[Closed] I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories... ever, but....

so WT7 wasn't hit by a plane, had a few office fires, then completely collapses. Sounds plausible.

If it had been just a couple of little old office fires, id be suspicious.

That Rainbow vid has to be a double bluff....surely

I love the rainbow.
Thanks for sharing.

My instant assumption, perhaps due to other things that were in the news that summer, and the obvious symbolism of the target, that it was the work of anti-capitalists..

so WT7 wasn't hit by a plane, had a few office fires, then completely collapses. Sounds plausible.

However your tone suggests you think the conspiracy, the detonation theory by unknown and unidentified nefarious agents to do it secretly for unknown reasons is somehow more plausible - could you explain this please?

As noticed calling it a few office fires is somewhat understating what actually happened

so WT7 wasn't hit by a plane, had a few office fires, then completely collapses. Sounds plausible.

Major fires on across several floors of the building. Failed sprinkler system to no fire control, major weakening and failure of lower support beams and trusses leading to the collapse of the upper floors. Sounds perfectly plausible to me. And although it was the first building to collapse due solely to fire damage, the building regs have now changed to presume a lack of functioning sprinkler system and water pressure, as was the case here.

You can just imagine how the initial planning got under way.

George Dubbya - 'I need ideas damn you. What excuses can I use to start a war in Afghanistan. We have never even accused them of having WMD's and beside they're too backward to have created them'

Adviser - 'I know Mr President Sir - and bear with me as you may not take to this at first - but how about we fly 2 plane loads of people in to the twin towers. And, just in case the planes don't do the business we can rig the buildings up with high explosives. Only cost the lives of say 3 maybe 4000 Amerkan citizens.'

'We then blame that Bin Lid bloke - him wot does all the dodgy news reporting for that AlJeezuz lot on TV'

Dubya - *pauses, thinks (very very slowly) and smiles* - 'Genius idea - think we might just be able to pull it off. But, how's about we also blow up half the Pentagon and force a plane to crash in Pennsylvania also just to add to the confusion and to murder a few more of our own.'

Nah, didn't think so. My money is on that Bin Lid bloke actually having done it (well, the organisation he represented anyway).

Cheers

Danny B

No-one's mentioned the angle of one (or both?) planes as it/they hit, spreading impact damage, fuel and components across several floors. That by itself probably overloaded the fire suppression kit fitted at the time. ObL had studied engineering.

indeed there were far easier and less killy ways for them to have achieved this goal

What exactly is the goal supposed to have been?

I love the fact that loads of people have jumped down my throat on this when I have clearly stated several tmes that I don't believe the conspiracy..Merely that the engineering evidence about wt7 (the one that no plane hit) made me think... oooh errrr what if?

Pleased with the engineering responses about how the fire could have made that third building collapse, that's the sort of thing I was looking for so thanks for that.... on that note though one thing I don't understand (and I'm looking for someone to help me get my head around it) is why wt7 collapsed so uniformly and why was there no larger sections of steel left intact?

The fires in wt7 look more sporadic and as it's a wider building than it is tall, it's got little/no aviation fuel in it and even if it was roaring with office fires that do make some of the steel fail you'd expect it to collapse at diffferent rates on different sides wouldn't you?

As I say, I'm not trying to convince anyone, more the opposite, I'd like someone to give some insight into how it could have happened in a way that looks so much like a controlled demolition but by the fires..

And for the people who keep jumping on everyone about the main trade centres... we are talking about wt7 (the one that no planes hit) Yes I've repeated myself.

As I say, I'm not trying to convince anyone, more the opposite, I'd like someone to give some insight into how it could have happened in a way that looks so much like a controlled demolition but by the fires..

The weight of building pressing downwards is huge, even compared to the sideways impact of a plane hitting it. Planes arne't very heavy compared to other large structures.

So in the event of a structural failure, I would not be surprised to see it collapse downwards. As above, we don't really have anything to which to compare it. It's nothing like a smokestack or even a 20-odd storey tower block like we see being blown up. They don't tend to demolish giant steel framed skyscrapers very often, and if they did I'm sure they'd dismantle them piece by piece to salvage the steel.

I have clearly stated several tmes that I don't believe the conspiracy

Merely that the engineering evidence about wt7 (the one that no plane hit) made me think... oooh errrr what if?

As I say, I'm not trying to convince anyone, more the opposite, I'd like someone to give some insight into how it could have happened in a way that looks so much like a controlled demolition but by the fires..

Well have you read this post on this page from an engineer

Just to give an engineers view, I did a fair amount of study on this during uni. The fire precautions in the tower was ok the intumescent cladding was a bit shoddy but in 99% of fires it would have been ok. With the damage caused by the planes strike the poorly fitted cladding came away.
Modern Fire protection mainly looks at single source fires, steps to control it and give time for the people above the fire to escape, they are not based about 5 floors starting in a fully engaged fire.
The largest limiting factor in a building fire is the amount of air if can get not the amount of fuel that can burn, the aviation fuel was a great accelerant to get the real fuel load burning the paper and the flame retardant office furniture.
With 5 floors worth of windows blown out there was plenty of air getting in and a fire burning paper and wood at stoichiometric rates you an see temp of over 1000C in the flame, steels structural fail tep is well exceeded so is no shock that the floors involved with the fire would collapse.
The structure of most high buildings is made to cover the static weight of the floors above with a extra margin for safety, around 50% if i remember right (I'm a fire engineer not civ so I could be out on that) but that's static weight the force of the top dropping though the 5 damage stories would have been like a bomb.

So why did the 3 tower drop? The same as the first 2 massive uncontrolled fire, and plenty of big holes for air to get in.

There is no need for explosives.

so you dont believe it and yet you are go oooh errrr what if -WHY?

Because he doesn't CURRENTLY believe it but saw some compelling evidence and sought a more expert opinion on it. That's not so unreasonable is it? And he did read the engineers' posts and thanked them.

Wind it in a bit Junkyard otherwise you risk turning this thread into another bitch-fest which none of us need.

Why do you think the building collapse looks like a controlled demolition? Why do you think it doesn't look like a spontaneous collapse? How many buildings have you seen collapse?

Probably because he watched the video and listened to what all the engineering experts had to say .I suspect nobody on here has ever seen a building collapse like WT7 unless it was a controlled demolition .

[i]which none of us need. [/i]

but which, after a certain point, always seems inevitable.

Wind it in a bit Junkyard otherwise you risk turning this thread into another bitch-fest which none of us need.

The OP has a voice why not let them answer for themselves?

I am not trying to make it a bitch-fest and fail to see how that phrase makes it less likely to happen

I shall withdraw from the thread

Al Qaeda are hellbent on causing massive unrest within the West, especially the US.
Surely then if it had been a US CIA plot, Al Qaeda would have done more damage to them by denying conducting 9/11 and trying to expose the dark forces. Another reason not to belive the conspiracies.

The fires in wt7 look more sporadic

Not really.

[img] [/img]

and as it's a wider building than it is tall

No it isn't ! 😐

How much "looking into" this have you actually done.

It was twice as tall as it was wide.

And four times as tall as it was deep.

[img] [/img]

so WT7 wasn't hit by a plane, had a few office fires, then completely collapses. Sounds plausible.

yeah, whats more plausible is US security services rigged a building, that wasn't even going to be hit by by a plane with explosives, to make it fall down, for no apparent reason.

maybe the building falling down had something to do with two multi- million ton buildings falling down very close to it. Foundations would have been ruined, external structures weakened massively.

but no, without anyone knowing about it, security services snuck into three buildings and planted tons of explosives, without anyone seeing or noticing the piles of explosives.

I'd say the outcome of a plane hitting a huge building is so hard to predict, it could happen again tomorrow, and you'd get a totally different outcome.

for no apparent reason

Ah, but your forgetting the Gold....

[i]but your forgetting the Gold.... [/i]

they've been using those MIB forgetting pencil things on (nearly) everyone?

WT7 wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by a world trade centre, that's quite a big deal.

konabunny - Member

What exactly is the goal supposed to have been?

Conspiracies don't need a goal! They're just what gubmints do!

It's the best question though. Justification for war innit? Except that it's a rubbish casus belli, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Afghanistan very little, inconveniently US allies did. If you believe that the attack was designed for this reason you get left with the idea it was a massive conspiracy executed with miraculous and unconvincing skill and mercilessness, while at the same time, incompetently not being aimed at the right countries. Sense, this makes none.

Some folks believe it was about covering up the "missing pentagon trillions", which is even less compelling, because there aren't any missing pentagon trillions and the story wasn't covered up. This all seems to come from the fact that Don Rumsfeld mentioned it in a press conference on September the 10th- but just kind of doesn't notice that it'd all been announced years before, it wasn't news at all. In fact it was a more or less forgotten story until Rumsfeld mentioned it. Not really how you Hush Things Up.

Must be a least a month since we had a long dragged out 911 conspiracy thread.

The killer blow to conspiracy theories is the fact that the most powerful man in the world couldn't even keep the details of his personal cigar moistener secret, even though there was only one other, (and apparently willing) participant in that particular conspiracy. What chance when what we are now talking about would rate as a massively immoral and illegal, assault on their nation, which would have necessitated complicity on the part of literally hundreds if not thousands of people?

Junkyard, you are an argumentitive sod.

Can you not establish the difference between my statement that it made me think... "ooh err what if?" ...Which means considering what has been said and looking/discussing further.... than being someone having a founded view and spouting that the conspiracy is correct.

As has been stated, I read the engineering post and thanked them. I have then asked a question which seems to have gone over your head (likle most of the content of my posts) about how it could have collapsed so uniformly when it is such a wide building and why there was no large steel members left.... and again I'm asking if anyone has an engineering explanation as to how this could have happened, I'M CATAGORICALLY NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS IS PROOF THAT THIS VIDEO IS CORRECT. The response post you have qouted doesn't address these aspects.

You need to learn to read ALL of what people type, not just the bits you want to.

However I guess you'll read the bits of this post that you choose to and ignore the other parts taking what I have said out of context and quoting parts of a sentence/paragraph like you have done with my other posts, so on that note I'm not going to bother dignifying your posts with a response again if you continue to read between the lines rather than actually listen/reading what I am actually saying.

Pah!!

You're all wrong. It WAS a conspiracy, but it was Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Tinkerbell and Bigfoot who did it. I'm afraid the truth is it all started when Santa and Bigfoot started showing off in front of the girls and they both dared each other. Beer has a lot to answer for

Junkyard, you are an argumentitive sod.

No matter what you say

Good start. Do go on.

you won't change him

I see. Like that is it? Interesting.

It's almost beautiful!

Well, they do say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Scuzz...I have also pointed out what he is doing and that I won't dignify him with another reponse unless he actually starts to read what I've written properly.... but to answer your question... yes!

I guess this might ultimately fuel an argument that gets so hot the upper layers of STW get so hot that they fall down on the lower echelons and the whole thing will end up flattened in a few seconds... eeek

how it could have collapsed so uniformly

It didn't? The lower east side of the building went first, taking out the west side as it went, this then allowed the top floors to come down in one piece as there nothing left to support them. The official engineering investigation and report covers this. Wikipedia also has a decent overview.

That's not what the video evidence shows.

From what I can see the whole thing drops together in about 5 seconds flat.

Watch the video I linked and skip to about 9 minutes in and watch the next 10 mins. It's around there somewhere.

And in the interests of sanity, from the NIST report in 2008:

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

Can't get the link to embed, take a look:

I actually recommend it, there's some pretty engineering images, I like this one:
[img] [/img]

Junkyard, my comment to you was not meant to be inflammatory, rather a friendly hand on shoulder moment. I apologise unreservedly if it appeared otherwise.

As for the OP yes he does have a voice and he used it, you just seem to have missed it.

I'm not going to bother dignifying your posts with a response

Or mine by the look of it 🙁

Sorry Neal, somehow completely missed your post.

That's an interesting picture actually, so that building was also a mini sky scraper, it looks different to the video of it collapsing, it looks wider and less tall in the video.

That's because there was other buildings in front of it, obscuring more than half of WTC7.

Videos can be misleading 😉

Indeed they can.

Has anyone got a link to a video of it coming down from another angle where you can see it fully?

That's an interesting picture actually, so that building was also a mini sky scraper, it looks different to the video of it collapsing, it looks wider and less tall in the video.

Hold on, does that mean the videos of it collapsing are faked, and it is being held in area 51????

my god, where will this end???

I find all this very frustrating.

Some dicks flew some planes into the WTC. A lot of people died. All that was real.

If someone's expert knowledge leads them to the conclusion that those buildings would have behaved differently on being hit by a plane then that person either needs to:

- update their understanding in light of the largest real-life experiment in banging planes into buildings ever performed; or

- point to actual evidence that something else caused the effect seen. A counter-hypothesis about the cause of the collapse which ignores the fact of the planes being flown into the buildings is almost offensively insane in its stupidity.

A lot is going on in the world that is real, but also subtle and difficult to understand. This made-up rubbish is a fatuous distraction from the important business of trying to comprehend it.

And if the OP doesn't even believe this gibberish himself I don't understand why we're all discussing it. We'd be better off working out whether Verbal Kint really was Keyser Söze all along.

Pictures can be misleading too.

You will always see this image on conspiracy websites, to back up the "few small fires" claim they tend to make.

[img] [/img]

I've not watched the video in the OP. But I'll bet a pound to a penny that image is in there somewhere.

And I'll bet this one isn't.

[img] [/img]

Because it shows the "few small fires" lie for what it is.

You're all wrong. It WAS a conspiracy, but it was Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Tinkerbell and Bigfoot who did it.

B'll'ks smelly feet, they are fictional characters from your youf.

Aliens I tell you, it was the body snatchers, everyone panic

chilled76 - Member
That's not what the video evidence shows.
From what I can see...

Ah right so your continued argument(itive) is based on what you think you see, tho' you have already declared your lack of expert civil engineering knowledge (ignorance and incompetence - using the true meanings of the words, not employing them as an insult).

What you see is not necessarily what happened - as any magician/conjourer attests

Aliens I tell you, it was the body snatchers, everyone panic

Will there be probing?

Only mind probing - so everyone on here is safe 😆

sugdenr... I was referring to the fact it looks in the video it collapses on both sides at the same time... rather than in stages like the report says..... hence stating what the video shows.

Do you want me to freeze frame it and get a spirit level out?

I forgot you had to be qualified to tell when something LOOKS like it all moves together within a time frame the eye can see.

And I'm not arguing anything, so to say I've employed a continued argument is a bit short sighted (and unecassarily aggressive) as all I've actually done is ask if anyone can enlighten me as to how that happened... I genuinley want to know, it's not a rhetorical question or an argument. It looks like it all moves together, yet the report states otherwise? Genuine question, I'm not trying to state anything so by definition that can't be an argument.

🙄

Lol.. nealglover's second image comes up as 'FORBIDDEN'

Government cover up!!!

I'm genuinely curious here, but how many times has STW done a WTC7 thread. Or even threads with at least a page of WTC7 posts involved?

Where's laser eyes when you need him.

Only mind probing - so everyone on here is safe

Disappointed.

OK cap'n sensible for a moment - the video actually shows what scuzz posted, the central section collapses first you can see the penthouse drop, this then spreads laterally to pull down the sides.
We are all too tainted by watching fred dibnah droppping chimneys, skyscrapers are very different and rather like monocoques, a single failure rapidly overloads all other members. the WTC towers were a relatively novel design at the time because they used perimiter frame not traditional primary central core built around the lift shaft.
So the video is consistent, no mystery.

Do you want me to freeze frame it and get a spirit level out?

It's already been done, I've seen it, and it is on YouTube somewhere

If you can't find it, let me give you a brief synopsis..........

It's doesn't fall level 😉

neals image
[img] [/img]

how odd it works in preview and on another thread where I incorrectly posted it
LINK

Cheers squire

(It's showing fine here so not sure what the problem is ?)

You can clearly see the east penthouse going first, before a few seconds later the rest of it comes down:

That's exactly what I've been looking for. Nice one. Shows the flaw in the argument of the video I posted.

Thanks for that.

All this wouldn't have been necessary if the OP had looked at the last, really long 9/11 thread, which I think Kaesae instigated, which also had lots about Tower 7, including the detailed reports into the building failure, which I posted links to. Several engineering and fire control types have done it for me, so thank you.
It's all so much easier to believe a YouTube video though...

It's all so much easier to believe a YouTube video though...

seems the spanish can build a building which burns for 24 hours, with more intense fires than WT7 yet only the top floors ( eventually ) collapse, not the whole building which also went on fire

so there we have it a completely different buildings built with a reinforced central concrete core did not completely collapse in a fire but still needed to be taken down and rebuilt

Why bother going to the trouble of blowing it up [WT7] if it would have been left like this anyway?
[img] [/img]

I like that, good question.

Different buildings in behaving differently shocker

seems the spanish can build a building which burns for 24 hours, with more intense fires than WT7 yet only the top floors ( eventually ) collapse, not the whole building which also went on fire

Can they build one that remains standing after flying planes into two neighbouring 1775 foot tall, 104 storey buildings, and having them collapse 400 feet away ?

If that had happened, your pointless comparison might be relevant.

Did that happen ?

seems the spanish can build a building which burns for 24 hours, with more intense fires than WT7 yet only the top floors ( eventually ) collapse, not the whole building which also went on fire

Big clue to that one...... its a cast in situ concrete frame. Plus it wasn't weakened by a big plane going through the side.

Steel can have an inherent HPA factor (fire rating) but 99.999% has an applied fire rating. This can be damaged and as such the performance of the steel is somewhat reduced.

Plus it wasn't weakened by a big plane going through the side.

WTC7 wasnt hit by a plane, but by debris from tower 2 coming down. This apparently wasn't a factor in the collapse.

Sorry I was comparing it with the towers. Normally the Spanish building seems to act as a direct comparison for this collapse.

If you're talking about the "pull it" building then I believe it was hit by substantial debris from the North Tower.

but 99.999%

So that's a made up statistic? Can't beat a good cold hard fact when arguing a point.

seems the spanish can build a building which burns for 24 hours, with more intense fires than WT7 yet only the top floors ( eventually ) collapse, not the whole building which also went on fire

Just when you think the question has been finally resolved someone comes up with a blinder like that.

It's starting to look like 9/11 might have been an inside job after all.

I'm going to go with big insurance scam I think.

It's starting to look like 9/11 might have been an inside job after all.

I'm going to go with big insurance scam I think

So was osama the patsy or the underwriter?

whatnobeer - Member

WTC7 wasnt hit by a plane, but by debris from tower 2 coming down. This apparently wasn't a factor in the collapse.

Except the bit where it set it on fire, and prevented the fire from being fought 😉

Lots of people come back with the "buildings don't collapse like this" and that's absolutely true- set a skyscraper on fire normally, and sprinkler systems will kick in, fire services will arrive and attack the blaze. Also it'll start in one small place then spread, rather than starting from a large base. So it's no wonder it didn't act like a typical fire. (if it had, no doubt that'd be proof of a conspiracy)

I like the truthers on this though- some argue that the investigation's simulations don't accurately recreate the collapse (they're not supposed to incidentally- they're supposed to recreate the initiation of the collapse, not the full fall). But others argue that the simulations are [i]too[/i] accurate, and that this is proof of the conspiracy. And the very best believe both, because the only thing better than one theory is two, even when they're completely contradictory

I suspect nobody on here has ever seen a building collapse like WT7 unless it was a controlled demolition

Sorry I was comparing it with the towers. Normally the Spanish building seems to act as a direct comparison for this collapse.

So..... was the Spanish building hit by a huge plane then ?

Because fit wasn't.

How on earth is it a "direct comparison" 😐