what made building 7 collapse?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Show me where i stated the fire chiefs lied or concede you are wrong.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]

You state that the fire chiefs pulled down the building with the help of demo teams.

But in the source you provided Hayden explicitly rules out the possibility of a demolition.

Ergo, according to you, he is lying about the demolition.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You state that the fire chiefs pulled down the building with the help of demo teams.

But in the source you provided Hayden explicitly rules out the possibility of a demolition.

Ergo, according to you, he is lying about the demolition.

Great post Trickofthe Shade!

I think you summed it up nicely!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
[But in the source you provided Hayden explicitly rules out the possibility of a demolition..

But you did not read my post where i stated the reason that hayden might not have known what the fire commander decided.

Lets look at the follwoing facts that cannot be debated.

1. The firemen wer evacuated from the buidling before the call to Sivlerstein.

2. Since the firemen were out of the buidling before the call the fire commander could have only been talking about the buidling when he stated PULL IT.





[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spy66

 

Because it took longer than seven seconds, in the entirety.

Internally, much was happening, as the failure sequence initiated. It is not visible, from outside, but hints are seen, as a portion of the Penthouse structure falls, if you look closely, THEN several seconds later, the remaining Penthouse portion shows some downward movement.

This indicates the internal arrangements, and the destruction occuring inside, as each structural support failed, AT THE CONNECTING points, sequentially. It isn't easy to describe, in words, because it's a very complex and dynamic event.

It just looks like a CD, because ALL collapsing buildings will tend to resemble a CD...except for some very IMPORTANT missing bits of tell-tales, at WTC 7: NO EXPLOSIONS!

Nothing similar to what's seen in real CD.

Structure was failing, inside...(and, since I mis-wrote once, so long ago, about the Penthouse, I will repeat, with better clarity: It looks as if, AS the internal portions, to include the upper floor Penthouse, since it's so visible, are falling, they PULL on the connections that attach to the exterior walls, thus it all pulls down together, in just the manner you'd expect a collapse to occur).

In fact, even in CD, it's much the same...just, "helped" along by use of explosives, at critical points...in WTC 7, the distorted, hot metal was the 'critical' point....the weakest link.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit for typos, and flying fingers....

[edit on 13 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

To be honest the building fell to the ground in about 7 seconds. And by that i have even given it some extra time since i cant clearly see the ground.

I want you to specify the time to me please. Can you do that?
Than i will do the math for you.

You say that the bottom interior structure pooled down the Penthouse on the top deck. Before it pooled on the rest of the structure?

Can you explain how the building still could fall to the ground without resistance. If your theory is the true cause?

Because i have still not put in resistance in my equation. But when you give my your actual time of the total collapse and what friction your scientists used to explain all this i will add that to the equation.

EIT to add: It should not be very hard find the friction factor since the collapse was incredibly even.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


Please, just watch this video, it explains better than any words i could type here....



Sixteen Seconds!

Originally posted by REMISNE
Lets look at the follwoing facts that cannot be debated.

1. The firemen wer evacuated from the buidling before the call to Sivlerstein.

But you said they were still being evacuated here:

Originally posted by REMISNE
1. Chief Nigro who evacuated the firemen before talking to the owner then became the fire comander and called the owner to tell hiim they could not safe his building.

2. Chief hayden was still getting his men out of the safety zone area and trying to keep water going to the engines when the call was made, so he probably did not know what the fire commander decided to do.

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by REMISNE
1. Chief Nigro who evacuated the firemen before talking to the owner then became the fire comander and called the owner to tell hiim they could not safe his building.

2. Chief hayden was still getting his men out of the safety zone area and trying to keep water going to the engines when the call was made, so he probably did not know what the fire commander decided to do.

Do you understand the difference between a building and a safety zone?

Originally posted by REMISNE

1. The firemen wer evacuated from the buidling before the call to Sivlerstein.

How do you know? Support your claim with specifics.

Originally posted by jthomas
How do you know? Support your claim with specifics.

There was a statement from Chief Nigro.

sites.google.com...
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spy66

 

Please, just watch this video, it explains better than any words i could type here....

Sixteen Seconds!

Ok i have watched the video a few times and listened to what he had to say. But still when i time the whole structure it self, it only uses 7 seconds to reach the ground. It really dosent matter if the top part falls down on it self. The main structure still only uses 7 seconds to reach the ground. Which is impossible if the structure is collapsing from bellow onto it self. Because a very large portion of the structure is intact.

I really want to believe you in all this but i can't. It dosent add up to the laws of physics.

You cant start the clock on the main structure until it starts to fall. Because the main structure is not falling when the penthouse is falling. The penthouse is falling before the main structure. Which is quite odd if the main structure is collapsing from below onto it self. The main structure is not collapsing from top down where the penthouse collapsed. So you cant add the penthouse collapse time to the collapse time of the main structure as this guy did. Because there are two different collapsing arias. One at the top floor and one from the ground floor. The collapse point for the main structure is caused from ground level, because the whole main structure is almost intact on its way down.








[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by REMISNE


None of that matters. Unless you think that the second most senior FD representative on the site was not informed of the demolition and remains in the dark about it.

And that's before we examine Chief Nigro's trestimony. I'm willing to bet he doesn't claim now that he demolished the building.

In which case you're calling him a liar.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And that's before we examine Chief Nigro's trestimony. I'm willing to bet he doesn't claim now that he demolished the building.

Well then tell me what could pull it mean it wasn't the firemen and it wasn't the building?



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


I don't think I'll bother. You're fond of shoving questions at others, but refuse to answer those you find difficult. Indeed your latest question for me is ironically framed as a simple dodge of a question I've asked you.

Elsewhere you claim to embarrass me by having answered another question, yet you've conveniently forgotten that as well. It's quite pathetic, and I'm not continuing with it.

Originally posted by REMISNE
There was a statement from Chief Nigro.

sites.google.com...
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

So, he was clearing a collapse zone surrounding the building?

as you stated here:

Originally posted by REMISNE
1. Chief Nigro who evacuated the firemen before talking to the owner then became the fire comander and called the owner to tell hiim they could not safe his building.

2. Chief hayden was still getting his men out of the safety zone area and trying to keep water going to the engines when the call was made, so he probably did not know what the fire commander decided to do.

So, he was pulling his men from the zone.

Thanks for clarifying, and confirming he meant clearing the men from the area, and not bringing the building down.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by gavron]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by REMISNE

1. The firemen wer evacuated from the buidling before the call to Sivlerstein.

How do you know? Support your claim with specifics.

It's already a well-known fact that there were no firefighters fighting WTC7's fires that evening. You know who and what the various sources for that are. They include you "debunkers."

If you want to challenge what we all already know, it's your burden of proof to prove anyone was still in the building.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by bsbray11]

there was no one in the building it was eveacuated at 9 a.m. cited on wiki and as for the controlled demo i found this on< ^ >
9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h
.com
.wtc7.net
V 1.321
Copyright 2003-2010,
911Research.WTC7.net site last updated: 3/14/10
fair use notice


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background Attack Aftermath Evidence Misinformation Analysis Memorial


Building 7's Collapse
Features of a Textbook Implosion



These three images (cropped from larger photographs) show WTC 7 at three different moments in its collapse.
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11/01 shows all of the features of an implosion engineered through controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition is the use of pre-positioned explosive charges to destroy structures. Depending on the nature of the structure and constraints imposed by its surroundings, a controlled demolition may require a great deal of precision in its planning and execution. That is especially true of tall steel buildings in urban settings, given the natural tendency of such structures to topple. Controlled demolitions of buildings in cities are designed to implode the structures, making them sink into their footprints and fold in on themselves into a small consolidated rubble piles

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.



page last modified: 2006-11-16


google

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
How do you know? Support your claim with specifics.

There was a statement from Chief Nigro.

sites.google.com...
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

There is nothing there that says he did so "...before the call to Sivlerstein." So, how do you know what time the conversation with Silverstein took place?

you don't know what time that conversation took plaace or if it even did

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by REMISNE

1. The firemen wer evacuated from the buidling before the call to Sivlerstein.

How do you know? Support your claim with specifics.

It's already a well-known fact that there were no firefighters fighting WTC7's fires that evening. You know who and what the various sources for that are. They include you "debunkers."

If you want to challenge what we all already know, it's your burden of proof to prove anyone was still in the building.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by bsbray11]

So then why exactly did they come to that decision to pull firefighters away from WTC7 at around 3-3:30PM?
Doesnt that mean that there were firefighters around WTC7 and possibly next to and maybe inside WTC7? And why is it that most of the firefigters mention getting pulled out by about that same time? You know, around 3-3:30PM as stated by numerous firefighters? Please dont make me go back and dig up all those quotes again. Including Nigro's. Cause you can do it yourself too.

Originally posted by GenRadek
And why is it that most of the firefigters mention getting pulled out by about that same time? You know, around 3-3:30PM as stated by numerous firefighters?

From inside WTC7? Yes, I'd be interested to see those quotes.

I thought you guys were always arguing WTC7's fires were particularly bad because no one tried to fight them? Now you can't make up your mind?

And according to you WTC7 didn't fall down to its own footprint, either, right? It all tilted over into adjacent streets?

Sounds like you have all your facts straight about this one don't you?

[edit on 14-4-2010 by bsbray11]