Some simple Tower 7 questions

[NobbyNobbs]

I could take two control groups - one American, the other south american.....show them the videos of the building 7 collapse and then show them other controlled demolition and asked their opinion.....i am pretty sure that a greater number of south americans will agree that there is a good possibility of a controlled demolition.......where the american counterpart will find an emotional stumbling block and think that the planes somehow brought building 7 down.

I'd actually like to see that study.

Other than the diesel and office contents reply, nobody else responded to this one.

I love how you ask what was available to burn, and when told you say, "Yeah, but other than that, what else?" Why would you ignore the answer as if it were irrelevant?

I think we can all agree that the structural integrity of the steel beams failed "suddenly". Non heat treated steel loses about half of it's strength at about 600C. Let's say that there were 12 magicians at the base of each beam with a oxycetylene torch, that still wouldn't have caused the building to collapse the way it did. According to ALL of the video's available, the entire foundation of the structure basically "vanished" simultaneously.

Can you give an instance where a building's support structure failed gradually? Either it's standing, or it's falling...there's not much in between, you know.

When an avalanche occures the snow flows down the side of the mountain, all of the snow doesn't drop off the face of the mountain at the same time.

Ever see an iceberg or glacier break up?

I also didn't rule out the possibility of structural failure, but you nor anybody else can explain what contents would have existed in this structure that would have generated the heat necessary to MELT steel.

No matter how many times we say that it's not necessary to melt steel in order to weaken it, CTers keep coming back to this.

What page in your report explains this ?

"Conspiracy theorists have often cited the alleged “flash” just as the plane hit the tower as “proof” that there was a missile launched from the underside of the plane. 911 IPS claims that the flash could not be a reflection, as it was caught on camera from four different angles, and it is their theory that an object cannot reflect light to more than one direction. In addition, they said that “sparks” or “static discharge” “have been ruled out by every airline pilot we have spoken with”.

What a strange claim. Stand in front of a mirror, but off center just a little. Have a friend stand off center in the other direction. Can you both see your reflection? Yes? This means that light is reflecting in more than one direction.

In fact, you don't even need a mirror. Point out an object to another person. If they can also see that object, that means that light is not only reflecting off it to you, but also to them. Amazing how this physics stuff works, eh?

I have one question, from the image you posted, what could have penetrated tower 7 and broken two elevator shafts... when the airplaines didn't have the impact ability to destroy the EXTERNAL structural integrity of the tower shown in that image?? ??????????????????????

...

Debris from tower 1 flew across tower 6 and destroyed the structural integrity of tower 7... when the airplane that struck tower 2 didn't have enough impact strength to destroy the facia supports on tower 2??

Astounding. Let me see if I can parse this right. You are saying

a) it is claimed that tower 7 was penetrated.
b) the airplanes didn't destroy the external structural integrity of the towers that they hit
c) therefore, because the airplanes didn't damage WTC1&2 as much as possible, WTC7 shouldn't have been penetrated.

Um...did you forget the part where you are talking about two entirely different buildings?!


Something I've noticed about the general look of CDs...a lot of CTers say that the collapses look just like CDs. They say that they are too neat, and fall all at once, etc. However, in the many videos people have posted of real CDs, I don't recall a single one where the whole building falls at once. It always seems to be in stages, like a domino effect. In this regard, the WTC collapses look nothing like a CD.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Plus wire up some sort of detonator.

And contrive of some way for the thermite in the fire zones not ignite.

And, in WTC1 and 2, time the thermite ignitions so tha collapse proceeded from the impact zone down.

In WTC7, cause a partial weakening of the structure so that the East Penthouse desended and a big kink appeared in the roof 5-6s before the building collpased.

And rely on something that has never been used to demolish buildings before to demolish 3 buildings larger than any building that has ever been demolished at all without using the normal controlled demolition techniques of removing internal walls and pre-weakening supports.

And do it all while the world is watching on live TV.

 

[apathoid]

ISN"T IT IRONIC that there were no fires reported and no structural failure reported in tower 5 or 6 eventho' they were directly underneath tower 1&2 as they collapsed??????

You sure about that?!?!

I for one, would appreciate one image or one second of video tape that shows an "intense fire".

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Be sure to turn up the audio....as the firefighetrs are talking about a possible collapse.

The building was reported as leaning on an angle, and confirmed by measurement.

Who reported this?

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

ETA: Submersible, would you please use the quote function instead of using a different color text - so that its easier to reply to you. Thanks

 

[maccy]

I for one, would appreciate one image or one second of video tape that shows an "intense fire". Much like I would appreciate seeing an image of the airplane that struck the pentagon.

I know we're indulging you somewhat here by bothering to argue with you but ultimately what you want doesn't matter. Your arguments aren't convincing and so you matter very little in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you manage persuade a mainstream media outlet, a structural engineer or a demolition expert anywhere in the world that you have some sort of case nothing is going to happen to investigate your hypothesis.

The only concession the "Truth Movement" has won is that NIST will devote some time to blast hypotheses in their WTC7 report. I think that they're hoping that when the show that it isn't possible that controlled demolotion occurred it might shut people like you up. It's certainly the case that anybody who bothers to inform themselves will be less likely to listen to you.

Basically, you're already an irrelevance and will become more so as the truth movement dwindles away.

The only way to change this will be to come up will new compelling evidence and get some scientists to back it in a peer-reviewed publication; or, at the very least, get a respected media organisation somewhere in the world to run a story on it.

This isn't about us convincing you; it's about you convincing the world.

I couldn't care less if you keep believing in utterly stupid fantasies as long as people reading this forum can see why they're stupid.

I think they can.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

post deleted

 

[~enigma~]

The USG /NIST destroyed all of the evidence from the world's biggest and most important crime scene, so only an IDIOT would turn to the USG/NIST for factual information concerning the events in this case.

What was at Fresh Killls in Staten Island?

 

[Gravy]

I won't call you any names, but I'll just say that I am SHOCKED that you've copy/pasted a report that people in this forum refer to as "informational" , much less as FACTS. You want me to read the material you referred me to , but your head is too far up your ass to notice that I keep telling you that you've referred me to the WRONG source.
That's all I have to say, I almost feel stupid for responding to you since you've ignored or failed to respond to every question I've asked you directly.
Maybe your too high and might with all that TOILET paper stuck up your brilliant arse .

It saddens me to hear that you think the NIST report and the verbatim accounts of the first responders are "TOILET paper." Seek help.

 

[Submersible]

I have some simple Tower 7 questions of my own:

If you, Submersible, wanted to coverup your planning of a major terror operation, would you:

1. Use paper shredders/sledgehammers/fire to destroy documents and hard drives conatined in the planning building?
2. Set the building on fire, CD it at a later time after deeming it a total loss - a less suspicious method of blowing the building up if thats what your heart is set on.
3. Blow up your building in broad daylight while the whole world was watching and have to payoff and intimidate all ASCE members(or hope they dont care)?

Look forward to our answer Sub...

How many people were aware that tower 7 was "blown up" or destroyed in broad daylight? At the time, I for one was paying pretty close attention to the reasons that our soldiers would possibly be sent to fight a war. And I, nor anyone in my family, nor anyone that I work with can remember ONE occassion where the collapse of tower 7 was shown on national television.

Although there were two or maybe three events that would have been "priority" for the news to cover at the time, tower 7 was the third building in the U.S. to ever collapse due to fire. Tower 1&2 were the first two "miracles of GOD" to take place in this country, tower 7 the third.
And there is NO evidence of a fire that would lead anyone to believe that the building could have collapsed due to intense heat.
This building didn't collapse:

And there isn't one single TRACE of evidence available that shows where tower 7 ever reached a burning point as efficient as this one.

No fire like this:

And I know you've all seen this:

Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

THAT's a fire !

Is there something wrong with the PEOPLE or their workmanship in this country?

 

[Submersible]

Another conspira-kook bites the dust

Originally Posted by Submersible
And I know it doesn't apply to tower 7, but I'll ask you again... does your paper also explain the flash of fire in these images?

9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction


Quote:
General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."

Quote:
General Partin says that he was contacted by vonKleist, who wanted him to support his position, which Partin was not willing to do.

And this is what happens when another plane "vaporizes" right?.

 

[beachnut]

Gumboot
Facts about WTC you fail to mention:

ISN"T IT IRONIC that there were no fires reported and no structural failure reported in tower 5 or 6 eventho' they were directly underneath tower 1&2 as they collapsed??????

What??????????????

OH, fires destroyed floor in building 5; the floors failed due to fire, the steel failed due to fire. I think they even shot some water on this fire, not sure.

But given enough fire and time, fire will bring down your house and your steel building!

Building 5 floors failed due to; fire.

THIS IS A STRUCTURAL FAILURE IN BUILDING 5, I would like to report it, it is in a lot of reports, I can sell you one at NIST! I bet if I read all of NIST I can save a kitty!

If I looked long enough, or wait long enough, this stuff will show up on CT sites as proof Hitler started the fire, but I bet most CTers, including fearless leader Alex Jones etal do not read NIST, its is a lot of pages and that would confuse Alex Jones and Fetzer stopped reading when he was blinded by CT leaderism.

But this is a structural failure and I think there were a lot of them in 5 and 6, some due to large pieces of WTC 1 and 2. But then fires raged and made the floor fail.

Who said there was no structural failure in 5 or 6?

 

[apathoid]

Way to not answer my question. Its very simple, read my question and just type 1, 2 or 3 and give your reasoning for it. Thanks.

 

[Submersible]

It saddens me to hear that you think the NIST report and the verbatim accounts of the first responders are "TOILET paper." Seek help.

These verbatin accounts, and those of several firemen on the scene discredit all of the one's that you have in YOUR toilet paper.
You still can't read can you.


http://legalwar.org/permalinks/2006...Metal-Under-Ground-Zero-for-Months-after-911/

 

[Gravy]

This doesn't explain what contents could have been placed around the steel columns to heat them enough to weaken their structural integrity, or how that heat could have been directed towards the beams instead of straight up.

WTC 5, office fire only. You've seen this before, Submersible.

ISN"T IT IRONIC that there were no fires reported and no structural failure reported in tower 5 or 6 eventho' they were directly underneath tower 1&2 as they collapsed??????

WTC 5, office fire only. You've seen this before, Submersible.

​

You really need ot read the FEMA report on buildings 4, 5, and 6. You will find it enlightening.

 

[Bell]

And this is what happens when another plane "vaporizes" right?.

[qimg]http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg[/qimg]

And your point exactly? Both in regards to the picture and the post you quoted?

 

[apathoid]

Submersible, if you wanted to coverup your planning of a major terror operation, would you:

1. Use paper shredders/sledgehammers/fire to destroy documents and hard drives contained in the planning building?
2. Set the building on fire, CD it at a later time after deeming it a total loss - a less suspicious method of blowing the building up if thats what your heart is set on.
3. Blow up your building in broad daylight while the whole world was watching, possibly having the planning papers fall innoncently onto the street below for anyone to pick up. Then payoff and intimidate all ASCE members(or hope they dont care)?

Here, I'll go first:

1. Its the most cost efficient and least suspicious method. 2 & 3 wouldnt even be considered.

Your turn......

 

[Gravy]

These verbatin accounts, and those of several firemen on the scene discredit all of the one's that you have in YOUR toilet paper.
You still can't read can you.


http://legalwar.org/permalinks/2006...Metal-Under-Ground-Zero-for-Months-after-911/

Please point out which of the quotes on the page you linked to refutes any of the FDNY's eyewitness "TOILET paper" quotes I provided about the fire and damage to WTC 7.

Or do you just have a thing against firemen?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...The USG /NIST destroyed all of the evidence from the world's biggest and most important crime scene, so only an IDIOT would turn to the USG/NIST for factual information concerning the events in this case...

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!" Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Circulus in demonstrando

 

[Architect]

Can I be clear. Is Submersible actually claiming that steel framed buildings are not susceptible to fire-induced failure? Because that's easy to prove.

 

[Gravy]

Can I be clear. Is Submersible actually claiming that steel framed buildings are not susceptible to fire-induced failure? Because that's easy to prove.

He is, even though he posted photos of the Windsor building, in which all the steel in the fire-affected areas failed and collapsed. But I don't know that it's worth trying to correct him. If you look at his posting history here, you'll see that he's been utterly immune to learning. He swings by now and then, spews insulting nonsense at everyone and everything associated with the 9/11 investigations, and storms off. Just another true believer.

 

[gumboot]

This doesn't explain what contents could have been placed around the steel columns to heat them enough to weaken their structural integrity, or how that heat could have been directed towards the beams instead of straight up.

That's honestly not even worth commenting on. You're not even trying.

What could have caused those fires ??

ISN"T IT IRONIC that there were no fires reported and no structural failure reported in tower 5 or 6 eventho' they were directly underneath tower 1&2 as they collapsed??????

You do realise ALL of the WTC buildings were destroyed on 9/11, right?

I for one, would appreciate one image or one second of video tape that shows an "intense fire". Much like I would appreciate seeing an image of the airplane that struck the pentagon.

It is something the MTV generation struggles with, but things are capable of being true without being on TV. Ample eye witness testimony confirms the severe level of fire in WTC7.

Who reported this?
And WHY would any of you consider anything you've read to be "factual", when all of it would have to be dismissed if you consider ANY of these reports?

Firemen on the scene reported it.

What do you expect, the falling debris from tower 1 jumped tower 6 and caused all of the damage you see in this image.
[qimg]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-16.jpg[/qimg]
(supposedly the explanation of why there were contents surrounding the support beams, with the ability to not only burn but direct their heat towards them for an extended period of time.

Not sure what on earth you're talking about.

-Gumboot