Still standing: The building that proves WTC 7 was imploded

I think it's more an idea that the people in power at the time took advantage of a situation that they knew was in the works - that much is blatantly clear from ALL news sources. The fact that Bush and Cheney had intimate ties to several groups operating in the Middle East that were partially responsible for the act makes one question. It came out that the Clinton Administration had heard rumblings about this attack, and you have to admit that the one group that really, truly came out on top of all this was the Bush Administration. Haliburton alone was able to secure literally TRILLIONS from the government, and the unprecedented amount of control that administration had was amazing.
It certainly didn't go down in the way you laid out here, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have had an idea of what was coming and instead of preventing it, they cashed in on it. VERY American.

Oh, crap.

Now you're grasping at straws. Nobody made trillions, you've no concept of how much money government contractors really make.

If you or anybody else thinks that the US Government had ANYTHING to do with this, you are just crazy.

These conspiracy theories have been THOROUGHLY debunked, and all you have to do is read about it.

Educate yourself before you embarrass yourself any further.

There is no denying American funding of afghans via the ISI during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That money definitely seeded jihadist groups with money. We were also very much aware of the capabilities the jihadist movement had been able to achieve. Further, the concept of hijacking and flying planes into buildings was a known threat before 9/11. These are all statements of culpability against the American government's defense of our nation.

Beyond that, there is yet to be shown evidence that the amount of heat needed to cause the level of immolation asserted by the "expert" denial of the collapse of WTC buildings for melting steel would have been possible. The collapse of the WTC buildings are the only in history to have collapsed due to aerial collision. The 747 that hit the Pentagon is the only aircraft to have "vaporized" most of the aircraft and its inhabitants due to collision. Further, the hole in the Pentagon had zero evidence of collision from the wings of the aircraft... interesting.

I have done my reading and have not seen any justification against these statements. That being said, there is nothing in these statements that negates the possibility that these could simply be exceptional circumstances, and actually happened that way despite previous experience to the contrary.

My statement from MONTHS ago stands. We will never actually know what exactly happened, how it happened, or what factors allowed for it to happen. Just as many suggest that it should have been impossible for the Americans not to know about such a massive Japanese fleet moving across the Pacific towards Hawaii to have had no warning whatsoever. We cannot know if it was simply a historical mistake, or a historical judgment. The sinking of the Lusitania has been called into question. The truth we can extrapolate from the overall experience of history is that we cannot know the intricate details of these situations with 100% certainty. Any document can be fabricated, and numbers can be massaged.

All we can know if that the events transpired and the world we know was changed for it. Moving forward, we should realize that the Patriot Act was a bastard child spawned from these terrible events. Benjamin Franklin said it best:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Oh, come on. A blanket statement that "we'll never know what happened" doesn't excuse the fact that there ARE numerous places where one can read explanations for ALL the objections you and other conspiracy theorists have raised about this subject.

ATS, Above Top Secret has a thread especially on the Pentagon attack that quite adequately sets to rest your objection about the wing issue, including photographs that clearly show such damage. The gentleman that started that thread very ably goes through ALL the evidence available and puts to rest the theorists' bullet points item by item, presenting evidence that clearly nullifies every single one. Including wreckage that clearly identifies the aircraft as being the hijacked flight, including engine components, passenger seats and landing gear components.

Again, your statement about the lack of heat sufficient for the structural steel to "melt" is off, too. Go to the Popular Mechanics site I linked to above:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#stee...

...and this link shows where they very clearly explain, using quotes from structural engineers, how the heat of the fire was perfectly adequate to cause the steel holding those buildings up to lose over 50% of their designed strength, causing the steel at the fire floors to collapse.

I get the impression that most of your "reading" was done at theorists' sites, soaking up theories but little in the way of actual facts.

Your post alludes to a scenario where others have suggested that if the fire wasn't enough to make the buildings collapse, "somebody" must have done it deliberately, and if the Government is covering up who did it, it must have been complicit in that destruction.

Which is more crap than I've heard in a long time.

Think about it for just ten seconds and you'll see that openly wiring a large building for demolition is a team effort that takes weeks for even a four or five story building, and requires that all of the interior cosmetic material be removed to allow for adequate access to the structural steel that holds the building up. It requires access to the building plans which show stress points, utility access hatches between floors, wiring diagrams, etc.

To properly drop a building, the explosions must be timed properly and placed exactly, or it will be forced to fall out of footprint.

To COVERTLY do this would be impossible, as the occupants, security guards and maintenance engineers would be not only in the way, but almost assured to discover that plot soon after someone dragged in the first explosives and tried wiring them together. Access to critical stress points on each floor almost certainly would not be accessible due to the placement of cosmetic wall materials.

I could go on and on, but such a scenario would be impossible under the best of circumstances.

Besides, nobody has EVER demolished a building as tall as those two towers using explosives, much less two at a time. That doubles the risk of exposure, and the difficulty of the task.

To even suggest such a scenario is insane.

...and to additionally suggest, as some have, that GW Bush was at the heart of it is also insane, as this plot would have taken at least a year to organize and even start, and he'd been in office barely 9 months when the attacks happened.

Not nearly enough time, especially if the government was to have been involved, and to even begin to suggest that the CLINTON administration may have been in on it would just be certifiably insane. (I know you didn't, but others have...)

In short, to keep this theory alive is like kicking a horse that's been dead so long you're kicking bones.

dude, you are all over the place.

But why would he have had the charges planted prior to the events?

Scruffy was nice enough to post the youtube video where he asserted that the owner admitted destroying it.

I'll repeat my comment here.

The term they used, "pulling" the building, refers to pulling FD personnel from the building. It is NOT an admission of destruction, but the owner relating how the FD told HIM that they had made the decision, to which he reluctantly concurred.

FD's do not have demo personnel, and the NYFD did not destroy that building.

That doesn't even look like a real photograph? Is that CGI or something?

Looks like a hole to me.

Are YOU a graphics expert?

The point was that it shouldn't have fallen down at all, it suffered no damage or extra load prior to collapse.

There was a gaping hole from floors 8-18 in the southwest corner from flying debris. I'd get a picture, but I didn't TIVO 9/11.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

hahahaahaha Seriously? That picture is fake! Whoever made it needs to take a photoshop class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA

The owner admits to having it demolished, like an idiot.

@Scruffy,

When a FD says they "pulled" a building, it isn't an indication that they will destroy the building, it means they are pulling all their people OUT in recognition that the fire cannot be contained. You know, protecting their people? Safety?

That video wasn't an indication of the OWNER making the decision, it was the owner describing how the NYFD told HIM they could not save his building.

Fire Departments do NOT have demolition experts that know how to knock down buildings. If they could knock down a building in less than a day, they wouldn't be drawing poor FD salaries, they'd be working as demo experts making several times that much in the private sector.

The statement on the video that it takes engineers weeks to prepare a building for demo, that is correct, and it takes careful computer simulations, calculations, access to building plans and unfettered access to the building and its structural members (meaning removing cosmetic coverings such as drywall, etc.) to place the explosives correctly.

That is why, when you see a building destroyed, it has been stripped of cosmetic material to allow that access, and to allow the explosives to be properly connected with explosive cord to ensure that all of the explosives go off in a carefully timed sequence to bring the building down precisely. If any go off wrong, the undamaged ones will cause parts of the building to fall out of the footprint.

To "wire" a building for demo covertly would be insanely labor intensive, as the effort would have to be hidden from not only tenants, but the building engineers who regularly tend to the building and would undoubtedly see evidence of explosive cording being run through the building's engineering core.

Plus, you'd be taking a chance that a stray fire or spark would set off your planted explosives or cording prematurely. Not a trivial concern.

Not terribly likely here.

That's news to me.

Gash from what?

thre was a 10 story gash in wtc 1 and 2, not 7

white pony, you're a fool.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Wtc7onfire.jpg

What is that supposed to show?

deadpool. what the hell is that? black smoke?

bullshit

@alicynx,

Actually, it YOU that's proposing the theory, yet you show a video that only shows one side - to support YOUR theory.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. That man's a structural engineer, and he knows more than you. Show us the other three sides, undamaged, and you'll have a stronger case.

@rahwens:
Actually, I'm not talking about a theory in my post. I'm refuting a statement made by the original poster.

"...I remember WTC #7 having a gaping hole in the side of the building at street level which severely reduced the structural stability of the building..."

was the original statement. I posted a video of the building showing only one side on fire, with no gaping hole. If this building indeed had a gaping hole somewhere that significantly compromised its structural integrity, it would be listing or showing some signs of buckling in this video. It is not.
To my knowledge, there are no videos doing a 360 of this building as it was burning - if that ever does get posted, and I find it, I'll be happy to post it. We work with what we have, not what we wished we could have.
Also, the way this person is putting out a comment like this shows his own ineptitude - any professional knows that if you haven't examined the structures in person, then you are in no position to comment either way on anything to do with it. As a professional in my field, I understand the idea well. Would you expect a doctor to diagnose you without seeing you? No professional will draw conclusions without having first analyzed the data. THAT is a no-brainer.

Well, if you go to the second page and read my post where I copied from the Popular Mechanics site's investigation of this building, you'll see where the NIST found that there WAS a gaping hole that scooped out almost 25% of the building on one corner - much like the picture posted above. they also detail how other factors combine to make the collapse of this building perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

Your video is not a comprehensive investigation, but merely one reporter's viewpoint from one side of the building. Obviously, he missed one big gaping hole.

I 100% agree with you.

Truly well written. This story, voted down.

Use BBC for your news and stop bitching about this in every thread.

Since this is a liberal news site, these so-called nut jobs have every right to post their news.
If you want "normal" news, go watch something goverment and lobby controlled like...well, any major news show.

Ok chicken little. Watch out the sky is falling.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

no plane hit WTC 7

There wasn't 2000lbs of fuel dumped into WTC 7. No airline crashed into WTC 7's structure. It was completely peripheral.
Just wanted to put that in there...

*cough*Reichtagsbrand*cough*

some supposed hi jacker are still alive hows that possible? on they day of the attack there names where even on the flight manilfest. not one single arab name.
OH yeah and the passport that was supposedly from one the hijacker was found. how does a fire cause a building to fall and destroy humans bodies but still leave a passport full intact, that was in the middle of explosion already?

It is clear you don't understand chaos theory.

Ask people that clean up after airliner crashes, and they'll tell you that a crash that'll turn every human on board into hamburger will leave things like passports, clothing, stuffed animals and so forth perfectly unscathed.

And what makes you think someone wanting to hijack an airliner to use it as a flying bomb is going to use their own name?

Really, use your head for something besides a hair farm.

There was nothing near it when it fell. It was also full of classified documents.

No not realy. No mystery at all actualy, a design flaw and an unprecedented terrorist atack a building wasn't designed to handle.

damn learn to freaken read they were talking about build 7... not the twin towers... and if can believe two buildings came crashing down at near free fall speed you need your head checked... and to come straight down like that is also not typical in a building collapse.

will i say it is not possible for a plane to bring down a building no, can not say that... but i can say the way they came down is a little... strange? odd? not physically probable....

for a government to stage an attack on its own people to sway public opinion or to cause mass panic and knee jerk reactions to demand protection while their freedoms are stripped away is not unprecedented… just look at history… how ever if that was the case in the case of 9/11 it was the most sophisticated to date.

a government should be scared of their people, not the people scared of their government, they are there to serve you... why are they keeping so much hidden?

Not me, but then crying 'I'am not' is a sign that you are..... but I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
Those crazy islamic extremist suicide mission numbnuts blew the WTC up.
Geeez... That does sound like a... HELL!! yes it's a conspiracy those taliban/al-Qaeda's conspired to blow up a world trade center so everyone would understand how badly they want the western culture to go away.

But mutedmajority, that's just it. We already know that the media lies to us. We already know that the inner workings of our government hide things from us.

How will this make our world upside down when we are already fully aware? Yes, yes, we get it. 911 is an inside job. Now stop handing me pamphlets and DVDs to me on the streets! The people individually already fight against the injustices. We already try our best to seek truth. I agree with librelover, this changes nothing. We get it already.

And as far as your comment on Obama, it's not up to him for our country to change. It wouldn't have been up to Ron Paul, McCain, any of the candidates. It's up to the people. If this country dies, we are to blame. I and I make the difference. Instead of sitting around going over conspiracies, why not do something?

I think it is a dangerous mindset to assume that any one person can make the amount of change needed in this country. That kind of change by one person is what Caesar did to Rome. If you want a country that is for the people, it must be made so by the people.

building seven wasn't hit with a jet liner. it was hit with debri from jets colliding with wtc 1 and 2. there was a cathedral and another smaller stucture between wtc 1,2 and wtc 7 and they were still standing. as far as fire protection.....it is code to have steel fire protected, if you have ever been above a ceiling in a steel structure you will see that it is just sprayed on and there isn't anything else out there to make it MORE fireproof. plus wtc 7 was struturally reinforced 10 years earlier so it probably had better support than the beijing bldg. i wish to god i could believe the gov's version of the events, but they don't add up.

Again, the engineers have said that the max temperatures that could have been reached with jet fuel still would not have led to any structural breakdown of the steel. Not hot enough or burning long enough.

Wrong.

WTC7 had numerous diesel fuel tanks for emergency generators all over the building, including one in the basement that fed a generator on one of the upper floors UNDER PRESSURE, which was estimated to have fed the fire for several hours.

Steel doesn't have to MELT, but structural engineers will tell you that when heated to the max estimated in this fire, it will lose up to half of its strength.

WTC7 was, according to the Popular Mechanics article, overloaded in its central core as to average load per supporting column, this would be enough to cause the columns to shatter and collapse. The loss of support in the central core would bring the rest of the building down around it, straight down into its own footprint, just like a controlled demo.

Which is just what happened.

My comments regarding the military were tongue-in-cheek. I know they did not cause the afore mentioned damage in '96 and after.
I was scheduled to have lunch in the Twin Towers but due to the '96 explosion was treated to lunch in the gorgeous Winter Garden across the street. It too was damaged by the 9-11 disaster. I'm happy to say it was saved.

"No one will ever convince me it was anything other than a controlled demolition."

By coming to a conclusion before hearing ALL of the evidence you obviously dont care about reality or logic, only your own view of events.

Perhaps he has seen enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

I agree it definitely makes you think, but as an architecture student i can't really make that assumption that since they're similar size, that they can be studies for each other. Its just not the case, especially since building codes differ from region to region in the US alone. While overseas they kinda follow the NYC code, there's all sorts of different regulations, building materials, etc. that put these two buildings in a different ballpark

not to mention things like the quality of steel used, building codes, type of fire retardants used to protect said steel... etc

Besides, maybe some conclusions drawn from the investigation of wtc 7 may have led to better fire resistance of this new building... makes you think

read the article to find out the materials the building was made of.....wtc towers were fire-proofed this wasn't

Indeed. If you actually look into it, you will see that the engineers who designed and supplied materials for WTC's say that there is no way a fire could have caused such catastrophe. But of course you don't hear that info.

And c'mon lets use some logic. They are SKYscrapers, they are called that due to height. I can guarantee you that all possible scenarios for a building of that height have to be considered before construction...including things that could pose danger at those heights such as airplanes or fires. To say that engineers wouldn't plan for the worst case scenario and to still have structural integrity is ignorant.

Another way to look at it is that in the long history of steel buildings, a grand total of three are reputed to have fallen due to fire. All in the WTC complex.

Muted didn't really understand what I was saying then.

My point: There are a lot of factors to consider. I'm not sure any of us can make an accurate assumption based on the evidence.

It is ignorant to assume that since no steel building has failed due to fire that no steel building can fail due to fire. It's equivalent to saying that since I've never broken a bone while falling down the stairs, I never will. It's a bullshit assumption.

I agree, failure due to fire is a pretty bullshit reason for the WTC cases considering all the other shady business that went on, but it doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

Just because you 'think' you see something in a video, and because you solely trust your eyes, you should be aware that things are not always how you assume, nor will they ever be. There is a dynamic to fire that very few people have even begun to understand. I doubt a 30min pixel-ridden clip on YouTube really puts you in the position to understand the whole dynamic of a building collapse

I do think 9/11 was an inside job, but, that is due to my doubt in the governments' 'assessment'. Its no reason to be a fucking idiot when it comes to making assumptions on shitty evidence. The problem is the lack of evidence. Visual evidence is awesome, but not exactly reliable since your vision is very subjective, and we only know one perspective (maybe a few other different camera angles). On top of that, the only other evidence we have is the evidence that Uncle Sam feeds us... which sucks.

I don't have to 'splain nothin about my doubts. I doubt the evidence, there's nothing to explain except that there isn't enough there for me to make a formal conclusion. You, the believer in Youtube and shitty clips, have the Burden of Proof upon you. I do not find these things very trustworthy.

ZING!

sorry didn't see

wtf is that? gun shots!?

Gunshots... don't think so, but the fire was set by a fireworks show.... maybe it's ummm... fireworks?

WTF!
That's intense!
Looks like the phoenix is being reborn!
CRAZY!!!