WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
How can you look at this picture and say it is not a significant fire? Mind boggling.

wtc7fire3.jpg

Quite simple really... anyone can see it is a flare out... it wasn't sustained... probably a still from one of the vids at an opportune moment.

How can you possibly compare that, (which is 7 at it's worst... until it collapsed) and this..







 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

According to the cement industry, it takes 2-4 hours of burning for a fire to heat through one cement wall for it to catch on fire on the other side.
http://www.cement.org/homes/brief03.asp

Both twin towers collapsed in less than one hour.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid burned for 24 hours and did not collapse.

Building 7 burned for 6 -7 hours max.

In the history of mankind, no other similar structure collapsed from fire before or after Sep. 11, EVER
 
The steel parts of the Windsor tower did collapse - and of course it was not actually hit by anything at all, and it had a different structure to the twin towers.

The amount of smoke coming from multiple levels of WTC 7 and comments by the fire commander and others on the ground that the fire was too sever to fight, that fire could be seen on numerous floors, that there was a "hole 20 stories tall" in the side of the building, etc belie your comment that the fire in it was in any way insubstantial!
 
The steel parts of the Windsor tower did collapse - and of course it was not actually hit by anything at all, and it had a different structure to the twin towers.

Except for all the steel we see standing and that whacking great crane on top:eek:

Perhaps concrete cores should be used instead of steel cores then... how about that?

The amount of smoke coming from multiple levels of WTC 7 and comments by the fire commander and others on the ground that the fire was too sever to fight, that fire could be seen on numerous floors, that there was a "hole 20 stories tall" in the side of the building, etc belie your comment that the fire in it was in any way insubstantial!

The pictures are at odds with the descriptions.... I don't know how to reconcile that.
 
[h=3]7 FACTS ABOUT BUILDING 7[/h]1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/


Building 7 before (brown building in the middle) Collapsing (no fire visible)




Building 7 after 6-7 hours of fire. (Not much is scorched)


Windsor Tower before Windsor Tower After burning for 24 hours
(Shorter than Building 7) (Still standing, scorched)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As much as the 911 Commission Report's government testimony is a Farce for the Chairman of the 911 Commission it seems . . . ;)

What I think is a farce in the 9/11 commission is readily detailed by a YT channel "RepresentativePress" and it involves hiding the true motives for the attack. But that is really off topic from WTC7.
 
Ah that's all solved then... Larry Silverstein was asking for permission to have 7 demolished shortly before it collapsed.

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
Content from External Source
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...ruthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/#ixzz2Ru6bEjhP
 
Continued reading that link and you will see that the quote mining done by Oxy doesn't even support his theory that Larry ordered controlled demolition.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
Content from External Source
And the story also calls out Conspiracy Theories saying "SHAME ON JESSIE VENTURA" I actually cannot believe you are quoting negative press for 9/11 CT in your definitive proof that it was controlled demolition. You anger me Oxy. I wish there was a forums rule that banned you for posting such bunk.
 
Continued reading that link and you will see that the quote mining done by Oxy doesn't even support his theory that Larry ordered controlled demolition.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
Content from External Source
And the story also calls out Conspiracy Theories saying "SHAME ON JESSIE VENTURA" I actually cannot believe you are quoting negative press for 9/11 CT in your definitive proof that it was controlled demolition. You anger my Oxy. I wish there was a forums rule that banned you for posting such bunk.

Thats because you are not a critical thinker. You cannot read the subtext and Fox have shot themselves in the foot. Anyone who applies critical thinking can see it... but I shan't spell it out for you... Work it out yourself.

I suspect you are transferring your anger at your inability to debunk what I say, onto me. Stop projecting your anger. Be cool and you will be strong.
 
Thats because you are not a critical thinker. You cannot read the subtext and Fox have shot themselves in the foot. Anyone who applies critical thinking can see it... but I shan't spell it out for you... Work it out yourself.

Is critical thinker a term for one with a monological belief system? if so, then NO! I am not. you are being impolite by reducing us all to non-critical thinkers. I have four letter words for you Oxy, and I have you on ignore from now on out. Get lost.
 
Is critical thinker a term for one with a monological belief system? if so, then NO! I am not. you are being impolite by reducing us all to non-critical thinkers. I have four letter words for you Oxy, and I have you on ignore from now on out. Get lost.

He's not reducing us all to non-critical thinkers, just you, but that's not very kind, that's for sure...

On the other hand, "debunkers" tend to label/imply that, "conspiracy theorists" are nutcases, weak minds, or some sort of retards unable to handle logical thinking
And therefore, they need to be corrected properly... Of course...
That's cute, especially when it comes to patronization

In any case, personal attacks are not interesting, for the reader, like me
It's like looking at bird shit, in the fridge, at 5 AM

Please, just stick to the facts...Both of you.
Without relying on personal attack
Thank you very much
 
Logical thinking would lead one to ask logical questions.

A demolition, controlled or otherwise, leaves a big pile. In this case for all 3 buildings that collapsed on the same day, there is no pile.

Where did it go? What are we looking at?

A concrete and steel building fell down, and as it was falling it disappeared into dust, leaving a small pile of rubble.

What causes that?

Hint, it wasn't a plane, and it's not fire, so what else might cause that to happen?
 
The NIST analysis of the visual evidence for fires in WTC7 covers everything in great detail (75 pages):

Section 5.6, pages 188 (pdf 232) to 262 (pdf 306)
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
Shame NIST didn't analyse any physical evidence from the building though isn't it. It's amazing how hard you're having to work to explain failures like this ("why should they? They knew fire did it, there's no reason to look further"). The most significant visual evidence is not the fire but the manner of the fall.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shame NIST didn't analyse any physical evidence from the building though isn't it. It's amazing how hard you're having to work to explain failures like this ("why should they? They knew fire did it, there's no reason to look further"). The most significant visual evidence is not the fire but the manner of the fall.

But they analyzed the visual evidence of the manner of the fall in just as much detail (Sections 5.7 and 8.3). Did you read it?

The vast majority of the report does not depend upon the collapse simulation. There is plenty in that that can be verified. For example, Section 11.2.4 Floor Framing Connection Failure Modes.
 
But they analyzed the visual evidence of the manner of the fall in just as much detail (Sections 5.7 and 8.3). Did you read it?

The vast majority of the report does not depend upon the collapse simulation. There is plenty in that that can be verified. For example, Section 11.2.4 Floor Framing Connection Failure Modes.
Nothing about analysing any actual physical evidence from the building in there. Weird.
 
You've read it. Surely this authoritative forensic investigation reviewed the actual physical evidence from the building somewhere?

Come on Jomper, you've made your point a million times. No NIST did not examine the physical remains of WTC7. They used photo and video analysis of the fire, the building distortion, and the collapse. They used the building plans and records.

Move on. Read the report.
 
Come on Jomper, you've made your point a million times. No NIST did not examine the physical remains of WTC7. They used photo and video analysis of the fire, the building distortion, and the collapse. They used the building plans and records.

Move on. Read the report.
Weird. Quite a significant oversight for a forensic investigation, wouldn't you agree? Highly questionable as there was physical evidence available, wasn't there?
 
Logical thinking would lead one to ask logical questions. A demolition, controlled or otherwise, leaves a big pile. In this case for all 3 buildings that collapsed on the same day, there is no pile. Where did it go? What are we looking at? A concrete and steel building fell down, and as it was falling it disappeared into dust, leaving a small pile of rubble. What causes that? Hint, it wasn't a plane, and it's not fire, so what else might cause that to happen?
Space-efficient civil engineering causes it. Falling into the basement volume causes it. The buildings were 95% air. The remaining volume of steel was about the same size volume as their basements.

Logical enough?
 
Weird. Quite a significant oversight for a forensic investigation, wouldn't you agree? Highly questionable as there was physical evidence available, wasn't there?

It wasn't a forensic investigation. It was an investigation to figure out exactly why the building collapsed. They figured it out in great detail.
 
And here it is after the fire



Yes, that's what you call a partial collapse... some big chunks falling but the main building still standing.
Yes, and if your eyes were really open you would see that ALL THE EXPOSED STEEL HAS FALLEN OFF, AND ALL YOUR ARE LOOKING AT IS A REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE.

The steel has GONE, just as the WTC 7 steel went west.

So how is it in any way different?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Yes, and if your eyes were really open you would see that ALL THE EXPOSED STEEL HAS FALLEN OFF, AND ALL YOUR ARE LOOKING AT IS A REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE.

The steel has GONE, just as the WTC 7 steel went west.

So how is it in any way different?

Yes, I agree, it's very important to have your eyes open when looking at something. How is this the same? One building is still standing and the other is no longer there.

Was the basement 40 stories deep to swallow an entire building? To claim that it's 90% air is like claiming the body is 98% water. If you put the body in water, 98% will dissolve, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:




Yes, I agree, it's very important to have your eyes open when looking at something. How is this the same? One building is still standing and the other is no longer there.

It's the same because the part of the Windsor Tower that were supported by steel collapsed. WTC7 was entirely supported by steel.

Was the basement 40 stories deep to swallow an entire building? To claim that it's 90% air is like claiming the body is 98% water. If you put the body in water, 98% will dissolve, right?

That makes no sense - nothing is dissolving here. Air is essentially empty space, and when the building collapsed there was no empty space. The collapse removed the air. Like if you removed all the water in your body you could fit the remains in a small urn

(Edit: actually maybe a large urn, as cremation removes a lot more than just water. The human body is more like 60% water. But you get the idea.)
 
Last edited:
Was the basement 40 stories deep to swallow an entire building?
That's poor input data. The towers were 110 stories, WTC7 47 stories.

That's poor maths you have there. 5% of the towers would be 5.5 stories, and of WTC7 2.35 stories.

To claim that it's 90% air
I said 95% air.

is like claiming the body is 98% water
What?

If you put the body in water, 98% will dissolve, right?
I know a dog that's got no nose. Oh, is that so? How does he smell? Bloody terrible.



Happily shows an even better shot of totally collapsed steel, in front of a relatively undamaged reinforced concrete core.

Followed by a demonstration that the facade of WTC7 fell absolutely flat and on its own, obviously unbroken by "CD", over the already-collapsed far end of the building.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If buildings can fall like that, maybe we should be looking at changing building codes. How many building codes have been changed? None.
 
If buildings can fall like that, maybe we should be looking at changing building codes. How many building codes have been changed? None.

Lots. Codes are implemented at the municipal level, the ICC has recommended lots of changes, many municipalities have implemented some.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2011/08/9-11-code-changes.html
Changes to the International Codes as a result of 9/11 include:

  • [*=left]Elevators are required in high-rise buildings more than 120 feet tall so firefighters can get to, and fight fires, without walking up from the ground floor with heavy equipment;
    [*=left]An additional stairway for high-rises that are more than 420 feet tall;
    [*=left]In lieu of the additional stairway, an option to provide enhanced elevators that can be used by the building occupants for emergency evacuation without waiting for assistance from emergency personnel;
    [*=left]A higher standard for fire resistance in high-rise buildings more than 420 feet tall;
    [*=left]More robust fire proofing for buildings more than 75 feet tall, which will be less likely to be dislodged by impacts or explosions;
    [*=left]Shafts enclosing elevators and exit stairways that have impact resistant walls;
    [*=left]Self-luminous exit pathway markings in all exit stairways that provide a lighted pathway when both the primary and secondary lighting fails; and
    [*=left]Radio coverage systems within the building to allow emergency personnel to better communicate within the building and with emergency staff outside the building supporting the response.
Content from External Source
 
Lots. Codes are implemented at the municipal level, the ICC has recommended lots of changes, many municipalities have implemented some.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2011/08/9-11-code-changes.html
Changes to the International Codes as a result of 9/11 include:

  • [*=left]Elevators are required in high-rise buildings more than 120 feet tall so firefighters can get to, and fight fires, without walking up from the ground floor with heavy equipment;
    [*=left]An additional stairway for high-rises that are more than 420 feet tall;
    [*=left]In lieu of the additional stairway, an option to provide enhanced elevators that can be used by the building occupants for emergency evacuation without waiting for assistance from emergency personnel;
    [*=left]A higher standard for fire resistance in high-rise buildings more than 420 feet tall;
    [*=left]More robust fire proofing for buildings more than 75 feet tall, which will be less likely to be dislodged by impacts or explosions;
    [*=left]Shafts enclosing elevators and exit stairways that have impact resistant walls;
    [*=left]Self-luminous exit pathway markings in all exit stairways that provide a lighted pathway when both the primary and secondary lighting fails; and
    [*=left]Radio coverage systems within the building to allow emergency personnel to better communicate within the building and with emergency staff outside the building supporting the response.
Content from External Source

These are changes that have to do with evacuation. Where are the structural changes that would hold up a building?
 
Now you have reverted to type... posting pics after the collapse and a spurt of flame out of the window. Conflate as you will but it does not alter the facts... the fires were not dramatic in wtc 7... the collapse was but you really shouldn't be trying to conflate the two. The issue is, how did we go from minor local fires to a demolished building. You are going the other way... 'Oh look at this collapsed building and you are saying it is measly'... no SR that is not scientific and it is dishonest.

Sorry Oxy- try again....none of the pictures in that post are after the collapse. You can clearly see WTC7 standing in every photo. So much for being "dishonest".

So, if you interpreted those photos incorrectly - what else have you missed? What other photos have you misinterpreted ? Obviously, your characterization of the fires being "minor" and "local" is inaccurate and thus leads you to inaccurate conclusions.

I think the idea of comparing photos from WTC7 to other structure fires is misdirection. Photos are only snapshots in time that do not tell the whole story. What did the inside look like? what did the other side of the building look like?

Does the fact that the Windsor building did not completely collapse mean that WTC7 couldn't collapse?

No.

What really matters is were the fires hot enough to weaken the steel inside.

You can't answer that from your photo mining and misdirection.

wtc720-wtc-tour-7-incendie-face-sud.jpg

WTC7_Smoke2.jpg
 
These are changes that have to do with evacuation. Where are the structural changes that would hold up a building?

Here's some:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_4_023_03.pdf
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/861/861pubs/collapse/NISTIR_7396.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/wtcbctf.pdf

And the fire resistance and fire-proofing essentially is structural - as no building can withstand sustained fire if it has no fire-proofing.

The fact that WTC7 collapsed after eight hours is not exactly a huge problem requiring major upgrades to code. It was an exceptional situation, and everyone safely evacuated many hours earlier. If it did not collapse, it would have to be demolished. It's better for the surrounding buildings and the environment if it does not collapse, but from a safety point of view it's not a huge issue.
 
... If it did not collapse, it would have to be demolished. It's better for the surrounding buildings and the environment if it does not collapse, but from a safety point of view it's not a huge issue.

Mick do you think this is why Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier getting them to authorize controlled demolition; as was posted in Oxy's link a few posts back? I generally don't think hearsay that is reported is worth responding too but in this case..


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...ruthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/#ixzz2Ru6bEjhP

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
Content from External Source
 
Mick do you think this is why Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier getting them to authorize controlled demolition; as was posted in Oxy's link a few posts back? I generally don't think hearsay that is reported is worth responding too but in this case..


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...ruthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/#ixzz2Ru6bEjhP

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
Content from External Source

No. It's ridiculous. If a building is on fire and about to fall, nobody is going to run inside the building and wire it with explosives. They would just pull out the firefighters, and let it fall (or not). Trying to demolish it on the fly would be vastly more dangerous than just letting it fall.
 
Mick do you think this is why Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier getting them to authorize controlled demolition; as was posted in Oxy's link a few posts back? I generally don't think hearsay that is reported is worth responding too but in this case..


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...ruthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/#ixzz2Ru6bEjhP

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
Content from External Source

No. It's ridiculous. If a building is on fire and about to fall, nobody is going to run inside the building and wire it with explosives. They would just pull out the firefighters, and let it fall (or not). Trying to demolish it on the fly would be vastly more dangerous than just letting it fall.
 
Mick do you think this is why Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier getting them to authorize controlled demolition; as was posted in Oxy's link a few posts back? I generally don't think hearsay that is reported is worth responding too but in this case..


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...ruthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/#ixzz2Ru6bEjhP

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
Content from External Source

Joel, the only thing I recall about Larry Silverstein was him saying to "pull it", which was obviously not an admission of controlled demolition. Does anyone really believe that Silverstein would have admitted demolishing the building by controlled demolition? And further, do people think that such a demolition could have been accomplished without months of pre-planning and strategic placement of explosives? What insurance company on this planet would have paid a claim on a building where its owner admittedly demolished the insured building?

Silverstein was referring to pulling the firefighters out since they feared a collapse.

[video=youtube_share;43F54hR0NW8]http://youtu.be/43F54hR0NW8[/video]

Perhaps it's already been explored ad nauseum, but when the insurance claim was in fact paid, does anyone think that the insurance company would have been negligent to the point where they paid a claim on a building intentionally and without cause was demolished by its owner?
 
No. It's ridiculous. If a building is on fire and about to fall, nobody is going to run inside the building and wire it with explosives. They would just pull out the firefighters, and let it fall (or not). Trying to demolish it on the fly would be vastly more dangerous than just letting it fall.

Oh nonono, that's not what I meant. Big duh on that (super dangerous, and dumb. I agree the had already called the rescue operation at that point). I meant if the fires burned out and the building didn't collapse, would that be why there was talk of demolition? It seems as though they were making contingency plans for what if's beyond. Or is the reporter just reporting hearsay and not worth the time?

I somewhat recall that other buildings were cut down and not blown down.

Joel, the only thing I recall about Larry Silverstein was him saying to "pull it", which was obviously not an admission of controlled demolition. Does anyone really believe that Silverstein would have admitted demolishing the building by controlled demolition? And further, do people think that such a demolition could have been accomplished without months of pre-planning and strategic placement of explosives? What insurance company on this planet would have paid a claim on a building where its owner admittedly demolished the insured building?

Silverstein was referring to pulling the firefighters out since they feared a collapse.

Perhaps it's already been explored ad nauseum, but when the insurance claim was in fact paid, does anyone think that the insurance company would have been negligent to the point where they paid a claim on a building intentionally and without cause was demolished by its owner?

I agree with this entirely. I was just wondering what the reporter from Fox was blogging about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top