Building 7 ???

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2011 03:21PM #1

Right, I thought I'd start this thread as a Generic and see what develops

the whole Building Seven issue has never sat right with me, the fact that it was omitted from the original NIST report, the manner of its collapse and the vauge wishy washy explanations of WTC 1&2 fell on it despite the fact that it was earmarked for collapse BEFORE Towers 1 or 2 fell.

so what are people opinions on this???

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 06:20PM

This picture for me shows that the theory of falling debris from towers 1 & 2 caused Building 7 to collapse as absolutely ridiculous. I'm of the opinion that considering what government offices this building hosted that it was a controlled explosion.

Source

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 06:26PM

Also these two particular videos stick out like a sore thumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

29-06-2011 06:29PM

theboss80 wrote: »

This picture for me shows that the theory of falling debris from towers 1 & 2 caused Building 7 to collapse as absolutely ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?
What caused the massive holes in building 6, 5 and 4? What happened to building 3?

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2011 06:30PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

Barry Jennings (RIP)

Heres his interview with Avery, this paints a very different story to what the official explanation claimed at the time.

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 06:38PM

King Mob wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous?
What caused the massive holes in building 6, 5 and 4? What happened to building 3?

Mob there's a huge difference between massive holes in buildings , which by the way are directly beside the towers , and the complete collapse of the building across the road ,further away , and also for the buildings either side of 7 not to be damaged in anyway like 7 itself.

29-06-2011 06:44PM

theboss80 wrote: »

Mob there's a huge difference between massive holes in buildings , which by the way are directly beside the towers , and the complete collapse of the building across the road ,further away , and also for the buildings either side of 7 not to be damaged in anyway like 7 itself.

Yes, and there's massive differences between the smaller WTC buildings and WTC7.

So are you saying that WTC7 and the buildings next to it were totally undamaged by debris from the towers?

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 06:52PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and there's massive differences between the smaller WTC buildings and WTC7.

So are you saying that WTC7 and the buildings next to it were totally undamaged by debris from the towers?

What point are you trying to make?

And no Mob don't be trying to put words in my mouth.I never said they were undamaged did i? I said the scale of damage seemingly caused by debris had a devastating effect on B7 in comparison to the other buildings , do you disagree?

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 06:59PM

Overall I can make this assertion:

EITHER
1) There were explosives planted in the buildings following the planes hitting them.
OR
2) The lucrative profession of all demolition explosive engineers is fraudulent as their complex job can be done simply by applying a huge side impact to a building (e.g an airplane, or even a random pile of rubble) and achieve the same result.

...At the time I recall thinking and saying that the collapse of 1 and 2 resembled a demolition.

Demolition professionals get paid a fortune to carefully place and time explosive charges so that a building will collapse in on its own footprint as the WTC towers did. While working in an engineering company the topic came up in the lunchroom and I was surprised that none of the engineers there had thought about this before. they seemed interested in the idea though.

next, within weeks of 9/11 discovery channel broadcast a documentary that was about as scientific as an episode of american chopper. It explained using pre-rendered animation, the pancake effect that caused the buildings to fall in this way. I would like to see a simulation using contemporary standard industrial software, autocad etc. of the buildings etc that can be inspected and verified independently.

I suspect that in order to fabricate a simulation of this type of collapse, one would have to change the properties of key parts of the structure and trial and error until it fit the story. this would be obvious if we could examine the simulation parameters against known plans of the buildings.

As for building 7, the same type of collapse, and the report of it falling before it did. I looked at the vid of the BBC report above and read comments saying it was not live etc. then looked into the female journalist who was resistant to talk about it as she is bombarded with calls from 'conspiracy nuts'. she asserts that it was live, and that she did not confirm or deny the report of the buildings collapse, stating that information was sketchy. this to me is fair enough. but that being the case the source of the report from the news wire needs examination, which for a reporter she didnt seem too bothered with. If i were a reporter worth my salt and such a story fell on my lap I'd be chasing down every lead.

29-06-2011 07:06PM

theboss80 wrote: »

What point are you trying to make?

I'm getting to it.

theboss80 wrote: »

And no Mob don't be trying to put words in my mouth.I never said they were undamaged did i?

So since you agree that WTC 7 was damaged by debris do you also argee that there were fires in the building on multiple floors which burned for several hours?

theboss80 wrote: »

I said the scale of damage seemingly caused by debris had a devastating effect on B7 in comparison to the other buildings , do you disagree?

Well if the damage done by the debris was the only factor then I would agree with you.
But it wasn't the only factor.

29-06-2011 07:16PM

Spacedog wrote: »

...explosive charges so that a building will collapse in on its own footprint as the WTC towers did.

But none of them collapsed into there own foot print.

Also demolition crews do all that work to prevent damage to surrounding buildings, leave the remains of building in an easily manageable condition and prevent anyone from getting killed.

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 07:34PM

King Mob wrote: »

But none of them collapsed into there own foot print.

Also demolition crews do all that work to prevent damage to surrounding buildings, leave the remains of building in an easily manageable condition and prevent anyone from getting killed.

Dont you agree that the 3 collapses look similar to a controlled demolition? in that I would have assumed that a skyscraper would topple sideways and do a hell of a lot more damage on one side than the other from a structural impact from the side. instead they seemed to collapse in the same way, from the top down in a straight line.

Dont you see my overall point and have have anything more thoughtful to convince me otherwise? I'd appreciate you elaborate a little more on your points on this thread as I would like very much to be wrong about this.

29-06-2011 07:42PM

Spacedog wrote: »

Dont you agree that the 3 collapses look similar to a controlled demolition?

Well they look superficially like a demolition is that buildings fell down. But they lack several key features of them

Spacedog wrote: »

in that I would have assumed that a skyscraper would topple sideways and do a hell of a lot more damage on one side than the other from a structural impact from the side. instead they seemed to collapse in the same way, from the top down in a straight line.

Well that assumption is based on anyone seriously suggesting that it fell due to a impact on the side. No one does.

And they didn't fall in a straight line.
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc-southtower.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg
As we can see from the rather large tilts here.

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 08:50PM

thanks for your 3 sentences.

King Mob wrote: »

Well they look superficially like a demolition is that buildings fell down. But they lack several key features of them

can you list these features please?

Well that assumption is based on anyone seriously suggesting that it fell due to a impact on the side. No one does.

I made the assumption, so I can tell you that it was not it's basis.
It's based on both the side impact damage, and the localisation of additional explosive damage on the same side causing uneven structural damage to the opposing side which would have suffered fire damage alone.

side A = impact + explosion + fire
side B = fire

And they didn't fall in a straight line.

You are being obtuse, from your previous comment I believe you know I meant that they did not topple as would be expected from an uneven distribution of damage.

What do you think of my idea regarding a testable, repeatable simulation using industry certified software and standards to put the issue to rest?

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2011 08:51PM

See, the Crux of the issue for me is

What caused the fires in WTC7?

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 09:02PM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

See, the Crux of the issue for me is

What caused the fires in WTC7?

I dont know.

29-06-2011 09:07PM

Spacedog wrote: »

thanks for your 3 sentences.

can you list these features please?

Sure.
Multiple explosions on multiple floors followed immediately by a collapse of the building.
This isn't present in any of the buildings.

Spacedog wrote: »

I made the assumption, so I can tell you that it was not it's basis.
It's based on both the side impact damage, and the localisation of additional explosive damage on the same side causing uneven structural damage to the opposing side which would have suffered fire damage alone.

side A = impact + explosion + fire
side B = fire

So what you're looking for is a slight tilt towards the damaged area after the structure fails due to fire?

Spacedog wrote: »

You are being obtuse, from your previous comment I believe you know I meant that they did not topple as would be expected from an uneven distribution of damage.

But that's not what you've said. You said that they all feel straight down into their footprint. They neither fell straight down or into their own foot print.

Spacedog wrote: »

What do you think of my idea regarding a testable, repeatable simulation using industry certified software and standards to put the issue to rest?

Would you accept one put out by, say, the NIST or other government agency?

29-06-2011 09:24PM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

See, the Crux of the issue for me is

What caused the fires in WTC7?

The large airliners crashing and exploding and sending flaming wreckage everywhere?
The flaming wreckage from the buildings as they collapse onto WTC7?
Non flaming debris causing damage to something that can cause fires such as electronic devices or wiring?
A combination of the above?

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 09:44PM

frame of reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU

King Mob wrote: »

Sure.
Multiple explosions on multiple floors followed immediately by a collapse of the building.
This isn't present in any of the buildings.

in the video above, many of the detonation flashes are not viable and are fired in sequence as the collapse progresses.

So what you're looking for is a slight tilt towards the damaged area after the structure fails due to fire?

more than slight I would have thought.

But that's not what you've said. You said that they all feel straight down into their footprint. They neither fell straight down or into their own foot print.

looked that way to me, are we talking about the same 9/11 here?
look at the overhead pics above, you can see very little rubble spilled past the footprint of the building considering their standing height, try building a scale model with blocks or jenga and try to make it fall in such a neat pile.

Would you accept one put out by, say, the NIST or other government agency?[/QUOTE]

yes please. link me the simulation file. I can finally put my super computer to work other than Metro 2033

like i said, I worked IT in an engineering firm and am familiar with the tools.

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 09:56PM

King Mob wrote: »

The large airliners crashing and exploding and sending flaming wreckage everywhere?
The flaming wreckage from the buildings as they collapse onto WTC7?
Non flaming debris causing damage to something that can cause fires such as electronic devices or wiring?
A combination of the above?

In that context...

"If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

-to your mind, is this statement true?

29-06-2011 10:03PM

Spacedog wrote: »

frame of reference:
in the video above, many of the detonation flashes are not viable and are fired in sequence as the collapse progresses.

And one thing missing from the video thanks to it's oddly uplifting soundtrack is the very loud, very noticeable explosion sounds in sequence followed immediately by the collapse.
And unfortunately your excuse about not being able to see the flashs doesn't hold up as there are many many angles on WTC7 from which those flashes could be seen.

Spacedog wrote: »

more than slight I would have thought.

So would you call these tilts slight?
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc-southtower.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg

Spacedog wrote: »

looked that way to me, are we talking about the same 9/11 here?
look at the overhead pics above, you can see very little rubble spilled past the footprint of the building considering their standing height, try building a scale model with blocks or jenga and try to make it fall in such a neat pile.

So what exactly punched the holes in WTC 4, 5 and 6 as per the photo in the OP?
Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_4019_-_Photograph_by_Michael_Rieger_taken_on_09-21-2001_in_New_York.jpg
Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg

Spacedog wrote: »

yes please. link me the simulation file. I can finally put my super computer to work other than Metro 2033 like i said, I worked IT in an engineering firm and am familiar with the tools.

Well this is what they used in the NIST report. Not sure if you can actually get the raw file or not.

29-06-2011 10:10PM

Spacedog wrote: »

In that context...

"If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

-to your mind, is this statement true?

True, with slight modifications, but dishonestly used and a common canard.

"If fire solely caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

Firstly WTC7 didn't collapse due to fire alone, no one seriously claims that it did.
There have been buildings with steel framed sections that did collapse due to fire, though certain sections of them stayed standing.

And even if your statement were true as you had given it, it doesn't really prove much as WTC7 is a very unique design under very unusual circumstances.

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 10:34PM

With all due respect, clearly both of us are expressing opposing subjective opinions on how these buildings should or should not have fallen.

I propose we set the terms for an independent scientifically verifiable test of one of the simulations. NIST as you have mentioned ran a simulation of building 7 in what is described a scientific approach.

I propose that we contact them and request the files, aquire the software needed to run the simulation ourselves and verify that the dimensions and materials of the simulated structure match that of the blueprints of the building.

Do you agree to this approach, and would you (or anyone else) care to further clarify the testing criteria?

29-06-2011 10:41PM

Spacedog wrote: »

With all due respect, clearly both of us are expressing opposing subjective opinions on how these buildings should or should not have fallen.

Except you started off saying that the buildings fell straight down into their footprints.
Neither of those things are true.
Nothing subjective about it really.

Spacedog wrote: »

I propose we set the terms for an independent scientifically verifiable test of one of the simulations. NIST as you have mentioned ran a simulation of building 7 in what is described a scientific approach.

I propose that we contact them and request the files, aquire the software needed to run the simulation ourselves and verify that the dimensions and materials of the simulated structure match that of the blueprints of the building.

Do you agree to this approach, and would you (or anyone else) care to further clarify the testing criteria?

Why? What's wrong with the independent review of it done by the NIST and detailed in the report they published?

You can go ahead and do it if you like, but the NIST report is conclusive enough for me, and no conspiracy theorist has been able to present any argument that holds up to scrutiny.

ed2hands · 30-06-2011 12:01AM

theboss80 wrote: »

This picture for me shows that the theory of falling debris from towers 1 & 2 caused Building 7 to collapse as absolutely ridiculous. I'm of the opinion that considering what government offices this building hosted that it was a controlled explosion.

Source

Just been studying this photo. Didn't realise how far away it was from the twin towers.
If it was a controlled demolition and it was planned to be taken down with explosives on 9/11, how were the people who planted the explosives so sure that debris from buildings 1 and 2 would travel the required distance and consequently do enough structural and fire damage so that it covered up their actions in the eyes of the watching media, fire dept etc? Just doesn't make sense to me.

theboss80 · 30-06-2011 12:11AM

King Mob wrote: »

I'm getting to it.

Ok go ahead

King Mob wrote: »

So since you agree that WTC 7 was damaged by debris do you also argee that there were fires in the building on multiple floors which burned for several hours?
.

I assume some minor debris would have made contact but nothing substantial. I haven't read any report of fires on multiple floors that lasted for hours.

King Mob wrote: »

Well if the damage done by the debris was the only factor then I would agree with you.
But it wasn't the only factor.

What was?

In the picture i put up at the start there is no major visible structure that would have fallen from T1 or T2 between the buildings or even the street between them, how do you explain that?

Mahatma coat · 30-06-2011 12:23AM

King Mob wrote: »

True, with slight modifications, but dishonestly used and a common canard.

"If fire solely caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

Firstly WTC7 didn't collapse due to fire alone, no one seriously claims that it did.
There have been buildings with steel framed sections that did collapse due to fire, though certain sections of them stayed standing.

And even if your statement were true as you had given it, it doesn't really prove much as WTC7 is a very unique design under very unusual circumstances.

So, bits of Steel/glass/Aluminium/Plastic/ or somesuch spontaneously caugh on fire as it was being ejected from the 77th floor, and then proceeded to remain on fire getting hot enough to continue burning as they puncured the superstructure of the building with enough force to Critically weaken it?????

Yeah? :rolleyes:

cos it all sounds so simple when you lay it out like that

SamHarris · 30-06-2011 12:31AM

Just pointing out that - Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) all took part in investigating if WTC 7's collapse was structural failure/ the official story being correct.

Now either these groups are all also in on the conspiracy, or a handful of unqualified peoples personal increduility at the events is just that.

I know what the reasonable money is on.

30-06-2011 12:33AM

theboss80 wrote: »

Ok go ahead

That by only looking at the pictures and information conspiracy theory sites will present you you'd have an incomplete picture.

theboss80 wrote: »

I assume some minor debris would have made contact but nothing substantial.

Here is a picture of the Banker's trust building on the opposite side of the WTC.
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

Here's a picture of World Finance Centre building 3, also showing the smoke pouring from WTC7:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Here's the Winter Garden also part of the WFC:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg

And here's WTC7's heavily damaged south corner:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/RhArIs4wgLI/AAAAAAAAAE8/SSjMO5HyHG8/s1600-h/swcornerdamage.jpg

So do you still think that it's "minor" and "nothing substantial"?

And have you ever seen these pictures on any conspiracy theorist websites?

theboss80 wrote: »

I haven't read any report of fires on multiple floors that lasted for hours.

It's covered in the NIST report.

theboss80 wrote: »

What was?

Out of control fires on multiple levels and a particular design flaw were factors as well as the structural damage.

Again all detailed in the NIST report.

theboss80 wrote: »

In the picture i put up at the start there is no major visible structure that would have fallen from T1 or T2 between the buildings or even the street between them, how do you explain that?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here exactly.
What is it I have to explain?

30-06-2011 12:42AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So, bits of Steel/glass/Aluminium/Plastic/ or somesuch spontaneously caugh on fire as it was being ejected from the 77th floor, and then proceeded to remain on fire getting hot enough to continue burning as they puncured the superstructure of the building with enough force to Critically weaken it?????

Yeah? :rolleyes:

cos it all sounds so simple when you lay it out like that

No, I'm saying that a fire began when the debris from Tower 1 landed on WTC7, either breaking through a window of being big enough to break through a wall.
This debris was either already on fire from the plane crash and subsequent building fire or it caused a fire on impact by say damaging some electrical equipment or combinations of both.
From there the fire raged out of control, fuelled by stuff normally found in offices such as copier paper as well as diesel fuel that powered several generators in the building.

But MC, if you'd prefer to drop this thread into the usual silly dishonest strawman arguments...

theboss80 · 30-06-2011 01:01AM

King Mob wrote: »

That by only looking at the pictures and information conspiracy theory sites will present you you'd have an incomplete picture.

I''ve looked a various siteS which offer suggestions both for and against the arguments discussed here.

King Mob wrote: »

Here is a picture of the Banker's trust building on the opposite side of the WTC.
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

Where in relation to the arial photo would that building be? And did it collapse as per B7?

King Mob wrote: »

Here's a picture of World Finance Centre building 3, also showing the smoke pouring from WTC7:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Here's the Winter Garden also part of the WFC:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg

Are these pictures taken from the same angle out of interest do you know?

King Mob wrote: »

And here's WTC7's heavily damaged south corner:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/RhArIs4wgLI/AAAAAAAAAE8/SSjMO5HyHG8/s1600-h/swcornerdamage.jpg

It looks substantial alright.Would that in your opinion not cause the building to collapse on one corner?

King Mob wrote: »

Out of control fires on multiple levels and a particular design flaw were factors as well as the structural damage.

Again all detailed in the NIST report.

But in fairness for somebody who doesn't entirely agree with that report it'a a bit much to accept its facts. Sure doesn't that report actually site the structural failure of a single column that caused the total collapse?

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're referring to here exactly.
What is it I have to explain?

You don't have to explain anything but what I meant was , the arial photo that i linked above does not show any major structural parts of T1 or T2 that have collapsed over onto B7. Surely there would be alot of debris between the two sites yet there is practically none at all, in fact major parts of B5 and B6 are still standing , yet they are in the path between B7 and the towers.

Building 7 ???

Comments