Building 7

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

I am wondering why you would not start out with motive and who stood to profit...

Motive: Terrorists wanted to frighten America.


What is your take on it?

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

I wouldn't call a 10 story gash a little damage in the corner. Maybe you don't think it wasn't the only thing to cause the building to collapse, but at least be honest and acknowledge that there was a more than a little damage.
If we're not honest with each other's evidence, this becomes a pointless exercise. Both side of the argument need to do this.

duh, i can see damage.
ever build a camp fire? even loosely piled logs will burn and fall one way... then the other way...they dont all of a sudden collapse in a little pile... now picture a steel structured building (WTC7) on fire with or with out damage... do you really think it would crimp in the middle (no where near the corner damage) and fall for a few seconds at free fall speed (no resistance from floors below, they would have had to be out of the way before the floors above got to them) and pile up in its own footprint... whatever dude..

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

Motive: Terrorists wanted to frighten America.


What is your take on it?

That is a pretty broad stoke... i agree terrorists were involved. i do not agree they are the terrorists that we were force fed.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

duh, i can see damage.
ever build a camp fire? even loosely piled logs will burn and fall one way... then the other way...they dont all of a sudden collapse in a little pile... now picture a steel structured building (WTC7) on fire with or with out damage... do you really think it would crimp in the middle (no where near the corner damage) and fall for a few seconds at free fall speed (no resistance from floors below, they would have had to be out of the way before the floors above got to them) and pile up in its own footprint... whatever dude..

Pixel, don't "whatever dude." I'm listening. You haven't said anything that would prove the official story is a complete fabrication, but I can understand why it seems strange that it would not fall in one direction if that was the only damage.

Is it possible there was damage on the opposite corner that would balance it out, so to speak, and cause it to fall in a more linear manner?

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

Pixel, don't "whatever dude." I'm listening. You haven't said anything that would prove the official story is a complete fabrication, but I can understand why it seems strange that it would not fall in one direction if that was the only damage.

Is it possible there was damage on the opposite corner that would balance it out, so to speak, and cause it to fall in a more linear manner?

there was no damage on the opposite side. even if there was it would not cause central columns to collapse and the building to fall as if it was in a vacuum for several feet. that is impossible unless there was no resistance from below.

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

Pixel, don't "whatever dude." I'm listening. You haven't said anything that would prove the official story is a complete fabrication, but I can understand why it seems strange that it would not fall in one direction if that was the only damage.

Is it possible there was damage on the opposite corner that would balance it out, so to speak, and cause it to fall in a more linear manner?

AGAIN... There is no real official story. WTC7 is omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

The building should have fell into the path of least resistance. This is grade school stuff boys.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

I'm wondering what you think happened Pixel since you haven't stated it here. If you have stated it before, I apologize, but you are making vague remarks whereas I have been clear with where I stand.
I reviewed the report provided by NIST, and it makes sense, but I admit I am no expert in this at all. The main thing in comparison to similar building fires is that there was no sprinkler system available due to lack of water. The fire would not normally have caused the building to colapse, but this was an extreme case, and like I said it makes sense to me.
Now, if you respond, I would appreciate a sober answer without calling me a fool or stupid or whatever for "buying" what they reported. I'm Canadian and we tend to have more faith in our government here.

Thanks,
A

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

I'm wondering what you think happened Pixel since you haven't stated it here. If you have stated it before, I apologize, but you are making vague remarks whereas I have been clear with where I stand.
I reviewed the report provided by NIST, and it makes sense, but I admit I am no expert in this at all. The main thing in comparison to similar building fires is that there was no sprinkler system available due to lack of water. The fire would not normally have caused the building to colapse, but this was an extreme case, and like I said it makes sense to me.
Now, if you respond, I would appreciate a sober answer without calling me a fool or stupid or whatever for "buying" what they reported. I'm Canadian and we tend to have more faith in our government here.

Thanks,
A

Which report from NIST? The changed their minds and issued new reports 6 times. You should know this.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

AGAIN... There is no real official story. WTC7 is omitted from the 9/11 Commission Repor

This is what I'm referring to:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

Which report from NIST? The changed their minds and issued new reports 6 times. You should know this.

You're still not answering with anything Pixel. I think it makes sense, but please show me how they are completely wrong. That's all I'm asking. You don't need to post links or anything, just say it in your own words.

Thanks.

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

Ok. Well, from the above, we can conclude, I hope, that WTC7 was damaged. The assessment of a guy on the internet as to how bad the damage may have been might not be the best way to make conclusions. And I am willing to address that point later.

I wanted to move on to the next common claim of Truthers which we see repeated over and over again above: that there were only small office fires and no conflagration of the building.
Here is one way to respond:

Thank you for providing photos that prove my points for me. I see small COLD fires. Cold fires are indicated by the black smoke of oxygen starved cold fires.

Have you built a camp fire?

Have you worked with melting temps of steel?

Have you worked with building fires for the intent of forge welding?

Have you worked on the innermost parts of a steel structured building to see how they are made?

Have you worked with demolitions of these types of structures?

Have you ever been a welder working on steel structured building demolition?

These types of experiences help in understanding why the official story for WTC7 (also 1 and 2) is not physically possible.

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------

The small localized fires in the photo below are simple office fires that might possibly reach about 700 degrees F. These fires burn out rather quickly and turn into the cold fires as shown in the image above. Those fires with black smoke are lucky to be in the 400 degree temperature range at best.

Even if there were twice the fires and twice the heat it would not be enough to cause a "global failure" of every steel column connection point at the same time. Lets not forget about steel decking connection points that would have had to fail simultaneously and all the concrete that had to pulverize itself, then the central column had to fail precisely in the middle, then somehow make several floors and a BUNKER move its entire mass out of the way so that a free fall speed could occur with the top half of the building, then fall neatly into a manageable pile. This is not possible.

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

I have either done these things above or worked along side or for people that did these things during my heavy equipment operating days. And it has given me a better understanding of what it takes to bring down a steel and concrete structured building.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 PM ----------

Watch again as WTC7 falls.



---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

Then watch this with some actual physics thrown in.

Now can you honestly tell me cold 400 degree office fires and a damaged corner of the building caused the global catastrophic failure of that very strong building?
REALLY?

Now go back to the FIRST questions I asked, then find out WHO and WHAT was in that building. I could tell you but I would rather you find it for yourself.

---------- Post added at 08:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

When you get done with that, go to the fbi most wanted list and tell me if osama is wanted in connection with the attacks on 9/11

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

Cold Fires
The myth of black smoke meaning "cold" oxygen-starved fire is another of the Truther inventions.
Notice how we have gone from small office fires to large cold fires, each change in the story requiring a new strategy to keep it on its feet.

The Truthers know (but choose to ignore) that fires fueled by petroleum based material generate black smoke. For instance:

There is much other evidence for this that I can send links to (PM me), but I am trying to keep it all inside the thread if possible. And we will get to testimony of firemen on the scene that support this in due time.
====
Fortified Building
Notice also how above that at first the building was described as fortified.
Then we learn that just one floor (the 23rd!)was fortified and in that case retrofitted to be (using the words of the truth himself) a building within a building. There has been no evidence that this added to the structural integrity of the building at all. And does that idea even make sense, that you would fortify a building from the 23rd floor?

===

Starting with Motive
Conspiracy buffs make much of perceived shadowy motives in their claims. Since the 9/11 event may be the most contemporaneously documented disaster ever, starting at motive seems extremely unwise. Let's talk about what happened before we start assigning blame.

===
Pixel, is it possible for you to clean up your posts? It is not necessary to quote a tower of text and pictures each time you respond. It makes the thread hard to read.

Lance

This is exactly WHY I started with the first questions.

Some fires with black smoke can be hot, ie: burning tires. I doubt there were tires stored in those offices.

Adding considerable amounts of a structure within a structure will indeed strengthen it to a degree. I doubt they used sheetrock to fortify the building.

You didnt tell me what agencies were within the building. Do you know?

And lastly if I am a Truther then you must be the opposite of that... Since you must feel calling someone a name is acceptable and our Moderator here is not objecting to your name calling, I will now refer to you and anyone else accepting the official story as a Liar. Fair enough?

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------

more actual physics..



---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------

Here NIST changes their mind right before your eyes and they actually admit a free fall speed. DUDE.. As the NIST guy admits himself a free fall speed can't happen unless there is no resistance below it. I am not sure how far you guys got in school but my high school education can figure this out.



---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 PM ----------

ABANDONED POINT.

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

I will not use the term "Truther" to describe you f you like. I did not know that it was offensive.
Once again, will you please clean up your posts and not copy the entire message above yours each time? It is not necessary and makes the thread hard to read.
I am NOT viewing any videos unless you cite the passage that is relevant.

===

Arguing with red herrings:



Nor did anyone say they were--this is a sad kind of argumentation.
There were modern office materials, no doubt, many of which are petroleum based. Like furniture, desks, office equipment, etc.

===



The evidence is that the 23rd floor had some fortifications done to it--none of which are indicated as structural. Do you have details otherwise?

===

As we surely see, it is almost impossible to simply discuss points with the 9/11 conspiracy believers (is that a better term)

===

Lance

Like I said before, you can call me a Truther, I am proud of that. But then I will be calling you a Liar.... or is that offensive?

I didn't think you would bother looking at the actual physics behind the falling of the building or the VERY WORDS from a NIST spoksperson. You are apparently just trolling.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

And lastly if I am a Truther then you must be the opposite of that... Since you must feel calling someone a name is acceptable and our Moderator here is not objecting to your name calling, I will now refer to you and anyone else accepting the official story as a Liar. Fair enough?

Pixel, I just got home. If you don't want to be called a truther and you take offense to it, then Lance will stop calling you one.

Lance, Pixel is quoting the pictures for a reason, so I don't think it's up to you to tell him what to post.

Also, Lance is far from trolling here. You may not agree with what he is arguing for, but that doesn't mean he's trolling.

Finally, Pixel I know that you can't stand me as a moderator, but criticize when there's a reason to, okay? I'm trying my best.

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

Pixel, I just got home. If you don't want to be called a truther and you take offense to it, then Lance will stop calling you one.

Lance, Pixel is quoting the pictures for a reason, so I don't think it's up to you to tell him what to post.

Also, Lance is far from trolling here. You may not agree with what he is arguing for, but that doesn't mean he's trolling.

Finally, Pixel I know that you can't stand me as a moderator, but criticize when there's a reason to, okay? I'm trying my best.

I just said I dont mind being called a Truther, and I have no problem reciprocating and calling him a Liar for what he believes. Fair enough right?

I can stand you as a Mod, and I like you for the mot part. I just believe Mods should moderate and interact very little under their Mod name.

I posted some questions that should be relevant in an investigation but he disregarded those. I then gave him some explanations of positions i have been in that helps me formulate what I think happened or did not happen actually.

I posted some videos explaining the physics of the building falling and some statements from a NIST spokesperson who gave some important information regarding the incident.

The ball is in his court and I will even spot him 10 points.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

I just said I dont mind being called a Truther, and I have no problem reciprocating and calling him a Liar for what he believes. Fair enough right?

I can stand you as a Mod, and I like you for the mot part. I just believe Mods should moderate and interact very little under their Mod name.

I posted some questions that should be relevant in an investigation but he disregarded those. I then gave him some explanations of positions i have been in that helps me formulate what I think happened or did not happen actually.

I posted some videos explaining the physics of the building falling and some statements from a NIST spokesperson who gave some important information regarding the incident.

The ball is in his court and I will even spot him 10 points.

I'm actually impressed at how you are both handling yourselves, all things considered.

You are both bringing up interesting points.

 

[mike]

Wtc7

Personally i think 911 was an attack by islamic extreemists, just as Bali, London and Madrid were.

Prior to 911 there was a foiled attack on the WTC where a truck packed with explosives was parked in the basement garage of the north tower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Wo...Center_bombing

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP> was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.<SUP id=cite_ref-SJC_1998-02-24_1-0 class=reference>[2]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference>[3]</SUP> It failed to do so, but did kill seven people and injured 1,042.

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Had this plan worked, it would have looked like a controlled demolition........

WTC 7 might have looked like a controlled demolition, but thats not proof it was an inside job.
If anything given the history its more likely imo, that what we see in the WTC 7 case is a peripheral and seperate part of the same plan that saw the north and south towers taken out by hijacked planes.

As to why WTC 7 wasnt included in reports ? well perhaps the whole idea of the attack was to scare people from working in high rise buildings, taking out a few buildings isnt nearly as bad as scaring people to such an extent as to not enter any skyscraper.
The airspace was something that could be subjected to tighter controls and that could be shown as a counter to that fear, but if it were known that truck bombs could be used to bring down buildings like WTC 7....... there is not much you can do about preventing that.

The 1993 attempt showed they could not take out the the tower buildings, so it makes sense to target a smaller building next time.

Had the 1993 attempt suceeded it would have looked like a controlled demolition, the truck would have been destroyed and buried, the garage security footage along with the building.

To me it makes perfect sense that the islamic terrorists would have included this in the plan as either a backup or just as icing on the cake.
The psychological impact of having another building collapse after the main event is undeniable, people have to start wondering which building is next.
The operation was cell based, its not impossible that a repeat of the 1993 event was included as part of the operation.
And personally makes more sense than "inside job"

 

[Han]

Wtc7

Hi all I have a couple of questions firstly I remember that the BBC "allegedly" reported that WTC7 had collapsed twenty minutes before it actually did. Has this ever been confirmed?
I also Remember seeing an interview with Larry Silverstein where he said "Pull it"(WTC7) which I believe some people have inturpreted as meaning "blow it up".
My own opinion on the matter is that that there is one absolute fact and that is that many many innocent people have and will be killed as a direct result of the events on 9/11.
There are many people with agendas be it Arms contractors who profit from war or extreemist terrorists who prey on the vulnerable and use such events as propoganda, these days people seem polarised in thier views on what happened on that day some ardently blame the goverment and a new world order whilst others feel that it was Islam and that we should take the "war" to them, the truth is probably some where in the middle, which if I am honest does make me feel uneasy, it may sound naive but I wish it was a simple as some believe, my instinct and experience tells me that the "official" version of events is some what economical with the truth.
Either way its a lose lose situation for the world as a whole and I doubt the full truth will ever be known but it is important. I wonder what future generations will make of it.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

So far I think I have shown evidence that (despite the claims):

1. The Building WAS damaged.
2. The fires were large and wide.

Lance

1. The building was damaged, clearly. Was it damaged enough to cause it to collapse? Why did it collapse into its own footprint instead of sideways?
2. Fires indeed were present. Were they enough to cause the building to collapse? WTC 1 & 2 at least had the addition of burning jet fuel to intensify the fires. WTC 7 did not.
3. The BBC report. Clearly the building is still standing and for at least 20 mins after the report had concluded. Later the BBC says it lost the tapes of the report only to have them found again after being filed on the "2002" shelf instead of the "2001" shelf.
The evidence that you have supplied is not definitive enough to rule out outside interferrence ie: controlled demolition.

 

[Han]

Wtc7

the main reason I raised the premature announcement of the WTC7 collapse was because I thought this thread was specificaly about WTC7 and in my opinion all related information and facts are relevent, and infact video evidence is admissable in a court of law. I feel that the erronious report is significant because in my view, a good reporter is like a good scientist if they dont have all the information they say that they dont know. I do not think that the BBC was in on the "conspiracy" but only reporting information that they had been "given", although I must also point out the the BBC has not got the cleanest of records*. If the situation was inverted, in other words if the report had said that WTC7 was still standing when it had collapsed, it would not be suspicious I would of put it down to lack of facts or confirmation.
It also should not be forgotten that false or miss reporting is as old as reporting itself and there are many prominent well documented cases involving governments throughout the "media" age.



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

Pixel, this thread is not just for you or me.

I am not gonna jump all over the place.

I am trying to cover the points raised in the original message I quoted at the beginning of the thread and I am trying to be methodical.

So far I think I have shown evidence that (despite the claims):

1. The Building WAS damaged.
2. The fires were large and wide.

I also did try to clear up the fortified building claim (which you then modified to fortified floor ). Just so we are clear...there is no evidence that you might point to that supports the idea that the Command Center strengthened the structure of WTC7?

If not, can we put that claim where all unsupported ones belong?

Lance

I do not have access to the blueprints on wtc7 like i do on wtc 1 and 2, therefore i cannot confirm or deny. In the bigger picture it means squat.

Bottom line really is right from NIST, that the building did in fact free fall for the first part of the collapse. It also fell symmetrically defying 2 laws laws of physics right there. I should have fell towards the least resistance (the damaged corner) and it shouldnt have free fell at all.

---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

we also have recorded video of emergency personnel telling people to move back the building is going to blow up, move back the buiilding is coming down, and the owner of the building who insured the complex against terror attacks shortly before 9/11 and also is on tape saying they decided to "pull it" (a demolition term for blowing up a building).

if it looks like a duck... it is probably a duck.

 

[pixelsmith]

Wtc7

Hi Han,

I don't disagree with much of your above post. I can tell you that in a real news situation the info is flying fast and furious and just like all things human, it ain't perfect. By the way, I don't think the reporter repeats the mistake (maybe I didn't watch enough of the tapes), I think it was only the anchor (in the U.K.). To my mind (and from experience) it is quite possible that he received an erroneous or misunderstood report that could have only been a quick voice in his ear which he then repeated.

This riveting video at 4:00 underlines my point above:



As someone on the outside, I suggest that it isn't logical that you can accept a mistake that says one thing but can't see (without conspiracy) the mistake being the opposite report.

And anyway look at what this conspiracy is saying:

1. The BBC got prior information about the collapse (from the evil masters of 9/11).
2. They stupidly reported it early.

Why is that more reasonable to you than:

1. The BBC got the information that WTC7 was going to collapse (many news outlets did).
2. They mistakenly reported it as having already collapsed prior to the actual collapse.

I repeat that news outlets DID know that WTC7 was doomed prior to the collapse. The firemen pulled out when the building began to show signs of failure well before the collapse. How this can mean anything beyond what it seems shows the great capacity of conspiracy theorists to look at ANY anomaly and weave it into a shadowy pageant of evil.

Even when it makes no sense!

Thanks,
Lance

---------- Post added at 10:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 AM ----------

Pixel--thank you for first saying the building was fortified. Then agreeing with me that it was just the 23rd floor. I assume you now also concede that it was just half the 23rd floor.

I also appreciate you now admitting that the whole fortified building thing (that YOU brought up and asked me about) doesn't mean squat.

Before I continue trying to deal with the points you raise, are there any other ones that "don't mean squat"? If we can put aside the ones even you don't stand behind, the process will go more quickly.

Lance

Deal with the free falling of the building. That is really all you need to do. Google "toppled buildings", "high rise fires" and "controlled demolition". check out the photos and videos you find. The watch WTC7 fall. It really is quite clear what has happened to the building.

 

[Kieran]

Wtc7

I've seen know evidence to believe there was a United States Government involvement in bringing down the three buildings that fell on 9/11, while UFO's is ok considered by many as a fringe subject, i would still point it out to people as often as i can conspiracy theories like 9/11, should never be viewed in the same light as to how one should view the subject of UFO's.

The UFO subject is already recognised by certain worldwide governments as real, and certain people who have be in positions of power and held offices within governments have pointed it out to others the legitimate nature of the topic of UFO's.

Anyway back to topic.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are borne out of ignorance, and it sad to see, a large numbers of American citizens having a believe Islamic terrorism only got started when Americans got involved with Arab countries in the Middle East. There is in fact a very long history of attacks on western owned buildings aviation and against people that is many decades old.

Also Al-Qaeda was not something the CIA set up, the people that eventually set up Al-Qaeda set up the movement to remove western influence from Muslim countries, and previously fighters that later joined Al-Qaeda, had been fighting trying to get the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Young men from an Arab background became Fighters for Al-Qaeda in the eighties and later decades in other to remove christen influences from Arab countries, there was also a well known long documented relationship between the oil barons of America and the Saudi royal family. It one would of the reasons Obama Bin laden been a Saudi took offence, he had a strong belief his beloved country was been influenced by the Americans to do their will, but the last straw for Osama was when the US military set up bases in his country, remember he issued a fatwa long before 9/11 telling he would attack United States interests in the Middle East and abroad if the American military did not pack up and go home!

Pixel do the research there was at least a dozen or so high profile attacks on American targets in Africa and the Middle East long before 9/11.. Now are you suggesting the CIA and United States carried these attacks out to establish Al-Qaeda as a public terrorist entity? What about the Madrid Train bombings and the UK tube bombing? So if Al-Qaeda does not exist, and it did not hijack planes on 9/11 who bombed these other targets across the world?

Finally isn't it amazing how these demolitions got planted in one of the most security watched buildings on the planet, and not just that, the wiring would have to cover all the floors of the 110 story building and non of this work was spotted been done by anyone. Oh of course security in all three buildings were in on this conspiracy and turned a blind eye to it all

The North and South twin towers fell from the top down not bottom up as per usual with a demolition destruction of a building.The falling came from exactly were the two planes impacted the building, this not just someones assumption or some idle speculation its what actually happened that day.

Pixel can claim demolitions caused the fall of the two twin towers, but he never has given an adequate theory to what type of explosive or demolition could've been used, and how the demolition wire located around the two twin towers survived the impact of the planes, and was able to magically outdo the heat and fire ( that was above 1500c) for well over an hour after the attacks.

These alleged conspirators who planted these demolitions in WTC7 must have been ability to see into the future, to have known the debris from one of the towers would hit the WTC7!..

What would happen if the debris missed! Would the conspirators blow up a building that was left undamaged that day? This theory is not a viable option to consider to what may have happened that day.