What the hell happened to World Trade Center 7?

[Alerter_]

No planes hit WTC7. A FIRE caused this perfect demolition? Someone is lying. One of these videos were broadcast on CBS/Westinghouse.

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

[LoZoccolo]

1. "The government" blew it up on purpose.

You didn't know?

[LoZoccolo]

2. P.S. I don't really believe that.

I just thought it was funny that you came on here like you just found out and were outraged.

[ElementaryPenguin]

67. I do! It's one of the MAJOR MIHOP smoking guns!!

Conspiracy dismissers flame away!

:think:

[nostamj]

68. answer the question in post #28

no flaming necessary...

[Alerter_]

4. I've heard about this, but dismissed it and never saw the videos

I'm a member of www.cooperativeresearch.org so I've heard rumors but believe it or not never saw these videos until now. I thought I could never be shocked by anything related to 911 again. Was I wrong or what?

[Alerter_]

6. nevermind, I haven't caught up to the post-irony era yet

Please forgive my lack of distanced cynicism.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

10. yep, twas imploded

Another Silverstein building bites the dust.

"Regardless of what the regulators say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents."


http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10041194.html

[Stephanie]

3. Oh god

Please stop with this. I don't know if you can imagine what happens when 110 stories X 2 collapses in flames across the street. Do you think the surrounding buildings should be unaffected? Have you ever walked around lower Manhattan and seen the proximity of the buildings? Are you aware of the diesel fuel tanks Giuliani had stored in Building 7? Do you think your observations from an internet video are more valid than the thousands of eye-witnesses who were there that day?

[Alerter_]

5. what are you talking about?

"Have you ever walked around lower Manhattan and seen the proximity of the buildings? "

Yes.

"Are you aware of the diesel fuel tanks Giuliani had stored in Building 7?"

Actually, yes, I've heard of it. Do you think that caused this implosion?

"Do you think your observations from an internet video are more valid than the thousands of eye-witnesses who were there that day?"

I didn't see WTC7 collapsing, no. I'm just seeing videos broadcast on CBS and others. Please check them out, and if you think they are doctored or are not showing the WTC7 collapse, please let me know.

[slaveplanet]

18. Wasn't WTC 6 closer

isn't the proximity of wtc 6 closer than 7...your logic escapes me

[GregW]

7. Nothing happened

It's just a popular topic for trolls to spin DUers into a frenzy.

[Donovanf]

9. Diesel

Diesel is non-explosive and could not of added to the collapse of the building other then by heating some of the structural steel and weakening it.

[Minstrel Boy]

8. Here's a fine old thread from 2002 with lots of good info,

and very little "Stop it! Shut up! You make us look silly!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5074.html

[stickdog]

11. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Fires always collapse steel frame buildings very neatly in their own footprints!

No need to explain, research or study this event. We need that $50 a ton for scrap! And pronto:

http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/

[LoZoccolo]

15. Yes, and 110-story buildings collapse near them...

...like all the time.

[stickdog]

16. Yes, all historical anomalies are fully and unquestioningly explained

by other historical anomalies.

No need to study anything about any of these buildings. We need that scrap metal money and we need it yesterday!!!

[TomNickell]

23. What anomaly?

How many 110 story buildings have actually burned?

Not to mention 110 story buildings of this particular design?

[Alerter_]

27. so, it was a natural collapse as the result of fire?

What about the stored feul inside? That would certainly contribute wouldn't it?

[TomNickell]

36. Yes.

Reportedly there was Deisel fuel stored in the building. That contributed to the intensity of the fire and presumably to the collapse. If you think about it there is not really that much difference between weakening the structural steel with the heat of an intense fire and taking out selected members with multiple explosives.

If you were asking an honest question, I apologize for my snippy initial response. This issue has been debated and debunked here to the point of exhaustion. There are many who will simply not admit the possibility that the 'Official' and simple explanation could be the true one.

[Th1onein]

40. For the first time in history a steel building collapsed because of fire

NEVER before in history has this happened, and yet it happened not once, not twice, but THREE times on 911. The original poster is correct: something is wrong with this picture.

And I don't agree with those among us who say we shouldn't ask questions, because it makes us look like crazy conspiracy theorists.

[LoZoccolo]

52. For the first time in history...

...a steel building was hit with a commercial passenger jet.

Also anamolous was the fact that people died in a building that had fire sprinklers (this had never happened before). This may have to do with the fact that most fires in buildings start small enough to be extinguished because they aren't started by jets almost full of fuel going straight through the building.

So yeah, anamolous events can be explained by other ones.

[Th1onein]

79. WHOA there, my friend! WTC wasn't hit by a jet.

[LoZoccolo]

80. GET. HELP.

It was on TV.

[Alerter_]

83. WTC7 was not hit by jets, the Towers were

and the "missle" disinfo crap is just that, crap. Just saying.

[Th1onein]

84. Geez. Sorry, I meant to say WTC 7 wasn't hit by a jet.

[LoZoccolo]

86. Sorry, I am not surprised by much here anymore I guess.

Still, the building was near two 110-story towers that collapsed. My whole point is that all sorts of things that never happened before happened.

[HFishbine]

58. Not True

Indeed, let's ask questions, like is it true that WTC7 was the first time in history a steel building collapsed because of fire? It was not.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:NvVcrCtfknoJ:www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf+fire+cause+building+collapse&hl=en

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/27/cairo.collapse.ap/

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Nov/79742.htm

[Th1onein]

81. Look at your sources again........you are incorrect.

First source includes the WTC collapses, and includes steel buildings which collapsed because of fire AND architectural changes in the buildings themselves.

Second source, same thing: architectural renovations plus fire.

Third source, says nothing about it being a steel building.

[OneBlueSky]

12. same thing that happened to WTC1 and WTC2 . . .

controlled demolition . . .

[kiahzero]

13. That depends on the definition of 'controlled'

If, by controlled, you mean "Two planes controlled into the towers," then yes.

Otherwise, no.

[LoZoccolo]

14. I saw someone's evidence of this once.

It was a tape of a bunch of firefighters on TV like the next day talking about seeing it, saying it looked like a controlled demolition. Now of course, to you and me that doesn't really mean anything, but to someone wanting to pin a whole load of shit on whoever they want to...

[stickdog]

17. How many scientists and engineers studied the one-of-a-kind,

once-in-a-lifetime evidence of the very first steel frame high rises ever to collapse due to fire?

Where are all their open scientific papers? Where are all the results of these countless studies?

Why do all of you "nothing to see here" folks keep avoiding the fundamental question?

[TomNickell]

21. Many.

This is an issue of major interest to the engineering and architectural communities. Of course, they have studied the collapses.

What kind of sense does it make that -anyone- would go to the trouble (and risk) of placing numerous charges for a controlled demolition that was going to occur -after- an intense fire had burned for hours?

Sometimes there just aren't any 'fundamental questions' there. Sometimes crap like this is spread by Karl Rove operatives, who want to discredit serious criticism and create confusion.

That's all there is here.

[Alerter_]

25. lots of disinfo being thrown around

like the missles theory. I guess these building collapse perfectly after burning? I've always heard it took demolition experts to bring down buildings like that.

[TomNickell]

26. "You've always heard"????

From whom?

Which is the disinformation?

I can recall no other cases in which a skyscraper has been consumed by flames. There was a disaster in the Far East years ago, I think. Otherwise, these fires are unique events.

Controlled demolition breaks selected structual members with explosives causing the building to collapse in the preferred direction--straight down. Intense heat weakens the interior structural members, causing them to break under the weight of the building above. There's not that much difference.

It would be very difficult to get the bldg to do anything -except- fall straight down. That's how gravity works.

Again, why-on-Earth would any agency go to the trouble and risk of carefully placing multiple charges just so the building could fall down in neat way? Wasn't the fire enough? Wouldn't it be more dramatic if the building to fall over on its side? The story makes no sense.

[Alerter_]

30. all those documentaries on demolition experts, of course!

Your arguments that this type of collapse are the natural result of fire sounds plausible and credible to me. But this:

"Again, why-on-Earth would any agency go to the trouble and risk of carefully placing multiple charges just so the building could fall down in neat way? Wasn't the fire enough? Wouldn't it be more dramatic if the building to fall over on its side? The story makes no sense."

That's just silly. Agencies go to the trouble and risk of carefully placing multiple charges to demolish buildings, all the time.

[LoZoccolo]

53. Yes they go through a lot of trouble...

...when they want to protect people and other buildings. But according to this wacky MIHOP theory, they don't care about that.

[Az]

59. Neat terrorists

I love it. The anal rententive terrorist. He blows up buildings but with an eye for safety.

[sangh0]

62. I call BS

Alerter_ claims that "he's always heard" that building that fall the way WTC towers did because of a controlled demo, and he says he heard it from documentaries about the controlled demolition of buildings.

Since when do documentaries on controlled demolitions talk about 9/11? Documentaries made before then didn't mention it, and the documentaries made since are ABOUT 9/11 and how the towers fell, and NONE of those say that WTC7 was a controlled demo.

Tha explains why he doesn't cite any specific documentary. NONE of them say what he claims they said

[Alerter_]

71. try reading it again

"Alerter_ claims that "he's always heard" that building that fall the way WTC towers did because of a controlled demo, and he says he heard it from documentaries about the controlled demolition of buildings."

No, I didn't say that. I've seen videos of regular, run of the mill controlled demolitions - who hasn't? - and the collapse of WTC7 looks just like that, to a layman. The collapse of the towers themselves looked like that too.

I also remember "demolition experts" on TV saying that it looked like a controlled demo and the firefighters talking about explosions. That obviously proves nothing.

[stickdog]

74. Why on earth was the rubble sold for scrap before it could be fully

examined by a blue ribbon panel of scientists and civil engineers?

[nostamj]

28. here's the question

that WTC7/CD theorists can't or won't answer:

were the explosives placed in WTC7 BEFORE the collapse of the towers which heavily damaged the building (nearly trapping Guiliani) and set the diesel stores on fire?

OR

did a team of CD engineers enter the damaged, burning building and set the charges?

if you believe either of these scenerios is possible, how did the charges placed by these 'demolition experts' survive 7+ HOURS of intense fire to be successfully set off late that day?

just wondering...

(there are plenty of legitimate questions regarding what happened on 9/11, but CD of WTC7 doesn't stand up to serious questioning

[stickdog]

72. Why wasn't the rubble forensically studied to find out the answer?

I don't have a theory about this. I just know more Bush bs when I smell it.

[sangh0]

75. You don't "smell" BS. You "expel" it.

Forensics won't tell you when a non-existant bomb was planted.

[nostamj]

77. why would anyone want a forensic investigation

when the premise of a CD in that building is utterly absurd?

if it was planted prior to the attack, it couldn't have survived 7 hours of intense fire

and it couldn't have been planted DURING the fire and survive either.

stick to the issues that matter regarding the 9/11 failures.

[stickdog]

73. Show me their studies, then.

I wish to read them.

[LoZoccolo]

55. People are now.

You dodge my point, though. Just because a few firefighters say it reminds them of a controlled demolition doesn't mean it is.

[HFishbine]

61. Good Question

Here is your scientific study and data to refute your erroneous "once-in-a-lifetime" claim. Nobody is avoiding the fundamental question, although some are avoiding the fundamental answers.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:NvVcrCtfknoJ:www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf+fire+cause+building+collapse&hl=en

[Az]

39. Ok, lets play conspiracy terrorist

We want to cause terror in the heart of America. We want to destroy the Twin Towers and strike fear into the hearts of everyone near and far. So we get some willing volunteers to fly some jets into the towers. Not good enough. We need to make sure the towers come down messy. So we get smart and we plant charges in the building to bring them down as neatly as possible...... huh?

Why aren't we planting the charges to bring the buildings over sideways? Its not that difficult. It would cause a heck of a lot of more damage. Its even easier to do. It takes a major work up and study to figure out exactly where to place the charges to bring about a controlled demolition. Thats why its called a controlled demolition. You could bring the building down by placing random charges throughout the building but for constructions purposes that too destructive. But for terror destruction is exactly what you want. But this was neat.

Now remember that safety is a factor in the design of these buildings. When they are designed they take into account that the buildings may fall. The engineers work to make sure that in the event of a catastrophic failure the building will collapse in on itself. You do not want a city of dominos toppling everything in sight. Once the infrastructure goes the building is designed to collapse in on itself. What you are seeing in the videos is design engineering at work. Not crafty but stupid conspirators.

Just think it through for a moment. Why would someone interested in chaos and destruction seek a controlled implosion? It makes no sense.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

19. I want the Tin Foil Concession on this thread...

.

[TomNickell]

22. Can I have the Bullshit Concession? nt

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

54. I think there are several others vying for that rightn now!

[TomNickell]

20. Bullshit.

There's no issue here. Get off it.

There was an intense fire. There was deisel fuel in the basement. Structural steel loses strength when it gets very hot. The design of the building was conducive to collapse. It fell straight down. That's what gravity does. The world's structural engineers and architects have studied these collapses intensely. Hopefully, they will useful things for the design of future buildings.

It makes no sense whatever that the nefarious Gov't agency that had arranged to fly jetliners into the Twin Towers would also arrange to carefully place the many small charges necessary to create a controlled demolition--after the building had burned for hours and surely destroyed everything inside.

You and I both have better things to do than worry about this crap.

[Alerter_]

24. yeah, your post was bullshit

"It makes no sense whatever that the nefarious Gov't agency that had arranged to fly jetliners into the Twin Towers would also arrange to carefully place the many small charges necessary to create a controlled demolition--after the building had burned for hours and surely destroyed everything inside."

Nothing even remotely like that in my post. What you wrote certainly makes no sense.

[JHB]

32. It may not have been in YOUR post...

...but that's the essence of the "controlled demolition" claims regarding WTC7. If you search the 9/11 DU board, you will see people arguing this point, and others counterarguing to the point of exasperation.

Basicly, you walked into an ongoing fight.

[TomNickell]

37. I apologize.

You were asking an honest question. You deserved a better answer.

The premise behind multiple conspiracy theories about WTC7 collapse has to be that some nefarious agency carefully planted explosives. That, as I said, makes no sense.

The bldg burned for several hours. There was Deisel fuel stored in the basement. Heat weakens structural steel. According to posts around here the design of the bldg was conducive to collapse. There was also substantial shaking of the ground due to the collapse of the two neighboring bldgs.

I don't recall any comparable catastrophic fire in a high-rise. The collapse of these bldgs raises serious questions about the safety of all the world's skyscrapers.

Not claiming expertise, but the natural way for a tall building to fall would be straight down. You'd have to have a controlled demolition and collapse one side of the foundation for it to do anything else.

[mopaul]

29. please look the other way tom, this type of stuff just gets you upset

too much coffee

[TomNickell]

34. I'm not upset. nt

[Az]

31. Why

Why would the Conspirators need to collapse WTC7? It makes no sense.

Think this through for a second. There is no reason to go to the trouble of bringing WTC7 down. They just flew 2 jets into the twin towers in the name of terror. Do you really think bringing down WTC7 is going to increase the effect? Have we heard an endless stream of people crying in fear because and evacuated building fell down?

Secondly why would they bring it down using controlled demolition? This makes even less sense. Do you think that demolishing a building can only happen in a controlled implosion? A conspiracy of this scale would make sure to not do something as boneheaded as to use a controlled implosion of the building. They want chaos and terror. They would try to get the building to go over sideways.

Its called controlled demolition for a reason. It is an attempt to limit the damage. In case you hadn't noticed there was not much limiting to the damage down there. 2 fairly large buidlings fell down. The resulting destruction in the area meant that nearly every building in the immediate area had to be demolished. So why would anyone in their right mind go to the added trouble of initiating a CONTROLLED implosion of a building? It makes no sense.

[TomNickell]

33. EXACTLY. It makes no sense.

The building burned for hours--any CIA offices, or whatever, were surely destroyed. What possible point would there be to placing multiple explosives so the building would fall down in a neat way?

Presumably, to give Conspiracy Hobbyists evidence to work with.

[JohnLocke]

35. The question that stops conspiracy theorists in their tracks.

Motive always trips them up.

[libcurious]

41. Need a better question than that

Fear and control is your answer

[Az]

43. Fear

Explain how bringing down WTC7 substantially increases the fear sufficient to warrant the risk involved in setting the charges? You did notice those other 2 towers that collapsed befor it right?

[libcurious]

45. Here, please try this

website out, it may help with some explanations.

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

[Az]

50. Read it

To repeat. "Pull it" is a fire fighting term used when a building is considered a loss and they want to get the firefighers out of the buidling.

[Th1onein]

82. You think Bushco didn't have a motive?

[Alerter_]

38. nonsense, WTC7 was a high value target

"Think this through for a second. There is no reason to go to the trouble of bringing WTC7 down. They just flew 2 jets into the twin towers in the name of terror. Do you really think bringing down WTC7 is going to increase the effect? Have we heard an endless stream of people crying in fear because and evacuated building fell down?"

That's silly.

there were plenty of people who had motive to destroy WTC7. As far as the controlled demolition - to the layperson (me) is sure looks like one, and I've seen the video of fire fighters speculating, and I had originally thought the same thing. I'm certainly not saying that's the case.

[Az]

42. High value target

All buildings in the immediate area were too damaged to remain standing. The twin towers fell down. If the reason was profit then it is still unnecissary to bring WTC7 down specifically. Those two big buildings next door would do the job. This is not a a sufficient insentive for the risks necissary to go to the trouble.

Security issues? The building burned for 7 hours while fire fighters dealt with casualties. Anything of value in the buidling was already destroyed. It was a lost cause. Why detonate and bring it down so late in the game?

Sorry but there is nothing here to demand conspiracy and the evidence available supports collapse from damage and fire. These buidlings are designed to fall down not over. It would have been unusual for such a structure to have fallen over some other way. And fire fighters are not used to watching towers fall down from fire. The damage from fire is usually much more contained.

This is a unique event with massive damage hitting the tower causing infrastructure damage on a large scale leading to a collapse. The evidence does not support controlled demolition theories. There is no sufficient motive for either the specific destruction of WTC7 or its controlled demolition.

[Alerter_]

70. the hotel across the street, and the church is still standing

"All buildings in the immediate area were too damaged to remain standing."

That's just false, the hotel and church across the street remained standing, just a few hundred feet away. In fact, they were as close to the towers as WTC 6 and 7 were.

Lots of people say that the fire alone could have caused the collapse, and that it would look just like the controlled demolitions we've all seen videos of. I guess I have no reason to doubt that.

[LoZoccolo]

57. The firefighters weren't even "speculating".

"Describing" more like. They weren't like "I think it was a controlled demolition". They were more like "it looked like a controlled demolition".

[John_H]

44. Nick Berg. 'Nough said. n/t

[Az]

47. Nough said?

Not really sure what Nick Berg means in this case. Lets examine the possibilities.

1) Nick Berg was and example of conspiracy theories run amuck. This is the same.

2) Nick Berg was the victim of a conspiracy and there for all conspiracy theories must be true.

3) Nick Berg was part of the conspiracy and had to be silenced so they killed him in Iraq.

Huh. Guess it wasn't enough said. So er what did you mean?

[John_H]

56. Numero uno. I don't mind conspiracy theories but

with so much to do to fix the Administration's horrors right out in the open, horrors that effect millions of people every day, I wonder if our time, intellect, and energies might be better spent working to rid the WH of the Bush Family.

[libcurious]

46. Documented answer to your question

can be found here

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

[Az]

48. Pull it

Is a firefighting term used when a buidling is considered a loss and they want to get the firefighters out. Next.

[nostamj]

49. this does NOT answer the question

certainly not the question I posted in #28

[tinanator]

51. I heard seven buildings came down

After taking the Staten Island Ferry past the Statue of Liberty a couple of months back, I realized how close the WTC site was and went walking over. Not much to see but a fenced hole in the ground with the air of a construction site and a number of picture boards mounted on the fence. A black man came to the crowd and started lecturing the facts and stats of the disaster, and one point he seemed intent on making, if I didnt misunderstand, was that SEVEN buildings came down. Unless he was trying to say only that WTC 7 came down as well, but that wasnt what I drew from his speaking. If that many buildings came down, this story is hardly what it is made out to be, wouldnt you say?
There are plenty of incriminating factors to be discussed, be careful not to be drawn into cointelpro traps or dead ends. It was eerie to see the blocks of buildings I had seen in those shots of roiling smoke, dust and debris as the buildings fell. Another shock was the Brown Brothers Harriman building nearly across the street from the site. I bet there are stories (not) to be told in that building.
I was fairly unmoved by the visit, rather turned off by the crass use and abuse of the tragedy by you know whom. However, if I had seen the Take Back the Media piece before or
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html
at the same time I would have been an absolute wreck. Unacceptable failure if not a vicious betrayal. or both.

[rastignac5]

60. This thread has at least served one purpose

I now know who the DU nutjobs are.

[Catherine Vincent]

63. Newbie, you have some nerve!

Only a few posts and already calling DUers nutjobs.

[sangh0]

64. Nerve

and brains

Welcome, newbie!

66. Way to go sangh0

encorage neg attitudes...why am I not surprised.

[sangh0]

69. There's a first time for everything

and that was the first time I've conspiracies described as a positive thing.

65. What you don't know about DUers

could possibly fill several threads.

Stick around and learn some stuff, and don't be so quick to cap on others. Not very politic for a new guest. :)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. Thanks for helping us identify one of them, anyway....

...seek professional help.

[Hammie]

78. A fire didn't cause the building to collapse.

Gravity caused it to collapse. Since the gravitational field is normal to the earth's surface, the building fell staight down. All the fire did was weaken the structure enough for gravity to have it's way.

[doni_georgia]

85. Someone posted threads from 9/11 the other day - I noticed something

Several posts referred to the news reporting third plane at hit another building in the WTC complex. I remember all kinds of false reports that day, but this stood out. I was teaching school that day, so I only saw live the 2nd tower get hit (my students were at music). We were ordered to turn off all TVs lest the kids find out something was wrong (never mind by noon 2/3rds of the school had been checked out).