Bbc Was Half An Hour Too Early Reporting On Wtc7 Collapse

[Nbadan]

How's that modified NIST report on WTC 7 coming along?

Who's the real conspiracy theorists again?

Six years later and no-one can tell us for certain how WTC7 fell. The 911 faith-movement has this sub-report from NIST that makes a lot of generalizations, but offers little to no technicle data to support their working-hypothesis. WTC7 could have collapsed from a catastrophic sequence of events, but that hasn't been proven, or it could have been brought down in a controlled demolition, but this hasn't been proven either.

However, the 911 faith movement was reduced to making up all kinds of excuses, oh the building fell because of fire below the 10th floor that no-one has any pictures of, the building didn't fall on it's own footprint, despite pics that prove other-wise, the building suffered catastrophic failure, despite other buildings that suffured worse damage that managed to stay up.

Meanwhile, we have the squib lines in towers 1,2, and 7 on tape, the total and complete collapse of all three buildings, a near statistical impossiblity, all the molten metel, despite jet fuel only heating to 800 degrees. the whole story about how 4 terraists who couldn't even fly simple cessna's a few weeks before all of the sudden became experienced pilots able to hit targets at 400-500 MPH with some of the most sophisticated aircraft in the world, and also turn off complex transponders that signal when a plane is being hijacked.

Would someone tell me, who's the conspiracy theorists again?

[ChumpDumper]

we have the squib lines

We do?

all the molten metel, despite jet fuel only heating to 800 degrees

Aluminum melts at 600.

the whole story about how 4 terraists who couldn't even fly simple cessna's a few weeks before all of the sudden became experienced pilots able to hit targets at 400-500 MPH with some of the most sophisticated aircraft in the world

Real pilots said it could be done without much of a problem, and the real pilots said the terra-ists were ty pilots.

and also turn off complex transponders that signal when a plane is being hijacked.

How complex? Is it impossible to do? Or could someone who planned and studied for months and perhaps years could actually do?

Would someone tell me, who's the conspiracy theorists again?

I'd say you, except you have no theory at all.

[Wild Cobra]

There are some very simple things I would like to point out about building sevens collapse.

1) several windows on several photos are seen as breaking out. More windows broken with more time. The fires were not the cause, known because these windows were far away from the heat. The building structure was slowly giving away due to heat. The steel didn't melt, but lost strength.

2) Like towers 1 and 2, there was severe structural damage. Parts of a tower destroyed much of building side that was not seen in photos.

3) The argument many like to say is that steel framed buildings never fell because of fire. These buildings had structural damage too. The remaining weakened steel from the heat simply gave way.

[johnsmith]

My favorite part of these kind of threads is that it brings libs and conservatives together in order to bash idiots.

[Nbadan]

We do?

This whole idea that it was pressurized air is bogus. No one has ever addressed this.

[Nbadan]

several windows on several photos are seen as breaking out. More windows broken with more time. The fires were not the cause, known because these windows were far away from the heat. The building structure was slowly giving away due to heat. The steel didn't melt, but lost strength.

So it was a localized collapse? Or did your magic heat source somehow spread to the rest of the building?

[Nbadan]

Like towers 1 and 2, there was severe structural damage. Parts of a tower destroyed much of building side that was not seen in photos.

But yet the building stood for several hours after, and neither the FEMA report nor the NIST report blamed the collapse on structural damage by Tower 1 debris, although, admittedly, while looking for a one-size-fits-all hypothesis for the collapse they did write that flying debris could have 'contributed' to the collapse.

[Nbadan]

Real pilots said it could be done without much of a problem, and the real pilots said the terra-ists were ty pilots.

I bet you couldn't do it, even with a few hundred hours of pilot training. As I've said before, hitting the Pentagon at 400MPH without having to come back for several tries was a amazing feat, and turning off transponders is not something they teach at pilot school.

[Wild Cobra]

So it was a localized collapse? Or did your magic heat source somehow spread to the rest of the building?

I'm sorry. Concepts like this are so simple to me, I forget it should be explained better.

The heat in the lower levels of the building rose such that the steel lost it's full strength. Think of butter. It is a solid when refrigerated and soft at room temperature then melts when it gets hotter. Steel is like this. It gets soft without melting. It slowly changes shape. Horizontal beams will sag, pulling vertical beams away from perpendicular. Buildings do not fall from this alone. However, if you have a single missing supporting beam, the structure can shift enough to completely lose integrity and fall apart.

As for the windows. The sagging of the steel beams would only have to be maybe an inch or two interrupting the 'squareness' of the building. With the widow frames no longer being square, the windows shatter from the stress because they are a relatively brittle solid.

[Wild Cobra]

But yet the building stood for several hours after, and neither the FEMA report nor the NIST report blamed the collapse on structural damage by Tower 1 debris, although, admittedly, while looking for a one-size-fits-all hypothesis for the collapse they did write that flying debris could have 'contributed' to the collapse.

Has the new report been released yet? I don't recall, but the previous reports I downloaded hadn't yet fully investigated building seven. Respectable investigators already knew it was somehow collateral damage from the tower, just didn't know the fine details. I thought this was all settled long ago.

Was it several hours? I don't remember. I do remember it was aflame the entire time before it fell. It had a long running fire because of fuel stored in the building for the back-up generator.

Wow.... That was an incredibly stupid engineering design...

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry. Concepts like this are so simple to me, I forget it should be explained better.

Don't bother, Dan still won't get it. The World Trade Center collapse was the result of a Darth Cheney conspiracy and that's all there is to it. To with your scientific facts and debunked myths.

He's a truther and he knows what happened that day.

[xrayzebra]

How long do we have to re-hash, rehash, rehash.....they fell and
that is the fact of the whole argument. Consensus says they
were brought down by aircraft. Now that is good enough for
the "global warming" folks it ought to be good enough for the
the other folks.

[u2sarajevo]

It amazes me that people truly believe any of the building collapses were controlled demolitions.

Have any of you guys been to Dealey Plaza? Are your future plans to setup at Camp Ground Zero with your photos plastered on plywood proclaiming your wild theories? Hoping that you sell enough of your marketed propaganda that day to buy dinner?

Hatred is really an ugly thing.

[Spurminator]

Don't bother, Dan still won't get it. The World Trade Center collapse was the result of a Darth Cheney conspiracy and that's all there is to it. To with your scientific facts and debunked myths.

He's a truther and he knows what happened that day.

Dan knows exactly what happened.

His motivation is to create distrust.

[Yonivore]

Dan knows exactly what happened.

His motivation is to create distrust.

Of him? Done.

[smeagol]

My favorite part of these kind of threads is that it brings libs and conservatives together in order to bash idiots.

What he said ^

[Nbadan]

I'm sorry. Concepts like this are so simple to me, I forget it should be explained better.

The heat in the lower levels of the building rose such that the steel lost it's full strength. Think of butter. It is a solid when refrigerated and soft at room temperature then melts when it gets hotter. Steel is like this. It gets soft without melting. It slowly changes shape. Horizontal beams will sag, pulling vertical beams away from perpendicular. Buildings do not fall from this alone. However, if you have a single missing supporting beam, the structure can shift enough to completely lose integrity and fall apart.

As for the windows. The sagging of the steel beams would only have to be maybe an inch or two interrupting the 'squareness' of the building. With the widow frames no longer being square, the windows shatter from the stress because they are a relatively brittle solid.

OH, we've talked about at what degree steel softens and also about the necessary design of WTC7 because it was built over an existing power station. You may want to go back and reread some of our previous 911 threads for reference.

But in order for the existing NIST theory to have any serious merit there had to be a raging fire on the lower floors (~10) of WTC7, which I've never seen any evidence of. Every photo I have seen had fires in the building about the 11th or 12th floor at the lowest.

As far as any sever structural damage, other WTC buildings suffered much more catastrophic damage but did not collapse. The special design of WTC7 could have led to fires that weakened a parts of the building, and from what I could tell most of the major fires were at or near the WTC Tower1 side, but I feel this would have led to a collapse of part of the building at worst.

The statistical cir stances that led to the complete collapse building in the manner the initial NIST report says it did have to be pretty high.

[Wild Cobra]

The statistical cir stances that led to the complete collapse building in the manner the initial NIST report says it did have to be pretty high.

High but not impossible. So what.

[ChumpDumper]

In order for the conspiracy theory to have any serious merit, there has to actually be a theory.

[smeagol]

In order for the conspiracy theory to have any serious merit, there has to actually be a theory.

Not according to the mookie crowd

[ChumpDumper]

Sorely lacking as it was, he had more of a theory than Dan.

[clambake]

Theories aren't necessary. It was their time to go. It was God's will.

[xrayzebra]

Maybe God will take mercy on us and let this thread "go". Amen

[RandomGuy]

[smeagol]

Sorely lacking as it was, he had more of a theory than Dan.

True.