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

Building 7 ???

1568101116

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Listen enno, you're just ignoring questions left and right now.
    If I do address your points in the previous post you're just going to ignore them as well, so it's clearly a waste of my time to do so.

    So I'll make I deal with you. I will provide all the stuff which backs up the claims of the witness you don't like if you answer the following simple questions:

    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?

    And importantly, is Avery more, or less trustworthy than the witness you don't like?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Listen enno, you're just ignoring questions left and right now.
    If I do address your points in the previous post you're just going to ignore them as well, so it's clearly a waste of my time to do so.

    So I'll make I deal with you. I will provide all the stuff which backs up the claims of the witness you don't like if you answer the following simple questions:

    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?

    And importantly, is Avery more, or less trustworthy than the witness you don't like?

    Forget it you dont have them or you would have rammed them down my throath hours ago


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Forget it you dont have them or you would have rammed them down my throath hours ago
    Why is it so hard for you to answer simple yes or no questions?

    I'm pretty sure it's because that the only honest answers you can give would force you to admit that Jennings' testimony is flawed.
    And if his testimony is flawed you'd have to treat him as you do with the witness you don't like and therefore lose the one and only thing you have to suggest that there was explosions before the towers fell.

    You know this as well as I do, but you don't apply your standards evenly. You're dismissing Periugia's testimony on the barest of excuses because you don't like what he says while at the same time you're ignoring the fact that Jennings claims to have seen stuff he couldn't have (and that Avery is a proven liar, just like how you accuse and dismiss Periugua) because that testimony just so happens to fit into your preferred narrative.

    Now unlike you, I am not just dismissing a witness based one smudge on thier honour (Avery has a lot more than one).
    The reason I am dismissing Jennings is because:
    1) his testimony is misrepresented, twisted and distorted
    2) Jennings himself said that his testimony is misrepresented, twisted and distorted
    3) by your own admission there is no other evidence that supports his/Avery's claims
    and 4) as presented his testimony is in conflict with other testimonies and sources that are supported.

    Now, if you'd like me to provide back up for anything I've said at least do the barest of courtesy and actually answer basic questions:
    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?

    And importantly, is Avery more, or less trustworthy than the witness you don't like?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Well you said your sources were in the thread

    You have somthing in common with Avery who you dislike so much

    Your both Liars


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Well you said your sources were in the thread

    You have somthing in common with Avery who you dislike so much

    Your both Liars
    Enno, maybe you should be asking yourself why you can't honestly answer 3 simple questions.

    And you really should be asking yourself why you're buying lies from a huckster like Avery.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Enno, maybe you should be asking yourself why you can't honestly answer 3 simple questions.

    And you really should be asking yourself why you're buying lies from a huckster like Avery.

    You are missing the point here I am more interested in giving Barry Jennings a fair shake

    I dont give a f*ck about Avery I already conceded he was a liar

    Maybe you should ask yourself why you have to tell lies to make a point


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    You are missing the point here I am more interested in giving Barry Jennings a fair shake
    But why? We've already seen that his testimony is flawed, since he claimed to see something he didn't.
    And since he's unreliable, we can just totally ignore what he has to say just like you do with Peruggia.
    Right?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Since asking for truthers to answer simple questions is a bit of a fool's game, I'm just going to post the other sources that go against Jennings' testimoney as presented by Dylan Avery and support Peruggia's

    The Second plane hits at 9:03.
    Jennings claims to be on the 23rd floor in the EMS offices when this happens, having passing a nearly empty lobby.
    Peruggia claims to be en-route at the time, arriving much later than 9:03 yet finds crowds of people scrambling to get out.

    Reports from the NIST conclude that the order to actually evacuate the building go out at 9:03, just after the second plane had hit, and a lot of people were getting out of dodge at before then anyway.
    This is consistent with Perugga's claims of still seeing people evacuate when he arrives after the second plane hits.
    It is not consistent with Jenning's testimony as for him to be at the 23rd floor at 9:03 he must have passed a ton of people in the lobby.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) states, “As the second aircraft struck WTC 2, a decision was made to evacuate WTC 7.” This would be just after the Port Authority Police Department called for the evacuation of the entire WTC complex (see 8:59 a.m.-9:02 a.m. September 11, 2001). But by this time, “many WTC 7 occupants [have] already left the building and others [have] begun a self-evacuation of the building.”
    [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109]


    Next sources put the evacuation of the OEM at between 9:30 and 9:45:
    The OEM staff was ordered to evacuate Building 7 immediately as a precaution, but interview sources indicate they did not initially respond with a sense of urgency. They calmly collected personal belongings and began removing OEM records, but they were urged to abandon everything and leave the building quickly. Those interviewed believe that order saved their lives.
    http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm
    http://web.archive.org/web/20041020144854/http://www.decloah.com/mirrors/9-11/911_Report.txt
    Though some put it as early as 9:03 like the rest of the building.
    But this does not gel with Jennings claim that he found the office totally empty at just a little past 9:03 as the office had not yet been evacuated.

    Here's another witness saying that at around 9:03 the Lobby would still be full of people:
    http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/925/Default.aspx
    Chief Engineer Michael Catalano had served for 12 years at 7 World Trade Center ....
    ....Catalano headed to the 44th floor, and this is where he saw the damaged WTC tower for the first time. “We were a 100 feet from the towers; all you could see was smoke. The plane had already hit and there was a big gouge,” says Catalano. He returned to his crew and ordered an evacuation. The second plane hit and they were thrown to the ground. While the building was emptying, Catalano and his crew worked to maintain the building’s vital systems, especially in the data centers. Assistant Engineer Joe Gregori, who had worked in 7 WTC for 11 years, even took the time to unplug coffee pots while heroically checking for building occupants left behind after the evacuation.
    This gels with Peruggia's story but not Jennings'

    So the only conclusion you can draw from this is that Jennings was simply wrong about the time he got to the OEM.
    He simply could not have been there at 9:03 and not see anyone in the lobby on the way up or anyone in the office itself.
    Peruggia's testimony gels with all the other reports and the only one you can find to contradict it directly is one from a guy who thought he saw dead bodies when there couldn't have been any as filtered by a known liar.

    And yet I bet you still will swallow Avery's crap without a question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Since asking for truthers to answer simple questions is a bit of a fool's game,

    Well what could I expect ask a liar for sources And what do I get

    Old Testament for liars = 911commision report

    New testament for liars = NIST Report

    Gospel according to students/academics who wont even put names to the qoutes

    to top it off some building magazine who cant even get the amount of floors right

    The morning of the attack, Catalano was on the phone with Charlie Magee, an old friend, discussing Catalano’s son’s new uniform; his son’s first day as a helper was scheduled September 14th. After the conversation, Catalano had a meeting with his crew in the 48th-floor chiller plant. They felt the building shake, but in the windowless, soundproof area they were unaware of the nature of the attack. Because they had weathered the 1993 terrorist attack, the crew assumed another bomb had exploded. They sprang into action.

    Pathetic

    Just to Put you straight dont label me I have not made up my mind on this whole 911 thing


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Well what could I expect ask a liar for sources And what do I get
    And what could I expect when I provide sources, besides them being ignored on the flimsiest of excuses.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Old Testament for liars = 911commision report

    New testament for liars = NIST Report

    Gospel according to students/academics who wont even put names to the qoutes
    So what about the facts posted has been falsified and how do you know it's falsified?
    Please be specific and actually support your claims, otherwise it'd look like you're making it up to avoid facts you can't deal with.
    enno99 wrote: »
    to top it off some building magazine who cant even get the amount of floors right

    The morning of the attack, Catalano was on the phone with Charlie Magee, an old friend, discussing Catalano’s son’s new uniform; his son’s first day as a helper was scheduled September 14th. After the conversation, Catalano had a meeting with his crew in the 48th-floor chiller plant. They felt the building shake, but in the windowless, soundproof area they were unaware of the nature of the attack. Because they had weathered the 1993 terrorist attack, the crew assumed another bomb had exploded. They sprang into action.
    WTC 7 had a penthouse complex above the 47th floor.
    But hey, any excuse right?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Pathetic
    So I supply evidence and testimony that supports the claims made by Peruggia, which you dismiss because you insist that everything official is lies but don't specify what is lies or how you know and because you think that they got a single number wrong.
    But then on the other hand you support Jennings, who you admitted isn't supported by a single scrap of other evidence and who claimed he saw something he didn't.

    You're argument isn't just pathetic, it's laughable.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Just to Put you straight dont label me I have not made up my mind on this whole 911 thing
    Sure, you keep pretending that if you like.

    But since you've since long abandoned any semblance of honest debate I think we're done here.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet




    Enjoy. I think 2min 10secs is particularly poignant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses




    Enjoy. I think 2min 10secs is particularly poignant.


    Fact is they make it sound that a building like that would collapse a fire hits it and that is not true

    there are plenty of movies on youtube with skyscrapers burning for more then 20 hours and they didn't collapse

    2 things: 30 seconds in this movie he says "the world trade centers" ... builing 7 was finished in 1987 some say 1985 more then 10 years later

    And why is there no mention in this movie about the different design of building 7 because of the powerstation (cant find that movie again damn)

    I see alot of assumption on both sides CT an Debunk


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    Fact is they make it sound that a building like that would collapse a fire hits it and that is not true

    That sentence doesn't make sense
    there are plenty of movies on youtube with skyscrapers burning for more then 20 hours and they didn't collapse

    Were these building hit by massive chunks of falling skyscrapers?
    2 things: 30 seconds in this movie he says "the world trade centers" ... builing 7 was finished in 1987 some say 1985 more then 10 years later

    So?
    And why is there no mention in this movie about the different design of building 7 because of the powerstation (cant find that movie again damn)

    It's a short documentary about the collaspe should it include everything?

    I see alot of assumption on both sides CT an Debunk


    No sorry.;


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    Di0genes wrote: »
    That sentence doesn't make sense



    Were these building hit by massive chunks of falling skyscrapers?



    So?



    It's a short documentary about the collaspe should it include everything?





    No sorry.;

    To me it does

    It was hit by debris but not massive chunks (drama queen)

    different decade different design (so you cant compare wtc7 with 1 and 2)
    There are pics of debris almost cutting buildings in half (not wtc7)

    The difficulty in designing around that power station could maybe make the building go the way it did I'm not buying that atm but keep it in my mind


    Last point says more about your tunnel vision thanks for clearing that up


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    Well, I have been doing a lot of research (watching videos, very intensely) and I am convinced that the building collapsed due to uncontrolled fire.

    Despite having no qualifications in any physical science or related subject, I feel my time spent sitting on my arse, staring at videos sufficiently qualifies me to make such statements.

    :-)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    Well, I have been doing a lot of research (watching videos, very intensely) and I am convinced that the building collapsed due to uncontrolled fire.

    Despite having no qualifications in any physical science or related subject, I feel my time spent sitting on my arse, staring at videos sufficiently qualifies me to make such statements.

    :-)

    hahaha funny :D feel the same way only i am not buying the uncontrolled fire collapse at this time.

    Both sides are throwing with so called experts ... all we can do is make up our own minds in the end


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    To me it does

    Thats nice but you're trying to communicate with other people not just yourself, If I'm having trouble understanding you shouldn't get defensive.
    It was hit by debris but not massive chunks (drama queen)

    Firstly personal attacks like calling me a drama queen are against the charter.

    As to the extent of the damage to the WTC 7

    wtc7_2.jpg&sa=X&ei=I2BnTsipHIe6-AbBvdniCw&ved=0CAcQ8wc4Gw&usg=AFQjCNGM5Xou1MZqRp1rUWFSOmVnI-msiw

    If you like I'll drag out the quotes from the firefighters explaining the damage, oh I'll do that anyway
    1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

    2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

    3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux

    4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

    5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

    6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

    Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

    So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
    Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
    Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
    Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
    Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

    7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

    8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

    9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

    10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

    We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

    Q. Were you injured?

    A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

    11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
    –FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

    12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

    13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

    Q. The door was blocked?

    A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

    14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

    (After collapse of south tower)
    15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

    16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.

    Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

    A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

    17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

    18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

    19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

    20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
    The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

    Still think there wasn't massive damage from debris to WTC 7?

    different decade different design (so you cant compare wtc7 with 1 and 2)

    You're saying that between the 70s and 80s building design radically changed? Anyway who's comparing WTC 7 to WTC 1&2?
    There are pics of debris almost cutting buildings in half (not wtc7)

    Sources please?



    Last point says more about your tunnel vision thanks for clearing that up

    No see I've been talking and posting about building seven for about five years now. Theres no ambuigty about the collapse in my mind because it's been discussed to death and conclusively proved. Just because you're new to the table, and seem to have trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff as there being some kind of ambuigty out there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    weisses wrote: »
    hahaha funny :D feel the same way only i am not buying the uncontrolled fire collapse at this time.

    Both sides are throwing with so called experts ... all we can do is make up our own minds in the end

    Fair enough.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    there are plenty of movies on youtube with skyscrapers burning for more then 20 hours and they didn't collapse
    And?
    He showed a clip of a steel framed overpass that collapsed solely due to fire in a far shorter time than WTC7.

    How many of these buildings that burned for 20 hours were of similar construction and had comparable circumstances to building 7?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And?
    He showed a clip of a steel framed overpass that collapsed solely due to fire in a far shorter time than WTC7.

    How many of these buildings that burned for 20 hours were of similar construction and had comparable circumstances to building 7?

    If you can't compare the other buildings with wtc7 then the overpass clip is out as well


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    weisses wrote: »
    If you can't compare the other buildings with wtc7 then the overpass clip is out as well

    In fairness, King Mob didn't say you couldn't.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    If you can't compare the other buildings with wtc7 then the overpass clip is out as well

    And why can't you compare the overpass exactly?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And why can't you compare the overpass exactly?

    Because i never seen a penthouse built on an overpass ..... Come on king mob


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Because i never seen a penthouse built on an overpass ..... Come on king mob
    So they are totally different designs, hence you can't compare them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So they are totally different designs, hence you can't compare them?



    Idon't think wtc7 had a unique design in construction methodes used if so please point out where!

    Unique about wtc 7 is the way it came down never happened before (note i didn't say wtc 1 and 2) ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭Boo Radley


    Maybe this is off topic a bit - and possibly showing my ignorance on the topic - but I have a question.

    If the government or some other shadowy figure brought down WTC7 why would they do so in a fashion that would be immediately identifiable as controlled demolition?

    I don't believe it was a controlled demolition because it doesn't look like it when all angles and facts are considered, but for those who think otherwise why wouldn't 'they' bring the building down in stages or something that more closely resembled what might have been expected.

    Why would anyone make it so obvious - in the eyes of some - that it was controlled? Again, just to be clear I don't think it was controlled.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    weisses wrote: »
    Idon't think wtc7 had a unique design in construction methodes used if so please point out where!

    Unique about wtc 7 is the way it came down never happened before (note i didn't say wtc 1 and 2) ;)

    It didn't have a unique design but what king mob is saying is that alot of buildings have different structures. WTC7 had structural steel columns, beams and trusses with a composite metal deck floor. Others common structures are reinforced concrete columns and floors or good old masonry walls and timber floors and all behave differently in fire. The comparison of WTC7 with the overpass is acceptable as both were structural steel construction.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Idon't think wtc7 had a unique design in construction methodes used if so please point out where!
    It is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
    The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[8] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[
    Most skyscrapers are of unique one off designs.

    Now if you think that WTC7 is not unique, please point to the buildings you are referring to that have the same number of stories, material and construction used with the same foundations and same steel frame.
    Then show one of these buildings that had survived skyscapers collapsing next to them followed by several hours of uncontrolled fires.

    But if you think that it's just about "construction methods" what's so fundamentally different about a steel framed overpass that makes it not count?
    weisses wrote: »
    Unique about wtc 7 is the way it came down never happened before (note i didn't say wtc 1 and 2) ;)
    So even ignoring the mountain of points against this reason, what happens when it's turned around.
    Have any buildings ever been totally demolished by ninja demolition experts?
    Have any buildings ever been demolished hours after a skyscraper fell right next to them?
    Have any buildings ever been demolished by secret thermite charges as alleged by A/E 911?

    Since the answer is no for all of the above and if you are to apply your own logic equally, the conspiracy theory explanation must be as impossible as the official one...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Di0genes wrote: »

    Sources please?



    No see I've been talking and posting about building seven for about five years now. Theres no ambuigty about the collapse in my mind because it's been discussed to death and conclusively proved. Just because you're new to the table, and seem to have trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff as there being some kind of ambuigty out there.


    After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said

    http://archives.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm



    7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

    You should have no trouble telling us who doctored this so


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    It is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

    Most skyscrapers are of unique one off designs.

    Now if you think that WTC7 is not unique, please point to the buildings you are referring to that have the same number of stories, material and construction used with the same foundations and same steel frame.
    Then show one of these buildings that had survived skyscapers collapsing next to them followed by several hours of uncontrolled fires.

    But if you think that it's just about "construction methods" what's so fundamentally different about a steel framed overpass that makes it not count?


    So even ignoring the mountain of points against this reason, what happens when it's turned around.
    Have any buildings ever been totally demolished by ninja demolition experts?
    Have any buildings ever been demolished hours after a skyscraper fell right next to them?
    Have any buildings ever been demolished by secret thermite charges as alleged by A/E 911?

    Since the answer is no for all of the above and if you are to apply your own logic equally, the conspiracy theory explanation must be as impossible as the official one...

    unique design yes ... construction method no

    the rest of your reply is nonsense i think

    And please stop asking things that you know is impossible to answer


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement