if you have the answers to how wtc7 collapsed please tell me im all ears.
enlighten before we get the nist version.
The building got hit by tonnes of debris and was on fire for several hours. Therefore it MUST have been controlled demolition, and not structural failure. Good logic you have there. You ever stop and think about what you're saying? _________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
if you have the answers to how wtc7 collapsed please tell me im all ears.
enlighten before we get the nist version.
The building got hit by tonnes of debris and was on fire for several hours. Therefore it MUST have been controlled demolition, and not structural failure. Good logic you have there. You ever stop and think about what you're saying?
so you are saying fire and a hole bought the building down all in one in 6 seconds? the hole played no part in effecting how the building collapsed ie leaning ect and the fire cut the core columns all at once? hence a collapse looking like controlled demoliton due to fire and structual damage rather than the unsemetrical collapses of usaul fire collapses and structual failure in an affected area you'd expect and has happened with every other building that wasnt bought down by CD.
I cannot believe the critics here are still in 'locked' debate and have come up with no conclusions as yet....
I have been away for around 3 months from this site and still you are waffling on... have you nothing better to be doing.... surely chugging of or something must be more fun?
Hell, either decide that...
A. You think it is all conspiracy theory and find something better to do with your time.
or...
B. Come to the conclusion that there is a good possibility that the events of 9/11 cannot be explained by the official line.
(It is sad to think that while I removed myself from the issue over the last 3 or 4 months and enjoyed a peaceful new years holiday, you losers were still arguing absolute toss!) Heck!!!
I cannot believe the critics here are still in 'locked' debate and have come up with no conclusions as yet....
I have been away for around 3 months from this site and still you are waffling on... have you nothing better to be doing.... surely chugging of or something must be more fun?
Hell, either decide that...
A. You think it is all conspiracy theory and find something better to do with your time.
or...
B. Come to the conclusion that there is a good possibility that the events of 9/11 cannot be explained by the official line.
(It is sad to think that while I removed myself from the issue over the last 3 or 4 months and enjoyed a peaceful new years holiday, you losers were still arguing absolute toss!) Heck!!!
You fail to appreciate the wonderful entertainment this site has continued to provide while you have been away, the faster-than-gravity collapse of the scholars for 9/11 truth, and the the very uncivil war that has broken out there, the hilarious way the totally ludicrous "beam weapon theory" has been taken up by those looking for new thrills to tickle their jaded palates, the posturing of "hard man" Ally from the safety of his computer, the bile of Blackcat in full flight, the grossly degraded video images that are supposed to show there were no planes, leading to handbags at dawn between the no-planers and the planehuggers, the shrieks of "Shill!" from Patrick Brown to anyone who disagrees with him, bits of Hindu mysticism, and every wacky idea under the sun, while the mods do their impersonation of Mr Barraclough from Porridge, trying to keep order.
How sad to think you missed all this excitement! _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
so you are saying fire and a hole bought the building down all in one in 6 seconds? the hole played no part in effecting how the building collapsed ie leaning ect and the fire cut the core columns all at once? hence a collapse looking like controlled demoliton due to fire and structual damage rather than the unsemetrical collapses of usaul fire collapses and structual failure in an affected area you'd expect and has happened with every other building that wasnt bought down by CD.
is this what im not thinking about?
So why do they have fire proofing on skyscrapers if fires can't cause them structural damage?
How long were those fires burning for?
Why the insistence that building that collapse must lean? Why must a collapsing building lean?
What do you make of the firefighters assessment that the building was moving? How does CD cause a building to move, long before it collapses?
Where are the sounds of the explosions? CD is noisy.
Explain why we don't hear any explosions in any sequence?
Also explain why they had to remove the entire bottom floor of the landmark tower over a period of several months, replacing many of the support columns, when they could've just run in and wired it up like WTC7 and brought it straight down? _________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
so you are saying fire and a hole bought the building down all in one in 6 seconds? the hole played no part in effecting how the building collapsed ie leaning ect and the fire cut the core columns all at once? hence a collapse looking like controlled demoliton due to fire and structual damage rather than the unsemetrical collapses of usaul fire collapses and structual failure in an affected area you'd expect and has happened with every other building that wasnt bought down by CD.
is this what im not thinking about?
So why do they have fire proofing on skyscrapers if fires can't cause them structural damage?
How long were those fires burning for?
Why the insistence that building that collapse must lean? Why must a collapsing building lean?
What do you make of the firefighters assessment that the building was moving? How does CD cause a building to move, long before it collapses?
Where are the sounds of the explosions? CD is noisy.
Explain why we don't hear any explosions in any sequence?
Also explain why they had to remove the entire bottom floor of the landmark tower over a period of several months, replacing many of the support columns, when they could've just run in and wired it up like WTC7 and brought it straight down?
i did'nt say fire cannot course stuctual damage, i asked if what i was failing to understand is that the fire caused all the core columns to fail all at the same time, fire collapses have never looked like CD. fire collapses are a longer process for the whole building to be leveled and you get partial collapses first not symetrical.
the fire were burning most of the day, other skyscrappers have burnt longer and didnt collapse. the fire was'nt a raging inferno in wtc7.
im not insisting the building must lean(yet again jp makes up what he wants to hear hes really a ct'er). you keep mentioning the hole, im pointing out it played no part in how the building fell the building came straight down so the hole on the back didnt effect the behaviour of the building. when buildings have been weakened due to damage on one side or more when they fail they tend to lean towards the weakened part of the building. wt7 did not do this not even during collapse so we have to ask if the hole really weakened the building enough to effect it structually?
link please to firemen statements. or i could just sit here and say this, ive seen reports the firemen said the building was sound and that the fires were isolated. what do you make of that? so i aint gonna answer something that isnt proven.
CD is noisy? yes presumming they use noisy explosives. theres lots of types of explosives and i dont know what they would of had in their arsenal, and i doubt you do either. not hearing explosives depends on alot of things. type of explosive, location inside building, postion of person filming, sound quailty/volume when aired/shown.
in any sequence we dont get real sound from what im aware from the top of my head. there are clips that are muffled sound very quiet, clips with no sound, and clips with low sound and a newsreader speaker over the top.
i have no idea why they moved the bottom floor its a totally differant building (which is what im told when i make a comparsion by jp and bushwacker). why didnt they just set fire to it? they could of saved loads of cash on explosives and the building would of still come down like CD.
marky, WTC7 did not fall in its own footprint, it fell in the space limited by the buildings surrounding it, and damaged them extensively as it fell, notably the Verizon Building and the Bankers Trust building. That is why setting fire to a building is not a suitable method of demolishing, as well as the fact that you would have to leaver all the contents in, all the furniture and paper, to get it to burn in the same way, and indeed it might well not collapse unless extensively damaged before. There is no point saying you want to know why WTC7 collapsed, no one can tell you until the NIST report comes out.
As for the firemen, I think you must be confusing it with the towers when you talk of reports of isolated pockets of fire, that was a firemen in one of the towers, but below the impact floors. For WTC7 there are just endless quotes from firemen and others about their expectations that it would fall. Here is one:
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
marky, WTC7 did not fall in its own footprint, it fell in the space limited by the buildings surrounding it, and damaged them extensively as it fell, notably the Verizon Building and the Bankers Trust building. That is why setting fire to a building is not a suitable method of demolishing, as well as the fact that you would have to leaver all the contents in, all the furniture and paper, to get it to burn in the same way, and indeed it might well not collapse unless extensively damaged before. There is no point saying you want to know why WTC7 collapsed, no one can tell you until the NIST report comes out.
As for the firemen, I think you must be confusing it with the towers when you talk of reports of isolated pockets of fire, that was a firemen in one of the towers, but below the impact floors. For WTC7 there are just endless quotes from firemen and others about their expectations that it would fall. Here is one:
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
i never mentioned wtc7 falling in it's own footprint where did i say that? also i never said my reports of firemen where true i was giving jp an example of what i could claim without proof like he was saying about firemen. you've misread almost all my points and added things to make it mean what you want it mean. as a result ill ignore your post untill you can adress mine properly without putting words in my mouth and distorting what i said , cheers.
i did'nt say fire cannot course stuctual damage, i asked if what i was failing to understand is that the fire caused all the core columns to fail all at the same time, fire collapses have never looked like CD. fire collapses are a longer process for the whole building to be leveled and you get partial collapses first not symetrical.
So we agree, fire causes strutural damage. There was a partial collapse, in the centre of the building, that's why the penthouse falls inside. Then the rest follows, most probably due to weakening by fire.
Quote:
the fire were burning most of the day, other skyscrappers have burnt longer and didnt collapse. the fire was'nt a raging inferno in wtc7.
Other skyscrapers are made of concrete.
Quote:
im not insisting the building must lean(yet again jp makes up what he wants to hear hes really a ct'er).
So we agree that not leaning is not a suspicious event.
Quote:
you keep mentioning the hole, im pointing out it played no part in how the building fell the building came straight down so the hole on the back didnt effect the behaviour of the building. when buildings have been weakened due to damage on one side or more when they fail they tend to lean towards the weakened part of the building. wt7 did not do this not even during collapse so we have to ask if the hole really weakened the building enough to effect it structually?
I can't say for certain at this point if the hole or the fire was the major factor in the collapse, but the hole was centrally located along the side, and the centre of the building collapsed first (ie the penthouse collapse)
Quote:
CD is noisy? yes presumming they use noisy explosives. theres lots of types of explosives and i dont know what they would of had in their arsenal, and i doubt you do either. not hearing explosives depends on alot of things. type of explosive, location inside building, postion of person filming, sound quailty/volume when aired/shown.
Yes, all explosives make noise. The way explosives work is by burning very very quickly. This rapid burning produces a lot of gas, and it is the pressure of this gas that forces the building apart. Because it expands so fast it creates an audible sound wave as it compresses the air. If it didn't make a sound, it would be because the pressure is not great enough to destroy things. So really the answer is no. No boom no bang.
All the explosives in the Landmark tower video are inside the building, inserted inside the support columns, and with the holes blocked up. Yet that sound still gets out.
Quote:
i have no idea why they moved the bottom floor its a totally differant building (which is what im told when i make a comparsion by jp and bushwacker). why didnt they just set fire to it? they could of saved loads of cash on explosives and the building would of still come down like CD.
They removed the bottom floor to make it easier to collapse. They destroy from the bottom up and let gravity pull the building down, rather than explosives to blow it to pieces, because this would need a whole lot more, which means more drilling, more planting, more noise. _________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
marky, WTC7 did not fall in its own footprint, it fell in the space limited by the buildings surrounding it, and damaged them extensively as it fell, notably the Verizon Building and the Bankers Trust building. That is why setting fire to a building is not a suitable method of demolishing, as well as the fact that you would have to leaver all the contents in, all the furniture and paper, to get it to burn in the same way, and indeed it might well not collapse unless extensively damaged before. There is no point saying you want to know why WTC7 collapsed, no one can tell you until the NIST report comes out.
As for the firemen, I think you must be confusing it with the towers when you talk of reports of isolated pockets of fire, that was a firemen in one of the towers, but below the impact floors. For WTC7 there are just endless quotes from firemen and others about their expectations that it would fall. Here is one:
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
i never mentioned wtc7 falling in it's own footprint where did i say that? also i never said my reports of firemen where true i was giving jp an example of what i could claim without proof like he was saying about firemen. you've misread almost all my points and added things to make it mean what you want it mean. as a result ill ignore your post untill you can adress mine properly without putting words in my mouth and distorting what i said , cheers.
marky, you asked why the demolition contractors could not just set fire to the other building which would then just fall exactly like CD. I was explaining why not. It would be likely to damage surrounding buildings, as WTC7 did. Sorry I misunderstood what you said about the firemen. If you want to see a lot more quotes from the firemen, look here on pages 41 to 65. Lots of quotes about firefighters being pulled back, lots of quotes from firemen about the damage to the building, the extent of the fires and how they expected it to fall. Careful though, it might damage your belief in CD, so don't look unless you are prepared for that. Alternatively, they could all be part of the conspiracy that killed 360 of their friends. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
i did'nt say fire cannot course stuctual damage, i asked if what i was failing to understand is that the fire caused all the core columns to fail all at the same time, fire collapses have never looked like CD. fire collapses are a longer process for the whole building to be leveled and you get partial collapses first not symetrical.
So we agree, fire causes strutural damage. There was a partial collapse, in the centre of the building, that's why the penthouse falls inside. Then the rest follows, most probably due to weakening by fire.
Quote:
the fire were burning most of the day, other skyscrappers have burnt longer and didnt collapse. the fire was'nt a raging inferno in wtc7.
Other skyscrapers are made of concrete.
Quote:
im not insisting the building must lean(yet again jp makes up what he wants to hear hes really a ct'er).
So we agree that not leaning is not a suspicious event.
Quote:
you keep mentioning the hole, im pointing out it played no part in how the building fell the building came straight down so the hole on the back didnt effect the behaviour of the building. when buildings have been weakened due to damage on one side or more when they fail they tend to lean towards the weakened part of the building. wt7 did not do this not even during collapse so we have to ask if the hole really weakened the building enough to effect it structually?
I can't say for certain at this point if the hole or the fire was the major factor in the collapse, but the hole was centrally located along the side, and the centre of the building collapsed first (ie the penthouse collapse)
Quote:
CD is noisy? yes presumming they use noisy explosives. theres lots of types of explosives and i dont know what they would of had in their arsenal, and i doubt you do either. not hearing explosives depends on alot of things. type of explosive, location inside building, postion of person filming, sound quailty/volume when aired/shown.
Yes, all explosives make noise. The way explosives work is by burning very very quickly. This rapid burning produces a lot of gas, and it is the pressure of this gas that forces the building apart. Because it expands so fast it creates an audible sound wave as it compresses the air. If it didn't make a sound, it would be because the pressure is not great enough to destroy things. So really the answer is no. No boom no bang.
All the explosives in the Landmark tower video are inside the building, inserted inside the support columns, and with the holes blocked up. Yet that sound still gets out.
Quote:
i have no idea why they moved the bottom floor its a totally differant building (which is what im told when i make a comparsion by jp and bushwacker). why didnt they just set fire to it? they could of saved loads of cash on explosives and the building would of still come down like CD.
They removed the bottom floor to make it easier to collapse. They destroy from the bottom up and let gravity pull the building down, rather than explosives to blow it to pieces, because this would need a whole lot more, which means more drilling, more planting, more noise.
do you make up any nonesance? you tell me how the building collapsed (as though you knew and believe thats how wtc7 must of fell) then say most proberbly due to fire weakening (as though your just guessing).
other skyscrappers that have been on fire and didnt collapse were also made of steel.
i never claimed not leaning is suspious of anything other than critics claims it severly weaken the building. im pointing out if it weakened the building to the extent you make out the building would of leaned towards that side as it was much weaker that the rest of the building. it didnt so i question if the hole weakened the building enough to even effect its strenght. if the hole was a major factor the building would of most certainly leaned towards the part of the building that had no strenght/very little strenght.
the landmark tower is a completly differant building and does not resemble wtc7 in any way. (which is what you preech when people use comparsions, why not take your own advise?)
this could go on for months just reqouting eachother or answering on the same points, i so i aint replying to another on this, i think you have made your points clear and i have made mine, so ill read your next reply but aint responding no matter how weak i think some of it is, if it is.
marky, WTC7 did not fall in its own footprint, it fell in the space limited by the buildings surrounding it, and damaged them extensively as it fell, notably the Verizon Building and the Bankers Trust building. That is why setting fire to a building is not a suitable method of demolishing, as well as the fact that you would have to leaver all the contents in, all the furniture and paper, to get it to burn in the same way, and indeed it might well not collapse unless extensively damaged before. There is no point saying you want to know why WTC7 collapsed, no one can tell you until the NIST report comes out.
As for the firemen, I think you must be confusing it with the towers when you talk of reports of isolated pockets of fire, that was a firemen in one of the towers, but below the impact floors. For WTC7 there are just endless quotes from firemen and others about their expectations that it would fall. Here is one:
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
i never mentioned wtc7 falling in it's own footprint where did i say that? also i never said my reports of firemen where true i was giving jp an example of what i could claim without proof like he was saying about firemen. you've misread almost all my points and added things to make it mean what you want it mean. as a result ill ignore your post untill you can adress mine properly without putting words in my mouth and distorting what i said , cheers.
marky, you asked why the demolition contractors could not just set fire to the other building which would then just fall exactly like CD. I was explaining why not. It would be likely to damage surrounding buildings, as WTC7 did. Sorry I misunderstood what you said about the firemen. If you want to see a lot more quotes from the firemen, look here on pages 41 to 65. Lots of quotes about firefighters being pulled back, lots of quotes from firemen about the damage to the building, the extent of the fires and how they expected it to fall. Careful though, it might damage your belief in CD, so don't look unless you are prepared for that. Alternatively, they could all be part of the conspiracy that killed 360 of their friends.
yes i did ask why CD teams would'nt just use fire when it worked so well for wtc7, but i wasnt serious about it. it was a bit of sarcasim. its worth pointing out though no where did i say it collapsed on it own footprint in the post you were answering to.
cheers for the link and lets hope these firemen are not wrong hey, although i do fail to see why we should believe these ones when you claim the ones that heard and saw explosives were wrong. so just one question, are we selective over which firemen we believe? if so why?
marky, WTC7 did not fall in its own footprint, it fell in the space limited by the buildings surrounding it, and damaged them extensively as it fell, notably the Verizon Building and the Bankers Trust building. That is why setting fire to a building is not a suitable method of demolishing, as well as the fact that you would have to leaver all the contents in, all the furniture and paper, to get it to burn in the same way, and indeed it might well not collapse unless extensively damaged before. There is no point saying you want to know why WTC7 collapsed, no one can tell you until the NIST report comes out.
As for the firemen, I think you must be confusing it with the towers when you talk of reports of isolated pockets of fire, that was a firemen in one of the towers, but below the impact floors. For WTC7 there are just endless quotes from firemen and others about their expectations that it would fall. Here is one:
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
i never mentioned wtc7 falling in it's own footprint where did i say that? also i never said my reports of firemen where true i was giving jp an example of what i could claim without proof like he was saying about firemen. you've misread almost all my points and added things to make it mean what you want it mean. as a result ill ignore your post untill you can adress mine properly without putting words in my mouth and distorting what i said , cheers.
marky, you asked why the demolition contractors could not just set fire to the other building which would then just fall exactly like CD. I was explaining why not. It would be likely to damage surrounding buildings, as WTC7 did. Sorry I misunderstood what you said about the firemen. If you want to see a lot more quotes from the firemen, look here on pages 41 to 65. Lots of quotes about firefighters being pulled back, lots of quotes from firemen about the damage to the building, the extent of the fires and how they expected it to fall. Careful though, it might damage your belief in CD, so don't look unless you are prepared for that. Alternatively, they could all be part of the conspiracy that killed 360 of their friends.
yes i did ask why CD teams would'nt just use fire when it worked so well for wtc7, but i wasnt serious about it. it was a bit of sarcasim. its worth pointing out though no where did i say it collapsed on it own footprint in the post you were answering to.
cheers for the link and lets hope these firemen are not lieing hey, although i do fail to see why we should believe these ones when you claim the ones that heard and saw explosives were lieing. so just one question, are we selective over which firemen we believe? if so why?
I accept you never said WTC7 collapsed in its own footprint, that was something I mentioned as an objective of demolition people when bringing down a building surrounded by other buildings, to avoid damaging them.
I have never said that any firemen were lying and I have not seen any other critic say so either. Hearing explosions does not mean there were bombs in the towers, many things can explode in a fire, there would be huge amounts of electrical power in the towers and electrical transformers can explode, in fact here is one burning and exploding LINK People in the North tower though that there was an explosion when the South tower was hit, as here "As soon as we arrived, 84, a massive explosion goes off, and at this point we didn't know what it was. We thought it was a secondary explosion. We didn't know that it was a second plane. In fact, I didn't know there was a second plane until much later in the evening." _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
marky, WTC7 did not fall in its own footprint, it fell in the space limited by the buildings surrounding it, and damaged them extensively as it fell, notably the Verizon Building and the Bankers Trust building. That is why setting fire to a building is not a suitable method of demolishing, as well as the fact that you would have to leaver all the contents in, all the furniture and paper, to get it to burn in the same way, and indeed it might well not collapse unless extensively damaged before. There is no point saying you want to know why WTC7 collapsed, no one can tell you until the NIST report comes out.
As for the firemen, I think you must be confusing it with the towers when you talk of reports of isolated pockets of fire, that was a firemen in one of the towers, but below the impact floors. For WTC7 there are just endless quotes from firemen and others about their expectations that it would fall. Here is one:
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
i never mentioned wtc7 falling in it's own footprint where did i say that? also i never said my reports of firemen where true i was giving jp an example of what i could claim without proof like he was saying about firemen. you've misread almost all my points and added things to make it mean what you want it mean. as a result ill ignore your post untill you can adress mine properly without putting words in my mouth and distorting what i said , cheers.
marky, you asked why the demolition contractors could not just set fire to the other building which would then just fall exactly like CD. I was explaining why not. It would be likely to damage surrounding buildings, as WTC7 did. Sorry I misunderstood what you said about the firemen. If you want to see a lot more quotes from the firemen, look here on pages 41 to 65. Lots of quotes about firefighters being pulled back, lots of quotes from firemen about the damage to the building, the extent of the fires and how they expected it to fall. Careful though, it might damage your belief in CD, so don't look unless you are prepared for that. Alternatively, they could all be part of the conspiracy that killed 360 of their friends.
yes i did ask why CD teams would'nt just use fire when it worked so well for wtc7, but i wasnt serious about it. it was a bit of sarcasim. its worth pointing out though no where did i say it collapsed on it own footprint in the post you were answering to.
cheers for the link and lets hope these firemen are not lieing hey, although i do fail to see why we should believe these ones when you claim the ones that heard and saw explosives were lieing. so just one question, are we selective over which firemen we believe? if so why?
I accept you never said WTC7 collapsed in its own footprint, that was something I mentioned as an objective of demolition people when bringing down a building surrounded by other buildings, to avoid damaging them.
I have never said that any firemen were lying and I have not seen any other critic say so either. Hearing explosions does not mean there were bombs in the towers, many things can explode in a fire, there would be huge amounts of electrical power in the towers and electrical transformers can explode, in fact here is one burning and exploding LINK People in the North tower though that there was an explosion when the South tower was hit, as here "As soon as we arrived, 84, a massive explosion goes off, and at this point we didn't know what it was. We thought it was a secondary explosion. We didn't know that it was a second plane. In fact, I didn't know there was a second plane until much later in the evening."
so 500 reports(emergancy workers) all mistook a second plane for explosions even though quite a few describe seeing them as the building was collapsing and also reports inside the towers AFTER! the planes had hit. so if these people were mistaken what makes you think the firemen at wtc7 wasnt mistaken?
marky, WTC7 did not fall in its own footprint, it fell in the space limited by the buildings surrounding it, and damaged them extensively as it fell, notably the Verizon Building and the Bankers Trust building. That is why setting fire to a building is not a suitable method of demolishing, as well as the fact that you would have to leaver all the contents in, all the furniture and paper, to get it to burn in the same way, and indeed it might well not collapse unless extensively damaged before. There is no point saying you want to know why WTC7 collapsed, no one can tell you until the NIST report comes out.
As for the firemen, I think you must be confusing it with the towers when you talk of reports of isolated pockets of fire, that was a firemen in one of the towers, but below the impact floors. For WTC7 there are just endless quotes from firemen and others about their expectations that it would fall. Here is one:
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
i never mentioned wtc7 falling in it's own footprint where did i say that? also i never said my reports of firemen where true i was giving jp an example of what i could claim without proof like he was saying about firemen. you've misread almost all my points and added things to make it mean what you want it mean. as a result ill ignore your post untill you can adress mine properly without putting words in my mouth and distorting what i said , cheers.
marky, you asked why the demolition contractors could not just set fire to the other building which would then just fall exactly like CD. I was explaining why not. It would be likely to damage surrounding buildings, as WTC7 did. Sorry I misunderstood what you said about the firemen. If you want to see a lot more quotes from the firemen, look here on pages 41 to 65. Lots of quotes about firefighters being pulled back, lots of quotes from firemen about the damage to the building, the extent of the fires and how they expected it to fall. Careful though, it might damage your belief in CD, so don't look unless you are prepared for that. Alternatively, they could all be part of the conspiracy that killed 360 of their friends.
yes i did ask why CD teams would'nt just use fire when it worked so well for wtc7, but i wasnt serious about it. it was a bit of sarcasim. its worth pointing out though no where did i say it collapsed on it own footprint in the post you were answering to.
cheers for the link and lets hope these firemen are not lieing hey, although i do fail to see why we should believe these ones when you claim the ones that heard and saw explosives were lieing. so just one question, are we selective over which firemen we believe? if so why?
I accept you never said WTC7 collapsed in its own footprint, that was something I mentioned as an objective of demolition people when bringing down a building surrounded by other buildings, to avoid damaging them.
I have never said that any firemen were lying and I have not seen any other critic say so either. Hearing explosions does not mean there were bombs in the towers, many things can explode in a fire, there would be huge amounts of electrical power in the towers and electrical transformers can explode, in fact here is one burning and exploding LINK People in the North tower though that there was an explosion when the South tower was hit, as here "As soon as we arrived, 84, a massive explosion goes off, and at this point we didn't know what it was. We thought it was a secondary explosion. We didn't know that it was a second plane. In fact, I didn't know there was a second plane until much later in the evening."
so 500 reports(emergancy workers) all mistook a second plane for explosions even though quite a few describe seeing them as the building was collapsing and also reports inside the towers AFTER! the planes had hit. so if these people were mistaken what makes you think the firemen at wtc7 wasnt mistaken?
Did I say they all mistook a second plane for an explosion? I said many things can explode in a fire, that does not mean there were bombs.
The firemen at WTC7 would have been mistaken if they expected WTC7 to collapse and it did not, but they expected it to collapse and it did. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
i think this sums it up really, and shows what critics are expecting people to believe.
Yes, interesting pictures. The Madrid picture shows ALL the STEEL framework on the upper stories has collapsed completely, leaving only the CONCRETE centre core, and the CONCRETE lower floors, so guess what, steel structures can collapse through fire.
The WTC7 picture is of course chosen to show the situation when there was only a small amount of fire, but the building burnt for EIGHT HOURS. Does anyone think it might just possibly have got worse? Do fires ever get worse?
Here is another picture of WTC7, how many floors on fire now?
_________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
do you make up any nonesance? you tell me how the building collapsed (as though you knew and believe thats how wtc7 must of fell) then say most proberbly due to fire weakening (as though your just guessing).
I'm not just guessing. My explanation is based on available evidence, however I don't have full access to the range of information that NIST has and is using to compile their report on WTC 7. Therefore it would be wrong of me to claim that what I say is the absolute truth. Your CD explanation, does not fit any available evidence.
Quote:
other skyscrappers that have been on fire and didnt collapse were also made of steel.
The Madrid one? Yeah, like Bushwacker said, the steel DID collapse, the concrete part didn't.
Quote:
i never claimed not leaning is suspious of anything other than critics claims it severly weaken the building. im pointing out if it weakened the building to the extent you make out the building would of leaned towards that side as it was much weaker that the rest of the building. it didnt so i question if the hole weakened the building enough to even effect its strenght. if the hole was a major factor the building would of most certainly leaned towards the part of the building that had no strenght/very little strenght.
The hole is in the center of the side. How would a building lean towards its centre?
Quote:
the landmark tower is a completly differant building and does not resemble wtc7 in any way. (which is what you preech when people use comparsions, why not take your own advise?)
I used the landmark tower as an example of CD noises and sequence. When you blow stuff up, it makes a noise, in a definite pattern, to cause the building to collapse. There was absolutely ZERO evidence of this on 9/11.
Quote:
this could go on for months just reqouting eachother or answering on the same points, i so i aint replying to another on this, i think you have made your points clear and i have made mine, so ill read your next reply but aint responding no matter how weak i think some of it is, if it is.
Well the easy answer to this is to look at the facts and try changing your mind to an opinion based on them, rather than based on lies churned out by other people who have an agenda. _________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: WTC7
Bushwacker:
Here is another picture of WTC7, how many floors on fire now?
I can't see any floors on fire in that picture of WTC7, only what looks like a dust-cloud from the exploding towers. Please indicate the burning floors.
Bushwacker:
Here is another picture of WTC7, how many floors on fire now?
I can't see any floors on fire in that picture of WTC7, only what looks like a dust-cloud from the exploding towers. Please indicate the burning floors.
Gosh, you may be right MadgeB, that is almost certainly a dust cloud from the building that had collapsed hours before, flowing into the windows of WTC7, not smoke coming out at all!
Here are some other pictures of this remarkable dust cloud:
at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
hehehe hehe heh
Yes, in 6seconds, into its footprint. 47 stories. With a crimp in the middle, squibs running up all sides and massive clouds of heated pyroclastic white dust.
O k a y. . . . I f y o u s a y s o m a t e ! _________________ Make love, not money.
Oh and those WTC7 photos look fake to me. The site you got them off is the most comical debunk site I've yet seen. Find us a video (or 2) showing that ridiculous cloud pouring off the building, please. _________________ Make love, not money.
Oh and those WTC7 photos look fake to me. The site you got them off is the most comical debunk site I've yet seen.
The first is not from a "debunk site". It's from a personal set of photos taken by a NJ resident :
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/
The collection has others similar to photo 1
There are others showing a substantial section of WTC2 core standing for a while after the global collapse. Ditto WTC1.
The owner's email address is there. I'm sure he'd be interested to hear your thoughts on his photos. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Oh and those WTC7 photos look fake to me. The site you got them off is the most comical debunk site I've yet seen. Find us a video (or 2) showing that ridiculous cloud pouring off the building, please.
at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
hehehe hehe heh
Yes, in 6seconds
How long should the collapse have taken? How much more than 6 seconds?
Quote:
into its footprint. 47 stories.
What were the dimensions of the collapsed rubble? What should these dimensions have been?
Quote:
With a crimp in the middle, squibs running up all sides and massive clouds of heated pyroclastic white dust.
How do explosives produce heated dust? _________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
hehehe hehe heh
Yes, in 6seconds, into its footprint. 47 stories. With a crimp in the middle, squibs running up all sides and massive clouds of heated pyroclastic white dust.
O k a y. . . . I f y o u s a y s o m a t e !
More like 13 seconds from the first movement, it was certainly not into its own footprint, the so-called "squibs" came from the top and the building collapsed from the bottom and the dust was not pyroclastic, otherwise you are quite right. Fairly typical lies from one of the laughably named truthseekers! Why even pretend you are interested in anything other than making up your own version of reality?
And insulting men who lost 360 of their friends and colleagues that day is pathetic. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
OK, look at a video that shows it from the beginning, like this one. Perhaps you can find a better quality one, but most of the clips only show the last part. Look at the top left of the roof at time 1:13, at 1:16 the East penthouse disappears, seconds later the left hand side buckles, and the collapse appears complete at 1:29. The seismographic records actually make it 18 seconds, see the table in this article. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
so you are saying fire and a hole bought the building down all in one in 6 seconds? the hole played no part in effecting how the building collapsed ie leaning ect and the fire cut the core columns all at once? hence a collapse looking like controlled demoliton due to fire and structual damage rather than the unsemetrical collapses of usaul fire collapses and structual failure in an affected area you'd expect and has happened with every other building that wasnt bought down by CD.
I cannot believe the critics here are still in 'locked' debate and have come up with no conclusions as yet....
