Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

[Sarcastic]

You could post it 50 times and he still wouldn't get it.

Funny how Sarcastic claims he never said the buildings fell due to fires but he also claims that the official explanation is that they fell due to fires. What is wrong with this picture?

Those were the official reasonings. I never have once said my opinions or what I think happened.

[Sarcastic]

Here is a story in the NYT about how they rebuilt the building in 1989.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

[tontoz]

Those were the official reasonings. I never have once said my opinions or what I think happened.

Those were not the official reasonings. They were solely yours.

In the entire history of steel frame high rise buildings, WTC 7 is only the third one to ever collapse due to fire.

The first two were WTC 1 & 2.

The official reasonings mentioned planes flying into buildings 1 and 2 weakening the buildings and falling debri damaging WTC7.

[Sarcastic]

Those were not the official reasonings. They were solely yours.




The official reasonings mentioned planes flying into buildings 1 and 2 weakening the buildings and falling debri damaging WTC7.

Do you really think falling debris is enough to cause a building to collapse in free fall?

[LA KB24]

I usually hate using YouTube links to try and prove a point, but I thought this was an excellent explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSaZ...ndex=6#t=2m45s

It runs into part 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7MIQ...eature=related

If you watch the video, you would see that the building was severely damaged by debris from the the other WTC building. You would see that the building was built differently than traditional buildings. Finally, you would hear about the diesel tanks that powered the generators in case of a power-out, a few of which were in the area of the south side of damaged by debris. Since the building was supported by weak steel trusses, the fire was too much and it collapsed. Physics/gravity is a b1tch sometimes.

[-playmaker-]

Do you really think falling debris is enough to cause a building to collapse in free fall?

^^^ the falling debris took out half the freakin base of building 7...


how conveinant that they just happen to rig the building that took the most damage...

this conspiracy is RETARDED!!!

[lurch67]

Where are the blasting caps, miles of wire, detonation reciever, and all the rest of the things needed to blow up a building? And how did no one ever notice all the work being done to prep the explosion? Where are the sequential flashes from the explosion, prior to the collapse. Were the airlines and all the passengers in on it too? The fire dept. as well?

[Sarcastic]

^^^ the falling debris took out half the freakin base of building 7...


how conveinant that they just happen to rig the building that took the most damage...

this conspiracy is RETARDED!!!

Then it should have toppled over, and not free fall onto itself.

[LA KB24]

Larry was there to tell the firemen to get out because it was his building. I don't believe that he had any order or power at all, and was merely saying that all hope was lost for the building.

[miller-time]

WTC 5 and 6 took way more structural damage, and did not implode. They were brought down in the later days.

this guy took a railroad spike through his head and survived.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...12/3009289.htm

this person fell, hit their head and died.

nothing is black and white. what you percieve as reality and what is actually reality are two completely different things. i'm not an engineer, but i can tell you that there is a rich tapestry of physical processes (that neither you or i are aware of) occuring in this situation.

[jbot]

i read where they shut down the buildings for a bit for "maintenance". supposedly this was the time they planted the explosives. not saying i believe it, just saying.

[tontoz]

Do you really think falling debris is enough to cause a building to collapse in free fall?

First of all falling debri didn't cause WTC7 to collapse in free fall, idiot. If it had then it would have fallen at the same time as WTC 1 and 2.

Secondly when the falling debri is from one of the biggest buildings on the planet it definitely can cause the collapse of a building it falls into.

[-playmaker-]

^^^ there is the same damage...covered in smoke

see that grid?...that is where the side of building 7 used to be...at the base of the building...

it got WRECKED...badly

[-playmaker-]

Then it should have toppled over, and not free fall onto itself.

it is a mile wide you fool...not a lego toy

it is lieterally IMPOSSIBLE for something that big to fall on it's side

[LA KB24]

I usually hate using YouTube links to try and prove a point, but I thought this was an excellent explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSaZ...ndex=6#t=2m45s

It runs into part 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7MIQ...eature=related

If you watch the video, you would see that the building was severely damaged by debris from the the other WTC building. You would see that the building was built differently than traditional buildings. Finally, you would hear about the diesel tanks that powered the generators in case of a power-out, a few of which were in the area of the south side of damaged by debris. Since the building was supported by weak steel trusses, the fire was too much and it collapsed. Physics/gravity is a b1tch sometimes.

Quote for next page.