"That building is going to come down Next" Wtc-7

Please substantiate your claim. Even NIST disagrees with you.



So? On highrise buildings the water supply is on the roof of the building. Are you saying this water supply to the rest of the building was cut off too?



Boo, Hoo. Try another profession it's too difficult for you then.



Since when did any part of WTC 2 hit WTC 7. Please elaborate with proof.

With that analogy then it would be the smoke from the WTC that made #7 collapse.

Like I stated in my following post...

reply to post by Nutter

---

So NIST is wrong in their educated guess at what happened to WTC. Your point is?

reply to post by Nutter

---

Reread it. He is speaking of the TOWERS. Back to the point, name five other highrises that were built with the same type of design as the towers.


BTW, just being on fire doesnt qualify as a match to any of the three buildings that fell that day. Although, we could discuss steel frame buildings that have had collapses due to only fire........

So, you admit that there needs to be a further investigation? Since they are incorrect in their educated guess, most scientists with any kind of scrupples would start over.

There is no need to reread it. I can name one that was on fire far worse than the towers. First Insterstate Bank. A tube within a tube structure.

www.usfa.dhs.gov...

page 24 of 41. I'm sure there are others, it's not like Robertson and Skilling had a patent on the design.




Like what? Temporary structures built in China were there are no building codes?

reply to post by Nutter

---

Um, no, Im not saying that we need to waste time with another investigation. No one, will ever know the exact sequences involved in the collapse of WTC7, you can do a dozen investigations and they will all be educated guesses.

reply to post by Nutter

---

Not quite..its close, but not quite the same. However, could you point out where the 767 crashed into the bank building at high speed?

reply to post by Nutter

---

First Interstate Bank fire was actively fought by 400 members of LA
Fire. Decision made at WTC 7 to abandon building do to problems with
water supply and structural damage

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Explain how similar if one fire actively and sucessfully fought and other
abandoned?

Not the question. The question was what buildings have the same type of design as the towers. I have fullfilled my part in answering said question. Now you want to move the goalposts?

reply to post by thedman

---

Good point. And fair to bring it up.

The 56 floor Caracas Tower in Venezuela which burned fiercely for over 17 hours on Oct 15, 2004 is an example of a steel framed high rise fire that burned without effective firefighting intervention.

Sprinklers and standpipes did not function, due to poor maintenance, there was a lack of fire extinguishers inside the building and the intensity of the fire prevented firefighters from reaching the tower's upper floors.

Engineers who inspected the building's structure when the fire was out reported that it was "very solid."

Pictured here: aa-1177.blogspot.com...

reply to post by EvilAxis

---

While details are sparse can see some similarly to 1990 Meridian Plaza fire
in Philadelphia.

FD in both cases suffered from low water pressure - in Meridian Plaza
restrictor valves in standpipes were set incorectly. Talked to Philadephia
fireman who was there.

What is unknown is framing of Caracas tower (or more correctly Parque
Tower East - there are 2 ). Is a conventional steel frame or more exotic
design like WTC 7 which had long span cantilever truss to support structure over Con Edison sub station.

Also what was fire load in building? Questions like this effect resistance
to fire.

Truthers often take any building fire and scream "See it didn't collapse
like WTC .....!" without considering other factors


en.wikipedia.org...

There was no speculation. The CIA informed them the building was going to come down roughly an hour and twenty minutes before it did.

yes, she probably heard about it second hand; but probably not by chance.

False analogy. No one claims that Building 7 was hit by an airplane.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by hooper

---

Your explanation sounds logical, expect that only one side of the building was damaged. Any structural failure would collapse toward the damaged section...not systematically crumble nearly evenly throughout the entire structure. Can you explain the questions against the OS that go against the theory that there was structural damage so the whole building imploded more or less?

Building 7 was poorly made and the other building had a air conditioner that keep the steel from melting.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

---

Don't expect an answer too soon, I've asked hooper to explain the symmetrical collapse on two threads now, and have yet to receive an answer.

In fact I have yet to hear a valid explanation from anyone as to how this could occur.

I'm guessing that post was satirical?

corvin 77

I don't know what your take is on this because you don't say. But it never ceases to amaze me that some people keep bringing it up as something sinister and evidence of an inside job.

The BBC say that on a dramatic and confusing day, when the collapse of WTC 7 had been expected for hours, they passed on an incorrect report from Reuters that the collapse had already happened.

What is the alternative ? That the perpetrators of this inside job, who would all face the hangman or the firing squad if the truth got out, decided it would be a good idea to forewarn a foreign news outlet of what was planned. Why ???

Anyone who goes for the second alternative presumably also believes the BBC is " in on it "

Agreed, it's obvious the BBC realised the error of their ways when they cut the feed from Jane Standley at around 6 mins 45 seconds.

The BBC's problem was that they didn't know which building they were talking about, the BBC were reliant on the information they were being fed.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Koka]