WTC Building 7 on 9/11

[BlueMoose]

Blue Moose: "you saying that all those professors through out the world are CTs"

Yes I am. Of course Professors can be conspiracy theorists. All of those Professors theorizing conspiracy are indeed conspiracy theorists. If you can't follow that, you might be hopeless when it comes to applying your own reason.

-lol, so anybody who doesnt agree with you in this case are CT and so hes words cant hold no truth ? You are making yourself to be a God, how can anybody argue with God ?

"Same could be said about you"

Lamer ad-hominem.

Read the links. There is a clear difference between sincere analysis and sensationalist conjecture.

-Yes there is and I havent still found anything but conjectures of somekind in official reports.
-Care to explain Mr. Lermer-Lams position in this case since he was one of the expert mentioned in that Pop-Mecs site. (see post 164)

I'm only bothering with you

a) because you have made this annoying topic active again- I won't bump this crappy thread when it's down where it belongs.
and
b) because leaving your nonsense unchallenged belittles this forum.

Please read the links I have offered, and I'll be happy to further discuss any of the specific points I quoted, if you're sincere.

a) Sorry if you are out of your comfort zone.
b) my nonsense, lol, bring´em on !

-I will go trough those when I have little more time, first of your site didnt have anything to offer, raised more questions than giving answers.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

A yes, 21 and so cosmopolitan, ....your full of shit, as some one said a farm boy, who has never been past the county line, the computer is your travel agent.

Dude you're 30 years older than me and twice as stupid. How proud you must be of your life.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

wasn't the pillars in WTC7 concrete?

Only the core, and it was steel bars surounded by concrete. But regardless, the total collapse of the building implies that the other steel structures also failed, rather than just the central concrete core which would not have been fire resistant.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Dude you're 30 years older than me and twice as stupid. How proud you must be of your life.

Ah yes, a farm boy from the wilds of Canada, trying to sound like a man, you own bio gives the truth about your lie, Just think how many countries that I have lived in, in my life time, and your a little short on the 30 years.

You want to know something, I am proud of my life, I have more than enough awards from others to know just how successful I have been, and I retired when I was 55, now can you do the same? I doubt that you have the brains, and the drive, you engage in to much fantasy.

Why is it that children think that when they are caught in a lie about their fantasies that if they call the Adult stupid, they will be made correct, and that no one will doubt their word about their great accomplishments, in their own minds? Yes you are a legend in your own mind.

 

[leopold]

Only the core, and it was steel bars surounded by concrete. But regardless, the total collapse of the building implies that the other steel structures also failed, rather than just the central concrete core which would not have been fire resistant.

doesn't this make your argument of steel conducting heat away moot?

if i remember correctly, building 7 was a steel reinforced concrete prefab job.
this means the structure was mainly concrete with steel bars, called rebar, inside the concrete. these bars were slightly stretched when the concrete was poured. when the concrete was hard the stretching components was removed, essentially compressing the columns.

concrete is not an efficient conductor of heat.

edit:
like i mentioned earlier, i cannot resolve how the building collapsed like a controlled demolition.
i believe the answer lies in how the building was constructed.
check this out:
The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation, which had been on the site since 1967. The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building on the site of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²). The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

it isn't too much of a leap to see how the building could come down like it did.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Only the core, and it was steel bars surounded by concrete. But regardless, the total collapse of the building implies that the other steel structures also failed, rather than just the central concrete core which would not have been fire resistant.

You don't have to melt steel to have it fail, you just have to heat it to the point that it looses its tensile strength, it then becomes as flexible as spaghetti, Visit a Blacksmith, and watch him work Iron and Steel, watch him bend, stretch, wind, and form the metal to his will, heat, fire, and oxygen, and it don't take but a few minutes to have steel in a flexible state, ready for the hammer and the anvil, to draw it out into wire, or cut it with the hammer.

On 9/11 it wasn't a hammer that went into the WTC Towers that day, it was a 136 ton projectile, explosive projectile at 550 kts, with 11,489 gal. of Jet-A, it was called a Boeing 757, what it didn't cut by force, it heated with the Jet-A past its tensile strength, and if you care to notice, both 757, made of aluminum, and magnesium, penetrated completely through the buildings made of concrete and steel, that should tell you something of the amount of force that was expended in the crash, something on the order of 4.5 billion tons of energy, the equivalent of 2000lb, of TNT.

 

[Dunn11x]

Only the core, and it was steel bars surounded by concrete. But regardless, the total collapse of the building implies that the other steel structures also failed, rather than just the central concrete core which would not have been fire resistant.

I would think that with all that weight failing (and by all that weight I'm pointing towards the part of building that was already compromised) and all the energy it has to be bringing down with it would without a doubt hamper the strength of the floors to follow resulting in the collapse of the floors to follow.

And that’s not to say that the very impact of the crash didn't at least some what hamper the structure of the building, at least partially, all the weigh through to the bottom. But if that didn’t happen, then energy which resulted from the collapsing structure (above the crash) that was held up with what was damaged by the plane could have brought the building down by itself.

I personally don’t believe that it was a controlled demo. But I’m not saying that those who believe it that are wrong. What I am saying is that it is wrong to accuse people with saying that there was a controlled demo. With out first having undoubting proof; this is a subject that has the potential to cause great pain to a large majority of people. That’s almost like saying we have the cure for cancer but…we can’t cure people yet; first be able to cure people before announcing it.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

You don't have to melt steel to have it fail, you just have to heat it to the point that it looses its tensile strength, it then becomes as flexible as spaghetti, Visit a Blacksmith, and watch him work Iron and Steel, watch him bend, stretch, wind, and form the metal to his will, heat, fire, and oxygen, and it don't take but a few minutes to have steel in a flexible state, ready for the hammer and the anvil, to draw it out into wire, or cut it with the hammer.

On 9/11 it wasn't a hammer that went into the WTC Towers that day, it was a 136 ton projectile, explosive projectile at 550 kts, with 11,489 gal. of Jet-A, it was called a Boeing 757, what it didn't cut by force, it heated with the Jet-A past its tensile strength, and if you care to notice, both 757, made of aluminum, and magnesium, penetrated completely through the buildings made of concrete and steel, that should tell you something of the amount of force that was expended in the crash, something on the order of 4.5 billion tons of energy, the equivalent of 2000lb, of TNT.

Hi Mr. Roam,

We're actually talking about WTC 7, which was not hit by an airplane. Thank you.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

Yes you are a legend in your own mind.

I masturbate to porn every night. It's sad how much better you are than me.

But in reality, the sad thing is that we both sound like juveniles. I have the excuse of being a young'un, but you're retired, successful and ruffling your feathers on the net?

That's okay, neither of us can prove anything... so you can stop derailing the thread any time now.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

doesn't this make your argument of steel conducting heat away moot?

no actually because the fire was spread throughout the 12th and 13th floors, not just around the core. If you take that out of the equation you're left with an entire array of steel bars.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

But okay, let's just concentrate on the collapse, not the cause.

Here's a thought experiment;

1) A building collapses from its top floor to the bottom. a) Would it fall into its own footprint and b) how fast should it fall down?

2) A building collapses from the midsection or bottom upwards. a) would it fall into its own footprint and b) how fast should it fall down?

 

[Dunn11x]

Hi Mr. Roam,

We're actually talking about WTC 7, which was not hit by an airplane. Thank you.

Oh, I took it to mean the Twin Towers; what where you pertaining to or did you just mean the previous attack before the airplanes?

 

[Dunn11x]

But okay, let's just concentrate on the collapse, not the cause.

Here's a thought experiment;

1) A building collapses from its top floor to the bottom. a) Would it fall into its own footprint and b) how fast should it fall down?

2) A building collapses from the midsection or bottom upwards. a) would it fall into its own footprint and b) how fast should it fall down?

I believe there to be so many variables which some or many, we may not be able to account for. But...

1;a) possible; I think a more appropriate question would be could it? If the building was constructed correctly and by correctly I mean with relative equality (welds, grade of steel, etc.) through out the structure. b) as fast as the integriaty of the building that is left and the weight/accumilated energy would have it fall.

2;a) possible, if the time of collapse was relativly done at the same time when regarding to all the sides of the building including on the inside (this could go for the first question to). b) Same as 1.b

 

[Hurricane Angel]

no the third building at the WTC that collapsed... after the towers. the one the media wasnt allowed to talk about.

I cannot see how this does not prove that something is amiss in the whole scandal.

 

[Dunn11x]

The event of the Towers collapsing into (relatively) their own "footprint" is a miracle. Yes it would have been nice if it hadn't happened at all. But never the less, the event did take place. So I just thank God that there wasn't any more destruction than what there was.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

I'm afraid to say that won't do as far as the truth is concerned. We all thank god that it wasn't any worse than it really was. But Dunn did you know about the third building, the specific one we are discussing right now?

 

[Dunn11x]

no the third building at the WTC that collapsed... after the towers. the one the media wasnt allowed to talk about.

I cannot see how this does not prove that something is amiss in the whole scandal.

Really, I (embarrassingly) didn't even know of this. How did you come to find this out? I know it would be rather easy to have if the destruction was witnessed by you. Was that the case or did you find out another way.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

Yes... actually there was a third building that collapsed. Unsurprisingly many didn't even know this happened due to a media blackout. I learned about this a week after 9/11 so that's why I'm on the skeptical side of things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEoKhyXKWxQ&mode=related&search=

Here you go, the particulars of this video is regarding thermite. BUT there is footage of WTC 7.

across the street, unhit by a plane... collapsed?

 

[John99]

Yes... actually there was a third building that collapsed. Unsurprisingly many didn't even know this happened due to a media blackout. I learned about this a week after 9/11 so that's why I'm on the skeptical side of things.

It was only on live televsion, if you found out a week later maybe you were sleeping the whole time. Media blackout!

You and blue moose suffer from some kind of delusion, i know what it is but i would rather not say. The mass media is not picking up on internet fantasies because they have a sense of shame that is not seen on the internet.

Also, just look at your image and think, think, think. Thinking is crucial.

 

[shaman_]

look up "madrid tower", please explain that event in the context of WTC 7.

I’m not trying to be difficult here but perhaps you could explain the link to me.

Yeah... okay there. WTC 7 housed thousands of files on the billion dollar frauds committed by Enron, and Worldcom. that right there is enough to burn the building.

All companies of this size (even the small ones) have a disaster recovery plan where the full backups of all systems are sent to another location. Blowing up the building would not destroy all the files. Anyway hard drives were still recovered from the rubble so collapsing a building is not a reliable way to destroy files.

No, this is not a plausible reason.

oh my, please don't bring such assumptions, let's stick to science not the human psyche. after all I could argue that they believed they were doing it for the greater good. (re; nazi germany)

Actually my use of the word ‘evil’ was somewhat sarcastic but never mind. You have missed or ignored the point. The amount of people needed to pull off the biggest conspiracy of all time would be absurd. We are talking about firefighters, police, politicians, ect. Are we to believe that no one has come forward? It's not like the US is a country totally united at the moment.

considering larry silverstein and mayor giulliani are well connected w/ the white house, i don't see how they couldn't use their new york connections to tell them to stay away, and strangely not put out a fire.

If the building was loaded with explosives why would you wait seven hours and go through the charade of pretending that there was no water and not enough equipment. Why not just blow it when the top of WTC (1 or 2) fell on it? Why would you wait until there were more cameras and people at the scene to scrutinize the fake collapse caused by the indestructible, invisible explosives?

So are you suggesting that not putting out the fire caused the collapse or that explosives were used?

across the street, unhit by a plane... collapsed?

Two of the tallest buildings in the world collapsed. Are you really surprised that some of the rubble managed to fall on a building across the street?

Interestingly if the rubble hadn't fallen on some other buildings the conspiracy theorists would say it was a "perfect" collapse and just more evidence for a controlled demolition.