BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week

[harris7]

Because the opening thread suggests that the WTC attack was a conspiracy, and not the work of the terrorists that are charged with it.

Appartently at least one moderator agreed that this belongs in the conspiracy, and not the politics forum. Pissy is deliberatly doing this - because his case is old, and not getting enough support - either here, or elsewhere, and certainly not in NYC, from people like myself who were near the WTC on 9/11, and later.

I am really quite disappointed. Youâ??ve really just closed your mind and wont even consider what this man is talking about.

Have you even bothered to read about tower 7?

Why do you close your eyes?

[Breukelen advocaat]

Oh how i agree, did you know that 54% of New Yorkers believe the government had involvemnt in 911

How do you know? From a Zogby poll? Forget that, it's not correct, their 9/11 polls are biased and not objective. In addition, I know a LOT of New Yorkers, and nobody has ever expressed to me the idea that the government was involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The argument here usually goes back to Larry Silverstein, as if he could somehow get away with ordering the destruction of 7 WTC and collecting hundreds of millions,or more, in insurance. One film clip, from some far-off TV station, in Wisconsin I believe, was so off-based about the condition of NYC's financial district and the WTC prior to 9/11 it wasn't even worth addressing.

[harris7]

How do you know? From a Zogby poll? Forget that, it's not correct, their 9/11 polls are biased and not objective. In addition, I know a LOT of New Yorkers, and nobody has ever expressed to me the idea that the government was involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The argument here usually goes back to Larry Silverstein, as if he could somehow get away with ordering the destruction of 7 WTC and collecting hundreds of millions,or more, in insurance. One film clip, from some far-off TV station, in Wisconsin I believe, was so off-based about the condition of NYC's financial district and the WTC prior to 9/11 it wasn't even worth addressing.

IT comes down to a very few facts:
-tower 7 was not hit by a plane
-tower 7 fell, and looked as if imploded
-tower 7 was on fire
-Fire has Never been the cause of a cement/steel construction building
-it is impossible for the building to have fallen because of fire

-How did the building fall?

-well since it looked as if imploded, implosion is a very valid explanation
-unfortunately it takes weeks to plan and arrange the explosives to implode a building
-So either the building fell for no reason; unlikely
-or the demolition was planned ahead, a chilling thought

And oddly enough this entire problem was just skipped over in the commissioners report

You know, the report that was â??intendedâ?� to be the most comprehensive explanation and description of the event.

[Perp]

Governments in the past have used false flag operations in order to extend their power over and cultivate fear in their populace. It happens now and it will continue to happen in the future. Anyone who doesn't believe that is naive.

They do it because they know they can count on the majority of the people not believing it possible.

[Breukelen advocaat]

IT comes down to a very few facts:
-tower 7 was not hit by a plane
-tower 7 fell, and looked as if imploded
-tower 7 was on fire
-Fire has Never been the cause of a cement/steel construction building
-it is impossible for the building to have fallen because of fire

-How did the building fall?

-well since it looked as if imploded, implosion is a very valid explanation
-unfortunately it takes weeks to plan and arrange the explosives to implode a building
-So either the building fell for no reason; unlikely
-or the demolition was planned ahead, a chilling thought

And oddly enough this entire problem was just skipped over in the commissioners report

You know, the report that was â??intendedâ?� to be the most comprehensive explanation and description of the event.

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

Published in the March 2005 issue.

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

Published in the March 2005 issue.

WTC 7 Collapse

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." (Bold mine)

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse.


FINE LINES: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, below) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below).

Seismograph readings (graph 2) by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam (associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science writer)/www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story - Popular Mechanics


PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

[Breukelen advocaat]

Here's the latest report from NIST, Dec. 12, 2006:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Appro...ary12Dec06.pdf

[harris7]

do you copy and paist arguments because you do not understand them for yourself?

i will not read your research for you

and thanks for posting pictures too small to read.

[harris7]

to comment on what your article and pictures seem to say

that the building was close to the towers and was hit with debries

oddly tower 7 is the furthest trade center building from the twin towers

odd that towers 3,4,5 and 6 which were MUCH closer didn't fall

I also wonder how they found this new evidence of damage to the building. you know, since there exists only 1 video from only one angle of the building falling and it isn't very good.

or maybe, they realized that no building (steel/cement) has ever fallen from fire; so they had to put something in so people could rationalize their conclusion

[Breukelen advocaat]

do you copy and paist arguments because you do not understand them for yourself?

i will not read your research for you

and thanks for posting pictures too small to read.

If the graphs are "too small to read" all you have to do is go to the PM webpage that I provided a link to and click on the graphs at the bottom of the page. Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story - Popular Mechanics


BTW, what research have YOU done? Iâ??m not an engineer or architect, but I worked n lower NYC for a quarter of a century, and was a kid when they built the WTC. I was there on 9/11, and for the bombing of the WTC in 1993 as well.

I met an architect on the subway, while leaving lower NYC on 9/11, before the collapse of WTC towers one and two. He told me that they would collapse - from the heat of the jet fuel fires, and other factors. I didn't know what to think at the time, but that is exactly what happened a short time later when I got home and turned on the TV.

Your side has not proven anything, and the burden of proof is on the believer. At least, NIST and other professionals use theories and hypothesis' when they present research.


Another thing: I've been following the 9/11 conspiracy stuff on this board for several years. Unless I missed it, there has not been anybody from NYC's Greater Metropolitan Area, which is 20 million people, that has expressed a belief the United States government carried out the attacks of 9/11.

Out of twenty million people, I'm sure that there are a few that believe it, but none on this message board that I am aware of. Maybe a few will eventually post their opinion, but if they do it will be for the first time here. About the closest thing it was some postings by a fellow (not from New York) that worked on the cleanup of Ground Zero, after 9/11, who was skeptical of the government's story. He has since left. He had no evidence of foul play, either. Not one other New Yorker, or one of the 20 Million in the area, to the best of my knowledge, has posted a belief on the Cannabis.com politics forum that the government was responsible for 9/11. You also find very few people from the NYC area, that think this way, on various other 9/11 "conspiracy" sites. That should tell you something.

[harris7]

Unfortunately I am not a New Yorker so I don’t really understand why you’ve placed their opinion on such a high pedestal.

Most importantly I will note that I do not form my beliefs based on how many people share them.
Do you know how many new Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the fall of the towers?

I am also not an architect but lucky for me I have a high level education in physics and chemistry and can understand very high level scientific discussions. Maybe this is the reason the problems with the official story are so obvious, maybe not.

As well I do not primarily bring my concerns with the official story to the twin towers. I don’t believe that I am in the position to discredit what has been put forth.

I primarily am interested and am informed on the pentagon crashes and tower 7 because they have the most obviously flawed stories. Obvious to anyone willing to look.

I have personally done the calculations proving the official story wrong in a few areas, if your interested I could share. I suspect you are not.


It is humorous that your argument seems mainly to be based on the fact that you haven’t seen new Yorkers on a Cannabis message board. As if the opinions of these people dictate truth, or that these people are some how more critical and educated than the rest of the world. Cute