WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

hiper

Active Member
That's not the point though. Why do you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?

If you can't give a good explanation for NIST's investigatory behavior I suggest you admit they were in serious neglect.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
That's not the point though. Why do you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Who said I want different results? I might just want to see how nonsensical some of the answers are, or merely hope that a Google cache will preserve my objections to fake 9/11 science for a solitary observer in the future.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Then in the absence of anything new, I think this thread is done. Thank you all for participating. I'll close the thread in two hours.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Then in the absence of anything new, I think this thread is done. Thank you all for participating. I'll close the thread in two hours.
Too bad. If there's one area I don't think has been explored fully, it's the question I entered with: exactly what are the reasonable grounds for refusing to allow computer models to be verified by truly independent experts in a case like WTC 7? It is only what the scientific method demands of the investigation into an extraordinary collapse, which was conducted at great public expense.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Too bad. If there's one area I don't think has been explored fully, it's the question I entered with: exactly what are the reasonable grounds for refusing to allow computer models to be verified by truly independent experts in a case like WTC 7? It is only what the scientific method demands of the investigation into an extraordinary collapse, which was conducted at great public expense.

Feel free to start a new thread. I think you know the commonly stated reason (public safety as terrorist would be able to figure out where best to put a bomb), so you could address that in depth in your first post.

New Thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=28
 
Last edited:

Ron J

Active Member
View attachment 2593


Frankly I'm getting a little fed up with authorities not exploring every avenue when investigating disasters.

There is no reason to explore avenues that are unrelated to cause of an event. WTC7 was struck by debris falling from WTC1. Fires ensued on various floors considering debris stuck various floors. The fire was not fought and burned out of control for hours. The building progressively collapsed, starting in the east wing. A CBS news crew recorded fire occurring in the east wing, later on in the afternoon. The east wing is where the floors below the east penthouse collapsed, dropping it into the building.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
To demolish WTC7, they had to have known the towers would collapse to provide cover, therefore they would have had to rig the towers to come down as well.
The towers collapsed from the top down, from the site of the plane crashes, so they must have known the exact impact sites where the planes would hit and where to put their explosives.
This is impossible, ergo WTC7 collapsed on its own.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
To demolish WTC7, they had to have known the towers would collapse to provide cover, therefore they would have had to rig the towers to come down as well.
The towers collapsed from the top down, from the site of the plane crashes, so they must have known the exact impact sites where the planes would hit and where to put their explosives.
This is impossible, ergo WTC7 collapsed on its own.
Devastating logic. Now that's what I call debunking.
 

Ron J

Active Member
I don't know by what precise means they demolished the 3 buildings
but I do know that 2 planes & fire would not have yielded the same results.


Others would disagree, including a man who was rescued out of his office in WTC2. After he escaped the building he turned to look up at it and said he thought the building was going to collapse. A friend of the head of security at Morgan Stanley, called him and told him to get out of WTC2, as the building was going to collapse.

The commonality between all three skycrapers which collapsed was that they were on fire and that the fires were burning uncontrolled.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Okay cool. So we can ignore WTC7 and focus on eliminating the impossible in the rigging of WTC1 and 2, because if that is impossible, so is WTC7.
Sudoku logic.

The trouble with that is, you will say... "Look man, I told you guys, a F*@!^$% plane hit the buildings."
 

Ron J

Active Member
There was an excellent reason to test for accelerants -- or do you approve of investigations pre-determining their conclusions?

There is no predetermining when building debris collapses into another building, catching it on fire. That is what actual evidence showed occurred. Why are people trying to predetermine a controlled demolition when there is no evidence to support one?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Okay cool. So we can ignore WTC7 and focus on eliminating the impossible in the rigging of WTC1 and 2, because if that is impossible, so is WTC7.
Sudoku logic.
Wow, you're really handing us our asses in the dying moments of this thread, aren't you Pete?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
There is no predetermining when building debris collapses into another building, catching it on fire. That is what actual evidence showed occurred. Why are people trying to predetermine a controlled demolition when there is no evidence to support one?
Yeah. You see the thing is there's no evidence because no evidence was looked for or examined. If you don't think accelerants should've been tested for, that's just fine by me. As I've said upthread, a reasonable person viewing the collapse footage for the first time would not perceive fire to be the obvious sole cause; if you do not feel yourself to be in this category I would not disagree.
 

hiper

Active Member
There is no predetermining when building debris collapses into another building, catching it on fire. That is what actual evidence showed occurred. Why are people trying to predetermine a controlled demolition when there is no evidence to support one?

Not scientifically investigating key evidence because the investigator doesn't expect to find something is called predetermining a conclusion Ron.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Originally Posted by Ron J
The commonality between all three skycrapers which collapsed was that they were on fire and that the fires were burning uncontrolled.



Yeah post-9/11-fire isn't like pre-9/11-fire.


A fire started by a near fully fueled767 is not like a fire started by a space heater, pre or post 9/11. A fire that burns out of control is not like a fire fought by the fire department, pre or post 9/11. The three WTC skyscrapers were not designed like other steel buildings, with a concrete core, pre or post 9/11. So there is no direct comparison with other high rise steel building fires prior to 9/11. So why the false comparisons to WTC1, 2 and 7?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ron J

Active Member
Not scientifically investigating key evidence because the investigator doesn't expect to find something is called predetermining a conclusion Ron.

What imagined key evidence? WTC1 collapsed into WTC7 staring fires that were not fought by the fire department and were left to burn out of control for hours.
The key evidence was the fire.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Wow, you're really handing us our asses in the dying moments of this thread, aren't you Pete?
Ha. I somehow doubt the sincerity of that statement.
But is the logic really that bad? If *this*, then *that*, but *not that*.
If you disagree, you can tell me why.
 

hiper

Active Member
A fire started by a near fully fueled767 is not like a fire started by a space heater, pre or post 9/11.

Most of the kerosene deflagrated on impact.

A fire that burns out of control is not like a fire fought by the fire department, pre or post 9/11.

Do you know what an 'out of control' fire looks like?

The three WTC skyscrapers were not designed like other steel buildings, with a concrete core, pre or post 9/11.

If you burn a carbonous substance in a steel stove you expect the stove to not implode after right?

So why the false comparisons to WTC1, 2 and 7?

Yeah comparing them to the WTC towers isn't fair because 9/11 was kind of a special event. A day when physics took a break.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Originally Posted by Ron J
The commonality between all three skycrapers which collapsed was that they were on fire and that the fires were burning uncontrolled.






A fire started by a near fully fueled767 is not like a fire started by a space heater, pre or post 9/11. A fire that burns out of control is not like a fire fought by the fire department, pre or post 9/11. The three WTC skyscrapers were not designed like other steel buildings, with a concrete core, pre or post 9/11. So there is no direct comparison with other high rise steel building fires prior to 9/11. So why the false comparisons to WTC1, 2 and 7?
Yes, we know . . . Unprecedented construction, unprecedented insurance coverage, unprecedented flying, unprecedented luck to hit three for three, unprecedented collapse of towers never in the history of the world, unprecedented collapse by fire in less than a few hours . . . we have heard it all . . . The END!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jomper

Inactive Member
Ha. I somehow doubt the sincerity of that statement.
But is the logic really that bad? If *this*, then *that*, but *not that*.
If you disagree, you can tell me why.
Your logic is: if planes hit the towers then there's no reason to test for accelerants when investigating the global collapse of a different building?

Good work.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Your logic is: if planes hit the towers then there's no reason to test for accelerants when investigating the global collapse of a different building?

Good work.
No. The logic is, if explosives were used in WTC7, they had to have known planes would hit and collapse the towers to provide their 'excuse' for 7's collapse, therefore the towers had to have been rigged.
So if WTC7 is unsolvable at this time, solve WTC 1 and 2 and you will have eliminated or proved the conditions for 7.

Edit.. (unless of course you are proposing that WTC7 being rigged was a completely separate event to the attack on 1 and 2 and was not related, but they had just been waiting for a fortunate coincidence to blow the building. But that's just getting silly).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
To be honest it doesn't look at all 'out of control'.

How about this one :

View attachment 2604

Yes, fire does look a lot more impressive at night with a long exposure.

I wonder what the south face of WTC7 would have looked like, had it been dark.

And, really, you think the WTC1 photo above shows a fire that is under control? Several ENTIRE FLOORS engulfed in flames, an area of flame easily as big as that Windsor Tower fire. Just in daytime.
 

hiper

Active Member
You got to admit Mick that the balance of the thread is not in favor of the official explanation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You got to admit Mick that the balance of the thread is not in favor of the official explanation.

No I don't. But I understand why y'all think that way.

Really the only criticism you've raised is that you think the investigation should have done more tests. And you seem to imply that the fact that they did not makes some kind of controlled demolition the more likely explanation.

You have failed to show why fire could not have been the cause. And given the fire that burned in the building for eight hours, it seems by far the most sensible explanation, especially combined with the lack of evidence of explosive (sounds, people planting them, detonators in the debris, difficult in fireproofing them, the leaning of the building during the fire, the expectation of the people who saw it that it was going down from fire, the quite sensible looking NIST explanation, the highly non-sensible alterate scenarios).
 

hiper

Active Member
If one starts from the presumption that governments could never be involved in
this kind of events it is hard to accept anything other than the government explanation.

That's the cliff most people can't get over.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
If one starts from the presumption that governments could never be involved in
this kind of events it is hard to accept anything other than the government explanation.

That's the cliff most people can't get over.

That's also not a reason most of us agree with the NIST report...
 

jomper

Inactive Member
if explosives were used in WTC7, they had to have known planes would hit and collapse the towers to provide their 'excuse' for 7's collapse, therefore the towers had to have been rigged.
No, it does not follow from this that accelerants should not have been tested for. I am not in the least interested in who "they" are, but whoever "they" are, "they" are not a logical reason for not conducting proper forensic tests.
So if WTC7 is unsolvable at this time, solve WTC 1 and 2 and you will have eliminated or proved the conditions for 7.
This has been a thread about WTC 7. You are speculating only.
Edit.. (unless of course you are proposing that WTC7 being rigged was a completely separate event to the attack on 1 and 2 and was not related, but they had just been waiting for a fortunate coincidence to blow the building.
I am proposing that a credible investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 would involve forensic tests for accelerants.
But that's just getting silly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Mick West Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach Current Events 3
Miss VocalCord São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building Current Events 87
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Leifer Bent Steel In Building Fires Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West Explained: Two Suns at Sunset - Harrow, UK [Reflection Off Building] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
NoParty Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building 9/11 38
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
jomper WTC 7 (Building 7) General Discussion 0
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Grieves BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 13
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2

Related Articles

Top