The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
 

** Note: I searched Tilted Paranoia and didn't find this specific discussion. **

I've been wanting to start a dialogue about World Trade Center 7 for a while now. I finally got the motivation to start one up here, and I hope it is filled with interesting observations and insight, not name-calling and flame throwing or anything.

So, to start...

World Trade Center 7

[I wanted to start this thread with concise notes and some websites to visit instead of an enormous write-up on what I think. This list is in no meant to be assumed comprehensive or scientifically accurate, just something to start off the thread with.]

I find it to be one of the most curious events of 9/11/01. These are some reasons why...

• WTC 7 was never hit by an aircraft, yet still collapsed after burning for only 7 hours.
  
• A few fires in the building were blamed for the collapse, yet fires alone have never destroyed a steel framed building so completely as to collapse it.
  
• Did Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder to the World Trade Center complex, admit that the WTC 7 was demolished deliberately, or "pulled"?

Links/Pictures:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_3pm.jpg
- This is a view of the fires in the building sometime before the collapse.

http://www.wtc7.net/docs/la_fire_lg_c.jpg
- One comparison: The 1988 Interstate Bank Building fire that ingulfed many floors and burned more severely than the WTC, but didn't collapse.

Aerial view of the WTC 7 rubble.
- Notice that it is wholly destroyed. The rubble pile was said to be only 2 stories high and turned much to smaller pieces and dust. Could a collapse due to fire turn a building into a nice, neat pile of scrap?

Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment...
- This has been discussed before on Tilted Paranoia if I remember correctly, but I thought I'd list it here anyway. What the hell is up with this comment?

3 videos of the collapse
- I especially like the last video on the page. Astounding...

www.wtc7.net
- Intersting site, I pulled a lot of material from there.

So, what do you guys all think? I just can't seem to wrap my mind around the official story that fires made this building collapse the way it did. However, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about this event, so I have a lot of studying and learning to do about this to try to make some more sense out of it. WTC 7 is a huge enigma to me.

Any extra comments, contributions, and insight are all certainly welcome.

The FEMA report taken by investigators (the ONLY investigation of the 9/11 attacks in NY), basically said that they have no idea how this building collapsed (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html).

- all of the wreckage from the twin towers was shipped off, sold, and melted down before FEMA or any other investigators could test it. All they could do was make visual reports and form theories.
http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-10-02/a02wn021.htm
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stor..._01180259.shtml

- a multitude of people were present in the wtc when the planes hit and saw and heard explosions going off, dozens of floors below the plane crash. (there was no combustible fuel in the building beyond the plane fuel):
seismograph readings from 34 km from ground zero http://www.american-buddha.com/sept.15.gif
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/people.html (from a people magazine article that was quickly erased); see Louie Cacchioli
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/ju...ignoredclue.htm bomb sniffing dogs removed from wtc days before attack.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg interview with firefighters from ny. Warning, profanity.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/repor.../2004_00091.htm Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to phone calls made to 911 on that day.

- video evidence shows the building was demolished using explosives, as it is impossible for the heat to be evenly distributed over the entire structure so that it completely melts and collapses all at the same time:
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm
In the videos of the collapse (http://911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Videos.shtml) you can see the buildings exploded into fine dust, not collapsed pieces. Also, the buildings come down in about the same time as a free fall (about 15 seconds)- there was no friction of a collapse. This means that the building’s steel reinforcement was all melted to the point of giving at the exact same rate, despite the fact the fires were limited to the upper floors. Also, the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. The temperatures measured of the core of the rubble, five days later, exceeded the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire.

- even the FEMA report admits that they are confused and baffled as to how building 7 of the WTC collapsed (as it is riddled with scientific and logistical errors):
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif both show that the building had basically no smoke coming from the building, and it also shows a collapse speed to rival the speeds of the WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, and (as was admitted by FEMA) very little debris actually came in contact with WTC 7.
According to the FEMA report on Building 7, debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.
Also according to the FEMA report, the backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite. The sprinkler malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
The conclusion from FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
They would have investigated, but the wreckage was already sold as scrap and was being melted down.

Uhh... you guys list two things where the guy admits to intentionally destroying the building. What else is there to talk about?

It's not really a conspiracy if the guy responsible for it acknowledges that the building was destroyed on purpose.

There were very little fires in building 7 before it collapsed. The building fell all at once, right back into it's footprint (impossible without professional demolition). Why did he have explosives in the building before 9/11? He admitted to "pulling the plug", in order for the collapse we all saw to happen, he would need the building to have been professionally demolished. This building was currently housing many companies as well as the mayors office. Why would he have explosives in a building that was currintly housing buisness without telling them?

They didn't install demolition charges on 9/11 obvsiously, so how do ytou explain that?

Yeah, but was there people inside? >___>

Yeah but both of your posts were asking how it collapsed, not why there were explosives in the first place.

I agree that it is extremely odd to have a building rigged up with explosives.
I don't know if there was people inside.. I hadn't heard anything about WTC building 7 until this thread.

Great point. I don't see why people argue back and forth about the melting point of steel etc. when we have an admission by Silverstein. I'm might be going out on a limb, but I think it would be impossible to plant explosives on 9/11 to demolish this. Biggest smoking gun ever.

As any person walking down the street why they think the towers collapsed. They'll tell you that two mighty planes, piloted by islamic terrorists, crashed into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center. The fires burned hot and deep, causing the towers to come crashing down to the ground. Beyond that? Thay know nothing. They know the aftermath, Osama, Iraq, axis of evil, etc. This is intended to help those along who start from scratch as far as info on 9/11. The average person doesn't know about the "pull it" call by Larry Silverstein. This is not only for you, but also for them. People have questioned that quote before, so it needs to be posted and I need to be ready to back it up.

Now wait. You say that it was "extremly odd" that an operating and open office and governmental building was lined with demolition explosives, and you just leave it at that?! Doesn't that merrit some discussion? What if the White House is lined with explosives? What if the U.N. buildings, Big Ben, the Great Wall of China, and your apartment are lined with demolition explosives? You can't just say that and leave it. Comon.

Ya, I don't understand how people can even try to debate this when they don't know any of the facts. I run into this almost every debate about 9/11 that I get into. I bet you could show the the footage of the WTC 7 building collapsing to most Americans, and they wouldn't even be able to tell you when and where it happened.

You're preaching to the choir, man. Most people know that some other buildings were effected. It's amazing how people can be bothered enough to get bumper stickers of the American flag without doing some research first. Heh.

Honestly, people take a lot of things lying down. Ask anyone on the street if what progress we've made in catching the phantom Osama Bin Laden in the last year and a half (shit, three years even) and they'll insist that we have tons of troops combing the hills and deserts. When you tell them that America has Afghani warlords looking for Osama, they'll call you a liar and unpatriotic. It almost makes me wonder if people should earn freedom, or just allow others to fight for it. I'd like to see at least some effort. Just a glimmer of hope. Threads like this are one such glimmer.

Interesting discussion so far.

I personally believe that the official story on all of the events of 9/11 are somewhat... how should I say this... fucked up.

As far as WTC 7 goes, it's one of the major catastrophes that make most people scratch their heads. That's why I like the topic so much.

The truth will eventually come out on all of this, albeit too late...

What if this all is just a big insurance scam pulled off by Silverstein to get out of his lease? What if the government had nothing to do with it? What if Silverstein was in cahoots with Osama and other extremists, he wanted out of his lease and they wanted to do something spectacular? What if Silverstein is in cahoots with the government and Osama? What if it's all just a big conspiracy of Silverstein wanting out of his lease and knowing this our government recruited Osama and Osama is really a government agent {after all the biggest manhunt in history hasn't found him yet} and our government employed him to recruit a few extremist to give us an excuse to take out the extremist governments of the Taliban and Hussein?

Or what if it's all true what the government is telling us and it's just one of those "shit happens" deals?

I doubt any of us will ever know in our lifetime so I ain't gonna spend a lotta time worrying about it.

Wow, another recent example of a skyscraper not collapsing due to fire alone.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7610700

It hasn't fall down yet to my knowledge. The fires definetly look more intense than the WTC 1, 2 or 7 fires.

Update: It's still standing. This link has more pictures and the fire damage is very severe.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...in.block.fire/

Yes I can, because I was only commenting on the subject of this thread. Evil Milkman is trying to claim there is a conspiracy, when Silverstein said he ordered the demolition of the building. I was merely pointing out that there is no conspiracy as to HOW the building collapsed, since Silverstein said he ordered it.

You are turning this into WHY there were explosives in the first place, and frankly, I don't really care much. I'll leave it to the paranoid people to worry their nights away about things like that.

The start of this thread showing how it must have been "pulled" is just to lead into the discussion as to why it was "pulled". this is tilted paranoia so if this is not the place to have dissussions with paranoid people, then where?

I think that the reasons for the building being laced with explosives, maybe weeks before must be explored. Or how about at least public acceptance that they had the building ready to go. So he admitted that he pulled it, he hasnt admitted that there were explosives in the days leading up to 11/9.

This is also I believe only the more obvious of the falacies of the 11/9 events. and a healthy discussion is good to get the facts straight.

You don't care about the lives of 3000 innocent people being lost and lied about? You don't care the largest "terrorist" atack on the United States, something that has been compared to Pearl Harbor, is based entirely on lies? You don't care that this was allowed to happen? you don't care the the real guilty parties are probably never going to be heald responsible? You don't care that the incodent was used as a platform for segragation and hatred towards muslims and arabs?

That's kinda sad.

Just an idea... what if the buildings <B>were</B> wired with explosives? The WTC had already been attacked once, so they knew that terrorists were interested in it. And the most obvious goal of attacking such large buildings would be to topple them. Maybe the explosives were planted as an emergency last resort, in the event that the buildings were fatally damaged. Bring them down cleanly, rather than let them topple and destroy the surrounding area as well.

Think about it, the buildings have been severely damaged, and collapse is imminent. Is it better just to let them topple, destroying surrounding buildings and killing potentially thousands more, or do you drop them straight down, sparing the surrounding area? The people trapped inside are just as dead either way, better not to endanger that many more people.

As for WTC 7, I assume that seven hours later the building was empty. Why risk the lives of more firefighters to save an empty building, when the rest of the complex has already been destroyed? Drop it in a controlled fashion, "pull it" so to speak, and be done with it.

You can appreciate why this would be a secret. People would be uneasy in a building they knew was wired with explosives. Keeping them secret would also minimize the security risk of having the explosives in the first place. Finally, explaining the decision to use them to the general public would be a PR nightmare. It's the least bad choice in an ugly situation, but making people understand that would be virtually impossible.

I'm not saying I even believe this, but I can definitely see how it could happen.

DJMala

There was absolutely no reason to demolish the building if your theory is true. From just looking at it, I cannot see any structural damage on the building. It just doesn't make sense. why pull that one only? There were other WTC buildings and non WTC buildings that had damage and were not destroyed.

I think the answer is too look back at the 800 million in insurance that Silverstein received and the fact that government agencies had offices up there.

"Mr. Silverstein might be able to do this, according to Moody's, because he is pursuing an "actual cash value" insurance claim for the property as well as a claim for rebuilding the property. Under the cash-value claim, he would be paid off in a lump payment."
http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/...10-bricks.html

I'm not sure how his insurance workes exactly. However, the way I understand that article is that he chose to get cash instead of letting the insurance company finance the new building.

Okay dude, whenever you want to stop being so over dramatic :rolleyes:

What I meant was that I don't care to speculate on this forum about why the explosives were there.

Ok, but don't you think that Silverstein and the company that wired the building beforehand owes the American people an explanation? There were people working in that building that was pre-wired. Couldn't they at least explain to the family of the murdered why? Or, would that expose their illegal activities? And if they don't owe us an explanation, why?

As I already may have mentioned, I feel there's a lot more to this story that's being covered up than meets the eye.

surely there must be some law about wirring up building for demolition. ie no unliscenced people within 100meters. So therefore everyone working in the building would have unknowingly broken the law including the mayor.

the explosives required to cleanly bring down a building are not exactly small, or for another matter are they stable. so following on from the suggestion that after 94 they wired up the WTC incase of a repeat, then 7 years the explosives were sitting there, im pretty sure something would happen, misfiring or somesuch. If there were explosives, they were installed close to the date.

Exactly. The possibilities are haunting.

So, as far as I can tell, you seem to accept the fact that there is a decent possibility that there were explosives that were placed in WTC 7. If there were explosives that were set previous to 9/11 in the 7th tower, isn't it reasonable to wonder if there were explosives set in North and South towers?

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/09/im...rstein_200.jpg

Could it be that this man and others are mass murderers?

After the admitted demolition, I think it's very reasonable to think there were also explosives in 1 and 2. Another thing I've noticed about tower 7 is that it's never on the news. The clip of it falling was only played the first few days of 9/11 and that was it.

The thing I don't understand is why the feds don't just come clean with all the information about 9/11 that they haven't released. There's so many things that could be cleared up with emergency crew tapes, videos, documents etc.

They always claim national security, but there isn't much that they could disclose about 9/11 that we don't already know. I mean we hijacked planes flying into buildings. The only thing they could be withholding is information that shows criminal involement, or deliberate lack of response.

If 3000 people died under my watch, I think I'd be investigated and probably lose my job. Instead, they get record funding and more bureaucracy.

Not to mention that we went on a massive manhunt after what is essentially an innocent man (innocent of 9/11 at least), Osama Bin Laden, as a direct result of this. This was a foundation of a war on Afghanistan, and they tried to use it as an excuse to attack Iraq. These are war crimes. We framed them for doing something, then attacked them. This isn't just about buildings being secretly wired with explosives.

Popular Mechanics did a report on this recently. I haven't examined their source images and videos, so I can't vouch for the authenticity of the report beyond the facts that it is logical, PM is a widely respected publication, and I have never seen them publish crap in the years that I've been a reader. I will, however, acknowledge that they have been known to have a moderately conservative strongly pro-military (it might be a stretch to say pro-war) bias in topic choices and presentation of information.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y

Yes I have that issue. In my opinion it only attacks the weakest conspiracy theories like the plane under the pod, the missle into the pentagon etc. Basically the things that can't be proven easily one way or the other. It doesn't touch on many of the documented smoking guns. I wish they would of at least given it an honest shot.

They don't even mention Silverstein admitting to it collapsing? :crazy: You'd think they would want to clear that up so the entire 9/11 conspiracy theorists can stop wondering. It's easy do defeat a "conspiracy theory" when you pick the weakest points and theories, and don't let the people you are debunking give a rebuttle. PM provides many links to sites that show the clips of him admitting to the demolistions, so it's unlikely that they couldn't have known about it in their investigations.

The whole reason this "conspiracy theory" got started was because 1. It looked like a demolition we've all seen before, and 2. Silverstein definetly admitted to it. They choose to ignore the Silverstein quotes? Sounds like a bogus attempt to debunk one of the biggest conspiracy theories there is.

I used to read PM. It's a shame how downhill they've gone.

The following is my picking apart of the PM article, it is not me trying to correct SelfDestruct, as he just posted the link. Thanks for the link, btw.

I'll elaborate:

NIST researchers only had acces to the whole wrekage one week after FEMA had cleared out. How did more time allowed at the completly collapsed building allow the NIST researchers to discover that there was more physical damage to the building before it collapsed? All of the VIDEO and PHOTOGRAPH evidence found in hundreds of magazines and on television showed that there was almost no exterior damage to the building before it collapsed. There are photographs available that show almost all points of view to the buildings after the initial plane crashes.

What fire? What "severe damage"? Watch the video that I provided the link for above. There is basically no smoke coming from the building before the demolition. Also, the video clearly shows that the colapse was not "progressive" (as a progressive collapse would see one side cave in, then a bit later, the other would). The colapse is almost simultanious. They were right about one thing: the building fell in on itself. Something that is almost impossible during a fire.

Ouch this is a doosey. The blueprints are classified, but I can tell you that it would be difficult for this building to have stood durring violent wind storms or hurricanes if this claim was true. Do you think the mayor of NYC would have an office in a building that could topple over so easily?

The south face was undamaged, besides the windows that were broken. Were they load bearing windows?

Where there's smoke theres fire. The windows were blown out a great deal on the fifth floor, but there was almost no smoke. That's a load of crap that the fire could melt the supports so that the building would collapse all at once.

I hope they know who they're protecting by printing this.

I saw how buildings get prepared for demolition. I cannot imagine that you can pull that off without someone in the offices noticing.
Maybe the shock wave or mini earthquake from the collapsing towers plus the fires gave the building the rest.

Fair enough, now all the government has to do is explain this to the public instead of saying that fire took this thing down.

Full disclosure: I don't buy into the conspiracy theory, but I choose not to argue them ad nauseum in this forum.

Just a thought: is it possible that when Silverstein said that he ok'd the fire department to "pull," he meant that he was approving them no longer fighting the fire?

You keep pointing to other buildings that suffer structural damage and didn't collapse, but presumably they were subject to ongoing efforts to fight the fire.

IF (and this is an IF), Silverstein pulled the efforts to fight the fire, couldn't the unhindered burning have contributed to the collapse?

Also note, unless I am mistaken, Silverstein didn't say WHEN he said to pull it, so this could have been hours earlier (even if it was minutes earlier, it actually makes even more sense that "pull it" meant "give up. let it fall")

Finally, I've never seen photos or footage of the south facade of building 7 after the towers collapsed. Does any exist? The photos from the north side show little damage, but obviously the south side could have much more.

See thats the thing, there are a lot of very reasonable explanations possible. but when the govt chooses to go with an entirely unlikely one, or at least porely explained, thats when the theories come out.

I read this interview this morning that the firefighters in Madrid withdrew because of falling debris. At some point, there is just nothing you could safe. So when it will collapse anyway, it is too late and you would have to demolish it. Maybe that was the decision in NY too.

Maybe they did have to demolish it.

But then they would have had to have it wired already. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, that would be true, but the "Official" Story is that it collapsed due to damage from debris, not from controlled demolition.

I know it has been mentioned a few times here in Paranoia, but for those people out there interested in seeing a few of the... inconsistancies that raise questions about 9/11 but don't really feel like doing much research, I would recommend watching 9/11 - In Plain Sight. I am not a big fan of the format, but it addresses many of the concerns you see in this forum regarding the 9/11 attacks.

I own 'In Plane Site'. Most of it is intriguing...

i just watched the videos from the original links, and while I believed you all, I was still thinking maybe they didnt lie. after seeing the videos however, there is no way that fall came the debris, which means they lied.

I just want to know, apart from willravel, how many totally disbeileve what the US govt has told you about 11/9. and i have to give props to willravel, he showed me so much info about the events surrounding that day that its beyond sickening but i feel better for knowing it. Unfortunately i cant do anything about it as i am not a US citizen, but then what good does that do anyway.

When i first heard in august 01 that someone bought the world trade centre, i was like "wow, how much, 3 billion omg" It sound nerdy but they were my favourite buildings, (im an engineer) so elegant and beautiful. when i was woken up to the fact that they were gone i was pretty pissed. but I quickly remembered that someone just spent 3 billion on them, my first thoughts were he just got screwed, then i thought that maybe just maybe its so soon after he got them that something shady happenned. and ever since evidence has been contradicting the "story".

Well, Hanabal, I'm glad that I can convince a few people. You have an advantage over me in that you aren't a US citizen. I'm surrounded by people who are ready to jump on me and call me anti-American at the drop of a hint at what I know. I've told a few of my friends who really respect me, and while I think they believe me I know that they try their best not to think about it. It's fear. I live in a country that is lorded over by fear. It sounds like the cliche coming from the left, but it's absolutely true. People are afraid of the government and afraid of phantom terrorist threats. I'm not afraid of terrorists at all. Many, many legitimate terrorist groups have specifically said that they hate the American government and they pity the American public. I am much more likely to be killed by a local police officer or die because of cancer than I am of being killed by a terrorist. My fear is for my daughter. While she'll learn all she needs to know about patriotic responsibility and civil liberties from me, she'll be going to an overcrowded school teaching a very small view of history, science, math, and literature from people who are paid far below the poverty level. If is wasen't for her social growth, I'd home school my daughter myself. This is the country I live in. Fear and ignorance run rampant.

You, on the other hand, are surrounded by people who are starting (or have been) seeing America as an empire that serves only it's own interests and has control of the oil spigot of the world. You see that the American bases in Afghanistan are situated right on the oil pipe, which could not be protected by the Taliban. You know America is willing to hurt people in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". You have no loyalty to the American government and are free to say things like "Geaorge W. Bush could very well start World War 3". You can tell your friends about the terrible lie of 9/11 without having to worry about the Patriot act spying on your e-mails. You have a better chance than I do. Good luck.

I basically agree with everything willravel just stated above this post. In the country where questioning governemnt was considered patriotic, now it's regarded as anti-American.

Researching 9/11 has been my hobby for about a year now. No, It didn't start with Michale Moore either. It started with watching some Alex Jones police states tapes and listening to his radio show. The claims he was making where so absurd that they couldn't possible be true. Yet, he challenges you to go read the documents and study it for yourself. Governments count on you not knowing, not reading, not keeping them in check. If you try to debate the average person about 9/11 they don't even know the WTC tower 7 existed?

I once wondered why there were no smart criminals. Now I know the best criminals are extremely smart. They run the world.

Just to clarify, are you suggesting part of that this might be the biggest insurance fraud in history?

And to willravel, I hadn't seen those videos before, but it's going to take a lotof hard evidence to convince me that WTC7 was anyhting but a controlled demolition. Whether the building was pre-wired or quickly wired up (easier if it's structurally damamged) to destroy some sort of evidence is a question I'll have to think about, it was definietly intentional. Now that I think about it, my father and my uncle both worked for the sam IT company, and may have done some of the networking in that building (dad called it "next to the twin towers" once.) Since my father died a few years ago, I'd have to check with my uncle about whether it was building 7 that they worked on.

[QUOTE=MrSelfDestruct]Just to clarify, are you suggesting part of that this might be the biggest insurance fraud in history?

Yes, that's one part of it.

In my opinion this has to be so much more than just insurance fraud. He literally had to have FAA, NORAD, and who knows what other government agencies ignore protocol to allow the planes to crash into buildings. Then have a 9/11 cover-up commission propose legislation that does little to protect us. 3,000 people on 9/11 die and 3 million Americans become the prime suspects, yet the borders allow 3000-4000 people across the border illegally everyday according to Time magazine.

QUOTE]

I beg to differ, actually. The government has put out an entirely reasonable theory. Those who claim it is poorly reasoned seem primarily to point to two specific factors:

1) To them, it sure looks like a controlled collapse (and some claim to see evidence of detonation charges in the smoke coming out during the collapse, but that seems thin), so they don't buy the "it collapsed on its own" theory.

2) They look at pictures and don't seen much - if any - structural damage before the collapse, and the fires don't seem all that major. But the government's explanation for the collapse, as I understand it, is that the building suffered structural damage on the south facade after the towers collapsed, and it was that damage plus the fires that burned for a very long time (fed by deisel fuel stored - ironically - for the city's emergency command center).

Everything else is circumstantial:

Silverstein makes a reference to telling the fire department to "pull it" before it came down, which I think can be interpreted both as an order to demolish, and an order to pull efforts to save the building.

People make spooky references to a secret CIA installation in WTC7, and suggest that somehow the CIA wanted to demolish it, but that just doesn't make sense (why would they demolish an entire building when they could presumably simply take whatever they wanted to hide out of the building?)




So those seem to be the 2 key factual issues, unless I am mistaken.

On the first ("it sure looks like a controlled collapse"), I submit that most of us are not experts in building demolition and/or collapse, so we are arguing based on uneducated guesswork or are pointing to the opinion of someone else who claims to be an expert. Some experts are saying it was a structural collapse and not a demolition. Does any of us have the expertise to determine which is right? Do we have a bias one way or the other that leads you to find one expert credible and the other not? Probably so. My bias is to think it's not a conspiracy, so I tend to believe the experts that agree with me. Others have a bias towards thinking it was a conspiracy, so they tend to believe the experts who support that idea. Point? It's a wash.

On the second ("I don't see all that much damage, so it can't have been a structural failure"), all the photos I've seen of the building after the towers collapsed have been of the north side. Obviously, since the towers fell on the south side, that's where the damage would be. Concluding that the damage was not that extensive based on a review of only one side of the building is like concluding that a car can still drive after a head on collision by looking only at the rear end. To quote South Park's parody of Johnnie Cochran (and thus destroy my own credibility) "It does not make sense."

Obviously, if you have pictures of the south facade after the towers collapsed that show very little damage, please share.

Most of us aren't experts. I happen to be (thanks to a great deal of research brought on by this very question). I've explained several times why it was not a collapse due to the extreme structural damage and fire.

Fire is an amazing thing. It's a chemical reaction that has a specific set of behaviors that it follows in a specific situation. In this situation, we have a gaping hole in the side of a building, and a great deal of jet fuel burning quite hot. Now the ways for the heat from the fire to escape are:

1. The elevator shafts. These were the only possible exhausts on the inside of the building, but there is no evidence that they were channeling any amount of heat or smoke.
2. The gaping hole caused by the impact of a plane. This is by far the single largest exhaust for the heat and smoke from the fire.
3. Broken windows and holes in the walls caused by debris.

The main escape routes are visible from the outside of the building. Each of the buildings werre photographed and videotaped a great deal between the initial strikes and the eventual collapses. Of those many, many visual pieces of evidence, do you remember any warping of the aluminum on the outside of the building? Do you remember seeing the fire that was (supposedly) able to easily melt steel, warping the aluminum at all? I'll answer that question for you with said evidence.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../woman_wtc.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid..._blackhole.jpg

This person would not be able to stand here if the fire was burning hot.

Look very carefully at the first picture. What you are looking at is the aluminum exterior of the WTC bent in by the initial strike of the plane. Why is it that a fire able to do so much damage to one of the best steel reinforments in history that it would collapse straight down has no visable effect on the aluminum? It should be glowing red. The heat from the fire being able to warp the reinforcment so that it would cave all at once straight down is one of the least likely scenereos. They are counting on people being distraced by wars and propoganda so that this becomes hard to see.

I have a question for you. This is the only "conspiracy theory" I've ever bought into, mainly because I am very skeptical by nature. I've debunked several conspiracy theories including the moon landing, Hitler's death, and the attempted assasination of Regan. Am I a conspiracy theorist? Am I a credible source? Do you automatically not believe me because you assume I am proned to believe that a conspiracy is involved, and therefore are paranoid?

Nice try, but this thread is about WTC7, not the towers themselves. I don't happen to think you are right about the twin towers either, but that's a different thread.

And with all due respect, you declare yourself en expert b/c you have researched this issue in connection with this specific topic. I don't think that makes you an expert. I think it makes you someone who has studied one specific scenario extensively, and, frankly, I have no reason to think you did not go into your research with a desired outcome.

That's an interesting opinion. Just a few points:
1. Is it not reasonable to assume that the fates of WTC North and South are intertwined with the fate of WTC7? Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that if there was foul play with one, there was foul play with the other? It would be the largest coincedence in history if one was an unexpected terorist attack, and the other was a controlled demolition on the same day. I realize this particular thread is about WTC7, but WTC7 has so many connections to the twin towers they shouyld not be omitted from the conversation.

2. My relative expertise (I say relative because I am comparing myself to the average person) comes from studying plane crashes, structural engineering, and building fires. Each of those studies is very important to this, don't you agree?

3. You assume that I desire the outcome that America is being lied to? Go the the Dissapearing 747 and truth about 9/11 threads and read my posts. Several times I plead with people to give me a better explaination. It would be sick of me to want to find out that we have all been lied to in the supposed largest terrorist attack in history. I am not sick, balderdash. As a matter of fact, I am still hoping that someone will be able to get their heads around this better than I could, and give me a perfectly logical explaination.

You should be careful assuming people are wackos. I'm both looking for and presenting facts.

Ah, but you are still assuming it was a controlled demolition. I question that assumption, so I doubly question your conclusion

Regardless of whether or nor the twin towers were taken down as part of a conspiracy, I still believe that WTC7 came down due to damage and fire resulting from the attacks on and collapse of the twin towers.

Do you see the distinction here? Let me show you:

Replace "WTC7" with "nearby fire engines." Were fire engines destroyed as part of a conspiracy? No, a building fell on them. Ditto for WTC7.

Of course, but again you miss the point. You have self-described experts on both sides of this issue. Why should I believe you?

And you say above you studied these things because of this very question, correct? Can you honestly say that you had no opinions on whether or not there was a conspiracy before you began your research? My point is that I am sure you now know a great many things about melting steel, fire temperatures, etc., but so do lots of other people who disagree with you. Why should I believe you over them? Why should I trust your research over theirs?

Of course, you can reverse the question, too: why should I believe them over you? Because I am biased, obviously. But - and here's the kicker - you probably are too!

I have no idea what your motives are. In fact, I think you are probably quite sincere in thinking there is something fishy going on. I choose not to agree with you, and I jumped into this thread to point out a different interpetation of the facts.

Hmm.... searching text for wacko..... nope.

I think you are wrong about WTC7, but I don't think you are, as you so colorfully put it, wacko.

Look, will... you've built quite a reputation for yourself as the resident expert on the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I have no intention of changing your mind or of trying to tear you down. I don't have the knowledge of the event that you do, so you could run circles around me asking questions I can't answer.

However, I see testimony and findings by people who are very very smart and very very experienced and they disagree with you. So, when forced to choose between the credibility of "anonymous TFP person" and "expert in architecture and disaster investigation" I generally go with the latter unless there is some very compelling reason not to. I don't see such a reason here.

I think it would be fascinating to see a discussion between you and another expert on this subject, even though I think I'd quickly get completely lost.

Just out of curiosity, though, when it comes to all the others who say 9/11 was a terrorist attack and that WTC7 collapsed because of fire and structural damage, do you think they don't understand the facts, or that they are themselves involved in the conspiracy? Either answer, I think, would collapse under logical scrutiny.

Check out the video on the first page in my first post. It's a copy of what was shown on tv when WTC7 collapsed. Just watch it a few times and draw your own conclusions. I've obvciously drawn mine.

How much of North Tower and/or South Tower did fall on them? It's hard to tell. The FEMA report is all we really have to go on besides the footage and pictures.

That's a judgement call. I'll understand if you want to err on the side of the norm. That's certianally a safer side to be on. Just remember that just as you are not alone on your side, I am not alone by any means on mine. There are several groups out there trying to raise awarness of the facts I've shared with you guys on this board in order to give people a more complete picture. You know how freedom comes with a price of eternal vigelance? To many people this is part of the vigelance. If there waas some foul play, people deserve to know about it.

Sounds perfectly fair.

While I don't have any provabae credentials (I can't post any personal information about myself, including diplomas), how sure are you that the people on the other side of the argument are so trustworthy? By "expert in architecture and disaster investigation", you probably mean someone who has either written for the FEMA report, worked for the 9/11 Commission, or who has been called as an expert in the media. If we're talking about FEMA, we're talking about a pretty respected organization. The problem is that several parts of their report are wrong. Check out
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...ut-trusses.htm
I know it's not a reputable site, but check it out and consider it seriously before dismissing it.

The 9/11 commission was a joke. Several people on the commission actually were profiteers of the 9/11 attacks. They never addressed any of the logistical problems with 9/11 (even the ones that have noi connection to the conspiracy here).

As for media experts, well if you want to trust CNN or MSNBC, that's your call.

Just consider that perhaps neither side deeserves your trust. Perhaps you shoul do the research yourself before deciding, just like I did.

me confused, im sorry

If you have any questions, feel free to ask (or PM) people on either side of this discussion. I would be glad to try and answer any questions you might have.

according to these articles, this was planned in 1989!!!

ever hear of galvanic corrosion?
http://www.rense.com/general60/scrap.htm

--and--

http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm

While Rense is a very interesting site, you can't take it all very seriously. I've proven dozens of them wrong. At the same time, you shouldn't discount everything on there. Every once in a while it hits something that mgith be true. I didn't know fluoridization was dangerous until I read an article on there. After confirming it's claims, I found it to be true.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah...framed 'em...fight the power dude...

NOTE: most of the information I used in the 9/11 consipracy theory threads comes from:
http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/cover911.htm
http://physics911.org/net/modules/ne....php?storyid=3
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf
http://911research.wtc7.net/

I guess that my post from the Madrid Highrise fire belongs here, too:

NIST is still conducting the most comprehensive
forensic investigation of the WTC towers. At their meeting in
Oct. 2004, the NIST investigators results so far do not support the jet fuel fire or heat from it, being the cause of the
collapse of either tower.
<h2>The NIST Investigators so far, cannot find the reason why either WTC Tower collapsed !</h2>

While 9/11 is deeply and obviously a tragedy, it is at the same time a major boon for some interested parties.

I see this as our Reichstag. Not only did tower 7 fall cleanly (Explosives being prewired in buildings seriously doesn't raise any concerns, Carn/DJmala?), north and south fell straight down. This lead STRAIGHT into Bush's new war.

Could someone really argue that Cheney was selected as Bush II's vp for any other reason than to run this war?

This all seems so straightforward to me.

I must not watch enough cable news.

Just before the election didn't OBL appear on Al Jazeera and admit that he ordered the attacks on 9/11 and the reasons why?

From what I remember seeing on the news, yes. It reminded me of the Regan election, when the hostages were released right after the election. That hardly counts as proof (of course, much in this thread is speculation at best). What strikes me is that no one is mentioning that Osama was wroking for the Central Intelligene Agency as recently as 10 years ago. Perhaps that fact requires more scruteny, under the circumstances. I certianally think that fact bares a direct connectrion to his taking direct and total responsibility for the attacks that served the current administration so very well. It would be one hell of a coincedence that the administration planned for a Pearl Harbor type of catastrophy in order to move fourth plans on the Middle Esat, including the domination and rebuilding of several oil producing powers under totalitarian or religious rule, just to have 9/11 happen and a former CIA spy take credit for the attacks in an attempt to demonize Arab nations for supporting terror.

Hmm. When he says "pull," it can also be taken in the context of "pull the firefighters/crew out of there." Or "pull the emergency force out of there." That's another decision that would be made at the same time, in the same context, in the same tone.

-Lasereth

The steel just melts, riiiiight . Wonder why barbeques and car exhaust systems can be made from it? The 1989 rebuilding plan seems to be just too much or a coincidence.

Please, please, please tell me you are joking. Even willravel can tell you that the heat in your engine and the heat from a grill are nothing compared with the heat from a building fire.

By your logic, highrises should be at no risk of collapse from a fire. Ever.

Well of course steel melts, I mean otherwise it would be very diffficult to use steel in production. And the steel industry would be pretty pissed too. The question is could a fire caused by airplane fuel in the World Trade Center buildings was able to not only able to compromise the steel reinforcement of WTC 1 and 2, but it was able to compromise the buildings steel frame at once. I could have understood if the building snapped at the center, but it simply didn't. The building started a cascade effect very similar to a controled demolition by the top floor caving, then the second to the top, all the way to the bottom. Steel that was still cold, uneffected by the fire, caved completly and straight down.

The official story is the least likely possibility.

I should clarify my last post. So how about... The steel just melts at low temperature... riiiiight.

Jet fuel is not some high explosive, being that a plane crashed to cause it to spill it was not sprayed or under pressure for more than an instant. It may have burned quite a while as a puddle. Try an experiment, take a tin can (steel is OK, weird eh?) and put kerosene in it, light it on fire and lay a piece of angle iron or even a coat hanger across it... wait till it melts or you die of old age.

Not to say it's impossible, in a car gasoline fire the springs will collapse and drop the car on to the frame. It won't melt the frame though.

I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked back into this....

...sigh

To be clear: as far as I know, nobody is claiming that the fire melted the external structural steel on the WTC towers. The contention, as I understand it, is that the fire weakened the steel on the internal floor supports, causing some to collapse onto the floors below, which resulted in greater strain on the structure.

The outer structure collapsed because it was unable to support the additional strain put on it, not because it was melted by the fire.

As I am sure you are aware, the WTC towers are unusual in that the structural support was distributed between the center core (housing elevators, stairwells, etc) and the outer skin, with a wide space around the central core with no structural steel (the floors were hung across the gap between the central core and the outer skin).

The planes crashed through the outer skin, then were largely unopposed until they hit the central core (yes, they had to plow through the mass of furniture, the suspended floors, drywall, etc, but no structural steel). The impact weakened the central core and the severing of the outer skin forced weight to be distributed around the hole, adding strain to the remaining supports.

I'm going through all this to make clear that NOBODY is saying that the fire alone caused the collapse.

Hey, look, a link to a quick and easy guide to WTC collapse. From the good people at NOVA. Are they part of the conspiracy too?

Linky

Hey, neat. Fake science! How about if I just hold the hanger over this straw man?

I read in the Toronto Star some time around Sept 12 or 13 of that year, that the towers collapsed because the momentum of the airplanes impacted and severed/severely damaged the internal core structure of the two towers. That is, the structural support from which the rest of the build was hung.

Also, that the planes exploded, and burned inside the building, not outside, which would explain why the internal support structures further degraded, and why the aluminium on the outside does not look warped or hot, and why somebody could/would stand at the opening. it was probably the coolest area with the freshest air.

Once the impact and fire damage had taken it's toll, the support of the building above the impact zone gave way, and then what you would have is what is in effect the equivalent of any normal sized office building (from the point of impact to the roof) being dropped ontop of the building below. To my eye, that's exactly what it looked like, a heaveyload falling and causing increasing damage as it gathered spead and mass downwards.

But to get back on topic, I would love to see pictures of WTC7 from the side facing the two towers, to see how much damage it sustained when the big ones collapsed. (as first pointed out by balderdash). Then we can really talk about WTC7.

Both North tower and South tower were designed to take a direct airplane hit. Did you see the limited damage the 757 did to the Pentagon? Also, how does that explain the top floor caving first? It should have collapsed from near the center, not the very top. Not trying to be argumentative, but I wrote into the Star about their shotty work and they never responded.
Where did the heat from the fire go? A fire inside of a building would creat some heat that would want to escape. That same heat that was able to meraculously melt and warp the steel frame, but was unable to effect aluminum, which ahs a much, much lower melting temperature.
I can understand some of the supports giving way between the impact and the fire, but why did the top floors of both towers collapse straight down first? There was no smoke coming from the top of the building as most of it was coming from the blown out windows and the crash holes in the buildings. It is logical to assume that the heat was following a similar path to escape the building. The heat was traveling upwards along the frame, but the initial collapse was at the very top floors. It doesn't fit.
I'm still looking.
Try:
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

well in Alias, 24, and MI-5 (Spooks) and other spy type shows... they do rig the buildings with explosives...

:lol: I'm not surprised. the Star tends to be a paper that puts some of their (more shoddy) work behind them. My quick answers (and I am a lay-person) to your questions are basically common perspective: I read that the towers were built to withstand a Boeing 707 hit. Which they did (well not a 707, but close). But the floors around the crash did collapse first, and they basically pancaked downwards in growing momentum (pulling the top downwards with them). Apparantly the way the floor struts were attached to the centre column and the outer frame were the weak points, plus the heat involved (i did read that it was varied heat from about 900 to 1300 F) was enough to weaken the strength of the steel thingies so that they also warped.

Apparantly the aluminum from the plane did melt in places. The steel frame did bend and warp, but it had not only heat from a fire, but significant heat from a significant fire, plus the stresses of a building load.

Those towers are very heavy (i read about 500,000 tons each?) the only way they could fall would be straight down. nothing would be strong enough to push them sideways. I presume the collapse seen from the inside, would be initial pancaking of the floors around the crash site, due to the extreme damage and heat, followed by a subsidence of the remaining floors above, as their support below gave way. The view from outside, before the final collapse became evident would be of the top of the build falling in much like a sink hole appears to form. (of course I'm just picturing this in my mind, and typing out of my ass...)

As for smoke escape, i don't see anything strange. and I think that subsidence collpse (yes i like that term, ithink I will go with it) still covers the behaviour.

I don't know what to think in regards to the conspiracy theories. I'll listen to them but don't really know who to believe.

However - I do feel compelled to comment on the melting point of steel. I'm not sure what type of steel alloy we are discussing here. Steel is Iron composed with other metals in order to make frabrication easier or to reduce the speed of corrosion. The alloys make a big difference in the melting temperature. The melting temperature of Steel is usually at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F). I am aware that the steel structure of the WTC buildings was coated with fire retardants to prevent the meltdown that happened.

Primarily when metal is heated to a liquid so that it can be formed there are often other metals added. Often the process and other metals cause the final product to be tempered and more resistant to heat. Saying that it has to be easily melted or they would use it to make things because of it's low melting temperature does not hold a lot of water. When metals are combined they retain different melting points that the original separate metals.

When you say melts at a low temperature - how low were you thinking?

A piece of steel wouldn't melt but if the central core of the tower was badly damaged the building could fall. The plane struck from one side and you'd think it'd topple the floors above in that direction such as when chopping down a tree.

The chance of both buildings failing due to fire and then the whole buildings falling like that just seems so unlikely. The one building was struck so much higher up that the other...

I agree with Fastom

I don't. From what I understand, it was pretty much inevitable that the building would collapse straight down, absent an ENORMOUS force pushing the top so far as to put the center of gravity outside the shell of the building.

The tree analogy is, IMO, not a good one. Trees fall because the support on one side is taken out, and the axe ultimately cuts deep enough into the tree that what remains is unable to hold up the trunk.

WTC's collapse was ultimately the result of a structural failure within the building. Imagine, if you will, a tree having a gash in the side, and then the center of the trunk collapsing. That tree is falling down on itself, not to the side. At least, that's what happens for the first instant, which brings me to my second point.

When a tree falls, it doesn't crumble on itself. It stays as one big log. So when a tree falls, the trunk drops until it hits an imovable object (either the still-standing bottom half of the trunk or the ground), and then tips over based on where the center of gravity is. (I suppose it is theoretically possible for a tree to fall at just the angle at which it balances on the cut end of the trunk, but.....)

WTC, however, crumbled as it fell. So it fell collapsed upon itself.

Bringing it back to the thread topic: this is also a pretty good explanation of why WTC7 collapsed as neatly as it did.

I agree with balderdash111

Imagine that you crash a firey piece of metal into a tree and the very top collapses. Watch the video. The top floor collapses, then the second from the top and so on. There were cutter jets, or smoke/debreis clouds, shooting out of each floor. The fire damaged floors did not collapse first. All 47 coulumns could not have given at once (as was shown when the antenna on the North Tower collapsed first), that is simply impossible.

The explaination given would have easily excused the building falling if the floors were collapsing over a period of time. The fact is that they collapsed simultaneously. That rules out the fire damage or plane damage theory. Wiht those two theoryies ruled out, you must develope a new theory.

Gah!!!

I am so sick of this, so I am not going to bother trying to figure out what you are saying here.

FYI, the NIST is going to release a new report this spring in which it explains the WTC7 collapse in greater detail. Among their findings (surprise!) there was more damage to the South facade of WTC7 than was originally realized

Wait....of course they'll say that now b/c they are part of the conspiracy!

I just re-read the NOVA piece and the Popular Mechanics piece on the WTC attacks. These address and refute each of the points you endlessly repeat to support this conspiracy theory, and ni my opinion they do so convincingly.

Nevertheless, it is quite clear will that you have no interest whatsoever in giving up this theory.



*EDIT* So I don't have to take the last word away from will a few posts below.

I read about the upcoming NIST report on the Popular Mechanics site.

This is what I hope will be my final post in this thread, unless I see an opportunity to clear up an obvious misunderstanding.

Good luck all!

I just noticed something cute...

will, I thought you claimed that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon? Do you choose to believe certain elements when they are convenient to making another point?

actually no it doesn't rule out anything. This collapse from the top down is justs the visible portion of subsidence (like i said earlier as in a sink hole). the tree is a bad analogy. it is physically solid. plus, it's easy to geta piece of metal massive enough to knock a tree over.

The WTC buildings are 1) not solid but constructed of interdependant structures with mostly air in between & 2) very massive. again read my previous post. at about 500,000 tons, how massive an object do you require to knock it over???? An aircraft is simply not up to the job. It is, however up to the job of exploding, causing structural damage and a chain reaction collapse, which would have to be 'straight down'.

Steel is iron with a certain concentration of carbon. Carbon is the main "ingredient" that determines the mechanical and thermal properties of a given steel.

What should have logically happened is the jet fuel and combustibles in the building would have burned themselves out or those firemen douse the fires and the building gets left standing with some floors burnt out.

Oh, a multi-thread attack. Okay.

While I believe that something besides a 757 hit the Pentagon, I recognise that most people believe that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. I was trying to say that for their hypothesis to work, the Pentagon story would be wrong. That would open them up to recognising that something odd did happen on 9/11 with the Pentagon. Obviously the attacks on the Petnagon and the WTC were linked, so therefore it would be fishy be association. I hope that was cute enough for you.

And yet you write on.....
Oh so you've read the report that's coming out in the spring. Can I borrow you're time machine when you're done with it? I really want to meet Jesus.
Yikes. Get decaf next time.
I shut them all down earlier as I recall. But that was another thread. Perhapse I should do it again?
I'll give it up when it stops making sense. Until then, I will persue the truth.