WTC7 compared to Khobar Towers and Alfred P Murrah buildings

[kaiser soze]

To see WTC7 fall as similar as a controlled demolition (blamed for fire and a hole on one corner) and to see two buildings with their complete fronts blown off still standing should really raise eyebrows of many.

It's alarming to see people forget the affects of those two attacks on the buildings and not make some sort of comparison. I would say it's safe to assume that direct blasts to the Khobar Towers and Murrah buildings not only destroying the facade but more than likely causing a ripple effect of fractures throughout the structure would cause a similar effect as WTC7 (delayed collapse).

But the buildings held up.....amazingly

WTC7 collapse (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739)

Khobar Towers (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/khobar/dhah1.jpg)

Alfred P Murrah (http://www.oklahomacitybombing.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-4.jpg)

[DroppinScience]

Where was it said WTC7 fell due to fires and such? (As in something OFFICIAL, like 9/11 Commission Report or NIST or something)

I could have sworn it was a controlled demolition (due to irrepairable damage) and the owner himself said it.

[kaiser soze]

controlled demolition?

But...how could and would someone do that!?!!

Silverstein said his comment of "Pull It" did not mean to destroy it, but to pull the firemen out

[Carlos]

Where was it said WTC7 fell due to fires and such? (As in something OFFICIAL, like 9/11 Commission Report or NIST or something)

I could have sworn it was a controlled demolition (due to irrepairable damage) and the owner himself said it.

lol.. :confused:

NIST - 4 years on - have yet to come up with an answer.. the 911 comission didn't even write a sentence about it. FEMA says that is was unlikely to have been due to fire..

Silverstein blatently said they dicided to "pull it".... only later to say that what he meant was to pull the firefighters out - nice of him to call all those heroes "it"... oh and not to mention that there hadn't been any firefighters in the building for about 5 hours (firefighters left building at 11-12, the building came down at 5.23pm)

Blatently was Cont. Demo as independent experts say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0&eurl=http

http://911blogger.com/node/6562

so if it was a C.D... then it MUST have meant prior knowledge of the event - you cannot wire up a building that is on fire and smoking, in 6 or so hours. :rolleyes:

[kaiser soze]

exactly, so let's say WTC7 was prewired for demolition for who knows what and when....

Then why couldn't the WTC 1 and 2 be wired as well?

The building fell into it's footprint neatly and systematically, a gash on a corner of the building and some fires on a couple floors wouldn't cause that kind of collapse.

[Carlos]

exactly ;)

[DroppinScience]

Here's what Wiki says...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC7#Collapse

It says FEMA believes it was due to fires. NIST is presently working on a 3-year investigation into how it fell (which should be released this year).

I still say the whole thing was the work of an as-yet unreleased Tom Clancy movie. There's MY conspiracy! :p

[Carlos]

rather than wiki, why not quote FEMA's conclusion:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premisses contained massive potential energy, the best hyposthesis has only a low probability of occurance. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue"

in other words, they don't know ;)

[kaiser soze]

There was no diesel related explosions prior to the collapse...the building was relatively quiet and just dropped straight down (with squib like explosions coming out from the upper right back)

The collapse was uniform, it didn't start at the gash and the rest followed. Look at footage of the collapse, the center falls in first pulling the exterior in (ideally done with a controlled demolition)

and how did the BBC know the building was going to fall before it did?

It's Magic!! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LzxEoEfE_8A)

[Qdrop]

every one of these conspiracy theories have been pulverized a dozens times over....
yet every few months, the "tin hats" pull em out, dust em off...and start all over.


would you like links that systematically destroy every point you have made, or would that really make no difference in your mind?

[Qdrop]

here: http://www.911myths.com

that's one of many that easily hand your Tin Ass right back to you.

but I'm sure they're just part of the "conspiracy".

[Laver1969]

There was no diesel related explosions prior to the collapse...the building was relatively quiet and just dropped straight down (with squib like explosions coming out from the upper right back)

The collapse was uniform, it didn't start at the gash and the rest followed. Look at footage of the collapse, the center falls in first pulling the exterior in (ideally done with a controlled demolition)

and how did the BBC know the building was going to fall before it did?

It's Magic!! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LzxEoEfE_8A)

What's all the fuss about? From this clip here. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100&mode=related&search=) You have them acknowledging the fact that they brought it down. This does not tie it to any sort of conspiracy theory at all. To me that just says they made a decision to bring it down on their terms.

Here's another one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26qKSg-G4CE&NR)

No big deal.

[Carlos]

so your saying they planted explosives in a building which was on fire?!! :confused:

they were some brave demolition experts....

no.... IF it WAS brought down then it MUST mean prior knowledge, can't be anything else. It takes days of planning and prep work.

[DroppinScience]

Okay, let's get things straight:

Silverman's "pull it" remark was to get the firefighters out of the building because it was damaged beyond repair and would inevitably fall down. Not actually a controlled demolition remark (my mistake).

You don't have anything.

[kaiser soze]

wow Silverstein has amazing clairvoyance, like The BBC?

and he is now millions upon millions richer

I don't know how people who think they are superior intelligent (Q) can't even question how this collapse could happen.....lemming?

[Carlos]

Okay, let's get things straight:

Silverman's "pull it" remark was to get the firefighters out of the building because it was damaged beyond repair and would inevitably fall down. Not actually a controlled demolition remark (my mistake).

You don't have anything.


ok so you obviously didn't read my post above...

There was no fire fighters in the building since 11-12.. that's 5 hours before it collapsed. Not to mention he suppposedly called those brave firemen "it"..

Or how do you explain this eyewitness testimony? http://911blogger.com/node/7064

Or an independent expert opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRh...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0&eurl=http

Not to mention that is is literally physically impossible for it have imploded like that, due to fire, and the little damage there was to it.. so yeah we do have something - it is you that is clinging on to an illusion.

[Carlos]

here: http://www.911myths.com

that's one of many that easily hand your Tin Ass right back to you.

but I'm sure they're just part of the "conspiracy".

Er... yes this site does help to show some of the mis beliefs that some espouse about 911. But it also contradicts itself in places, and skips over massive anomalies. So no it doesn't "hand your Tin Ass right back to you.".... nice little label you got for people. How bout I'll hand your blind mofu arse back to you and ya mumma. But that would be childish, and pathetic eh?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html is the page that deals with WTC7, and as i have already said it does show up the weaker arguments. But NO WHERE does it explain how WTC7 could have come down - apart for the damage to one side of the building. Which is blatently less than the Khobar Towers, and also the building involved in the oklhoma bombing - i mean half of it was blown away, did it collapse??.... NO. It has to be brought down by Control Demolition Inc.

So how does one edge being damaged bring down a building with massive solid steel core (i.e throughout the middle of building) supports?
It doesn't..... don't just trust me, trust an expert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

How does that make the penthouse fall first - surely it would have been that edge that come down first, which would have caused a partial collapse - not totally symetrical, into it's own footprint... use your head, don't just trust something that confirms your initial thoughts.

[kaiser soze]

I wonder why the Empire State Building didn't collapse neatly when a B-25 bomber collided with it

http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1945/jul45/f28jul45.htm

Has anyone who is arguing this building collapse watch implosion documentaries? It takes a tremendous amount of energy and strategic placement of charges/ thermite to bring down a building.

Why does the collapse of WTC7 show it buckle at the top first before collapsing? Why not topple over at the site of the damage? Please explain this anomoly of physics (posted before reading previous post....sorry for sounding like a parrot)

Also please let me know why the WTC6 didn't collapse even though it had a gaping hole in it's roof down through many floors.

[Laver1969]

so your saying they planted explosives in a building which was on fire?!! :confused:

they were some brave demolition experts....

no.... IF it WAS brought down then it MUST mean prior knowledge, can't be anything else. It takes days of planning and prep work.

I think they decided to control the demolition of it after they realized there was nothing they could do to save the building.

I don't think it takes days of planning and prep work...a couple of strategically placed explosives at the ground level and you're done.

[Laver1969]

Okay, let's get things straight:

Silverman's "pull it" remark was to get the firefighters out of the building because it was damaged beyond repair and would inevitably fall down. Not actually a controlled demolition remark (my mistake).

You don't have anything.

Actually I disagree. I think the "pull it" comment was specifically referring to the fact they decided to control the demolition. There is no conspiracy theory.

And you're right Droppin' they still don't have anything.

[kaiser soze]

So I guess Tampering with or destroying evidence at a crime scene is nothing :rolleyes:

[fucktopgirl]

<sight>

When Silverstein use the sentence PULL IT, it was directed for the girl down there, below is belt , he ask her to pull his zipper down...bunch of moron! Nothing to do with the wtc7.....

Can you guys accept that the WTC7 collapse because it just did, no need to know why, think about all the people that died. It is not important to know WHY as long as you know that America is fighting those nasty terrorists since that day. And YES they succeed, plenty of human life has been lost and more blood need to be spill for the installation of democracy and it is done in a "democratic way". Then after, you can take all their oil, i mean, since you are there " Une pierre , deux coups"

And THE WTC, they collapsed because of the impact of the planes, and then fire spread and then the base of the tower became weak and the steal melted and then they fall on their own footprint.. Just commun sense and anyway they said so!

DON'T EVER QUESTION YOUR RULERS, THEY ARE IN PLACE FOR YOU NOT FOR THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST, THAT IS JUST A LUNATIC IDEA!

I mean c'mon, :rolleyes:

[Documad]

There are so many dumb ideas that have to be strung together if you're going to believe in the conspiracy. The WTC7 part just might be my favorite though. As I understand it, the owner of the building next door somehow knew when the planes would hit the towers so that he could get insurance and then wire his own building to blow at the right time. There's no evidence that actually supports the theory, but apparently the absence of evidence is all you need now.

[Laver1969]

So I guess Tampering with or destroying evidence at a crime scene is nothing :rolleyes:

Who knows? (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html)

But I do think it's a conspiracy that they have consciously placed the Political Forum so far down in the list of Forums. Are they secretly trying to repress this Forum? Are they saying it's inferior to other Forums?

[Teh]

To see WTC7 fall as similar as a controlled demolition (blamed for fire and a hole on one corner) and to see two buildings with their complete fronts blown off still standing should really raise eyebrows of many.

It's alarming to see people forget the affects of those two attacks on the buildings and not make some sort of comparison. I would say it's safe to assume that direct blasts to the Khobar Towers and Murrah buildings not only destroying the facade but more than likely causing a ripple effect of fractures throughout the structure would cause a similar effect as WTC7 (delayed collapse).

But the buildings held up.....amazingly

WTC7 collapse (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739)

Khobar Towers (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/khobar/dhah1.jpg)

Alfred P Murrah (http://www.oklahomacitybombing.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-4.jpg)

The WTC7 is a high profile building, compared to the other two which at first glance resemble simple residential or office blocks. It's also been a previous target. I'm actually studying to be a structural engineer, and there are such methods and devices employed so as to prevent successive collapse (as was eventually the case with the WTC) to allow evacuation. Now, a plane collison was probably factored into the design (believe it or not, it's a serious consideration in bridges and the like), however something the magnitude of a 747 or whatever was probably never expected to happen. In either case, successive collapse was held off for a significant time.

Perhaps you noticed it fell almost virtually within a confined area as opposed to the fashion by which a felled tree might fall? Considering eash was hit on one side by a fucking jumbo jet. Or perhaps that was a conspiracy on the part of the designing engineers?


Edit: in relation to the other two buildings - successive collapse probably occured instantaneously, but the surface area occupied by the structures themselves was sufficient to prevent the entire thing from toppling via anchoring at the opposite side, etc.

Seriously, go back to hunting for the boogieman.

[Carlos]

I think they decided to control the demolition of it after they realized there was nothing they could do to save the building.

I don't think it takes days of planning and prep work...a couple of strategically placed explosives at the ground level and you're done.

no offense - but that is just one of the most ludicrous things I've heard on any forum I've been on. Either it was control demolition - in which it HAS TO MEAN PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, or it was a magical fire that can caused a building to collapse completely at free fall speed: in other words vaporize all lower floors at the precise same time - if it didn't vaporize all floors/core columns at exactly the same time it would not have collapsed the way it did, this is physics, an inanimate object like a building doesn't lie...


Please watch these (short) vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

Isntead of using your obvious ignorance, why not listen to an expert - this guy blows up building for a living, he runs one of europes largest Control Demolition firms - nearly as big as ControlDemolition Inc. (the company that cleared all the steel evidence from the world trade centres at record time.. i.e destroyed vital crime evidence).

Maybe you should write to all control demolition teams in the world, and say: "Hi I got a much better way of taking down buildings.. just put couple blocks of C4 at the base guv, that'll do it...." ignorance is bliss as they say.

you obviously know nothing about control demo. - you need to blow out the basement - because that's where they 'put' the rest of the building's rubble. Which is exactly what you found at ALL WTC1,2 and 7. Not to mention molten metal (not aluminuim as it was the wrong colour), and hot spots way above what a hydrocarbon fire can reach - in other words the was some physical mechanism that MUST have created those temperatures, explsives craete temps up to 4000 degrees, the kind of temps needed to melt steel, and create molten metal.

Guys, please do some research, WITHOUT THINKING YOU ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING!!!!
It's almost as if some are afraid to accept it, because then they'll be a tin hat wearer too. That's why labels are soooo pathetic, and hinder REAL thought. Your gov and media have done a fabulous job or riduling anyone that thinks differently, even to the point that even if you are a bush hater (cos that's now acceptable in the media), you still cannot accept that there might be elments of you intelligence services and gov that could organise this.
Anyone watch 24?? Mr Murdoch is laughing at you.. they put it in their shows, but you still don't get it :eek:

One other 'small' bit of information that should get any free thinker, thinking: Cheney was warned about flight 77 heading towards the pentagon when it was 50 miles out, then at 30, and again at 10 miles, at which point Minetta asked cheney, " does the order still stand sir?" Cheney growls back, " of course the order still stnds, have you heard otherwise".... a few minutes later over a hundred people at the pentagon were dead.
Now what could that order be? Why did cheney not order it to be shot out of the sky with the pentagons missle defence system. Why was this testimony by Minetta under oathe and recorded on video, NOT included in the 911 comission report???!!

Use your heads, don't just accept the most comfortable option. Why do u think Bush was chosen to be President? Because he's such an awesome guy, or maybe because he was sooo successful in all his endeavors. :rolleyes:
NO......... more likely because he's a dumb piece of shit, that nobody would believe he'd be able to organise this (and rightly so)... and that he would be dumb enough to allow 19 muslims to execute the greatest (the probability of success is practically 0 for such a planned attack, unless ALL US defences fail in one day - which they did, how lucky they were) military attack in history!!

This had been planned before he got in. Anyone ever read the PNAC document? Anyone heard of the Council on Foreign Relations?

Here's and example of what these guys 'chat about' -
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards WORLD GOVERNMENT. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, to the Council on Foreign Relations, June 1991.

[Laver1969]

Hey Carlos,

You obviously care about this subject a lot more than I do and have done lots of homework.

I just think it's ludacrous to think that the building was wired beforehand. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, who cares about WTC7? The building was obviously damaged when the towers fell.

I think our current president is the worst in history, and because of that I don't think he's smart enough to pull off a great conspiracy to actually stage an attack against ourselves in order to invade Afghanistan then wrongly link that to Iraq.

Hey QA, where's that transcript of Bush, Cheney and Rummy discussing how it would all come together. :p

Now...I DO think there was a conspriracy to kill Kennedy. There you might have something.

[Carlos]

Hey Carlos,

You obviously care about this subject a lot more than I do and have done lots of homework.

I just think it's ludacrous to think that the building was wired beforehand. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, who cares about WTC7? The building was obviously damaged when the towers fell.

I think our current president is the worst in history, and because of that I don't think he's smart enough to pull off a great conspiracy to actually stage an attack against ourselves in order to invade Afghanistan then wrongly link that to Iraq.

Hey QA, where's that transcript of Bush, Cheney and Rummy discussing how it would all come together. :p

Now...I DO think there was a conspriracy to kill Kennedy. There you might have something.

Yes I have done my research, and yes I do care A LOT.. because every soldier, child, women, and man that dies as a result of this grotesque lie makes my heart bleed. Until we realise that our so called protectors, and elite are not in any way shape or form out to help us, and are in reality just forwarding their agenda for global power and control. This bullshit will not stop... and people will be killed in the name of freedom and democracy. Look waht has happened in your own country, you have less freedom than before 911, under the flag of the patriot act; what a fucking contradiction. It throws your constitution out the window and stamps on it.

I don't proclaim to know the exact reason for it being wired, but using occams razer, if something cannot be so, then you must look at what it could have been. So the fact that it could not have been wired on the day, with supposedly raging fires throught the building, or collapsed in that manner due to the fires/slight damage to one side then you must assume it was imploded using control demo.

Now there are some plausible reasons for it to have been blown:
a: insurance, it would have cost A LOT, to replace the steel in the damaged part of the building - easier on the wallet to be paid money by insurance companies for a terrorist event (in fact some insurance companies are holding out on paying Mr Silverstein, because they suspect something fishy)
b: the building held IRS, department of defence, CIA, and secret services offices, so if any of these agencies (or elements within these agencies) had info on the 911 plan, then they would conveniently be destroyed.
c: It also housed the offices for the SEC (economic watchdog for wallstreet) which held all the files and info on the exxon fraud. After 911 that investigation died, as all the incremenating evidence was gone... but of course exxon has no links to CFR ;).. oh shit yeah they do...... but it's just a coincidence.

check out this good (but short) film for some more info:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3348128543245723034&q=wtc7+smoking

[kaiser soze]

The WTC7 is a high profile building, compared to the other two which at first glance resemble simple residential or office blocks. It's also been a previous target. I'm actually studying to be a structural engineer, and there are such methods and devices employed so as to prevent successive collapse (as was eventually the case with the WTC) to allow evacuation. Now, a plane collison was probably factored into the design (believe it or not, it's a serious consideration in bridges and the like), however something the magnitude of a 747 or whatever was probably never expected to happen. In either case, successive collapse was held off for a significant time.

Perhaps you noticed it fell almost virtually within a confined area as opposed to the fashion by which a felled tree might fall? Considering eash was hit on one side by a fucking jumbo jet. Or perhaps that was a conspiracy on the part of the designing engineers?


Edit: in relation to the other two buildings - successive collapse probably occured instantaneously, but the surface area occupied by the structures themselves was sufficient to prevent the entire thing from toppling via anchoring at the opposite side, etc.

Seriously, go back to hunting for the boogieman.

So as a student of structural engineering you can provide all evidence that this building (WTC7) could easily collapse at freefall (like a C.D.) due to fire and a gash in one side, but yet Khobar and Murrah buildings can still stand after considerably more damage.

By any chance did you watch the videos of the people standing in the holes waving for help where the planes collided with the buildings? If the heat of the fire was a factor then how could these people made of flesh handle it?

Also, concerning WTC7, it wasn't hit by a jet and recieved relatively minimal damage compared to other buildings in the complex which amazing stayed standing. WTC7 was home to many federal agencies including the FBI, CIA, FEC, and Guilianni's Emergency mobilization headquarters....

[Teh]

So as a student of structural engineering you can provide all evidence that this building (WTC7) could easily collapse at freefall (like a C.D.) due to fire and a gash in one side, but yet Khobar and Murrah buildings can still stand after considerably more damage.

By any chance did you watch the videos of the people standing in the holes waving for help where the planes collided with the buildings? If the heat of the fire was a factor then how could these people made of flesh handle it?

Also, concerning WTC7, it wasn't hit by a jet and recieved relatively minimal damage compared to other buildings in the complex which amazing stayed standing. WTC7 was home to many federal agencies including the FBI, CIA, FEC, and Guilianni's Emergency mobilization headquarters....

Sorry, i guess i was talking about the WTC itself before rather than WTC7 before.

Nonetheless, I don't believe the heat was ever a factor - I would've assumed the steel would have been encased in fairly high grade concrete so the steel rebar itself would have probably remained at fairly high capacity until successive collapse began to initiate. If you remove load bearing elements from a building (a corner column, say), successive collapse becomes consistently more likely. From what i understand WTC7 had a bloody great chunk missing from the bottom corner, as well as cyclic loading (which would not have been factored) effectivley from chunks of debris hitting it. In turn, the storeys above this corner column had NOT been removed with the blast and had no means of direct support beneath them. Also, in comparison to Khobar and Murrah, it would have had far less anchorage due to it's relativley small plan area (being in NY after all) and hence could have concieveably undergone progressive collapse.

Think about all three buildings in plan. Or even better, try and stand a pool cue on its end, in comparison with trying to stand a mortar brick on its end.

EDIT: From a Discovery Channel Documentary:

"WTC7 was built on top of a power substation. The engineers had to design load bearing beams to transfer the weight of the building off to the columns on the side so they don't disturb the existing substation."

So the columns would have been carrying a higher percentage of the vertical load than normal and would've been designed to suit. This would mean if a single column was removed the load that was then subsequently left unsupported would be greater than a convential building.

[Carlos]

the building design meant that NO core columns would have been afected by that chunk out of one edge.. not to mention that it would have fallen very differently.
here's the building plan:

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig01.jpg

Also in the creation of gulliani's 'bunker' they had to remove whole floors, and the supports for the area of the bunker.. so again that would kinda suggest that even if a few of the core supporrts were to fail, the building would still stand.

[Documad]

All tall office buildings are not the same. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it's magic or a conspiracy involving thousands of evil people.

[Knuckles]

All tall office buildings are not the same. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it's magic or a conspiracy involving thousands of evil people.
absolutely(y)

[Carlos]

All tall office buildings are not the same. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it's magic or a conspiracy involving thousands of evil people.

That is so true, but the physics of buildings is not some mystical thing. Steel will not act differently for different buildings - otherwise everyone in high rise buildings should be shitting themselves. That is why buildings are made they way they are, using steel. It is the most durable and strong of materials, and will not just disintergrate. Excpet on 911, when 3 steel buildings did. Never before, and never after have high rise steel buildings just totally collapse into their own basements. FACT.

Documad, did you watch any of links i put up, or you just enjoy being ignorant? It's sooo clear that it was imploded. If you can't trust me, trust an expert such as Danny Jewenko, he does it for a living!
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...q=wtc7+smoking

Oh and did I ever say it was thousands of people? Could have been managed by a handful. Do you understand the way your military and secret services actually operate? It's called compartmentalisation - i.e nobody except the top guys know the whole picture.

[Laver1969]

Yeah...but you're forgetting that reinforcing bars are milled by pouring molten steel into casters and then running it through a series of stands in the mill, which shape the steel into reinforcing bars.

The cross hatchings, called "deformations," help concrete bond with the reinforcing bar.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That completely disproves your theory.

[Carlos]

Yeah...but you're forgetting that reinforcing bars are milled by pouring molten steel into casters and then running it through a series of stands in the mill, which shape the steel into reinforcing bars.

The cross hatchings, called "deformations," help concrete bond with the reinforcing bar.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That completely disproves your theory.

er... sorry but you lost me, maybe if you could spend more time that 20 seconds writing a post, and elborate exactly what your point is :confused:

but as you are talking about molten steel, you are obviously aware of what temps/machinery you need for steel to be molten... and so you must surely understand that such molten metal found under WTC1,2 and 7 could not have been created by a hydrocarbon fire, and a collapsing building - and so you surely must also be aware that the official account could not possibly be true. :rolleyes:

[Knuckles]

er... sorry but you lost me, maybe if you could spend more time that 20 seconds writing a post, and elborate exactly what your point is


this post should take me about 22 seconds.

you are an idiot who should stop wasting his time with this asanine theory.

[DroppinScience]

this post should take me about 22 seconds.

you are an idiot who should stop wasting his time with this asanine theory.

(y)

[Documad]

Oh and did I ever say it was thousands of people? Could have been managed by a handful. Do you understand the way your military and secret services actually operate? It's called compartmentalisation - i.e nobody except the top guys know the whole picture.
I know exactly how my government works.

I'm dying to know exactly how you think this happened. How many people wired WTC7 and how long did it take? How do you wire a building to blow up without someone noticing? It's gotta take more than a few explosives in the basement, right? When did they wire it? Does this "compartmentalism" mean that the guys who wired the building didn't know why they wired it? And after 9/11 those guys who wired the building didn't realize why they had been instructed to wire it? Or they realized and never told a single person, including a spouse? And that's just one of the hundreds of steps necessary to pull this off.

And there is more to engineering and constructing a skyscraper than just using steel beams.

[Carlos]

I know exactly how my government works.

I'm dying to know exactly how you think this happened. How many people wired WTC7 and how long did it take? How do you wire a building to blow up without someone noticing? It's gotta take more than a few explosives in the basement, right? When did they wire it? Does this "compartmentalism" mean that the guys who wired the building didn't know why they wired it? And after 9/11 those guys who wired the building didn't realize why they had been instructed to wire it? Or they realized and never told a single person, including a spouse? And that's just one of the hundreds of steps necessary to pull this off.

And there is more to engineering and constructing a skyscraper than just using steel beams.


For someone so clued up on how your gov's works, I wonder why you have failed to answer any of the questions I have put up, instead rushing to ask me a question, like all great poiliticians, answer a question with a question :cool:

But i'll extend the courtesy to you that I have failed to get from anyone on this thread; to answer you....

Using Occams razer, we can eliminate fire as the cause, and we can also eliminate it being damage, we can also eliminate both together causing such a collapse - as none of these things would have caused WTC7 to collapse in the manner and time that it did - it's literally physically impossible..

However it is entirely possible that people from the secret service agency, or CIA etc. could have planted explosives, therefore it cannot be ruled out.
This does not mean we can say how many or in what way it was done.
You ask why they never told anyone, well there are mulitple reasons as to why that is the case...

*Secret service agents are kinda good at keeping secrets :rolleyes:
*No proof for a whistleblower to come forward with, and so large risk, limited gain scenario..
*They could have easily have been killed after, another half dozen ontop of 3000 isn't really a big deal.
*Or just fear of the above, it would be pretty clear who a whistleblower was..

now these may seem far fetched, and i admit they are hard to accept, there could be some other explanation as to why nobody has come forward, but the point is that it is possible whereas the manner and time frame in which WTC7 came down to fire and damage alone are physically impossble.

Surely any intelligent person can see the scientific reasoning behind that. If something cannot be, then you must discard it, even if it means you have to think the unthinkable!

[kaiser soze]

More footage of WTC7 collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_08VwJRP-Xc

Why did the Penthouse collapse first?

At 2:20 you see many squib like puffs as the building falls in a uniform manner......amazing spontaneous implosion!

[cptmarginal]

It's funny to see that the detractors of those who question the official story operate on such refreshingly obvious pretexts. Hug the blanket a bit tighter, the tinfoil hats will surely stop making you feel uncomfortable when the dust settles.

Just about everyone in this thread needs to go read as much info as humanly possible about this event before coming to any conclusion, and even then reserve judgment. You don't have to hold a definite opinion and be right about this, but if you risk it and believe in your critical faculties all the way you will probably end up being wrong. A half truth is half wrong.

[Laver1969]

Carlos, I’m sure you already know that WTC7 used a steel and iron with nanotubes. Testing has shown that the nanotube technique allows direct strength measurements of "ropes" containing hundreds of carbon nanotubes ("threads" above, each up to 40 nm in diameter). The researchers confirmed that these nanotubes are among the weakest known materials by sticking individual threads to the end of a probe and stretching them until they broke.

You now HAVE to recognize that your conspiracy theory is shot to hell.

[cptmarginal]

Carlos, I’m sure you already know that WTC7 used a steel and iron with nanotubes. Testing has shown that the nanotube technique allows direct strength measurements of "ropes" containing hundreds of carbon nanotubes ("threads" above, each up to 40 nm in diameter). The researchers confirmed that these nanotubes are among the weakest known materials by sticking individual threads to the end of a probe and stretching them until they broke.

You now HAVE to recognize that your conspiracy theory is shot to hell.
Your pants fell down

[Documad]

It's all so silly so I just can't bring myself to talk about it anymore.

I feel so bad for the people who believe in the conspiracy. I've said it before, but if I really believed that my government had done that to my fellow citizens, I wouldn't be sitting behind a computer. I'd have to actually do something about it.