9-11 WTC 7 Tower collapse..

R0C0

meglome wrote: »

Indeed, so does that mean it couldn't. Keeping in mind the unique design of this buliding.

Nope. Doesn't mean its impossible, just strange if it was the case. This can't be replicated in a controlled setting, and as admitted by the official investigation, collapse due to fire only has a small chance of probability. Anyway.. just pointing out, anomolies like this are why people question it.

As point 1... it's never happened before so who's says it couldn't and given the unique design of this building it's more likely to happen than with many other buildings.

Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist

Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??

Again this building had some very unique features such as the large electrical substation it sat over so there mightn't be any need for such code changes. And if there are code changes it mightn't effect many buildings in practice.

If the steel beams and joints failed due to the heat we are being told caused them to fail, then so too would the steel beams of other structures under current building codes, regardless of whats under them, that has no effect on their resistance to heat.

Link?

Sure.. This is the uncut interview with Barry Jennings, the last man in wtc7. I recommend you watch the whole thing, pay close attention to his timeline of events too. http://www.infowars.com/?p=3233

Would steel from a collapsed building normally all be kept?

Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history? Yes. Yes it would.

Answers to why and how the only steel structure in history fell due to fire? Yes.

Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??

It's never happened before so they couldn't figure it out. But it seems the damage to the building was worse than was thought at the time so it makes fire a likely culprit.

Damage worse than they thought at the time?? Well.. no. Thats not true. People knew well in advance that the building was coming down. No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.

Just my 2c worth.

I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.
First steel building to fall due to fire.
The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.
Falls uniformly into its own footprint.
That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.

toiletduck

R0C0 wrote: »

all fail symetrically..............
Falls uniformly into its own footprint.

This has been debunked so many times here. I'll link the relevant Bonkey and Diagones posts (they should be in this thread?) when I'm less drunk.

toiletduck

Actually it seems it was just mentioned in the post prior to your first one in this threaad. Ywan

bonkey

R0C0 wrote: »

Nope. Doesn't mean its impossible, just strange if it was the case. This can't be replicated in a controlled setting, and as admitted by the official investigation, collapse due to fire only has a small chance of probability. Anyway.. just pointing out, anomolies like this are why people question it.

Anomalies like this are why "the official investigation" that you referred to (the one culimnating in the FEMA report) concluded that it wasn't happy with its own explanation, and that an additional official investigation (the NIST investigation, still ongoing) was needed, They instigated that, the interim findings of which already say that it wasn't "collapse due to fire".

meglome

R0C0 wrote: »

Nope. Doesn't mean its impossible, just strange if it was the case. This can't be replicated in a controlled setting, and as admitted by the official investigation, collapse due to fire only has a small chance of probability. Anyway.. just pointing out, anomolies like this are why people question it.

Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist

Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??

If the steel beams and joints failed due to the heat we are being told caused them to fail, then so too would the steel beams of other structures under current building codes, regardless of whats under them, that has no effect on their resistance to heat.

If, as is believed now, there was more damage done to the base of the building due to the twin towers collapse than was at first thought. Given that there was especially long spans above the electrical substation it's very easy to believe how this building could have collapsed. If enough of the long spans failed due to the heat, the core columns don't have enough structure to stop them bending with the weight of the buliding. One a failure starts, given the damage to the base of the building it's quite likely to pull the whole structure with it as it's all bolted together. So it's not just heat, it's damage from twin towers collapse, specific design elements of this building and fire. I'm no engineer but it sounds very plausible imho.

R0C0 wrote: »

Sure.. This is the uncut interview with Barry Jennings, the last man in wtc7. I recommend you watch the whole thing, pay close attention to his timeline of events too. http://www.infowars.com/?p=3233

Funnily he was heading to the command centre in the building so doesn't this make him one of the conspirators? He says he heard explosions but we have no way whatsoever to know what these actually were. There was so much going on at the time. I've seen him interviewed since and he says he never actually saw any bodies he was told to close his eyes so he wouldn't see what he assumed to be bodies.

R0C0 wrote: »

Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??

Well how much material as a percentage was kept from the entire site, I would guess it's fairly low. Anyone? Maybe there was nothing more to be learned from this material, maybe it was a lot of reasons.

R0C0 wrote: »

Damage worse than they thought at the time?? Well.. no. Thats not true. People knew well in advance that the building was coming down. No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.

The damage to the base of the building was worse than they thought at the time. The building didn't actually fall in a uniform manner which you can see for yourself by looking at the pictures of the rubble pile. It's only the CT's that are saying the building fell from fire alone.

R0C0 wrote: »

I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.
First steel building to fall due to fire.
The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.
Falls uniformly into its own footprint.
That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.

1. You could drive a bus through the holes in the conspiracy theories. When they start inventing new technologies, resorting to threatening the people who disagree with them, running hate campaigns against these same people, wait seven years and still no actual smoking gun just lots of muck throwing... they've lost most of the argument.
2. There has to be a first for everything. But only the CT's are saying it failed from just fire.
3. Joints don't need to fail at the same time. Just enough of them to cause a cascade effect through the building.
4. It didn't fall into it's footprint, simply not true.

For me it was a massively confused day, if there were no conflicting reports it would be extremely suspicious. We're expected to believe the American government is capable of running a massive conspiracy which seven years later no one has spilt the beans on, one which involved mass murder of their own people. Governments by their very nature are bureaucratic and inept but somehow in this instance they managed to pull off a huge near prefect conspiracy, please. It's Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".

bonkey

Continuing from this morning's post..

R0C0 wrote: »

Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist

I agree. Indeed, I'll go further - If you think that this is what happened, you're living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

It is worth noting at this point, however, that none of the official findings to date - neither the FEMA report nor the NIST interim report - have suggested that this is what happened.

Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??

Maybe, but its not relevant because - again - the official accounting doesn't claim that this is what happened.

Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history? Yes. Yes it would.

Answers to why and how the only steel structure in history fell due to fire? Yes.

Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??

Before I respond to this...could you explain exactly what you think happened to the steel. I'm not asking for a one-liner "it was shipped to China". I want you to clarify your understanding of how it got from the scene of the collapse to China, and explain exactly where along that process that something was done wrong.

Just in case you think I'm being unreasonable...I'll start you off with some of hte easier details...

The area was declared a rescue site for over 3 weeks. In a rescue site, criminal investigations take second place. Always have, always should. You do not allow additional people to die for fear of disturbing evidence.

After this, the rescue operations had already contaminated any crime scene...as indeed had the collapse itself.

The notion that the material be left in place (which I assume you're not making) would be quite literally insane. In any comparable event, the material is moved to a location where it can be properly sorted and dealt with.

The steel was moved from Ground Zero. It was moved in trucks, who's movements were tracked via GPS to make sure that there was nothing untoward about the transit of materials.

In excess of 100 investigators were then responsible for going through the steel to see what they could find. It was during this process that NIST had a completely free hand to obtain what samples they felt were useful and necessary. NIST have not once suggested that they were denied sufficient access the the material, nor that they did not recover what could be meaningfully used.

When all investigators from all involved areas were satisfied that they had garnered what evidence they could, the material was then released for disposal.

No criminal investigation in history involving building-collapses has ever gone to such detail, nor has ever retained the full building debris indefinitely.

So please...tell me where they went wrong, and fill in the detail that I'm missing in the above, given that you assert that it was unreasonable.

No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.

Of the 1.4 billion dollars of damage done to the Verizon building, a large amount of that was caused by the collapse of WTC 7. I think you are over-stating how cleanly the building collapsed.

I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.
First steel building to fall due to fire.

Wrong. Its not. You can find other examples with even the minimum amount of effort and the use of google.com.

In fairness, this is also something that the 911 Comission Report claims, and is one of the things that it gets wrong as well.

None of the three buildings which collapsed that day were the first steel-supported building to collapse due to fire.

This is true for two reasons:

1) Steel-supported buildings have previously collapsed due to fire.
2) None of the three steel-supported buildings which collapsed at Ground Zero that day did collapse "due to fire". All three collapsed due to a combination of significant structural damage and fire.

I'd also suggest you have a look at this. There's an interesting 7-point challenge in there, which I'll take the liberty of copying here:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

If you can't match that example, then whatever you're looking at doesn't compare to what the closest things we have to an official explanation for WTC 7 is - the NIST interim report. Note that its not just a fire...and its a very specific type of steel-frame construction. Unlike man, not all buildings are created equal.

(Aside : if you read the page, you'll also find references to what you claim don't exist - steel-supported buildings which collapsed due to fire, prior to September 11, 2001).

The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.

The "joints" didn't fail at precisely the same time. Watch the collapse again. Watch the penthouse sink into the building. Watch the "kink" appear. Watch the building sag around the kink. These are all indications that there was a "first significant point of failure", which then caused the rest of the supports to be quickly-and-progressively overloaded.

Falls uniformly into its own footprint.

No, it doesn't. As I mentioned above...read up on the damage it caused to the Verizon building. Look at various shots before the rescue operation bulldozed through the streets.

This is a persistent fiction. WTC 7 no more collapsed "into its own footprint" than WTC 1 or 2 did.

That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.

I agree. It does. Unfortunately, it involves making claims which aren't true, and criticising explanations which aren't those offered from the official investigations. When one dispenses with such details as accuracy and fact, its easy to make something sound like a conspiracy theory.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

I agree. It does. Unfortunately, it involves making claims which aren't true, and criticising explanations which aren't those offered from the official investigations. When one dispenses with such details as accuracy and fact, its easy to make something sound like a conspiracy theory.

ROCO, you coming back?

DinnyBatman

Hi all, just came across this thread. I'll stop laughing long enough at some of the posts to tell you all what happened.......... Two big planes hit two big buildings with so much force that they caused the buildings to collapse and cause a lot of damage to several nearby buildings. Now Ive got to go and take a picture of the UFO hovering over my garden....:eek:

DubTony

I've just remembered why I haven't read this forum in about 2 years. The amount of childish back and forward sniping is unreal. And that's from people on both sides of this argument.

The use of "agenda-ridden" web sites to "prove" a point is laughable. References to a particular report are countered with nonsense like "what report are you talking about?" for no other reason than the report seems to have been titled something different.

Arguments made on web sites that are used as "proof" or "evidence", have little to do with the actual argument being made. The video on the page bonkey linked to has so little information that counters the theorists arguments it's not funny - a 4 floor building collapsed from fire, a school collapsed from fire - the top 11 floors of a hotel collapsed from fire. (Although I don't think he linked to it to make the point about fires)

For God's sake people. What's the point in having these arguments if you're all simply going to reference the conspiracy sites or their detractors as your proof.

I have to admit though, one thing this thread has going for it is the very eloquent use of the English language by more than a couple of posters. What a shame the arguments couldn't be put across in as effective a manner.

As an aside, I would be of the opinion that to use reports in the mainstream media to "prove a point" is a little bit naive. Most media organisations today simply report what some other agency has told them. Actual "on the ground" investigating is quite rare these days. Mondays' Irish Independent reported a car crashing into a house in Tipperary at the weekend but thankfully nobody in or near the house was hurt. On the same shelf, The Examiner and The Irish Times both reported a young boy critically injured after being trapped between the car and the wall of the house as he played outside.

Who's Right?

meglome

DubTony wrote: »

I've just remembered why I haven't read this forum in about 2 years. The amount of childish back and forward sniping is unreal. And that's from people on both sides of this argument.

There are outbreaks of sniping but otherwise it's like any debate I would have said, point scoring.

DubTony wrote: »

The use of "agenda-ridden" web sites to "prove" a point is laughable. References to a particular report are countered with nonsense like "what report are you talking about?" for no other reason than the report seems to have been titled something different.

Even agenda ridden sites will have elements of what's actually true, you just have to pick through it. Don't remember report titles being argued over.

DubTony wrote: »

Arguments made on web sites that are used as "proof" or "evidence", have little to do with the actual argument being made. The video on the page bonkey linked to has so little information that counters the theorists arguments it's not funny - a 4 floor building collapsed from fire, a school collapsed from fire - the top 11 floors of a hotel collapsed from fire. (Although I don't think he linked to it to make the point about fires)

For God's sake people. What's the point in having these arguments if you're all simply going to reference the conspiracy sites or their detractors as your proof.

You've selected one link that Bonkey made, making one specific point, so? If someone, anyone, has well researched and comprehensive information on their site why shouldn't it be referenced, why wouldn't you reference it. Personally I don't see the argument as having different sides, there is evidence to back up a theory or there isn't. Maybe the conspiracy theorists see sides.

DubTony wrote: »

I have to admit though, one thing this thread has going for it is the very eloquent use of the English language by more than a couple of posters. What a shame the arguments couldn't be put across in as effective a manner.

Actually I disagree I think the arguments are put forward quite effectively, well by the debunkers anyway.

DubTony wrote: »

As an aside, I would be of the opinion that to use reports in the mainstream media to "prove a point" is a little bit naive. Most media organisations today simply report what some other agency has told them. Actual "on the ground" investigating is quite rare these days. Mondays' Irish Independent reported a car crashing into a house in Tipperary at the weekend but thankfully nobody in or near the house was hurt. On the same shelf, The Examiner and The Irish Times both reported a young boy critically injured after being trapped between the car and the wall of the house as he played outside.

Who's Right?

Didn't see the story at all but I had no idea the media had become infallible or uninterested in hyping a story. Is it relevant to your initial point?

You come in here after two years, obviously read very little and give us your opinion from on high. Yet I find myself replying, instead of ignoring most of your little rant. Ah well.

bonkey

DubTony wrote: »

Arguments made on web sites that are used as "proof" or "evidence", have little to do with the actual argument being made. The video on the page bonkey linked to has so little information that counters the theorists arguments it's not funny - a 4 floor building collapsed from fire, a school collapsed from fire - the top 11 floors of a hotel collapsed from fire. (Although I don't think he linked to it to make the point about fires)

Its funny...I had to read back through the entire thread and check the links I had posted, to find out what one you were talking about.

As a general rule, I skip the videos and stick to the written content...particular when it has references to or content from a third-party, referenced site. AS it is, I'm not sure what you find funny...the claim I was responding to was that no steel-structure building collapsed from fire. You admit the video contained a link to a four-floor steel-structure building which collapsed from fire. The textual content on that page also referred to larger buildings which collapsed (the McCormick Center and the Sight & Sound Theater, both mentioned immediately below the video).

(Although I don't think he linked to it to make the point about fires)

I didn't link to it with the intention that people ignore the textual content and concentrate instead on the video. I was making a point about fires.

Mondays' Irish Independent reported a car crashing into a house in Tipperary at the weekend but thankfully nobody in or near the house was hurt. On the same shelf, The Examiner and The Irish Times both reported a young boy critically injured after being trapped between the car and the wall of the house as he played outside.

Who's Right?

I don't know. I'd go and look for additional sources, and ideally wait until a bit of time had passed so that the confusion of immediacy had a chance to dissipate.

If, for example, I found newspaper reports in a few weeks time of a court-case to find whether the driver was culpable of gross negligence in injuring a young boy when crashing into a house, I would be inclined to say that the Examiner and Times got it right, rather than that there's some complex conspiracy involving multiple national newspapers and/or the courts to frame an innocent man. On the other hand, were I to find that there were retractions printed by those papers in the coming days to say that they misreported the situation, based on faulty information and so on and so forth, I'd be inclined to side with the Independant. I wouldn't see it as some massive conspiracy to remove suspicion from the guilty.

In the meantime, I'd be inclined to say that I don't know (as I did at the outset) and that I'd like to see what additional evidence swayed anyone who was arguing that it was conclusively one or the other. I certainly wouldn't be inclined to put weight behind any notion that any of the three papers deliberately misreported it to satisfy some hidden agenda.