WTC Building 7 on 9/11

[Buffalo Roam]

Is there any thorough official investigation on how WTC Building 7 was pulled down?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

 

[battig1370]

Questioned on WTC 7 by members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now at a Book People event in Austin Texas, Kerry responded, "I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."


The wall that Kerry is talking about was in danger of falling over and which would cause extensive damage to the adjacent building, so they did a controled pull down.

 

[battig1370]

Whoever believes that WTC7 was an uncontrolled collapse, can you show pictures of other buildings that have collapsed so nicely in its own footprint without a controlled demolition.

 

[Dark520]

Undeniable characteristics of a controlled demolition:

1. Flashes going off in rows up and down the building first.
2. Loud pops as the explosives blow.

Please watch a video of the tower going down and show me where those are; especially the flashes.

Also of note is that the entire building collapsed all at once; the middle wasn't taken out first so that the outside walls fall in on the middle. Look at any controlled demo and you'll see that happen, but it doesn't happen in WTC7

If you still don't believe it was a free collapse, then please watch this video; skip ahead to about 18 minutes 30 seconds in:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&hl=en-CA

Actually, on second thought, just watch the whole thing.

 

[John99]

Landlords all over the world have begun crashing planes into buildings to collect insurance money...

what are we smokin' today:m:, make reality go away, i just want to play:m: hold on, look here i got another bright idea...

 

[Balerion]

Battig and Dark520,

Did you guys even bother to read the Popular Mechanics article? No? Didn't think so. Just keep on believing what you want to believe.

 

[Dark520]

Battig and Dark520,

Did you guys even bother to read the Popular Mechanics article? No? Didn't think so. Just keep on believing what you want to believe.

Did you ever read my post?

Yes I have read the Popular Mechanics article, I was the one who provided it. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, you would know if you had read any of my posts.

In my previous post I asked them to show the signs to me because they're clearly not there, which indicate no controlled demolition.


As for battig, if he continues to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy then he's a lost cause by now...

 

[Read-Only]

Did you ever read my post?

Yes I have read the Popular Mechanics article, I was the one who provided it. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, you would know if you had read any of my posts.

In my previous post I asked them to show the signs to me because they're clearly not there, which indicate no controlled demolition.


As for battig, if he continues to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy then he's a lost cause by now...

Dark, there's no point in trying to educate him or any others who accept that garbage. They will ALWAYS continue to believe it no matter what you show them. Why? Because they want to believe it. And no amount of proof will ever overcome that perverse desire.

 

[battig1370]

Yes, I can be educated, but I may be a slow learner.

The question to ask is, when you watch carefully WTC7 collapsing and then you see the end result which is that WTC7 collapsed in its own footprint so prefectly. Wow! Job well done!

Have you seen any end results from an uncontrolled collapse that collapsed in its own footprint so prefectly?

Read-Only posted that; ["They will ALWAYS continue to believe it no matter what you show them."]

'Show them' an uncontrolled collapse of a building that collapsed in its own footprint so prefectly?

 

[Dark520]

How many flashes or loud bangs did you hear/see going up the side of the building, which is what happens with every single other controlled demolition?


The absence of those proves no demolition because it proves that no explosives were used.


battig, stand up, and then just let your legs go completely limp... do you fall straight down? or do you wobble to the side? I believe it's called gravity, and it always pulls things straight down.

 

[battig1370]

, Madrid (12 Feb 2005) is an example of a building totally destoryed by fire, but the steel stucture did not collapse; - why?

WTC7 Fire and The Windsor Tower Fire were both fueled with hydrocarbons. The Windsor Tower Fire was a more massive fire than the WTC7 Fire.

 

[Orleander]

Larry Silverstein said, "they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse".

WTC Building 7 was a planned demolition. Why?

If it was done for insurance money, wouldn't it have been easier to just damage the sprinkler system and set it on fire?

 

[alexb123]

I am sure anyone would agree these building were wrecked anyway so why collapse them? The added risk of the planes and then a controlled explosion on live TV, witnessed by the whole world makes no sense at all.

One insane individual might hatch a plan like this but they would never get as many (qualified) people as would be needed to go along with it.

 

[Dark520]

, Madrid (12 Feb 2005) is an example of a building totally destoryed by fire, but the steel stucture did not collapse; - why?

WTC7 Fire and The Windsor Tower Fire were both fueled with hydrocarbons. The Windsor Tower Fire was a more massive fire than the WTC7 Fire.

The Madrid tower didn't huge gaping hole in it I'm betting, right?

 

[battig1370]

It's simple, really. It WASN'T a planned demolition.

"Pull" doesn't mean to demolish a building, despite what those ignorant conspiracy-theorists would have you believe. When he said that, he meant "evacuate" or "pull the remaining firefighters out of the building" because it had so much structural damage.

When Larry Silverstein said, "pull it" the firefiighters have already been evacuated. You can read the investigation reports.

 

[Dark520]

Unless you can show me the flashes that indicate explosions that destroy a building's supports in a controlled demolition, I'm sorry, but you have no case. Show that to me or just accept it, THIS WAS NOT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

 

[andbna]

When Larry Silverstein said, "pull it" the firefiighters have already been evacuated. You can read the investigation reports.

Who the heck cares what he said? If he had a huge tight covered up conspiracy, he wouldnt have let something that would ruin it like that slip.
Furthurmore that scentance was vague as heck, it would be like trying to convict someone of murder because they said "ok" before the victim died and having no other evidence whatsoever.

Next, you can't compare two very different buildings in two very different situations and expect them to have the same resault. Architechs bride in their originality. It would be like dropping an ant from a second story building and, seeing that it wasnt wounded, saying the medics were covering up a conspiracy because they said that a worse fall broke a persons leg!

If it was done for insurance money, wouldn't it have been easier to just damage the sprinkler system and set it on fire?

Yah, and cheaper too, since this way he wouldnt have to pay thousands of people off to keep quiet with his insurance money... oh looks like he wouldnt get that much out of it after all, there goes the last thing the CT's had going: an incentive.

-Andrew

 

[John99]

When Larry Silverstein said, "pull it" the firefiighters have already been evacuated. You can read the investigation reports.

yeah, he meant to say 'guys blow the mother****** up already, i have another one in Harlem and the rent is killing me...btw, thanks'

 

[BlueMoose]

Lets see Popular Mechanics top guys answering on 911...
Like when answering where is the tail or wing section of that plane in Shanksville.)
..."you know, when plane hit a ground there is nothing much left...
...they were collecting body parts, (babling), from that hole.
-OK, so tons of metal, wings, tailsection and engines just vaporized but
still they were able to find bodyparts, from that hole ?

I wouldnt put much weight on Popular Mechanics in this one,
see it for yourself.

Loose Change vs Popular Mechanics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

 

[andbna]

Well I watched that, and to save anyone the time:
The CT's give no evidance other than "Your lying" Heck the one guy uses up most of his first statement 'thanking' the reporter for giving them a change to "reveal the worlds lies." It's a shame he didn't give any support for his wild claim, or any of the others he makes.
Popular Mechanics debunks them thouroughly. Rather humerous actualy.

Lets see Popular Mechanics top guys answering on 911...
Like when answering where is the tail or wing section of that plane in Shanksville.)
..."you know, when plane hit a ground there is nothing much left...
...they were collecting body parts, (babling), from that hole.
-OK, so tons of metal, wings, tailsection and engines just vaporized but
still they were able to find bodyparts, from that hole ?

And I suppose you have proof or expert opinion (Dylan's ugly face or any other CT is not expert opinion) that states they should not have found any body parts? Sound's like your using exaggeration, the plane or any part of it wasn't "vapourised."
Show some evidence...

-Andrew