Reply With Quote
The explosion didn't bring down WTC 7 at 9:30.
Explosions brought it down at 5:21.
The explosion at 9:30 AM weakened the structure.
Early damage from fire and debris cold have caused floor systems to fail, exposing several floors worth of one or more of the vertical columns with no lateral bracing. That could have made that section of column much more vulnerable to a later uncontrolled fire.
It's not that difficult to follow.
The explosion didn't bring down WTC 7 at 9:30.
Explosions brought it down at 5:21.
The explosion at 9:30 AM weakened the structure.
Look at the NISt report. There is no debris damage anywhere near the east penthouse.
The report lists where the damage was, niot just where the debris hit.
You have no evidence that the debris affected the east penthouse, you're just speculating.
What about the damage for the explosionat 9:30 AM? How does that factor into your equation?
if you were actually trying to show how the building really fell, including the huge exploision at 9:30 AM.
If you are just trying to ram your theory down our throats, then just ignore the explosion.
Barry Jennings said it was a huge explosion.
Who set off this exploision?
There is also no mention of a controlled demolition.
In their defense, the report contains information on damage compiled from eyewitness reports. After all, there was no opportunity to conduct a detailed inspection of the damage prior to the collapse. In other words, it was a best guess.
And you have no evidence of a controlled demolition beyond speculation based on your own visual perception of a video...which, considering your ability to count the floors of a building from a photo, doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence.
On the other hand, applying know physical principals to the mechanisms involved in the September 11 attacks can explain the collapse of WTC 7.
Granted, they are competing theories but, of which, there is more physical evidence supporting the theory with which I agree than the one with which you agree. Way more.
And, finally, your theory depends on a conspiracy so vast, there would undoubtedly be evidence of prior activity conducted in preparation of September 11. There is none.
Okay, forget croquet. Have you ever thrown a baseball through a window?
have you ever knocked down a haystack with a needle?
there's evidence that column # 79 was damaged by an explosion at 9:30 AM. There's no evidence it was damaged by debris or fire, only speculation.
Strands of hay aren't physically affixed to one another. The kinetic energy isn't transferred in the same manner as when the components of a structure are connected.have you ever knocked down a haystack with a needle?
I won't even get into the poor, and fatally flawed, analogy of a needle into a haystack vs. hundreds of tons of debris into the side of a building.
Next stupid assertion?
What's your point? Things in burning buildings sometimes explode.
WTC 7 wasn't burning at 9:30 AM. Do you just make things up in your effort to defend mass murder?
I've never stated it was burning at 9:30. I have no idea whether it was or wasn't.
You asked a question and I answered. Something in the building could have been burning without there being any evidence from the exterior.
Care to clarify the "haystack theory" for us?
we've got some strong evidence here of what might have brought down WTC 7. There was a huge exploision at around 9:30 that was near the critical area where the building failed. There is no evidence this explosion happened from natural causes, so it looks like arson, especially since the alarms were turned off at 6:47 AM that morning, and the owner of the building said "pull it!"
Okay, since I'm not a WTC 7 conspiracist, I've listened to plausible explanations of the things you mention and moved on. Wasn't there some type fuel tank in the vicinity of the reported explosion? And, didn't the explanation of the use of the term "pull it" come from someone who also uses that term -- in a firefighter context to mean -- Get the out!we've got some strong evidence here of what might have brought down WTC 7. There was a huge exploision at around 9:30 that was near the critical area where the building failed. There is no evidence this explosion happened from natural causes, so it looks like arson, especially since the alarms were turned off at 6:47 AM that morning, and the owner of the building said "pull it!"
I seem to recall there being a report of a fuel tank, of some type, that was fed by a basement line. I also recall the report on the "pull it" comment.
Obviously you weren't satisfied. Oh well.
was column # 79 in on your conspiracy?
I don't have a conspiracy.
A lot of debris was ejected by the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses. That an adjacent building was compromised enough to suffer a failure comes as no surprise to anyone, except you, apparently.
There's no evidence the building was compromised, you are just making that up.
There is evidence that a huge explosion alomost killed Berry Jennings at 9:30 AM.
Plenty of things can sound like explosions that aren't.
OTOH it could very well have been an explosion. There were several electric transformers in WTC7 that could make a pretty big bang. Could even weaken a floor system which fits in nicely with the theory I wrote earlier.
So thanks for reinforcing my theory. You are making this so easy.
dude, Barry Jennings was almost killed by the explosion.
It's no more made up than your controlled demolition theory. Besides, two airliners had just crashed into the very tall buildings next door. WTC 2 was struck on the side opposite the one facing WTC 7 and, as we have all seen in videos, much debris -- including airplane engines -- flew out the other side, in the general direction of Church and Vesey streets. What's not to say a large piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 and caused the trigger that led to an explosion? It's, at least, as plausible as believing there was some kind of conspiracy to bring down WTC 7.
And? Just because you hear hoofbeats, don't automatically assume there are zebras stampeding.
Last edited by Yonivore; 03-21-2008 at 01:37 PM.
He did say, on the other hand...well, "OTOH." Why is it significant that Barry Jennings was the almost killed?
I don't think anyone is discounting the possibility of an explosion in WTC 7 at 9:30 but, there are a myriad of possibilities over what may have caused the explosion. Some of which would require the acceptance of coincidence; some, the acceptance of cause and effect; and, others -- like you -- the belief in stupid conspiracies.
You still haven't explained (and, if you did, I'm sorry; I missed it.) why it was necessary to destroy WTC 7.
That's my point.
Two giant airplanes flew into the twin Towers and dumped out jet fuel.
No plane hit WTC 7. No jet fuel. And the building is too far away from WTC 1 for debris from a gavitational collapse to hit WTC 7, so its safe.
Then they did a countdown at the site before it was demolished.
The explosion occurred before WTC 1 or WTC 2 fell. Next.
But after WTC 1 and WTC 2 were struck by the planes. You obviously didn't read, or didn't understand, my post.
Explain what happened to WTC 7, without telling me what coulda happened. What DID happen?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
