Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 372
  1. #31
    Caution: Adult Content
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,795

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    NO one is going to convince anyone else to change their minds on this matter. Why keep up the excersise in futility?

  2. #32
    Meats Don't Clash RaininThrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,920

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    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....

  3. #33
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    23,214

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Here is a picture of a skyscraper that had a worse fire, and never collapsed.


  4. #34
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    23,214

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by 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....
    WTC 7 was on the next block from WTC 1 & 2.

  5. #35
    NBA Legend tontoz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    16,191

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Like i said the eyewitness accounts don't back up your "facts".


    "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. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.

  6. #36
    Meats Don't Clash RaininThrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,920

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  7. #37
    Loser vs. Looser Spell&Grammar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    204

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    They didn't predict anything. They were told to move away because the building was being brought down.

  8. #38
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    23,214

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Here is a story of a building in Spain that had a raging fire for over 24 hours and did not collapse.

    http://******************.com/WRHART...fire_9-11.html


    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. 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.

  9. #39
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    23,214

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Here is a picture of the fire in Madrid


  10. #40
    NBA Legend tontoz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    16,191

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Spell&Grammar
    They didn't predict anything. They were told to move away because the building was being brought down.




    So there firemen knew there would be a controlled demolition? So why did they go into the building in the first place?


  11. #41
    NBA Legend tontoz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    16,191

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    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.

  12. #42
    Meats Don't Clash RaininThrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,920

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcastic
    Here is a story of a building in Spain that had a raging fire for over 24 hours and did not collapse.

    http://******************.com/WRHART...fire_9-11.html
    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.

  13. #43
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    23,214

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Damage to BMCC (Borough of Manhattan Community College).


  14. #44
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    23,214

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by tontoz



    So there firemen knew there would be a controlled demolition? So why did they go into the building in the first place?

    They were told to come out hours before it came down. The entire building was evacuated. No one got hurt in WTC 7 collapse.

  15. #45
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    23,214

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    No but they had much worse fires, that burned considerably hotter than anything in WTC 7.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •