|
Buddha5254
addict
Registered: 04/22/00
Posts: 532
|
WTC 7 Help Me Understand
#6158449 - 10/11/06 01:58 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, I have been on here periodically for years. I am a "leftie". However I dont buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact I let someone have it in anger in a thread awhile back. But one thing does make me uncomfortable and that is WTC 7. I have seen the conspiracy theorists observations on its collapse. What does the other side say? I just dont fucking understand why this building would collapse! WTF? What is the official explanation? Please leave this thread to pure discussion of WTC 7. Thanks, I really want to hear all sides of this.
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Buddha5254]
#6158491 - 10/11/06 02:11 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Okay, let's begin with the most common claim: No steel-frame building has ever collapsed before due to fire.
This is false, the report on the Sight and Sound Theatre fire in Pennsylvania is publicly available, you can read it here: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
The conclusions are clear: the theatre was a solid steel-frame building constructed to code, and it collapsed due to fire.
Then we get to the next point the conspiracy theorists usually make: other steel frame buildings of comparable construction have failed to collapse due to fire.
This would be true, except that it ignores the initial (and on going) structural damage done to WTC 7 by debris impact. WTC 7 didn't just recieve damage from the fire, it had very large holes torn into it by flying debris. This is best described by Fire Captain Boyle, whose eye-witness account is available here: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
To quote him: "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."
So, WTC 7 already had a 20-story tall hole torn in it before it began taking damage from the fire. Thus, pointing out other steel framed buildings that burned doesn't compare unless they first sustained comparable structural damage before even catching fire.
The next point is also in Fire Captain Boyle's quote, debris was continuing to fall onto WTC 7 the entire time, causing additional impacts and damage. Again, this is why simply pointing out other steel-buildings that caught fire doesn't compare, none of them were subjected to ongoing impacts from debris cascading off other buildings.
It's also publicly known that there was an electricity-generating facility housed in WTC 7, which required large diesel reserves in order to run. These diesel reserves caught fire, creating hotter and longer burning flames than would have occured in other buildings ajacent to the Towers.
Finally, looking at other buildings a comparable distance from the Towers you can see that they also took similar levels of structural damage. The Bankers Trust building also had a 20-story hole torn in its base. The difference between the Bankers Trust and WTC 7 is the lack of diesel reserves, thus the Bankers Trust building never caught fire. WTC 7 meanwhile not only had a large hole torn in its base, but its diesel reserves caught fire and burned for over 6 hours, eventually causing the building to collapse.
Edit: Oops, forgot one of the important bits.
WTC 7 also didn't collapse "straight down". If you look at the photo series available at the bottom of this page: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm It's fairly clear that WTC 7 collapsed towards the south. Furthermore, photos of the debris left after WTC 7 collapse show that it is strewn to the south, not in a perfect radius around the base, which would have happened if it actually fell straight down.
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Economist]
#6158712 - 10/11/06 02:57 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
That is a very weak argument IMO.
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Hank, FTW]
#6158727 - 10/11/06 03:00 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Not anywhere close to being as weak as your "rebuttal".
Would you like to give us some specifics regarding which facts Economist presented are "weak"?
Phred
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Phred]
#6160560 - 10/11/06 11:57 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
They only "weak" part is that he left out the bit where the new owner told them to "pull the building down" so he could cash in on the insurance. Of course, I suspect Economist would used the actual quote and put into the proper context rather than adding a few extra words and using it to mislead, as I did.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Seuss]
#6160734 - 10/12/06 01:19 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I saw it said in a documentary that the building had been lined with explosives since its construction in case it ever had to be pulled, and the same documentary showed the owner explain that they decided to take it down.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Disco Cat]
#6160989 - 10/12/06 04:33 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Yeah, I saw it said in a documentary that the building had been lined with explosives since its construction in case it ever had to be pulled
It is pretty common practice these days to use explosives as insulation in buildings. This allows the US government to blow up any building that needs to go quickly. The explosive they use is made from an exotic type of spun glass. It kind of looks like pink cotton candy. Tear open almost any building wall and you will find some inside. Spooky stuff, I say!
(tongue in cheek for the humor impaired)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
quiver
freedrug


Registered: 10/25/05
Posts: 8,047
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Seuss]
#6160998 - 10/12/06 04:37 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
 damn and all along i thought that stuff was fairyfloss to keep the ants happy
--------------------
|
GabbaDj
BTH


Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,682
Loc: By The Lake
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Economist]
#6161493 - 10/12/06 09:56 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
FEMA on Building 7
Despite the inescapable logic of the above, the official theory for the collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows:
* At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off. * Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves. * 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 Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.) * This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.) * 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 system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire. * The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7.
The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel frame skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude: 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.
Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published. Documents Destroyed
At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. 2
-------------------- GabbaDj FAMM.ORG
|
GabbaDj
BTH


Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,682
Loc: By The Lake
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: GabbaDj]
#6161503 - 10/12/06 10:00 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The FEMA report doesnt explain how the fuel spread so evenly to all four corners of the building AND how the fire degraded every falling part of the building soo evenly as to make it fall soo straight.
-------------------- GabbaDj FAMM.ORG
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: GabbaDj]
#6161559 - 10/12/06 10:15 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> a distance of at least 355 feet
How tall were the twin towers again? Basically 1400 feet? I see no problem with parts of the WTC going 355 feet horizontal with that much verticle drop. Oh wait, the controlled demolotion of the WTC towers meant that everything went straight down and had no effect on surrounding buildings. Never mind.
> This is surprising behavior for a steel frame skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
Too bad it wasn't a lone fire, hurricane or earthquake that hit the building. Was the building designed to survive another building falling onto it? Probably not.
> The FEMA report doesnt explain how the fuel spread so evenly to all four corners of the building
Those pesky liquids are so difficult to work with. I hate it when spill a bucket of water on the floor and it just sits there in a big pile instead of spreading out.
Having been in a building that had a massive water leak, I know that it takes very little time for three to four inches of liquid to spread through out an entire floor.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
GabbaDj
BTH


Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,682
Loc: By The Lake
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Seuss]
#6161576 - 10/12/06 10:23 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Say what you want.. Youll never convinve me that it was anything other than a controlled demolition.
-------------------- GabbaDj FAMM.ORG
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: GabbaDj]
#6161599 - 10/12/06 10:30 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Nothing like an open mind.
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: GabbaDj]
#6161693 - 10/12/06 11:03 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
GabbaDJ, you left out the most important aspect of the FEMA report:
A request for further investigation which took the form of the NIST report.
I noted that you didn't even mention the NIST report, could this be because they conclude that it was not a controlled demolition?
I also note that you claim WTC 7 collapsed "neatly without causing any debris or damage to fall on adjacent buildings. Yet this is 100% untrue, as you can clearly see in this photo:

Please note the significant amount of debris that collapsed onto the black-and-white striped building, along with the damage it took. This was the building located directly behind WTC 7 and it clearly did not remain "untouched" after a "neat collapse".
But then, you've already explained that you don't value debate on this subject, so this is probably just a waste of time.
|
GabbaDj
BTH


Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,682
Loc: By The Lake
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Redstorm]
#6161700 - 10/12/06 11:05 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- GabbaDj FAMM.ORG
|
GabbaDj
BTH


Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,682
Loc: By The Lake
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Economist]
#6161712 - 10/12/06 11:09 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Never said that it fell neatly, just that it fell evenly.. Both far right and far left and center fell all at the same time.
I just dont see that happening unless the supports were all knocked out evenly and at the same time.
-------------------- GabbaDj FAMM.ORG
|
cupevampe
The Lunatic isin My Head


Registered: 12/31/05
Posts: 163
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: GabbaDj]
#6161757 - 10/12/06 11:28 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
there is a good video here
jeff king of MIT exposing his collapse theory
it seems he knows what he's saying
-------------------- My Blog: The Invisible Landscape Subscribe this great podcast! www.matrixmasters.com/podcasts No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction. PS: sorry 4 my english - i'm italian *-*-* i do my best!
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: GabbaDj]
#6161766 - 10/12/06 11:29 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Both far right and far left and center fell all at the same time.
Just because different parts of a building are falling at the same rate does not mean that the building is falling straight down.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Economist]
#6162281 - 10/12/06 01:41 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There's something that needs clarification here, Economist.
First look at the usual WTC7 collapse videos, and tell me if the collapse, according to you, looks clean or messy (feel free to compare it to the Twin Towers'). IMHO, as far as we can see, that is until the roof falls to the level where the 20th floor used to be, it looks pretty clean (even, straight, symmetrical, call it however you wish). Feel free to contradict me, but do give arguments. There was indeed a *very slight* movement to the south, but in terms of angular deviation, I would estimate it to be about 5 degrees, hardly significant. You couldn't say it *tilted*, it fell much straighter than most controlled demos I've seen. Saying it fell straight down is hardly a stretch. If it had fallen because damage to the south face, the tilt would be significant, if not complete. WTC7 would have fallen onto WTC6 (in between 7 and 1) and on the North Tower rubble.
Secondly, you're the one who pointed out the building fell to the south. How come the debris you're pointing out in your picture is north of the building's footprint?
Finally, the pic you show is unclear because it's taken from an angle, and the debris of the North tower and WTC7 seem to mix. Things are much clearer viewed from a zenith perspective:
 [Admittedly, the pic is low-quality, but you can see the complete hi-res picture here. Now tell me the building fell out of its footprint. Edit: I tried to post a few pics from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html, but it didn't work. For nice views of the WTC7 rubble, scroll down to the pics taken on 9/15 (the fourth one) and on 9/16 (the last two). Obviously, 7 did fall very neatly on its footprint, and the rubble is slightly more to the north than to the south.
Edited by Aldous (10/12/06 02:38 PM)
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
Re: WTC 7 Help Me Understand [Re: Phred]
#6162414 - 10/12/06 02:29 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Not anywhere close to being as weak as your "rebuttal".
Would you like to give us some specifics regarding which facts Economist presented are "weak"?
No, I am through with the 9/11 bullshit. I was just stating that I was of the opinion that his arguments were weak. No more, no less.
Phred
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
|