More Footage of WTC 7 on fire 9/11

The DAILY MAIL (UK) has an article featuring footage obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
showing extensive fires in WTC 7 prior to the collapse

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The footage is from WCBS Channel 2 in New York. The reporter is Vince Demetri

www.liveleak.com...

Notice the flames shooting of the floor, the espose steel beams visible through the windows

The windows failing from the heat and building movement

Neat, the FOIA helped obtain more footage but does this new footage shut down all conspiracies about WT7?

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

I doubt it.

This is the most compelling WT7 footage, imo

"Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire"

Well, flag from me.

More ammo in the never ending fight: os'er or truther

I figure it does'nt even matter anyways............

You can never, ever, ever, have enough concrete evidence to convince a hardened truther.

You are just flogging a dead horse.

No amount of fire can make a building collapse into its own footprint.

See..............hardened to the core, some of "them"

second line

Originally posted by liejunkie01
See..............hardened to the core, some of "them"

second line

And look at you, trying to troll, which is not all uncommon for this 9/11 forum. Oh and the second line thing is soooooo lame and soooooo overused.

I guess you accept all the evidence that supports what the US Gov't tells you? That's fine, to each his own, and we all play a role in this grand play we call life. We all can't agree on everything, that is for sure, but even though you believe the OS and I don't, I won't mock you for it. Instead I would like to have a proper discussion or debate, instead of posting 1 line sentences clearly trying to insult "them".

You sir earned a

Also,

You can never, ever, ever, have enough concrete evidence to convince a hardened truther.

If we had concrete evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we?

I love mainstream media propaganda.

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

I'm no daily mail writer-expert, but that building is not consumed by flames. This is what consumed by flames would look like: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69d34fba92e1.jpg[/atsimg] This, not so much. Interesting how in that video at the bottom, the smaller building in the background has much more of it on fire than building 7, but it stays standing....

reply to post by TupacShakur


That picture you showed was a building constructed using the measures in building construction suggested by NIST which would prevent a collapse similar to WTC 7. It was also firefought (unlike the buildings on 9/11), and had local collapses in non-primary locations anyway.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

That picture you showed was a building constructed using the measures in building construction suggested by NIST which would prevent a collapse similar to WTC 7. It was also firefought (unlike the buildings on 9/11), and had local collapses in non-primary locations anyway.

I see what you mean but I think 2Pac was just making the clear case of what consumed by fire is and isn't

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

That picture you showed was a building constructed using the measures in building construction suggested by NIST which would prevent a collapse similar to WTC 7. It was also firefought (unlike the buildings on 9/11), and had local collapses in non-primary locations anyway.

I see what you mean but I think 2Pac was just making the clear case of what consumed by fire is and isn't

Yes. I do think that the problem wasn't so much that the building was "consumed" by fire, as it had intense fires at very vulnerable locations. The joints expanded under the heat and failed, after the building had been burning for 7 hours, only one joint set failed, which caused a quarter of the building to collapse inwardly, and then the building crumpled at the point where it had been damaged by Tower 1 debris, and fell almost straight down (though it did lean to the south, toward ground zero).

I find it curious that the collapse is thought odd when firefighters knew it was going to collapse for hours, and even newscasters assumed it had already collapsed from all the certainty being waved around (news people are human, after all, and they try to get the story first. They can and often make mistakes).

I guess it just gets a bit repetitive when the same points get brought up every time these threads appear. I like to try to get the accurate info out there quickly to reduce the amount of disinformation.

Thats rubbish!

The photos above show a building totally consumed by fire.
Without a shadow of a doubt, regardless of how you want to try and sweet talk it, the building shown above, consumed by fire for more than twenty hours(assuming its the Windsor in Madrid), had so many more intense fires at very vulnerable locations or however you phrased it than the WTC7 could even dream of having and, as the second photo shows, the building remained standing.

Intense fires at very vulnerable locations?

Gimme a break...

No steel framed structures have EVER collapsed due to fire....EVER...except on 9/11.
Not before 9/11.
Not after 9/11.
Ever.
At least the other two had planes crash into them, 7 had nothing that would have caused its collapse...'cept these small little diddly fires that pale into insignificance when compared to The Windsor and its 20 hour inferno...... yet it never collapsed.

To brush aside common sense and rational thinking, let alone the physics,with a flippant and quite frankly amateurish simplicity, and then build your "case" around that is preposterous.

And one last thing, if these questions are becoming a bit "repetitive" for you as you put it, why don't you just move on....

...or do you enjoy repeating yourself over and over, and then complaining about it?

I wonder why?

reply to post by benoni

No steel framed structures have EVER collapsed due to fire....EVER...except on 9/11.

Delft University of Technology - May 2006

www.liveleak.com...

Collapsed from fire

reply to post by ANOK

No amount of fire can make a building collapse into its own footprint.

Well, I guess you've been proven wrong then, huh?

Next.

Originally posted by benoni
Thats rubbish!

The photos above show a building totally consumed by fire.
Without a shadow of a doubt, regardless of how you want to try and sweet talk it, the building shown above, consumed by fire for more than twenty hours(assuming its the Windsor in Madrid), had so many more intense fires at very vulnerable locations or however you phrased it than the WTC7 could even dream of having and, as the second photo shows, the building remained standing.

It was designed after WTC 7 collapsed, using the suggestions given by NIST which were supposed to prevent a collapse exactly like what happened to WTC 7. Apparently, it worked.

At least the other two had planes crash into them, 7 had nothing that would have caused its collapse...'cept these small little diddly fires that pale into insignificance when compared to The Windsor and its 20 hour inferno...... yet it never collapsed.

Ah yes. The collapse of WTC 1 did no damage at all, huh? It didn't cause those holes and gashes and reported missing chunks "scooped" out of the building reported by firefighters and photographed? Yeah. Nothing happened to WTC 7, obviously.

To brush aside common sense and rational thinking, let alone the physics,with a flippant and quite frankly amateurish simplicity, and then build your "case" around that is preposterous.

And one last thing, if these questions are becoming a bit "repetitive" for you as you put it, why don't you just move on....

...or do you enjoy repeating yourself over and over, and then complaining about it?

I wonder why?

Because eventually someone will look at themselves and say, "oh, perhaps I was wrong. Maybe I should look at this another way."

I find that the pervasiveness of untruths on this forum are horrendous, and as a prospective scientist, I'd like to attempt to correct these while working on my argument skills and rationale. Obviously, I'm not completely daft, because I've got support from at least a few members here, and clearly not everyone is as vocal as the main Truthers (unless you count the random new members who manage to get themselves banned for vagrant abuse of the terms and conditions).

Now, it's funny that you think that I am the one brushing aside logical and rational thinking, when here you are, directly ignoring the facts of the matter in order to make a position to persuade others to believe with no doubt that the building had to have been destroyed in a manner not of fire. Your position is backed up by nothing more than personal incredulity and a toting of false facts, such as WTC 7 having not been hit by a plane. Yeah, it wasn't hit by a plane. It was hit by a collapsing building. That's a cold, hard fact, and no amount of tsking and hand-waving will make it go away. You can't erase the firefighter testimonies and the picture evidence. It is there, and it argues against you by merit.

reply to post by benoni

No steel framed structures have EVER collapsed due to fire....EVER...except on 9/11.

Well, then, I guess one did. Which means your "ever" statement is not correct.

Not before 9/11.

Please provide a link to the database of all steel frame structures.

Not after 9/11.

You mean not since. But then again I need to check that database that you have.

In the end, however, what we have is a unique event involving a unique structure resulted in a unique outcome.

Big deal.

Show me the footage of a 747 fitting into the 16ft hole in the pantagon? No didnt think thry could.

All daily mail has done is destroy their credibility, period. They have proved to be liars whom have done no research. Disgusting. I shall be emailing the reporter and the paper with true evidence.

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Show me the footage of a 747 fitting into the 16ft hole in the pantagon? No didnt think thry could.

All daily mail has done is destroy their credibility, period. They have proved to be liars whom have done no research. Disgusting. I shall be emailing the reporter and the paper with true evidence.

edit on 2-11-2011 by TheMindWar because: Added info.

Ever considered that perhaps the pentagon was a bit more resistant to penetration?

www.evesmag.com...



This was the hole left at the empire state building by a plane crash. Same limestone facade, though less reinforced as the pentagon.

Originally posted by benoni
No steel framed structures have EVER collapsed due to fire....EVER...except on 9/11.
Not before 9/11.
Not after 9/11.
Ever.

No steel framed structure has EVER been demolished with charges without showing distinctive explosions on video....EVER...also not on 9/11.
Not before 9/11.
Not after 9/11.
Ever.

Same argument goes for all the far fetched truther claims.

reply to post by thedman


No steel framed skyscrapers is what he should have said.