9-11 WTC 7 Tower collapse..

oscarBravo · 08-07-2008 3:46pm

Any chance of some replies to post #19, grainne_ed?

grainne_ed · 08-07-2008 4:35pm

MoominPapa wrote: »

The quoted text is the photo caption.
Heres further evidence from a source you may prefer:911research

The damage to WTC4 is no shock. With its location virtually within touching distance of one of the tallest buildings in the world when the south tower collapsed. Substantial damage was caused to WTC4 during the collapse, however a substantial section of the building on the opposite side to the collapse remained standing.

WTC7 is totally different. It didnt recieve the structural damage, yet still collapsed to the ground in a sequence remarkably like a controlled explosion. This coupled with the fact NYPD said before hand that it was being 'pulled' & also the fact that the BBC reported its collapse before it actually happened leads to much suspicion.

oscarBravo · 08-07-2008 4:45pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

WTC7 is totally different. It didnt recieve the structural damage...

Repeating this isn't going to make it true.

...yet still collapsed to the ground in a sequence remarkably like a controlled explosion.

A controlled explosion is what army ordnance disposal teams do. I presume you meant "controlled demolition", in which case you'd still be wrong.

This coupled with the fact NYPD said before hand that it was being 'pulled'

NYPD never said anything of the kind, and the fact that the FDNY said something along those lines doesn't mean what you'd like to think it means.

...also the fact that the BBC reported its collapse before it actually happened leads to much suspicion.

They made a mistake. Big deal.

grainne_ed · 08-07-2008 4:58pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Repeating this isn't going to make it true. A controlled explosion is what army ordnance disposal teams do. I presume you meant "controlled demolition", in which case you'd still be wrong. NYPD never said anything of the kind, and the fact that the FDNY said something along those lines doesn't mean what you'd like to think it means. They made a mistake. Big deal.

Controlled explosion/demolition. Lets not get caught up on the jargon.

What did the FDNY mean when they said this?? Other than the obvious reason of course.

Your fond of your analogy, try this. If the BBC reported Tony Blair had been assinated 10 minutes before it actually happened, would that not raise some eyebrows??

MoominPapa · 08-07-2008 5:02pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

The damage to WTC4 is no shock. With its location virtually within touching distance of one of the tallest buildings in the world when the south tower collapsed. Substantial damage was caused to WTC4 during the collapse, however a substantial section of the building on the opposite side to the collapse remained standing.

From the picture, comparing what was left to the WTC area plan most of the building was destroyed.

So what if a substantial section remained( which didn't anyway)?

grainne_ed wrote: »

WTC7 is totally different. It didnt recieve the structural damage, yet still collapsed to the ground in a sequence remarkably like a controlled explosion.

It did receive structural damage and other rational explanations have been given which also explain how a "sequence remarkable like a controlled explosion" didn't blow in the windows of surrounding buildings.

grainne_ed wrote: »

This coupled with the fact NYPD said before hand that it was being 'pulled' ...

Could mean pulling the police/firefighters out. Seems much more likely to me. The fact(?) that this is a demolition term is little to go on

grainne_ed wrote: »

..also the fact that the BBC reported its collapse before it actually happened leads to much suspicion.

This was a mistaken report which has been explained ad nauseum

oscarBravo · 08-07-2008 5:04pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

Controlled explosion/demolition. Lets not get caught up on the jargon.

Actually, let's. The meaning of words is rather important - as per your next point:

What did the FDNY mean when they said this?? Other than the obvious reason of course.

I don't know why you'd think it "obvious" that the word "pull" refers to controlled demolition, when (1) firefighters don't do controlled demolitions, and (2) controlled demolition experts don't refer to what they do as "pulling" (unless they actually do pull buildings down using cables, which they don't do with 47-storey buildings, and especially not when they're on fire).

Your fond of your analogy, try this. If the BBC reported Tony Blair had been assinated 10 minutes before it actually happened, would that not raise some eyebrows??

If it had been widely reported for several hours beforehand that his assassination was inevitable and was expected shortly, then: no, not really.

Any chance of some answers to post #19?

grainne_ed · 08-07-2008 5:16pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it had been widely reported for several hours beforehand that his assassination was inevitable and was expected shortly, then: no, not really.

What?

If it had been reported as fact 10 minutes beforehand, then actually occured I think most people would be asking questions.

On this basis questions should be asked as to how the BBC knew the collapse of WTC7 was imminent.

oscarBravo · 08-07-2008 5:22pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

If it had been reported as fact 10 minutes beforehand, then actually occured I think most people would be asking questions.

You don't really get how analogies work, do you?

On this basis questions should be asked as to how the BBC knew the collapse of WTC7 was imminent.

Just a stab in the dark, but I'm guessing it's because it had been widely reported for some time beforehand that the building was about to collapse.

Y'know, what with it having been badly damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, and the raging fires, and all that.

Any chance of you answering the questions I asked in post #19?

grainne_ed · 08-07-2008 5:44pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't really get how analogies work, do you? Just a stab in the dark, but I'm guessing it's because it had been widely reported for some time beforehand that the building was about to collapse.

Y'know, what with it having been badly damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, and the raging fires, and all that.

Any chance of you answering the questions I asked in post #19?

It takes more than a fire to cause the collapse of a steel frame, concrete core building.

People report hearing explosions, next thing WTC7 drops like a controlled 'demolition'. FDNY tell people to evacuate before this happens as the buildings is about to be 'pulled'. BBC reports its collapse before it actually happens.

Thats it in a nutshell.

SuperSean11 · 08-07-2008 5:57pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Any chance of you answering the questions I asked in post #19?

+1

oscarBravo · 08-07-2008 6:15pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

It takes more than a fire to cause the collapse of a steel frame, concrete core building.

True. As it happens, it took more than fire to cause the collapse of WTC 7.

People report hearing explosions, next thing WTC7 drops like a controlled 'demolition'. FDNY tell people to evacuate before this happens as the buildings is about to be 'pulled'. BBC reports its collapse before it actually happens.

Thats it in a nutshell.

Yeah, you've said all that. Any chance of answering the questions I asked in post #19?

Diogenes · 08-07-2008 6:21pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

It takes more than a fire to cause the collapse of a steel frame, concrete core building.

Yes getting hit by tonnes of debris from the collapse of the WTC towers will help.

People report hearing explosions,

People reporting hearing explosions, not bombs. Lots of things sound "like" explosions doesn't mean they were caused by explosives.

next thing WTC7 drops like a controlled 'demolition'.

No it didn't. Please give the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and point out where the collapse of the WTC displays these characteristics.

FDNY tell people to evacuate before this happens as the buildings is about to be 'pulled'.

Firstly are you suggesting that the FDNY are complicit in the 9/11 attacks? That the FDNY sacrifices 300 of their brother officers in this attack?

BBC reports its collapse before it actually happens.

As has been linked to on this forum time and time again, firefighters had been saying the building was in danger of, or about to, collapse for several hours. The BBC jumped the gun based on a Reuteurs report.

To correct your analogy. The BBC didn't report Blair was assassinated ten minutes before he was killed. The BBC reported his death prematurely after he had been shot, but before he died.

Thats it in a nutshell.

Half truths, un truths, lies, distortion, and contempt for the FDNY, yup thats the truthers in a nutshell.

grainne_ed · 08-07-2008 7:04pm

Diogenes wrote: »

To correct your analogy. The BBC didn't report Blair was assassinated ten minutes before he was killed. The BBC reported his death prematurely after he had been shot, but before he died.

.

The bullet created a flesh wound. It was bomb strapped to his chest that done the damage.

oscarBravo · 08-07-2008 7:14pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

The bullet created a flesh wound. It was bomb strapped to his chest that done the damage.

Thing is, if a bomb had been strapped to his chest, there would be evidence of that bomb having detonated.

Speaking of evidence, any chance of some answers to the questions I asked in post #19?

ShoulderChip · 08-07-2008 7:17pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Speaking of evidence, any chance of some answers to the questions I asked in post #19?

no those were basic questions on the topic,
it is not our job to educate you,
do your own research, read a book, or watch a video on the subject.

if i thought you were being genuine i would help you out.

Diogenes · 08-07-2008 7:24pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

The bullet created a flesh wound. It was bomb strapped to his chest that done the damage.

Your analogy is insanely spurious.

The BBC were responding to reports that were coming in over the course of the day that the WTC 7 was in danger of, or imminently about to collapse. They jumped the gun.

1. WTC 7 was hit by debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers, severely damaging the building's structural integrity.

2. Fire raged uncontrolled for hours in the WTC 7.

3. It's possible that the diesel generators in the WTC 7 and their fuel contributed to this collapse.

4. Firefighters reported that the building was dangerous and likely to collapse over the course of the day.

5. The nearest structure comparable to the WTC in size is the significantly smaller Hudson building. It took expert demolition teams weeks to prep the building for controlled the demolition.

6. You're suggesting that the FNDY were complicity in the collapse and cover up of the demolition of the WTC 7. If indeed that is the case you are suggesting that members of the FNDY either allowed or suppressed, information related to the death of three hundred of their brother officers.

Missing anything? Anything you'd like to refute/clarify/deny?

rossie1977 · 08-07-2008 7:32pm

lots of talk here but nobody mentioning the bankers trust building that was located less than 50 feet from south tower

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U__XfBQ5haw

SuperSean11 · 08-07-2008 9:21pm

ShoulderChip wrote: »

no those were basic questions on the topic,
it is not our job to educate you,
do your own research, read a book, or watch a video on the subject.

if i thought you were being genuine i would help you out.

Humour us:cool:

bonkey · 08-07-2008 10:00pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

lots of talk here but nobody mentioning the bankers trust building that was located less than 50 feet from south tower

From Wikipedia: The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks after being blasted by the avalanche of debris, ash, dust and smoke that spread from WTC. The building has been in ruins ever since, and is to be demolished completely by the end of 2008.

That Bankers Trust building?

Why is it worth mentioning, other than as another total loss due to the events of 9/11?

Its also worth noting that WTC 4 - the other building mentioned copiously as "remaining standing" was 9 stories high. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a high-rise building. Indeed, it barely reached above the open atrium which comprised the first 7 floors of WTC 7. In addition, it was not of a comparable construction to WTC7, particularly with respect to not having the majority of itself being supported above the afore-mentioned 7-storey atrium.

So yes. Part of 4 remained standing. The rest was ruined. This does not, under any rational logic, qualify as one of grainne-ed's "buildings nearer to the twin towers remained standing & only recieved superficial damage.

The Banker's Trust building was ruined and is due for demolition. Again, not "superficial damage".

So we're still waiting to find out just where these buildings are, which were nearer than 7, which only suffered superficial damage.

WTC3? Nope. Gone.
WTC4? Nope. Gone.
WTC5? Nope. Gone.
WTC6? Nope. Gone.
Banker's Trust? Nope. Due to be done.
Verizon? Nope. Remained standing due to its construction. Cost $1.4 billion to repair. If you consider $1.4 billion to be superficial, there's some conspiracy theorists who think Silverstein did it for the money who want to disagree with you.

Actually, we can make it simple. Here's a comprehensive list of collapsed, partially-collapsed, and majorly-damaged buildings: http://www.tenantwise.com/reports/wtc_damage.asp

It is clear from this list that the claim that there were buildings closer to the collapse than WTC 7 which only suffered superficial damage is completely and totally wrong. There were buildings closer than WTC 7 which remained standing, but thats not the same thing. Bear in mind that the linked-to report doesn't specify which of the buildings (such as the Banker's Trust) have been subsequently written off as irreperable and have been or are due to be demolished.

OB - maybe this is why those guys didn't want to do your homework for you?

grainne_ed · 08-07-2008 10:33pm

bonkey wrote: »

From Wikipedia: The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks after being blasted by the avalanche of debris, ash, dust and smoke that spread from WTC. The building has been in ruins ever since, and is to be demolished completely by the end of 2008.

That Bankers Trust building?

Why is it worth mentioning, other than as another total loss due to the events of 9/11?

Its also worth noting that WTC 4 - the other building mentioned copiously as "remaining standing" was 9 stories high. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a high-rise building. Indeed, it barely reached above the open atrium which comprised the first 7 floors of WTC 7. In addition, it was not of a comparable construction to WTC7, particularly with respect to not having the majority of itself being supported above the afore-mentioned 7-storey atrium.

So yes. Part of 4 remained standing. The rest was ruined. This does not, under any rational logic, qualify as one of grainne-ed's "buildings nearer to the twin towers remained standing & only recieved superficial damage.

The Banker's Trust building was ruined and is due for demolition. Again, not "superficial damage".

So we're still waiting to find out just where these buildings are, which were nearer than 7, which only suffered superficial damage.

WTC3? Nope. Gone.
WTC4? Nope. Gone.
WTC5? Nope. Gone.
WTC6? Nope. Gone.
Banker's Trust? Nope. Due to be done.
Verizon? Nope. Remained standing due to its construction. Cost $1.4 billion to repair. If you consider $1.4 billion to be superficial, there's some conspiracy theorists who think Silverstein did it for the money who want to disagree with you.

Actually, we can make it simple. Here's a comprehensive list of collapsed, partially-collapsed, and majorly-damaged buildings: http://www.tenantwise.com/reports/wtc_damage.asp

It is clear from this list that the claim that there were buildings closer to the collapse than WTC 7 which only suffered superficial damage is completely and totally wrong. There were buildings closer than WTC 7 which remained standing, but thats not the same thing. Bear in mind that the linked-to report doesn't specify which of the buildings (such as the Banker's Trust) have been subsequently written off as irreperable and have been or are due to be demolished.

OB - maybe this is why those guys didn't want to do your homework for you?

Your hanging on the 'superficial' aspect too much.

The Bankers Trust sustained considerable more damage than WTC7, was considerably closer to the fallen towers, yet remain standing to this day.

That video posted above is excellent, well worth watching.

Not doubting in my mind the fact that all three buildings collapsed as a result of controlled demolitions.

FrostyJack · 08-07-2008 11:01pm

That video posted above is excellent, well worth watching.

It is the same as all those Loose Change, lizards are controlling the world videos on youtube, same music and voice over. This is a much better one, more realistic and more entertaining:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

"metal is stronger than ice" lol

Not doubting in my mind the fact that all three buildings collapsed as a result of controlled demolitions.

Your mind is easily made up when a few videos on youtube and propaganda "truther" websites convinces you. Facts and evidence are not need there obviously.

Here is an example of a video of similar propaganda methods (even has an exploding building in it for you :P) I take it you will believe everything in it too even though it's obviously one sided and a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1GAfpwnd7E

Time Magazine · 08-07-2008 11:04pm

grainne_ed wrote: »

Your hanging on the 'superficial' aspect too much.

I love this line more than just about anything I've ever read.

The Bankers Trust sustained considerable more damage than WTC7, was considerably closer to the fallen towers, yet remain standing to this day.

I bumped into my nephew the other day. He fell over.

meglome · 09-07-2008 12:00am

It never ceases to amaze me in all this that we're expected to believe WTC7 was brought down with controlled demolition. Yet other large buildings that have been brought down with controlled demolition have taken months to prepare for this demolition. So because it looks 'like controlled demolition' it must be so. No one saw this preparation, no one, out of thousands of people who worked there not one person. The building burns for hours and this controlled demolition still worked, the cables didn't burn?, the explosives didn't go off prematurely? It's just such utter rubbish to believe in controlled demolition. Get a life people.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 09-07-2008 12:02am

you're such a sheep meglome

meglome · 09-07-2008 12:57am

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

you're such a sheep meglome

I know... my whole way of keeping dreams and reality separated, I hate myself sometimes.

Mahatma coat · 09-07-2008 3:39am

meglome wrote: »

You're just being disingenuous now. The other 911 thread that you contributed heavily to has several pictures in it which show that. I'll get them if you really want but you've already seen them.

I know the photos you are referring to here, and they do not show what you claim.

so please provide your conclusive evidence

grainne_ed · 09-07-2008 9:46am

FrostyJack wrote: »

It is the same as all those Loose Change, lizards are controlling the world videos on youtube, same music and voice over. This is a much better one, more realistic and more entertaining:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

"metal is stronger than ice" lol

Your mind is easily made up when a few videos on youtube and propaganda "truther" websites convinces you. Facts and evidence are not need there obviously.

Here is an example of a video of similar propaganda methods (even has an exploding building in it for you :P) I take it you will believe everything in it too even though it's obviously one sided and a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1GAfpwnd7E

What have lizards got to do with anything?

You mind is easily made up when you take for fact the rubbish presented to the general public through main stream media.

The video is said was excellent makes much more sense than the supposed argument that fire alone caused the collapse of any of the towers.

oscarBravo · 09-07-2008 10:00am

grainne_ed wrote: »

You mind is easily made up when you take for fact the rubbish presented to the general public through main stream media.

...because it's a much better idea to take for fact the rubbish presented to you on some website.

The video is said was excellent makes much more sense than the supposed argument that fire alone caused the collapse of any of the towers.

Just as well nobody is arguing that it did, isn't it?

Mr Magnolia · 09-07-2008 1:35pm

First time in the forum and it's very interesting reading, fair play all.

I'll have a look at the vids and the other thread later. Quick question though, did St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church escape totally undamaged? I visisted Ground Zero a couple of years back and had been told this by a guide.

The walk around the church was a very somber experience indeed.

meglome · 09-07-2008 1:44pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I know the photos you are referring to here, and they do not show what you claim.

so please provide your conclusive evidence

How can I show conclusive evidence, but I can show the building was indeed badly damaged. Read some sense... http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

9-11 WTC 7 Tower collapse..

Comments