Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Jimothy]

show me a steel building collapsing or having collapsed due to fire then

Show me a steel building that been allowed to burn that long without the fire being extinguished. Show me a steel building that's burned that long after being subjected to the impact of two of the worlds tallest building have collapse a few hundred yards away. Same with the two main towers, show me a building on fire with a giant jumbo jet wedged in the side that hasn't collapsed.

Your problem is you're comparing a standard office fire with something that's never been seen before. We don't really know what any building will do with a plane wedged in the side because it's never happened. We don't really know what will happen to a building on fire when two massive skyscrapers have collapse a few hundred yards away, because it's never happened.

Wait until god forbid someone else flies a giant jumbo into the side of a skyscraper and than compare. At the moment you comparing the incomparable.

[Zingari]

Show me a steel building that been allowed to burn that long without the fire being extinguished. Show me a steel building that's burned that long after being subjected to the impact of two of the worlds tallest building have collapse a few hundred yards away. Same with the two main towers, show me a building on fire with a giant jumbo jet wedged in the side that hasn't collapsed.

Your problem is you're comparing a standard office fire with something that's never been seen before. We don't really know what any building will do with a plane wedged in the side because it's never happened. We don't really know what will happen to a building on fire when two massive skyscrapers have collapse a few hundred yards away, because it's never happened.

Wait until god forbid someone else flies a giant jumbo into the side of a skyscraper and than compare. At the moment you comparing the incomparable.

take your pick , there are lots of examples

http://911research.w...pare/fires.html

[marko]

take your pick , there are lots of examples

http://911research.w...pare/fires.html

Well that website is telling lies in it's 2nd line. BoxingFoxes has provided evidence that fires can cause collapses.

[Zingari]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY

40 seconds in (incidentally the amount of time it took to type "building collapse due to fire" into google and open the video).

Also, and more tragically:

The first one is just a partial asymmetrical collapse and the falling debris goes to one side of the building ,It doesnt destroy the rest of the building below. Totally in keeping with what should have happened to wtc7

can you not see that the building is still standing there ?

edit ;

very first comment on youtube

"and the whole building collapes into its own footprint!.... Oh wait, no it didn't!"

The second one doesn't look like a steel frame building.

[marko]

The first one is just a partial collapse and it goes to one side of the building ,It doesnt destroy the rest of the building below. Totally in keeping with what should have happened to wtc7

The second one doesn't look like a steel frame building.

lol You really are utterly incorrigible!

[Carl the Llama]

The first one is just a partial collapse and it goes to one side of the building ,It doesnt destroy the rest of the building below. Totally in keeping with what should have happened to wtc7

The second one doesn't look like a steel frame building.

I'm not sure which video you watched but it wasn't the one I posted where the bit of the building that starts falling takes out all the floors directly below it too.

[Jimothy]

take your pick , there are lots of examples

http://911research.w...pare/fires.html

There's only 4 buildings there. One burned for an astonishing 17 hours, that fact is didn't collapse is the amazing thing not using it as proof of other buildings behaviour. The others burned for almost half the time WT7 burned for, so can't be compared. Also you fail to answer any of the other points I made, most likely because you can't.

[Zingari]

There's only 4 buildings there. One burned for an astonishing 17 hours, that fact is didn't collapse is the amazing thing not using it as proof of other buildings behaviour. The others burned for almost half the time WT7 burned for, so can't be compared. Also you fail to answer any of the other points I made, most likely because you can't.

go back and count them again

[Jimothy]

go back and count them again

Probably should have elaborated, only 4 of those buildings give any indication of burning time. The others don't mention how long they burnt for.

And the other points in my original post?

[Carl the Llama]

edit ;

very first comment on youtube

"and the whole building collapes into its own footprint!.... Oh wait, no it didn't!"

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we've been trolled.

At least I hope that's the meaning of using a youtube comment as evidence.

[Captain...]

Show me a steel building that been allowed to burn that long without the fire being extinguished. Show me a steel building that's burned that long after being subjected to the impact of two of the worlds tallest building have collapse a few hundred yards away. Same with the two main towers, show me a building on fire with a giant jumbo jet wedged in the side that hasn't collapsed.

Your problem is you're comparing a standard office fire with something that's never been seen before. We don't really know what any building will do with a plane wedged in the side because it's never happened. We don't really know what will happen to a building on fire when two massive skyscrapers have collapse a few hundred yards away, because it's never happened.

Wait until god forbid someone else flies a giant jumbo into the side of a skyscraper and than compare. At the moment you comparing the incomparable.

WTC 5, WTC 6, neither collapsed despite being closer to the twin towers, and other buildings around the WTC collapsed.

As for foxy boxing's videos, you can clearly see a difference in the way they collapsed compared to WTC 7

[Smudge]

I'm not sure why you ask for evidence of a building collapsing due to fire and when they are presented to you, you ignore that and discuss the asymmetric free fall.

Lets just establish as fact that a steel frame building might collapse after being subjected to a fire. Building code alone requires fire protection around steel columns and beams, I'd say that's done for a reason.

As to the way in which the building falls is something neither you nor anyone else can speculate upon since that would depend on many incalculable aspects including previous damage, heat intensity, distribution of the fire and building design.

[marko]

WTC 5, WTC 6, neither collapsed despite being closer to the twin towers, and other buildings around the WTC collapsed.

As for foxy boxing's videos, you can clearly see a difference in the way they collapsed compared to WTC 7

Were they rigged with explosives as well?

[Zingari]

Probably should have elaborated, only 4 of those buildings give any indication of burning time. The others don't mention how long they burnt for.

And the other points in my original post?

No "jumbo jet" flew into the building it was a 767 and they were designed to withstand airliners crashing into them and if you take the trouble to watch the impacts you will see that the building coped extremely well .

They never looked like collapsing until they actually did .which is very odd indeed .

Most huge structures will give unmistakable telltale signs of imminent collapse.

But this really is at least 10 posts too long for me so please continue without me now

[Zingari]

I'm not sure why you ask for evidence of a building collapsing due to fire and when they are presented to you, you ignore that and discuss the asymmetric free fall.

Lets just establish as fact that a steel frame building might collapse after being subjected to a fire. Building code alone requires fire protection around steel columns and beams, I'd say that's done for a reason.

As to the way in which the building falls is something neither you nor anyone else can speculate upon since that would depend on many incalculable aspects including previous damage, heat intensity, distribution of the fire and building design.

Ive not ignored it

[marko]

But this really is at least 10 posts too long for me so please continue without me now

Cop-out!

[Zingari]

Cop-out!

quite so

[Captain...]

Were they rigged with explosives as well?

never said the others were, someone asked for an example of buildings subjected to the same treatment as WTC 7, so I gave it.

I very much doubt there were any explosives, and I would happily believe that towers like this are designed to collapse inwards under great stress, rather than topple over, as that would cause a lot more damage, but that doesn't seem to be an argument.

I do believe the US Government knew a lot more about the plans before 9/11 and that they did allow it to happen, to an extent, perhaps without realising the severity of it, but as to why these towers collapsed, I don't know, but at the moment Zingari is making some very good arguments, and it does seem like there is more to what happened than is being admitted.

[Jimothy]

WTC 5, WTC 6, neither collapsed despite being closer to the twin towers, and other buildings around the WTC collapsed.

As for foxy boxing's videos, you can clearly see a difference in the way they collapsed compared to WTC 7

Just because one thing didn't do something, doesn't mean everything else around it will behave the same way. The bodyguard in the Princess Diana crash survived despite the fact that he was sat in the front, and everyone else in the car died, also pretty sure he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Sometimes things happen that on the face of it probably shouldn't but do.

Who's to say the other buildings being nearer were missed by the major impact of the falling debris because they were so close it went over the top of them. You just simply don't know, nobody does. It was a attack like never seen before and to try and rationalise anything that happened around that day by using comparisons from other situations is futile. Nothing compares to it, we have never seen anything like it before or since.

[Smudge]

No "jumbo jet" flew into the building it was a 767 and they were designed to withstand airliners crashing into them and if you take the trouble to watch the impacts you will see that the building coped extremely well .

They never looked like collapsing until they actually did .which is very odd indeed .

Most huge structures will give unmistakable telltale signs of imminent collapse.

But this really is at least 10 posts too long for me so please continue without me now

A wide bodied airplane capable of carrying several hundred passengers is a jumbo jet, I agree it wasn't a 747. Pedant me up!

[Smudge]

Maybe Zingy, I can't read your mind but do you now agree that the probability that given certain circumstances, a fire will cause a steel framed building to collapse. If so, I think we have now passed the frying pan on a bonfire experiment.

[Captain...]

To all the nonspiracy theorists, (ie those that don't believe there is a conspiracy, probably would have been easier to write that then make up a word, but I quite like it) when you see the footage of WTC 7 collapse, do you ever just think, well it does look mighty odd.

I mean I don't believe that anyone put explosives round it, but it really does look odd, like the bottom just gave way and it all collapsed, and there were no real signs of damage, and very few fires.

[Reynard Bleu]

What looked odd was two large passenger jets hitting skyscrapers, and as for being designed to withstand a plane crash, how do you do that then?, You can't test it its all numbers and calculations. I've seen enough things designed to withstand this and withstand that blown to bits because somethng was different to the original test specs.

What would we have seen if the planes never made to the WTC, say they were shot down or the pilots overpowered? what would we have seen on the WTC site? Would the exlposives still have gone off or just sat there waiting to be discovered/used again when the jihadists have another go?

[MooseBreath]

They never looked like collapsing until they actually did

What were you expecting? A few wobbles, a bit of a "ooooohyeeaaay that was close"? Never looked like collapsing, come off it. To think I actually used to respect you, zing.

[MooseBreath]

To all the nonspiracy theorists, (ie those that don't believe there is a conspiracy, probably would have been easier to write that then make up a word, but I quite like it) when you see the footage of WTC 7 collapse, do you ever just think, well it does look mighty odd.

I mean I don't believe that anyone put explosives round it, but it really does look odd, like the bottom just gave way and it all collapsed, and there were no real signs of damage, and very few fires.

How else do buildings that size collapse? Gravity is a vertical force. When you have thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete falling to the earth, it doesn't float to the left and right like a feather, it falls straight down and takes everything with it.