Wtc 7

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Although not a main point, 7 WTC is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The reason it didn't get as much play is obvious: the building wasn't directly attacked on 9/11 and collapsed only as a result of the Towers collapsing.



It wasn't just fire that brought down 7 WTC, it was also structural damage from falling debris. And anyway, I doubt your wood stove burns anywhere near as hot as jet fuel.



Once again...no jet fuel involved. The Aon Center fire was an internal blaze that was neither as hot as the fires burning on 9/11 nor was it accompanied by massive amounts of falling debris.

Modern buildings are built to withstand normal fires. They are not built to withstand airplanes hitting them, nor are they built to withstand having burning skyscrapers dropped on them. The collapse of 7 WTC is hardly surprising.

As for watching the collapse itself, yes, it does resemble a controlled demolition. However, the videos that I can find of 7 WTC fail to capture a specific collapse point - that is, the floor where the structural damage was finally too much and the structure collapsed, resulting in the "free fall" of the building.

Watch the videos of the Towers collapsing and, if you look closely enough, you can see which floor the collapse starts on. Look above that floor and you can see that the floors above the collapse remain intact as they fall. Were it possible to see that point in any of the 7 WTC videos we probably wouldn't be entertaining all these conspiracy theories about it.

So, according the evidence videos presented, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by controlled demolition (and, in all fairness, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by fire and falling debris). So, let's look at the "W's" of the situation: When, where, what, why, who and how.

When: Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to set up. Non load-baring walls are generally removed and charges have to be set into the walls on all floors - that's how they make sure the buildings fall straight. When did whoever was behind the "cover-up" have time to remove walls and set charges? Seems that there'd be a lot of people out there who would have seen it happening if it was going on for a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days, leading up to 9/11.

Where: Pretty self-explanatory.

What: Possibly the main debate: was it falling debris and fire that brought down 7 WTC or were explosives used in a controlled demolition?

In order to get to the heart of the issue I went looking through a couple of Demolition websites. Here's a tidbit from Controlled Demolition, Inc, the people who brought down what remained of the Murrah Building after McVeigh's attack on it:



In other words, in order to bring the building down safely, they needed to augment its weakened structure before imploding it. The same would have been true of 7 WTC - even if the contention that all the falling debris from the Towers wasn't enough to bring down 7 WTC, there still would have been significant structural damage to the building and they would have had to augment its structural integrity before attempting a controlled demolition. Otherwise it could not have been a controlled demolition.

In addition, 7 WTC had a very strange structural makeup. The building was built on an old electrical substation that was designed with a foundation that would allow a building to be built on top of it someday. In other words, take out enough of floors 5-7 and you destabilize the base of the building.

Why: Why would anyone conspire to destroy 7 WTC anyway? To examine this, we must look at two things: who benefits and who loses.

First off, who was there? From Wikipedia:



About what you'd expect from a large office building: financial institutions and a few government offices. A much more in-depth analysis than I have time for here would be required to really look into who our government might have had a grudge against on that list.

What about benefits? If anyone knows of any beneficiaries of the collapse of 7 WTC I'd love to know who they are.

Who: Another question that makes the controlled demolition theory a tough swallow: who did it? This applies to all facets of the theory. Who masterminded the whole thing? Who administered and organized the plot? Who set the charges and prepared the building for demolition? Who has been paid to present false evidence as true about the collapse? As the questions mount it becomes apparent that for the controlled demolition theory to be true there would have had to be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of conspirators involved.

How:Refer to everything above. Everything from the unlikelihood of demolition experts assessing 7 WTC and setting it up for demolition without anyone noticing to the necessity of a strong structure not present in 7 WTC on 9/11 for demolition to the lack of a reason for destroying the building to the sheer size of the conspiracy were it true makes the controlled demolition theory extremely unlikely. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Remember, neither theory is fully proven - therefore it makes logical sense to go with the most logical, well-supported theory: 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11 as a result of falling debris and fire.

What falling debris? Nothing major hit Building 7. No major fire in Building 7. All 3 buildings were in basic freefall....like there was no other floors in each others way. Sounds like deliberate demolition to me.

 

[n0spam4me]

A! see ... http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

enjoy
.

 

[SW85]

what about it?". Ever ask people how many buildings fell at the WTC, I have and they usually say two. So here is my question to you, why did WTC7 collapse

There was massive damage to the south face of WTC 7 as a result of the collapse of the towers, as well as to the buildings' corners. Flying debris scooped out a pretty massive chunk of the building, something like a quarter of its depth spanning 10 floors. The six- or seven-hour fire that raged throughout the building didn't help. The design was such that each column in the building was carrying a massive load and that the collapse of one tore the whole thing down; if not for the design of the building, it might otherwise have been able to withstand the damage and the fire.

Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report? How did the fires get so hot. Do you know that untill 9-11-01 a steel framed building never collapesed.

Most steel-framed buildings were not designed the way WTC 7 was. The irregular design of these buildings is pretty well known at this point and is widely attributed for the collapse. Internal tresses were designed to transfer unbearable loads to outer columns, which were already almost at capacity anyway and weakened further by several hours of raging infernos.

Also note that most steel-framed buildings have never endured anything more than a normal fire. None were hit by planes, pockmarked by flying debris, and consumed by a fire accelerated by jet fuel for several hours.

8 hours of fire, hell I've burnd my wood stove for 8 weeks, I still own it.

You burned wood in your wood stove, not jet fuel. And I'm fairly sure that at no point in the 8 weeks you burned wood in that stove was it hit by an airplane.

A stablized fuel that has been dumbed down so that the average person can work with it without blowing themselves up. you could burn Kerosene in an oven for 6 months and it wont melt....what a completly misleading opinion you have shared with us

No one ever said the steel melted, fella'. You're just putting words in other people's mouths. Either that or you don't understand material sciences.

Ever been to a Renaissance fair and seen a guy working a forge? He sticks a sword into the forge, which is powered by nothing more than ordinary coals, until its red hot and then hammers the sword into a desirable shape. He does that without benefit of "melting" steel, because it becomes malleable at much, much lower temperatures.

Steel loses half of its strength at about 1100 degrees F; jet fuel can burn up to 1500 degrees F. When, as in this case, the steel in question is supporting an absurdly large load already, you've got a recipe for collapse on your hands.

Structural damage you say? Apparently your unamware of the MANY physical attributes that were in building seven at the time of collapse? yes even damage as described would not have brought the building down the way it did....it MAY have came down..but not in the controlled manner that it did

OK, but the professionals disagree with you.

Not to mention that 75% to 80 % of the Jet Fuel was burned off in the initial fireballs

It burned off in about 10 minutes, true. But that was all that was needed to get the fire going, whereupon it simply fed on combustibles inside the building -- carpets, papers, furniture, etc., not to mention oxygen in the air fed through the big ol' hole the planes plowed through there.

You guys are also forgetting that the initial hit turned the elevator shafts into conduits for burning jet fuel, causing fires to break out all over the building. That's why people were seen running out of the lobby on fire just after the plane hit -- the burning jet fuel sent the elevators slamming to the lobby, spewing the equivalent of burning napalm into the crowds. We are not talking about damage wrought solely to the areas struck by the plane here; it was all over the place.

and there was NO jet fuel involved at building 7 at all..there were THEORIES on how mauch diesel fuel may or may not have been present in Building seven.

Which is probably why it took so much longer for WTC 7 to collapse. It was still on fire, it still suffered massive structural damage, and it still had awkward design problems. It just never got hit with a plane of its own.

You refer to "Massive amounts of falling debris" where may I ask have you come to this conclusion? there were NO REPORTS to corroborate your theory

The NIST reported as much; the building was heavily damaged by debris to an extent far greater than FEMA had initially reported.

apparently your also Unaware that the world trade centers were in FACT designed to withstand Impacts from commercial airliners much in the manner that they did.

They did withstand the impact. You don't actually think the towers fell immediately, did you?

It's worth noting a few things about the initial calculations, which were made when the towers were first erected in the 1960's. First, the calculations were made assuming the tower would be hit with a 707, not a 757. Second, they were made on the assumption that the plane would flying at a low speed with only landing fuel, because it was assumed that a plane would only hit the tower if it became lost in the fog while trying to land, as had happened before with the bomber that hit the Empire State Building in the mid-1940's. They never anticipated that a much larger plane with much more fuel would be crashed deliberately at high speeds into the tower. And Leslie Robertson, the guy who designed the WTCs, is on record saying that those calculations did not take into account the damage wrought by jet fuel-accelerated fires because they did not have the ability to calculate such things at the time.

It is a pretty safe bet that calculations done 40 years ago with inferior technology assuming smaller planes traveling at lower speeds with less fuel and which did not take into account anything beyond the initial impact, is of no use in determining what happened on 9/11. The consensus is that the impact on 9/11 was five to seven times greater than the worst-case-scenario predicted back in the 1960's. And admirably enough each tower stood for an hour or two, anyway.

It has ben widely accepted by engineers associated with the towers that the general concensus was that they could withstand MULTIPLE hits from commercial aircraft and still stood.

So? This doesn't rebut the official story, with which virtually all of the engineering and material sciences community agrees. The towers did withstand the impact of the planes. It wasn't until later that they fell, because they were enduring a multitude of stresses far greater than any the engineers had anticipated.

No steel framed structure in history before 9-11 collapsed due to fire

Duh. No steel-framed structure collapsed on 9/11 due solely to fire. They suffered massive structural damage, as well, as a result of getting hit by planes. We're running in circles here.

there have been several OTHER buildings that have burned HOTTER and far far longer that the towers and they did NOT collapse

Again, they didn't get hit by passenger planes. Fire was not the only force acting on the towers that day.

there were NO LARGE fires for any sustained period of time on that morning......modern building are bult to withstand "Normal "fires you say? wow how naive is that statement? you are kidding of course right? what is considered a "Normal" fire?

One that isn't accelerated by jet fuel sprayed all over the interior of the building.

And yes, there were large fires for quite a sustained period of time. I don't know where you're getting this from. The towers burned long after the jet fuel was exhausted.

videos of firefighters discussing it being brought down......the owner of the building ADMITTING that they brought it down in order to save lives ....

Of WTC 7? No, I'm pretty sure there aren't. They knew beforehand that it was going to collapse because of a telltale bulge in the southwest corner of the building, which is why they moved everyone back -- they knew it was coming down.

Beyond that, I don't think you understand the way controlled demolitions work anyway. You cannot do it quickly, quietly, or without observation.

very good you have watched closely........now watch closer the amazing thing?...right after what you describe you can see the explosions begin and you can clearly see the top portion right itself before vapourizing

I saw no such thing. The closest thing to explosions I when the collapse occurred were pockets of dust and debris in each floor being blasted out through the windows as floors above them pancaked down, but that is merely the physics of displacement at work, not bombs.

the only self explanatory part is the reported time of collapse 5:33 p.m. or close to that .....

but we have a reporter from BBC who claimed the building had already fallen when it was clearly still standing the backround....

They were probably referring to another building and merely got the numbers mixed up. Are you claiming some low-level British reporter is in on the plot now, too?

 

[SW85]

Continued from above:

they were in charge of all post demolition and removal contracts at the WTC site they just Happened to be in new york the morning of 9-11

If they have a contract there, is that really surprising? Demolitions have to be done quickly, the idea being that you do a controlled demolition now to avoid an unpredictable and potentially dangerous collapse later. It makes sense they are going to have offices in any place where they have contracts to do controlled demolitions.

I have to chuckle to you saying that "they just happened to be in New York" that morning. Businesses are non-corporal entities; they can have offices in multiple places at multiple times. It is possible for a business to exist in New York and Toledo at the same time.

I can't believe you're taking what is, at the very worst case, a mere coincidence (and, as is likely, a simple matter of good business practice) as proof of conspiracy.

they as you mentioned ALSO had the demo and removal contracts at the Murrah Federal Building....a strtling co-incidence eh? the federal government used them becuase they are the BEST

So the company contracted to do work in one place also did work for the same contractors in a different place. This is not even a coincidence, much less a conspiracy. A company contracted to do work is going to do it.

this is all of course based on YOUR THEORY of severe structural damage....which has not at this time determined to be true

Except by experts and professionals, etc. So far as I can tell, the only ones disagreeing are dumpy unemployable thirty-somethings working out of trailers like that unhinged Loose Change fellow.

ahhh i see you have it partially correct the actual truth of the matter is that the building was built on a cantilever system that helped span the substation and loading dock areas it was also supported by beams sunk to the bedrock spaced throughout the docks and substation areas......what you mention is the INTERIOR design of the building ...it was DESIGNED to be able to REMOVE FLOORS and CHANGE its configuration WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE BUILDINGS ENGINEERING

It was not designed to have its interior hollowed out, peppered with debris, and set ablaze for six or seven hours.

NIST's report is fairly clear that extreme damage to one beam could well tear the whole building down. Even if the building is as customizable as you describe, it was likely designed to be taken apart by skilled engineers working careful with proper equipment; it does not mean the building is anymore resistant to being shredded willy-nilly.

all of the paper work for scooter libbys trial and the enron debacle were "STORE" in wtc 7

Wait, are you suggesting WTC 7 was destroyed to erase evidence related to Scooter Libby and Enron?

to galvanize the American public into Unbridled patriotism and un questioning the erosion of ensuing rights......for an excuse to go into the middle east to create even more profit and take us closer to one world government

Profit? How?

What falling debris? Nothing major hit Building 7. No major fire in Building 7. All 3 buildings were in basic freefall....like there was no other floors in each others way. Sounds like deliberate demolition to me.

Again, it suffered extensive damage and burned for close to a third of a day. This is all in the NIST report and is corroborated by eyewitness reports of firefighters on the ground.

Of course it is "like there were no other floors in the way." You can't expect one floor to bear the weight of six -- that's why it's called "pancaking." Each floor collapses beneath the weight of the ones above it and adds to the downward convection of force that collapses the next lowest floor. Derrr.

 

[n0spam4me]

May I suggest ...
Look at any one of the many pix of the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki and you will see large completely leveled areas where there had been the old style wood structures and scattered about are a few "NEW" type concrete and steel structures that may be totally burned out, but are standing. Given the heat and blast of the ATOMIC BOMB, all of the exclucivly wood structures are gone, but at least the burnt out shells of the "NEW" type steel framed buildings are standing. This to me .. makes a statement and that is that there is something VERY wrong with the "offical" 9/11 report and the explanation of why the WTC buildings "collapsed".

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

May I suggest ...
Look at any one of the many pix of the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki and you will see large completely leveled areas where there had been the old style wood structures and scattered about are a few "NEW" type concrete and steel structures that may be totally burned out, but are standing. Given the heat and blast of the ATOMIC BOMB, all of the exclucivly wood structures are gone, but at least the burnt out shells of the "NEW" type steel framed buildings are standing. This to me .. makes a statement and that is that there is something VERY wrong with the "offical" 9/11 report and the explanation of why the WTC buildings "collapsed".

http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/movies/hiroshimadamage.html

 

[palerider]

Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report? How did the fires get so hot. Do you know that untill 9-11-01 a steel framed building never collapesed. 8 hours of fire, hell I've burnd my wood stove for 8 weeks, I still own it.
"

How much pressure is your old wood stove under? You do realize that steel under high psi pressure becomes malleable at a much lower temperature than steel under a low psi pressure aren't you? Do you know how much psi pressure the steel beams in the WTC were under? Further. Refer to other steel buildings that have experienced fire. How many of them had airliners flying through their steel structures followed by explosions. Any girders that were broken, or otherwise damaged in the initial impact would have resulted in even more psi pressure upon those that remained intact.

To date, I have not seen a single conspiracy theorist address this issue and unless you add pressure to the heat equation, you don't have a valid equation to work from. Physics is physics and until you can factor that into your conspiracy, you don't have jack.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

How much pressure is your old wood stove under? You do realize that steel under high psi pressure becomes malleable at a much lower temperature than steel under a low psi pressure aren't you? Do you know how much psi pressure the steel beams in the WTC were under? Further. Refer to other steel buildings that have experienced fire. How many of them had airliners flying through their steel structures followed by explosions. Any girders that were broken, or otherwise damaged in the initial impact would have resulted in even more psi pressure upon those that remained intact.

To date, I have not seen a single conspiracy theorist address this issue and unless you add pressure to the heat equation, you don't have a valid equation to work from. Physics is physics and until you can factor that into your conspiracy, you don't have jack.

Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up

Infowars.com | February 14, 2005

COMMENTARY
A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.

[ Click Here for A Video Report from the BBC ]

The media covering this event has been hovering on the edge of its seat, waiting for the building to fall, frequently commenting on the debris falling from the inferno implying that some tumbling sheet rock are an indication of the building's seemingly inevitable downfall. Their headlines reiterate this conclusion: Spanish Skyscraper Fire Subsiding, But Collapse Possible, Fears of collapse as fire ravages huge Madrid office block, Madrid skyscraper collapse feared as inferno rages. Ignoring objectivism, the reports have been clearly skewed to direct the public to belive in the new post-9/11 laws of physics:

"It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse," Javier Sanz, fire chief for the Madrid region, told state radio. [read article]

The connection between this event and the collapse of WTC building 7 is impossible to ignore and the media are doing everything in their power to subvert reality and spin this event: All they have to do is remind us its going to collapse over and over again until the next news cycle and the event is forgotten in the back pages of the newspaper. At that point it won't matter if the building actually collapsed or not and the world will keep spinning according to the new post-9/11 laws of physics.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm

 

[palerider]

Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up

I will ask again. How much pressure was on the girders that failed? Temperature has an effect on metal. Temperature plus pressure has an enhanced effect on metal. Pressure can cause metal to fail at much lower temperatures than would be necessary without pressure.

Also, in the madrid fire, the structure remained intact. That is, no part of it was taken out by an airliner crashing through it so no piece had to assume the weight of a piece that had been taken out of the equation.

The bottom line is that if you want to prove that it was something besides the airplanes that took down the buildings, you do it by applied physics. Demonstrate that the heat plus the pressure on the structure plus the additional stress caused by parts of the structure that were taken out by the aircraft were not enough to cause the remaining metal to fail. Do that and you have a case. Fail to do that and you are just another guy walking around in a tin foil hat.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I will ask again. How much pressure was on the girders that failed? Temperature has an effect on metal. Temperature plus pressure has an enhanced effect on metal. Pressure can cause metal to fail at much lower temperatures than would be necessary without pressure.

Also, in the madrid fire, the structure remained intact. That is, no part of it was taken out by an airliner crashing through it so no piece had to assume the weight of a piece that had been taken out of the equation.

The bottom line is that if you want to prove that it was something besides the airplanes that took down the buildings, you do it by applied physics. Demonstrate that the heat plus the pressure on the structure plus the additional stress caused by parts of the structure that were taken out by the aircraft were not enough to cause the remaining metal to fail. Do that and you have a case. Fail to do that and you are just another guy walking around in a tin foil hat.

The airplane didn't touch the lower part of the building..........why did it fall into its own footprint at freefall speed?


And then there was the Empire State Building that had a plane crash into it......... but it didn't fall into its own footprint............at all.....

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

 

[palerider]

The airplane didn't touch the lower part of the building..........why did it fall into its own footprint at freefall speed?


And then there was the Empire State Building that had a plane crash into it......... but it didn't fall into its own footprint............at all.....

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

The collapse clearly began at the top. You are dodging. Answer my question. How much pressure was on the metal framework after you account for beams that were destroyed or damaged upon the inital impact. Was, or was not the heat + pressure enough to make the metal malleable? If you can't answer that question with any authority, you are just talking through your tin foil hat.

By the way, have you ever seen a B25? Do you know how big it is compared to the airliner that crashed into the towers. Also note in your article that the damage was confined to one side of the building. The two incidents are not analagous.

 

[n0spam4me]

so sorry that I don't write so well .....

However, do check this out
I believe it will answer some of your questions about WTC7

http://www.alexjonesfan.com/richard_gage/

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Enjoy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

The collapse clearly began at the top. You are dodging. Answer my question. How much pressure was on the metal framework after you account for beams that were destroyed or damaged upon the inital impact. Was, or was not the heat + pressure enough to make the metal malleable? If you can't answer that question with any authority, you are just talking through your tin foil hat.

By the way, have you ever seen a B25? Do you know how big it is compared to the airliner that crashed into the towers. Also note in your article that the damage was confined to one side of the building. The two incidents are not analagous.

It is really YOU that is dodging. You know there is absolutely no way that 3 buildings could freefall into their own footprint.....especially on the same day within hours of each other. What are you running from?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

It is really YOU that is dodging.

I've yet to see any of you conspiracy theorists incorporate pressure into your equations. Palerider has been asking you to do this for weeks, what's the problem? Stop dodging.

 

[palerider]

It is really YOU that is dodging. You know there is absolutely no way that 3 buildings could freefall into their own footprint.....especially on the same day within hours of each other. What are you running from?

Tell me exactly why 3 buildings could not "freefall" (stupid term) into their own footprint within hours. Two of the buildings were identical and suffered nearly identical damage. I would be more surprised if they didn't behave the same. The third building caught fire. The vast majority of buidings that catch fire and continue burning fall in upon themselves. What sort of point are you trying to make?

I am waiting for you to show that the heat + the pressure was not enough to make the metal malleable. When you do that, you have me. Physics is physics. A credible report that shows that there was not enough heat and pressure to cause the metal to fail is all you need. Without it, the glare from your tinfoil hat hurts my eyes.