Evidence of NO controlled demolition at WTC 7

[LARED]

From

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

A time line of WTC 7 collapse



According to the CNN video, the global collapse did not start until 8.2 seconds after the building started to fail.

If the building was imploded via a controlled demolition as many CT’er believe, then why does the collapse of WTC 7 not behave like a controlled demolition?

In a controlled demolition the structure’s support system is simultaneously or nearly simultaneously removed in a way that causes the building to fall in its footprint. This includes ensuring redundant structural elements are destroyed allowing the structure to collapse quickly.

The timeline for WTC7 indicates the collapse happened is spurts and jerks as one load from a failed area is redistributed to other areas of the structure. Then that overloaded area fails, causing another area to take up the load, until there is not enough redundancy remaining in the structure to prevent global collapse.

This timeline is very strong evidence that the collapse was a sequence of failure events overloading the structural system and NOT a controlled demolition.

[Griffy]

1. DID you read the WHOLE thing.. are you and engineer?

I am and I did and I guess you missed this on page 29 ...

"Massive size of columns 79, 80, and 81 appears to require severe
fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures"

I have experience in construction and materials, and have writen and presented reports like this. And this line is interesting... What I get from this erport is how the towers collapsed, they are trying to find a reason these main columns collapsed. Facts are observable, as in the video clearly shows which columns failed and in what order. The report is a draft and the horizontal failure concept is weak and they know it... you can read this and see they dont know why it happened, however those with closed minds.. ON BOTH SIDES.. will see this as supporting their closed view. (you know im right) The scientist will see this as more facts and more questions, for instance... we can now ask "why did those specific columns fail?" this question is more specific than "why did WTC7 collapse?" because this report connects those 2... WTC 7 collapsed because columns 79,80 and 81 gave out at the base. Do you see now how this works.. and how you need to keep an open mind to find the truth, because once you start looking for facts to fit your idea you will find them, and not the truth.

NOW... my opinion is this information opens a new possiblity, that if controlled demo was used it may have been done in a few hours, simply a few charges at the main columns. Since the area was already evacuated and the building damaged (sorry folks, but it was damaged and on fire, though that fire and damage wasnt enough to down the building) a few men could rig a few charges and the result would fit the facts. My mind remains opne and I continue to ask what really happened to WTC7.


oh and what happened to the 2004 elections..
.. and what happened with intel in the lead up to war...
..and.. and.. and.. with liars in charge, you cant ask too many questions!

[LARED]

5. Yes, I am an engineer

I have twenty plus years of experience as a ME. No, I did not read the entire report; perhaps 80 percent of it.

While it is true they do not, and will unlikely ever have a definitive failure mode(s), my purpose was to point out that what was seen was not a controlled demolition, as many CT'er have convinced themselves that is what happened. Controlled demolitions do not occur in a manner consistent with the time line for WTC 7.

As for a controlled demolition being deployed in a few hours, I doubt it was possible. As you point out the building was damaged and on fire. This concept of setting up in a few hours would most certainly require significant preplanning. How would you plan this not knowing where the damage would be or where the fires would exist. Far too many variables to have been planned in advance or at the spur of the moment.

[Griffy]

6. not if you dont need percision... like military demo mission...

the need for the building to fall perfectly was gone.. the mission would be to pull it. So you have a few people plant a few charges, this scenario is possible, but these are just opinions...

I think we agree that the main point here is to provide a rational voice without the overtones of personal opinion. To that end you seem to believe there was no explosives planted, that might be true. But the hatred believers of an inside job are getting is unfair, and though some people are a little off the wall, its no different then the sheep that think the election was fair and 911 was some sort of massive failure of all our defenses. I would point people to the Gulf of Tonkin to see some history of blatant government lies to support war. Most people dont know history, or science... be patient with them, aim to inform not convince... people are smarter than you think, they just seem dumb because they have fiction rather than fact.

My exapmle of this is the Schivo case, if you believed she was in a coma, you would be outraged at the pulling of the tube.. AND SO WOULD I... BUT, thats fiction, she was in fact braindead, this difference in facts makes all the difference in the world.

So please help me inform people of the facts we see and the science around it.

We dont know exactly what happened... YET!

I highly reccommned the recent 911 hearing with Cynthia McKinney ..

[hack89]

15. The firefighter were monitoring a bulge in the building..

for hours before the collapse. How does such damage fit into a controlled demo?

[Griffy]

27. Easily.. people go in and plant them and leave...

I dont doubt the damage to the building .. but reports are clear about how it collapsed. The buldge is irrelevantto what caused those specific columns to fail...

certainly you dont believe it COULDNT be DONE? that would be ridiculous, what really happened is the question.. .and demo is still a possiblity since we dont have a clear mode of main column failure.

... and criminals in the WH.

[hack89]

40. So in the middle of a fire..

people were planting explosives and running det cord and no one saw them?

Interesting theory.

[Griffy]

51. WHAT theory? there you go.. making it about how.. not what!

I have questions that are real, like what caused those columns to collapse?

Why cant you seem to understand this, what happened is not the same as why or how. I talk about what and you respond with why and how, do you see my point? Some force caused that column to fail, thats the question! 1 theory is that the diesel tank exploded or somehow caused the failure. Another theory is a human planted a charge at the base of those columns, if you dont believe there are people that would and could do this your just as blind as those that cant admit that some chain of natural events led to the collapse. Can you see this?... If you are an engineer you would!

Also, you use the word theory like a layman, hmmm.

.. and to answer your remarks, not every floor was on fire, and remote detenators are possible, and as for no one saw them, um.. are you kidding, everyone was running the other way... and someone might have seen it! I have seen video of firemen saying they heard sounds like a controlled demo, so if its about witnesses... Follow the facts, people can see the virgin mary on a slice of bread, so I believe physical evidence more! you cant find answers by making up scenarios... the facts show a failure of SPECIFIC columns, and as of yet neither you nor NIST can explain the cause of this failure! Stop trying to figure out how or why this happened, if your truly an engineer, you should be able to focus on what happened!

[hack89]

61. Physical evidence huh?

You are right - how about we start with a chemical analysis of all that dust that was spread over lower Manhattan. There must be plenty of chemical traces of explosives to be found there. And I know for a fact that there is still plenty of it laying around. Curious that no enterprising 9/11 "researcher" did this earlier - bush would be in jail by now.

[Kevin Fenton]

2. Bad explosive demolition

"In a controlled demolition the structure’s support system is simultaneously or nearly simultaneously removed in a way that causes the building to fall in its footprint. This includes ensuring redundant structural elements are destroyed allowing the structure to collapse quickly."

I agree that this is the way controlled demolition is supposed to work. However, I would argue that the demolition of WTC7 was a rush job, not planned in advance, and that there was not the time to do the job properly, which explains why it deviated from the norm. Also, the building was damaged and on fire, perhaps this hampered the bombers somewhat.

[LARED]

9. Are you trying to make the case that

WTC 7 was demolished without being planned in advance?

The way I see this, you are saying the building is damaged and on fire, but someone without planning, got the materials, the layout plans, found multiple people to risk life and limb going into a burning and damaged building to plant some explosives in areas that may or may not not accessible.

Plus you are also implying that the "squibs" seen in the upper floors are not part of the so called demolition, as a rush job, would not allow the explosives to be planted in upper floors in a burning building.

While I guess in theory this happening is possible, but it frankly stretches believability into the realm of fantasy to grasp at this scenario, but not being able to believe the building failed simply because of fire and damage to a uniquely designed structure.

[Kevin Fenton]

28. My case

When I say it was not planned in advance, I mean I don't believe that there was a plot before 9/11 by the administration (or anybody else) to destroy WTC7 (or WTC1 and WTC2 for that matter) and that the administration did not specifically plan to bring the building down with explosives that day. Possibly there were plans (or preliminary studies) developed for some other purpose related to the destruction of WTC7 by explosives.

I am trying to make a case that the three buildings were destroyed by explosives, but that the Bush administration did not plan it all in advance just so they could invade Afghanistan and Iraq, pass the PATRIOT ACT, etc.

I find the idea that the explosives were planted in advance in WTC7 unlikely. If they were planted in advance, then why wait for hours to set them off? Also, it seems that WTC7 collapsed in a different way to WTC1 and WTC2, which to me indicates that the explosives may have been put in at different times and/or by different people.

Was there enough time?
American 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46, WTC7 collapsed at 5:20. There was therefore 8 hours and 34 minutes to plant the explosives in WTC7. I'm not an expert in explosives (or construction) but this seems quite a long time to me.

Was the building too badly damaged to place explosives in?
The initial fires seem not to be that bad. The sprinkler system was not compromised in the way it was in the Twin Towers. Some of the damage was caused by the fall of the Towers, which would have given anyone preparing WTC7 for demolition an hour and 10 minutes of peace to work in at the start.

[petgoat]

42. "why wait for hours to set them off?"

I'd guess it is to give the impression that fire can bring down
steel-frame buildings.

Kevin, I don't understand what your theory is about why WTC7 would
have been demolished at all.

If the Bushcists had a reason to do a quick-and-dirty job on 9/11,
wouldn't they have the same reasons to plan it in advance?

One person on these threads is suggesting that flight 93 was supposed
to hit WTC7. That its flight path seemed aimed at Washington seems to
contradict this, but I suppose could be explained by an improvised
change of plans after their takeoff was delayed.

Taking WTC7 with the three successful attacks as a set of images, you
see they all work together to create a certain "shock and awe" and
fear and an impression of a desired legend.


1. Airplanes can fly into tall buildings. My god! None of us who
work in tall buildings are safe!

2. The fire-in-the-cave hellhole image of the Pentagon shots builds
the legend of the raging smelter-like inferno that flaming jet fuel
can produce

3. WTC7 collapse image says: "See? Unconventional steel-frame
structures fall down all the time! You don't even need raging jet
fuel infernos. A little diesel fuel is sufficient."

[Kevin Fenton]

44. Various

Why wait?
"I'd guess it is to give the impression that fire can bring down
steel-frame buildings."
The other possible reason is that they were not placed in WTC7 at the time of the attack and the decision to destroy it was taken later. It therefore took several hours to get the building ready for demolition. The two reasons can even be combined.

"Kevin, I don't understand what your theory is about why WTC7 would
have been demolished at all."
Most probably:
(1) There was something in it directly related to the attack that needed to be covered up, i.e. some sort of control post for demolishing WTC1 and WTC2.
Or possibly:
(2) There was some stuff that somebody just wanted to get rid off in the building - there were lots of sensitive documents, etc.
Or maybe even:
(3) They thought it was a great danger as it was going to fall down anyway, so it was pulled.

"If the Bushcists had a reason to do a quick-and-dirty job on 9/11,
wouldn't they have the same reasons to plan it in advance?"
If they had known in advance, they might have. However, I'm arguing they wouldn't have planned it in advance and did not do so. I don't think anybody is inherently evil, not even Dick Cheney. People do evil stuff for basically three reasons (1) they are desperate (2) they have a perverted value system (3) they see an opportunity and can't resist it. I argue (3) is the case here. Gross simplification of what I'm claiming: The VP sees the burning towers on TV and says, "Hey, if they fell down, we could invade lots of countries." He then destroys them with explosives put there to stop the towers collapsing all over Lower Manhattan following a 1993-style attack. Meanwhile, he's called Rummy and told him to sit on his hands.

"One person on these threads is suggesting that flight 93 was supposed
to hit WTC7. That its flight path seemed aimed at Washington seems to
contradict this, but I suppose could be explained by an improvised
change of plans after their takeoff was delayed."
I don't think there was a plan to hit WTC7, but if there was, United 23 was a better candidate than United 93. This entry is taken from PT's timeline:
"Shortly after 9:00 a.m., United Airlines Flight 23 receives a warning message from flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger. Flight 23 is still on a Newark, New Jersey, runway, about to take off for Los Angeles. Apparently in response to Ballinger's message, the crew tells the passengers there has been a mechanical problem and returns to the departure gate. A number of Middle Eastern men (one account says three, others say six) argue with the flight crew and refuse to get off the plane. Security is called, but they flee before it arrives."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

"Taking WTC7 with the three successful attacks as a set of images, you
see they all work together to create a certain "shock and awe" and
fear and an impression of a desired legend."
(1) Most people have never heard of any WTC7, let alone know it collapsed that day.
(2) Such attacks would give us a set of shocking and awful images no matter which three targets they were directed at.

[petgoat]

72. Damn Good Post, Kevin! Thanks!

I'm glad to see somebody thinking outside the LIHOP MIHOP box!

[mikelewis]

3. So essentially, they're saying...

that 1 or 2 structural beams inexplicably failed and the entire building collapsed straight down at near free fall speed. They also state very clearly, "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition." How can they be sure that explosives weren't used since they have no explaination as to why those structural beams failed? We already know the buidling collapsed because it lost structural integrity, what is not clear is why it lost it in the first place. All this timeline suggests is that the East stuctural support beams collapsed and then 7 seconds later, the west collapsed. What they are not offering is a good reason for this to happen.

This is consistant with a controlled demolition as it would allow the building to collapse in on itself. If you take out the center most pillars, the interior of the buidling starts to collapse first, as the inside of the building collapse, they could have blown the remaining supports. This would allow the remaining structure to fall into the hole created by the removal of the intial support columns. If they had blown the building's support simultaneously, the debris would have fallen down and out, not down and in as it did. Sorry, Lared but your post only cements the idea that this was controlled demolitions.

[Griffy]

7. Proving my point.. see facts to fit idea..

though I think something happened here, I am not letting what I think happen cloud the facts as they emerge. You are connect in that the report is not sure why the COLUMN (beam is horizontal member) first failed. So like all good reports it creates as manyquestions as it answers, but we get a little closer to the truth! Please help me focus on the truth, its is in real facts that we will convince the masses... but the more we act like we know, the less credible. Same with the poster who is trying to convince us of his OPINION rather than honest presentation of the facts. after that, we can speculate, but to be honest we must show distinction between opinion and fact.. otherwise we are like fox news, where opinion to them is fact...

Lets wise up and solve this together!!

[philb]

4. Does anyone have videos or evidence of substantial fires or damage?

Owner had WTC7 pulled
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
so why is there still discussion?

Evidence fires and damage were small(this is all I could find)

http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#wtc-7

anyone know of videos showing major damage?

[hack89]

8. Accounts of heavy damage from on scene firefighters..

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl...

[philb]

10. what debris was falling on the building? And where is a picture of the

damage? None of the pictures I've seen showed much damage.
though I don't deny that such evidence might exist.

How could a pancake effect cause damage to a building a full block away and behind other buildings? How far does this imply some debris was blown by the explosions in WTC1 or WTC2?

Wasn't this a crime scene? Why didn't authorities take a few pictures to document the damage and to assess the crime?


Another article by an expert:
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

[LARED]

12. Pictures of damage

[hack89]

14. Show me a picture of a pristine south side.

And your debris question is a joke right? How far from WTC 1 and 2 was WTC 7?

[philb]

22. WTC7 was a block away, I've seen the pictures; so how far was it

from WTC1 to WTC7. Looks like a significant distance to me.

And how far would materials be thrown due to pancake effect?
I don't see that it would be very far.
My point was that if something went all the way more than a block,
there had to be a major verticle force.

And explosions are the only one that I think likely to propel debris vertically that far.

Thanks for the photos; I haven't seen these before. But the fires still don't look very bad from what I can see. The picutes I had seen were of upper half of building, but gave no indication of much smoke. I'm pretty sure I posted the URL of 2 pictures of south side of WTC7, but another building blocked view of the lower part. There was no indication of damage to the upper half.





The pictures aren't good enough to assess possible structural damage to the building.

[hack89]

38. Picture of heavy fires on south side...

Best depiction of damage to and around WTC7 I have seen:

1. Start with fig 5-20 on page 17. Shows you the camera angles for all the subsequent photos. Note that the debris from WTC 1 extends past WTC7 all the way to 30 West Broadway.

2. Figure 5-17 on page 20 shows smoke pouring out of the south side of WTC7. Those are not minor fires and would seem to confirm firefighter reports of six major fires in WTC7. Note also the extensive damage to the building next to WTC7 - proof that debris fell far enough to hit and damage WTC7.

3. Figures 5-13 and 5-15 shows extensive debris around WTC7 from WTC2 before WTC 1 fell. Lots of debris.

http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_ch5.pdf

Also consider that WTC6 was smashed by debris from WTC 1. Are we to believe that a building just across the street was left completly unharmed?

Look at figs 4-9 and 4-10

http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/14914.php

[philb]

71. WTC6 was between the towers & WTC7 ; & firefighter reaction strange

WTC6 was between the towers and WTC7 and then a street, and WTC6 took a huge amount of damage and had fires and didn't collapse; same for other of the buildings at the site closer than WTC7.

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree.

I still haven't seen evidence of structural damage to WTC7 sufficient to cause a collapse. But it seems the evidence wasn't around long for analysis, and some people seem to have provided misleading statements and information.

And the firefighters reaction to not fight the fires or turn off equipment is strange, but maybe they were in shock from what happened at WTC1 and WTC2. While there was a 20 inch water main that was out on Vessey street, that area has lots of water lines and water mains. I didn't see that they made much effort to find an alternative water line or main, which is what firefighters do here when one source isn't available. But I can understand that they might have been in shock since things were happening that day which didn't seem to match reality, that had never been known to happen before. And they had lost some friends.

[petgoat]

73. It Seems To Me Strange That the FEMA Report Didn't Mention

all this structural damage that the NIST report claims.

[janedoe]

74. Wait a minute, and you may see it change.

As far as I know, all of the reports are still up for discussion. i.e. They want to get a feel for if it will fly, before they call it the final report.

Doesn't that seem strange, in itself? Who's driving the ship, here? I've often wondered if there is some legal aspect to this -- something like "speak now, or forever hold your peace."

For WTC7, I think the finalizing date is in December 2005 (please correct, if otherwise). If I didn't know better, I'd think they were trying to test what they could get away with. ...Wait. Don't I know better?

Why do they need the public to "help" with their report?

[LARED]

11. Did you ever consider that

a reason video regarding WTC 7 is scarce is because WTC 1 & 2 had collapsed long before WTC 7 collapsed. The area near WTC 7 must have been quite hazardous and most likely secured by police and fire department.

[StrafingMoose]

13. OK, so are we to ignore what Silverstein

meant to say by "we decided to pull it." ?

I'm not saying Silverstein comment is the soul reference to the issue, but how would that square with something else than controlled demolition?

"pull it" as "we decided to evacuate it" ?

[LARED]

16. We should not ignore it

We should examine it

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Lets see. The fire department commander calls to tell him they cannot contain the fire. He tells him with the loss of life today perhaps the best thing to do is to "pull it."

So either this means pull out of fighting the fire or it means pull it; IE, demolish it.

It seem unlikely he is telling the fire commander to start a super secret plan to demolish the building. In the context it is clear that Silverstein mean pull out of fighting the fire.

[StrafingMoose]

17. OK, clear...

To you. But I think I'll keep this Silverstein comment just under my elbow, since he wasn't very clear about what he meant when he was asked to clarify this statement.

EDIT: Being a french speaking man I need to ask the question, wouldn't it be "pull out", no "pull it" if he meant to get out of it?

[LARED]

18. I think I can answer that question

I work with many European colleagues and they often find the vagaries of American English very confusing.

As I understand it the French are very careful with their language, while Americans are quite sloppy. We seem to make up new words all the time, We currently have something like 750,000 words or more and use them in different ways in different parts of the country. As an example the drink called Coke is called Pop, Soda, Coke, and Soft drink, interchangeably, mainly depending on what part of the country you happen to be in.

We also tend to abbreviate words and sentences to suit ourselves. We are just plain unruly with our language.

In short Silverstein using pull it rather than pull out does not mean much. BTW, "pull it" is not a common term meaning demolition in any parts of America.

[StrafingMoose]

43. Ok, so

it is reasonable that he meant pull it, like "pull it < fire team > out of there".

But would that have really been "the smartest thing to do" (according to the "fire department commander) to let a fire rage and totaly destroy the building unless you KNOW it will fall in it's footprints whether by design or by bomb rigging?

Without the foreknowledge of the "footprint freefall", that would have been the most stupid thing to do. It could have endangered MORE lives and bring MORE desctuction, the reasons why Silverstein and the fire dept commander initially agreed to "pull it" (whatever that means)

[LARED]

45. Huh?

How would letting the building burn endangered more lives?

The area was evacuated. WTC 1 and 2 had already collapsed. Not fighting the fire was CLEARLY safer than fighting it. That's why they pulled out.

[StrafingMoose]

46. Just picture what would have happened...

If this building didn't fall in its footprints. This eventuality was part of the WTC 1993 bombers' plan...

[LARED]

47. Yes, I can picture it

possibly more broken buildings, no additional dead firemen or civilians.

Now picture continuing to fight the fire, = more dead firemen.

[StrafingMoose]

48. Ok, so they let the fire rage

and in the same day, it falls in its own footprints, like 2 other buildings.

I'm just puzzled... Are those building _designed_ to collapse like that? Designed so the fire dept commander could say "It's safer to not fight it and risk a collapse on other buildings and thus spread the fire to other buildings?"


I'm not condemning the firemen's choice, but saying that letting a fire rage in a huge building straight in Manhattan is safer than fighting it should be a statement made in very specific circumstances.

[philb]

24. The standard usage for "pull it" is controlled demolition

as seen from firefighters talking in the same tape that contained this quote.

and other sources

[LARED]

29. On what planet? (n/t)

[philb]

23. Lets see, what was it the fire dept. commander said?

"they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire"

Is that the same as you say?
"The fire department commander calls to tell him they cannot contain the fire"

Not quite?

But it seems pretty clear to me that he's suggesting "pulling" the building, which we know means controlled demolition.

There seems to have been little, if any effort to save the building.
Why??

[pauldp]

26. Your erroneous assumption is a "super secret plan".

It's possible they decided later to cover up the controlled demo for any number of reasons. Possibly because people were starting to question the collapse of buildings 1 & 2 or for some other reason.

[LARED]

31. So

the fire department knows about, and planned to demolish WTC 7, but have now decided to cover it up and has gotten every NYFD fire fighter to keep quiet. You also managed to skip over the evidence telling us there was no controlled demolition.

Lets see, what is more credible? 1, Your assumptions or 2. the building collapsed from a long uncontrolled fire, damage, and a unique design.

I'm voting for number 2. What about you?

[StrafingMoose]

33. Quiet?

Why quiet? Maybe the 911 Commission just didn't ask them? And to them, they are just told the fire is not containable, let's pull it. Why would they run around screaming 'conspiracy!' ?

[pauldp]

34. Wasn't there and FBI gag order for Firefighters as well? n/t

[StrafingMoose]

36. That's what I heard about Lou Caccioli...

also, but lately he said no one ever told him to shut up. They just twisted his words in the 9-11 Commision inquiry. But he did say he heard explosions between or before the real plane impacts. Can't remember, but what he sais doesn't nicely fit in the OCT.

[pauldp]

37. why would "every NYFD fire fighter " have to be kept quiet?

Not every fire fighter would have to be in on the decision.

"You also managed to skip over the evidence telling us there was no controlled demolition."

Let me ask you LARED, do you think there are ANY similarities between the collapse of WTC7 and a controlled demolition? If so what aspects do you think look similar to a controlled demo?

[LARED]

41. Ok, not every firefighter would have to know that WTC7

was previously setup for controlled demolition or set up for demolition in a few hours. But, if you are going to believe that Silverstein meant demolish WTC 7 when speaking with the fire commander then you are going to have to admit that quite a few firefighters would have to either known or have seen something. As that they have all somehow been kept quiet about what would be an amazing story if true.

Regarding similarities between a controlled demolition and the failure of WTC 7, there are of course many similarities. The global collapse looks just like a CD. Of course you are aware that just because different things look similar does not mean they are the same.

So what do you make of the non controlled demolition behavior of the sequence of failure?

[pauldp]

49. First of all I would like to see the video they are referring to.

Do you have a link?

Second of all. I think this evidence presented by NIST is WAY TOO LITTLE WAY TOO LATE.

So we have an unexplained collapse with similarities to a controlled demolition. All of the physical evidence is destroyed and 3 1/2 plus years later some video analysis is released in an attempt to explain the collapse. Video which is probably similar to video that has been dissmissed by so many adherents of the official explanation as "inconclusive internet video".

The time to make the case for collapse due to fire was when the steel was lying on the ground.

AT THIS POINT NO EXPLANATION CAN RISE ABOVE THE STENCH OF THE DESTROYED EVIDENCE.

Regarding the Firefighters possibly being kept quiet:
I'm sure you are aware that one of the main hypotheses being presented with respect to 911 is that it was a massive inside job with potentially hundreds of people in on it and potentially hundreds more being intimidated and/or bribed. Why would keeping a few more Firefighters quiet be different than any of the other players?

[StrafingMoose]

50. And it's also...

just a visual analysis of a CNN video with a NIST stamp on it. I call the analysis fact, but not evidence that totally refutes anything but a normal collapse.

[mikelewis]

58. self-delete - Dupe

[unschooler]

115. Can you point me to the original source for the Silverstein quotation?

[LARED]

19. more

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and
found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s
Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible
for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations;
however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s
capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the
stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed
the situation and the following conditions were identified: 393, 394

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order
was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were
withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some
three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[philb]

25. How far was there a failure of the water supply system?

Was there no alternative supply of water to fight the fires?
There wasn't much they could do at WTC1 and 2, there would be no survivors there. so it seems they would try to save the still standing and least damaged building in the group, that housed a lot of important agencies and info.

Were some of the agencies able to get any of their files, etc. out?

its possible that if one chooses to not fight fires, and if there had been significant structural damage; these together might result in collapse of even a steel framed building. But its never happened before.
What does the NIST report say about the structural damage?

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[seatnineb]

30. How could firefighters have physically searched floors

....1 to 9?

When even by their own observations:

Floors 6, 7, 8, were on fire.

Were the fires on floor 6,7, and 8 small enough to allow fire fighters to walk through them and get to the 9th floor where the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director.

[LARED]

32. Sorry wrong

floors 6, 7, 8 were not on fire, there were fires on those floors. Big difference.

OBVIOUSLY, in a building as large as WTC 7 you could have a large fires on a number of floors and search a large area of a floor.

[seatnineb]

52. Those were small fires then........

The NIST made a mistake.

You can clearly see floor 12 on fire....whilst floor 11's(2 darkened windows) fire has died out.




But the NIST says that floor 11's fire was still burning 1/2 hour before the collapse......and it was floor 12 that was burned out!

[Griffy]

53. Dont bother LARED with facts.. his mind is made up..

or paid for... I challenge others to comb 911 forums and tell me this guy doesnt spend alota time trying to convince people we are on the wrong track. Im a mechanical engineer and I can see through his bunk. I dont know what happened to WTC7, but I can see from the NIST study, and others that we can clearly see which columns failed and when.. what NO ONE KNOWS is WHY those columns suddenly gave out. The fact that he never even admits demo is a possiblity tells me all i need to know about the openess of his mind! and that goes for you people that are sure you know what happened too... we dont know all the facts, and most experts are afraid to put forward idea that can get them fired.... this is the real world and if you think you know the answers, your fooling yourself.

America need the truth LARED..

you cant fool all the people all the time!

[carlvs]

55. I can say the same thing about you CTers... (nt)

[hack89]

62. self deleted

[LARED]

69. Really, you can see through my bunk? Please elaborate

tell me where I am posting "bunk."

[hack89]

54. I am trying to figure out why this is important...n/t

[seatnineb]

56. 2 reasons.

1)The fires were small enough on floors 6,7, and 8 to allow firefighters to actually go to floor 9.

2)The NIST obviously fucked up the chronology of when the fires
on floors 11 and 12 burned out.

Photos reveal that the fire on floor 11 burned out beforethe fire on floor 12.

Yet the NIST says that the fire on floor 12 burned out before the fire on floor 11.

[hack89]

57. And how large was each floor in WTC7?

If only half of each floor was on fire won't you still consider that big fire? I would.

And the NIST making an error proves what? Since when have government organization been perfect and infallible?

[janedoe]

59. Where does the oxygen come from?

To fuel a "big fire," you would need a "big" amount of air.

[hack89]

60. Read my post 38

Look at the picture of the south side or WTC 7 with smoke pouring out of many floors. Look at WTC 6 just across the street, which was smashed to pieces, and ask your self if just maybe some of that debris flew a few feet more across a city street and did significant damage to the front of WTC7 - maybe even broke a few windows.

I understand in the CT world it is all about connecting the dots but logic is the glue that holds it all together and right now you are using library paste.

[janedoe]

65. I don't see smoke pouring out of WTC7

I definitely don't see flames or a "raging fire" pouring out.
Note the last picture in post #12. There is black smoke adjacent to the building, indicative of a fire that's oxygen starved. The white cloud next to it appears to be from a different source.

What I see is with Fig 5-17 is the bank of dust cloud, coming from the collapse of one of the towers. The cloud bank is to uniform adjacent to the building as well as with depth, and it looks thicker away from the building than up against it. Note the position of the sun and the angle of the shadows. Compare that with figure 5-20 and the length of shadows.

7.17 was taken from the west and 5-20 was taken from the north.
They state the picture was taken at 3:36pm, but I don't buy it.

[hack89]

66. There's still the issue

of eyewitness accounts of both damage and fires.

[vincent_vega_lives]

108. Fire experts abound

Here we go again with the "oxygen starved fire" and black smoke. Black smoke can indicate the type of fuel burning as well, like synthetic materials and plastic. Tell me how many office fires you have experienced that didn't have black smoke.

[seatnineb]

64. If the fires on floors 6,7 and 8.....

...were not large enough to deter the firemen from actualy being on those floors.......then how did these same fires compromise the structure of such (as you say) a huge building?

[hack89]

67. Well, perhaps because the fires burned and grew larger..

for several hours after the building was abandoned. You know - hours after the fire fighters were on those floors.

[Kevin Fenton]

76. Combustibles

The fires might burn and grow larger after the firefighters left. Indeed, it seems they certainly did continue to burn. However, they should not have continued to burn in the same places, but should have moved from one area where combustibles were exhausted to another where there were fresh combustibles. This means that heat cannot have been applied to the same parts of the same columns for all that time. One of the problems at WTC1 and WTC2 is that the impacts provided extra combustibles (the plane parts) and may (probably did to a certain extent) heap the existing combustibles. The damage from the collapsing towers was not nearly so severe in WTC7 as the plane impacts in WTC1 and WTC2 and the debris which entered the building certainly lacked the "combustible-heaping" qualities.

[hack89]

77. What is the fire loading of a typical office space..

and how long does it take to burn out? It's a real science - why don't you use some real facts and calculations?

And can you also show me in the Madrid fire this phenomena of a small fire moving from one part of the building to another as fires burn out? It certainly looks to me that many parts of the building were burning for many hours.

[seatnineb]

78. Wrong.

This is WTC7 from the east side.



Floor 11's fire has burned out.

Floor 12's fire has diminished emanating from 9 windows and now fires only emanate from 6 windows.

The NIST says that fires on floors 6,7,and 8 were observed from the southwest side.

But it can clearly be observed from the eastern side that floors 6,7, and 8 HAVE NO FIRES.

So much for your fire spreading.

[mandog]

79. What about the north, south and west sides?

Did I miss the post where Hack89 said that every square inch of every floor was burning? Do you have pictures of all the sides taken at the same time? Wouldn't that settle the issue?

[seatnineb]

80. The question is whether........

...those fires on the North,South and West sides actually spread to the eastern side.

But here is a photo of the Western side.



Whilst there is noticable damage ,there is at this juncture,no fire.

[mandog]

81. Ok...

and you can prove that the fire did not spread after this picture was taken ? A one second snapshot (literally) of a 7 or 8 hour event is a very week foundation for some very sweeping generalizations. Do you have a time lapsed sequence of pictures so we can actually see the events you claim happened (or did not happen as the case might be).

Judging from the smoke there certainly seems to evidence of heavy fires within the building regardless of what side they might be.

[seatnineb]

82. Now we are talking!

If the NIST can provide photographic evidence of the fires on the southern and western sides that their anonymouse eye-witnesses claim to have seen....then their weak generalizations may be substantiated....

Well....it's been nearly 4 years.....and we are still waiting to see either photographic or video evedence showing the fires on the western and southern sides.

P.S

The smoke that you refered probably derives from the 2 rather tall buildings known as WTC 1 and 2 that have collapsed.

[mandog]

83. So you have no real evidence for your views?

I fail to see the logic that poking holes in the official account somehow proves your theories right. Don't you feel the need to have evidence independent of the the official story before you can claim that there in no doubt of demolition?

[petgoat]

85. "poking holes in the official account"

Seems like one of the basic tests of a witness/suspect's veracity in a
criminal investigation is: does their story keep changing?

Seems to me that's what we've got here. FEMA says they can't explain
the collapse (and Appendix C has this amazing corrosive attack on the
steel and presence of mystery sulfur).

Then NIST comes along and says there was a massive hole in the south
side. How come FEMA didn't know about that?

[seatnineb]

86. No.......It is the NIST who say that there were raging fires.....

Here are 2 fires on the North side.



But these fires on the north side had burnt out just seconds before the building collapsed....

[LARED]

87. The areas on fire is not visible in the second image

because the are hidden by the building in front.

[pauldp]

20. So why was the steel scrubbed from the site?

A bizarre collapse - is there anything similar in history? - and no attempt was made to check for the possibility that there might have been explosives or even to see why the building failed. This on its face is VERY suspicious. This is not the way disasters are normally dealt with in this country so why was NONE OF THE STEEL FROM WTC7 retained?

[Make7]

105. Some of the steel from WTC7 was retained.

pauldp wrote:
...so why was NONE OF THE STEEL FROM WTC7 retained?

According to this document, pieces of steel from WTC7 were inspected and some set aside for further investigation. Some excerpts:

____________________

"WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study."
____________________

"...the engineers searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC 5 and WTC 7. They also checked for pieces of steel exposed to fire. Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members:

• Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
  
• Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
  
• Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.
  
• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections, single shear plates, and column splices.
  
• Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured, and/or that appeared undamaged.
  
• Floor trusses, including stiffeners, seats, and other components.
  
• Any piece that, in the engineer’s professional opinion, might be useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations.
  

The engineers were able to identify many pieces by their markings. Each piece of steel was originally stenciled in white or yellow with information telling where it came from and where it was going."
____________________

"Pieces that were searched for and inspected include perimeter or core columns near the impact area of WTC 1 or WTC 2, burnt pieces from WTC 7, and connection pieces from WTC 5..."
____________________

"Figure D-14 WTC 7 W14 column tree with beams attached to two floors." (Caption of top picture on page 11. Note: marked SAVE.)
____________________

"Figure D-17 Seat connection in fire-damaged W14 column from WTC 7." (Caption of bottom picture on page 12.)
____________________

-Make7

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

106. That is true. I remember seeing photos of people selecting beams but,

those pieces of steel went to a private lab in Colorado. It's been so long I can't recall where the photos were from or the name of the lab. I found it disturbing because those selected pieces were in private hands and not in the hands of the FBI. They were being tested for strength and not being examined as the evidence they were.

[Make7]

107. The document I posted said that at least 25% went to NIST.

That is the first I've heard about any steel going to a lab in Colorado. Seems odd when there are labs that are much closer that could do the job. Was there something special being done at that lab?

-Make7

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

110. Is the NIST in Colorado? Are you saying 25% of the steel from the WTC?

Please let me know as that sounds dead wrong. I recall that it was a small sampling.

The lab was going to test the steel and were only working on safety issues for the future.

[Make7]

113. No, I meant that 25% of the saved samples went to NIST.

According to this FEMA report they had sent about one quarter of the saved samples (which is a small sampling) to the NIST lab in Maryland:

____________________

Conclusions and Future Work

The ongoing volunteer effort of the SEAoNY engineers is securing WTC steel pieces that will provide physical evidence for studies on WTC building performance. As of March 15, 2002, seventeen engineers, visiting four salvage yards, have identified approximately 150 pieces. Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7. Documentary photographs and videos have been taken and coupons collected.

Future studies are expected based on the pieces and data collected. Coupons have been collected for metallurgical tests to determine the temperatures to which they were subjected and their steel characteristics. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is currently conducting environmental tests, abating asbestos as necessary, and shipping available pieces to its Gaithersburg, MD, facility for storage and further study. As of May 2002, a total of 41 steel pieces had been shipped to NIST.

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

____________________

Maybe they have some test equipment in their lab in Colorado that they don't have in Maryland so they sent some of the samples there for more comprehensive testing.

From what I have seen, the testing being done was to find out about fire/temperature exposure, the extent of reduction in strength of the steel, and also to find out where and why structural failures occurred. Which, of course, is all related to gathering information to improve construction techniques in the future.

-Make7

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

112. I just did a search and there is an NIST lab in Boulder. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

116. I believe these are the photos although I think they were originally

from a different site.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_apndxD.htm#D.5

[Make7]

117. That is the report I have been referring to.

Go to section D.5 and then compare it to my excerpt from Post #113. Sound familiar? :)

I had an embedded link in my first post in this thread.

It's from a FEMA report, although I got it off the US House of Representatives website.

-Make7

[MrSammo1]

21. Reality bites! Graze peacefully!

===============================================================
The Sheeple mindset;
They absolutely  refuse to accept even the most convincing proof because they dare not admit to themselves that they have been lied to by officials in whom the placed their trust.
===============================================================
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html

[hack89]

39. Thanks for the wonderful insight n/t

[MrSammo1]

75. You wouldn't understand insight

If you saw it!

[StrafingMoose]

35. "Evidence" of why the fire could have done the job...

"Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only
one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the
building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location
of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one
zone, “AREA 1.” The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at
6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is
being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the
result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. NIST was told by the monitoring company that for
systems placed in the TEST condition, alarm signals are not shown on the operator’s display, but records
of the alarm are recorded into the history file."

OK well, who placed this on TEST mode? Was there any planned maintenance? If so, why didn't the alarm system switched back on "ACTIVE" mode right when the 1st tower was it?

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf (pg28)

[spooked911]

63. That alarm TEST seems rather coincidental and may well have been cover for

whatever really happened with the building.

[janedoe]

68. This has the "classic fingerprints" of "these terrorists"

Where have you seen this MO before?
(MO=Method of Operation)

Golly, doesn't this, by itself, raise a big red flag?

[StrafingMoose]

70. Just by pure curiosity...

Anyone seriously investigated the allegation that Marvin Bush was running the security for the WTC complex, right up until 9/11 ? Anyone knows what is "the company" to which the WTC7 building sent a signal to?

[Kevin Fenton]

89. Not especially relevant

You can find an article about marvin Bush here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

He was on the board of directors and possibly owned some stock as well. I doubt it's particularly relevant.

[StrafingMoose]

90. Maybe...

Not relevant to Marvin Bush, but the fact that around 6:45am the alarm system has been put to "TEST" (for 8 hours) mode might be a clue as why the fires (if any) got big enough to make the structure crumble.

Why wasn't this system put on active mode right when the 1st tower got hit? Who did that, for what reasons?

[pox americana]

91. very suspicious

But note that even though the alarm system may have been disabled, the automatic sprinkler system was apparently operating.

(I Googled that point yesterday, and found some passages from the NIST report discussing the WTC7 sprinklers -- basically trying to explain why they didn't do what they were supposed to do, but admitting that they did -- quoted on other websites.)

[petgoat]

95. Marvin Bush As Former Stratesec Director

The fact that the company was capitalized by the Kuwait-American
Corporation is certainly interesting.

According to wikipedia, Marvin Bush was also a director of HCC Insurance
Holdings at the time he was a director of Stratesec/Securicom. HCC was
involved in the insuring of the WTC complex.

[mikelewis]

92. When you put a system on test....

You contact the central station and give them a time frame that you want them to ignore the signals. This is routinely done when doing an inspection or changes to the fire system. In a large commercial applicatoin, it's rare that the entire system is placed on test. The systems are generally seperated by floors or sections and can be tested individually. I actually do this for a living so I know what I'm talking about. It is odd that they would put the entire building on test. It's not a very smart thing to do. To test an entire building at the same time for any length of time exposes the servicing company to a huge liability. What if a floor catches fire and the system doesn't report it to the monitoring station? I talked to a few people at work today about this and they all agreed that this was very odd.

[mikelewis]

93. Also, the statement about the alarm not reporting the location is BS

Unless the system has been disabled or reprogramed they will send in the signals of the zones that are in alarm. In a commercial fire application, these signals are used to pinpoint the general area of the fire. The national average for a fire report is 4 minutes, that's 4 minutes from the time the fire starts to the time the fire department is putting it's boots on. In a system that is properly installed and meets code, each zone must be listed and supervised for any trouble conditions or failures. For them to say that the system provided no information is complete crap. The system has to provide complete information, it has no choice unless it is unable to communicate or is disabled. There can be no other possibilities. A system on test only means that the monitoring station will ignore any incoming signals not that the system won't transmit them.

It is very unlikely that the system failed to communicate because most of the larger systems are required to have 2 forms of backup telephone lines and either a cellular or radio frequency backup. Since the cellular phones were experiencing trouble, you might think this would interfere with the alarm transmission; not so. Cellular alarm backup transmits it's signal on the data side of the cellular signal and does not require the higher frequency voice connection. As long as there is a signal bar on the cell backup, it will transmit unless disabled.

[mikelewis]

94. The alarm system didn't switch back to Active because...

it usually a timed event. When you put a system on test, they ask you how long you would like to remain on test. The amount of time varies from company to company that they allow you to put a system on test without faxing over a written request. This is a CYA policy that every major alarm company requires. Once the timer runs out on the test mode the system automatically begins normal reporting practices. This all takes place on the Alarm monitoring stations side, not the site location. To get an alarm system not to send signals, you have to disable the dialer and the backups. It's frightfully odd that they would put an entire system on test for 8 hours. It's reckless and probably against the law, at least in Cleveland it is. That company who put that system on test should be fined big time for doing that. It is really a big deal. A fire marshall would pull your license in 5 seconds flat if he found out you did something that stupid in an occupied building. The place would have had to have been evacuated and there's no evidence of that. Something stinks with this story.

[pox americana]

84. The only problem with this right-wing conspiracy theory

which is what this is (the firemen let it burn!) is that the building's fire sprinkler system apparently operated to control and extinguish the small floor fires which mysteriously broke out.

[StrafingMoose]

88. So anyone put their hands on this "CNN Net Dub 7 47.avi" file yet?

They analyzed a compressed video (AVI) and I want the same.

[LARED]

96. A recap

I posted what I thought was evidence that WTC 7 was not destroyed by controlled demolition because the sequence of the building failure PRIOR to the global collapse was not indicative of a planned or controlled demolition. The best the CT’er could muster in response is summarized below. I thought it instructive for that group to see how weak their arguments really are.

• The sequence of failure does not fit a controlled demolition because it was a rush job. It seems at the last minute someone decided it needed to be "pulled", so someone scurried into the building while on fire, and evacuated, setting explosives and no one saw anything.
  
  
• Why bother discussing the idea that real evidence indicates no controlled demolitions took place as Silverstein said “pull it.” He said it, hence the end of story.
  
  
• Because the NIST does not have a definitive failure mode controlled demolition is still a possibility. Here’s a news flash for you, it is highly unlikely anyone will ever have a definitive failure mode.
  
  
• Of course there is always the ever present fallacy that if no photographic images exist showing the information that CT’er insist must exist for controlled demolition to be off the table, then controlled demolition is the only possibility. That logic is sort of like my wife is pregnant, I’m sterile, but there are no pictures of her in the act, so she can’t be pregnant.
  
  
• WTC 6 didn’t collapse from fire so it is not possible WTC 7 can collapse from fire.

IMO these are not a very convincing rebuttal to the observation that WTC 7 did not collapse as it should have if it was a controlled demolition.

Thanks for your time.

[Papa]

97. What a bunch of hot air there....

It's amazing the mental gymnastics you must go thru to ignore the evidence as it's been laid out to you.


The building came STRAIGHT THE FUCK DOWN. Fires don't do that, end of story. Larry Silverstein said they pulled it, they looked like they pulled it, and there's visual evidence to conclude they pulled it (the demolition squibs). I didn't' want to believe this stuff either but seeing visual evidence of it leads me to no other conclusion, THEY PULLED IT, they brought it down with explosives. I can't ignore it. The fire did not burn long enough or hot enough to bring down that building. That's like trying to boil a pot of water with just one match, it's not going to happen.

Your points of view might have more weight with me if we had the evidence to inspect why the 'failure' occurred and figure our just why it LOOKED like a controlled demoltion....but they carted off all the debris without letting anyone inspect it!!!!! WHy WHy WHY WHY?

I guess I can understand why you resist this evidence that contradicts the official story because if you believe that the WTC7 biding was brought down with explosives then that means they planned the whole damn attack and that means so much more. The whole world you thought you knew disappears.

Your arguments are not very convincing so far in addressing why it's not a controlled demolition. It's interesting that your screen name spelled back wards is DERAiL ....

That's what if feels like reading your posts about this subject, you are frequently off track.

Thank you,

Have a nice day.

[petgoat]

99. Mental Gymnastics

Papa: "if you believe that the WTC7 biding was brought down with
explosives then that means they planned the whole damn attack"

Good characterization of those who refuse to consider all the options
and thus come to unjustified premature conclusions: "I will not
consider that they planned the whole 9/11 attack and therefore there
was no controlled demolition." Linking those two propositions is
illogical.

The possibility that "explosive tenants" installed explosives in the
WTC towers has never been investigated. Many tenants used offices
for warehouses. The possibility of explosive tenants in WTC7 is a bit
harder to swallow, given the presence of offices of the FBI and CIA
and Secret Service in the building, but nothing is impossible.

But someone was suggesting that the towers were set up with explosives
so that in case of disaster, like they were bent in a hurricane, they
could be brought down before they fell down. He said that they only
detonated when they started to collapse. Any such process would have
been controlled from Rudy Giuliani's disaster bunker in WTC7.
Then I suppose WTC7 would have been brought down to destroy the
evidence of Rudi's demolition job. In other words, maybe they're
covering up something relatively innocent, like they're covering up
(perhaps) the shooting down of 93.

[spooked911]

98. Since there have been a great many posts all dealing with similar topics

I think many of us "CTers" didn't jump on this thread.

But basically the answer is that: WTC7 collapsed exactly as one would expect for controlled demolition. Look at the videos.

Yes, part of the penthouse goes first, then there is a pause, and then the global collapse starts. That hardly rules out controlled demolition. It merely suggests that the sequence of the demolition charges was off.

You nor any one has explained how the collapse of a few columns on one side of the building by fire leads to a smooth and even global collapse. Why didn't the building topple on side if there was a failure of a few columns on one side?

You say there was some sort of internal adjustment as the building weights shifted after the initial failures, and then eventually the stress was too much, and global collapse ensued. Is there ANY PRECEDENT FOR THIS SORT OF COLLAPSE? Or is it another nice theory like the progressive pancake collapse of the twin towers?

LARED-- just look at the clips of the building going down-- there are several here:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/

You will see one beautiful job of controlled demolition.

[janedoe]

101. Demolition charges may not have been off

When bringing down a building with controlled demolition (not simply blowing up the building), different charges go off in different regions, in a particular sequence, with a particular timing.
Here is an example: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg

The objective is not to set off the charges at the same time.
The objective is to bring the building straight down, safely. By safely, I am referring to a fail-safe design of the demolition. For the kingdome, if they had set off the charges in perfect symmetry around the perimeter, they wouldn't have any way of predicting how it would fall -- if it even would.

Note the strength of an eggshell. It is not easy to crush an eggshell with equal pressure around the perimeter. But, if you apply forces in just a few places, the shell collapses with little effort. For the kingdome, you can see the concentration of charges on the left side and on the right side (almost out of view). Meanwhile, they detonated the base. Notice how the top folds in, with the line of fold running left to right (in this video) through the diameter.

For WTC7, it appears they wanted the building to fall inward and wanted to be sure that the various pieces did not fall outward.

[spooked911]

102. Okay, good point. Thanks.

So one can either say that the collapse of WTC7 was either:

a) a careful and precise job of controlled demolition (the CT theory)

OR

b) there were three key inner columns that weakened from fire and by sheer chance this led to overall weakening of the structure and a global collapse which brought down the building in exactly the same way as if careful controlled demolition was performed (the "official" NIST theory)

It seems as if just by odds, the CT theory is more likely.

[LARED]

103. Your missing the point

No one is saying the charges in a real controlled demolition go off simutanously. Some go off at the same tine and some go off in sequence. Even something as massive as the king dome the sequence of blasts was over in about 6 seconds.

The point is that it took 8.2 seconds (nearly a life time in controlled demolition) for the tower to reach a point of global collapse. A controlled demolition of WTC 7 would not be set up to sequence blasts over an 8.2 second period.

Also as a side note in the video you provided you can SEE the blasts going off. In the WTC 7 collapse you don't SEE any blasts.

Have you ecer wondered why?

[petgoat]

104. "in the video you provided you can SEE the blasts going off."

That's because the framework of the king dome is out where you can see
it. WTC7 is a curtainwall highrise that hides the frame inside.

[philb]

111. Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges -
Looking at the upper right-hand corner of the building we see a rapid series of small explosions traveling upward just as the building itself begins to fall. The size, placement and timing of these "puffs" is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions, and in fact nothing but small explosive charges could create such an appearance.

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
www.prisonplanet.com/011704wtc7.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

[philb]

114. Half-way through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers

Half-way through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.
http://www.wtc7.net/

[petgoat]

100. Recap

LARED, your topic post concludes:

"The timeline for WTC7 indicates the collapse happened is spurts and
jerks ....is very strong evidence that the collapse was a
sequence of failure events overloading the structural system and NOT a
controlled demolition."

Anyone devious enough to demolish the building would also be devious
enough to make the collapse happen in fits and starts. It came
straight down with no damage to adjacent structures. If random
structural damage on one side and the heating of a few columns can do
that, a few intelligently-placed charges could too.

AFAIK FEMA had no knowledge of any ten-story holes in the facade.
So we get "newly discovered structural damage explains WTC7 collapse!"
Pardon my skepticism.

"it is highly unlikely anyone will ever have a definitive failure mode."

So we'll never know how it came down, and never know if explosives
were used or not. Of course if they'd treated the rubble as a crime
scene, the steel could have been examined and tested for "twinning"
and explosive residue. But a former prosecutor with presidential
ambitions ordered the evidence destroyed.

"if no photographic (proofs) exist ... then controlled demolition is
the only possibility."

That's a straw man. Demolition is a valid hypothesis, whether the
fires and/or the holes are big enough or they aren't. Once again--any
competent plotters would have cut fuel lines and covered the
demolition with blazing diesel. The only way demolition could have
been ruled out would be to treat the wreckage as a crime scene and
have experts on hand full time as the steel was removed to pick out
the samples they want.

"WTC 6 didn’t collapse from fire so it is not possible WTC 7 can
collapse from fire."

Another straw man. Actually it's "steel frame highrises don't
collapse from fire," therefore the collapse is very suspicious,
particularly in light of the destruction of the physical evidence, the
perplexity of FEMA, the symmetrical and vertical nature of the
collapse, and the sudden appearance of testimony about structural
damage.



"My wife is pregnant, I’m sterile, but there are no pictures of her
in the act, so she can’t be pregnant."

That's really not a fair example. You compare an allegation
(structural damage) with a fact (pregnancy) and you miss the obvious
alternate and more logical conclusion--you're not sterile after all.