Buildings don't fall down just because they're on fire pt911

[Cowvahlo]

Buildings just don't fall down due to fire, certainly not straight down like the above

Must be a controlled demolition - the Iranians are trying to erode the freedoms of their people and planned the false flag building collapse.

It's the only rational explanation.

That building came down in a completely different way to WTC7. You can see one corner went first followed by the rest of the building. The argument for WTC7 being a controlled explosion is that for it to have fallen in the way it did, every aspect of the construction of the building must have failed at the exactly the same time. If it did come down by fire all four corners would not have fallen at exactly the same time, there would have been part of the building collapse possibly then followed by the rest.

We're not asking you to believe everything that is said about 9/11 but surely you must be able to see that there are aspects of WTC7 that are very very dodgy?

 

[ravydavygravy]

Who says it was the CIA that organised it? Let your imagination run wild for a second here and that me and you want to get rid of some exceptionally dodgy information that is going to send us to prison for a long time and wipe out our collective fortune.

We look at the first option, we need to delete the information from the servers...too risky, someone has got to be in there to do it.

Or we have a mate who owns the building where the servers are, he fancies redeveloping the whole area but knows he'll never be able to do it. He's already got a plan to destroy the surrounding buildings and claim the insurance money. He tells us of a plan where its going to be risk free for us, a group of towheaded cave dwellers are going to take the blame why don't we piggy back on his plan.

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

What should we do?

NURSE!

wibble

 

[Cowvahlo]

NURSE!

wibble

See, that's the problem with these threads, all you get is a 'wibble', I've put forward a theory about why WTC7 was destroyed, why don't you play along.

Forget the whole debris and fire thing, why would WTC7 be destroyed, why did it come down the way it did?

 

[Hammer]

Who says it was the CIA that organised it? Let your imagination run wild for a second here and that me and you want to get rid of some exceptionally dodgy information that is going to send us to prison for a long time and wipe out our collective fortune.

We look at the first option, we need to delete the information from the servers...too risky, someone has got to be in there to do it.

Or we have a mate who owns the building where the servers are, he fancies redeveloping the whole area but knows he'll never be able to do it. He's already got a plan to destroy the surrounding buildings and claim the insurance money. He tells us of a plan where its going to be risk free for us, a group of towheaded cave dwellers are going to take the blame why don't we piggy back on his plan.

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

What should we do?

So it's too difficult to get access to the servers but dead easy to get access to the entire building to rig it for demolition without anyone noticing?

 

[Cowvahlo]

So it's too difficult to get access to the servers but dead easy to get access to the entire building to rig it for demolition without anyone noticing?

Looks that way. I haven't got the answers and I'm not saying my explanations are what happened. I'm happy to put my opinions, thoughts and possible theories out there for a discussion. Rather than just shoot them down (see what I did there) try debating them?

 

[ravydavygravy]

See, that's the problem with these threads, all you get is a 'wibble', I've put forward a theory about why WTC7 was destroyed, why don't you play along.

Forget the whole debris and fire thing, why would WTC7 be destroyed, why did it come down the way it did?

Yes and your theory is totally f***ing mad.

"Why would it be destroyed"? What does that mean?

"Why did it come down the way it did?" Buggered if I know. Which way should it have fell down?

So it's too difficult to get access to the servers but dead easy to get access to the entire building to rig it for demolition without anyone noticing?

Good one. I like it.

 

[Jardin]

That building came down in a completely different way to WTC7. You can see one corner went first followed by the rest of the building. The argument for WTC7 being a controlled explosion is that for it to have fallen in the way it did, every aspect of the construction of the building must have failed at the exactly the same time. If it did come down by fire all four corners would not have fallen at exactly the same time, there would have been part of the building collapse possibly then followed by the rest.

We're not asking you to believe everything that is said about 9/11 but surely you must be able to see that there are aspects of WTC7 that are very very dodgy?

The official report in to the collapse of WTC7 does not claim the building support structures failed as one though. It contends the probable sequence of events as:

1. Floor 13 separated from support column 79 due to metal buckling (other areas had buckled but stress in this area broke the support connections)
2. Floor 13 collapsed internally, taking out floors 8-13 internally
3. This separated other floors from support column 79 allowing column 79 enough lateral movement to collapse
4. The additional stress passed to the internal columns started a collapse of the building from the centre outwards
5. The external support columns (the outer edge of the building) were believed to be the last to breach, following the central supports collapse almost immediately

There really isn't anything improbable about their probable sequence and it fully explains that collapse.

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

 

[Cowvahlo]

The official report in to the collapse of WTC7 does not claim the building support structures failed as one though. It contends the probable sequence of events as:

1. Floor 13 separated from support column 79 due to metal buckling (other areas had buckled but stress in this area broke the support connections)
2. Floor 13 collapsed internally, taking out floors 8-13 internally
3. This separated other floors from support column 79 allowing column 79 enough lateral movement to collapse
4. The additional stress passed to the internal columns started a collapse of the building from the centre outwards
5. The external support columns (the outer edge of the building) were believed to be the last to breach, following the central supports collapse almost immediately

There really isn't anything improbable about their probable sequence and it fully explains that collapse.

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

All of that happened in 6 seconds to send the building into complete free fall? Very unlikely.

 

[GK]

That building came down in a completely different way to WTC7. You can see one corner went first followed by the rest of the building. The argument for WTC7 being a controlled explosion is that for it to have fallen in the way it did, every aspect of the construction of the building must have failed at the exactly the same time. If it did come down by fire all four corners would not have fallen at exactly the same time, there would have been part of the building collapse possibly then followed by the rest.

We're not asking you to believe everything that is said about 9/11 but surely you must be able to see that there are aspects of WTC7 that are very very dodgy?

Not at all, a building collapsed due to fire mate. It happens.

 

[Jardin]

All of that happened in 6 seconds to send the building into complete free fall? Very unlikely.

Which exact bit of it do you find unlikely? What is the bit of their explanation that you find is unbelievable? You understand how fast and great these stress forces would be as they spread? It is strangely much easier to pick holes in the notion that someone bombed the building to get rid of some servers (or varying other extremely unlikely scenarios) than it is to find anything unbelievable in the official report.

 

[Paddy O'Dors]

It's a stone cold fact that not a single plane hit WTC7 mate.....

The trouble is mate your civil engineering expertise probably relates to nowt more than what you built with lego and meccano as a kid.

You believe what you want to and accept it as fact as much as an over zealous preacher accepts that God created the earth on a week off from graft.

Planes flew into two git massive buildings, those buildings collapsed and had a knock on effect for the buildings around them. They collapsed too.

Your next riposte will be "but, but, but"

But in all honesty I couldn't care. The tin foil is staying in the kitchen cupboard.

 

[Cowvahlo]

Which exact bit of it do you find unlikely? What is the bit of their explanation that you find is unbelievable? You understand how fast and great these stress forces would be as they spread? It is strangely much easier to pick holes in the notion that someone bombed the building to get rid of some servers (or varying other extremely unlikely scenarios) than it is to find anything unbelievable in the official report.

The fire was only on a few floors at one end of the building. Apparently diesel in the building caused the fire. Diesel doesn't burn hot enough to cause the damage to be done. There was no collapse of any facade of the building to bring the rest of it down. There wasn't a full investigation done into the collapse, just a general 'fire' caused it.

For every aspect of the building to fail within split seconds of each other due to fire is highly suspicious given that there are countless examples of buildings collapsing due to fire and not collapsing after a fire. The actual collapse mimics a perfect controlled demolition.

Add to it the circumstantial stuff like Silverstein cancelling a meeting that morning, a proposed terrorist drill being planned of the next day so all of these emergency service had conveniently convened the day before, the fact the BBC reported the collapse of the building despite showing footage of the building clearly still standing in the background, Silversteins use of the word 'pull', a term used in the demolition industry (the argument is that he used it in the context of pulling firefighters out of the building despite knowing for a decent period of time that the building was clear).

The official report might not sound unbelievable because it doesn't go into enough depth and detail. Apparently this was the first building of its type to come down due to fire. Apparently the steel was shipped off and scrapped before any thorough investigation took place. (I use apparently because I haven't looked into the details of this yet).

There are plenty of questions to be asked about WTC7 but it took a couple of years before Silversteins office gave any comment. A lot of the questions haven't been answered hence why there is so much suspicion about it.

 

[GK]

 

[Jardin]

The fire was only on a few floors at one end of the building. Apparently diesel in the building caused the fire. Diesel doesn't burn hot enough to cause the damage to be done. There was no collapse of any facade of the building to bring the rest of it down. There wasn't a full investigation done into the collapse, just a general 'fire' caused it.

For every aspect of the building to fail within split seconds of each other due to fire is highly suspicious given that there are countless examples of buildings collapsing due to fire and not collapsing after a fire. The actual collapse mimics a perfect controlled demolition.

Add to it the circumstantial stuff like Silverstein cancelling a meeting that morning, a proposed terrorist drill being planned of the next day so all of these emergency service had conveniently convened the day before, the fact the BBC reported the collapse of the building despite showing footage of the building clearly still standing in the background, Silversteins use of the word 'pull', a term used in the demolition industry (the argument is that he used it in the context of pulling firefighters out of the building despite knowing for a decent period of time that the building was clear).

The official report might not sound unbelievable because it doesn't go into enough depth and detail. Apparently this was the first building of its type to come down due to fire. Apparently the steel was shipped off and scrapped before any thorough investigation took place. (I use apparently because I haven't looked into the details of this yet).

There are plenty of questions to be asked about WTC7 but it took a couple of years before Silversteins office gave any comment. A lot of the questions haven't been answered hence why there is so much suspicion about it.

I'd give the report a read - it certainly does not agree that the fire was only on a few floors at one end of the building and indeed tracks the movement of fires per floor in detail from video and photo evidence. It does not claim diesel was the source of the blaze (in fact almost all fuel for the internal systems was recovered) or that the blaze got incredibly intense - just that it was on fire from 10.30 onwards for nearly 7 hours (fire accreditation for buildings is to last 3 hours without sprinklers). It was an incredibly detailed report and has further sub-reports that it references that go into each matter in further detail.

NIST also recovered and examined 236 pieces of metal structure from the various wreckage - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

 

[RichDevoto]

The fire was only on a few floors at one end of the building. Apparently diesel in the building caused the fire. Diesel doesn't burn hot enough to cause the damage to be done. There was no collapse of any facade of the building to bring the rest of it down. There wasn't a full investigation done into the collapse, just a general 'fire' caused it.

For every aspect of the building to fail within split seconds of each other due to fire is highly suspicious given that there are countless examples of buildings collapsing due to fire and not collapsing after a fire. The actual collapse mimics a perfect controlled demolition.

Add to it the circumstantial stuff like Silverstein cancelling a meeting that morning, a proposed terrorist drill being planned of the next day so all of these emergency service had conveniently convened the day before, the fact the BBC reported the collapse of the building despite showing footage of the building clearly still standing in the background, Silversteins use of the word 'pull', a term used in the demolition industry (the argument is that he used it in the context of pulling firefighters out of the building despite knowing for a decent period of time that the building was clear).

The official report might not sound unbelievable because it doesn't go into enough depth and detail. Apparently this was the first building of its type to come down due to fire. Apparently the steel was shipped off and scrapped before any thorough investigation took place. (I use apparently because I haven't looked into the details of this yet).

There are plenty of questions to be asked about WTC7 but it took a couple of years before Silversteins office gave any comment. A lot of the questions haven't been answered hence why there is so much suspicion about it.

Christ on a bike mate you're as crazy as a ship's cat. Even if you believe all that you've written, the fundamental (!) question is 'why?' Why go to all that bother? Co-ordinated CIA drones, primed demolition squads, disappearing passengers, aliens, holograms, hugely damaged buildings not 'collapsing' properly, explosives hidden in toilet cisterns etc etc etc..... Why?

 

[GK]

Christ on a bike mate you're as crazy as a ship's cat. Even if you believe all that you've written, the fundamental (!) question is 'why?' Why go to all that bother? Co-ordinated CIA drones, primed demolition squads, disappearing passengers, aliens, holograms, hugely damaged buildings not 'collapsing' properly, explosives hidden in toilet cisterns etc etc etc..... Why?

So one fella gets his insurance payout and erode our civil liberties. Apparently.

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Thank fuck it's Graham Norton day, might distract cowboy for ten minutes

 

[Bishop Mackem]

The trouble is mate your civil engineering expertise probably relates to nowt more than what you built with lego and meccano as a kid.

You believe what you want to and accept it as fact as much as an over zealous preacher accepts that God created the earth on a week off from graft.

Planes flew into two git massive buildings, those buildings collapsed and had a knock on effect for the buildings around them. They collapsed too.

Your next riposte will be "but, but, but"

But in all honesty I couldn't care. The tin foil is staying in the kitchen cupboard.

There are numerous demolition experts that have viewed the footage and agree that it is a textbook demolition that can not happen due to a building being on fire.

I just don't see how people can watch the footage of the building fall and not have doubts over the reasoning behind it.

All this tin foil nonsense is just an embarrassing cop out tbh. Some people just love to bury their head in the sand and accept the official story that is given to them.

 

[Cowvahlo]

Thank fuck it's Graham Norton day, might distract cowboy for ten minutes

I'm thinking the same to be honest.

Christ on a bike mate you're as crazy as a ship's cat. Even if you believe all that you've written, the fundamental (!) question is 'why?' Why go to all that bother? Co-ordinated CIA drones, primed demolition squads, disappearing passengers, aliens, holograms, hugely damaged buildings not 'collapsing' properly, explosives hidden in toilet cisterns etc etc etc..... Why?

I've never mentioned disappearing passengers, alien, holograms or toilet cisterns.

I'd give the report a read - it certainly does not agree that the fire was only on a few floors at one end of the building and indeed tracks the movement of fires per floor in detail from video and photo evidence. It does not claim diesel was the source of the blaze (in fact almost all fuel for the internal systems was recovered) or that the blaze got incredibly intense - just that it was on fire from 10.30 onwards for nearly 7 hours (fire accreditation for buildings is to last 3 hours without sprinklers). It was an incredibly detailed report and has further sub-reports that it references that go into each matter in further detail.

NIST also recovered and examined 236 pieces of metal structure from the various wreckage - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

I'll have a look later, cheers.

 

[Hammer]

Looks that way. I haven't got the answers and I'm not saying my explanations are what happened. I'm happy to put my opinions, thoughts and possible theories out there for a discussion. Rather than just shoot them down (see what I did there) try debating them?

I'm happy to discuss alternative theories, they're always extremely thin on the ground on these threads. So in addition to my earlier post, I'd like to add:

What level of preparation would be required to prepare a building the size of WT7 for controlled demolition? How intrusive would it be to the day-to-day activities going on in the building, i.e. when the necessary internal structures were removed how noticeable would it have been to people who worked in the building? How many man hours would it take to prepare the building in this way? (I assume this would normally be done by a large team so man hours is important as your theory somewhat relies on a very small number of people being involved and I'm interested in how many weeks/months/years it would take for this).