordered a collapse zone around WTC 7 and the area cleared.

The surveyor transit is used to determine if, where and by how much building is shifting.

How qualified are firefighters to judge the severity of damage to a building? Firefighters are not structural engineers. Remember that the firefighters determined that it was safe to enter WTC 2 to attempt rescue operations, right? We didn't see a collapse zone placed around WTC 2, did we? That proves how uninformed the firefighters opinions were, on that morning.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the firefighters for creating a collapse zone around WTC 7. After seeing two supposedly solid towers collapse on them, killing lots of their own, I can see why none of the other firefighters would want to confidently enter WTC 7. In hindsight, it was a decision that probably saved many more lives.

Guess what - you will not see the building move because up until the
moment of collapse the movement is fairly small. Offten only matter of
inches as building begins to move from the stress...

Again, I'll repeat my point above. Please post a verifiable link to the facts about the alleged transit. Please post the data from the transit that proves WTC 7 did move, by how much and the time duration. Failure to do so is relying upon opinions and not facts.

Why didn't NIST mention that WTC 7 moved during the afternoon? You think that would have been a critical piece of information to include in the report about the collapse. Instead, NIST stated that WTC 7 suffered superficial damage and withstood the debris impact.

How can a building, that is supposedly leaning and bulging collapse, suddenly and symmetrically? Did you read the firefighter quotes at the end of MacQueen's article that I linked to? Many firefighters were completely surprised by the way in which WTC 7 collapsed. Maybe they took a different building collapse class than the one you took?

[edit on 5-6-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by LAUGHING-CAT


I'd love to see the evidence for your claims. I really would. Everybody falls back on the old "terrorist attack", and expects it to just be accepted without evidence. I don't buy it.

Just as I need evidence to prove it was an inside job, I need evidence to prove that it was pulled off by al-quaeda(a group that, at least at one point, was funded by the CIA.)

So I'm challenging you to throw down here. If everyone who questions the official story is a jerk, prove you aren't one and follow up the name-calling and typical attacks with some ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

The Leaning Tower of Piza has been leaning for how long and has yet to collapse??? I guess they just don't build them like that anymore. Most idiots will believe any garbage which is thrown to them.

reply to post by tezzajw

Originally posted by LAUGHING-CAT
I don't know about the rest of you, but as a person that grew up in the shadow of these monoliths, shame on you all and the families that gave rise to you're thinking.
It is, was, and shall always be a terroristic attack.
The persons you so quote have been shown to be sour-grapes types.
Al-Quiada hit us and there is nothing we did to stop it. Period........Go back to you're hole and stay there.
Jerks

ya i guess all those cops who investigate murders are jerks too huh?

i guess we should never dare insult the dead and investigate murders ever again

honestly, i think investigating murder HONORS the victims spirits...


[edit on 5-6-2009 by muzzleflash]

this is actually an interesting thread tho

the "truthers" are using offical documents to debunk the people who continue to support the official story

ironic yet delightful

[edit on 5-6-2009 by muzzleflash]

posted by bsbray11

WTC 7 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?

Total myth. Show me the pictures.

It was a freaking 47 story building standing in the middle of Manhattan. If it were really leaning, show a picture. That's all.

Looks sturdy and straight in this shot.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c697a9cefa2.jpg[/atsimg]

And in this shot
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e6c48042b00.jpg[/atsimg]

And in this shot
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d97a33c0a367.gif[/atsimg]

And in this shot except for the demolition kink in the center and the explosives running down the near side
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d46ae6cbb613.jpg[/atsimg]

Leaning? Like the Tower of Pisa?

If this is the case, building demolition just got a lot easier.

Originally posted by LAUGHING-CAT
I don't know about the rest of you, but as a person that grew up in the shadow of these monoliths, shame on you all and the families that gave rise to you're thinking.
It is, was, and shall always be a terroristic attack.
The persons you so quote have been shown to be sour-grapes types.
Al-Quiada hit us and there is nothing we did to stop it. Period........Go back to you're hole and stay there.
Jerks

let's be real... Are you paid to repeat your disinformation? If not, I apologize.

How qualified are firefighters to judge the severity of damage to a building? Firefighters are not structural engineers. Remember that the firefighters determined that it was safe to enter WTC 2 to attempt rescue operations, right? We didn't see a collapse zone placed around WTC 2, did we? That proves how uninformed the firefighters opinions were, on that morning

Then I guess they are not qualified to describe explosions either which ALOT of Truthers use as proof of demolition. Also, A fire chief for the FDNY would a good sense of structural engineering since before they enter a building they would want to know if it was structurally sound and make a call about sending people in based on Damage. That would be the transit that was set up.

Now,how about a video with stills that shows the damage and the leaning that would have been caused. It even includes the same firefighter remarks...you know, from people who were there.

LINK TO THE VIDEO

Strange how we never see this video in this forum....




[edit on 5-6-2009 by esdad71]

As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY found that there was no water supplied by the hydrant system to fight the fires that were visible.

I know this was quickly glossed over, but I'm thinking that for anyone who worked in WTC7 there was so obviously no means of fighting the fires no matter how small/large they were. What is the NYC code for this. Was this a breach of that code?

Is there any liability attached to this? I know there will be the OS pious who will say, "No, all the available water was being used on WTC1/2..." Nope, those toweres would have their own supply. They'd be subject to the same codes.

If you owned an office building of the scale of WTC7 and you were inspected by the fire marshall and found to have insufficient means of fighting a fire by having "no water supplied by the hydrant system", you'd be closed down immediately until it was fixed. If ANY insurance money was paid on WTC7, then there is immediate reason to believe that the owner was liable for sub-standard safety measures.

As I've stated so many times on so many subjects here - especially when debating the OS supporters - YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

The NIST report states that WTC7 fell because of fires. These fires could have been extinguished if there had been a suitable water supply.
There was not enough water to fight the fires, so the owner of the building was breaching the safety code. Was any insurance paid on WTC7? Was the wtaer supply okay before 9/11?

Why did WTC7 have no hydrant water supply?

The insurance companies are the most cynical and evil bunch of miscreants in this country. They'll do anything to avoid a claim (oh, but keep paying those premiums. In fact, they'll lobby to make those premiums mandatory....). If they paid this claim, they have been robbed. If the NIST report is correct, they have reason to not pay the claim.

Just my 2 cents, but another unsolved mystery of 9/11.

Funny how physics/common sense/logic all suddenly died on the same day.

Originally posted by esdad71
Then I guess they are not qualified to describe explosions either which ALOT of Truthers use as proof of demolition.

Your guess is incorrect. They are allowed to describe the explosions that they heard. However, they are not qualified to guess the cause for those explosions that they clearly heard.

Also, A fire chief for the FDNY would a good sense of structural engineering since before they enter a building they would want to know if it was structurally sound and make a call about sending people in based on Damage. That would be the transit that was set up.

How good a sense for structural engineering does a fire chief have? Unless he's qualified to assess structural fatigue and failure, then he's only offering a fire chief's opinion about the building's safety.

What tranist would that be? Please, link me to the results of the transit. Who set it up? Who operated it? Who monitored it? What were the results? How far did the building move? Over what time period did the building move that distance?

Without facts, your transit story is just a story - remember that.

I've seen a few government loyalists claim that a tranist was set up, which I don't necessarily dispute. However, I have never once seen the results of the tranist. I'm not prepared to believe anything about that transit, without facts to support the claims.

Now,how about a video with stills that shows the damage and the leaning that would have been caused. It even includes the same firefighter remarks...you know, from people who were there.

The same damage that NIST stated was superficial and not the cause for the collapse? Remember that NIST stated that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

The same firefighter remarks that are uninformed opinions about the structure?

Firefighters are firefighters. They are not blast experts, structural engineering experts, demolition experts or construction experts. Any and all of their quotes that are not in their own field of expertise should be accepted only as opinions and not facts.

reply to post by SPreston

News Flash:
On the day of 9/11/2001, for the first time in known history, three steel framed high-rise buildings all came down with an acceleration of approximately 9.81 m/s^2. They fell (mostly) neatly into their own footprints, which is perfectly normal even though it may not seem so to those with a little education. Although major parts of foreign and domestic policy of the U.S.A. have been formulated since then around the events of that day, THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE, please move along.

Seriously, kudos SPreston for your research.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by 1SawSomeThings]

reply to post by esdad71


What is this a government provided video? Or is this a magic show? Where is the disappearing bulge? How about that invisible gash? Oh, and how about that vanishing transit? Any idiot watching this video would agree you are being led by the narrator to believe what you are NOT seeing.

An idiot....a five year....ignorant...why all of the hatred because some does not agree. That was not a government issued video and it was still photos that you never see published because they show the damage that was caused to the buildings.

Also, what those FDNY workers saw and did is fact. I do not understand where you information is that proves that those men were not in the building and did not hear it shifting or moving. The FDNY in the WTC before they collapsed could here the creaking and movement in the minutes before they fell. One of those men who tell that story survived the collapse.

THere is no urban myth...


Also, tezzajaw, why is the NIST report garbage except where it fits your story? I am not talking about the NIST report, I posted a ideo that shows the damage that was done to the building during the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2.


[edit on 6-6-2009 by esdad71]

why isnt this

www.youtube.com...

news everywhere ? the whole world was bought and no one notice it .... thats strange ... only the internet is free ... for while ...

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, tezzajaw, why is the NIST report garbage except where it fits your story?

My story? Huh? Please, post what my story is? Where have I claimed that I have a story?

In this thread, in case you have missed it, I've been trying to show that there are parts of the NIST report that do not coincide with witness statements on the scene. By (deliberate?) ommission, the NIST report has not apparently mentioned those witnesses' claims about WTC 7 leaning all afternoon.

I don't have a story about WTC 7, they're just my observations as I troll my way through the information about the topic.

I am not talking about the NIST report, I posted a ideo that shows the damage that was done to the building during the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2.

I can't watch your video. I'm on 56K dial-up modem. It takes me a couple of hours to download around 10M of info. I can't tie up my PC for any length of time right now. When I get a chance, I'll watch the video you posted.

Naturally, to comply with Swampfox's standards, you can supply the proper chain of custody for the video? If not, it's not admissable as evidence.

Also, remember that the NIST report stated that damage done to WTC 7 wasn't enough to cause significant damage and that it withstood the falling debris from WTC 1. NIST alleges that it used many sources to ascertain this claim, including multiple videos.

Do you know if your video was used by NIST to make their claim? If not, why not? One would think that NIST would have used every available video to form their claim.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, what those FDNY workers saw and did is fact.

Actually it's hearsay. At least, their testimony about the building bulging out, is total hearsay. None of us have any idea what they actually saw, their statements are so vague, and the whole building is obviously not leaning.

Maybe the SW corner area was, where there was minor damage, and where the impact on the South face was, but NIST even concluded those damages didn't play much of a role in the global collapse sequence.