RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
why did building #7 collapse ?
World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy
- Thread starter someguy1
- Start date
- Status
It was hit by falling debris from the towers and structurally damaged. I think it was also on fire.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
since posting the question i have watched several video compilations of building secrity footage & news media footage from Tv cameras and 1 or 2 helicopter cameras.
it sure looks odd
Yep. Fortunately we don't have a lot of videos of massive buildings collapsing due to other building parts being dropped on them - so it's going to look unusual.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
it was crushed by a falling building ?
You can CLAIM that supports strong enough to support the mass against Gravity can be broken without slowing the falling mass down and accuse me of ignoring gravity after I did the calculations showing that just the Conservation of Momentum from YOUR EXAMPLE would slow things down.
Apparently all you have to do is talk.
Whatever I say is "intellectually dishonest", whatever that means.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
the building exterior is 100% intact before it collapses.
so there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it was crushed by a falling building.
the falling building debris is Crack cocaine for engineers to play with.
No it wasn't. The south face had visible heavy damage from falling debris, extending from floors 24 to 41. There was also significant damage to the southwest corner from the ground to the 18th floor, with photographs showing about 20 feet of the corner missing. The debris started several fires, on floors 6-14, 19-22 and 29-30. Fire crews tried to put them out for over six hours, but were hampered by low water pressure, damage cutting off access and in-building pumps that weren't working.
At 2pm exterior crews noticed that the side of the building was beginning to bulge, and several crews in the buildings reported creaking, groaning and snapping noises coming from the structure. At 3:30pm the creaking and bulging became so bad that the fire commander pulled his crews out of the building, fearing a collapse.
At 5:20 the penthouse collapsed and disappeared into the building. At 5:21 the whole building collapsed.
It was DAMAGED by debris from a falling building. The fires finished it off.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
and then moses said "part red sea" and the red sea parted...
a picture would be nice
maybe even a link ?
Here is Frank Greening:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf
I don't care what Greening wants with d.
w is the width of the Tower. In fig 1 Greening has h as the height of the tilted top portion. That is the 324 ft I specified. 121 is how far the top had to move horizontally relative to the bottom of the broken section. So explain what I supposedly got wrong.
Sure, here are two pictures. The first shows the south side - mostly obscured by the smoke from the fires, but you can see a lot of damage on that side. The second shows the southwest corner.
A few more pics and some quotes:
Fire chief Daniel Nigro : The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
Captain Chris Boyle: . . .on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. . . . There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: . . .also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. . . . It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Fire chief Daniel Nigro : The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
Captain Chris Boyle: . . .on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. . . . There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: . . .also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. . . . It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
thanks. i did not realise the level of damage from falling buildings.
i am pondering the side ways blast effect that would have happened as the WTC1&2 collapsed must have been massive.
if the building was on fire for some hours prior and or had been blasted from the side, the ongoing fire would heat the pillars.
as only 1 single floor would need to collapse to pancake the entire building i can see how it would work.
psikeyhackr. In your own time it was only last month I asked.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
3 things to note
1 admission by some building builders that demo charges were installed into buildings when they were built.
2 the only way to make more profit from labour & materials costing is to skimp on quality of product so the actual building material is a lot cheaper and less quality.
3 phallic associations of large buildings and the lack of basic comprehension of their frailty associated with basic day to day functional chosen ignorance.
maybe there are many buildings that are even more poorly designed.
cash is king in the usa. its almost impossible to get the government to enact a law to protect civilians from a private or corporate material object when it results in lost profit.
why ? thats a fairly complicated situation with laws regulations and processes and practices of culture layered over the top of themselves.
best example i can think of to prove the point is the sinking appartment building which is leaning over.
best practice safety never happens.
there is always some angle making profit off it
there is always some angle which is culturally ligitimised to sue anyone possible for as much money as they can get.
1 admission by some building builders that demo charges were installed into buildings when they were built.
2 the only way to make more profit from labour & materials costing is to skimp on quality of product so the actual building material is a lot cheaper and less quality.
3 phallic associations of large buildings and the lack of basic comprehension of their frailty associated with basic day to day functional chosen ignorance.
maybe there are many buildings that are even more poorly designed.
cash is king in the usa. its almost impossible to get the government to enact a law to protect civilians from a private or corporate material object when it results in lost profit.
why ? thats a fairly complicated situation with laws regulations and processes and practices of culture layered over the top of themselves.
best example i can think of to prove the point is the sinking appartment building which is leaning over.
best practice safety never happens.
there is always some angle making profit off it
there is always some angle which is culturally ligitimised to sue anyone possible for as much money as they can get.
Where did you see this? No building would pass inspection with "demo charges installed into them when they were built."
Yep, construction companies will always strive to build the best building they can with the least money. (If they don't, someone else will come along and replace them.) Again, one of the reasons we have building codes, inspectors and NDT.
So people think large buildings look like penises and this means . . . . .?
We have tons of laws that do that, from building codes to the NEC to OSHA.
I'd disagree there. Once something actually start leaning it gets lots of bad press, and much of it is along the lines of "McMillan and Sons built the 'leaning tower of Brooklyn' " - thus ensuring they never get another job. In other words, they lose money. There is a benefit, though, to making the cheapest possible building that does NOT lean.
I don't know what you got wrong. I drew a scale diagram with correct dimensions and angle. It shows that figure you used, to be inaccurate.
That's why I asked for the maths.
Edit: "d" is the drop distance. You are using the wrong formula for this action.
Last edited:
Are you nutz? You seriously think that explosives designed to demolish buildings are put into the buildings when they are built? How could any thinking person come up with such a bat-shit crazy notion?
But they do have limits on what they can do. Defying the laws of physics is something they can not do, no matter how much they want to and no matter how unscrupulous they may be.
They may have taken advantage of what they got but they had no hand in getting what they got.
- Status