WTC 7 (Building 7)

[LogicAndSanity]

Can someone explain the Penthouse on top of World Trade Center 7 collapsing right after an explosion is heard? Then the entire 47 story sky scraper dropping out of the sky about 5 seconds later? Never hit by any planes.

​

 

[Mick West]

Yes, it's been explained numerous times. Explanations abound. All over the internet, bookstores, and libraries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit.

Content from External Source

What do you find lacking in these explanations?

 

[LogicAndSanity]

How and why did the Penthouse fall first? With an explosion heard (right before) at the 11 second mark? and if a wikipedia article explains this away. Can you explain away this eye witness testimony of bombs being planted in the buildings? Including firefighters saying "You don't understand, there could be more, any one of these f*cking buildings could explode."


​

​

 

[Mick West]

The Penthouse fell first because the internal structure of the building had collapsed.

There were plenty of explosions, how could there not be? Huge fire. Things falling from 1000 feet.

Clearly that firefighter had experienced extreme events, and only had a very limited picture on what was happening. Lots of people though there might be bombs.

 

[Mick West]

The long-predicted event itself occurred in 6.6 seconds, the roof hitting the ground in half-a-second longer than it would have taken a ball dropped from it to do the same.

Surely you know the roof was pretty much on the ground before that 6.6 seconds started? That's the subject of this thread. The penthouse fell first, because the interior structure of the building collapsed, then the skin fell in essentially free-fall.

 

[Mick West]

Excellent video explaining WTC7:
​

 

[Grieves]

And right, Mick. The WTC7 computer model as composed by NIST. It is rather convincing, as I said above. I might even accept it, if the data used to compose it wasn't classified and saw sufficient public review. That it remains classified in spite of many multiple requests for disclosure isn't at all encouraging. The claim that building 7 was the only steel structure to burn uncontrolled for nearly 7 hours is blatantly false. Spraying water at a fire doesn't mean its 'under control'. The Windsor Building fire which has been discussed here burned for 2 days, I wouldn't call that 'controlled', and though a partial collapse occurred, the building didn't crumble into nothing before even being close to fully engulfed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
There's another fire which burned for nearly a day. Malfunctioning water-main impeded firefighters efforts, leaving the fire to burn largely uncontrolled until the army came in and started dousing the building with helicopters much later in the event. Again, there was some partial collapsing, but even after spreading over 26 floors, the building didn't crumble down into dust.

 

[Mick West]

And right, Mick. The WTC7 computer model as composed by NIST. It is rather convincing, as I said above. I might even accept it, if the data used to compose it wasn't classified and saw sufficient public review. That it remains classified in spite of many multiple requests for disclosure isn't at all encouraging. The claim that building 7 was the only steel structure to burn uncontrolled for nearly 7 hours is blatantly false. Spraying water at a fire doesn't mean its 'under control'. The Windsor Building fire which has been discussed here burned for 2 days, I wouldn't call that 'controlled', and though a partial collapse occurred, the building didn't crumble into nothing before even being close to fully engulfed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
There's another fire which burned for nearly a day. Malfunctioning water-main impeded firefighters efforts, leaving the fire to burn largely uncontrolled until the army came in and started dousing the building with helicopters much later in the event. Again, there was some partial collapsing, but even after spreading over 26 floors, the building didn't crumble down into dust.

Sure, it was a unique event. But you've got to look at those various building individually. The part of the Windsor Tower that were steel framed and lacked adequate fireproofing collapsed very quickly, much quicker than WTC7. The building did not collapse totally because it had a concrete core, and the lower floors had been upgraded with fireproofing, and many were reached by fire hoses.

 

[LogicAndSanity]

Sure, it was a unique event. But you've got to look at those various building individually. The part of the Windsor Tower that were steel framed and lacked adequate fireproofing collapsed very quickly, much quicker than WTC7. The building did not collapse totally because it had a concrete core, and the lower floors had been upgraded with fireproofing, and many were reached by fire hoses.

NIST admitted that WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 100+ feet. How does a building fall faster than free fall?

 

[Mick West]

Being a unique event though, shouldn't investigating it thoroughly and forensically be of significant, if not paramount importance?

In that sense, no more than the Windsor Tower, which was also a unique event. Of the collapse of that freeway overpass due to fire - also unique.

 

[Mick West]

NIST admitted that WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 100+ feet. How does a building fall faster than free fall?

"at free fall" is not the same as "faster than free fall".

 

[Grieves]

In that sense, no more than the Windsor Tower, which was also a unique event. Of the collapse of that freeway overpass due to fire - also unique.

http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/hdg/report/windsor1.pdf a hundred-and-fifty page summation of an investigation into the cause, spread, and effect of the Windsor fire, composed and finished the year-of, by the Japanese National Institute of Land and Infrastructure management. Alas its in Japanese, but it seems quite thorough, and English summations of their findings can be dug up I'm sure.

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/I-35W-webPage/Index-35W-Astaneh.html a page from our old friend Astaneh-Asl, who was a member of the team investigating the Oakland overpass collapse. Here is his report on the event, 10 pages long. http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh...Paper-Steel_Bridges_June-2008-color-Final.pdf
Now take a look again at the NIST report. http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf It certainly seems a little longer on first glance, but if you actually read through them both side-by-side it becomes obvious how much more specific and detailed the investigation of the bridge-collapse was. This was the very same bridge collapse after which he made his comment about molten steel at the WTC, I believe.
Here's another link to another scientist's examination of the bridge collapse
http://www.imechanica.org/files/ballarini and okazaki the city the river the bridge essay.pdf
and another one
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...gFKFLngGZnmhtSv8LPrkOTA&bvm=bv.41248874,d.aWM
and the final, 178 page report as composed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/ntsb/finalreport.pdf

Seems both events have been investigated forensically to a rather thorough extent, and the information on those forensic investigations seems to be readily available to the public. Of these three incidents, WTC 7 seems to be the subject of the least thorough investigation, albeit the computer-model from NIST is unique amongst them. Perhaps if the data on that simulation weren't confidential, it would shed a bit more light on the investigative process surrounding building 7, and reveal it to not be as comparatively inadequate as it seems. Unfortunately it is.

 

[Mick West]

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/I-35W-webPage/Index-35W-Astaneh.html a page from our old friend Astaneh-Asl, who was a member of the team investigating the Oakland overpass collapse. Here is his report on the event, 10 pages long. http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh...Paper-Steel_Bridges_June-2008-color-Final.pdf
Now take a look again at the NIST report. http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf It certainly seems a little longer on first glance, but if you actually read through them both side-by-side it becomes obvious how much more specific and detailed the investigation of the bridge-collapse was.

That's not the NIST report, that Astaneh-Asl's preliminary report from 2002, and it's on the WTC towers, not WTC7.

The nist reports are here:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

Particular for WTC7, NCStar-1A, at 130 Pages.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

 

[Grieves]

First, note the date on NIST's full report on building 7, that being 2008, 7 years after the event. Second, note the summary, where the information gathering methods are described:

NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

no mention whatsoever of a forensic examination of the evidence.

 

[Mick West]

First, note the date on NIST's full report on building 7, that being 2008, 7 years after the event. Second, note the summary, where the information gathering methods are described:

no mention whatsoever of a forensic examination of the evidence.

How long should it have taken?

What "forensic" examination should have been done?

 

[Mick West]

And why on earth is a Japanese report on a Spanish building fire relevant to the length of a NIST report on WTC7? Either way, a brief look at the Japanese report does no suggest it vastly more detailed than the NIST report.

 

[Grieves]

The relevance being that in the cases of both other events you referenced, investigations were conducted more thoroughly, and completed in more timely a fashion, than a significant aspect of the most heinous crime in modern history. Again, I don't read Japanese, but throughout the PDF you can see that a thorough investigation has taken place, and that it included an examination of the physical evidence. You can also see, on the very front page, it was completed in 2005, the year of the event taking place, and still appears, if its size and its diagrams are any indication, to be thorough. Its just an example of an event we both agree as being unique and significant getting the proper investigative treatment... prompt but not half-assed.

Now look at the final report of the overpass collapse ( http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/ntsb/finalreport.pdf ) and compare it side-by-side with the NIST report on WTC 7. The NIST report seems thorough enough, but it doesn't actually begin to compare from an investigative standpoint to the final report on the overpass collapse. That's because in the overpass collapse, the physical evidence was thoroughly examined, and the findings were largely a result of those examinations. Also note that the final report on the overpass collapse came out in 2007, the year of the event it investigates.
Now you've got NIST, who didn't conduct even a remotely meaningful examination of the physical evidence, coming out with a report seven years late. A delay which quite obviously had nothing to do with a more thorough or extensive investigation, composed of the suppositions of various experts who, though unquestionably skilled in their fields, are clearly and in most cases admittedly supposing, based upon ' accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster', a selection of eye-witness and first-responder accounts (but not including those that differ from the official account), and a computer simulation which, though impressive, has no basis as evidence.

Its inadequate. Too little far too late. Obviously and painfully. Like so many other aspects of the investigation surrounding the events.

 

[Mick West]

Do you feel that's strong evidence of deliberate demolition of WTC7?

 

[Clock]

I am going to link the post I made on that other thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/36...consistent-with-a-progressive-collapse/page22
------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh.... Building 7 has been debunked a long time ago. CT believers need to start coming up with new theories, tsk.

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.


Excerpts from Mark Roberts "World Trade Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement"

Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:
“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”
Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?

Here’s why:​

[FONT=&amp]Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.

[/FONT]


[FONT=&amp]“We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”[/FONT]
Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”



Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.



Something that conspiracy theorists forget is the amount of fire burning from building 7. Here's a few pics that show the amount of smoke shooting out of the buildings:





This is what a firefighter, who was there on that day, had to say:

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan


"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.



Larry Silversteen, who owned the building at the time had this to say:


"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


This is what his spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, had to say:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."


Is that enough info for you? I believe the big white elephant out lasted his welcome.

(P.S. What Silversteen means by pulling, it means "Get the hell out of there!"

Thanks http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

 

[Clock]

More of the building 7 damage:

​

 

[Grieves]

No. I feel its strong evidence that an agency that's supposed to be the lead investigative body in what I've many times and I don't think wrongly described as the most heinous crime in history, the supposed 'CSI's of the building collapses, was inadequately funded/granted far too little authority/conducted a truly shoddy investigation and failed to consider and examine all possibilities in a timely and effective manner. I can't say why that would be, whether it was a matter of political pressure, grand conspiracy, or sheer incompetence... but I find it unacceptable on the verge of shameful, and I'm very surprised every American doesn't feel precisely the same way.

If you want strong evidence for the collapse being some kind of demolition, watch it.

 

[Grieves]

Also, Clock, I don't give a damn about Larry, aside from thinking a him a deplorably greedy man for going to court with his insurer fighting for the right to receive double the pay-out for the collapse of each of the buildings, given 'two separate planes constitutes two separate attacks', and his policy in regards to terrorism payed out 'per attack'. I also find the timing of his taking out that insurance policy somewhat suspect, given he started it two months prior to the event. If he didn't have some idea of what was going to happen, then he just 'got lucky', which is a disgusting thought in and of itself.

Also, which fire department commander was Larry talking too..? I haven't ever once seen this fellow named, nor has he ever come forward and said 'yep, I had that conversation, and nope, that's not what he meant.'
Just saying.

 

[SR1419]

If you want strong evidence for the collapse being some kind of demolition, watch it.

So....when the penthouse falls from the roof to the ground before the rest of the building even moves..why do you consider that evidence of demolition?

 

[MikeC]

Also, which fire department commander was Larry talking too..? I haven't ever once seen this fellow named,

Lots of places identify Assistant Chief Frank Fellini - see the links below - he's not hard to identify, so I don't think you can have done much searching!!

nor has he ever come forward and said 'yep, I had that conversation, and nope, that's not what he meant.'
Just saying.

In this interview he says they kept firefighters away from 7, and here he mentions establish a "collapse zone" around it

Here's some more references to Fellini "pulling" his men away from the building.

 

[LogicAndSanity]

Looks to be a small office fire that spread to about 2 floors towards the end of the video. Remember, no jet fuel on this building since no planes hit it. Some "corner damage" does not explain the building dropping out of the sky the way it did.

 

[Grieves]

So....when the penthouse falls from the roof to the ground before the rest of the building even moves..why do you consider that evidence of demolition?

Because the bulk of the structure then proceeded to crumble into dust and debris. Partial collapses due to fire in steel structures aren't unheard of, but a complete collapse unquestionably is. That it happened once, horrible. That it happened twice, incredible. That it happened three times consecutively? Unbelievable. I don't see what the pent-house dropping first changes about that.

Mike C, there's absolutely no documentation in anything you linked of a conversation between Frank Fellini and Larry Silversteen. Frank Fellini is indeed a fire chief. He did indeed begin quarantining building 7. Given the various interviews and accounts, it sounds as if he was rather busy. So at what point did he take the time to have chat with Larry Silversteen, and why in the hell would he bother to consult Larry in regards to his vital, pressing task at hand?
As I said, I've never seen anything confirming Larry Silversteen had a conversation with a fire-chief. I still haven't. That's all I've said/am saying about that.

 

[SR1419]

Unbelievable. I don't see what the pent-house dropping first changes about that.

That a steel building hadn't fully collapsed due to fire before that day does not rule out the possibility that it could happen.

The point is- the behavior of the penthouse indicates that the building collapsed unlike any typical controlled demolition.

 

[Mick West]

Because the bulk of the structure then proceeded to crumble into dust and debris. Partial collapses due to fire in steel structures aren't unheard of, but a complete collapse unquestionably is. That it happened once, horrible. That it happened twice, incredible. That it happened three times consecutively? Unbelievable.

Why does it have to go to unbelievable? Why not just more incredible?

The events of that day WERE incredible. Nobody denies that. But the explanations seem to fit. The way building 7 fell has been explained, and it makes sense.

Controlled demolition of building 7 that was somehow covered up is VASTLY more incredible, and simply does not fit the evidence.

 

[Clock]

Why does it have to go to unbelievable? Why not just more incredible?

The events of that day WERE incredible. Nobody denies that. But the explanations seem to fit. The way building 7 fell has been explained, and it makes sense.

Controlled demolition of building 7 that was somehow covered up is VASTLY more incredible, and simply does not fit the evidence.

Exactly. Grieves, if you deny the explanations that Mick, MikeC, SR1419 and I have given to you while you listen with deaf ears, then I'm sorry, there's no one to blame here except for you. If you believe that the situation was poorly handled than that is fine, but don't go whining to us because you've been disprooven.

I noticed that you didn't respond to what Mick said about your comment being evidence of WTC 7 being a demolition. It was before my first post on this thread, shouldn't be too hard to find.

here is a great picture and video:



​

and again, this site is important: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

[LogicAndSanity]

Oops, they made the mistake of leaving the rating system enabled on that video. I'm afraid the majority of clear minded, free thinking people aren't buying the official story anymore.

 

[Mick West]

Oops, they made the mistake of leaving the rating system enabled on that video. I'm afraid the majority of clear minded, free thinking people aren't buying the official story anymore.

Not a scientific survey

Most people don't look at such videos. It's generally the conspiracy minded, and the debunkers.

 

[Grieves]

Actually clock, I answered his question quite directly with a 'No.' Seems you missed it.

I've also never denied that the building was on fire, nor that it suffered considerable damage to one corner. Structural damage to the bottom corner of a building is an understandable cause for a collapse, in the direction of that damaged bottom corner. Building seven didn't collapse due to structural damage though, remember? It collapsed due to the fires alone according to NIST, as the structural damage to the corner cannot possibly account for the way in which the building collapsed. It took them seven years to compose a believable account of the building 7 collapse, and even then the account seems entirely inadequate compared to the findings of an investigation of a far less significant event. The NIST report on building 7 isn't 'proof' of anything, and their 3D model would never be considered admissible in a court of law without disclosure of the data used to produce it.

debunking9111.com is so self-obsessed with its stated 'goal' that they frequently employ inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out false statements with which to do its 'debunking'. Now how about you lay off the personal attacks/criticisms, and try posting something that isn't a direct steal from/link too the same old overly biased and often demonstrably wrong website?

 

[Mick West]

It collapsed due to the fires alone according to NIST, as the structural damage to the corner cannot possibly account for the way in which the building collapsed.

Bit of a clarification here. The structural damage actually does account for the way, the manner, in which the building collapsed. It does not account for the initiation of the collapse, but it does great shape what happens afterwards.

NIST created simulations both with and without the damage. With the damage, the building fell pretty much as seen in reality. Without the damage, the building skin crumpled much more dramatically.

See:
http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/...omputer+Simulations/WTC7_Structural+Response/

I can't find them on YouTube so I'll upload them. and stick them here later.

Notice Richard Gage likes to use the wrong model:
​

 

[Mick West]

Here's the collapse with the damage corner. You can see the damage on the lower right here, and you can see how it causes the final collapse of the skin to be be more symmetrical.
​

And here it is with NO damage. You can see the building skin sags in on itself, because the right side holds up a lot longer.
​

 

[Grieves]

Again Mick, I don't deny the computer model is rather convincing. As I've said, it could even sway me away from my extremely strong suspicions of explosives of some sort being used, if it had any provable basis in reality. As of now, its a see-through view of a building that most certainly was -not- see-through, and though NIST of course had liberal access to the blueprints and specs of the building (I would hope), that has no bearing on where the model cites the collapse initiating, and how it portrays the collapse progressing. It seems like a flashier version of pure supposition based on the fact that the penthouse fell first. That they include an 'alternate scenario' in which the building hasn't suffered any damage, but the fires are still raging (I'm sorry, what..?), in which it collapses in a far more understandable fashion, isn't at all encouraging given that it's pure and undeniable fantasy, and yet portrays a more believable collapse-scenario.

 

[Clock]

Actually clock, I answered his question quite directly with a 'No.' Seems you missed it.

I've also never denied that the building was on fire, nor that it suffered considerable damage to one corner. Structural damage to the bottom corner of a building is an understandable cause for a collapse, in the direction of that damaged bottom corner. Building seven didn't collapse due to structural damage though, remember? It collapsed due to the fires alone according to NIST, as the structural damage to the corner cannot possibly account for the way in which the building collapsed. It took them seven years to compose a believable account of the building 7 collapse, and even then the account seems entirely inadequate compared to the findings of an investigation of a far less significant event. The NIST report on building 7 isn't 'proof' of anything, and their 3D model would never be considered admissible in a court of law without disclosure of the data used to produce it.

debunking9111.com is so self-obsessed with its stated 'goal' that they frequently employ inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out false statements with which to do its 'debunking'. Now how about you lay off the personal attacks/criticisms, and try posting something that isn't a direct steal from/link too the same old overly biased and often demonstrably wrong website?

Thank you for the clarification, it really helped understand your point of view. I am not criticizing you, I just felt as if you were complaining for no reason. If you feel as if I criticized you, then I hope you accept my apologies. However...

debunking9111.com is so self-obsessed with its stated 'goal' that they frequently employ inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out false statements with which to do its 'debunking'. Now how about you lay off the personal attacks/criticisms, and try posting something that isn't a direct steal from/link too the same old overly biased and often demonstrably wrong website?

Why is debunking911.com a invalid source? You do not explain why it is so. As far as I can tell, there have not been any flat out lies, or misleading statements, as all categories seem pretty legit. If they weren't legit, then Mick or other debunkers on this website would have told me that I am wrong and full of baloney, but so far, no one has told me anything, so...

 

[Mick West]

That they include an 'alternate scenario' in which the building hasn't suffered any damage, but the fires are still raging (I'm sorry, what..?), in which it collapses in a far more understandable fashion, isn't at all encouraging given that it's pure and undeniable fantasy, and yet portrays a more believable collapse-scenario.

I'm not sure I understand this criticism. Why is one scenario more believable than the other? Are you saying the "straight down" nature of what happened is what is unbelievable?

See I think the "straight down" makes perfect sense when you look at the location of the fire collapse (on the right) and the impact damage (on the left). Since both sides are damaged, the skin falls in a more symmetric manner.

 

[Grieves]

See the Molten Metal thread for an example. An expert opinion that a mixture of molten aluminum carried carbons (embers, coals, carpet-matter, burning stuff, whatever you'd like to call it) and molten glass was the cause of the glowing orange spill out of the side of the first WTC tower to collapse just prior too that event, and that therefor the pour, nor any other of the anomalies during the events, warrants/ed suspicion or thorough investigation. The expert explains how this could have occurred, citing the temperatures at which plate-glass supposedly softens and then melts. This expert opinion is cited by the consistently derogatory article writer, but the most basic research can reveal that the temperatures for glass to soften and then 'flow' as cited by the expert, which, though I'm no expert, sounded fishy to me, were entirely inaccurate, having moved the softening point of the glass in question back several hundred degrees centigrade. It could well be a simple mistake on the part of the expert, or a misquote, or maybe a deliberate edit by the article-writer for all I know given his general attitude, but whatever it was inaccurate is inaccurate, and the guy gets very loud and very mean about inaccurate information. I'm entirely certain there are many other examples of either information on that site proving inaccurate or the use of accurate but only vaguely applicable information to distract from the main points of an issue and 'debunk' it without addressing it. I'd go through the thing in earnest to point all of it out to you I could find, but I really can't stand the way he/she/they write, so not tonight anyway.

Pardons my getting snippy.

 

[Grieves]

The alternate scenario is a fiction, in which the tower had not received corner-damage. In this fictional scenario, fire has none the less caused a collapse in the precise same location, and the inward collapse of the tower brings its walls sagging inward, seemingly toward one another, on the verge of a collision which may or may not leave some remnants of them standing, but is the sort of chaotic result one would expect of a building falling apart from the inside out. It takes much longer, its far sloppier, the walls come down at off-angles.... if that's what the collapse of the WTC 7 tower had looked like, we might not be speaking right now. That's not what it looked like, that's not how it happened. Projecting on 'what might have happened' with an entirely fictional scenario using the same method that's supposed to be portraying an actual, fact-based representation of what really occurred within building 7 has no value whatsoever so far as I can see, and in fact has a negative impact, at least from my standpoint, on the validity of its companion model. If one is a fictional scenario, how much faith am I supposed to really have in the other? The two models side by side make the clear implication that had it not been for the damage in the corner, the building would not have fallen in the highly incredible fashion that it did. That had it not been for that damage, we'd have seen a far more 'believable' collapse. That no disclosure on how these models were compiled is forthcoming only further impacts their validity so far as I'm concerned, so though they have given me some pause in my suspicions of the collapse, they certainly haven't put them near to rest.

 

[LogicAndSanity]

Here's another video, its not specifically relevant to building 7, but it gives you a good idea of the atmosphere when the towers collapsed. You can clearly see building 7 in the background and you could also hear explosives going off (from what I've researched these buildings didn't have gas lines). The guy filming even mentions explosions. I have a good idea of what happened that day.

​

They even put fake actors on the scene to spew the official story right off the bat. Notice how scripted this guy sounds and his "Harley Davidson" shirt. In a longer version of this same interview he even uses the term "ground zero." This is earlier in the day on 9/11/01.

"Mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense." No steel structure building in history had ever fallen from an office fire correct?

​

Here's the full clip, his name is Mark Walsh, a "freelancer from Fox."

​