Buldiing 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed after 8 hours because it was heavily damaged, and fire raged for 8 hours. These images show SOME of the actual damage to WTC 7 from the collapse of the WTC twin towers, but do not show the fornt of the most damaged face closest to the twin towers. Smoke and other buildings get in the way
(Visited 37 times, 1 visits today)
Logging you in...
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
would this cause it to fall straight down at free fall speed
though?????????????????????????????????????????
“These images show SOME of the actual damage to WTC 7 from the collapse of
the WTC twin towers, but do not show the fornt of the most damaged face
closest to the twin towers.”
Nonsense. The first collapsing WTC2 did no structural damage to the south
face of WTC7. As we know since 2010 by the released Mark LaGanga footage
through NIST FOIA #09-42, thanks to International Center for 9/11 Studies.
A single frame of his S-face shot between 9:59 a.m. and 10:28 a.m. was
already printed in the public draft (Aug. 2008) and final version (Nov.
2008) of NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vols. 1-2. Missed by the author of this video?
From FDNY photos and Shepard Sherbell shot we know that the damage done by
WTC 1 was concentrated only at the western-most third of south face. The
rest was structurally undamaged. No heavy debris were lying immediately at
the base of center and eastern thirds of south face on Vesey Street.
A collection of available WTC7 south face shots after 10:28 a.m. you can
find on “The 9/11 Forum”, “WTC7” subforum, “WTC 7 South Side Views” thread.
The smoke is from the Twin Towers debris not from fire inside WTC7 … your
conclusions are absolutly bullshit!!!! Sorry ;-)
Asymmetrical damage to a building should cause Asymmetrical collapse.
Symmetrical damage will cause symmetrical collapse. It doesn’t take a
genius to see with your own eyes that this is controlled demolition.
Whoever created this video – it’s like their trying to debunk that the
world is round! Reality is a bitch!!!!!!!
Another outrageous conspiracy theory on Building 7! What do you understand
that the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology’s experts do
not understand? It took them 7 years to find why and how Building 7
self-destructed in 7 seconds 7 hours after the twin towers.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology determined that Building
7’s destruction was due to normal office fires. They were so fed up with
the self-proclaimed engineering experts who infest the web with theories
coming from Donald Duck’s book of physics that they took the trouble of
modeling Building 7’s self-destruction by the same office fires under the
hypothesis that Building 7 would not have been damaged by the twin towers’
destruction.
In the spirit of nudging our readers a bit closer to reality, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology found that the projections of
structural steel from the North Tower had two influences on Building 7’s
self-destruction:
* they ignited the office fires which eventually destroyed Building 7.
* the damage they inflicted to the frame affected the motion of Building 7
during its self-destruction, reducing the facades’ deformation before
their drop.
You are welcome to improve on the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s findings, but please:
* explain the errors in their work that you claim to address
* account for the video, photographic and testimonial evidence at least as
well as they did
* respect what is known of Building 7’s construction and condition at least
as well as they did
* respect the laws of physics at least as well as they did.
Love,
I have often heard that “Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Do you see any fire on the south face floors? No. You do see fire on the
SW corner in the videos, but it is isolated.
A lot of the smoke is coming from WTC6, being drawn towards B7 because of
the wind direction.
B7 did not rage fire for 8 hours. If you read the reports the fire moved
along about every 30 minutes because all fuel was consumed. The steel was
fireproofed up to standard, 2 hours.
This building did not fall down from fire. Or WTC1 damage. NIST said the
collapse started in the NE corner, opposite where the damage and fires
could be seen.
Please do more homework. At this point you get a C- for the conclusions
drawn.
2:25 – Despite that “worst damage” at the lower SW corner, you can see on
these NYPD photos how well the cut columns have performed above the hole,
including the heavy reinforced corner column 15. No visible sagging or
signs of impending total failure by the curtain wall, from top of the hole
to roof edge, until global collapse. A true example of redundancy.
But at 5:20 p.m. almost all of the 58 perimeter columns above 7th floor
suddenly gave way, followed within a fraction of second after the
free-falling center and west core. How can fire damage achieve this?
The gash in the south face was more than 20 floors. Study of the falling
steel slab and the ABC NY helicopter footage suggests it is top to bottom.
We know it is top to about the 25th, but smoke obscures the lower portion.
The fold of the north face as it began to fall, however, confirms a top to
bottom gash on the south face. Fatal for a large span tower.
Joe Hill
yeah and inside that smoke is several millions of tons of steel from a
collapsing 110 story building, dumb ass
@Magni56 Sure, whatever bud. Silverstein can backslide all he wants, I know
what he said. “Pull it” does not mean “pull the men out”. I suppose you’re
one of those people who could literally get pissed on and be told it was
rain. And these buildings are on video tape falling down. You’re aware of
this, right? No conspiracy, just what’s on tape. Also, calm down bud. Agree
to disagree, remem? Oh wait, that’s not acceptable to you. Well, tough
trucknuts then, kid.
Look up 9/11:EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE – THE EXPERTS SPEAK OUT time to wake up
sheeple!!!
verizon building and post office receive no damage, only true structural
damage to 7 was small southwest corner blown out, buildings get strength
from center core. if this caused it to fall it would have fell at an angle.
fire could have brough it down. tower 5 was a blazing inferno and never
fell. look at OK city bombing, much stronger/ compact force and yet back
half of building stood. wake up people.
@BarbedWireCondom Because gravity fromt he earth pull everything straight
down. Gravity doesnt pull things to the side. also, Buildings arent trees.
NIST said that the damage caused by the tower collapsing HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH #7 COLLAPSING. Even your own Gov, that you all blindly follow, is
telling you that, hello?
Well, let’s lelieve the firefighters then. There are firefighters and
policemen, who say that there were bombs going off in the buildings.
I will be sure to let gravity know how you feel. Something tells me it will
continue to operate as usual lol.
That is absolutely false. The buildings that tend to survive earthquakes
are the NEWER, more sophisticated buildings that incorporate the newest
techniques to survive. The newest, best buildings survive. But buildings
big and small collapse during earthquakes and from fires. THE TALLER THEY
STAND, THE HARDER THEY FALL High rise buildings require light-weight, WEAK,
construction in order to present the least weight up high. To reduce the
weight, high-rises are WEAKER than other bldgs
@Allergic2StupidAchoo As for “free fall”, that shit has been debunked a
million times over by now. It’s literally nothing but a soundbite betraying
ignorance of the actual events. And no steel building has been felled like
this because no steel building (let alone one of the same construction) has
ever been in the same situation. By your logic, since no steel building was
ever destroyed by a nuclear warhead, the WTC building should have survived
a direct hit by a strategic nuclear weapon.
Ohh please, don’t use the word “fact” – everybody uses it for everything
and it’s worn out. There were reports of explosions not only an hour but
also minutes before the collapses. Collapses after explosions do not by any
means defy physics. And speaking of defieing physics: how come the
buildings 4, 5 and 6 were not destroyed completely, but the building 7
fell? Also, if it was struck by debris from the towers, why did it fell
straight down and not towards the damaged side?
@Emsworker68 WRONG. You prove my point. The 9/11 kooks were IGNORED for
about 5 years, and are mostly ignored by most people as being irrelevant
kooks. Those who do not believe the PUBLIC story (the people told the Govt
what happened on 9/11, not the other way around) are accusing people of
3,000 counts of mass murder. They are trying to destroy the country’s
defenses, and prevent us from defending ourselves against real threats.
They are treasonous traitors helping our enemies.
@Allergic2StupidAchoo And I’m pretty sure “no steel building has ever
previously” had the world trade center tower one fall on it before this one.
@jtrish23 Yes, you can see in the video that every floor was on fire. The
video shows fire coming out of EVERY floor. You do not see smoke
concentrated in any one space. The smoke is a solid block the entire length
of the building top to bottom with EVERY floor generating smoke. Of course,
the WIND is blowing the smoke from inside the building out in only one
direction.
There was no molten metal at the WTC, except possibly a flow of molten
ALUMINUM from one window — could have also been PLASTIC burning. (Try
setting a plastic milk carton on fire and watch how it flows while
burning). There were reportrs of RED HOT metal, which is NOT molten. Molten
metal is WHITE hot, not red. There is no photographic evidence of molten
metal. There are photographs which are — provably — the acetylene torches
of the workmen carving up the debris AFTER 9/11.
@jtrish23 You can see in the video that EVERY FLOOR is on fire. Smoke is
coming from EVERY FLOOR of WTC7. You do not see smoke coming from specific
points. You see a giant block of smoke the entire height of WTC 7. So EVERY
FLOOR was on fire inside the building. Since the wind was blowing in only
one direction, the resulting smoke is pouring out ONE side, from the fire
inside burning on EVERY FLOOR.
@Emsworker68 You don’t understand how the load-shifting mechanisms work.
The undamaged side of the building is designed to hold up the damaged side,
to prevent a rolling collapse from side to side. The weight on the damaged
side is supported by the undamaged side. But when the building is
overwhelmed, the building fails. But because the weight is being
transferred horizontally across the cross-section, the weight is focused
down the centerline. When it fails, it fails everywhere at once
@Emsworker68 WRONG. You need to talk to an architect. Modern buildings of
that size and importance are specially designed to shift the load from one
side of the building to the other specifically to allow the building to
stand up if damaged on one side. People who build buildings are not stupid.
The consequence of this design is that WHEN a building fails, the force is
distributed throughout the building, focusing the collapse down the
centerline.
It is a shame that americans fail basic high school science. WHERE do you
think the AIR inside the building went when it was collapsing? There was NO
quick disposal of the remnants. MONTHS after 9/11, the debris was moved to
the Fresh Kill salvage yard and MOST OF IT IS STILL THERE TODAY. The
Pentagon was filled with airplane debris inside the building. And thousands
of people watched Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. See the 911Reality webvsite
for their statements
I do not think you know what you are talking about, this conversation is
going nowhere if you believe that taller buildings are are weaker than
smaller ones. This is a common problem with skeptics and debunkers, just
making up random things like yours only serve to convince people that
something is seriously amiss.
@JonathonMoseley I have listened to architects. Over a 1000 of them. I have
listened openly to both sides. I find A&E version more believable. They
have nothing to gain by opposing the governments position and everything to
lose. Their careers, their retirement, their family, their lives. Where as
a threatened person is most likely to toe the line. The load would shift in
the way you say. The unaffected side would hold a load but if failed it
would not fall straight down as you say.
Argue semantics all you want. I really don’t care what you believe.
Whatever, i’m done with this.
So if the damage was on one side how do you account for all core columns
failing at the same time? If the building failed on one side it should have
toppled and fell over onto its side. Even demolition experts sometimes fail
to collapse large buildings into their own footprint and they fall over
onto their side sometimes not even totally breaking up.
@Allergic2StupidAchoo There is no “agreeing to disagree”. You have been
unable to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence while there is plenty
of evidence against you. Thus, you are wrong. Ths is not a matter of
opinion, it’s a matter of fact. And factually, all evidence points at the
same conclusion: That there was not a sinlge microgram of explosives
involved anywhere and that there was no grand conspiracy besides that of a
few guys to hijakc planes and ram them into buildings.
Yes, I think you are, because the truth is very easy to find. Yet
conspiracy theories keep repeating the same falsehoods. Everything you need
to know is at the 911Reality website. These are LINKS to original sources
— not opinion. I know more about the 9/11 Truthers’ arguments than you
will ever hope to know. I know how they all DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER, and
violently attack each other as WRONG. There are no strange factors. Only
people who don’t really want to know the truth.
@Allergic2StupidAchoo And there was no “free fall” collapse. It’s another
outright lie by conspiracy nutsos that has been debunked years ago already.
You are literally parroting idiotic shit that is not supported by even the
tiniest shred of actual evidence and has been completely and utterly
debunked a million times over by now-
Again, demolition experts CUT all the structural supports and methods for
WEEKS before “the day.” When the explosives go off, the bldg is barely
hanging on by a thread. You can’t do a controlled demolition with an
occupied bldg. And controlled demolition has NEVER been done from the top
down. It starts at the BOTTOM so the bldg will fall into the footprint. No
one knows how to do it. It could never be done for the first time ever with
the whole world watching.