Interpreting the preliminary WTC 7 report

[pepik]

[ZUCO]

Looks to me like they are saying the hypothesis that fire resulted in a loss of structural integrity to the point of collapse is unlikely.

The report says "unlikely" while others might have said "impossible".

[chek]

[pepik]

My view is that they are talking about whether the oil tanks were fuelling the fire. It is very vague though.

[Micpsi]

New photos posted on the George Washington's blog indicate that most of the smoke around WTC7 came from fires in WTC5 or WTC6. This demolishes the argument of defenders of the official story of 9/11 that raging fires suggested by this large amount of smoke brought down WTC7. See the photos at http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/...m-wtc-7_19.html

[pepik]

That link doesn't work. This one does (for now):

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/

However anyone expecting a "demolishing" of the debunker argument is going to be seriously disappointed. Half the photos don't show WTC7 at all, and several of the others have the view of the burning side of WTC7 blocked by another building. It seems to be a collection of the worst possible angles and the worst possible framing to show not much except that there is lots of smoke.

This is a dead issue. If you watch the video you can actually see the smoke actually coming out of the actual WTC 7. Stop embarassing yourselves.

[Ignatz]

[KP50]

There were fires in WTC7, not a raging inferno but certainly "significant".

But then there are reports that there was a fire/explosion in WTC7 prior to the first tower collapse.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7993

so it isn't surprising that the fire was well established 8 hours later. The question remains, what could have caused a fire at that time? WTC7 looks too far from WTC2 to have been hit by any debris from the impact and not in a direct line.

[Stefan]

The smoke is hugging to the side of the building. This doesn't mean it is coming out of every part of the building smoke can be seen.

I would also add, in edit- that smoke can come out of windows on every floor from a fire on the bottom floor if the stairways are open. NIST seem to "up" the damage and fires in WTC7 with every update, when no new evidence has been present since the FEMA report (quoted in the leading post, mistakenly attributed to NIST).

However this is completley irreelavnt, as I seem to be saying continually- the argument with WTC7 is not that debris damage could not bring a building down (fire, diesel fire or office equipment fire almsot certainly cannot)- it is whether the collapse WE SAW could be acheived by the damage done.

You can speculate until you are blue in the face that the damage to WTC7 was worse than any of the photos show- the damage was all done to one side of the building and we saw a collapse which could only be facilitated by the breaking of the central columns first and then all the rest simulteaneously.

My opinion? No- Danny Jowenkos. Excuse me if I privaledge the view of a demolition expert over the mouth foaming fanatics at "9/11 Myths" and the critics corner.

And yes Ignatz, that image of WTC1 does indeed show "small pockets" of orange (weak) fires.

What were you hoping to demonstrate with that image?

[pepik]

[chek]

[Stefan]

Pepik,

Silence does not equal agreement. Virtually every demoltion expert HAS NOT COMMENTED. This doesn't equal that they go along with the official story privatley.

Those inside the US, as Jowenko points out, could commit commercial sucicide by calling a spade a spade and as a result calling conspiracy.

Do you at least agree Jowenko is qualified to say that to facilitate the collapse we saw you take out the central columns first, and then the rest simulteaneously?

If so, you must explain to us how his conclusion (that this could not be done without a perfectly timed demolition) is wrong.

In other words, how natural forces managed to do a perfect impersonation of a controlled demolition.

[pepik]

[Ian]

"...nobody has shown me a video of a building collapsing which doesn't look like a CD..."

Pepik

Have you ever thought why this is? Could it be that buildings NEVER simply collapse straight down into their own footprints at near freefall speed unless it's a controlled demolition?

Surely the emphasis should be on you to provide such a video. Good luck though, if you decide to try!

[Ignatz]

[marky 54]

very very misleading and you do it well.

the picture of wtc 1 and 2 was not long after impact however watch any video you like nearer to collapse and you'll see the fire has almost gone out by itself once the feul has burnt off with a few remaining pockets left around the impact zone going by the fireman on the radio, but lets show the fire not long after and not mention it died down alot before collapse.

the damage in the picture above to the broadway only has your word for it and the writing underneath the picture which anyone could do with the right computer program, ive worked with a gaphic designer and its simple,
in a world of bull of and lies i have to ask if you have anthing more solid to say that building was hit by WTC7 and not WTC 1 or 2 for example.

WTC7 was so much of a raging inferno that it set alight then put itself out.
look at the blacked windows on the side of the building, where did the fire go and wheres the smoke coming out of those broken blackend side windows? the smoke in many pictures could be a mixture of many burning buildings on the day making WTC7 looks worse than it was. ask for a picture from a differant angle and you simply never see one or when you search cannot find one, i wonder why? yet that would settle it.
why the same angle of the nearest corner constanlty someone must have something showing WTC7 from a differant angle to rule out a effected near corner only rather than the whole face to show the extent of the smoke to settle it or at least prove or show what they are saying could be true, i as yet have not found one.

but i dont believe those picture above on there own i think they were selected to fit an argument and mislead people.

if i posted a picture of the broadway i could easily add the words in any style font i please "broadway hit by debris from wtc 1" so this proves nothing if your the type who thinks for yourself and not that type to be told what to think. what proves it other than just being told it was WTC7 that did the damage?

and the penthouse falling first due to the core colums being cut first or some inner core beam? one side first then the other before the final cuts to the major supports that gives the building strenght and global collapse then happens. why dont you tell us how the penthouse fell first from fire just so we know your explaination for it, afterall you have all the answers dont you?

[marky 54]

just a question about the broadway, what made those beams stick vertically into the building? i dont remember wt7 exploding outward.

wtc7 fell straight down didnt it?

[marky 54]

after watching many differant clips of WTC7 collapse i see no evidence of the building hitting the broadway the visible part of the building collapses straight down, yet there are well beded vertical steel beams in the side of the broadway higher up than the point of debris accumalating at ground level/near ground level.

either wtc7 lower floors had some sort of explosive force pinging out beams that ened up in the broadway or the debris are from wtc 1 or 2.

i may be wrong but if you think i am please explain how those beams got there and why vertically?

[blackcat]

[Micpsi]

[Micpsi]

[chek]

Oh look - just like that tired old photo of smoke clinging to the side of WTC7, we can see that WTC1 (the North Tower) was ablaze from top to bottom.
No wonder it fell down, eh critics?

[marky 54]

[Micpsi]

The wind was blowing to the north-east. It carried smoke from the burning 6 Trade Center onto the south face of 7 Trade Center, where it climbed up the side, deceiving many people into thinking that it had considerable fires raging inside. This is what you see in the photos I linked to from the George Washington's Blog at http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/ The building on the left of it is the New York Telephone Building.

[Bushwacker]

[Bushwacker]