Has there EVER been a realistic explanation for the WTC7 collapse?

[OrlandoGator]

I don't want to dive into a MIHOP/LIHOP debate, I'm just asking on a scientific level...what caused that building to implode in the late afternoon. It appeared to me to only be peppered on the outside by tower debris. There wasn't a fuel source burning inside to compromise the structural steel as there was in the towers.

Can anyone tell me what the "official" conclusion was?

[Warpy]

1. One of the major uprights failed

and there were intense fires on several floors. However, no, they still haven't determined exactly where that particular upright failed, so they still haven't determined the exact mechanism.

It's all guesswork, so the conspiracy nuts still think somebody went into a damaged building full of rubble without being seen and did two weeks' worth of work drilling columns and placing and wiring explosives for a controlled demolition without being seen by firefighters.

Personally, I think the fires caused the floors to fail, and the floors crashing into the upright caused it to fail. What perplexes me is how those massive fires got started in the first place.

[ailsagirl]

3. "conspiracy nuts?" Is it neccessary to name call??

[whatever4]

78. Echo that nm

[cthrumatrix]

126. the simple answer is "NO"...... and don't look for rethugs to try

[Jim Sagle]

149. These coincidence nuts just can't help it.

[OrlandoGator]

4. How does falling debris in one building start fires in another?

And fires hot enough to damage structural steel, at that?

I'm not discrediting your explanation, but I'm an engineer and I don't understand the mechanics of how that building could have collapsed the way it did.

[Warpy]

34. There was enough crap in that building to burn hot

meaning carpeting, drapes, wallcoverings, plastics, wood, and tons of paper. My question has always been what started those intense fires in the first place. Burning bits of debris crashing through plate glass windows doesn't seem like enough of an ignition and wouldn't have raised the temperature of all the junk in the offices high enough to ignite. I could be wrong about that, a tire from the landing gear would certainly have done the trick. Hot sheet metal wouldn't.

The only theory about the collapse of that building that doesn't make a bit of sense to me is the controlled demolition theory. I know someone who does that for a living. It's a lot tougher than sticking a bag of dynamite next to a column, lighting a fuse, then running like hell. Firefighters who had been clearing the surrounding, damaged buildings of everyone inside would certainly have noticed a demolition team.

[Jara sang]

38. Suppose the demolition charges had been placed

weeks in advance. That is certainly possibly isn't it?

[tinrobot]

80. Have you ever seen a documentary

...on how these people actually blow up buildings for a controlled demolition?

They start by ripping down all the walls to expose the structure.
They drill into concrete columns and stuff them with explosives.
They put chain link around the columns to hold in the blast.
They cut steel columns to weaken the structure.
They put special explosives onto the steel they don't cut.
Then, they run MILES of wire through the building and hook it all up to a specialized system that sets off the blasts in the exact right order.

I find it hard to believe that someone could have done something like that in advance without being noticed. I also find it harder to believe that, even if someone did all that, that all that wiring would still work after being next to the massive collapse of the towers.

I'm sure someone will argue that one big bomb could have taken the building down. That may be true, but the failed 1993 WTC bombing proves a plan like that is not very easy, either. Besides, even if it was a bomb, why wait 6-8 hours after the planes hit to set it off?

[Zerex71]

85. However, the CIA or FBI field office was located in that building.

I have seen talk that that building was pre-wired in the event of "something like this" so that they could detonate the building and prevent anyone from obtaining intelligence from the debris. In other words, the wiring and demolition setup could have been done a long long time ago, not just in the week or so prior to 9/11.

Furthermore, if the government tells you you are going to wire an FBI or CIA field office to blow and tells you to keep your mouth shut about it, you sure as hell will, doesn't matter how many people saw any activity.

[stickdog]

86. Well, that's really strange when all they need to do is start a couple of

small fires!

[JackRiddler]

96. Thanks for making the point!

[Frederik]

62. Again, obviously, if it was indeed a demolition

then the explosives would have been placed there in advance. No one who suspects demolition believes the explosives were placed there on September 11.

[stickdog]

83. It's the only steel high-rise to collapse due to fire in history.

There wasn't much smoke to speak of, and some of the small fires that were apparent were burning on the bottom half of the building. From falling debris? Riiiiiiight.

Then it just collapsed neatly in its own footprint.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

154. not the only one....

There were 3 buildings that fell that day. None before. None since.

[barb162]

107. maybe the jet fuel splashed down to that building?

How many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were those planes carrying?

[madeline_con]

9. so the conspiracy nuts ...

Like firefighters stand around and worry about every guy in a hard hat in NYC. Give me a break.

[END_HATRED_NOW]

21. why do you have to...

why do you have to call people nuts just because they want to investigate something further?

[Rex]

119. Some people hate the truth.

Some people fear the truth. I hate to truly believe republicans have become the Nazi scum that they are, so I call them Repukes to alleviate the anxiety of me being right.

[QuettaKid]

48. actually, us "conspiracy nuts" think

that the "two weeks worth of drilling columns and placing etc" were done well BEFORE that Tuesday morning, hence MIHOP.

[Frederik]

61. No one suggests that

except your nice little straw men, perhaps. Those who suspect demolition, do of course suspect that the wiring and placing of explosives was done before the day of the attack. Which is, obviously, why it would be significant.

Your name calling makes it difficult to take you seriously, anyway.

[shanti]

71. and you DO know

who was in charge of security at the wtc on 9/11, don't you? not hard to see how this could happen as such.

[whatever4]

79. Yeah, conspiracy nuts...you mean it was a natural disaster?

Or can we agree it was a conspiracy of some kind?

Else you believe in truly wild circumstances, I must say

[Bridget Burke]

90. No, there was a Lone Gunman!

Anything involving more than one person is, by definition, a Conspiracy.

[stickdog]

81. Where were the flames or even smoke from these massive fires?

Just wondering.

[JackRiddler]

95. If you're going to spit at the "conspiracy nuts"

You might as well aim right.

Nobody thinks Seven was wired to pop on the same day it collapsed. (In fact, you may one day hear this as the Official Excuse.)

In fact, the impossibility of instant demolition is exactly what in many minds points to advance knowledge, i.e. that 9/11 was an inside job.

Yes, a subtantial number of 9/11 skeptics -- the people who question the Official Conspiracy Theory (that's "Mr. Nuts" to you) -- believe the entire complex including Seven was rigged for demolition long before 9/11, and that the videos of the three events prove that explosives must have been involved.

Here's a very well-done serious site that makes the case for intentional demoilition of Seven (and the Towers): http://wtc7.net

Here's an evil nutsy propaganda video using the insidious lure of rock-and-roll to seduce youth into thinking such treasonous thoughts (it's reaaaaally cool):
http://bushflash.com/swf/wtc.swf

The speculation is that WTC 7 was included in the demolition plan because it may have housed the headquarters for coordinating the attack, and/or to destroy the mounds of paper evidence held there by the SEC and other agencies, and/or with insurance fraud as a sweetener.

Speculation has been encouraged by a 2002 statement by owner Larry Silverstein who, even in full context, seems to say clearly the building was intentionally demolished.

Others entertiain the idea that the complex was wired to pop as a safety measure following the 1993 attack (so as to prevent a horizontal collapse on to other buildings outside the complex). As a result, I even read a fellow the other day who believes in demolition but not inside job.

[irancontra]

2. the 2 'OFFICIAL REASONS'

FEMA report says 'yet to be determined' or 'fires in the basement from surrounding damage'...



Larry Silverstein, owner of the wtc land, fumbled and said they "PULLED" wtc7 in the afternoon. He says this on 'rebuilding the nation' from PBS.


^^^^ sounds more logical.

[havocmom]

5. He also mentioned the WTC was not fulfilling its economic potential

With that in mind, those who call us conspiracy nuts might rethink some hard truths about money and power in America.

[hemp_not_war]

7. yes it was a controlled demolition

Larry Silverstein said as much, he said they experienced such a terrible loss of life they decided make the decision to pull, they pulled it and watched it fall. he said it in the context of 'pulling' as controlled demolition.

But it was admitted in a pbs documentary, why did he hide it from FEMA and everyone else? Why did he say he pulled it due to the terrible loss of life? Someone died in the takedown, so pulling it killed at least one more person, if not more, since it was not expected.

[i miss america]

35. Actually, it was expected to fall

On 9/11 I clearly remember a newscaster around mid-afternoon report that WTC7 was expected to collapse and it was just a question of when.

There are also several camera angles of the buildings actual collapse, at least three that I am aware of. It was common knowledge at the time that it was going to fall well in advance of the actual event.

From my research, the collapse of WTC7 was a clear cut case of MIHOP.

[stickdog]

88. RudyG was warned it was coming down well in advance. (nt)

[Frederik]

64. He probably meant "pull out the firefighters"

I doubt he would have admitted to the conspiracy and massive insurance fraud on PBS. And yes, I've seen the clip several times. I agree it's ambiguous, but I think it's more likely that he meant pull out the firefighters.

[JackRiddler]

101. how strange...

that he says, "so we made that decision to pull" -- the firefighters, according to you, "and then we watched the building collapse."

In your interpretation, would he really be saying, "and then we watched..." as though he expected it to happen right then and they were looking as it happened? Shouldn't he be saying, "and that was a good thing, because just then the building actually did collapse..."?

Do consider.

[Frederik]

136. I do agree with you

It is strange. Especially considering the fact that it took at least an hour from the firefighters pulled out to the building collapsed. Were they standing there for an hour staring at the building? But the thought that he would casually mention the demolition in an interview with the PBS is even stranger. Yet, perhaps he did.

[Snivi Yllom]

105. thats BS, he would never have gotten insurance $ if he pulled it down

he meant pull the fire crews

[Zynx]

128. This garbage again - "pull" refers to withdrawing the firefighters

[hemp_not_war]

150. do you have any further evidence?

that this is what he meant. Did he change his story? Because the special was about the pulling of buildings 3,4,5 and 6. When they reffered to pulling those buildings, it was in the context of controlled demolitions.

[madeline_con]

11. 'fires in the basement from surrounding damage'...

Like explosives placed there to weaken the structure?

[Ezlivin]

6. No.

Since no steel-framed structures have ever been known to fail due to fire, the official theory must supply enough evidence to account for three such failures on the same day. And although there have been other blazing fires in similar buildings, fire has not collapsed any steel-framed building since 9/11.

So 9/11 was a VERY special day.

[madeline_con]

14. So 9/11 was a VERY special day.

Yes, it's special. It led us inexplicably to attack Iraq, when the accused were in AFG. That is special.

:thumbsup:

[bvar22]

102. I don't put anything beyond the BFEE, but

the two towers were very special buildings constructed using what is essentially an exoskeleton of outside the perimeter steel support with only minimal internal vertical support. It is not only possible for them to collapse inside their own footprints, it is MOST PROBABLE that they would do so.

That does not explain the later collapse of WTC7, but anything close to the falling twin towers would have suffered significant structural damage from falling debris.

Did WTC7 collapse inside its own footprint?
I honestly don't remember.

I honestly believe in LIHOP, and probably HIHOP (Helped it Happen on Purpose), and even MIHOP. ALL of the above could have been initiated and perpetrated by a handful of people.

However, extending the conspiracy to include an unnecessary ground based demolition of the 3 buildings would have expanded the conspiracy to include active inside participation of hundreds of people, and the element of positive undeniable physical proof (the pre set charges) which could have been discovered by any one of thousands of bystanders over the course of several days (if not weeks).
I just can't rationally buy into this.

Just think about everyone who would have been IN ON IT for the controlled demolition to occur.
Janitors, night security, day security, the ever present building maintenance teams (several hundred varied individuals working for several contractors), almost everyone who worked inside the buildings, city inspectors, most of the fire dept and rescue workers (the evidence of controlled demolition would be obvious to pros)...and more.

If you don't include the unnecessary controlled demolition aspect, those in the know (those who know the WHOLE picture)can be kept to a handful, and most of them (Intelligence agents, operators, and military upper command) are under the daily scrutiny of the administration and their enforcers.

[spooked911]

142. You're wrong about the structure of the twin towers--

they had massive structural cores and it is still not apparent how the buildings collapsed as they did.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beaver Tail]

10. Building 7 was pulled

One year after the fall of WTC PBS aired a program where they admitted WTC 7 was pulled. My question is HOW IN THE HELL did they pull it in a matter of hours?

[irancontra]

12. they didn't do it in a couple of hours... they did it over time

leading up to 11/9. This was an in side job.

[Beaver Tail]

15. Exactly

It takes days if not WEEKS to set up a building to pull it. Can you say conspiracy?

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Gee, I know it might sound a little like a conspiracy theory, but

maybe someone knew this was going to happen, weeks in advance, and they had plenty of time to plant the charges?

[madeline_con]

22. Thank you, thank you.

For what I think is a reasonable assertion!

DU-ers are always talking about the sneaky underhanded M.O.'s of the DUH-bya administration, but some seem unable to wrap their minds around the idea of just how evil, for lack of a better word, a group like them can really be in the depths of their secret meetings and Pinky and The Brain ideas of world domination. 'Nuff said.

[Frederik]

65. Bingo

And it was well known. The FBI had precise information by April 2001, according to Sibel Edmonds.

www.justacitizen.com

Indira Singh, who was a rescue worker at the site, has said that they were told to move away from WTC7, by people from the NYFD, because they were going to "bring it down".

[END_HATRED_NOW]

16. Here's the big question...

Silverstein admitted one year later #7 was "pulled" because so many questions had come up & he was under pressure to admit it.As far as I'm aware though, it takes more than a few hours to set up a demolition, which leads me to wondering...

[madeline_con]

17. I have a question.

As usual. Weren't there airplanes full of fuel embedded in the towers?

I'm honestly not rtying to be a smartass, just trying to get it right in my head. So fsr, it stinks to high heaven, no matter what I read.

:shrug:

[irancontra]

23. if you look at the videos and photos closely

you can see that MOST of the jet fuel burns in the first 5-10 minutes... and this is only in WTC 1&2 not WTC7 or surrounding buildings.

YET 7 buildings came down that day.

also, at some point the fire became scattered enough that people could get to the gaping hole and stand there for a bit. Ontop of which FIRE HAS NEVER NEVER NEVER brought down a steelframed building.

BUT on 11/9 it took down not1,not2, but 3 major steel buildings WERE PULVERIZED!! what???????

[ryan_cats]

67. I was shocked

I was shocked when they showed that closeup of a blonde person standing in that gaping hole looking out. How hot were those fires again?
I wish I could find those photos.

[JackRiddler]

103. Not seven buildings

Three buildings came down, and that's quite enough.

The buildings numbered 2 through 6 were all eight-story structures surrounding the Towers at the corners. They did not come down, though a couple of them were more or less crushed.

[Beaver Tail]

25. Most of the fuel was

sprayed to the outside of teh building in 1 big fireball. The fires on the inside we not that big. If you watch the video of the WTC 1 and 2 you will see a lot of black smoke. This is an indication of a poorly burnig fire . i.e. low tempature probably 1100 degress or less. Construction Grade steel melts at 2700 degrees

[END_HATRED_NOW]

33. watch this video -PROOF 100%...you'll have your answer

THIS SITE HAS THE BEST VIDEO IV'E EVER SEEN THAT SHOWS ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF DEMOLISION EXPLOSIONS GOING OFF AS ONE OF THE NYC TOWERS' FELL....TAKEN FROM A NEWS HELICOPTER!

To see the video you will be required to download macromedia flash 7 player, but you can remove the active X file later from your computer if you want.(reccomended)

OPEN THE HOME PAGE, LOOK IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER FOR THE VIDEO CALLED,
"9-11 MYSTERIES VIDEO", ON THE NEXT PAGE YOU CAN CLICK ON THE FLASH PLAYER. it took a looooong time to download (39MB) but it's worth it if you want to see 100% proof the towers just didn't fall from heat or fire or the plane hitting it, this is it!

THE THEORY PRESENTED IS "EXACTLY" LIKE THE PLAN WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BACK IN THE 60'S TO START WAR WITH CUBA. IT IS DOCUMENTED IN THE NORTHWOOD TOP SECRET PLANS WHICH WERE RECENTLY RELEASED---THAT A PLANE WOULD LAND AND THEY WOULD SWITCH IT WITH A DRONE

ALSO PUT YOUR SOUND NOW BECAUSE WHEN THE PAGE OPENS, YOU WILL WANT TO HEAR BUSH SAYING HE 'SAW' THE FIRST TOWER BEING HIT....

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE, NO TV SHOW HAD AIRED IT @ THAT TIME!

http://911blimp.net/aud_ BushImplicatesBush.shtml

LOTS OF OTHER GOOD READING TOO!

.......northwood document page 11 actually reveals the plan....

http://emperors-clothes. com/images/north-11.htm










http://www.reopen911.org

[QuettaKid]

59. WOW!!!!

I have seen still photos showing those entire floors blasting out like that but never the video. Everyone should see that....That is just incredible. MIHOP in a BIIIIIIIG way.

[Coexist]

91. neither link working?

[Snivi Yllom]

99. except those are not demolition explosives

they are columns snapping

[END_HATRED_NOW]

110. & just how would you know that?

what is your profession? do you have a link to support that theory?
are you an expert in demolition? give us your credentials

[Snivi Yllom]

131. I have an engineering background

and have discussed all three of the WTC building collapses ad nauseum with other colleagues, whom all believe the fires/impacts caused the damage that brought the buildings down.

Not explosives.

[spooked911]

144. So how do they explain WTC7???

which of course was not hit by an airplane.

[Frederik]

68. WTC7

was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed in much the same way as the two towers that were. That's the big mystery.

[END_HATRED_NOW]

111. No not true

#7 fell from the bottom, but #1 & #2 fell from the top...big difference!

[cynatnite]

26. How can you call them 'small' when looking from the outside? n/t

[Beaver Tail]

36. Becasue of the amout of smoke

Lots of black smoke means the fire is being suffocated

Edited for typos

[cynatnite]

39. But how do you know there isn't a lot of smoke inside? n/t

[Beaver Tail]

The smoke was COMING from the inside

The outside was concrete and steel so they didnt burn

[cynatnite]

49. What I'm saying here is that smoke does tend to wander and...

not necessarily outside for people to see. There are hallways and other rooms. It's a big building. There's lots of places it could be at rather than going outside.

I just think it's too easy to sit back from a distance and say what's what when we're not on the inside to know for a fact.

It always seemed to me that between the fires and the damage from buildings 1 & 2 that it had to come down and they brought it down.

I also think that just because not every single question can be answered doesn't mean that something nefarious was going on. It's too easy to get pulled into something that would have taken a lot of people to pull it off.

I'll wait for someone to step forward before I can buy into MIHOP.

[Frederik]

69. WTC1&2

Buut, WTC7? Which was not hit by an airplane?

[iconoclastNYC]

76. How many people did it take to pull off the Manhattan project?

And to my knowledget that was pulled off in secret!

[hack89]

141. Except for the Soviet spies. n/t

[hack89]

143. Not necessarily...

black smoke also indicates burning plastic and other oil based synthetic material. Burn a pile of computers, cables and plastic/polyester office furnishings - what color smoke would you expect?

[stickdog]

92. Where's the smoke? (nt)

[Snivi Yllom]

106. see this

It was multiple fires on the majority of the floors uncontrolled.

Collapse of WTC 7

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[END_HATRED_NOW]

115. no, most reports say that the fires were only on floors 7 & 12only

[Snivi Yllom]

129. what is "most reports"? the conspiracy websites?

There is a clear description of the fires all over WTC7 in the link I provided. You can ignore the truth if you like.


from the report:

Observed Fire Locations ( Observed Fire Locations (11:30 11:30-2:30 pm)
General
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
observed on floor 23
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12;1 area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-121 moved to east face and progressed to the north


Observed Fires Observed Fires
Fires in WTC 7—which began soon after WTC 1 collapsed—were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9,
and 11 near the middle about half an hour before collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day.
East Face Fires on Floors 11-12 near 2 PM

[Ezlivin]

13. The official story is bogus

This handbook describes a full-scale fire test conducted on a 36m × 12m four-storey steel-framed school building on the premise of Perwaja Steel Sdn. Bhd., Gurun, Kedah in May 8, 2001. No fire protection was applied on the structural steel. The primary objective of the fire test was to study the behaviour of structural steel in real fire.

During the fire, even though the room temperature in the fire compartment measuring 15m × 9m reached more than 900°C, the steel temperature barely reached 700°C. Despite the elevated room temperature, the steel structure maintained its stability and integrity due to restraining effect of unheated steel members.

The test demonstrated the inherent fire resistance of unprotected hot-rolled steel framed building to justify the use of unprotected steel. Many fire engineers have agreed to include performance based concept in the construction industry as it has significant effect in reducing cost.

http://www.penerbit.utm.my/cgi-bin/katalog/buku.cgi?id=349

Notice how the "restraining effect of unheated steel members" maintained the building's integrity? Both of the WTCs had massive amounts of steel that was "unheated."

[END_HATRED_NOW]

20. the 9/11 Commission didn't even mention #7..why not?

[Ezlivin]

29. Because it wasn't as popular

Admit it: You've seen WTC 1 & 2 collapse a thousand times, but how often did you see the video of WTC 7 going down?

Out of sight, out of mind.

And most of our leaders are both.

[shanti]

73. because wtc7 was the clincher

n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Design and very high temperatures that made steel buckle

the buildings were designed to go the way they went. The steel melts at 2600 degrees, fuel for aircraft burns at 3000, care to do the math? It would not have collapsed, though it would have suffered serious damaged, if the planes hit close to the top... but they both hit two thirds up, which added enough weight to this.

As to MIHOP... yuo don't have to physically collapse the buidling yuo know to make it happen. Just don't do what you should to stop it.

[END_HATRED_NOW]

24. uh, we're talking about #7 not #1 & #2 towers

report on chemical analysis reveals explosives in two towers

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxC.pdf

[Beaver Tail]

27. Fossil fuels burn at 1800 F max under perfect conditions

And explosive can obtain a tempature of 3000 F

Edited for typos

[irancontra]

30. NO airplane fuel does NOT burn at 3000degrees.

As the FEMA “Building Performance Assessment” report says, “Temperatures may have been as high as 900-1,100 degrees Celsius (1,700-2,000 Fahrenheit) in some areas.”

Hardened steel such as that used in the WTC beams and girders needs temperatures of approximately TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED (2,800) degrees to actually melt

[Ezlivin]

41. See my post above

The steel did not sag or fail. The temperatures reached simply were not high enough for long enough. ("The official story is bogus")

[MadHound]

28. The "official" reason is essentially the same as for the Towers

That a structure, designed to withstand severe impacts, was weakened by falling debris. The steel supports in this building were weakened in this building by a diesel/office furnishings fire to the point where the building improbably became the third multistory building on the block to fall straight down into its own footprint that day:eyes:

Diesel normally burns at aprox 800-900 degrees Fahrenheit, without the benefits of compression. Structural steel only begins to weaken at aprox 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. In addition, like any other office building in NYC, those structures were filled with fire retardant drapes, furniture, carpets and other building materials. In addition there was a sprinkler system that was functioning that day.

But we're still supposed to believe the official story friend, unless one wishes to be considered a crackpot and UnAmerican terrorist sympathizer:eyes:

[Beaver Tail]

32. Jet fuel is kerosene

not diesel.

[MadHound]

40. Uh, yeah, I know.

The fire in WTC 7 was a diesel fire, from diesel stored therein. It wasn't a jet fuel fire. The diesel was stored for emergency generators for Guilliani's emergency command center he had at WTC 7.

[Snivi Yllom]

158. wrong, steel loses strength starting at 750-800F

http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/civil/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

[Karenina]

31. If you have ever seen

a controlled demolition or two or three... ;-)

[END_HATRED_NOW]

37. It had to be preplanned

1) Fiduciary employees trapped between the 90-97th floors of the South Tower told family members (via cell-phone calls) that they were hearing “bomb-like explosions” throughout the towers.

2) Video cameras positioned atop the World Trade Center which were used to feed daily images to local television stations were inexplicably inoperative that morning.

3) A Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower floors and escaped immediately after the first (North) tower was struck, reported that he was amazed by the large number of FBI agents that were already on the streets surrounding the WTC complex only minutes after the initial strike.

4) Last but not least, Ann Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust and now a board member of Franklin Templeton, had just arrived at a conference hosted by Warren Buffet at the Offutt Air Force Base (home of the U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska) when the 9-11 attacks took place. Coincidentally, later that day President George W. Bush flew into this very same base on Air Force One for “security reasons.” Even more chilling are the Offutt AFB ties to the CIA’s MK ULTRA experiments, Project Monarch, the Franklin Cover-Up, and the diabolical practices of Michael Aquino.

(Type any of these words into a search engine for more information.)

[babydollhead]

42. question...

What was inside of building number seven anyway?

[irancontra]

43. just a taste

25th Floor Tenants: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Defense (DOD), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

24th Floor Tenant: IRS

23th Floor Tenant: Office of Eemergency Management (OEM)

11th-13th Floors Tenant: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

9th and 10th Floors Tenant: US Secret Service

The rest of the floors are mostly banking, stock broker and insurance entities.

The building was 47 stories tall and collapsed perfectly late on the day of 9/11.

Source: FEMA report, Chapter 5.

[babydollhead]

44. so...

any important documents destroyed?

[stickdog]

93. Well, there WERE these pending SEC investigations of Bush's buddies ...

[Karenina]

45. And how about them

HELICOPTERS, just falling out of the sky, eh? :evilgrin:

[irancontra]

47. I've been thinking the same thing

:tinfoilhat:

[END_HATRED_NOW]

55. what helipcopters?

[shanti]

74. yeah, what helicoptors?

?

[END_HATRED_NOW]

50. for scientific analysis watch these videos...

Painfull Deceptions: An analysis of the September 11th Attacks

right click and save as to view, It will take awhile to load, but well worth it...

Part 1
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painful_deceptions-an_analysis_of_the_911_attack_part1.wmv

Part 2
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painful_deceptions-an_analysis_of_the_911_attack_part2.wmv
Part 3
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painful_deceptions-an_analysis_of_the_911_attack_part3.wmv

Part 4
http://www.reopen911.org/video/painful_deceptions-an_analysis_of_the_911_attack_addendum.wmv


Right click and Save as

[KurtNYC]

51. Rudy's bunker in the sky for one

NY TIMES 12/20/2001 City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."

[END_HATRED_NOW]

53. KurtNYC

so are you trying to tell us that the diesel fuel brought down the #7 tower?:thumbsdown:

[KurtNYC]

70. Nope - I didn't say that

they asked what was in the building - I cited the most famous occupant and the attention it got from the fire department.

[Up2Late]

46. The WTC7 collapse is probably the least well explained of all...

...that happened that day, I'll list, in a second, what I have heard about this building, but can I ask you first, what prompted this question?

I think I have finally figured out where all the "conspiracy theories" regarding 9/11 started, and would love to know, Did this question came to you after visiting a particular website?

I'll post what I know in a separate post.

[END_HATRED_NOW]

52. No #7 is the easiest to figure out..

The Pentagon is the worst to figure out

[Frederik]

72. I strongly doubt

that "all those conspiracy theories" had one single source...

When dramatic incidents happen, which are not satisfactorily explained, and there is a lack of willingness to share information with the public, and and a lack of willingess to go after the alleged perpetrators, and the incident is used to justify a series of policies which the incumbent administration had wanted to do but would have had trouble doing had the incident in question not occurred, people will start asking questions.

[Snivi Yllom]

100. you may want to read this offical 42 page report

Collapse of WTC 7 (42 page report)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[mopaul]

54. the plane shot down in Pennsylvania was meant for Bldg. #7

but didn't make it, so they imploded it anyway.

crackpot theory

[END_HATRED_NOW]

56. how do you know that?

I would think that the Penn plane was heading for Camp David or the nuclear facility, that's why they shot it down

[KansDem]

57. "Has there EVER been a realistic explanation..."

...for the Kennedy assassination?
...for the Oswald murder?
...for the Robert Kennedy assassination?
...for the MLK assassination?
...for the Vietnam War?
...for the Nixon pardon?
...for Iran/Contra?
...for 9/11?
...for Election2000 and Election2004?
...for the DSM?
etc.

And I'm not saying "official explanations." We have those on record. Those are very different from "realistic explanations."

[Up2Late]

104. "...for the Kennedy assassination? Yes, but it's not the official one...

...and may have already been suppressed by Law suites by the family's named.

A few years ago, The History Channel produced a 8 part series of Documentaries called, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

It finally offered the first logical location for the 2nd gunman, and the reason he was able to get away and not be seen. If you ever see the B&W films from that day, look for the one where the Motorcycle Cop lays his motorcycle down at the curb, and then runs up the hill. He lays it down next to a very large storm drain, the kind that are about 4 ft wide and sort of look like a flat "pillbox" (in the military "pillbox" sense). That is attached to large drainage tube (Approx 6-7 ft. diameter) which drains into a drainage ditch after traveling about 150-300 feet underground.

In every film I've looked at, the view of the drain is obstructed, and I've never seen a report that investigates this hiding place that, once you know it's there, seems obvious.

And Yes, the angles match all the previous research and visible (8mm) evidence when it is all added together, plus it matches the "...Back and to the Left" visible evidence that Jim Garrison spoke of.

I taped some of the films, but I can't remember which ones, I think this info was in the last one, which I don't think I taped.

[Solar]

58. Mistake in the melting of steel.

Steel melts at a higer temperature than burning jet fuel but that does not mean the fire did not cause the collapse.

The steel didn't have to melt to cause the collapse. You are wrong if you think steel (or any other metal for that matter) maintains it strength up until the melting point. Steel gradually loses its strength as it gets hotter. Blacksmiths are able to forge steel at anywhere from 1200-1800 F (http://people.howstuffworks.com/sword-making5.htm">link At this temperature the steel has not melted, but it is soft enough that you can hammer it into shapes.

Bottom line: even though the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel into a liquid, it was still hot enough to cause the steel to loose much of its strength and collapse.

[END_HATRED_NOW]

60. seeing is believing

it doesn't matter all this talk about temperatures of steel melting...watch the movie in my post #33 here in this thread, you will actually see the demolition explosions as the tower comes down...it's done in slow motion

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. exactly

[QuettaKid]

66. not only will you SEE THEM....

they are highlighted and as PLAIN AS DAY!!

[END_HATRED_NOW]

116. that movie was the turning point for me to believe it was a conspiracy

[Solar]

75. Dust cloud

The impact of the planes against the towers obviously created a large amount of dust/debris, and its obvious that a lot of that debris managed to spread. The lobby of the WTC towers were actually dangerous places because of debris falling through the elevator shafts, its possible that some fuel traveled that far as well.

The "primary explosion" was the effect of that pulverized steel/concrete/other debris being forced out by the collapse. Drop a box onto a pile of dust and watch it mushroom out. Air has to go somewhere, some of the air in the elevator shafts or staircases could only get out by going down and out at lower parts of the building (those "small explosions you claim).

Keep in mind the the Trade Centers had a unique design of "express elevators." They only stop at every 20th floor (Im not sure of the exact number) and "local elevators" go on from there. So its possible to have an uninterupted flow of air pressure for 20 stories.

[MadHound]

89. Trouble is friend, jet fuel and diesel both have the aprox. same temp

At which they burn, between 700 and 1000 degrees F. Well short of the temperature needed to even weaken steel. In addition, realize that the fire was being suppressed, both in the Towers and WTC7. Fire retardant materials covering the steel beams, fire retardant carpet, drapes, furnishings, etc. In addition, all three buildings had a sprinkler system that was up and running, further suppressing the fire and cooling it down on that day.

I'm sorry, but I cannot be a coincedence theorist. You know, the coincidence that all three buildings collapsed virtually straight down into their own footprint. That all three buildings were are the only steel structures in history that have collapsed due to fire. The coincidence that this all happened on the same day. I just cannot suspend my disbelief enough to become a coincidence theorist.

[Snivi Yllom]

138. buildings that large cannot fall any other way BUT straight down.

Structures that large cannot fall like a tree chopped out from one side. If you paid attention in physics you would understand this.


FYI, the sprinklers in the WTC were destroyed by the impact of the planes. Sprinkler risers severed, so there was no water to supress the fires. Aslo, sprinklers are not designed to put out large fires, but to supress them until fire crews can put them out. We all know no fire crews had the opportunity to fight the fires.


The fire in many areas was in fact close to 1000C (1800F). You are wrong about the temperature at whcih steel in weakend. Analysis has shown the structural details at the WTC was vulnerable to temperatures s low as 400C (750F)

All office materials are combustible, even the fire retardent materials given enough time and fuel. See this video for a full size test mockup where they mocked up a typical WTC office space, and statrted a fire. See what happens.

B-roll

Video showing various aspects of fire tests of truss elements similar to ones in the WTC towers. (May 7, 2003)
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_validation_tests.rm

Video showing recovered WTC steel, early WTC computer simulations and microanalysis of steel. (Aug. 21, 2002)
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCb-roll_Stop.ram

Video showing fire test of mockup WTC office environment with multiple workstations—from two camera angles (December 2003)
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_firetest1.rm


and if you really want to understand how the tower fell read these:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_Part%20IIA_WTC_Collapse_Analysis_Final.pdf

[MadHound]

155. Gee friend, then tell me,

If buildings that large can ONLY fall straight down into their own footprint, why do demolition expert take weeks to precisely place carefully calculated charges in order to insure that such large building go ONLY straight down into their own footprint? Why don't they just throw in some charges at random points in the structure and let "physics" take its natural course?

I would suggest that you speak with some demolition experts before you go and spout anymore foolishness like that, for your lack of knowledge in this area is glaringly obvious. I HAVE spoken with a few demo experts, and the reason that they do such careful placement of charges is that if they didn't, the building would indeed slide off to one side or another and fall off to the side. In fact every demo expert I've talked to is absolutely incredulous that not one, which defies the odds in and of itself, but three buildings, damaged in vastly different areas, all fell virtually straight down into their own footprint. That is defying the laws of physics friend, perhaps you should be the one going back for a few refresher courses.

As far as the sprinklers go, yes, they were working, according to eyewitnesses<http://www.mjbarkl.com/locked.htm><http://www.framerate.net/wtc/john03.shtml> Granted, some sections may have been knocked out by the impact, but apparently they were working. And yes, you are correct, they're not going to put out a large fire like the WTC, but they will help in the suppression effort, and thus lead to an over all cooling of the fire. In addition, if you listen to the tapes of the firefighters on the scene, in the towers, you will hear them calling for only three lines. I'm a former firefighter, and when you are calling for only three lines, I don't care what size the lines are, it means that the fire is one that can be controlled.

In fact, NIST with support from the folks at Underwriters' Labs ruled out the fire as a reason for the collapse of the steel beams<http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php>
<http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf>
<http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php>

In fact, in the historical records, the only total collapse of a steel frame high rise occurred on Sept 11, and then there were three of them, all within a block of each other, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. You may believe in coincidence theories friend, but I don't.

And don't trot out the tired old canard of the towers getting hit by a plane. Yes, they did, but the towers were built to withstand such an impact. They built them to withstand the biggest airliner of the day, a Boeing 707, whose technical specs(weight, length, height, wingpan, etc) are virtually identical to those of the planes that hit the Twin Towers.

And yes, fire retardant material can catch fire, I never said it couldn't. However the net effect of all that fire retardant material is the fire is slowed down, and burns cooler.

Sorry friend, but the closer you look at the facts, the stranger the official story becomes. The official explanation is starting to smell as bad as the Magic Bullet theory did after the Kennedy assasination. It took sixteen years, and the work of hundreds of people before the government officially stated that the Kennedy assasination was a conspiracy. Seems like that it is going to require as much time and effort, if not more, before people wake up to the truth of 911. You may not wish to accept the facts of 911, nor the implications of what those facts show, but I suggest that you start bracing yourself now. For more and more people are speaking out, and what they say exposes the Big Lie for what it is.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

94. Meanwhile, the typical MAXIMUM temperature for office fires is 1300 F

which explains why no other steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.

[geniph]

77. That behavior was by design

oops, I guess I've been working with software too long.

However, that being said, most skyscrapers are built to do just that if structural integrity is seriously compromised; they're built to pancake rather than fall over to minimize the damage to other properties.

[END_HATRED_NOW]

121. then withyour theory, why didn't #7 pancake, hmm?

[Zerex71]

82. The conclusion was that Larry Silverstein, owner of the building,

had it pulled on purpose, which means it was wired with explosives well prior to the event. Draw your own conclusions. Also, the more I think about it, both WTC1 and WTC2 fell straight down in a manner very much like WTC7, so I'd like a scientific explanation why it also could not follow that those buildings were wired as well.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

84. Slow day in the 9/11 forum? n/t

[OrlandoGator]

133. I didn't even know there WAS a 9/11 forum.

n/t

[Zerex71]

87. I have some questions for the group:

1) What group of scientists/physicists/engineers did a/the study on what caused all the buildings to collapse?
2) Where can their scientific/mathematical report(s) be found on the web?
3) Who were they funded by?

[Kraklen]

97. A fucking skyscraper fell on top of it.

I'm sorry if my scientific jargon is too complicated.

[JackRiddler]

108. except that it didn't

Other than that no skyscraper fell on top of it - at most, debris hit the lower sections - and NIST has confirmed as much in their assessment of the damage: no core columns affected!

[Kraklen]

114. Actually, that's the opposite of what the NIST concluded.

Debris hit all up an down the building, knocking out walls and an essential support column. You can check out the link to the NIST powerpoint file below. Nice photographs and everything.

[bpilgrim]

122. WTC7 was not crushed by the towers and it fell in it's footprint -> FLASH

http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=50&pos=2

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Kraklen]

123. Sure, the WTC fell in its footprint.

And all around the footprint.

Everybody who saw the footage can tell you it fell every which way.

[bpilgrim]

124. here is another video --------------------------> SEVEN

by Michael Kane "Seven"
http://www.shadowgov.info/videos/wtc7.mov

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[bpilgrim]

125. once you realize that there were SELF-DESTRUCT contingency plans for 7

why wouldn't there be plans for the known targets 1 & 2

answer -> there WERE.

peace

[Kraklen]

127. Why change the subject?

Is that your modus operandi? Get debunked on one point, quickly ignore it and move on to something else?

[bpilgrim]

137. i thought the subject was wtc7?

besides, i am doing what i always do... just pass'n the word.

:hi:

peace

[femme.democratique]

163. You haven't "debunked" anything! Spouting CNN speak is more like it.

WTC 7 was demolished. There is enough evidence to support this, visual and otherwise. What is it you're not comprehending?

[JackRiddler]

135. You have changed the subject...

He said WTC 7 fell in its footprint - not the Towers.

[Zynx]

130. WTC1 and WTC2 each have collapse energy equal to a tac nuke

Obviously it is released much more slowly, but you would certainly expect something as close to them as WTC7 to take a very large amount of damage.

[bpilgrim]

139. even a NUKE causes DIRTY collapses not CLEAN collapses

that is the biggest TELL of all in regards to the WTC collapses.

here's an example...

The Hiroshima Peace Dome

peace

[Boxerfan]

145. Failures are RANDOM!!!

Ok,the WTC 7 is my favorite 9/11 example as it removes the jet fuel & plane impact VARIABLES from the collapse eqaution.

In any example of problem solving eliminating the variables is the key...That is what makes WTC7 "special".

Lot's of good info on the sights listed above... But I think the point youre trying to make on the Hiroshima photo is failures are not "neat". That is my point exactly. Failures are RANDOM & if the steel did fail due to high temperatures it would do so in a random fashion.The steel didn't melt BTW,not nearly hot enough & I know. I cut & weld & bend steel all day long. I have seen plenty of failures due to heat,stress,impact duration cycles etc...The WTC7 falling into it's footprint was a demolition. No doubt about that.

It was after viewing the WTC7 collapse that it sunk in that the bastards had actually done it. No if &'s or buts the bastards had it all planned. That's why we have to fight with every breath we have & not stop till they are a distant memory.

The main thing to worry about now is the NEXT PNAC event to justify Nukeing Iran.

[Snivi Yllom]

98. yes, very detailed summery can be found here:

One column failed. the column was a key column at a transfer girder. When that one column failed that's all she wrote. Fire damage,and structural damage.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Enough here to make any conspiracist cry uncle.

http://wtc.nist.gov

[JackRiddler]

109. au contraire

I'm working on this exact material right now and it's got obvious deficiencies.

[Zynx]

132. Such as?

[JackRiddler]

134. I'll announce the article when done...

[Up2Late]

113. Here are a few more.

<http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf>

<http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm>

These people have lost touch with reality. When a large sealed building collapses, the windows that ARE broken, act as pressure release ports, which forces the smoke filled air out (which is what they are seeing that look like explosions).

It's because of these people inability to let go of disproved theories that we can't make any progress on this subject.

[stickdog]

152. What theories have been disproven by what evidence?

Just wondering.

[Dancing_Dave]

162. WHAT A TOTAL SUCKER!!!

Or are you just another pathetic hired PR gun for official lies?

If you don't understand that FEMA is lying and destroying evidence, you are just a stupid sucker. If you are hired to pretend you don't understand that FEMA is lying what their motive for lying is you are evil and abominable and deserve whatever tragic fate awaits you in the coming world and civil war based on such mass deceptions. You have to make the most ultimate existential choice a person can make here, and do you REALLY HAVE NO FUCKIN' CLUE WHAT THAT ULTIMATE EXISTENTIAL CHOICE IS??? Are you just pathetic or totally evil? In either case, you would be one of the ones that just totally deserve the tragedies sure to come to most of us soon unless we are able to face this great deception.

[stickdog]

151. There's NOTHING there but tenuous speculation.

Where's tbe metallurgical examination of the supposed failed column?

[lala_rawraw]

112. No...

Many will tell you that the "the ground was hot" or some BS equal to that. I lived roughly a block from ground zero. I was in the area only 3 weeks later... there was no reason for #7 to fall. And, of course the owner admitted that he demolished the building due to safety concerns after 9/11... small problem, he would have had to wire the building prior. Treason for some is a blow job and for others it is the planned murderer of Innocent Americans in order to achieve political capital.

Hell is awaiting them and if not, then history awaits them.

[cthrumatrix]

118. but but the 911 commission would not ignore something...would they?

[Solar]

117. fire-suppresion systems

As stated countless times, the sheer force of the impact blew off a lot of the fire-proofing on the steel. Having a 767 slice through half the building pretty much gutted the entire sprinkler system. The buildings were primarily built with an exoskeleton and the impacts severely damaged them.

It is true that no other buildings have colappsed in the mis manner, but you have to concede that no other 110-story exoskeleton skyscrapers have been intentionally hit by 767s fully loaded with fuel.

[lala_rawraw]

146. The owner

of the building said he had to bring the building down because the infrastructure was weakened, but that would mean he would have had to wire the building either the night before or during the twins' falling, which is highly unlikely... no other buildings... not EVEN Liberty One Plaza, which was directly connected via courtyard and which even swayed a bit on 9/11 after the attacks, came down... it is the really tall black shiny building that you saw on the news... like black glass... NOT even that building came down... in fact, workers were allowed back very quickly thereafter... how do I know this? Because one of my offices was in that big shiny building.

[Snivi Yllom]

156. Silverstein never once said he had to bring the towers down

that's a lie and he never said it. He would not have gottne one dime of insurance $ to rebuild WTC7 if he had intentionally demolished the building.

If you are talking about the Deutsche Bank 130 Liberty St building it was in fact heavily damaged by falling debris, but it did not fall after it even had a few exterior columns ripped away.

The reason? A robust redundant structural system. WTC7 failed because a major column gave way at a vulnerable point, over a transfer girder. you lose that one column, you lose the building.

[lala_rawraw]

161. Um, wrong

2002 PBS documentary ‘America Rebuilds’:
Silverstein:
“I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of
life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made
that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

[stickdog]

153. As stated countless times, NO PLANES hit WTC-7! (nt)

[lala_rawraw]

160. I will say again.... WTC 7

Was not hit by anything other then the wired crap that took it down. As for that "kind of fire" let me tell you that "that kind of fire" should have scorched the entire courtyard all the way across Broadway and even on to Liberty or even Wall. Instead, it was a crater...I saw it, very well I might add... I crater. Now what makes things fall down in stacks, makes a huge crater, but does not affect any of the immediate area around it? Anybody? Not fire alone. That is like the theory that the Pentagon was hit by something that magically dissolved into thin air because of the heat but the fucking grass in the immediate area was not singed... sorry, the laws of physics do not get to be suspended for a day just because someone simply says it to be so.

My husband has his undergraduate in engineering and my father in physics. I have an uncle who was a nuclear physicist also. Not them, nor any other person I have asked with the ability to explain this scientifically were able to say that the official story made sense. Not one of them. Granted, they have no clue for sure what occurred, but they have speculated as to the probability of what most likely occurred based on how the buildings fell, or how fires burn and in what circumstances such events could occur, etc.

Now, add to that the odd reality of the people and events that followed shortly and you would have to be a complete and total twit to for a moment think that a conspiracy of 19 guys, working out of a cave, got into the states, took flying lessons, got millions of dollars to support their lifestyle while here, sent some back even, boarded planes on which many navy high level officials and other high level officials were flying, took the planes over by boxcutters...FUCKING BOXCUTERS... and learned to fly like a Star Wars character within moments of taking the planes over, finally crashing them right on target.

Rule of thumb, the simpler the better... the bigger the easier to cover up.

So start from the physics and find one physicist (not on payola) who will tell you that the official version of events is correct scientifically or even possible... just one.

Then, find one person to tell you how the FBI, CIA, and so forth not only missed ALL OF THE WARNINGS given to them by their own people, and other countries, but also managed to allow these guys to take "fly, but not land" lessons... managed to not notice that amount of cash going across countries and not notice the massive amounts of insider trading focused on an airliner? Can anyone tell me how that is humanly possible? One error, okay, two maybe... this many and to this extent? Never.

Of course there is so much more to say on this topic, but given that this is restricted to WTC 7... then again, nothing hit 7, nothing was melted or on fire around 7, and the buildings right at ground zero almost did not go down... building 7's owner admitted to taking it down because he was worried about safety of infastructure... so... short of being hit on the head with a 2/4, what other information is required to explain that building 7 was a controlled demolition?

Anyone?

[mirrera]

120. The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Also read Crossing the Rubicon.

[The Straight Story]

140. could the collapse of 1 and 2 have weakened it by shock/quake?

It certainly seems quite likely that 2 large masses falling near another, smaller, mass could have affected the stability and integrity of the building.

[philb]

147. Official version doesn't explain all of the documented explosions

and fires in the basements and throughout the buildings;
nor does it explain the pictures of explosions and the huge dust clouds expelled upward and outward by the explosions;
nor does it explain the molten steel in the basement that was hot for 2 months.

[Solar]

148. wait a minute

Wait a minute how would "molten steel in the basement that was hot for 2 months" be an indication of a demolition?

[leftofthedial]

164. there has never been an official realistic explanation of anything

that happened on 9-11-01