Fire caused global collapse in wtc7? , page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 27-7-2009 @ 03:33 PM by AliensExist

Some fires were burning for hours and then ALL OF A SUDDEN the huge building collapses downward in the exact way that a controlled demolition would look?

www.youtube.com...

It's common sense to me, it seems like a demolition.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by AliensExist]

reply posted on 27-7-2009 @ 05:47 PM by king9072

I don't understand why anyone is still arguing with exponent.

The facts are:
- Fire cannot melt steel.
- The entire building was NO WHERE NEAR engulfed.
- Many, many steel structures have burned more completely and for much longer times and have never caused a collapse.
- No explanation given to explain how fires on one end of a building, could cause that part of the building to fail at the EXACT same moment, as other areas of the buildings which had no fire whatsoever.
- The floors moved out of the at the perfect moment to allow for near freefall speed. Buildings collapsing just aren't in a hurry.

Besides, it wasn't until into the afternoon that people were able to see the fires making their way to the edges of the building. So how did the fires start in the first place? Multiple fires, on multiple floors just happen to light up? Then hours later cause the first ever (officially) complete, unilateral collapse of a steel structure. Though it had no burned as complete or for a length of time relative to any other historical event.

The official story does NOT account for WTC7.

reply posted on 27-7-2009 @ 08:07 PM by Jethro Tull

It was clearly a routine demolition. I'm sure that anyone who tried to cover that lost their job. The zeitgeist movie shows it clearly. The building caved into the center due to concentrated, planned demolition charges.

reply posted on 27-7-2009 @ 10:17 PM by prepare4it777

www.youtube.com...

Steel building burned much greater and hotter then WTC's. The color of the actual fire has proven that the fire was a higher temperature, yet it still remained standing the next day

WTC and building 7, only buildings in history to defy the laws of physics. Maybe these were magic planes that hit the WTC. That would explain it. Yes thats it. Magic planes

[edit on 27-7-2009 by prepare4it777]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 01:04 PM by Tussilago

Originally posted by Desucher
The fires were massive, and the building remained standing for several hours before it collapsed.

I don't see what's so surprising here.

Are these what you are referring to as "massive" fires?
www.youtube.com...

Hardly very massive, if you ask me...

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 01:22 PM by thedman

reply to post by Tussilago

Thats the North face of the building - side away from where debris
impact from WTC 1 ripped away most of the building

Maybe should watch this

www.911myths.com...

Can see smoke pouring from most floors on south face.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 02:57 PM by jprophet420

reply to post by thedman

Agreed, and all common sense tells me that if the building did fall over, it would fall towards the south. NIST failed at making a compelling argument towards that case. One of the points of the thread was to see if people really believed in that sort of thing (the building seemingly breaking the laws of physics and not following the path of least resistance), and if they did to explain it. So far its been a mix of either/or, but not both.

Thedman, you have decent argumentative skills, can you explain it to me?

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 08:04 PM by Tussilago

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Tussilago

Thats the North face of the building - side away from where debris
impact from WTC 1 ripped away most of the building

Maybe should watch this

www.911myths.com...

Can see smoke pouring from most floors on south face.

Well, the debunker who put that video up says the link I was giving is showing the south face of the building, but I guess he might be wrong. In such a case, thanks for pointing it out.
In fact, it's quite hard to make out what clips are showing what orientation. Clip 9-11 appear to be showing the north side since the speaker says he's standing on West Broadway looking south. However, if that is so, the previous clips which you say depict the north side of the building ought again be showing the south side since clip 9-11 are labeled WTC 7 "opposite" side.
Hell, I'm confused...

Anyway. The building is on fire with a lot of smoke showing on one side, indicating a substantial spread of fires across several floors in this area. Too bad the supposed rippled facade isn't actually showing anywhere, or so it seems.
Nevertheless, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. It's simply inconceivable that the building could collapse from those fires and damages, even if the entire south facade had been destroyed.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Tussilago]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 08:24 PM by Tussilago

No, the original youtube video I showed (this one)...
www.youtube.com...

...must have been shot eastwards from Vesey Street showing the western side of WTC 7 and the south side covered in smoke from fires, right? If you Google Earth it, the building in the foreground with the plateau effect ought to be what is known as the "Verizon" building. Map:
crashrecovery.org...

To the right are the "intact" remains of WTC 6, which for some reason did not collapse into its footprint looking just like a controlled demolition, despite getting battered by half the north tower pounding it from above.

Strange, isn't it.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Tussilago]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 08:52 PM by thedman

reply to post by Tussilago

North face of WTC 7 was black granite

South face was red granite

Difficult to see because of smoke and dust

Can see WTC 6 in some of the shots (low building usually to the right)

Debris from WTC 1 dropped onto it and smashed hole in center of building
almost like a donut

Verison (140 West) - large masonary building can be seen to left in some
shots

If look close on shots (clips 5,6, 7, 8)

Can see smoke and soot blacking windows on west exposure

www.911myths.com...

As for WTC 7 collapsed and WTC 6 didn't - becuse of differences in
construction

WTC6 was small 8 story building of conventional construction

In this link aerial shot of destruction - also note map of area

en.wikipedia.org...

WTC 7 was 47 stories built over Con Ed substation - it was twice the
size originally envisioned for the site. To build it required some extreme
engineering in form of long span cantilever truss for support

Fires started by WTC 1 collapse burned out of control for hours

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[3] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[32] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[33] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[34] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[

Fire on 13th floor caused column to buckle and pull adjacent columns
down - which in turn caused floor in area to collapse resulting in
progression to roof. Can see this in shot where the penthouse collapses
into the building just before the general collapse of structure

On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments.[32] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[45]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 08:53 PM by Mark_Amy

Originally posted by Tussilago

To the right are the "intact" remains of WTC 6, which for some reason did not collapse into its footprint looking just like a controlled demolition, even though it got battered by half the north tower pounding upon it from above.

Strange, isn't it.

I think that's the reason they decided to pull WTC 7. Other buildings in the area had already suffered partial collapses and even though WTC 7 had been hit by debris and was on fire, it was still standing and it would have posed too great a risk to the firemen and 1st responders etc in the coming days.

Like Larry Silverstein said, there had already been too much death and destruction that day, so I think they decided to pull the building purely for safety reasons.

Of course later he was instructed to change his story because an admission of controlled demolition in WTC 7 would have led to too many questions being raised about the collapse of the twin towers and to all the buildings being pre-wired for demolition.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 09:05 PM by jprophet420

Debris from WTC 1 dropped onto it and smashed hole in center of building
almost like a donut

again, the NIST report said this was not critical. Thats fine if you want to point it out, and its fine if you believe wtc7 fell because of it. Just then don't turn around and say you believe the NIST report and cite it later.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 09:37 PM by thedman

reply to post by Mark_Amy

Sure

Considering it takes weeks to rig a building for demolition and this is
after the building has been stripped bare and all walls removed, plumbing
and electrical conduits removed so nothing is in the way

The largest building ever imploded was the Hudson building iin Detroit
it was 31 stories. WTC 7 was 47 stories, more than 50 % bigger

So explain how you rig a building in only 2-3 hours, add in the fact
that many of the floors are on fire, there is no power and elevators
don't work so have to walk. Oh the stairwells on south side were smashed by debris impact....

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 10:50 PM by Mark_Amy

Originally posted by thedman

So explain how you rig a building in only 2-3 hours

Originally posted by Mark_Amy

...to all the buildings being pre-wired for demolition.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:01 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by Mark_Amy

Yep, thats a winner of an idea....fill a building with explosives for demolition purposes and then hope that nothing sets them off accidentally over the years the building is in service.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:06 PM by Mark_Amy

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
...and then hope that nothing sets them off accidentally over the years the building is in service.

Who said anything about years?

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:18 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by Mark_Amy

So...we are back to the crew of supermen who wired the building for demolition in a matter of hours during a non-existant power down of WTC 7?

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:36 PM by Mark_Amy

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Mark_Amy

So...we are back to the crew of supermen who wired the building for demolition in a matter of hours during a non-existant power down of WTC 7?

If that's what's you believe, but I never said that.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:37 PM by jprophet420

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Mark_Amy

So...we are back to the crew of supermen who wired the building for demolition in a matter of hours during a non-existant power down of WTC 7?

No. We say "Both of the scenarios remain highly unlikely and remain unproven, therefore we need to re-investigate."

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:41 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by Mark_Amy

I dont. However, you seem to think WTC 7 was "pre-wired" for demolition. So, then, what would your theory be on how the bad guys managed to wire a 47 story building...with no one noticing.

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 >> ^^TOP^^