Does the demolition of the Stardust hotel in Las Vegas....

[Aviation Pro]

...remind anyone of another collapse of another building? Um, like, World Trade Center 7? Check out the video here (http://www.nytimes.com) and I'm surprised they didn't classify the footage.

[Sammy Pepys]

1. No.

1) They didn't fly a plane into the Stardust.

2) No one was in the Stardust when it collapsed.

[helderheid]

2. No one flew a plane into building 7.

But I'll give you #2

[FourScore]

89. Some photos

Notice how perfectly the building collapsed into itself in a neat pile, and how little damage is on the surrounding buildings.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7.html#rubble


(Hi, Helderheid! :hi: )

[Whoa_Nelly]

7. WTC7 was the third building to fall on 9/11

No plane flew into it. There were no people in it.


Half-way through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge,
streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. It had been evacuated; there were no casualties.

[helderheid]

9. I didn't know it had been evacuated!

:wow:

[Whoa_Nelly]

18. The building was evacuated at 9AM on 9/11

It housed, the following companies and Federal agencies:

(from the wiki entry, but I know there are many other sources...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

7 World Trade Center housed Salomon Smith Barney; American Express Bank International; Standard Chartered Bank; Provident Financial Management; ITT Hartford Insurance Group; First State Management Group, Inc.; Federal Home Loan Bank; and NAIC Securities.


The position of Building 7 in relation to the other WTC buildings before September 11, 2001.
The government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Other info:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

Building 7 was not hit by any aircraft, and apparently did not suffer massive damage from the violent destruction of either of the Twin Towers. Small fires were observed in a few different parts of the building prior to its "collapse." Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph.

Evacuation

Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM. The area around the building was evacuated in the hour before the collapse. Photographer Tom Franklin, who took the famous photograph of firemen raising the American flag, said:

Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven. 1
There are no photographs that show large fires in Building 7. Tom Franklin did not take any photos of the building before heeding firemen's orders to evacuate the area. Had there been large fires, one would expect that the professional photographer would have documented them.

Destruction

Building 7 underwent a total structural collapse at 5:20 PM. 2 Although there were few people in the area to witness its destruction, several videos captured the event. Like the collapses of the Twin Towers, the collapse of Building 7 commenced suddenly and was over in seconds. At first the penthouse, which rests on central columns, began to drop. Within a second the entire building began to drop as a whole, falling into its footprint in a precisely vertical fashion. The destruction of Building 7, which is not explained by the official theory, looked exactly like a standard controlled demolition.


In under seven seconds Building 7 was transformed from a skyscraper to a tidy rubble pile.
It is commonly believed that "ancillary damage" from the collapses of the Twin Towers led to the collapse of WTC 7. In fact Building 7 was separated from the North Tower by Building 6 and Vesey Street. A photograph of its north facade taken in the afternoon shows isolated small fires, and not even a single window was broken.



In under seven seconds Building 7 was transformed
from a skyscraper to a tidy rubble pile.


Page with many photos prior to, during, and after building collapse,:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7.html

[Kingshakabobo]

39. Uh, yeah. A building had partially fallen on it. It was engulfed in a large fire.

This guy, a fireman, was on MSNBC talking about how the building lost its structural integrity.

Yes, it was evacuated.

[Twist_U_Up]

41. pssssst

you left out the pics with the massive structural damage and the huge fires.
Just sayin

[Kingshakabobo]

44. Yeah, that smoke is from a toaster left plugged in.

[Contrite]

58. Much of that smoke is from below WTC7.

If you watch the videos you can see that it is. Also in the BBC video the building appears fire- and smoke-free prior to its collapse 20 minutes later.

Not to mention the explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWFVzBdM5s

[Kingshakabobo]

64. What does the video, of the north side, have to do with smoke and damage on the south?

I DID notice the witness on the video said "there was a clap of thunder and then the building fell"........maybe lightning brought down WT7?? Huh? Huh? (since CTers REFUSE to acknowledge similes)

Seriously, the one or two "booms" sound ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like an actual demolition as evidenced by the video in the OP.

I'll say it again:

The one or two "booms", heard in the WT7 video, sound NOTHING LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!! An actual CD makes a distinctive unmistakable series of loud booms/explosions.


I guess CTers will have to invent, in their minds, some other method for silent explosives. I guess it IS true that necessity is the mother of invention.......and CTers NEED a lot of new technology to explain their kooky theories.

[Contrite]

76. I've seen all the videos out there.

The issue was smoke. Smoke was rising from the bottom of the WTC7. There were plumes rising from below between two waterfront buildings. Explosions were heard across the bay at that same time. There is no disputing there were explosions.

[Kingshakabobo]

80. Then you wouldn't mind providing a link to that audio?

I want to hear explosions like in the OP. A CD makes a distinct loud series of multiple loud reports.....See: OP.

[Contrite]

82. Did you see the one of the workers at the pay phone?

Another video from that same time (in fact, I've seen both together so maybe it's the same video) shows firefighters running away from WTC7 stating that it's going to collapse. There is a loud explosion and one of them says, "Hear that? That building is coming down". It would be good to know if he was one of the firefighters who later said that they definitely heard and saw explosions in the buildings.

[Twist_U_Up]

67. Im sure that you would like me to believe that.

It's comments like this that show the 9/11 debunkers level of ignorance.
People who truly have common sense and an unbiased, open and scientific mind will see that there's more than just coincidence here. I just wish more of my fellow Americans would lose their fear, and not be so afraid of what might be truth. What's wrong with another private investigation? What's there to hide or what are we so afraid to uncover?

[Kingshakabobo]

70. You can have all the private investigations you want.

Just expect to be called on your bullshit when you make ridiculous claims that the building wasn't involved in a major fire.

[Contrite]

84. You know, I would be fine be being proven wrong to question the OCT.

This is not about being right or wrong, it's about finding the truth. The government has been known to lie to us about some rather important things, you know. There is no reason to disbelieve they are lying about this. We know for sure that NORAD lied; even the 9/11 commission said so. IMO, that's one of the worst lies of all--they stood down while thousands of people died. And how about the EPA saying that the air was safe, when they knew it was not? What about the people who have died or are dying as a result of that lie?

How many do you think is an acceptable number of lies?

[DrBlix]

93. Collapse of WTC building 7 Video

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

[Contrite]

98. Freeze the frames on that one and watch the squibs. n/t

[Sammy Pepys]

13. Sorry...

I'm not buying into tinfoil comparisons between the Stardust Hotel and the WTC.

The one comparison I'll sign on to is that when a building collapses, whether by contorlled demolition or some other force, it's usually pretty messy.

[Aviation Pro]

16. Have you examined the evidence....

...or are you unwilling to examine the evidence?

[Sammy Pepys]

19. I'm extremely willing to examine any evidence at all..

...but so far the evidence presented by the "non-mainstream theorists" (for lack of a better term) just doesn't pass muster for me or many other folks.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. You are in the minority here. Doesn't make you wrong, but you should at least

know what the facts are.

Apparently the "Mainstream" didn't do too good of a job informing you that WTC#7 wasn't hit by a plane.

You are not alone in that respect.

So what evidence do you rely on?

[greyl]

25. Where? nt

[Sammy Pepys]

27. Perhaps in the context of this forum I'm in the minority..

...and I accept that.

I also retract my smarmy statement about the plane...I had not been reading carefully enough to make the differentiation between building 7 and the two towers that got hit by the plane.

But I have not seen any evidence from the conspiracy side that hasd convinced me there is anything to it. Clearly, this threads purpose is to draw some parallels between the collapse of the Stardust and the collpase of building 7, with the intention of suggesting that because the two share similar characteristics Building 7s demolition must be intentional. Not thick enough for me. If you've got more, post it here.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. I think that whether WTC #7 was brought down intentionally or accidentally

will never be proved either way, because all the evidence is long gone.

However, there is tons of evidence that the accused hijackers and their associates were protected by people who were in our government.

If you google Peter Lance (he's an emmy winning jounalist) and read his Time Line for his book, Triple Cross, you will discover that our government was working with a number of the same accused terrorist here in the US very closely.

Max Cleland, the former US Senator resigned his seat on the 9/11 commision, saying, "This commision is compromised."

He was right. It was a white wash. So what are they hiding? It's obviously something.

[quickesst]

35. Suggestion...

If I may. Talk to people who have twenty+ years in the commercial construction business. Lay out the facts as known, then take in their reaction. If it's anything like mine, or most of the men I work with, you'll get more than a few raised eyebrows. Nothing like getting your hands dirty to learn about steel building construction. They're the ones that take the architects plans, and make them work, no matter how impractical it may seem. All the book-learning in the world will not give you a construction workers point of view, nor will it provide the knowledge gained by years of practical application in the field. I get a kick out of some of the talk about sheetrock, steel beams, welding, etc. Other times I simply shake my head. Thanks.
quickesst

[Kingshakabobo]

37. Well, if you take welding, for example, you find a website full of welders...

.....(it was presented here)debunking the nonsense floated around here regarding the angle-cut steel beams(WTC 1&2) that the CTers claim were cut by thermate. Does that stop CTists from claiming the beams were cut by shape-charges? No. Even when pictures of the similarly cut beams (with welders making similar cuts in the photo) are presented. Even when pictures of said cut beams are presented with welders and welding-rigs in the back-ground.

[911_truthiness]

45. Good picture of a welder doing the exact angle cutting done at the WTC

Note second picture with a welder doing exactly what truthers say was not done!

http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=9

[dailykoff]

50. Nice try, but the cut in the middle pic is straight, not angled.

http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=9

But thanks for playing. :hi:

[William Seger]

59. Baloney

> Talk to people who have twenty+ years in the commercial construction business

No, you should talk to people who quantitatively understand structures, dynamics, and strength of materials. If you are putting up commercial buildings, you'd better be working from the drawings produced by a certified structural engineer, not just "take the architects plans, and make them work" according to what you think works. Ask one of them about your theory that explosives must have been used to bring down WTC7. Just having experience in construction does not qualify you to argue with experts about why WTC7 fell.

[Contrite]

60. I have personally experienced that engineered plans don't always work.

My company had a $2M model home under construction designed by an architect with plans approved by a certified engineer. Both the architect and the engineer have decades of experience. During framing, our in-house CAD draftsman had to straighten out a problem in the field. The foreman called to say that the design was insufficient to support the front entry. The foreman himself had 20+ years' building and remodeling experience. The draftsman figured out how to make it work. Approved engineered plans aren't foolproof and it is the construction crew who end up having to make it work. A knowledgeable foreman and a well-trained draftsman with practical building experience (as ours had) know how to properly translate the designs and engineering specs and frequently find errors in them, errors that are quite often initially brought to their attention by the construction crew.

[jberryhill]

62. So what you are saying is....

...that some of these large buildings might not be as stable and safe as their designers thought?

Is that your point?

Because there seems to be a contingent here that doesn't believe that buildings might perform less well than the designers thought.

[Contrite]

77. No, the point is that construction crews are integral to the process.

It is a teamwork effort when any building goes up. Everyone has expertise to contribute. If the construction crews on the WTC buildings had issues with any of the aspects of executing the design, I am sure they brought them up.

[jberryhill]

81. D'jever notice after every significant engineering failure

...there is always that story about the guy who tried to warn someone that there was a problem, but nobody listened to him (e.g. the space shuttle o-rings).

I started, day one, with the impression there was no way that there were not explosives. Honestly, the more I learn about WTC 7, the more I think that it was a disaster waiting to happen. Whoever thought it would be a good idea not only to build the thing over a substation, but then to put a generating facility on the fifth floor was, IMHO, a nut.

[Contrite]

83. Do you think that the buildings were structurally unsound?

I doubt that a building built in Manhattan would pass the inspections if it were, let alone the architectural review. In fact, I recall that the WTC towers had the most documentation, the most exacting specifications, of any building prior to that time.

[jberryhill]

87. I'm not qualified to make that assessment

I'm talking about Building 7. It sounds to my totally unqualified impression, like a common mode failure of a bunch of touchy systems waiting to happen.

[Contrite]

91. Well, at this point all anyone can say is

I wonder what NIST will report.

[William Seger]

69. Then ask THAT foreman...

... to take a look at the design of WTC7 and see if he can understand how a progressive failure would occur.

Of course architects and engineers can make mistakes, just like any other human beings, and it doesn't surprise me if a mistake in the drawings wasn't noticed until someone tried to build it. That doesn't refute what I said: construction experience doesn't qualify someone to argue with a structural engineer. If your draftsman made changes to the design without getting approval of the engineer, whether or not the architect made an error that was overlooked by the engineer, then you assumed a lot of legal liability. There's a good reason for laws like that.

[Contrite]

78. That would be interesting.

I'd like to ask the foreman what issues arose among the crews and what they did about them. Do you know who he was?

The draftsman for my company is also a builder, so he was probably considerably more knowledgeable than most. I don't know if the engineer signed off on the changes that were made; that would have been the site supervisor's responsibility (he was also the vice-president of the company). The builder was clued in, of course, so no doubt there were consultations between him and the engineer and the architect about the problems and proposed changes. The point is that the problem was discovered in the field, by the crews.

[AZCat]

88. The engineer is supposed to sign off on most changes.

If it's something minor usually the inspector will okay it, but if there is a significant difference between the permitted plans and the building as it was built and the inspector catches it, he or she can hold the building certification of occupancy until the problem is fixed one way or the other.

There are good contractors and bad contractors - good ones will work in tandem with the consultants to produce the best building for the client, while bad ones are the stuff nightmares are made of (and that lawsuits thrive on).

[Contrite]

92. Right.

In this case, since it was a structural issue, it probably went back to the engineer after our draftsman looked at it and made suggestions. I don't know what went on from the point he was involved because that was all I ever heard about it. I would imagine that the plans had to be redrawn and signed off by the architect/engineer in order to make final approval.

Inspectors are picky about everything--my builder just had to relocate a handrail about 1/2 lower because of code to get the final approval passed. But I know that in some cases changes in the field, when a wall has been moved, for example, just get marked up on the prints and the inspector is given the marked up print to go from.

The contractors need to warranty the defects--10 years for anything structural--so it's really in their best interest to make sure any major changes are going to work, in case they wind up in court. Of course, if your contractor goes out of business, or dies, it's a little difficult to get the problem fixed. And yeah, there are some sleazy "onesie-twosie" builders who don't give a rip because they don't plan to stay in business.

So when you are talking about a huge undertaking like the WTC, given the parties involved and the liabilities, I am quite sure every last detail was checked and re-checked several times. There were probably even "adjustments" determined by issues discovered on site. The buildings were engineered to last and to withstand fires--even those produced by a planeload of jet fuel. So why then, does NIST insist they collapsed primarily due to the fires, when they clearly did not burn hot enough in a wide enough distribution to produce collapse?

Did the engineers really not think enough about the fireproofing? Did they really not think enough about impact (we know the buildings withstood the impacts). Did they really not consider the possibility that the steel trusses could expand and/or sag enough to produce column failure? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Beyond the buildings themselves, there are other questions, like why no rooftop rescues were attempted even though rescuers thought it "difficult but possible", or why NORAD didn't respond in time to avert disaster. Or why the rules were changed from military to civilian command re: stand-down. Or why all those "put options" went out.

[oblivious]

61. The problem is that the NIST experts just don't know what brought it down.

[William Seger]

68. They don't know

... precisely what initiated the collapse, because they don't have videos of what was happening inside the building. They do, however -- unlike "truthers" -- have a good understanding of what happened in the progressive failure after that initiating event. The entire CD premise is based on not understanding progressive failure and not understanding how the unique design of that building played a central role. Looking at videos of just the top 30 stories or so going down, from just one side, of course it looks like a CD because the same thing is happening: Gravity is bringing the building down because the lower support is gone. What's missing, however -- and unlike the Stardust demolition -- is any credible evidence that it was explosives that caused the lower support to fail.

[oblivious]

71. No, NIST appears to have LITTLE understanding of what happened in the collapse sequence.

In Section L3, from page 38 on, the progress report discusses a collapse hypothesis.The whole section is full of conditionals, making it clear they are as mystified as we are about what might have happened after the still unknown initiating event. They make it clear these are just best guesses.

You cannot present this report as fact. The only real facts are in Section L1, Building Description and perhaps Section L2 - pictures and bystanders comments, etc.

Section L3, Collapse Hypothesis, is just best guesses. NIST does not even try to pretend it has a good understanding in the progressive failure after the unknown initiating event, as you say it does.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

[William Seger]

72. Bull!

You are completely misrepresenting the report. Of course there are "conditionals" if the precise sequence of events during the initiation is unknown, but that certainly does not mean "they are as mystified as we are."

> You cannot present this report as fact.

And nobody that I know of has done so. It's still being investigated.

> NIST does not even try to pretend it has a good understanding in the progressive failure after the unknown initiating event, as you say it does.

Baloney. Just because there are several possible scenarios with minor differences certainly does not imply that NIST does not have a good understanding of how each of those minor differences could have happened, or that it does not have an overall understanding that there was a vertical progressive failure on the east side followed by a progressive horizontal failure, or that it does not understand how such things happen. You are simply dissembling to say the report did not make any conclusions about the precise sequence of events because they are as "mystified" as "truthers."

[oblivious]

73. No one has ever presented this report as fact you say? Try post 23.

OK, so if NIST is more certain about what happened than we are here, please show me where in the report you saw this.

[William Seger]

74. You misunderstood

The report does indeed summarize the facts that need to explained by any plausible hypothesis. What I meant (because I assumed that it's what you meant) was that nobody has represented any of the plausible hypotheses discussed in the report as "fact" because the report clearly says that more study was needed.

And again, you seem to be intentionally confounding "more certain about what happened" (i.e. the specific sequence of events) with NIST's understanding of why it considers each of the discussed hypothetical sequences to be plausible explanations. You intentionally try to make "unexplained" sound like "unexplainable" when in this case it's simply a matter of not yet identifying an exact sequence of events because more study was needed.

But if you prefer to invent reasons to dismiss the NIST report so you can continue to cling to implausible and unsubstantiated hypotheses, hey, knock yourself out. That seems to be what the "truth movement" is all about.

[oblivious]

75. I have no opinion on what happened to WTC7. I don't even care.

But I object to people presenting a government progress report as some sort of truth when in fact it provides no useful clarification at all.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Well, at least get the facts you aren't buying into straight. Then you will

know what you aren't buying into, at least.

[wildbilln864]

32. Well you need to read up IMHO!

No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from any fire! Even when burning for 20 hours straight!
yet there were only fires on a few floors!
As a matter of fact, no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from anything other than controlled demolition! 911=MIHOP!

[Bolo Boffin]

57. 6.5 seconds? What video have you been watching?

Find one that starts with the collapse of the east penthouse, and that 6.5 figure is going to skyrocket.

[wildbilln864]

85. Skyrocket?

To what? How long?

[CJCRANE]

26. Do you even know what WTC*7* was? n/t

[911_truthiness]

40. Not much left to implode

Have you seen what the building looked like before the implosion?

Its was gutted and supporting wall removed, Also beams were pre-cut to make the implosion happen

But that is what you HAVE to do to implode a big building,

That is why demolition experts DO NOT support the conspiracy theorist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe9kSp2jUk8

[Twist_U_Up]

46. WTC 7-what more do you need?

Not hit by a plane
limited fire damage
limited debris damage
fell totally symmetric
freefall speed
demoliton charges easily seen
crimp easily seen
fell in its own footprint
small rubble pile
illegal steel removal
owner saying he had it "pulled"
Controlled Demolition!

every human has a brain. therefore, every human has the potential to be smart. If ever there is an ignorant person, it is because of just that. They "ignore". They read what they want, do what they want and say what they want regardless of what they actually know.

[911_truthiness]

49. Hit by something much bigger then a plane

Did you forget... It was hit by a big ass building creating a 20 story gash.

OH and "Pulled" has neven been used by demolition companies to refer to implosions, Only conspiracy theorist use it that way, and only after 911. Go ahead try and find somewhere it's used that way BEFORE 911. Go ahead.

"Drop" or "Shoot" are the correct terms.

[Twist_U_Up]

66. Your new here

obviously you should take the time to look around a bit.

These have all been explained, and to think "pull it" is not used in demolition purposes is just a bold face lie. The links for that are in this forum. Feel free to look around and educate yourself a little more.
A 20 story gash ? where are the pics ? I have seen minimal damage pics but nothing close to a 20 story gash. Another bold face lie.

Everybody knows that "pull it" is super secret code for "let's get those people that are screaming 'it's about to blow up' away from the building because my psychic intuition informs me that the building's supports may just spontaneously collapse in a completely unexplainable freak accident that denies the laws of physics and has nothing whatsoever to do with the explosions the people inside are yelling about".

Its amazing to see how far people rationalise for this, it is like a gambler losing all his money, car, house, wife and kids because he believes he will make it all back and more in the next roll of the dice.

[Laurier]

90. You're not new here

So you know better than to imply that the term "pull it" means to demolish a building with explosives, and you should know better than to imply that the knowledge of the professionals on the scene at the time was nothing but "psychic intuition," and you should know better than to imply that the collapse of the building was an "unexplainable freak accident," and you should know better than to imply that it "denies the laws of physics" (presumably, meant defies rather than denies), and you should know better than to imply that there were people inside WTC7 "yelling about" explosions.

It's amazing how far some people will go to misrepresent the truth in support of the so-called "Truth Movement".

[Big Pappa]

51. Do

you have any pictures of these "demolitions"?

[AndyA]

3. That's exactly what it reminds me of.

And there's a reason for that.

Buildings that suffer catastrophic structural damage don't fall straight down into a nice, neat pile.

Ever see footage of a house collapse because the side of the hill it was built on gave way due to flooding, earthquake, or sink hole? The side impacted by the structural failure goes first, and normally collapses in a manner where things fall off to the side.

So why did the top of the WTC not topple like a tree would if it were cut high up on its trunk? Gravity works the same way when it pulls things down. The top of the buildings should have fallen off to the side.

It doesn't all fall straight down at the same time, leaving a nice, neat, clean pile of rubble in its footprint.

I know people are going to say I'm wrong, but I was in development for too long, dealt with structural issues, and I do know a few things about construction. It didn't happen the way they said it did.

:tinfoilhat:

[BuyingThyme]

12. Hey now, stop thinking for yourself.

[AndyA]

15. My bad.

Bad, bad me.

How un-Murkin of me.

:banghead:

[sabbat hunter]

21. explaination

1) the top of the WTC did not fall off because gravity does not pull sideways. as you pointed out the side impacted by the structural failure in houses, etc. but they fail due to structural failures on that side of the building.

the WTC collapsed because the OVERALL structure failed due to the removal of some supports from the planes crashing in, etc. Gravity wants to pull it down, when the supports holding it up failed, it went down, towards gravity.



2) if you go back and look at the WTC collapes, they certainly were not nice, neat piles of rubble into their footprints. if that was true the surrounding buildings (WTC 7, World financial center, etc) would not have been damaged.

[Twist_U_Up]

48. There is simply no way they could know the structural integrity of the building

and if it was really instable, it would be plain to see and would fall slowly and never straight down.

If three buildings did this on the same day then there would be many examples and case studies for engineers to look at to learn from but there are none. The only studies that incorporate the criteria for building seven are controlled demolitions and there are many thousands of examples of that.

[sabbat hunter]

52. they didnt fall`

straight down. look at the damage to the surrounding buildings.

and how do you know that it would fall slowly? what do you have to back up that theory.

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. WTC 7

Didn't fall straight down. There was significantly more debris to one quadrant.

It didn't fall straight down in to a nice neat pile. Several nearby streets were completely buried.

The WTC was not a tree, and would not behave like a tree to any relevant extent. But apparently you already have your mind made up.

[911_truthiness]

47. WTC7 Hit 30 Broadway

The building just northeast of WTC7 was so damaged by debris from WTC7 it had to be torn down.

Yep. Not neat at all.

[jschurchin]

54. Actually the Building you are referring to is

30 WEST Broadway. Do yourself a favor and download Google Earth, there you will find a really good picture of a building with, not so much, damage. After you are done there, go to http//www.google.com and type, 30 West Broadway, there you will find some very interesting information about remediation and abatement along with discussion of the demolition PLAN from 2006.

Evidently the structure still stands.

[catnhatnh]

4. Wow...

...that went down in "near freefall" speed.....

[Aviation Pro]

5. Sort of like WTC 1 and 2....

...huh, strange.

[catnhatnh]

8. I think there was a subliminal hint....

just before it dropped, I could swear I saw explosive squibs spelling out the numbers of the Twin Towers that fell (2...1), but I can't remember what happened to Tower #0......

[goddess40]

6. you mean how it fell in on it's self?

that it takes experts to lay out the explosives to make it happen so it doesn't tip over on to other property?

[BlooInBloo]

10. Don't 9/11 conspiracy threads have their own forum?

[FredStembottom]

11. They must have used tanks full of diesel fuel......

....to get the Stardust to fall down like that!:think:

[vincent_vega_lives]

30. Release of energy resulting in loss of structural integrity

is little different if that energy is chemical, as in explosives (very fast and efficient) thermal as in fire (slow and inefficient) or kinetic as in impact damage (impractical and unpredictable). The result is the same. Remove structural supports over time. With WTC-7 the process took hours, and the building's redundancy transfered loads to remaining supports until the last failed. Once that happened global collapse resulted, regardless the mechanism is the same.

[wildbilln864]

34. so you think this release of ....

energy rendered the entire steel framing support structure useless all the way to the ground? You actually believe that?
What caused the massive steel core columns to just loose all integrity all the way to the bottom of the buildings? :shrug: To the point where they would collapse so quickly as if there was no support at all!
Oh right! Kerosene fires! :rofl:
And it left yellow hot steel weeks after the collapses under all three buildings! Uhuh!
I wonder why kerosene heaters don't collapse when they're allowed to burn for hours!

[jwtravel]

43. Integrity??

What caused "massive steel core columns to JUST lose all integrity all the way to the ground?" Weight above it that was increasing practically continuously. The concrete, steel, glass, file cabinets, and everything else very quickly became a dynamic load that OVERWHELMED anything in its path. Either WTC1 or WTC2 had the collapse where the top 15 or so floors started to collapse a bit sideways as one unit; that was more than enough weight to already be overwhelming and cause "massive steel core columns" to "just lose integrity".

[wildbilln864]

56. Wrong!

You are totally ommiting the laws of conservative momentum and inertia! If this were the case many steel framed buildings would have fallen long before 911! Yet none have nor since! But on that day three buildings are totally destroyed. You believe what you will but I won't just take their word for anything!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

55. Please tell us then...

what material in those buildings would fuel a fire and cause temperatures to be 1500 degrees F after weeks?
"...no comment"? I think you did comment already! If that's all you got though...
We all have opinions. Just like assholes, some of them stink! What we need are the clear cut facts!

This bullshit doesn't prove anything:
"thermal energy over time weakened the structure at the point of impact beyond it's ability to support itself. Once in motion the release of stored potential energy was enormous, akin to thousands of pounds of TNT going off on each floor."


Yes maybe it weakened the structure at the point of impact but not the rest of the massive, intricate frame! Both exterior and interior! It was still structurely sound! If not why not! Why didn't it resist the damaged and crumbling structure above and thus deflect it off to the side until the collapse was arrested?
Do you actually believe that those massive steel core columns, all 47, which were undamaged below the impact area just crumbled out of the way as the top part came down? And didn't seem to slow it one bit? Do you really?

:popcorn:

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. Massive amounts of fuel in the buildings

No necessarily just jet fuel, though that was a factor. If you are looking for facts then you are looking in the wrong places. The ONLY agency that has direct access to source data AND the ability to analyze it is NIST, and you refuse to acknowledge them. The thermal phenomena of what occurred after the towers collapsed was unusual by normal standards, but can be explained, regardless if some lack the ability understand it.

I never intended to "prove anything" so you can take your "bullshit" claim elsewhere. What a stupid statement..."This bullshit doesn't prove anything" like any statement on a forum would prove anything. Its meant to inform, make you think, however that has a SBCIH happening with the likes of you. What do you do after you get up in the morning, just curious?

"If thats all you got" Another brilliant statement. No I have fucking I-beams in my basement. NO SHIT its my opinion, If you want educated opinion, read the NIST report.

"Just like assholes, some of them stink!" Irony at its grandest?

At least you recognize that the impact of the aircraft and fire actually weakened the structure. That is a significant breakthrough. The next step is to understand what forces the INTACT structure was designed to support, and the magnitude of the forces involved once the collapse was initiated.

"Why didn't it resist the damaged and crumbling structure above and thus deflect it off to the side until the collapse was arrested?" It did...and it did. The force was magnitudes above friction offered by the structure, once in motion, and while mass was lost, momentum did not run out of steam until the 5th to 10th stories. Yes the core columns broke apart, not "crumbled". They were not monolithic steel structures. They were designed to support the gravity load of the building and not much more, The design was intended to maximize floor space, and minimize construction costs. EVERY massive structure is a compromise.

You sir are either a LIAR or just plain ignorant. The structure certainly DID "slow it one bit", or else it would have fallen at free fall speed, which it certainly DID NOT.

[wildbilln864]

79. Ok, give me your estimate as to how....

fast it would have fallen had it fallen at free fall speed! I'll be looking forward to your answer.

[vincent_vega_lives]

94. You have DU a search function?

I and others have posted it here countless times, wouldn't need to ask if you were paying attention. What's the point of discourse if you don't read the posts?

Is that all you got from that post? The last sentence? No other comment?

[wildbilln864]

97. You made the claim!

You back it up!

"Is that all you got from that post? The last sentence? No other comment?"
Actually, that's the only part that merits any comment! It seems you've not seen any of the many videos of the collapse of WTC 7. You really should watch a few before you make claims about something you believe simply because someone told you so. :shrug:

[vincent_vega_lives]

99. I have

It's simple math, not a "claim", that needs backing up, its not subjective unless you have no clue what you are referring to.

[demrabble]

14. Amazing!

It sure looks to me like the same things that happened to the World Trade Center towers happened to the Stardust Hotel.

[vincent_vega_lives]

31. They did for the most part.

Energy doing work over a time period.

[stillcool]

17. What's more amazing are the....

minds that refuse to contemplate 'other' than official stories. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[MervinFerd]

23. Yes, both collapsed due to gravity.

Anyone interested in facts?
Didn't think so, but here are relevant descriptions of the WTC7 collapse anyway.

The NIST interim reports on WTC7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdfhttp://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pd...
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

The CounterPunch article
http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

[oblivious]

33. NIST offers many collapse scenarios: "many...can be classified as unlikely"

I can find no hard conclusions in that interim report, just working hypotheses.

There are a lot of 'ifs' and 'may's' and 'could be possible's'

I don't think they have considered controlled demolition as a hypothesis.

[CJCRANE]

24. on edit: just seen the footage.

I can see what everyone means now.

[CGowen]

36. nope ( no fireworks on WTC 7 with a visible countdown)

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=874503acf8ec9829070b6a12621177695139c105

the stardust building looks like it's see-through, the demolition of wtc 7 looks better.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxKlof0qhag the Austin Intel building destruction looks interesting, too.

[Kingshakabobo]

38. Where's the audio of all those LOUD explosions during the WTC7 collapse?

I must have missed them.

[Laurier]

42. And the months of work preparing the empty buildings for demolition, too...

I must have missed the part where they moved everyone out of the WTC towers and out of WTC7 months in advance and had their demolition teams removing most of the buildings' support prior to the controlled demolitions.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. I love how the CD'ers claim WTC1 & 2

were obvious demolitions because they look like squibs and explosive expulsion of debris, but they did not fall like a typical implosion.

YET there is NO visible explosive effects or visible "squibs" in WTC7 but because it fell in a similar fashion to a planned implosion, it is then evidence for explosives.

I'm sure the significance of this eludes the CD'ers.

[wildbilln864]

86. You said...

"YET there is NO visible explosive effects or visible "squibs" in WTC7 but"

So look here!

What is running upward on the back right corner? :shrug:

[vincent_vega_lives]

95. Some can't stream at work, sorry.

Access Denied (content_filter_denied)

Regardless I have never seen or heard any claim by a CD'er of 'squibs' in WTC-7. Are you the first?

[wildbilln864]

96. Well, I don't know whether I'm the first but ...

you really should see that video. They're plain as day to me. Unless someone has another explanation for them. And in this case they run up not down!

on edit: By the way, the video I mentioned is only 25 seconds I think. give or take a cpl.
Have a great day!