Gothamist: Report: Fire Caused 7 World Trade Center Collapse

rdsizzle

Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:46:15 -0500

Im not one to buy into whats fed to us by major networks - i like to be observant and objective. I read news from around the world regularly and I stay away from the CNN's, Foxnews etc... That being said, I dont believe in a full blown conspiracy theory because it would just involve too many people and something would have leaked in this age of information. I mean, I did see 2 planes hit the towers - its not too hard to believe that buildings would collapse after that...I agree that the Pentagon deal is a little fishy but... Indeed - it is ironic that both Saddam Hussein and Osama BinLaden are monsters created by the U.S. but I dont believe that anyone at the U.S. government level knowingly participated in the bombing of U.S. embassy's or the outright destruction of the financial capital of the u.s. All that being said, conspiracy theories are necessary and we should always challenge and question what is being said to us; its part of the checks and balances of our society...

Brouhaha

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:38:08 -0500

"It's very possible. But people love conspiracy's more." #2, the only thing people love more than that, apparently, are :"apostrophe's".

travin

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:10:14 -0500

fyi, there's very well known video from a PBS investigation of 9/11, wherein silverstein admits that they "pulled" the building. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 and here's more in depth discussion on it. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

travin

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:09:43 -0500

NannyState

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:29:16 -0500

Here's a stab at it: Look closely at controlled demolitions of other buildings like those old hotels on the Las Vegas Strip. Often, after the charges go off, the first sign of the building's collapse is bowing and buckling along the roofline. When a structure's internal framework is compromised, the portion of the building with the least amount of compressing forces is the first to show movement, and often, even though the trauma occurred at the lower levels, it's the lower levels that are relatively more stable because of that compression which acts to dampen any shifting.

fixilator

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:37:27 -0500

If you watch the tape of the WTC7 collapse closely, you will see that the roof of a *rooftop structure* on the building actually buckles and begins to collapse immediately before the rest of the building. This first sign of collapse was far, far from any fires or impact damage. If WTC7 collapsed due to the so-called "extensive damage" and fires on the mid-to-lower floors of the building, why would the very top of the building be the first part to collapse? http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc7_why_did_rooftop_penthouse_collapse_ahead_of_rest_of_tower.htm I have yet to hear anyone offer an explanation for this. Can any of you people calling those who dare question the official explanations "nutcases" explain it to us?

NannyState

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:42:27 -0500

^ Thank you. The plane that the designers had in mind when they designed the towers in 1965 was the 707. What's creepy was that this all came out during coverage of the 1993 WTC bombing. The way the networks chatted up this scenario endlessly at that time makes me wonder if they weren't giving these guys the recipe for their next attack.

petercow99

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:38:48 -0500

This will be, I think, my last post in this thread, because it's a bit like "arguing" with creationists, but Shinobi, the interview was on Nova, and was pretty much the opposite of what you said. 1) Leslie Robertson was the chief engineer, not the architect, Minoru Yamasaki, who had died in 1986. 2) Robertson did contemplate a plane crashing into a WTC tower, but he envisioned something akin to the crash of the bomber into the Empire State Building - i.e., a plane, with nearly empty fuel tanks, flying low-and slow, lost in fog, searching for an airport. It was never contemplated that a plane full of jet fuel, flying at top speed. The plane Robertson contemplated was a 707, the largest passenger plane at the time, not the much larger 767. Lastly, he explicitly stated that they only designed for the effect of the crash itself, and never modeled what an uncontrolled fire would do to the structure. Since all of the above is pretty much common-knowldege, and with Google can be found in under a minute.... 'nuff said.

MFer

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:55:13 -0500

You are all being manipulated by Big Brother (The Man). The towers didn't fall. That was just movie magic, not unlike those Olympic foot prints in sky of Beijing.

Shinobi Shaw

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:52:23 -0500

BTW there was I believe a TV Documentary on the WTC (It's history, construction et cetera) way before 9/11 where the architect himself said that the buildings were made to be like nets (meaning that any high impact on the buildings could never do the level of structural damage i.e. complete collapse to the buildings, he even mentioned the example of a 747.) The buildings were indeed built well enough to survive fires and high impacts (they had it in mind). Yet you mean to tell me that those buildings fell due to a regular fire? When liquid metal was seen everywhere in the vicinity?

EastRiver

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:39:16 -0500

the best example you could relate this situation to is a controlled demolition? hm. No, I said the failures don't have to be simultaneous.

la79

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:17:37 -0500

EastRiver: "... Watch any controlled demolition and you will see that the charges are staggered. ..." the best example you could relate this situation to is a controlled demolition? hm.

EastRiver

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:53:22 -0500

You don't need a force at every single supporting beam to bring down a building and they don't have to be simultaneous. Watch any controlled demolition and you will see that the charges are staggered. The current report states that the interior columns failed first which led to other failures. If the failure begins in the center it is logical to think the building will fall straight down. And in the case of WTC 2 (South Tower), it buckled on the south east corner. Video shows the top of the tower falling in that direction but it doesn't land 1300 feet away.

la79

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:18:59 -0500

EastRiver: for a building to fall straight down, that means that equal amounts of a certain amount of stress are being placed at each supporting beam at the exact same time. the possibility of this is near zero - which is why, in the 100 years of skyscrapers, no other steel & concrete buildings have fallen. even WTC didn't fall when they had an intense fire during the bombing incident. here's a better example of an intense fire not affecting the integrity of the steel & concrete to the point of collapse: the Madrid Tohmatsu fire.

EastRiver

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:18:35 -0500

You lost me at: The AmEX building, Deutche Bank both suffered similar structural damage WFC was barely clipped by falling debris and as far as I know never caught fire.

Sinchy

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:15:25 -0500

Seriously, our votes are being stolen, take 20 minutes and listen to Spoonamore in my above comment. As far as the theories of demolition, I keep an open mind, because it is very unlikely that three separate building would all fall completely straight down on their own footprints after only a short time on fire, compared to other steel buildings that had raging fire for over 18 hours and still stood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Building Aside from the towers all the other aspects of 911 indicate either complete key-stone cops negligence or complicity. No one was fired for dropping the ball in the national security apparatus, and in fact some were promoted and many others are raking in HUGE sums of money. We just learned from Seymore Hersh that Cheney contemplated disguising our guys as Iranians and attacking our own to start war with Iran. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/ @ Captain Morgan- oh why bother.

constructedperfection

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:59:01 -0500

First of all, why is any other theory that goes against the "official" theory referred to as a "Conspiracy Theory?" I'm my experience other theories are just simply that; OTHER theories. This does not imply some archetypical nut-case sitting in a basement with news paper clippings. Second, The argument that the alternative theorists (as I will call myself) are not taking note of the damage to the south face of WTC 7 is not a valid argument. The AmEX building, Deutche Bank both suffered similar structural damage, and in fact were closer to the twin towers. There is a post office beside WTC7 that was built in the 1930s, are you to tell me that a building which is almost 60 years older than the origial WTC7 remained intact while sitting admid the same disaster? Third, you have to consider Physics and the Law of Entropy. This Law of Physics requires that objects must move into a path of least resistance. So if WTC7 did fall from an office fire it should have tipped south (where so many point out the damage was) and scattered itself into the WTC plaza. But what we saw was the building collapse into itself, neatly into a pile. And Finally, office fires do not burn hot enough to collapse a steel structure. You would need temperatures of well over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to make structural steel fail, and office fire burns about as hot as a bonfire. So yes we should be asking questions of this "official explanation" because anyone who understands physics or structural design can see the fault in this explanation. The Achilles heel of the NIST explanation is not that the building collapsed from fire, but that THEY DON'T EXPLAIN HOW IT IMPLODED INTO ITSELF AND FELL AT THE SPEED OF GRAVITY. Think. ConstructedPerfection.com - Blue Print of a Demolition

EastRiver

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:57:10 -0500

the building collapsed straight down, perfectly. I mean, come on. basic physics, people. Exactly how should it have fallen?

la79

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:50:56 -0500

this is pure, bureaucratic bullshit. steel definitely weakens from intense fires - but 1. that wasn't an intense fire 2. the building collapsed straight down, perfectly. I mean, come on. basic physics, people. the best contrast to this building is the Deutsche Bank building: it's gutted, severely moldy, there was an intense fire - and yet, it still stands. they still have to bring it down, piece by piece. it pre-dates WTC 7 by about 10 years - and yes, it's also a steel & concrete building. I agree that most of the 9/11 truthers are a litttlllleee too kookoo, but also accepting this sort of bullshit readily makes you a bit kookoo as well. it's a delicate balance to keep your head while others lose theirs in either extreme.

starrygordon

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:33:39 -0500

So the buildings of the WTC were built wrong. That's the conspiracy, the scandal.

shaunnehill

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:58:14 -0500

50 cents should blame the burning of his baby momma's house on "thermal expansion."

EastRiver

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:30:57 -0500

Shinobi, steel begins to lose its strength long before it melts. Ever see blacksmiths at work? They heat the metal before they try to shape it. Why? Because the metal is softer and easier to work with. But it hasn't "melted".

MFer

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:04:40 -0500

Shinobi is right. The government is lying to us. There were no planes. Shit, the towers didn't even fall. They are still there. Go and look. If you can get up close, you can still touch them. But they are hidden behind the secret cloak of invisibility. It's all a lie. And soylent green is not people!

petercow99

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:04:30 -0500

I'm not sure what a "regular" fire, is, but in most building fires: a) the sprinklers work b) the building hasn't sustained a bunch of structural damage When the North Tower fell, it took out chunk of WTC 7. The troofers always love to show pics of the 'intact' north facade. This pic shows what it looked like from the other side. http://www.conspiracyscience.com/storage/911/911-images/wtc7-side-damage1.jpg One thing the troofers never answer: this conspiracy they've uncovered is so 'obvious' - and yet, not a single firefighter, policeman, or widow of the above, has sued on that basis, for the murder of their loved ones. Likewise, you'd think the insurance companies would have raised this small point, when they were being sued for billions of dollars by Larry Silverstein.

Shinobi Shaw

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:27:54 -0500

#12 I thought those were the GREENIES serving Lord Gore?

Lord Stompo

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:39:43 -0500

9/11 conspiracy theorists are the evangelical Christians of the left.

Shinobi Shaw

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:33:28 -0500

No, the fire needs to reach a very high temperature before it melts steel, there is evidence of LIQUID steel seen on the sight during and after the buildings were attacked and collapsed (around the rims of the steel structures themselves). Many physicists (especially those not under corporate interests) have been astounded at the logic the government propaganda has put forth. And they are not even 'conspiracy theorist.' The point is no skyscraper (and look up the history of steel structures) has ever COLLAPSED due to a regular fire. DAMAGED? YES, Collapsed, NO (again, look at the history). WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the only skyscrapers/high rises to have ever collapse due to fire. The 'pancake theory' is an even more blatant lie, any physicist will tell you that (unless he is bought and paid for of course). And I love how some of you are quick to call people who question and are exercising their freedoms (supposedly) 'conspiracy theorists.' And when forming an argument gentleman, back it up (that's right at you #9). But look, you don't have to believe, I can't believe this is so distressful for some of you that you are willing to call names (when did we become children?).

Jerky

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:20:29 -0500

>A regular fire cannot cause steel structures to collapse people! Yes it can you idiot. Ever been to a steel foundry??

Captain Morgan

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:26:00 -0500

Sinchy and Shinobi Shaw please remove all reproductive organs, your genes are no longer needed in the pool. Thank you, goodnight.

johnnye

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:06:30 -0500

Don't forget to do some reading of the debunking of the conspiracies too. This is the best one : http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html It is unfortunate we waste any time with these guys.

Shinobi Shaw

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:47:46 -0500

A regular fire cannot cause steel structures to collapse people! It's basic physics, I can't believe people are still accepting this bullshit from the government!

jaycjay

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:37:20 -0500

"wouldn't that mean every building designed like wtc7 can collapse if someone throws a cigarette in a trash can?" If two adjacent huge buildings had just collapsed and broken a water main, and firefighters were so occupied by a disaster covering several blocks (and hampered by debris covering the area, lack of command capability, and heavy casualties among their number) that little was done to fight the fire the question... then, yes, probably so. This was an "extraordinary event," extraordinary results shouldn't be so unexpected.

zodak

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:25:39 -0500

And referring to the fuel stored at 7 WTC, he added, "Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7." i find that odd, i thought the oil caused the collapse & that the truthers were idiots but now i'm supposed to believe that it was just a regular fire? wouldn't that mean every building designed like wtc7 can collapse if someone throws a cigarette in a trash can? (i'm not an architect or engineer)

Cacheton

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:19:13 -0500

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event." Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Sinchy

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:43 -0500

You can listen to Architects and Engineers for 911 truth Richard Gage on why the fire did not cause the collapse here http://www.ae911truth.org/ and here http://www.takingaim.info/ Also, the elections are being stolen by private corporations: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spoonamore&search_type=&aq=-1&oq=spoonamor

edEx

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:12:42 -0500

It's very possible. But people love conspiracy's more. Even if the theorists pretend to know what they're talking about.

EastRiver

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:02:42 -0500

In other breaking news, the sun sets in the west and inheriting your family's beer distributorship might make you rich.