Building 7

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

Well, first let me look through a list of all the tall building hit by airliners full of fuel...hmm.
Even above, I have to object. The three most certainly DID NOT fall in exactly the same way. The towers collapsed at the precise places the planes hit (apparently the secret masters planned for this and turned off all of the charges above the planes and then deviously waited longer to destroy the tower hit first since it was hit higher and had less weight above it--precisely what engineering would predict. They are always perfect in their schemes!). WTC7 collapsed sort as one unit as all of the lower support failed.

Sorry but blind freddy can see that all 3 fell straight down. No toppling to the side or any substantial sideways movement, STRAIGHT DOWN. Don't make me put up all 3 vids. It has been said, by experts, that the jet fuel would have burned of relatively quickly and even with the fuel it would have been unlikely to have burnt hot enough for a long enough time to weaken the structure. Remember, this is a building that was built to WITHSTAND an impact by a jet aircraft. Now don't blame me for mentioning the towers.

Yes--the Delft building--not only does it collapse at the place of the worst fire but it also shows what Truthers call the squibs (actually the compressed air as one floor falls on the next).

The Delft building doesn't collapse, Lance. Pieces fall off of it. There is no collapse. The main structure of the building remains intact. WTC 7 fell straight down, to the ground. Nothing left standing.
This is a very poor choice of examples. Keep searching. Hopefully you MAY come up with a better example.

So when you say above that WTC1&2 looked like a controlled demolition to you (even while admitting that you have never seen a controlled demolition like it) do you see how I might wonder what criteria you have for saying this--are you in the demolition business, for instance?

Mark Loizeaux, an expert in controlled demolitions, seems to think so. I think HIS opinion carries more weight and is more relevant than whether I have ever seen a controlled demolition from the top down or not. I am POSITIVE that he knows more about that subject than YOU or I. Are you saying that a top down demo is impossible?
Once again i say that it is indeed POSSIBLE for a controlled demolition from the top down. Just because me or you haven't seen one does not make it impossible.
There are others in that field who agree with that assessment just as there are those in the same field who disagree.
Which expert do you agree with? And thereby lies the problem with this whole debate. WHICH EXPERT DO YOU AGREE WITH? You show me your evidence and experts and i will show you mine.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

Mark Loizeaux, an expert in controlled demolitions, seems to think so.

Lance. I have tried to revisit the story that describes the quote by Mark Loizeaux in regards to the top down demolition and have been unable to find it again. In that sense i may have misquoted him and if so i appologise to you and the forum if this quote is wrong.
I therefore cannot definitively say whether Mr Loizeaux considers top down demolitions to be possible or not. I will continue to search for the article.

 

[cottonzway]

Wtc7

Hmm.. I mentioned it twice, the 2nd time hoping to amplify my discussion of conspiracies in general.
My apologies...
Are you planning to mention anything about the topic of the thread or perhaps you roll under different rules? I only started the thread so I might not be as qualified as you to govern its content.

Lance

How can you ask me if I am going to bring up the topic at hand when you bring up role playing cards that have nothing to do with the topic either?

I am trying to bring up legit topics that surround the 9/11 topic in general. I think that is more valid then trying to debate physics and engineering with people who likely are as equally unqualified to understand the subject. My assumptions are based on tangible information. Not speculations on things I cannot understand.

 

[cottonzway]

Wtc7

I never claimed they were. Why are you wasting time on trivial semantics? Gez, I've got cards games to play, dude.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

No I am not saying that a top down demolition is impossible. I am saying that you as a layperson looking at the collapse of 1&2 and saying it looks like a controlled demolition is actually you saying that it looks like a controlled demolition THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE--a top down one. Most of the Truthers rely on their own knowledge to make conclusion far beyond their actual experience.

Here are 3 top down demolitions. As a layperson these look very similar to the WTC 1,2 & 7.


So now i have seen some top down demolitions.

I believe that a company called PROTECH has also released a report debunking the demolition theory.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

As for Mark Loizeaux. I value his contribution and expert knowledge of the subject and respect his opinion of the events. Although when questioned about the collapse of the south tower 2 days after the event he says:

"Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one wouldlike [sic] fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping."

Loizeaux suggests later in a magazine interview that he knew from the beginning that the towers would pancake straight down.

Structural engineer Ronald Hamburger:
"It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, "I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings "certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped."

Hamburger was then involved in the ASCE/FEMA investigations which apparently never even looked at the demolition story and failed to look for evidence of explosives.

Dutch demolition expert, Danny Zowenko believes the demolition theory is possible. As does Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Harry G. Robinson, III, FAIA, AICP, NOMA,Daniel B. Barnum, FAIA and Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE.(all architects)

Did 1 & 2 come down because of weakening of the structure at the point of impact? -Possible.
Were explosives used to assist the weakening and speeding up of the collapse? -Possible.
Could explosives detonated just below the impact areas have assisted the fall?-yes, possible
Were the sounds of multiple explosions heard just prior to the collapses?-yes
Could those explosions be gas bottles, fuel tanks, other?-yes, possiby
Could those explosions be the results of set explosive charges of some kind?-yes, possibly

It is sad that when you see the Delft building that you dismiss it because it didn't fall just like the Towers. This is exactly the kind of stuff that plagues the paranormal field like when Michael Horn challenges someone to precisely duplicate one of Billy Meier's photos. The Delft building was an odd shaped building--more like several buildings together but due to uncontrolled fire it did collapse at the weak point just as is posited in WTC1&2.

The question I had asked was "Can you cite an example of another building falling as WTC 7 (and indeed WTC 1 & 2) did?"
The Delft building did not. It didn't even collapse.Parts of it fell away but the main structure was still standing. Your example in response to the question is poor. You need to provide example(s) of buildings that have collapsed in the same if not similar manner. Your example is not even similar. Either you can or you can't.Be honest.

In the end, Lance, what i see is a lot of different opinions. Experts for and against, conjecture, experts saying one thing and then retracting it later on. Evidence provided here and debunked there. And this is from either side of the debate.
I think what is really needed is a comprehensive inquiry with the US government releasing ALL of its evidencial material and all of the theories and concerns thoroughly investigated. Obviously for a lot of people what has been done has not been enough.
Personally I don't really know what to make of the whole situation.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Wtc7

In the end, Lance, what i see is a lot of different opinions. Experts for and against, conjecture, experts saying one thing and then retracting it later on. Evidence provided here and debunked there. And this is from either side of the debate.
I think what is really needed is a comprehensive inquiry with the US government releasing ALL of its evidencial material and all of the theories and concerns thoroughly investigated. Obviously for a lot of people what has been done has not been enough.
Personally I don't really know what to make of the whole situation.

I believe Pair meant "evidential" material? If so, why isn't the 9/11 commission report enough? The reason why I ask is because as a laymen throughout this entire investigation, I have listened to both those who believe this was a conspiracy, and those who believe that it was not.

I know that other buildings received heavy amounts of damage but did not fall like WTC7 did. I know this because I was there. You could see fire and damage throughout the block, but WTC7 fell, straight down and not others there, which you would have sworn would have under equal to less circumstances.

Did the 9/11 "Govt." investigation do its due diligence in explaining why WTC7 and not the other buildings went down in this way? I didn't get a chance to read the report so I have no idea. I was just wondering, because if there wasn't anything "official" said about this, I would feel that further investigation most definitely is in order.

Funny, I was under the assumption that WTC7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report. Is this true?

My God, I had someone distantly related to my Stepfather's side of the family die that day! If this is the case, and those who have had loved ones or friends die in such a terribly serious and aggressive act to our country, then why is it that further U.S. govt. investigation isn't in order? At least to appease those of us in the country who might be wondering why it seems to be almost swept under a rug of bureaucracy and not presented in a concise and supportive format?

Added: A very interesting article about WTC7:

Final World Trade Center 7 Investigation Report On September 11, 2001 Collapse Released

So there was one.....an extensive three year investigation and they found that it had fallen without need of a demolition. Interesting.

 

[cottonzway]

Wtc7

Ok I think I understand--you are telling me that you are gonna post on whatever topic you desire, while at the same time you complain about the topics I post. Nice!

I'm not posting on whatever topic I desire. I am posting on 9/11. You are every critical of people who don't take the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report at face value. I am one of those people. You take this position with a lot of hubris and use blanket stereotypes to discredit those who counter what you think happened on 9/11. So I am just brining up topics that I think are much more valid and are not able to be so easily brushed off using the tired acts of debunkers that try to tie absurd side-issues to discredit people who are not saying the Freemasons are putting poison in their cornflakes or some equally dumb paranoid talking point.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Wtc7

Because as soon as the new report is published a guy will come up with new theory and Truthers will rally around that.

So what you are saying is that no matter how much is covered on the subject, there are bound to be detractors who will find something else wrong with the "evidence."

I understand this, and most times I have used this as a measuring tool by which to limit my interest as far as proof, or lack thereof is concerned, but Lance, even as someone with your skeptical background, can you not see the strangeness in lacking to mention WTC7 in the "initial" report? I thought this was to be an extensively complete reporting tool presented to a people who are looking for detailed and complete answers. As one who has lost someone there, I cannot help but feel it just seems hurried somehow....or did until I found the eventuality of thus:

Final World Trade Center 7 Investigation Report On September 11, 2001 Collapse Released

WTC7 was the only other building to have fallen that day without the aid of a demolition crew (or at least without a sanctioned one). We know this is just as serious as the other two buildings, and we know its destruction was complete and lives were lost. Don't they deserve the same cognitive approach to an answer as the twin loses?

Again Gentleman and Ladies who are reading this....I am a laymen in this subject. I have no idea how far they have gone to prove or disprove what happened this day, other than what I have heard on TV or briefly online. I do know that they sorely ignored building 7 though and this, too me, isn't a conclusive way by which a "total" investigation is done.

 

[Kieran]

Wtc7

Just be aware of the many problems that exist that do in my opinion rule out the possibility of controlled demolitions, having been used to bring down both the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11..

First problem with this theory*
These unknown conspirators would have to have checked in with the security desk first once upon entering all three separate buildings, and only if their story checked out, would they be given any level of clearance to do this coverup job, however getting past security at the front desk, doesn't automatically mean, you wouldn't still be watched by building security doing your job, or by the security cameras does it now.

The Twin Towers and WTC7 security cameras would have been placed in certain areas around the buildings to keep an eye on the staff and prevent the theft of any of the high value items stored in the buildings, and to watch for potential problems that could arise that would threaten the safety of their employees. Now wiring up a 110 story building, and 47 story building, for controlled demolition, would be a lot of hard work, and would require these conspirators, having plenty of room access to different sections of the three buildings that fell on 9/11.

So receiving security clearance to get into every work section of the Twin Towers and WTC7 to do this job would be an obvious problem!

What about the other employees who were working in these building prior to 9/11.

Its illogical to have a believe such work would go unnoticed by other employees working in all three buildings. The noise from the drilling alone would have disturbed the daily routine and work schedule of these employees. Wiring up two buildings that are 110 stories high, and the other 47 story for controlled demolition, in just one day or even a week, in my opinion can't be done. It's a long term job that would take a few weeks at least. The job would have required an involvement of a good number of skilled men placing high yield- grade explosive demolitions, at certain points to weaken the structural integrity of all three buildings that collapsed on 9/11..

"Multiple points around the twin towers and WTC7 would have to be wired for demolitions. That takes much time, and plenty of effort and work to do, and carry out to complete successfully.

So what does the theory really boil down to work

All the security staff in all three buildings must have been in on this conspiracy? (for me not likely) What kind of coverup work would have allowed these conspirators to do this type of work? ( unknown) What about the dangers of premature explosion before 9/11 taking place!!! (obvious problem, and dangerous to wire a building for demolition with people inside it never mind the fact if it happened would cause a scandal) but the most obvious flaw in the controlled demolition theory, is that know, evidence exists period for it. Been possible and speculating that it could have happened, isn't the same thing as having lot of evidence, for it having happened!

It ain't a coincidence the twin towers fell down from top to bottom, as that is were the hijacked jumbo jets hit and went into each twin tower respectively. You can't compare what had happened in 9/11 to events that occurred previously in the past.
There was no history before this of 400-500 ton planes hitting buildings and going straight in and not coming out the other end. 400-500 tones of extra pressure wreckage inside the buildings and extreme fires and the obvious weaken of the twin towers support structures caused by impact of the planes going at full velocity caused the floors to give way eventually on top.

Never mind the fact most of the top floors were on fire, so how one could now trigger controlled demolitions taking into consideration what was going on inside the top floors of both the North and South tower, for me it really is beyond my thinking how that would be possible in this case. There is also no known working demolition which can fight back against fire!! So the demolitions would have gone of prematurely long before the two twin towers had eventually collapsed.

My theory to why controlled demolitions is not needed.

The CIA and the United States government did not need to put into an action any plan to bring down any buildings on 9/11, as the hijacking of the 4 planes alone ( something never seen or done in human history in one day) would have been more then enough to cause outrage with the America public, and get the United States moving against Osama bin Laden to kill him.

Now zero evidence exists for American involvement in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. Accusations of involvement does require evidence beyond the speculation stage, while i suspect and agree, there is some evidence, this event was used to trigger two wars for causes other then revenge, one must not join the dots to something more without having evidence to show. With that in mind. I have seen know evidence the hijackers of 9/11, were not followers of Bin Laden and his teachings, and one must again provide good evidence, to prove three controlled demolitions of buildings on 9/11 happened that day. To date no solid conclusive or worthwhile evidence has been forthcoming to prove any of these claims.

WTC7 it much harder to figure out what caused the collapse of that building. It was bottom collapse not like the collapse of both the two Twin Towers. Both again, something happened to that building that never happened before.

It was hit by debris from the "South Tower".. That caused a structural weakness in one corner and side of Wtc7.. I watched a couple of videos of it last night collapsing just to be sure, before posting.

The debris from the south tower which hit WTC7 caused damage between the floors 8 to 18-19 causing fires to start, and floors 20-30 eventually too had fires during the day.

WTC7 collapsed started on one side first not sure if that would have been an Western or Eastern directional corner, but it looked East to me on the videos I watched, but it came down falling to me with a vertical corner tilt to one side before collapsing to the ground. Fires alone and no damage to WTC7 would have made the case for controlled demolition, more believable to some, but it obvious from photographs severe damage was caused to one corner or side of WTC7 from the 8 floor up to the 20 floor, that is more than one third of one of the corners of the Wtc7 that was badly damaged.

Remember demolitions would have to be placed in all 4 corners of WTC7 and plus unlike the Twin Towers.... WTC7 did not collapse for whole seven hours after the initial terrorist attacks had taken place that day (risky waiting around some firefighters might have spotted something)

I would rule out a controlled demolition, because some water was been sprayed to quell fires inside WTC7, and I'm not sure how effective demolitions would be with water damage, the obvious structural damage to one side of the building, is another factor to consider, and what about the fires inside the WC7 you can't overlook such important and crucial components for this attack to be successfully having been pulled off.

I'm no expert though, but to me, the evidence does show one of the corners of WTC7 having lot of damage and that fires that went on for hours, caused pressure to build up, and it obvious to me and the videos do show this, that one side of WTC7 buckled before crashing down. It better than the controlled demolition theory that zero evidence exists for it. Come on people think rationally.

 

[cottonzway]

Wtc7

Your reading comprehension skills are extremely poor or you are purposefully being obtuse (i.e. trolling). I don't have an "imagined conspiracy" related to WTC 7. I have stated several times on several different topics that this has been discussed with you reply directly to my replies stating that I do not support or push the ideas of controlled demolitions at the WTC complex. How hard is this for you to understand? You keep telling me that "my" view is wrong when it is not even "my" view to begin with. How can you say my debating skills are poor when you ignore statements that sum up my views and then twist them to fit your reply based off totally wrong interpretations of my own stated view?

You might as well leave the debate, at least with me, because you clearly are not even paying attention to my own views. This is part of your "debunker" mentality. This is one of those tactics I was talking about. I explained several times what my views are and why I was sticking to those views as you make broad claims about people. You clearly are/were unable to debate MY actual points on this subject and I didn't even get into the majority of them. Yet you will say my views are "wrong" even when I share a view with you about controlled demos because you have a debunkers mind and are set in your ways. You didn't pay attention to a thing I said. Meh...

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

My personal take on all of the technical aspects of the buildings and planes are this....

I am not qualifed to understand what I am looking at. I do not have an engineering degree. I have an emotional link to this subject so I can let those emotions destort the fact that I really don't know what I am talking about in terms of the building failures of 9/11. So I say they fell from the impact of plane impacts.

However, I have more questions then anyone here on this subject IMO and I think people on both sides of those debates lose sight that the whole 9/11 topic does not have to even include those types of debates. I can made far more lucid claims without a building or a plane invloved in the discussion. Sadly, people on both sides of this topic simply are not able to let go of promoting those ideas and debunking those ideas while thinking it shuts down the whole discussion on the topic. There are far more important aspects of the 9/11 events that say we need much further investigation into the events besides the topics brought up over and over again.

Lance, you even THANKED me for this post. Again, who has poor debating skills? LOL

 

[PararealitySaint]

Wtc7

Shrug, I don't see any strangeness...what would the strangeness be?
I think NIST was responsible for determining the engineering details of all the collapses. They understandably focused first on the towers and later released their full report on WTC7. The Commission report (if I understand correctly) was more about the 9/11 crimes themselves.

Have you read the report or the excellent summary of it from NIST?

No, and as I said, I have been behind on this entire subject and just had an inquiry. Thanks for the explanation as to the time frame the reports came out and why they were done in this manner.

It seems from reading the latest report that there was indeed a viable explanation for a non demolition type collapse of WTC7.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

I'm impressed with how well this thread has gone, considering the topic.

Good points brought up by everyone. It was a great exercise.

 

[pixelsmith]

"Set to be released just before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by AE911Truth, this new documentary features cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 experts in their fields – high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. They are each highly qualified. Several have Ph.D’s, including renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis who was awarded the National Medal of Science."

!

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

9/11 10th Anniversary Campaign by Remember Building 7

---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

!

 

[Ron Collins]

Alright, I'll admit that I am intrigued by this.

 

[pixelsmith]

I think Flight 93's intended target was Building 7.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

Alright, I'll admit that I am intrigued by this.

so what are your thoughts Ron?

Angelo i would be interested in yours as well.

 

[Xylo]

The collapse of building 7 has always been one of the largest sticking points for me. Nothing about it's collapse ever made much sense. So I hope that the engineers and architects are able to bring about an investigation that examines evidence rather than relying upon supposition.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think Flight 93's intended target was Building 7.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------



so what are your thoughts Ron?

Angelo i would be interested in yours as well.

I'll have to check it out when I get home, but it always seems that for every point one makes on one side of the argument, there's another expert making another point on the other side of the argument. The whole thing leads to frustration.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------

Lynn Margulis was Carl Sagan's first wife apparently. She's also a bit of a nutter (she doesn't think HIV and AIDS are related, despite evidence that clearly shows the two are linked) and a biologist, so I'm not quite sure what she knows about explosions. However, I am interested in hearing what the experts in the field of architectural engineering have to say.

 

[pixelsmith]

I'll have to check it out when I get home, but it always seems that for every point one makes on one side of the argument, there's another expert making another point on the other side of the argument. The whole thing leads to frustration.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------

Lynn Margulis was Carl Sagan's first wife apparently. She's also a bit of a nutter (she doesn't think HIV and AIDS are related, despite evidence that clearly shows the two are linked) and a biologist, so I'm not quite sure what she knows about explosions. However, I am interested in hearing what the experts in the field of architectural engineering have to say.

when you get home and view these short clips, (can't wait for the full version) forget about the "experts" use your gut feelings and common sense.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Also, Pixel, have you looked at this?

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Please actually read it before you reply with a "LMAO, that's what THEY want you to think" spiel.

---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

when you get home and view these short clips, (can't wait for the full version) forget about the "experts" use your gut feelings and common sense.

I can't do that. I know absolutely nothing about building engineering other than the requirements to get accepted into it at the university level. In cases such as this, I put my trust in the hands of the experts.

 

[pixelsmith]

Also, Pixel, have you looked at this?

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Please actually read it before you reply with a "LMAO, that's what THEY want you to think" spiel.

---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------



I can't do that. I know absolutely nothing about building engineering other than the requirements to get accepted into it at the university level. In cases such as this, I put my trust in the hands of the experts.

Read it a few years ago Angelo. OLD NEWS.

NIST has come out and admitted an 8 second free fall. You do not need a fancy education to know that the only way a building like that can free fall "at the speed of gravity" is to remove ALL resistance below it.