I find all this very frustrating.

Some dicks flew some planes into the WTC. A lot of people died. All that was real.

If someone’s expert knowledge leads them to the conclusion that those buildings would have behaved differently on being hit by a plane then that person either needs to:

– update their understanding in light of the largest real-life experiment in banging planes into buildings ever performed; or

– point to actual evidence that something else caused the effect seen. A counter-hypothesis about the cause of the collapse which ignores the fact of the planes being flown into the buildings is almost offensively insane in its stupidity.

A lot is going on in the world that is real, but also subtle and difficult to understand. This made-up rubbish is a fatuous distraction from the important business of trying to comprehend it.

And if the OP doesn’t even believe this gibberish himself I don’t understand why we’re all discussing it. We’d be better off working out whether Verbal Kint really was Keyser Söze all along.

Pictures can be misleading too.

You will always see this image on conspiracy websites, to back up the “few small fires” claim they tend to make.

I’ve not watched the video in the OP. But I’ll bet a pound to a penny that image is in there somewhere.

And I’ll bet this one isn’t.

Because it shows the “few small fires” lie for what it is.

You’re all wrong. It WAS a conspiracy, but it was Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Tinkerbell and Bigfoot who did it.

B’ll’ks smelly feet, they are fictional characters from your youf.

Aliens I tell you, it was the body snatchers, everyone panic

chilled76 – Member
That’s not what the video evidence shows.
From what I can see…

Ah right so your continued argument(itive) is based on what you think you see, tho’ you have already declared your lack of expert civil engineering knowledge (ignorance and incompetence – using the true meanings of the words, not employing them as an insult).

What you see is not necessarily what happened – as any magician/conjourer attests

Aliens I tell you, it was the body snatchers, everyone panic

Will there be probing?

Only mind probing – so everyone on here is safe 😆

sugdenr… I was referring to the fact it looks in the video it collapses on both sides at the same time… rather than in stages like the report says….. hence stating what the video shows.

Do you want me to freeze frame it and get a spirit level out?

I forgot you had to be qualified to tell when something LOOKS like it all moves together within a time frame the eye can see.

And I’m not arguing anything, so to say I’ve employed a continued argument is a bit short sighted (and unecassarily aggressive) as all I’ve actually done is ask if anyone can enlighten me as to how that happened… I genuinley want to know, it’s not a rhetorical question or an argument. It looks like it all moves together, yet the report states otherwise? Genuine question, I’m not trying to state anything so by definition that can’t be an argument.

🙄

Lol.. nealglover’s second image comes up as ‘FORBIDDEN’

Government cover up!!!

I’m genuinely curious here, but how many times has STW done a WTC7 thread. Or even threads with at least a page of WTC7 posts involved?

Where’s laser eyes when you need him.

Only mind probing – so everyone on here is safe

Disappointed.

OK cap’n sensible for a moment – the video actually shows what scuzz posted, the central section collapses first you can see the penthouse drop, this then spreads laterally to pull down the sides.
We are all too tainted by watching fred dibnah droppping chimneys, skyscrapers are very different and rather like monocoques, a single failure rapidly overloads all other members. the WTC towers were a relatively novel design at the time because they used perimiter frame not traditional primary central core built around the lift shaft.
So the video is consistent, no mystery.

Do you want me to freeze frame it and get a spirit level out?

It’s already been done, I’ve seen it, and it is on YouTube somewhere

If you can’t find it, let me give you a brief synopsis……….

It’s doesn’t fall level 😉

neals image

how odd it works in preview and on another thread where I incorrectly posted it
LINK
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Cheers squire

(It’s showing fine here so not sure what the problem is ?)

You can clearly see the east penthouse going first, before a few seconds later the rest of it comes down: [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w[/video]

That’s exactly what I’ve been looking for. Nice one. Shows the flaw in the argument of the video I posted.

Thanks for that.

All this wouldn’t have been necessary if the OP had looked at the last, really long 9/11 thread, which I think Kaesae instigated, which also had lots about Tower 7, including the detailed reports into the building failure, which I posted links to. Several engineering and fire control types have done it for me, so thank you.
It’s all so much easier to believe a YouTube video though…

It’s all so much easier to believe a YouTube video though…

Hehehehe…. yeahhh…. 🙁

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA

seems the spanish can build a building which burns for 24 hours, with more intense fires than WT7 yet only the top floors ( eventually ) collapse, not the whole building which also went on fire

so there we have it a completely different buildings built with a reinforced central concrete core did not completely collapse in a fire but still needed to be taken down and rebuilt

Why bother going to the trouble of blowing it up [WT7] if it would have been left like this anyway?

I like that, good question.

Different buildings in behaving differently shocker

seems the spanish can build a building which burns for 24 hours, with more intense fires than WT7 yet only the top floors ( eventually ) collapse, not the whole building which also went on fire

Can they build one that remains standing after flying planes into two neighbouring 1775 foot tall, 104 storey buildings, and having them collapse 400 feet away ?

If that had happened, your pointless comparison might be relevant.

Did that happen ?

seems the spanish can build a building which burns for 24 hours, with more intense fires than WT7 yet only the top floors ( eventually ) collapse, not the whole building which also went on fire

Big clue to that one…… its a cast in situ concrete frame. Plus it wasn’t weakened by a big plane going through the side.

Steel can have an inherent HPA factor (fire rating) but 99.999% has an applied fire rating. This can be damaged and as such the performance of the steel is somewhat reduced.

Plus it wasn’t weakened by a big plane going through the side.

WTC7 wasnt hit by a plane, but by debris from tower 2 coming down. This apparently wasn’t a factor in the collapse.

Sorry I was comparing it with the towers. Normally the Spanish building seems to act as a direct comparison for this collapse.

If you’re talking about the “pull it” building then I believe it was hit by substantial debris from the North Tower.

but 99.999%

So that’s a made up statistic? Can’t beat a good cold hard fact when arguing a point.

seems the spanish can build a building which burns for 24 hours, with more intense fires than WT7 yet only the top floors ( eventually ) collapse, not the whole building which also went on fire

Just when you think the question has been finally resolved someone comes up with a blinder like that.

It’s starting to look like 9/11 might have been an inside job after all.

I’m going to go with big insurance scam I think.

It’s starting to look like 9/11 might have been an inside job after all.

I’m going to go with big insurance scam I think

So was osama the patsy or the underwriter?

whatnobeer – Member

WTC7 wasnt hit by a plane, but by debris from tower 2 coming down. This apparently wasn’t a factor in the collapse.

Except the bit where it set it on fire, and prevented the fire from being fought 😉

Lots of people come back with the “buildings don’t collapse like this” and that’s absolutely true- set a skyscraper on fire normally, and sprinkler systems will kick in, fire services will arrive and attack the blaze. Also it’ll start in one small place then spread, rather than starting from a large base. So it’s no wonder it didn’t act like a typical fire. (if it had, no doubt that’d be proof of a conspiracy)

I like the truthers on this though- some argue that the investigation’s simulations don’t accurately recreate the collapse (they’re not supposed to incidentally- they’re supposed to recreate the initiation of the collapse, not the full fall). But others argue that the simulations are too accurate, and that this is proof of the conspiracy. And the very best believe both, because the only thing better than one theory is two, even when they’re completely contradictory

I suspect nobody on here has ever seen a building collapse like WT7 unless it was a controlled demolition

Well, quite – I can’t tell the difference between a controlled and uncontrolled building collapse just by looking at them, because I’ve only ever seen a couple on TV. That’s why I am so so keen to discover the basis on which the OP believes that the collapse definitely looks like a controlled one.

Sorry I was comparing it with the towers. Normally the Spanish building seems to act as a direct comparison for this collapse.

So….. was the Spanish building hit by a huge plane then ?

Because fit wasn’t.

How on earth is it a “direct comparison” 😐