Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Rincewind]

Do the firemen say we are not entering that building because ten years ago one collapsed and there is a slight possibility that this one will do the same so the trapped people can die.

[Bellend Sebastian]

We should move on from this and debate something less contentious.

How's about global warming?

[Zingari]

why was Frankie chucked off X factor ?

[Babylon]

Did they continue to make ships of the same design? Probably not

Did they adapt the fault of ship? Probably

Do ships still sink? The point I'm making is sometimes there are exceptional circumstances that mean the best planning and safety devices don't always work no matter what people have planned for.

Has ship designed changed since then, yes it has. Has building design, fire safety and building regulations changed since 1960 when the twin towers were designed? Of course it has, it's natural progression.

Something built on September 10th 2001 before the attacks even happened, would already be far more advanced in design than the buildings that fell the day after.

To put it in natural disaster terms. If an earthquake happened tomorrow and a building designed in 1960 got damaged, people wouldn't instantly say building design needed to change. The reason being design had already moved on from when that building had been built.

Have they stopped firemen entering steel structured buildings with minor fires because of fear of total collapse?

If there was a 60's / 70's high rise building on fire, that had also sustained physical damage in some way. I'm fairly sure that there would be a discussion on safety, but each case has to be dealt with on it's own circumstances.

I’d hazard a guess that no changes have been made in either steel quality or structural design because none are necessary as buildings such as these or an other steel buildings will totally collapse unless they are intentionally demolished

You posted a link to a site about building regs, the people on your own link suggest there is little than can be done about certain events. This was a one off, you cannot point to anything else ever that has had the same set of circumstances to even remotely suggest one was or another whether a building would or wouldn't collapse.

Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it's proof of something underhand.

[Bellend Sebastian]

why was Frankie chucked off X factor ?

Because he's been on a massive coke binge and been snogging loads of lasses, according to The Independent, I think it was.

So what about this global warming then? The bloke across the road from my old house was brilliant about it - he'd get into a right old rage about how it's all bollocks, but based this argument on the fact that on some days it's quite cold out.

We don't have to debate global warming, I expect it would be quite boring.

So let's get this right then, Frankie Cocossa destroyed World Trade Centre 7 in a controlled explosion to heighten awareness of the melting polar ice caps?

What's unbelievable about that? You people will insist on reading too much into things

[Zingari]

Do ships still sink? The point I'm making is sometimes there are exceptional circumstances that mean the best planning and safety devices don't always work no matter what people have planned for.

Has ship designed changed since then, yes it has. Has building design, fire safety and building regulations changed since 1960 when the twin towers were designed? Of course it has, it's natural progression.

Something built on September 10th 2001 before the attacks even happened, would already be far more advanced in design than the buildings that fell the day after.

To put it in natural disaster terms. If an earthquake happened tomorrow and a building designed in 1960 got damaged, people wouldn't instantly say building design needed to change. The reason being design had already moved on from when that building had been built.

If there was a 60's / 70's high rise building on fire, that had also sustained physical damage in some way. I'm fairly sure that there would be a discussion on safety, but each case has to be dealt with on it's own circumstances.

You posted a link to a site about building regs, the people on your own link suggest there is little than can be done about certain events. This was a one off, you cannot point to anything else ever that has had the same set of circumstances to even remotely suggest one was or another whether a building would or wouldn't collapse.

Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it's proof of something underhand.

The problem is that buildings have collapsed before, maybe hundreds or possibly thousands of times, that is my point.

But they have only collapsed due to some sort of explosives being position to cause the under-structure to collapse.

Why given that they have never collapsed before due to fire, was the least plausible explanation, (i.e. fires) given up as the only possibility, and the more likely probable cause ( explosives )not even considered.

It seems that the most likely cause of any building collapse was completely ignored in the fema / nist investigations and so I along with many others will remain suspicious.

I’m not an investigator , but logically I would assume that the most common causes of any event or disaster are investigated first , not discounted from the outset .

i can't imagine we'll ever agree on this mate , but it is good to debate with you , and i really mean that

[Babylon]

The problem is that buildings have collapsed before, maybe hundreds or possibly thousands of times, that is my point.

But they have only collapsed due to some sort of explosives being position to cause the under-structure to collapse.

Why given that they have never collapsed before due to fire, was the least plausible explanation, (i.e. fires) given up as the only possibility, and the more likely probable cause ( explosives )not even considered.

The problem is you are treating this event like any other one that has gone on before it. You cannot compare it against other events because the circumstances surrounding it are completely different.

This is a one off event with a combination of things happening nothing like any other buildings that you can offer up as an example. Planes crashing, debris falling, jet fuel accelerating the fire, fire proofing and sprinklers damaged due to impacts etc.

As I said, just because something has not happened before. Or because someone didn't think of this exact set of circumstances when building it, doesn't mean there has to be something suspicious behind it.

The fact this exact chain of events hasn't happened before cannot be used as evidence to prove something else was afoot. I look at it from a point of view of would this mean anything in court. It wouldn't even be admissible. Until somebody can come forward with cold hard evidence, and for something on this scale there would be lots of it out there. Then these theories will continue to be laughed off by most.

I've not once seen anything that does not have a more than plausible explanation to counter it.

I’m not an investigator , but logically I would assume that the most common causes of any event or disaster are investigated first , not discounted from the outset .

Going back to the titanic, that's a bit like saying "well most boats sink due to bad weather, mines or cannon balls . So we might as well investigate them rather than the great big ****ing hole just ripped in the side by that massive iceberg over there".

[Webbo]

I once watched a programme that claimed that the sinking of the Titanic was a conspiracy. It was actually an insurance scam and it wasn't the Titanic but it's sister ship the Olympic that had been damaged in an earlier accident.

For 55 minutes they had me totally convinced until the last 5 minutes when they completely debunked everything they'd just said, the bastards.

[Babylon]

I once watched a programme that claimed that the sinking of the Titanic was a conspiracy. It was actually an insurance scam and it wasn't the Titanic but it's sister ship the Olympic that had been damaged in an earlier accident.

Why doesn't that shock me!

[Steam]

I know I'm new here so I hope my comments aren't taken too badly!

With respect to posts about the fire and no steel frame buildings collapsing before this, there are a number of major differences in most building fires compared to WTC 7 which made it an exceptional event.

Personally I am amazed it stood for 7 hours before it collapsed.

[Zingari]

I don't want to clutter up Empty's thread with any more WTC 7stuff, so I'll post this video in here so you can see what lying underhand bastrads NIST are .

Please listen very closely to the nist spokesmen!

How any one can be taken in by their bullshit waffling is a comple mystery as big as the fookin collapse itself .

Not that i think anyone will actually watch it though

[BoneDog]

I will watch it in a bit, although I'm already convinced! I might have something similar to post regarding NIST later if I can find it again. Hopefully I bookmarked it so I don't have to trawl the interwebs in search.

Edit : Not watched it yet Zingari I forgot and going bed in a minute. Will check it tomorrow. Oh, and I can't find the video I mentioned yet. Not sure if the 3 I'm posting below have been posted in here, I've not seen much of this thread, don't think I was around at the time.

Edit : I stayed up and watched it. I never knew that NIST haven't released their model for others to see. I almost feel sorry for those NIST spokesmen, they must know that they are showing themselves up to others in their industry when they stutter as they try to answer those questions! Who knows what kinds of pressure they are under from whoever they answer to.

[BoneDog]

Any engineers or architects want a crack at telling us why these videos prove nothing? Dave the Caveman, aren't you a structural engineer?

"3,900 shear studs in a single level......Why would NIST first, correctly state, the abundance of shear connectors in this building, and then change their story, and omit these crucial elements from their collapse analysis and model?......Perhaps the answer is this : The lead investigative engineer at NIST, said in 2005, that NIST were having trouble getting a handle on the collapse of building 7."

Shit hot. Technical, but stick with it and you'll get the gist alright.

Check out building 5 in this video. It was an inferno and was still standing while that poxy little weak fire that had gone out in building 7 brought that one down (according to the lunatic fringe anyway).

[OzFox]

I had a feeling I might not have seen the last of this thread

Babylon was on fire back in those days. I'm surprised he didn't collapse. Asymmetrically of course.

[Zingari]

No doubt dave the caveman is busily trying to reconstruct the collapse of WTC 7 using straws and bricks .

He should get a job at NIST , they’d appreciate bullshitters like that.

Actually Oz , I think dave and Babylon would be better than the spokesmen at NIST because they’d believe the bullshit that Gross ( lier) and his cronies obviously do not .

[OzFox]

No doubt dave the caveman is busily trying to reconstruct the collapse of WTC 7 using straws and bricks .

He should get a job at NIST , they’d appreciate bullshitters like that.

Actually Oz , I think dave and Babylon would be better than the spokesmen at NIST because they’d believe the bullshit that Gross ( lier) and his cronies obviously do not .

Bit harsh. Did you get up with a sore head this morning? I'm very impressed by your hours. I can barely function till about 10am

[Zingari]

Bit harsh. Did you get up with a sore head this morning? I'm very impressed by your hours. I can barely function till about 10am

Yes my head is very sore , i'd had quite a few bevvies last night as well

it wasn't harsh , they give as good back to me , it's all good natured ribbing

i'd sooner have a lively forum with posters expressing various opinions than some stale old board full of nodding dogs .so long as any insults are not too hurtful ,i'm sure dave and babs are good blokes

i've been insulted quite often by finners , so i'm pretty immune to any coming my way now

[Rincewind]

You're the expert on explosives and structural engineering zingari so I am only guessing. I would have thought, correct me if I am wrong, that to do a proper controlled explosion to collapse a building you would have to know beforehand the state of the building (intact or damaged) to know precisely where to place detonators to achieve the effect desired

That is all I have to say on the subject. I will now hand over to those with the expertise needed to solve this mystery although it seems zingari has come up with the answers where others have failed.

[Zingari]

You're the expert on explosives and structural engineering zingari so I am only guessing. I would have thought, correct me if I am wrong, that to do a proper controlled explosion to collapse a building you would have to know beforehand the state of the building (intact or damaged) to know precisely where to place detonators to achieve the effect desired

That is all I have to say on the subject. I will now hand over to those with the expertise needed to solve this mystery although it seems zingari has come up with the answers where others have failed.

Yes of course you would , that is true , but if you listen to the Danny Jowenko video he says quite clearly that any damage to the building done by the fire or falling debris would have little or no consequence to a controlled demolition

In answer to the other point that you keep making , about only being able to see the collapse from 1 side , that is not true , because in the video you should quite clearly 3 corners and 2 sides and they all fall down vertically at the same rate .

You can also see quite clearly that the roofline fall horizontally .

Therefore , what on earth do you imagine can be happening on the corner and walls that you can't see ?

It's obviously behaving in the same way , don't you think ?

or do you imagine the walls out of sight are performing some strange style of random collapse ?

[davieG]

Whenever I've watched programmes about the controlled demolition of buildings they were awash with cables linking up the explosive devices, can they do this without all these cables being visible?

[Rincewind]

Yes that would be a bit of a give away.

[Zingari]

Whenever I've watched programmes about the controlled demolition of buildings they were awash with cables linking up the explosive devices, can they do this without all these cables being visible?

i'm sure i've posted this many times davie and nighty but here you go

to make it easy for you ff to about 4 mins 20 secs

[OzFox]

Yes my head is very sore , i'd had quite a few bevvies last night as well

it wasn't harsh , they give as good back to me , it's all good natured ribbing

i'd sooner have a lively forum with posters expressing various opinions than some stale old board full of nodding dogs .so long as any insults are not too hurtful ,i'm sure dave and babs are good blokes

i've been insulted quite often by finners , so i'm pretty immune to any coming my way now

Oh good. In that case I think you're a barking mad, deluded, blinkered fruitcake. Never called anyone that before. Feels good. :D

Only kidding of course. You're entitled to your opinion. I suspect though that even if you were presented with a pristine HD video of wtc7 full of gaping holes, huge raging fires, and bowing at one corner (like the firemen said it was) you still wouldn't believe it.

[adam1]

There was a sky scraper in spain that was on fite for a considerable period of time a few years ago. That didn't collapse and yet the heat from that (and over a lengthy period of time) was at least equivalent to that of the wtc main towers.

As to wtc7 (the small building wasnt it?) it was demolished. They didnt want the memory of the other two so they demolished it (admitted in an interview somewhere by someone who had control over the buildings).

[Zingari]

Oh good. In that case I think you're a barking mad, deluded, blinkered fruitcake. Never called anyone that before. Feels good. :D

Only kidding of course. You're entitled to your opinion. I suspect though that even if you were presented with a pristine HD video of wtc7 full of gaping holes, huge raging fires, and bowing at one corner (like the firemen said it was) you still wouldn't believe it.

I've never denied being any of those things and in the world we live in i consider it to be quite a compliment

find me such a photo and we'll see but fires( however big) don't cause steel buildings to collapse , never have never will .