NO one is going to convince anyone else to change their minds on this matter. Why keep up the excersise in futility?
Printable View
NO one is going to convince anyone else to change their minds on this matter. Why keep up the excersise in futility?
Conspiracies are the easy way to explain something that is so complicated and shocking that it hard for the mind to comprehend that it actually happened.
It's easier to say (and comprehend) "It was an inside job, clearly looks like a controlled demolition" than it is to think "This event was perpetrated by people who hate the United States, would do it again, and I'm terrified that it might. The planes hitting the WTC site was an event unlike anything ever seen in the history of the world, and have nothing relevant to compare it to."
Because I don't know - did the WTC site (both towers, including WTC 7) share any underground space? Parking garages/stores/mall, etc? since it was all one site, I would guess "yes", but if someone could confirm....
Here is a picture of a skyscraper that had a [B]worse[/B] fire, and never collapsed.
[IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SqhhJb_P3Kk/SZNNhMBlskI/AAAAAAAAE-g/F6k6s0M9Uc8/s400/Burning+skyscraper+2.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=RaininThrees]Conspiracies are the easy way to explain something that is so complicated and shocking that it hard for the mind to comprehend that it actually happened.
It's easier to say (and comprehend) "It was an inside job, clearly looks like a controlled demolition" than it is to think "This event was perpetrated by people who hate the United States, would do it again, and I'm terrified that it might. The planes hitting the WTC site was an event unlike anything ever seen in the history of the world, and have nothing relevant to compare it to."
Because I don't know - did the WTC site (both towers, including WTC 7) share any underground space? Parking garages/stores/mall, etc? since it was all one site, I would guess "yes", but if someone could confirm....[/QUOTE]
WTC 7 was on the next block from WTC 1 & 2.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The damage was described as superficial. It certainly was not enough to cause a collapse. In the reports, the cause of collapse has only been due to fire.
Go look at how much damage the BMCC building took. Go look at the hotel (I think Marriott) and see how much damage it took.
WTC 7 was directly in the middle of the post office and Verizon building. Both of them received about the same amount of debris damage as 7, and had fires too. Neither of them collapsed.[/QUOTE]
Like i said the eyewitness accounts don't back up your "facts".
[QUOTE]"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. [B]You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. [/B]We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. [B]I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.[/B] Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The damage was described as superficial. It certainly was not enough to cause a collapse. In the reports, the cause of collapse has only been due to fire.
Go look at how much damage the BMCC building took. Go look at the hotel (I think Marriott) and see how much damage it took.
WTC 7 was directly in the middle of the post office and Verizon building. Both of them received about the same amount of debris damage as 7, and had fires too. Neither of them collapsed.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing - external damage to buildings do not cause collapse, so that information is irrelevant.
If the FD were evacuating people from a building with only superficial damage, they obviously knew there was an issue with the structure of the building created from the collapse of the other 2 buildings - a problem with the structure that would have caused this collapse.
[QUOTE=tontoz]I guess the firemen on the ground are in complete denial then, since they predicted the building would collapse long before it actually did.[/QUOTE]
They didn't predict anything. They were told to move away because the building was being brought down.
Here is a story of a building in Spain that had a raging fire for over 24 hours and did not collapse.
[url]http://******************.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_9-11.html[/url]
[QUOTE]The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense
fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real
world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to
collapse.
As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's
business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear
of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar
construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained
standing.
The fact that an extremely severe fire did not cause the Spanish
steel and concrete tower to collapse raises serious questions about
the events of 9/11 and how they have been explained. Why did the
Windsor Building remain standing when similar towers in New York City
collapsed completely after being affected by much less intense fires
burning for considerably shorter periods of time?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored engineers to
conduct the World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) to
examine how the buildings of the WTC responded to the airplane
crashes and fires that allegedly caused the collapses of the twin
towers and WTC 7, a 47-story office building on the next block.
"Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of
fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings," the
BPS says in the chapter about the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, the
third tower to collapse on 9/11. WTC 7 was not hit by aircraft or
large pieces of debris and had only sporadic fires. At about 5:25
p.m., WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared
to be a controlled demolition.
It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like
WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. [B]The fact that the Windsor
Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause
properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse.[/B][/QUOTE]
Here is a picture of the fire in Madrid
[IMG]http://www.jalaybi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wtc10.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Spell&Grammar]They didn't predict anything. They were told to move away because the building was being brought down.[/QUOTE]
:roll:
So there firemen knew there would be a controlled demolition? So why did they go into the building in the first place?
:facepalm
Sacrastic where are the buildings taller than the WTC7 at the scene of ground zero that sustained more damage and didn't collapse? I don't think the building in Spain was hit by falling debri from WTC 1 and 2.
The bottom corner of WTC7 was gone. Saying that is came down just due to fire proves you are an idiot.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Here is a story of a building in Spain that had a raging fire for over 24 hours and did not collapse.
[url]http://******************.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_9-11.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Couple things:
This situation does not compare to those fires. Did those fires have 2 massive buildings collapse 1 block away from them?
Are there any accounts, anywhere, stating that there was no structural damage to the foundation of the building caused by the collapse of the other two WTC buildings? You talk about "superficial damage"... that's one thing, but structural damage does not always show superficially.
Damage to BMCC (Borough of Manhattan Community College).
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg/220px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=tontoz]:roll:
So there firemen knew there would be a controlled demolition? So why did they go into the building in the first place?
:facepalm[/QUOTE]
They were told to come out hours before it came down. The entire building was evacuated. No one got hurt in WTC 7 collapse.
[QUOTE=RaininThrees]Couple things:
This situation does not compare to those fires. Did those fires have 2 massive buildings collapse 1 block away from them?
Are there any accounts, anywhere, stating that there was no structural damage to the foundation of the building caused by the collapse of the other two WTC buildings? You talk about "superficial damage"... that's one thing, but structural damage does not always show superficially.[/QUOTE]
No but they had much worse fires, that burned considerably hotter than anything in WTC 7.