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.... 🙁
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?
[img] 
[/img]
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 - MemberWTC7 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 [i]too[/i] 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" 😐
