Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Before and after pictures - How could anybody believe the building 7 story?
-
17-02-2014 5:29pm#1OK, so I just came across an interesting video (which can be seen here) of the owner of building 7 being confronted about his "we decided to pull it" comments post-9/11, but got me interested in looking at the aftermath of the collapse to see, is it possible that the collapse was legitimately due to damage from the collapse of the other buildings?
What caught my attention was an innocuous comment about the Marriot Hotel in a news report ( the famous video where they say building 7 has collapsed when it's still standing in the background which can be seen here - , difficult to find a decent one, can't find original), so I looked to see what damage had been done elsewhere.
(EDIT sorry had to change one of the original videos I linked as I didn't realise that it goes into some pretty heavy anti-semitic stuff and is the type of video that inspires the "conspiracy nut" reaction to people who genuinely just don't believe the official version of events.)
This is the Marriot Hotel prior to 9/11
Sorry for the small photo, but as you can see, it is right up against both towers, and given the free fall, neat downwards collapse of the towers, would be the worst hit by falling debris one would assume, certainly worse than WTC7, which was across the street, as seen below: (Marriot is Building #3 - Building #7 across the street)
However, this is the aftermath of the Marriot:
Not bad, considering where it was situated.
To contrast this with before and after of building 7, which was further away: (the Marriot can be seen to the front where the yellow line crosses over it to point out the North tower)
What an incredibly neat pile building 7 collapsed into. Also notice how its neighbouring buildings barely have a scratch on them, yet the damage to building 7 was so catastrophic that it completely collapsed into its foot print (even though it looked in pretty good shape even as it went down, not broken up or engulfed in flames, see here), it certainly didn't look nearly as badly damaged as the still standing and smaller and presumably more fragile Marriot Hotel which was right in the brunt of the falling buildings.
Here is an aerial picture of the footprint of building 7 collapse and the surrounding buildings:
Also, in the centre of the below picture, that fancy building is the Verizon building, directly next door to building 7, which as you can see, barely has a scratch, certainly no caving in of its fragile artistic decor towards the summit, and definitely doesn't look so damaged as to be near collapse, despite being situated right next to building 7.
And here is its neighbour on the other side, the US Post Office on Vesey street:
Not so much as a scratch.
Another aerial map can be found here as to the before lay out of the World Trace Centre site.
So, looking at this evidence alone, is it really feasable that WTC7 collapse was legitimate? And if the answer is no, doesn't that open up the whole can of worms that if WTC doesn't seem like it was an accident, doesn't that shed a large shadow of doubt over the credibility of the rest of the story?2
Comments
-
-
There are a few false assumptions you make here that explain the flaw in your reasoning.
First, building 7 didn't collapse into a neat pile and many of the building around it had a lot more than a scratch.
Note the whiteish building in the left forground of the picture you posted:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/oem/9_15_pic05.jpg
You can see that the corner facing where building 7 was is severely damaged.
Here are more pictures of the damage caused by WTC 7
http://www-tc.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_b_fiterman.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiterman_Hall#Fiterman_Hall_and_the_September_11_attacks
Also you say that the Verizon building didn't have a scratch. This isn't true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Building#September_11.2C_2001_attacks
Second, you presume that the Marriot is more fragile. Why do you presume that?
It's entirely possible that since it's a smaller building with a different construction it could have less of a load to bare even when damaged.
And thirdly, you assume that building 7 collapsed due to direct damage from falling debris. But this isn't the case. The building was destroyed by the fire that was allowed to burn over several floors for several hours weakening a columns supports and leading to that column failing.
It's true that I'm making assumptions, but having said that, your reasoning doesn't stack up either. The most important part being the assumption that a fire could make a building collapse in its entirety (which has only happened 3 times before, all on Sept 11th), partial collapse and gradual collapse is far more likely than the neat, folding in format of building 7. I would encourage you to watch these 3 videos one after the other:
What a controlled demolition looks like: (note the arching in of the centre of the building)
This is the collapse of WTC7 (note the arching in of the centre of the building)
This is what a building collapse due to fire looks like: (note the plumes of smoke, damage to exterior of building and the uncontrolled, messy nature of collapse you would expect, as parts of the support structure fail to varying degrees causing the unsupported parts to fall away, tearing down other parts with it, and other still stable parts still standing, not neatly fold in on it's self. It is remarkable to assume that the buildings resistance at every single point across the entire structure will fail at the exact same time and the building can fall uniformly with no part even hanging on an extra couple of seconds before being dragged down, and for it to fall away from it's self, not into it's self)
Also note on WTC7 collapse, the simultaneous puffs of dust, as though blowouts down the entire length of the building milliseconds before each section collapses, and the noise a controlled demolition makes? That was heard too:
Explosions before collapse reported ahead of building collapses.
Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC7, talking about the decision to "pull it", that decision being made, and then watching the building collapse.
Also, the damage you talk about to the other buildings, all of the damage you show is on the side of the buildings, on the building 7 side, so it's a fair assumption that any damage was from WTC7 coming down, not from elsewhere. The "not a scratch" I was pointing out was independent of the WTC7 collapse, they were unscathed and certainly nowhere near the sort of damage you would expect required to bring the building down. WTC7 collapses from the top down, where there is no evidence of damage or fire.
Also the assumption of the marriot, my point was that it would be likely to crushed from the debris and fire, but was still standing - as in the building most vulnerable to the side affects of the towers damage was that building.
Again, it's a careful line to tread, "conspiracy theorists" are discredited by all the nutty ideas that are circulated, which undermine asking legitimate questions, as it's easy to just say "anybody who questions any part of the official event is a conspiracy nut", not so, I just genuinely find the circumstances around building 7 to be non-believable and counter intuitive. The evidence, the physics and the case study of what occurred to other buildings in the area and the very selective distinction between virtually undamaged to absolutely annihilated within a few feet of each other.0 -
-
So why can't a fire bring down a building exactly?
Because the only 3 entire collapses of buildings due to a plane hitting them in engineering history all occurred on Sept 11th 2001. That has never happened before or since. Even a section of building collapsing from fire is extremely rare. Feel free to contradict this with a single example of a high rise building entire collapse from a plane hit or fire and not a sectional one, but it's my understanding that there have only been 3 ever.[/quote]Note the very clear absence of the very apparent explosions right before the collapse.
If you have your mind made up and refuse to see it, I suppose I might as well make a little gif for you.
(if it was able to be longer I could show you the entire spread of explosions, but wanted you to see it in slow mo and max gif time was 5 seconds - the gif covers about 1 second of real time footage, but if you watch the video back, the black sections at the start of the gif are from where blowouts just occurred and then zooms out to catch the last of the explosions on the other side)And here's the thing, that's pretty much exactly what happens to WTC7.
The video you posted of it's collapse is not showing all of the footage.
Here is the unedited version of the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUIEA7bi4_g
Note the penthouse falling into the building.
Nope, the collapse was after 8 hours of fire (not circa 40 minutes and just over and hour - bearing in mind all plane fuel is estimated to have burned off after 15 minutes and at least a third of the fuel being lost in the explosion on impact with the buildings) and only 5 stories collapsed in that video I posted, not the entire building, as fires don't weaken every single part of load bearing around several acres of building at the exact same rate causing them to all fail at the exact same moment, certain sections will fail first, weakening other sections, but a gradual (over hours) collapse is more realistic, and certainly not to the 75%+ not affected by the fire at all.But again referring to the above video, where are those explosions?
If they are causing the sections to collapse we would here them as the building collapses. But we don't.
Nor do we hear what is heard in an actual demolition (like in the video you post). There is no sequence of explosions followed by the collapse.
The videos are taken from kilometres away in one of the busiest and noisiest cities in the world, during it's greatest ever state of emergency, the controlled demolitions are taken as close as is safe in a silenced exclusion zone. If you research it, countless people report hearing a series of large explosions prior to collapses for all the buildings, as well as explosives being found in the building wreckage and the chemical samples from wreckage.
Also, why did the fire start (or how) in the lower section of the building, seeing as all other buildings lower sections are unschated, and why were the explosions near the top initially and why is the initial movement of the collapse from roof level?Have you considered that those firefighters are referring to other types of explosions or things that sound like explosions rather than demolition explosions?
Given the sight of explosions, physical and chemical evidence and thousands of witnesses, and the building what do you suggest are the other reasons for simultaneous explosions along the length and breadth of the building at the exact same time and immediately prior to collapse? (I'm also bringing the towers into this on the controlled demo aspect - all in free fall, which has been measured - I can link this if you want, but don't want to search for it now, but it has been measured by physicists that these buildings collapsed at terminal velocity, which means that they collapsed as near to free fall as possible - in other words, the building at every single corner and the same time, and all the structural integrity, all 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete could not slow this building collapse down by any more than had you dropped a section of roof with only a sheet of paper underneath it, it would have reached the earth at the same time. People spend years in college, more in training, to perfect that exact same achievement in its time to collapse and the neatness in which it folded, it is there life times work, and happens 3 times in one day, and you're suggesting a better method would be to just set buildings on fire, because this is what happens if it is left untreated? And how would you bridge the gap of several (6 to 12 hours) of fire time before any other building that suffered a tiny partial collapse has had to wait to bringing down the tallest building on the planet in 45 minutes?I've heard this claimed many times. But leaving aside how this is a very out of context quote, can you provide a good reason why he would ever admit what you think he's admitting on camera for a freely available documentary?
Well it's a good question, but lets keep an even playing field, you seem to dismess any evidence to my side of the argument as "well, it could mean something else, or it could happen that way maybe), but let's share the burden of proof here, as though there is no official story and look at it as, does one side present a plausible scenario - do BOTH of us present a plausible scenario, but not hide behind the "society has decided", because I;d be amazed if as many as 1% of people have ever looked at alternative accounts or potential loop holes in the official account (which we're brought up to trust institutions and governments and "official lines", but history will always show that politicians and people in power very often aren't in that sort of position without a personal agenda. Not always, but lets safely assume that in the most lobbied and chroniest Government in the world, people will have certain things to gain from certain events, even if they wouldn't nevessarily benefit those who'll see a 2 minute news segmant on the "official story" and that's it, that's case closed, now I know what I believe happened and anything contradicting that, even if by someone who has spent a lot more time looking at actual facts of what happened and not what a news reporters or potential people implicated in the events tell me what happened.
So why would he say it? Easy, maybe he forgot the company he was in, the people who he would normally talk to about those events, maybe he's used to talking so openly and frankly about what ever happened as that's how he's always talked about it, because he's always been in the right company (he's not a very often appearing media man for interviews etc.).
Maybe he didn't know it wasn't public knowledge? Maybe he knew it was "pulled" but didn't know that that wasn't part of the story, they're not supposed to know that part...
Maybe....
Neither of us can answer that one for sure, but it's hardly damning proof of all I've said being debunked because some 90 year old man had a slip of the tongue or forgot who he was talking to.I posted those examples in response to your claim that WTC7 collapsed into a neat pile into it's own footprint.
But again, the damage isn't what caused the building to collapse.
Well this too is debatable. The initial report carried out by FEMA could not determine a cause of collapse.
As a result, a further report was commissioned which included just about every expert in the country to look at it, it included (but was not limited to) American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.
After years of computer modelling (7 years in fact) they found that an explanation could be that "diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse
Most importantly however, they commented that despite all of the above, "buildings should not collapse from fire even if sprinklers are unavailable."
But because something had to have caused it, the only solution they came up with was that there must have been a sudden failing of key support beams no longer bearing weight, of course they can only assume and therefore attribute this to fire, as what else could the possibly argue did it, explosives? but again, see below, along central support structure (to the right of centre below up and down the length of the building) the puffs of smoke are blown out just prior to those floors collapsing...like a deck of cards being blown down in the wind.
Building 7 was what I selected as it seems so clear to me of the impossible nature of the events as they occured. Of course there's the whole debate around the towers too, where other aspects are left very much unexplained and the "controlled" nature of demolition. Such as pre-emptive blow outs, explosions and other chemicals such as thermite being in abundance in the wreckage, way beyond what could be expected, not naturally occurring in any plane or office environment, and its distinctive glow can be seen long before the collapse, thermite is mainly used to eat through steal supports prior to a controlled demolition of a building.
There are countless questions I've come across and highly credible sources that really throw a light on the fact that there are still some very legitimate questions to be answered. I don't think anyone can argue the official report was terribly put together and omitted an incredibly vast amount of information, mostly that would result in questions needing to be answered, and I'm not claiming "inside job", I just really really don't believe the official version of events and it's easy to say "meh, that's probably what happened", but actually the more you learn about the events, the more compelling and interesting the amount of contradictions and misinformations become.
There are also some interesting documentaries from credible sources (as it's important to avoid "whack jobs" where possible to discredit a sceptic, which I would consider myself, not a conspiracy theorist.), but this UCLA professor was fired for doing physics and chemical research on the events of 9/11 that were clearly contradicting the official events, but he was being ostracized on the premise of questioning it and not accepting the official story, rather than testing the story with scientific facts, which he found to be impossible, so they fired him, which all seems very unscientific.
There's also really interesting debates around "who would gain" from WTC7 being demolished, as apposed to it happening to neighbouring buildings or the hotel underneath the towers which would be of no strategic importance to someone who was doing this with a coverup or grand scheme involved, such as the The Revenue Service, The Secret Service, the Department of Defence and the CIA all located in that building.
Files lost from this included the evidence required in the Salamon Brothers involvement in the world com scandal (get Michael Moore on the phone, I'm sure the board of directors had some strong lobbying power with US officials and paid lots of money towards GW Bush being elected - not that I'm making any accusations! :pac:)
The secret services largest field office and largest collection of intelligence was all destroyed and non-recoverable along with many banking institution records being destroyed...
There are countless other very worrying questions without airtight solutions, what about the situation with Air traffic control, are you aware of this? On the day, all the aircrats that could have intercepted any potential hijackers were away at a war games training session, simulating an attack on NYC on the morning of 9/11 and how the confusion between real world and simulation events delayed and impeded any possible rapid deployment...
Or the people who weren't in the building that day who usually were?
Or the man who had just started as head of security at the towers that morning?
What a day for coincidences ...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
[QUOTE='[Jackass] doesn't that open up the whole can of worms that if WTC doesn't seem like it was an accident, doesn't that shed a large shadow of doubt over the credibility of the rest of the story?[/QUOTE]
No body, absolutely nobody believes ANY part of this story. This was an inside conspiracy formed by a few families to help each other out of financial difficulties ~ oh and as an aside gives one of those families son's the legal rights to invade other countries and spread their own special form of terrorism in the name of fighting same.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Then I don't think your opinion is very consistant or supported.
thats fineWhy do you find it unlikely when the reason you stated it's unlikely doesn't make any sense.
it makes sense to me, you see the possibilities from your POV, i from mine.Do you think that my explanation for his quote is unlikely?
its as likely as any other. my opinion is drawn from various other sources/stories, before and after the event, that lead me to believe he had a hand in the building coming down.0 -
-
But how can they be equally valid when I've pointed to several contradictions you say you can't address and you can't point to any problems with mine?
Do the questions your opinion about the quote not throw doubt on your explanation?
they can be equally valid because neither of us know what really happened. just as scrodinger's cat can be equally alive or dead.
all we have is 50th hand tales of something that we really have no truth about. ill listen to anyones ideas but my own reading leads me to believe what i believe. and since we've all read every argument for/against 100 times, i dont think anyone is going to have a eureka moment on boards
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
dude, im not looking for the definitive truth in CT forum. im looking to have a read of some alternative views and share a few of my own theories.
if we all found the truth then there wouldnt be any need for a CT forum would there?
there's loads on here looking to get into the type of debate that you're looking for, just not me my friend 0 -
Can you provide proof that WTC7 wasn't destroyed by an alien space laser? If not, does that mean that that explanation is just as valid as yours?
no i cannot, in fact i may go looking for some now!
if it was destroyed by an alien space lazer that'd be pretty mental! it would mean larry king is a lizard reptile from zorg and ill have been proved correct all along 0 -
I'm just trying to understand your position because I can't make sense of it.DamagedTrax wrote: »dude, im not looking for the definitive truth in CT forum. im looking to have a read of some alternative views and share a few of my own theories.
if we all found the truth then there wouldnt be any need for a CT forum would there?
there's loads on here looking to get into the type of debate that you're looking for, just not me my friend
You believe that Larry Silverstien admitted his guilt on camera even though you can't explain why he did, or make sense of any of the stuff he said in the context of a conspiracy explanation.
And you reject a much simpler, more likely explanation because you decided before hand that he must be involved.
I don't understand how you can hold such a self contradictory position.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
You said:DamagedTrax wrote: »i never said i couldnt address your points. i can address them all night but i have no proof so therefore i said i cant explain them. because i cant.
But now you say you can address them?DamagedTrax wrote: »my answer to all your questions is that i dont have the answers.
Could you please offer suggestions for reasonable, plausible answers for any of these questions:I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
So assuming he was part of conspiracy to demolish the building:
1. Why was he talking to a fire-chief about it?
2. Why did the fire-chief say they were concerned about fighting the fires if they were going to demolish it?
3. Why, if he was involved with a plot that killed thousands, would Larry concerned about further loss of life?
4. Why would demolishing the building have anything to do with a loss of life? Why would "pulling the building" be the smartest thing to do?
5. If you believe that this talk of "loss of life" is somehow a cover, why does he suddenly care about cover when he's making this admission?
6. Why does he say that "they" made the decision? Why fire fighters and not him?
7. Why the hell would they only make the decision on the day when the conspiracy would require months of work?
8. Why did PBS not make the documentary about this guy being behind the worst crime ever after this admission?
Then could you point out what about my explanation is equally problematic?
I'm not saying that either, I'm just trying to focus on single points rather than long walls of text about the conspiracy.DamagedTrax wrote: »and believe me, my entire argument to WTC being a dodgy episode is not hinged on Larry's tv interview. thats only a tiny piece of a very confusing puzzle.
Having a paragraph about how Larry admitted his guilt sounds impressive thrown in with other claims. But when you stop and examine it closely, problems start to crop up for it, like the ones above.
This is true for all conspiracy claims.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Also, I have been trying to find some information about the origins of the phrase "pull it". I work in IT in a bank and we use the phrase when decide not to carry out a change that was previously agreed and authorised, for example, "I was about to start the change last night when I notice that one of the arrays was not behaving as expected, I decided to pull it." Or, "after the issue we had this afternoon change management have pulled all the changes."
I can't find any particular reference, but to me the phrase "pull it" in reference to stopping doing something seems fairly normal. You hear it on TV all the time.
MrP
What you are referring to is "pull" as in "pull the plug" meaning to decide to stop doing something.
It's more complicated with Larry Silverstein's statements because to "pull" a building is demolitions industry jargon to intentionally demolish a building. He was referring to building 7. It is reasonable to assume that given their professional experiences that both Silverstein and the fire Chief were familiar with the industry term.
Title
DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOLITION TECHNOLOGIES: ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF A BUILDING PULLED DOWN BY EXPLOSIVES
http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-quick-result-list.jsp?A&idSuche=CIB+DC9134
Given the context he could have said either. Though as has been pointed out there were no fire crews to "pull out".
Demolitions Experts have gone on record as saying the destruction of building 7 replicates a controlled demolition in every aspect, so the jury is very much out.0 -
-
Ok, cheers for that.Brown Bomber wrote: »What you are referring to is "pull" as in "pull the plug" meaning to decide to stop doing something.
It's more complicated with Larry Silverstein's statements because to "pull" a building is demolitions industry jargon to intentionally demolish a building. He was referring to building 7. It is reasonable to assume that given their professional experiences that both Silverstein and the fire Chief were familiar with the industry term.
Title
DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOLITION TECHNOLOGIES: ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF A BUILDING PULLED DOWN BY EXPLOSIVES
http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-quick-result-list.jsp?A&idSuche=CIB+DC9134
Given the context he could have said either. Though as has been pointed out there were no fire crews to "pull out".
Demolitions Experts have gone on record as saying the destruction of building 7 replicates a controlled demolition in every aspect, so the jury is very much out.
Do you know if the theory is he was involved with the plane crashes? I have not had a chance to read all the links. From my understanding of demolitions, which is admittedly inexpert, there are two possible scenarios. Either he arranged the crashes or, the crashes were co-incidental to the building coming down. My understanding is that it takes several weeks to prepare a building for a controlled explosive demolition. Is anyone suggesting that after the planes crashed they started to lay explosives to bring the building down?
MrP0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
![[Jackass]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3178d191648ad5d2fb7722b96c5c616c.svg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Buseb-Gqyes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc1Lri34OmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRKZkhwt9bs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRsUROXjOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXLBDNL-ZNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMUbbLYycVo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_UKdqoa_o
Advertisement