'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've yet to see any truther define what exactly a "normal office fire" is. Is there some sort of standard? I've worked in high-rise buildings for over 20 years (heck I even lived in one once) and can count on one hand how many times one actually caught fire.

Anyhow. Fires. Small. Uncontrolled. Grew.
 
cooperman said:
The damage from the collapse of the towers did not play a role in the collapse of 7. All the tower collapses did was start "ordinary office fires" in building 7.
Click to expand...

If ordinary is one of the largest office fires ever, you are correct.
 
Titanic Explorer said:
'What about building 7' is the most common question truthers pose as 'proof' their delusions are valid. Is there an answer as brief as the question to silence these fools?
Click to expand...

"What specifically, scientifically, do you find incorrect with the NIST Final Report on WTC7?"

It may not end it but it is funny to watch them hand wave past it when they can't answer that question because they haven't read it or even know it exists.
 
cooperman said:
The damage from the collapse of the towers did not play a role in the collapse of 7. All the tower collapses did was start "ordinary office fires" in building 7......
Click to expand...

......on multiple floors and left to burn unchecked and unfought for 8 hours.

Truthers always leave out the most important parts!
 
DGM said:
And that was not a role?

:confused:
Click to expand...

It was, but the same role could have been played by a screwed up copy of the new york times and a match.

The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse. It didn't. wtc7 was, according to NIST, destroyed by ordinary office fires. I know it is hard to adjust after years of claiming the collapse was caused by diesel fuel and a 10 storey gash, but that is the official story.

If you want to combat toofers saying "what about building 7?" then to mention damage from the wtc collapse is lying.
 
cooperman said:
It was, but the same role could have been played by a screwed up copy of the new york times and a match.

The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse. It didn't. wtc7 was, according to NIST, destroyed by ordinary office fires. I know it is hard to adjust after years of claiming the collapse was caused by diesel fuel and a 10 storey gash, but that is the official story.

If you want to combat toofers saying "what about building 7?" then to mention damage from the wtc collapse is lying.
Click to expand...

What started the fires in WTC7?
 
Titanic Explorer said:
'What about building 7' is the most common question truthers pose as 'proof' their delusions are valid. Is there an answer as brief as the question to silence these fools? I tend to respnd with 'The towers fell, severely damaged building 7, a fire raged for hours , the building weakened, then collapsed, The end. Is there an even shorter answer one can give?
Click to expand...

Why building 7 ?

That's one word shorter, and unanswerable. Sure, it will lead to a load of hot air debate, but there is no reason on FSM's earth why any conspirator might want to CD WTC7.
 
cantonear1968 said:
......on multiple floors and left to burn unchecked and unfought for 8 hours.

Truthers always leave out the most important parts!
Click to expand...

Calm down. I am not disputing the extent of the fires. Do you agree that any structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers played no role in the collapse of building 7?
 
AJM8125 said:
I've yet to see any truther define what exactly a "normal office fire" is. Is there some sort of standard? I've worked in high-rise buildings for over 20 years (heck I even lived in one once) and can count on one hand how many times one actually caught fire.

Anyhow. Fires. Small. Uncontrolled. Grew.
Click to expand...

Ordinary office fires means fuelled by office contents. The wtc towers had jet fuel fires, whereas wtc7 didn't.
 
AJM8125 said:
So the collapse of the towers played a role. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, the collapse of the towers played a role in starting the fires.

Do you agree that the structural damage caused by the wtc towers hitting 7 played no role in wtc7's collapse?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom