WTC Building 7

[Preach]

The fire being there for several hours does not cause a huge building like this to collapse. Well, i dont know if there is a possibility but if it is, its low. So from a neutral point of view not really convincing.

The official FEMA report "admits": "Our best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence"...

The hypothesis is fire + damage, basically what you have mentioned. Thats right, aint it?

The iTunes end user license agreement specifies that use of the software to craft, or aid in the crafting of chemical and nuclear weapons is prohibited. Why? So that if someone goes ahead and does that, Apple can point to their end user license agreement and say "hey, it's not our fault, look here, we clearly stated this was prohibited. we can't be held accountable." i think when someone displays a sign of insecurity, it's a precautionary measure more than anything. therefore i like to speculate that that's why the thesis was formulated the way it was (and why no thesis displays absolute certainty, after all, this is the definition of a thesis.) Also, using one sentences to back up your lack of belief is vague. When you only quote that one sentence, it basically sounds like they are almost certain there has to be more to this. When you read this whole paragraph, it sounds more like the person doesn't want to make a definite claim in case he would end up being wrong lol:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue.

I have seen a video of a person doing some hundred miles per hour while being chased by cops, crashing into something, getting thrown out of the front windshield, only to stand up and shake his head a little bit as if to come to his senses after a mere faint. A nearly impossible occurrence, and yet it occurred. Let's open our minds to the notion that when two planes crash into a building, whatever we think we may have known about buildings collapsing and the after-effects those collapses would have on surrounding buildings, and how that would affect the collapse of a nearby building, is very much not up to par. Which means there is no such thing as an "expert" on this matter.

What you also failed to mention is that after FEMA released their report, the national institute of standards and technology (NIST) were authorized to undergo a 3-year long further investigation of the collapses of all three buildings. They proved that FEMA had been mistaken, and that there was a substantially higher amount of damage caused to building 7 than previously thought. I'm not gonna go into this in too much detail, research it yourself if you want, but footage exists that shows one of the building's walls giving in a few seconds before the north wall collapsed. Here's a piece from Wiki that is based on the NIST report:

A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis. The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure. NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 WTC by the end of 2007.

You seem pretty convinced that there's some other side to this story, so let me ask you then Sebastian, what are you looking for? If you say you're just curious or you want info, i'll kill you. Something drives you, I can tell from your posts, so let us in on that and maybe we can answer you in a satisfactory manner.

 

[Preach]

Btw. I'm not a chemist, engineer or entrepreneur, but I do know that there are standards to the steel alloys used in construction beams. I have had a real look into the construction of a rather large hanging bridge, and they wouldn't even use a rusty nail. No joke. Any sign of rust if it was like an area of 0,00000005cm^3, and the part was thrown away.

Anyway, my point is that if anyone feels like it, check out the net for information about the different alloy standards and which one was used for the world trade center building 7. Then look up the melting temperature for that particular alloy. Then find out what type of material was used for the ceilings and walls. I know in most office complexes, materials are used that nature would need thousands of years to devour. It's fair to assume that there was a lot of stuff in that building that would make the fires reach temperatures you couldn't get from burning a piece of wood. I'm not familiar with backup generator systems. I read about the diesel fuel pipes but I don't have a mental image of how that works in a structure, but nevertheless, diesel burns at 800-1000 degrees celcius. Steel melts, I think, at anywhere between 1200-2000 degrees. Let's say they used super-steel that melts at 1500 degrees. Several hours of exposure to the temperatures mentioned above that diesel burns at would ofcoursely affect the interior structural integrity. I didn't even mention all the plane fuel that I know for a fact burns at a 1000 degrees.

 

[Morris]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1 does a good job of debunking everything that was mentioned in this thread.

And for the love of God, there are pictures of the plane debris scattered all around the Pentagon. I can't believe people still question what hit the Pentagon.

 

[Duke]

Building 7 was probably pulled because, like an earlier link here stated, the fire dpt. couldn't contain the fire in building 7, and since letting it burn out completely would mean it'd have to de demolished later anyway and would pose a risk with all the diesel stored up in there (although diesel isn't really volatile, you still don't want a big raging fire on top of thousands of gallons of the stuff), it was just easier to pull it right there.

And thanks for that pic, Morry. Been looking for it for a while.

CT: CRUZE MISILLE HIT PENTAGON OMG I CANT BELIVE U DONT C!!


*picture showing pieces of aircraft*

 

[Sebastian]

Building 7 was probably pulled because

Puff and co say it collapsed due to fire and damage...now whats true?

Btw.: Does this Northwoods document really exist?

Additionally, i would not put an act like 9/11 past Bush and his crew...not after reading "Hybris" by Noam Chomsky and other books.

 

[PuffnScruff]

so the man who is considered the dumbest president in history by many is smart enough to pull this off? lol that is laughable on so many levels. plus saying " i wouldn't put it past them" or "i think it is possible that the u.s. govt would do this" is just lame and stupid. it doesn't offer anything. i wouldn't put it past a pig being able to fly one day, hey it is possible right, since anything is possible....

really, look into how many govt agencies and countries (at least two possibly 3 at the least) that would have been behind this. that is far too many people to keep a secret because the list of u.s. agencies is in the dozens, upwards of like 40, not to mention the local and state agencies.

the thing you need to understand about the DOD is they cover every angle. they look at things from all points of views and look at every scenario. operation northwoods only shows that the u.s. militay was able to plan terrorism against itself. what it didn't show was that it would be able to do this successfully.

it is also disputed that the operation northwoods documents are hoax, i don't know, only one person who wrote a book has ever really talked about them other than CT's

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm another good site about building 7

i'm starting to think sebastian has a bit of BDS in him

 

[Preach]

I took the liberty of making some photos do illustrate what I said above.

Building 7 before having been on fire for six or was it eight hours? Larger parts of the integrity of several floors, not only the bottom few ones, was compromised. The red bar in the middle represents the main beam that holds the whole thing together. Basically, if you've seen how a skyscraper is built, it's all beams creating a frame. The main beam holds this frame together. The main beam makes sure the skyscraper can withstand high speed winds and stormy weather.

Before the fire:

After having been on fire, making the very strong steel used to make the beams very hot. What happens to metal when it's very hot, before it's completely melted? Have you ever seen a sword being forged? After the fire:

Obviously, not only would the beams that go between the main beam and the outer skeleton beams of the building get ripped off, but the side that the building was slightly leaning towards would have anything that was made out of concrete or solid wood crushed. It was reported that seconds before the building collapsed, creaking sounds were heard. If the building integrity was on the brink of being destroyed completely, like I said, on one side of the building the steel beams would hold up until a certain point where the steel in the main beam got so hot that the building started leaning towards the heavier side, wind being a factor, and eventually, they gave in. I'm guessing this is what happened right before the creaking sounds were heard, which was the product of both some beams being ripped off and some that weren't that heated being bent. At this point, there is nothing to hold the whole thing up anymore. The building collapses. These images were made quickly, it didn't lean that much, but you get the point. You understand why this would make the building ultimately collapse?

 

[Preach]

End even if someone did pull the plug on it, it would be because the fatalities of the building falling over into another one and the prospect of a domino effect there was very present. I would pull the plug myself.

Explain your point of view verbally graphically, Sebastian.

 

[S. Fourteen]

Bacsically, nutty 9-11 people are lazy.

[news shot A]you can see smoke and fire being ejected from the building - must be demolition bombs

[news shot B]you can clearly see the second plane creating a draft moving the fire and smoke.

----

[a quote on a internet page] "it was a military plane"

[a homevideo shot by the lady who said that. she was in shock, looking at WTC from her apartment just a few blocks away. saw a plane flying really fast and it looked grey and it was the second crash] "it was a military plane"


so on and so on - even the WTC 7 - so BBC reported the collapse before it happened. nobody gave them the script too soon. BBC reports false information all the time.

ps. a fake video of a plane hitting the building is much easier to produce than planning and orchestrating the grand inside-job. you just end up going in circles.

 

[Sebastian]

so the man who is considered the dumbest president in history by many is smart enough to pull this off? lol that is laughable on so many levels.

I said he and his crew. Not bush alone. And no, its not laughable, actually its far away from it.

plus saying " i wouldn't put it past them" or "i think it is possible that the u.s. govt would do this" is just lame and stupid. it doesn't offer anything. i wouldn't put it past a pig being able to fly one day, hey it is possible right, since anything is possible....

Lame and stupid? Nah, again, far away from it. But your comparison is.

If you look through the near history of your country and your presidents, saying otherwise would be naive.

Im not saying Bush and co did it, but i do think its not totally absurd.

End even if someone did pull the plug on it, it would be because the fatalities of the building falling over into another one and the prospect of a domino effect there was very present. I would pull the plug myself.

Explain your point of view verbally graphically, Sebastian.

There is nothing to explain, graphically. Look, there are shot firer (or whatever you call it) who do think it looked like the building got pulled. It doesnt prove shit, yes. And i dont claim it does. What i do claim though is, that if these guys, who know what they are talking about more than you and i do, think, that it could have been "controlled demolition" (and they explain why, etc), then i can absolutely not understand why many people say its completely ridiculous to claim it got pulled. To me it sounds logically. But so does your "theory of fire + damage". So after having read a couple of thing i dont really know whats true. Simple as that.

 

[Preach]

I am a salesman. We sell cellphones and subscriptions. If I sell a cellphone with a subscription, the customer understands that he is losing money, and that by signing a contract the operator sponsors his phone, so it becomes cheaper by signing a contract than just using a sim card where the contract ran out or a pre-pay card. Beyond this I don't tell my customers anything more, because the more they know about how a sale works, the more shit they can fuck up.. not because it's what's good for them, but because soon as a human receives information they start to digest it, and make up an opinion. It's much like having an experience, it's chalked in your brain, it's not just a thought passing by. Wow, if everyone knew everything that us sellers talk about among ourselves lol. We're cynical, we're salesmen damnit! It's my job. When I have a customer, I get an idea of that customer's needs and then I narrow it down to a few models that match them - instead of showing them every available model. The more choices the have, the harder the time they have making a decision, and in the end, they may end up just saying "okay i'm gonna have to think about it" because it's all so overwhelming. After a period of doubt, they may end up making a bad decision because they over-thought it, and in the end, they might be disappointed. If I narrow it down and show them two or three models with three distinct differences and prices that all fit the customer's needs, the chance that he will purchase is greater. When people are buying refill cards for their pre-pay subscriptions, we have them in 150, 300 and 500NOK. However, when a customer says "hey I need a refill card" I say "okay, we have 300, 500, and 150". They always go for 300.

Where am I going with this? I am using mental illusions and tricks to "fool" a person into believing they really made a good decision and making sure they feel happy with it afterwards. I don't share all these details with my customers, because in six months, whatever I did or said or whatever phone they got would neither be a source of great distress and missery, nor great success and happiness. In the long run it doesn't make a difference. They needed a phone, they got a phone, they could have dwelled forever but I tricked them into not doing it sorta. Am I doing something morally wrong? No, I am helping them from being doubtful in their own decicions, I am helping them get a product that they obviously need since they are asking for it, and I'm making the whole thing smooth for them. It's like I'm using them, but c'mon, we don't live in the 1963 anymore. If you walk into a store where a seller works who is expected to reach a budget and expect him to put priority on you as a customer over his position with the company, you are a fool.

I think the same logic sort of applies. You are a peasant. Whatever their reason for pulling the plug was, we have to assume it was for a good reason right? I mean, I am open for extremities but what are the odds that whoever made that quote about "pulling it" is a madman who did it because he wanted to murder a bunch of people? I'm not trying to justify it if they really did pull the plug and are witholding information, but I certainly can understand why someone would feel uninclined to share it if you catch my drift. The building collapsed, people died, Osama is still at large in Pakistan and Iraq is in a fucking uproar and now America are talking about pulling their troops out and leaving the country in ruins lol. The world is a shitty place and a lot of shit happens and you are not supposed to have detailed information about all these things because they don't concern you. A revolution is some times needed, but people demonstrating in the streets because the state lied to them is not a better alternative for the world as a whole in the long run.

I just tried to speak from a potential perspective of someone who made the decision of pulling the plug and then witheld information by the way. The latter paragraph of this post doesn't necessarily represent my own ideas.

 

[Preach]

Also, within this context of me using my selling as an analogy, I'll also say that most people who agree to go on a tv show with their expertise has ulterior motives. I know a few other sellers who work at competitor stores and uh.. I consider myself an established salesman even though I am pretty fresh, but I could kick most these people's ass in being an all-around good sales and service person. I don't believe anything I see on any TV channel, even Discovery. It makes me think and do research though on my own, but because some expert says something that four hundred thousand other experts debunked as idiocy on television, i don't think uh.. how do i word myself here.. i'd trust this expert 10% max. Because in a way in my field I'm supposed to be if not an expert then at least a person who holds a portion of expertise. As are those other sellers I talked about. They're far from it though lol trust me. And they may think the exact same thing about me. So being an "expert" means nothing, it means you spent more time reading. It doesn't mean you have better intuition. An educated person with slow motoric skills might come off as more intelligible, but a person who never lifted a book but could solve a rubick's cube in a few minutes is pretty genius. The whole idea of an "expert" on buildings-that-have-been-on-fire-for-an-extended-period-of-time-demolitions is laughable lol.

 

[Sebastian]

A revolution is some times needed, but people demonstrating in the streets because the state lied to them is not a better alternative for the world as a whole in the long run.

WTF???? Shut up Rizzle. Or be a part of the american government.

 

[Preach]

You are totally misunderstanding me, my German friend. I am not proposing the idea that it is okay for a government to lie to its people - which is why I said some times a revolution is needed.

What I meant to say is that regardless of what really happened or what the real motives were, by now, the hatred for America is massive in the world. Back in the 1800-1900 years transition when Europeans shipped over to America, they were greeted by the statue of liberty in all her grace, holding the tablet that refers to the date when the declaration of independence was created and America became an independent state. America was founded on violence and persecution. If it weren't for slavery, America may not have been as big today as it was. First of all, without the slaves there would have been no civil war. The civil war in America is pretty recent if you think about it. About 120 years ago. Your great grandfather's great grandfather probably fought in that war if you are an American (speaking to the general population, not you Sebastian, you germ (see what i just did there? Eww, germs!)) If you don't know that kids take from their parents you are stupid, and from the gun violence currently displayed in the states compared to other countries in the world, even when looking at it proportionally, it's pretty obvious that some of the violent ideas from the civil war probably still sort of sit in the American society. Not to mention that prior to the civil war, there is even more violent history to the becoming of America. The persecution of the native americans, the reckless gold diggers.. America's history is filled with greed and hatred, but at the same time, it's full of heroes. They are all war heroes. Who doesn't associate John Wayne with America or vica versa?

All this violence taken into account, Americans have a way about them. They have pride, they have dignity, the majority seem to think they are in charge of their own security, not the police. I don't think this mentality is reflected elsewhere in the western world to the extent you see it in the US. Over here, I don't even think about carrying a weapon, shit if I get stopped by the police and they find it I'm fucked. I don't even believe in violence. One dude was killed in my town the past thirty years, wtf. An equal size American small-town probably bred at least three serial killers. Low blow jokes aside, what I meant with the riot remark was that Americans are fucking fucked up in the head. Again, I know there are some cool Americans out there, I'm just speaking about the stereotypical "American". Probably three fourths of your population I'd bet. The moment they think the state is robbing them of their liberty they would never give it a rest. Do you see any good coming from publishing an article about something that's in the past now anyway? What's gonna happen, some guy's gonna go to jail for making a bad decision in a situation no man has ever had to be in before? What would publishing details about WTC7 accomplish? "The truth"? Oh you righteous motherfucker. Most people are on a need-to-know basis because most people are weak and can't handle truths. It makes them do silly things like arm themselves with a weapon and kill someone or forget that the universe doesn't circulate around their giant heads. Which is why they continue to withhold information. The reason why they did so to begin with probably had something to do with the fact that two terrorist planes just ran into the two buildings next to it and was deemed classified information at the time being probably.

I bet you didn't even think that far.

 

[Sebastian]

What I meant to say is that regardless of what really happened or what the real motives were, by now, the hatred for America is massive in the world.

You know what? I think they (the government, cia and co, all people who voted bush, etc) deserve it!

 

[Preach]

yes. you are entirely missing the point.

the concept of witholding information is for the greater good when the action is performed by a civilized person, fair assumtion, no? whether or not the person who saw this greater good was in a position or possessed the ability to make this call is, in hindsight, irrelevant, right? because by now, what has happened has happened. by now, the government can either continue to seal the records if they contain sensitive information that has been withheld, or they can release them and potentially have to deal with riots or similar ring effects.

the point isn't that it's right or wrong, it's that you are a peasant are supposed to assume that the building was destroyed by the terrorist actions and while that doesn't cover the truth entirely, it's good enough for you probably. it's only your obsessive human tendencies that makes it hard for you to let go. become super-human like me and you'll see.

 

[Sebastian]

Rizzle, you are talking crap. Witholding information for the greater good, etc...bullshit!

whether or not the person who saw this greater good was in a position or possessed the ability to make this call is, in hindsight, irrelevant, right?

Wrong!

by now, the government can either continue to seal the records if they contain sensitive information that has been withheld, or they can release them and potentially have to deal with riots or similar ring effects.

It is the peoples right to be told the truth and not to be lied to. Who are these people to decide what information to be told? They are doing it out of egoistical reasons, out of greed, to reach their own goals. Simple as that.

When i personally decide not to tell my gf that i kissed another girl once when i was drunk, just because i think it didnt mean shit and in the end, it only would cause problems and so i decide not to tell her....im doing it because im an egoistical fuck. Im doing it for my own good. Its just wrong. She has the moral right to be told the truth. Just like the people have the right to know what was going on (and of course its not only about 9/11, this concept is adaptive to every other event too).

 

[Preach]

you obviously have no insight into neurology.

each human brain projects a different world with different wrongs and different rights. essentially, from a psychological point of view it's wrong to use any sentence with the words "is/are" in it. "he is ugly" "that is stupid" "you are wrong" are all just perceptions from one point of view. do some research and you will always find someone who thinks otherwise. the people's right to know "the truth" is a social construct and holds no weight in the fields of science or mathematics. it's not an issue that those things can deal with. since reality is measured by science and accomplishment/failure is measured in numbers, i use those two things as examples. our view of the world is distorted, our perception of ourselves is distorted, and in the 21st century, i believe psychology and quantum physics will make great advancements. defining the human brain and understanding it is the key to an improved future, not releasing documents about something that's out of the world now anyway. osama is in pakistan. bush isn't getting at him any time soon. okay, example time. you have an argument with your friend. he thinks muslims are bad and even the good ones are ticking bombs. you disagree.

if your friend really feels that way, it's due to a number of events that took place in the universe that he had no control over. he can control his own body, but not the environment in which the body finds itself, which means he is never in control of anything. feelings are caused by expecting something in your brain and then experiencing the real deal and measuring them up against each other. do we even know what determines what our impulses will be, what the first thing we think will be? genes? electromagnetic fields would probably somehow affect the process too, as is known when exposing people to such fields. they have similar experiences to people who are convinced they were taken by aliens. another factor in this is your memory, which isn't entirely made up by yourself as well. what people do to you, say to you, what you see all changes who you are and leaves a print in your brain that is a part of any future calculation the brain does.

there are as many atoms in you as there are you's in the sun, and as many suns in the universe as there are quarks in the sun probably. lol. frequencies and energy travels from here to there and amidst all this, you have yourself who you seem to think is in complete control of your emotions and opinions. in the example above, your friend's opinion, in the grand scheme of things, is as "random" as yours. a person who is aware of this will advocate both sides or neither, but ultimately have his own opinion on the matter as well. the difference is you seem to not understand why america is the way it is. you see the violence, you read the history, but i don't get the sense that you grasp the higher connection between things. Blacks were taken as slaves. At that point in time, whites didn't know any better. Dark was and always has been considered an evil and "bad" color. White is the light. Another example of how unfortunate coincidences and lack of understanding of neurology made a bunch of people act selfishly or irrationally. The same thing happened with the WTC7 building maybe, I'm not saying it did, but since we are having this conversation now.. If the building WAS demolished and they DID hide the details, the person who did so is his own person in his own universe with his own rights and wrongs and you are not a person to say that he is wrong or right. Neither is anyone else. Social constructs give us the idea that we have more a say in things than we really do.

The discussion about whether or not the people has a right to know is up for grabs, but the negative effect it would have in the population of america and the rest of the world, if it was confirmed that the government lied, is an undeniable fact. You can either go against the grain until you die, or learn to live with things the way they are. Pretty simple choice to me.

 

[Morris]

Btw.: Does this Northwoods document really exist?

Yes the Northwoods documents exist and are not a fraud. However, the point of the documents was not that the U.S. was actually going to pull of terrorist attacks on itself. The U.S. was going to stage what appeared to be terrorist attacks, such as exploding a ship in waters around Cuba and then hold mock funerals and release a fake casualty list. Or they were going to make it look like an army base was attacked by Cubans.

Note the Northwoods documents don't suggest that the U.S. would actually attack itself.