WTC Building 7 on 9/11

Discussion in 'World Events' started by battig1370, Jun 23, 2007.

  1. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Because it'd be a wee bit too obvious if the towers fell instantly after being hit by the planes. Besides, with 9/11, imagery is everything so they'd want as many Americans to see it as possible, to rally more support to put their war plans in action.

    - N
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    We are talking about WTC7. The imagery of of WTC7 collapsing in not significant.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    Okay rubble hit WTC 7? Your point?

    That by some godlike coincidence the building implodes from top down?

    And if that was the case why didn't the verizon or us post office building collapse?

    And yeah you are actually being difficult regarding the madrid tower. I brought it up because it was also on fire, and the next day all that was left was it's steel structure.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    And what about the molten metal after the clean up? *note fire does not melt metal
     
  8. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    My response is basically the same for WTC7 in regards of when to implode it. You can't blow WTC 7 immediately after two planes crash into WTC 1 & 2 as that'd look too obviously fishy. Gotta at least think up some kinda excuse like a prolonged fire to make people believe it before taking it down.

    - N
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    implode? there were no implosions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    My point is that it wasn't just some dust and telephone pieces that landed on WTC7. The top floors from a falling skyscraper collided with it, causing a lot of damage.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html


    Apart from the damage the building then burnt freely for seven hours. How else should a building look when it collapses after losing its stuctural integrity?

    They were extensively damaged though.

    A quick look at wiki gave me this.

    "Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors;

    " a huge fire on February 12, 2005, and partially collapsed;"


    That building didn't have the top of a skyscraper land on it either.
     
  11. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    So loading up a not-so significant building with explosives when it isn't going to hit by any planes, and we don't know where the debris from WTC1+2 will fall (or if there will be some) doesn't sound fishy?

    The building was already damaged to the point where the firefighters thought it might collapse. Why do you even need (invisible, indestructible) explosives in a building that has already been damaged and burning for seven hours?
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2007
  12. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    you know, if you actually spend some time to find pictures of wtc 7...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    you would probably know too if you were standing in front of the building, where all the smoke is.
     
  14. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    where is the massive damage? even in the wtc 7 collapse videos, there is no visible damage to anything, it's just a building falling down.

    what the hell are you talking about? firefighters do not stay away from steel framed buildings under suspicion that they will collapse ask anyone.

    and another thing you did not know is that thermite (the bombs to melt metal) do not explode in the presence of heat.

    they wanted this building to fall down, simple as that. there was no "ooh look it's on fire, let's make sure we take it down". it was more like "light those floors on fire, and then demolish it, no evidence".

    and the "no evidence" you cannot say anything against because the clean up was a gong show.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    oh i know where some massive damage is.
     
  16. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    oh... you mean this side?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  18. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    go troll elsewhere or find a girlfriend, seriously.
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    hey, what is your problem? i can post refutations.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Have you not seen this?

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg

    That gash is not a feature of the architecture.

    lol. Well they did on September 11. Perhaps you should read some of the links at the top of this page.

    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst

    It's pretty funny that your own example, the madrid tower, actually undid the argument you were trying to construct there. The steel building did partially collapse.

    :roflmao:

    Again you are conveniently forgetting the damage caused to the building.


    Actually thermite is an incendiary not a bomb. I believe it burns but does not explode. However the amount of thermite needed for this would be ridiculous. Someone would most likely notice. If a timer or remote device was used as a trigger then that would certainly be affected by heat.
     
  21. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    Okay thermite is not a "bomb"... semantics, i still don't see your point? There were none because somebody would have noticed it? The building was actually empty the entire morning and afternoon of 9/11 because of those random fires; obviously an attempt to keep people from entering. So in reality, nobody would have noticed them.

    Also madrid tower partially collapsed... once again I don't see your point, because it had even more damage and it still remained standing.

    as for your image of wtc 7; that gash is the exact same one i had shown earlier, it's only like 5 feet deep. You're saying a 5 foot deep scratch is enough to take out all 4 corners of the building?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    you're an idiot if you think an isolated incident offers global explanation.
     
  23. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931

    Really? then how do you melt metal, steel? take a forge, fuel it with charcoal, add a bellows, which forces air into the fire, and you can melt steel, something that happens even faster is that the steel become's malleable, which means it can be streached, formed, pulled apart, twisted, shaped, it become like soft clay, and it has no structural strength,


    Flash point: 38 °C
    Autoignition temperature: 210 °C
    Freezing point: -47 °C (-40 °C for JET A
    Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)
    Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)
    Density at 15 °C (60 °F): 0.775-0.840 kg/L


    www.structural.net - Articles and technical papers
    Unfortunately, unprotected structural steel members lose about ½ their strength at 1000oF (538oC) and rapidly loses more strength as the temperature rises. ...
    http://www.structural.net/News/Media_coverage/media_fireproofing.html


    Jet a is capabale of burning with forced air draft at 1796 deg.F, steel loses half of its structural strength at 1000 deg.F, so again tell me that with the forced air drafts of the winds blowing through the holes, blown through the WTC towers by the 757, that the steel had to melt to fail? A old fashioned bellows, pushing air through a hard wood fire can create enough heat at a temperature high enough to allow a black smith to reduce the structural strength of steel to the point that he can redally streach, bend, form, and shape steel, so with Jet-A, JP-4, with a burning temperature of 1796 deg.F can and does reduce the structural strength of steel to the point thta it can be streached to the breaking point, and loose it load bearing ability long before it comes close to melting.

    http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...laim of DB, Volume II/PDC_vII_Sec1_052903.PDF


    Seems to be plenty of air movement to fan any fire, and creat a blast furnace effect, and create enough heat to destroy any structural or load bearing strength of steel, and even enough forced air (Blast Furnace) tempratures to melt steel.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

     

Share This Page