Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »You may not know this but no modern steel framed building had collapsed due to fire pre 9/11.
This proves nothing; there is a first time for everything. By the way, how many of the buildings that failed to collapse due to fire had also been impacted by airliners moving at high speed?Three steel framed buildings collapsed and fell on 9/11. The people who believe WTC7 collapsed to fire are people who are not thinking logically.
OK, so we're agreed that only one building collapsed due to fire alone. Except that WTC7 was also hit by a large amount of debris from the collapse of the North and South towers. Aerial photos of the collapsing towers show a large debris cloud surrounding WTC7, and considerable damage to the southwest corner of that building. NIST determined later that the most likely scenario was that the south face of WTC was severely damaged by falling debris, and that it was this, combined with the the fires, that brought the building down. Eye-witness reports by firefighters on the scene give support to this view:
Lt Rudy Weindler, Ladder Co, 40: "So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
Fire Captain Chris Boyle: "Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. [...]And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it,nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped."
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
So the eyewitness accounts indicate a weakened building that was suffering a very serious, very large, and that it was no surprise to those on the scene that it collapsed. Indeed
To go against that, some pretty compelling evidence would be required:- Evidence confirming who wired the building for demolition, or who ordered it to be done.
- Evidence confirming the reason for the demolition.
- Evidence confirming where the charges were placed.
- Evidence explaining how the charges placed without anyone noticing.
If you have any of this evidence, I would be interested in seeing it, and by "evidence", I mean real evidence and not innuendo...the kind of evidence that would be likely to result in charges (legal, not explosive
) being brought...the kind of evidence that would support someone being to 100% positive as "truthers" tend to be, that skulduggery was indeed afoot.
(Oh, and no videos please, and if citing a website or publication, please make it precise - direct me straight to the money quotes - my reading time is limited.)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This proves nothing; there is a first time for everything. By the way, how many of the buildings that failed to collapse due to fire had also been impacted by airliners moving at high speed?
OK, so we're agreed that only one building collapsed due to fire alone. Except that WTC7 was also hit by a large amount of debris from the collapse of the North and South towers. Aerial photos of the collapsing towers show a large debris cloud surrounding WTC7, and considerable damage to the southwest corner of that building. NIST determined later that the most likely scenario was that the south face of WTC was severely damaged by falling debris, and that it was this, combined with the the fires, that brought the building down. Eye-witness reports by firefighters on the scene give support to this view:
Lt Rudy Weindler, Ladder Co, 40: "So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
Fire Captain Chris Boyle: "Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. [...]And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it,nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped."
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
So the eyewitness accounts indicate a weakened building that was suffering a very serious, very large, and that it was no surprise to those on the scene that it collapsed. Indeed
To go against that, some pretty compelling evidence would be required:- Evidence confirming who wired the building for demolition, or who ordered it to be done.
- Evidence confirming the reason for the demolition.
- Evidence confirming where the charges were placed.
- Evidence explaining how the charges placed without anyone noticing.
If you have any of this evidence, I would be interested in seeing it, and by "evidence", I mean real evidence and not innuendo...the kind of evidence that would be likely to result in charges (legal, not explosive) being brought...the kind of evidence that would support someone being to 100% positive as "truthers" tend to be, that skulduggery was indeed afoot.
(Oh, and no videos please, and if citing a website or publication, please make it precise - direct me straight to the money quotes - my reading time is limited.)
Obviously false flag agents.0 -
-
This proves nothing; there is a first time for everything. By the way, how many of the buildings that failed to collapse due to fire had also been impacted by airliners moving at high speed?
OK, so we're agreed that only one building collapsed due to fire alone. Except that WTC7 was also hit by a large amount of debris from the collapse of the North and South towers. Aerial photos of the collapsing towers show a large debris cloud surrounding WTC7, and considerable damage to the southwest corner of that building. NIST determined later that the most likely scenario was that the south face of WTC was severely damaged by falling debris, and that it was this, combined with the the fires, that brought the building down. Eye-witness reports by firefighters on the scene give support to this view:
Lt Rudy Weindler, Ladder Co, 40: "So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
Fire Captain Chris Boyle: "Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. [...]And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it,nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped."
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
So the eyewitness accounts indicate a weakened building that was suffering a very serious, very large, and that it was no surprise to those on the scene that it collapsed. Indeed
To go against that, some pretty compelling evidence would be required:- Evidence confirming who wired the building for demolition, or who ordered it to be done.
- Evidence confirming the reason for the demolition.
- Evidence confirming where the charges were placed.
- Evidence explaining how the charges placed without anyone noticing.
If you have any of this evidence, I would be interested in seeing it, and by "evidence", I mean real evidence and not innuendo...the kind of evidence that would be likely to result in charges (legal, not explosive) being brought...the kind of evidence that would support someone being to 100% positive as "truthers" tend to be, that skulduggery was indeed afoot.
(Oh, and no videos please, and if citing a website or publication, please make it precise - direct me straight to the money quotes - my reading time is limited.)
The photos I think you saw are misleading. There was dust from the towers falling. Sceptics claim it's smoke, in reality, it mostly dust rising from the ground up. Emergency vehicles were coming in and out of there all day and dust was blown up everywhere.
Yes WTC7 was hit by falling debris, but only on the Southside and near the West corner wall. There was a gash on that side. Yet not what caused the building to fall down. The collapse initiated near the east wall
You wrong on this NIST states the structural damage played no part in WTC7 falling down.
NIST theory is fire heated up a steel girder on floor 13 at column 79 and it expanded and slid off its seat and fell down. Floors on the eastside lost lateral support. The floors underneath 13 collapsed, then floors above 14 collapsed to the very top of the Penthouse. Then when the Penthouse fell in, floors across the width of the building started collapsing.
WTC 5 and 6 burned all day and had suffered more structural damage they never collapsed.
You have to remember it was a crazy day firefighters were reacting to things they witnessed. Any building that had a fire they probably would have thought it was going to come down! There is no evidence of a bulge in WTC7 there was a gash a number of floors were taken out on the Southwest side.
You want me to speculate about who was involved in destroying the building? Why is this more important than the science right now?
NIST claims building 7 did not come down symmetrically? Are you not aware of why thats important?0 -
-
-
Should a building come down symmetrically if it wasn't damaged symmetrically?
This type of event only occurs in a controlled demolition.
This is what the building 7 looked like from all sides according to NIST
This is not a symmetrical collapse. The actual collapse the building fell down symmetrical. The roofline was almost perfectly straight and east and west side walls did not push in as they show in that image. For a symmetrical collapse to occur all the columns have to fall instantly together.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement