WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ----------------------------- MPEG

http://globalfreepress.com/movs/911/wtc-7_collapse.mpg

has there been an official explaination yet?

thanks for any info :toast:

peace

the building was weakened from all the collapses going on around it all day.

Could be wrong, tho. DLing the movie now.

-as

i haven't seen an official theory on it yet, though... so if anyone has a link i would love to see it.

now i lived through the japanese earth quake and i have seen buildings tipped over laying in the streets, espically the ones made from steel, but i don't remmember any seeing any steel buildings falling in thier foot print when i rode my bike around kobe the day after but i will look that up as well but to my untrained eye it looks to 'clean' to me.

thanks :hi:

btw: are we ever gonna do a link exchange or yall gonna wait till i go out of business ;->

peace

No building collapsed like WTC 1 2 or 7.

the towers were built so that, if they ever fell, they would collapse in on themselves instead of crushing half of lower manhattan and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Stand on a trampoline with a friend sometime. You stand still. Have him/her jump. When they land...the tramp goes down...Since you are not in motion...you will have the tendency to stay in place. However, you will start to drop slightly. On your way down (be it ever so slight)you will contact the tramp as it rebounds from your partners jump. The tramps upward motion will reverse your downward travel rather abruptly...However, the tramp will not bounce you up very far.

Thats my physics analogy...you are WTC7 - your friend are the towers.

Thats what I see happening to WTC7...the lower parts of its structure would be significantly weakend by the concussions of the towers falling...(or "bouncing")

Aren't earthquakes more of a lateral motion...thus explaining the tendency of stuff to fall over...?

the kobe quake moved in BOTH DIRECTIONS not to mention that the penthouse collapses first.

peace

the damage to WTC 7 would be the same...add the smoldering fires to that equation...

KOBE
"The focal mechanism of the earthquake indicates right-lateral strike-slip faulting on a vertical fault striking slightly east of northeast, parallel to the strike of the mapped faults"

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/Programs/Geoengineering/research/Kobe/Somerville/qnews.html

Dr. Rainer said every quake has two horizontal components, forward-backward and sideways, and a vertical component. Generally, he said, the vertical component is only half to two-thirds of the horizontal components.

"But in Kobe, because the rupture zone was virtually underneath the city, the vertical component was about the same size as the horizontal, and was very high."

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/newsletter/v1no1/kobe_e.html



peace

The point is...there would be very little lateral motion in the WTC7 situation...only vertical.

Unless I've missed something - the only "proof" you've offered is the similarity of the WTC7 collapse and a controlled implosion.

Cool Sites
http://www.controlled-demolition.com
http://www.implosionworld.com/

yeah... that makes sense to folks who don't have any credibility maybe :crazy:

peace

just what was inaccurate?...you haven't posted one single fact - with the exception of the KOBE earthquake info?

you tried to post some info to contradict my remark about it's up and down motion so i provided evidence to back up my statement.

secondly i have posted images and video of what happened and asked for answers you post crap trying to dismiss this all as a kooky conspiracy theory.

get a grip

peace

The intense vertical movement is thought to have imposed such high compressive forces on 30 concrete columns at one subway station that they collapsed, causing a concrete roof 50 centimetres thick to cave in. There was little damage to the side walls.

These are the same compressive forces caused by vertical movement that would have weakend the lower regions of WTC7 -

And my KOBE source (UC Berkley) does not contradict your info...note the phrase "vertical fault"

you seemed to try and contradict it with your following post then i responded with PROOF that it did move in both directions.

AND the TOP of the building collapsed first and it DIDN'T cave in on ONE side and leave something standing at the end it all came down CLEANLY not like the destruction i witnessed in kobe.

now unless you have some actually facts pertaining to wtc7 i think we should 'move on'

peace

that the destruction you decribe in KOBE was more akin to lateral motion. And you have provided us with proof that there was equal lateral and vertical motion. I used your source to compliment my argument that the vertical force would cause lower structual damage - but leave certain stuctures (walls...sides of buildings) intact...

The video source only shows the upper half of the building...so how can you know what happend at the base? I can't see the lower half of WTC7 so I dont know what gave away first...

the ROOF gave way first then the bottom AND all four corners went down evenly, way too clean.

you talked about lateral force being enough to weaken the building and i agree BUT no japanese building collapsed CLEANLY after the initial earthquake or during and the ones that DID didn't do so UNIFORMLLY.

it is the UNIFORMITY of the collapse that seems wrong to a 'natural' random disastor.

peace

the japanese buildings were all exposed to lateral and vertical forces...and of a greater magnitude...the lateral motions would not let them collapse cleanly...why would you expect anything to happen uniformly in a major earthquake...?

point me to another building that collapsed in its own foot print by fire or explosives that wasn't a CD.

lets stay focused...

peace

...its not like there are slews of buildings catching fire or blowing up everyday...for any reason...it a bit too rare to typify...

CDs happen everyday...

I'll concede - It looks like a CD - and if WTC7 wasn't nearby to the destruction of 2 of the largest buildings in the world -I'd say you were onto something...

and there has been 0 steel structures to collapse due to any fire as well, at least none that i could find, but i am always open to new sources.

peace

but its not just fire in the case of WTC - its massive structual trauma + fire...

Just how many fires - worldwide - have there been in buildings of the scale of WTC7 in the past 20 years...? Not many...and most of them didn't occur in the midst of one of the greatest human tragedies in history. Consider that most of the firefighting gear and many of the firefighters in NY were killed and destroyed when the towers fell...they let WTC7 burn.

They usually try to put those out...but 9-11 was a little different...

i don't care how tall they were i just want an example of a fire bringing down a steel building and how many hours did it take.

btw: MASSIVE STRUCTUAL TRAUMA from an aluminum tube? got any links for that?

peace

you can provide me an example of a similar steel building that was allowed to burn uncontrollably and didn't collapse. Got any links?

The A-bomb Dome standing quietly on the bank of the Motoyasu River is the remains of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, which was nearly directly under the atomic bomb that exploded at 8:15 A.M., August 6, 1945. The name A-bomb Dome emerged spontaneously due to the shape left at the top of the destroyed building.

btw: usually they try to put these things out but aug 6 1945 was a differnt kinda day.

peace

How about something comparable - an atomic blast?..please...that's not the same kind of fire and force...looks like quite a bit of stone/concrete too...

Why is it so hard to belive that WTC7 may have colapsed? It seems no more far fetched than your theory...yeah I'll admit. It looks like a CD - but only if you look at the video out of the 9-11 context...

Action and reaction. There are forces that act upon an object in both vertical and horizontal directions. These forces oppose each other.

There is a horizontal component. The planes strike the buildings and the buildings are able to withstand the force applied to them. After all, the planes did not go through the buildings. Neither did the buildings topple over. If the planes could go fast enough to fly through them then perhaps things would be a lot different.

Now look at the vertical components. The building is standing. You have the force of gravity acting upon it and the force of gravity is being resisted enough to keep them standing.

But do you remember that those planes are still in the buildings? Of course you do. Now you have the weight of the building. You also have the weight of the planes inside the building.

Can anyone tell me of any other time in history where a very tall building had a plane in it for several hours? Buildings like that aren't designed to hold passenger airplanes in them for several hours. Oh and let's not forget that there are still people in the planes, not to mention the fuel contained in them, so how can anyone suppose that the buildings will continue to stand?

Of course it is still theoretically possible. However there is still that ripple effect that was mentioned earlier. Those ripples also happen to have vertical and horizontal components to them. Still think the buildings are gonna stand after all that force being exerted on them? Hells no.

it is your turn to show some proof.

peace

Are you saying that a plane crash is more devastating than an atomic blast?

For one thing, the Dome was still standing because it was directly under the blast: most of the forces on it acted downward... the same direction it's load-bearing members were designed to hold.

Second of all, it's nowhere near a similar case. The dome is only what, 5 stories tall? WTC 7 was 47. You think maybe if you stacked nine or ten Domes on top of each other they might not be able to support the weight?

that was travelling at several hundred miles per hour!

there has been 0 steel structures to collapse due to any fire as well

There have been a few dozen steel buildings that collapsed from fire. All were multilevel buildings, 5 to 10 stories if memory serves me correctly

I'll see if I can find the links.

"There have been a few dozen steel buildings that collapsed from fire"

i would love to see them.

thanks :hi:

peace

Can you produce a blasting cap? - explosive residue? - undetonated explosive? - real evidence of cutting charges?

A video the resembles other Controlled Demos is not proof.

Why was the evidence, the metal parts of the collapsed towers, not kept to be analyzed? Why was the metal hauled away, with the aid of reputed underworld truckers, and then sold overseas to those nations pledging absolute secrecy of the contents? Certain flag officers contend their treasonous Commander-in-Chief, supervised by Daddy, ordered this to be done. — Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 14

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar14.html

i have plenty of questions and you offer nothing but noise or attacks, just chill and lets try to find the answers.

peace

The city started to sell off scrap, but structural engineers put a stop to it and studied the scraps first.

So what planet are you from?

where is it now? got a link.

peace

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxD.pdf
D.5 Conclusions and Future Work

The ongoing volunteer effort of the SEAoNY engineers is securing WTC steel pieces that will provide physical evidence for studies on WTC building performance. As of March 15, 2002, seventeen engineers,
visiting four salvage yards, have identified approximately 150 pieces. Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7. Documentary photographs and videos have been taken and coupons collected.

Future studies are expected based on the pieces and data collected. Coupons have been collected for metallurgical tests to determine the temperatures to which they were subjected and their steel characteristics.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is currently conducting environmental tests,
abating asbestos as necessary, and shipping available pieces to its Gaithersburg, MD, facility for storage and
further study. As of May 2002, a total of 41 steel pieces had been shipped to NIST.


http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley
Senior Vice President
CTL Engineering
Chicago, IL
On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
& Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
March 6, 2002
<snip>

ASCE's Efforts Related to the World Trade Center
Building Performance Study Teams
On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE (SEI/ASCE) began assembling two teams of experts to study the performance of the buildings at the World Trade Center Complex and the Pentagon. The goal of the studies is to increase our knowledge and understanding of how buildings subject to extreme forces, such as those caused by the crash and resulting fires, perform under these unusual circumstances.

The scope of the WTC study team is quite broad. Although much of the nation’s attention has been riveted to the collapse of the twin 110-story towers, the WTC team is also examining several of the buildings in the surrounding area to determine what lessons might be learned from the performance of those structures as a result of their
being impacted by falling debris and ensuing fires. Of particular interest to the engineering community is the performance of WTC 7 and the Banker's Trust Building.
...

Data Collection
Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse. On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas
which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis. During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey.

Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of
November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.
<snip>
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.

Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented. The total amount of resources being dedicated to support the team’s activities is approximately $1 million, which has allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials,
begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing. This raises the question of what amount of money would be sufficient. It is our opinion that $40 million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of this magnitude and complexity.

:wow: what a MASSIVE investigation... and the jury is still out eh?

well maybe we can brainstorm some simular occurances in history to help them speed things along?

shoot, we got the best damn think tank right here DU :bounce:

any engineers out there... little help please :hi:

peace

Those links directly contradict your assertion that the scrap was hauled away secretly and sold overseas before anyone got a chance to examine the wreckage. They also describe far more sampling than the 41 archived coupons that you chose to ridicule.

After 9-11 Administration Damage Control Efforts:

Fire Engineering Magazine assails the incredible speed that the evidence in
the WTC collapse is being destroyed. Never
in the history of fire investigations has evidence been destroyed this fast
before exhaustive investigations can be completed. <"We must try to find out[br />why the twin towers fell" By James Quintiere,Baltimore Sun 1/3/01
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.towers03jan03.story
-WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION from Fire Engineering Magazine]

...

"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

more...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

peace

I remember reading that when it came up. It is wrong. I live in New York and have access to better information, I guess, but the stuff about hauling the building away in secret and/or shutting off investigation is totally bogus. A number of engineering firms and agencies went through every sliver of those buildings.

Just one example:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/december5/wtc-125.html

(3) Sifting operations at the Staten Island landfill. Almost immediately, much of the steel from the site was shredded and sold to foreign markets instead of being preserved as crime scene evidence. (Photo 1 by FDNY Photo Unit; photos 2 and 3 courtesy of FEMA.)

"Steel really has no memory," Once you melt down steel from the World Trade Center, it could end up in a soup can or the fender of a car—anywhere, really."—Bill Heenan, president of the Steel Recycling Institute in Pittsburgh, "WTC steel's being put to work again," New York Daily News, Jan. 17, 2002

Before the end of the year, most of the steel from the twin towers will have been recycled. As of yesterday, 157,759 tons of the steel had been hauled out of Ground Zero.—"WTC steel's being put to work again," New York Daily News, Jan. 17, 2002

more...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&Subsection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=163446&KEYWORD=wtc

btw: your link points to an old professor guessing about what happened. he only mention wtc7 ONCE and only to acknowledge that NO steel building in U.S. history has collapsed from fire. what kinda proof is that? :shrug:

peace

The article is full of disinformation. I remember discussing it with people when it came out. I was astonished, because I'd been keeping up with the several structural investigations through the New York Times and other sources, and the fire magazine article just didn't jive. The author had some axe to grind.

As for your steel building comment -- the WTC collapse was way outside the scope of any building fire or collapse that's ever happened on planet earth. It can't be compared to anything else. The engineers say that everything that happened is explainable, given the scale and magnitude of the disaster. Just because nothing like it has ever happened BEFORE means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There is no architectural disaster that can be compared to it, anywhere, because no buildings of that size ever sustained any damage of that magnitude before.

trying to keep this topic focused...



The Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) was the only structure left standing in the area where the first atomic bomb exploded on 6 August 1945. Through the efforts of many people, including those of the city of Hiroshima, it has been preserved in the same state as immediately after the bombing. Not only is it a stark and powerful symbol of the most destructive force ever created by humankind; it also expresses the hope for world peace and the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons.

source...
http://whc.unesco.org/sites/775.htm

look at this remarkable building, one of japans first to reinforce themselves with STEEL and suffered seveir trama and fire damage yet it was still standing in the end.

the problem is with it's collapse, so clean, due to fire? we can't find ANY example of another STEEL BUILDING falling in it's footprint due to fire in HISTORY.

peace

>These are the same compressive forces caused by vertical movement
>that would have weakend the lower regions of WTC7

So S-waves of 2.3 magnitude from the North Tower collapse - shaking that you could barely feel -
are the "same compressive forces" as the S and P waves in the 7.2 magnitude Kobe earthquake.
Well, sort of, if you ignore the minor detail that Richter 7.2 is about 100000 times as strong as 2.3.

If 2.3 magnitude quakes could level steel buildings, we'd have alot of flat cities.

and welcome to the DU :toast:

peace

It's like a flood plane, except we had earthquakes.

Anyway, in my experience Richter 3.0 to 4.0 feels like a truck driving by your house. Below that you can't feel them. I was in a 4.0 earthquake once and watched my daughter's crib bounce across the room, but that was all that happened.

to spin this?

If that was true, why, over all these decades of demolishing buildings with explosives in constrained city spaces, have we not lost an adjacent building?

You can't be serious!?

The largest seismic source on 9/11, the North Tower collapse at 10:28AM, had local magnitude of 2.3.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

Most steel frame buildings are designed to survive earthquakes of at least a magnitude 8.
The 8.1 magnitude earthquake in Mexico city in 1985 only caused the complete collapse
of one such building, and it its engineering was questionable.
The Richter scale is logarithmic, with each whole number increment corresponding to a 10 fold increase in energy.
So according to your trampoline theory, ground shaking with only 1/1000000 th the energy
that the Building 7 was designed to survive caused its total collapse nearly 7 hours later,
or so weakened the building that fires caused it to totally collapse,
when fires have never caused even the partial collapse of a steel building.

Interesting theory!

Earthquakes are a kind of wave motion in the crust of the earth. Picture a thin sheet of plastic laid flat, and then lift one side up and put it right back down. That's the kind of surface motion you'd see in an earthquake if you could watch it from the side in cross-section. When the foundation lifts as the wave passes, it imparts lateral motion, giving a toppling motion. If the interior structure is intact, that can make it fall sideways, because the structure itself holds the building firm, preventing pancaking.

of any other buildings that fell in their own foot print that wasn't done by CD.

the earth quake in kobe had both horizontal and verticle motion going own.

i didn't see any steel structures that pancaked in on them selves i saw random collapses here and there as expected.

wtc7 falls perfectly all four corners all at the same time.

peace

thats because in KOBE there were strong horizantal forces (equal to the vertical)...at WTC it was all vertical...

The KOBE argument isn't serving you well...

the clean ones were ALL due to CD all the others were partial or as ive said a whole steel building collapsing sideways, INTACT.

the point being, it was all very MESSY, cept the CD ones.

peace

I'm not familiar with any of those either. It's not clear to me how a tall building should fail - I don't think the angle could get very large before the bending and shear stresses would cause the vertical structure to buckle. Without those elements there would be nothing to force the rotation and any collapes would become more vertical

if this was a natural, random occurence, i would expect to see some randomness of the collapse.

however in a CD this is exactly what i would expect to see.

think back to any building you seen that had been badly damaged to the point of destruction and collapse usually there is something left standing.

you see, a building is a ridged structure and built to withstand a great verticle load so that even as something gives way at on part of the building and it collapses there it usually isn't powerful enough to pull the whole building down around it at the same time because there is a LOT of resistance to the collapse by the other undamaged parts of the building.

anyways, if you have any examples of this happening in the past i would love to see'em.

thanks :toast:

peace

How would a large building collapse... it seems we have no examples that do not come from earthquakes where we know there are lateral ground movements. Are there any buildings that have toppled that are, say, 10 or more times taller that their base dimension?

There are examples of whole floors of smaller buildings collapsing in the Kobe earthquake (photos E1-E7) that did not fall to the side. This _might_ be the most likely failure mode: http://geoinfo.usc.edu/gees/Reports/Report3/japan/KOBE.HTML#DAMAGE%20TO%20INFRASTRUCTURE

but nothing collapses in it's own footprint that i know of cept CD thats why i came to my favorite think tank to pose the question to.

peace

BUT... from NYC's post:

"275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors"

this was the fatal blow to that building--assuming it could have been saved following the damage from the collapse of the towers.

and it took out a main support collumn that brought the whole thing down?

why does the roof cave in first?

peace

By itself. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing pictures where there is a big gash in the building caused by a truck full of fertilizer. Or any other videos of what one big bomb did to a building. This is a different and much smoother pattern of demolition by many bombs inside which disintigrated the whole thing and let the bits free-fall.

Here's a good informative article with a lot of the basic data about what happened: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html

Diesel isn't explosive on its own. I will burn well, but you really have to tweak it to get it to burn hot. Won't explode.

On the other hand, 6000 gallons of diesel probably has some serious weight to it. Destabilize the building and i could see how it could bring it down.

First, in OKC, the bomb was parked outside, away from the structure. The 275 gallon tanks were inside the structure, and because of their weight, would have to be close to main support columns.

And more importantly, the CD theory requires large numbers of people to be involved, and massively extensive wiring to be done without someone catching on. (we are talking about miles of wire)

Also, in every controlled demolition, teams go in with cutting torches and do strategic cutting of support beams. Explain how that was done in the weeks before without anyone noticing?

Many, many workers for weeks on end before hand would have had to set the building up for a CD. You're trying to say that all that happened, without a single person asking why. The people doing the work would have known exactly what they were doing even if they weren't told, so they would have to be in on the conspiracy as well.

I just don't see that happening with that many people involved. Bring forward someone who put one blasting cap in that building before hand, and then I'll begin to think about the CD theory.

Civilian CD firms do it with cutting torches because acetylene is cheaper and safer than explosives, but any combat engineer can set the charges to clip a steel beam in half. It's taught in the context of dropping bridges, but the same principles will work here.

I don't think there's any way the CD theory is true, but the buildings' dropping like they were imploded sure adds to the credibility of the theory.

it's lopsided at best. Have you seen how CD is done? Perfectly timed and placed simultaneous explosions.

But one problem with that official theory is that most buildings that were right next to the Twin Towers were unscathed. The WTC 7 demolition sequence went off hours after the Twin Towers fell, and no big chunk of those buildings ever hit it.

Now here is a very important clue to this mystery: THE CIA AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE HAD SOME TOP SECRET RESEARCH OFFICES IN WTC 7. So top secret, that evidence about them would have to be destroyed in any case. So what if neo-cons like Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld hijacked this part of the military industrial complex and got them involved in a propaganda coup, covert psy-op 9/11. He certainly has the power to DEMAND that as Secretary of Defence. And if these guys helped in the destruction of the Twin Towers, all evidence of what they were doing would have to be destroyed...and was destroyed when WTC 7 was thouroughly disintigrated.

most of the buildings adjacent to the towers sustained such heavy damage that they were unsafe for habitation, beyind repair and had to be demolished. in auto accident phraseology, they were totalled.

didn't collapse in the signature Controlled Demolition style.

nt

are you at home or work?

peace

Just like the one that flew off the side of WTC 2 just before it collapsed! It had lasar beams on it. I know. I seen it.

peace

That's all I need to say. I seen it!

I guess you are right.

well, that isn't really good enough, sorry,

thanks for your input though :hi:

peace

But did an architect see the UFO? That is the question!

IT WAS ANTI-GRAVITY DEATH RAY THAT ACTUALLY MADE THE HOLE IN THE PENTAGON INSTEAD OF THE 767 THAT HASN'T BEEN SEEN SINCE!

ISN'T THIS OBVIOUS? ISN'T THIS CLEAR?

IF YOU DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS OBVIOUS, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WORKING FOR KARL ROVE!

GO BACK TO THE FREE REPUBLIC!

when 9-11 is questioned eh?

Why he is allowed to hurl cruel personal insults at posters is troubling.

:hippie: A UFO is just a flying object that isn't identified yet. Later on, people often figure out what they really were. As of now, what hit the Pentagon is a UFO...there's enough evidence that it wasn't really the Boeing 757 that the Bush Regime claimed it was, but there's several other things it coulda been and we don't know for sure what it was yet. One of these days, will get enough clues to make it an IFO--identified flying object.

As a musician I've occasionally been hit by UFO's at concerts, but then I identified 'em as someones underwear or whatever. There are lots of POSSIBILITIES.

Bunker built 1998 on 23rd floor, according to this:
One of the running gags of the Giuliani years was ‘‘the bunker’’ — press shorthand for the $15 million Emergency Command Center the mayor built on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center in 1998.

My note: It was originally supposed to cost $8, but apparently wound up $15.

...burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.
A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995.
...
Jerome M. Hauer, who was the director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management at the time the command center was opened at 7 World Trade, said several teams of engineers reviewed plans to open the office there. But no one ever mentioned any hazard associated with placing fuel tanks above ground, near a transfer truss, he said.
"There were a host of people who looked at this," said Mr. Hauer, who is now a managing director of the crisis and consequence group at Kroll Worldwide, a security consulting company based in New York. "We relied on their judgment."
...
... 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained. (I had thought Giuliani’s bunker was on the 8th floor.)

... Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building's third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths.

... http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/nyregion/02TOWE.html?pagewanted=1

NO NYT LINK FOR THIS:

NY TIMES December 20, 2001
City Had Been Warned of
Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."

but I think this is the most logical explanation. And even conspiracies must be beholden to logic.

Talk of explosives at the WTC and no airplane at the Pentagon only distract from the central issues of 9/11 that we need to keep hammering.

and it is the only one to collapse of it's immediate neighbors, in it's OWN footprint no less, all very cleanly.

it seems strange to me.

peace

when I learned about Guiliani's massive fuel tank in WTC 7, that was enough for me to file away its collapse as a curio, rather than a smoking gun.

Sure, it's possible that it was demolished. But there's also a reasonable explanation for why it collapsed as it did without needing to invoke demolition charges. But there's no reasonable explanation for why the skies weren't defended, why the warnings were unheeded, why pre-9/11 investigations were impeded, why the cover-up, and so on. I think pounding away on those matters is a better use of our energies.

as 911 roles around we need to resurface ALL the issues that the MEDIA refuse to deal with just to get people to LOOK at this horrific event again 'in a new light' to borrow a pharse, hopefully in a calm and rational way.

this is one of the MANY questions that hasn't been anwsered effectivly or officially and i think it is worth mentioning, at least.

:hi:

peace

How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in WTC 7?

Why would the WTC 7 have massive tanks of fuel in them in the first place?

up here on Du and what building are you talking about. I only know about the twin towers collapsing.....is this some building next door to the towers that collapsed but no one is talking about it?

Is this some new building collapse I haven't heard about....what??

thanks!

Mysteries abound about World Trade Center 7's (WTC-7) demise on September 11, 2001. In the early evening in the Big Apple of that horrific day this 47-story steel building suddenly collapsed. An odd series of failures had occurred.

They begin when a small amount of debris falls from the implosion of World Trade Center 1, a block away. Somehow small fires subsequently break out in WTC-7. The fireproofing systems completely fail. The fires burn all day from an unknown fuel. Eventually, the flames reach tanks of diesel fuel at ground level. Suddenly, the penthouse begins to fall. The entire lower levels immediately experience the same massive failures. About seven seconds later the entire building is gone. It takes a minute for 2 million square feet of office space to become a large pile of rubble.

Satellite photos later confirm that the vast majority of WTC-7's rubble rests in what was the building’s footprint. The neatness of the rubble enables clean-up crews to swiftly remove and recycle the steel after just a cursory examination.

World Trade Center 7 (WTC-7) was built in 1985. It was located across Vesey Street from the main World Trade Center compound. It was a largely-conventional steel building which had forty-four floors. Somewhat dark and sleek, it was designed by Emery Roth & Sons. It collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. Fortunately, WTC-7 had been evacuated and no one is known to have been killed by its demise.

It fell about seven hours after the strange collapses of the North and South Twin Towers. (WTC-2, the South tower, collapsed around 10:00 a.m. WTC-1, the North, came down about a half hour later.) The unknown quantity of debris from WTC-1 is said to have caused fires in WTC-7 that prevailed on the 11th floor.

more...
http://www.media-criticism.com/World_Trade_Center_7_2003.html

:hi:

peace

called WTC7........ I won't even ask what happened to 3-6.....were they also buildings next to Towers 1 & 2? WTC7 is the only building I remember in reports at the time that was evacuated because it was declared right off as "structurally unsound" so I didn't think any more about it. So.......I see it collapsed and now some folks think it was detonated......

Oh well.......I'm a :tinfoilhatter: so I guess anythings possible.....

Breif summary from http://septterror.tripod.com/the911basics.html

WTC 3: The Marriott World Trade center hotel. The 22-story hotel originally was the Vista when Hilton opened it in 1981. It was destroyed by debris from the collapsing towers.

WTC 4 and 5: The "Plaza Buildings" each had nine stories, with WTC 4 on the south and WTC 5 on the north. Both buildings were heavily damaged and were torn down in 2001-2002.

WTC 6: The US Customs House; eight stories. Severely damaged in the attack and demolished by construction crews in 2001-2002.

who can provide me with video footage (not Rumsfeld's slide show) of AA77 crashing into the Pentagon. To this day I'm yet to see anything.

...who can show me what happened to the AA77 and the 64 people who were aboard if flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

Why you or anyone else who realizes that the Bush Regime was complicit in 9/11, can't research all the evidence on the web and figure out that the official story we heard about what happened on 9/11 was just another Bush lie that he could get the corporate media to stupidly parrot. He had millions of dollars to offer to American scientists and engineers who would just offer some quick underinformed speculation which would seem support the official myth. Of course, some did go for the easy money. It was a corruption of the whole research grant process which many scientists are now objecting too. Now, everyday more and more scientists around the world are bravely speaking out against the official propaganda version of what happened on 9/11, even though they can't make nearly as much money off of telling the truth about this as they could by lying about it!

This is exactly the kind of independent mindedness that Jefferson, Adams and the other designers of democracy ASSUMED EVERY CITIZEN WOULD HAVE. If we don't support it and recover our independent intelligence, our Democracy is doomed.

You don't say anything to show me that you understand the process of controlled demolition, as opposed to a single inflamation of fuel, that you've seen this video and other videos of controlled demolition to recognize the pattern there or really looked at the completely different thing that happens when a bunch of diesal fuel catches fire.
If you if you want to have any hope of ever bringing down the Bush Regime, you MUST master all that evidence and start thinking more open mindedly about what really happened on 9/11. It is the ONE AND ONLY WAY WE CAN GET RID OF THE BUSH REGIME AND THE NIGHTMARISH DOWNWARD SPIRAL IT HAS CREATED.

i guess i just don't get your point. that fact that the planes alone could do all that damage is not damning enough? if LIHOP or MIHOP were ever proven these guys would be hung by their gonads, with or without bombs. the fact that hundreds, maybe thousands of well respected (maybe even dem, most intellectuals are dem, ya know) engineers and scientists from many different fields seem to feel that the planes were quite adequate to do the job. i think your efforts would be better spent researching the bfee links to the saudis and the lack of military response to the hijackings (someone told them to stand down) if you want to nail them on 9-11.

and on edit, so would mine.

and who would want to do that?

the neo-cons running the 'show'

peace

:hippie: And I will add a bit more detail on that. Part of the reason for doing Controlled Demolition is that there's already a lot of people who know HOW to do it. Then you can see how those neo-con artists would balance some considerations in their plot, like we have millions of bucks in Wall Street investments so we can't destory all of lower Manhattan with toppeling towers, but we do have to disintigrate as much evidence as possible --solution CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. :think:

:) And maybe what you can contribute would be more to people who are studying and activating on those sides of the issue. When I think about it a little more, we do have to go on with the fact that not every citizen is going to be able and willing to understand all the physics issues related to the destruction of the WTC. I find some of it pretty hard to follow myself. I took quite a bit of physics up into college, but now I've been working as a musician for a while and haven't been practicing calculations involving the melting point of steel and so on. I know enough to UNDERSTAND anything at Physics911.org , but in a fast debate I can't always come up with the right calculations real fast...it's just not something that I've had to practice much. Yet in truth, that kind of debate is NOT what makes theoretical and experimental science progress. A WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THEORIES WITH AN OPEN MIND IS THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE, AND CITIZENS IN DEMOCRACY MUST ALL BE ABLE TO DO THAT TO MAKE AUTHENITIC DEMOCRACY WORK.
:think:
There, that's what I had to say.

• gravity works
  
• conservation of energy
  
• behaviours of solids, liquids and gases with their various states
  

What we're being asked to do is believe in magic.

where, I think, you're coming from, but I have done a lot of 9/11 research on the web. Enough to fill eight binders with evidence of foreknowledge, failure of standing operating procedure, insider trading, anthrax, cover-up, etc. And I've read Ahmed's The War on Freedom, Chossudovsky's War and Globalisation, Forbidden Truth, Dreaming War, etc. Clearly I'm a bit, well, obsessed with the material. But it warrants obsession, because I believe it ranks among the greatest atrocities perpetrated by a government against its own people, and because it was the Pearl Harbor of the long-predicted resource war at the dawn of the end of the age of oil.

I say all this because I want you to know I'm hardly naive about the Bush Administration. But neither do I want to be gullible. And there are a lot of 9/11 blind alleys that can eat up time and, more significantly, credibility. And when you're trying to persuade a people that their government has perpetrated a massive, murderous fraud, credibility is a precious commodity. It's not to be squandered lightly.

It is the ONE AND ONLY WAY WE CAN GET RID OF THE BUSH REGIME AND THE NIGHTMARISH DOWNWARD SPIRAL IT HAS CREATED.

Well, we could also organize behind the winner of the Democratic primary, get out the vote and send the Republicans in Charge home.

Then the new Democratic president could void Bush's secrecy orders, release the long overdue papers concerning Iran-Contra, and watch the entire BFEE be carted away to Guantanamo to spit-shine Al Qaeda boots.

That's another way we can get rid of the Bush regime.

That truss theory was uncritically parotted throughout the U.S. corporate media. But as more evidence has been processed, that theory has been abandoned as untrue EVEN BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY WHICH IS NOW DOING THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FUNDED INVESTIGATION OF WHY THE TWIN TOWERS AND WTC 7 COLLAPSED. They clearly state in a recent Progress Report that "nothing we say should be taken to imply that the trusses had any critical role in the collapses". So another official 9/11 myth you heard uncritically repeated throughout the U.S. corporate media has proved false.

We'll never get rid of the Bush Regime as long as people cling to the silly old official propaganda theories, just because they heard the lies echoed from so many newspapers and TV stations after 9/11. This is indeed the moment of truth when citizens will have to realize that Bush got that whole da_n corporate media to lie their asses off and all those official theories were a hoax. Our Democracy will survive IF AND ONLY IF us citizens can wake up and realize that. :toast:

It's to bad this interesting article contains the out of date "melting truss" theory of the WTC buildings collapsing, indeed even the Federal investigation of the collapses, which originally brought it to peoples attention doesn't buy it anymore. This investigation has now been transfered from FEMA to the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). One of their recent Progress Reports says "nothing we say should be taken to imply that the trusses played a critical role in the collapses"....OOPS I see I've already said that before in post that ended up right by this one :crazy: GETTING TO THE REAL POINT HERE:

:) However the more interesting part of this post has do with Giuliani's Bunker in WTC7. WT7 also housed some secretive CIA and Department of Defence research offices. I believe that the explosions in the World Trade Center were put there to DESTROY EVIDENCE, as well as to create a PROPAGANDA SPECTACLE. Planes have hit steel buildings before, the buildings did not disintigrate, and their were big chunks of plane that were easy to indentify, and provided plenty of evidence about what happened. When the WTC towers were demolished to smithereens, away went so much evidence about what hit 'em. Now why was WTC 7 blown away like that? I've heard that there were no casualties in WTC 7, people had plenty of time to get out before it was demolished. I wonder wheather stuff was moved out of Giuliani's Bunker, or the CIA and DOD offices BEFORE 9/11? That would be a very interesting lead to follow indeed. Allright New Yorkers, start talking to all the moving guys you know, were any of 'em doing any work at the WTC before 9/11?

The purpose for demolishing the towers was to cover up the evidence of demolishing the towers to cover up the evidence of demolishing the towers to cover up the evidence of demolishing the towers....

The purpose in blowing up building 7, but waiting 7 hours after the other towers fell down, was to cover up that they had moved stuff out of the offices. So you're concealing the lack of evidence. Why bother?

I think there were too purposes involved. One was obviously to create a PROPAGANDA SPECTACLE. As we all know, that was very effective indeed and helped change our whole world for the worse.

But when we get down to the fine details of this covert operation, we have to realize that one ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL aspect of any covert psy-op (Mossad call 'em False Flag Operations) like this is that evidence that could be used to trace the crime back to who really did it, well, it's easy to see that evidence would have to be destroyed. The method of VERY THOROUGH CONTROLLED DEMOLITION just blew so much evidence to smithereens, what planes really hit, who all were on them, and so much more was difficult to impossible to figure out after everything had been disintrigated in such a thorough demolition.

Most demolitions are not quite so thorough, they don't usually blast everything into such tiny bits. How small the bits were didn't matter for the Propaganda Spectacle, but it did destroy more evidence. All the parts of covert psy-op 9/11 hang together.

The purpose of destroying the evidence is to destroy the evidence.

Why would they keep the evidence in building 7???

There's no point.

If you're talking about the evidence of the massive destruction of the towers, you're still in a circular argument.

It's hard to find the right balance between repeating to much and repeating to little hear. There was lots of evidence to destroy with WTC 7. As has been mentioned there were files related to the case against Enron. Enron has everything to do with 9/11. The Bush Administration actually SUPPORTED the Taliban early on, but when Cheney and Enron couldn't get a satifactoy pipeline deal out of 'em, the Bush policy reversed all the way and they started planning a war in Afghanistan to put in some leaders they could do buisness with better. And we were on the road to 9/11.

Besides that evidence, there were secret research offices of the CIA and DOD in WTC7. If Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld had them "help" in destoying the WTC and creating the New Pearl Harbor needed by the PNAC agenda, they would naturally destroy the evidence that could possibly point back to them. That's just basic covert operations technique. And the Secretary of Defence, or the President certainly has the authority to simply order them to do such a thing.

So that's some evidence gone with WTC 7. What was especially gone with the Twin Towers was evidence about exactly what hit them and why and who all was really on those aircraft....so the cover for the covert propaganda operation was complete.

Would be whether or not there was a rather large transfer of data from any computers housed in that building.
It might also be of interest to know if such a transfer occured that day, or shortly before that day.

It downloads for me but then i get that damned file not found error box on real player. annoying.

http://apple.com/quicktime/download

it's free as well :hi:

peace

I mean, buildings dont' fall this cleanly due to some "catastrophe" on the inside, like an exploding fuel tank.

I guess that fact that a CIA HQ was in there, and all of the SEC's papers regarding Enron had absolutely nothing to do with it! Or the fact that the building was not hit by any WTC debris that weakened it or that buildings closer to WTC 1 and 2 did NOT collapse.

Captain MIke

why would a conspirarist place explosives in such a way as to minimize damage while laying waste to the single greatest disaster the US has ever experienced? This is the bit the grand conspiracy majors never really explain.

Think this through for a minute. There is massive damage being done. Lets repeat that for emphasis. Massive damage. On a scale never scene before. And the big theory is they planted explosives to take the buildings down in a controlled fall? I think the propellor on the beanie is twirling the wrong way guys.

Think it through further. If they need to cover up their tracks they are going to make sure the buildings fall down how you expect them too. Why paint a great big question mark on the matter by doing a controlled demolition.

Now think through safety standards in New York. Building specs are going to call for extreme measures. Including catastrophy. Thus they are going to design buildings such that any destabalization is not goin to endanger neighboring buildings. These are massively tall buildings we are talking about. Not some brownstones. Add to this the physics involved. A building that tall cannot canter that far off center line. The loss of stability causes the entire system to disintergrate. This leads to an immediate collapse.

This conspiratal line of thinking trully strikes me as a psychological need rather than a reasoned approach to this disaster.

It is entirely possible that George and Co. may well have had a hand in this matter. But these scenarios are completely off the mark. They flew a pair of jets into the towers people. That is more than enough destructive force. Then all this talk about controled detonations.... I am sorry this is simply beyond reason. There is no need. There is no reason. There is no sense to it. Terror = destruction. Terror is not about controlled demolition.

i will respond to AZ's well reasoned and logical post. i am with ya all the way. in addition one of the posted claimed on another thread that one of the reasons to blow up the towers was to hide the evidence in the planes (don't quite know what the evidence would be, btw.) well wt7 had no plane in it so just what may have been the motive??

here a great link from nova: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

and here's another that has over 40 links in the engineering and construction subset that explains the whole thing. i obviously didn't read all the links but i read many of the articles in engineering news record when they were published.
http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/special/wtc/#Engineering%20and%20Construction

unless it is BURIED :shrug:

peace

to see where link on post 21 will lead you. take you a little time to read all those technical articles on WT7, but they are there.

:hi:

peace

of a quick google search, all of my links have been from page one, the info is readily available. besides, there is absloutely to EVER know in almost any fire any of the exact causes unless someone was standing inside of the burning building watching. here's another link:

http://www.gostructural.com/V3N7/WTC.pdf

:) This strikes me as a really sincere and meaningful post, so I will try to explain, one question at a time.

Though the distruction was massive it could have been much worse and destroyed the whole Financial District of lower Manhattan (Wall Street) if the Towers toppled over, as steel buildings have occasionally done in major earthquakes. The people with resources to do 9/11, had investments in Wall Street worth millions, and indeed made millions there by knowing 9/11 was going to happen. So as evil and unscrupulous as these people were, they had their reaons to contain the destruction down there by using the well-known methods of Controlled Demoltion.

There have been controlled demolitions on nearly this scale before, but they did not kill a bunch of firefighter and other people in the buildings. So you probably never saw them on the "News". It was just the time when these buidlings came down that created such a terrifying propaganda spectacle.

The plot was to a)create a terrifying propaganda spectacle

b)make it all look like this damage was done by someone else, thus bringing in the PNAC agenda, the already planned invasion of Afghanistan and the millions Cheney hoped to make from that, the already written Patriot Act terminating many constitutional rights, and so on.

c)disintigrate evidence that could lead to who really did the crime, or disprove the official version of events.

The demolition methods they chose perfectly fit those criteria.

You say a little about the physics of the buildings. Check out this article to learn some more: http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=9606022231&m=433601662

All they needed to do was hit the buildings, not knock them down. The psychological effect is the same and you don't need all this other stuff.

Not that I am an expert, but I have seen several on TV!

Controlled Demolition, Inc., the company to handle the demo of the Landmark, Dunes, Aladdin, Sands and Hacienda casinos in Vegas, Mendez Caldera office building in Brazil in 1978, and the Oklahoma City federal building would be proud.


hmmm

No plane crash equals no fire equals explosion!!!!

...when plenty of flaming debris was blown out of Towers 1 & 2?

How did falling debris on the OUTSIDE cause a fire INSIDE of the WTC 7 building?

Why would the WTC 7 have massive tanks of fuel in them in the first place?

This area was surrounded by firefighters, the WTC 7 supposedly burned for 7 hours, why didnÕt the firefighters notice it was burning?

:shrug:

peace

My member is more fair and balanced.

good call ;->

peace

the building was gutted by an uncontrolled fire caused by burning debris which also did structural damage. there is speculation the the 6,000 gallons of deisel fuel on the second floor and the 36,000 gallons below the first floor in the loading dock contributed to the uncontrolled fires if their containment systems were comprimised by the devastation across the street.

here is a very nice link with many other engineering type links: http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/Fire/News/wtc.html

is that the first time this has ever happened to steel buildings?

peace

dont see it.

this doesn't pass the common sense test when you look at the video. If there was a fire that were "consuming" the buidling i could understand.....i don't see that.

... that the building is on fire. A brother of mine that works for FEMA was on site at the time. WTC7 was in an uncontrollable burn. The structure mearly fell under its own weight; weakened by the inferno.

There was no larceny involved.

to the WTC collapse, and I cannot tell you how heartily sick I am of the "bomb" conspiracy theorists.

WTC 7 burned all day and collapsed from structural damage. Just about the entire NYC fire department and NYPD were down there at the time, and if they'd had any suspicion there were bombs going off they'd have said something. They didn't.

The WTC was destroyed by terrorists. What needs to be investigated are the connections between those terrorists and the Bush Regime.

The "bomb" theories are just red herrings.

Boloboffin, Analep É.

LetÕs focus our attention on what happened on building #7

Building 7 was being monitored all day by several hundred firefighters and NYPD, plus emergency workers, and somehow none of those people concluded that the building came down because of a bomb. It was self-evident that the building came down because of structural damage caused by the collapse of towers 1 and 2.

I was in lower Manhattan on September 11, and I believe I speak for others who were there when I tell you you can take your conspiracy theories and shove them where the sun don't shine.

What needs to be investigated is Bush's connections to al Qaeda and how much he knew before September 11.

The bomb thing is bogus.

<<Building 7 was being monitored all day by several hundred firefighters and NYPD,>>

Yet these firefighters didnÕt notice the fire burning for 7 hours that eventually
Brought down building 7?!!

By the way, How did the collapse of the towers cause the ignition of the fuel tanks in WTC 7?

Why would the WTC 7 have massive tanks of fuel in them in the first place?

There were news reports throughout the day that WTC 7 was on fire and was expected to collapse. And then it collapsed.

In the event of power failures, people still need to be able to function in the buildlings. The air conditioners, elevators, emergency lighting need to keep running. Also the file servers (NT and UNIX) need to be given enough time to do an organized shutdown, or in the case of mission critical applications, stay up.

In a complex the size of the WTC, and the mission critical nature of the business going inside, they would need huge generators, requiring plenty of fuel.

it was damaged by falling debris from the towers, it was shook by the collapse of the towers, stuff inside, probobly including a backup generator with a lot of diesel fuel, burned and weakened the steel, until it collapsed.

:hippie: Thanks for putting some real enlightening evidence up, unlike certain people who never have done ANYTHING constructive to help sort out all the evidence and figure out the truth about what happened...they just make silly prejudiced remarks which will all be forgotten when the truth is found.

Now the great significance of WTC 7, is that it came down in a perfect controlled demolition pattern just like the Twin Towers, but it WASN'T EVEN HIT BY A PLANE! Whoever was responsible for the whole 9/11 covert operation, clearly used the same demolition technique on all three buidlings-- SO THE PLANE CRASHES AND JET FUEL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THESE THREE BUILDINGS WERE COLLAPSED!

Here's a good informative article about WTC 7:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html
It's nice to inform yourself with articles like this before you jump into a discussion about the explosions in the WTC...it helps you to avoid saying anything that turns out to be embarrassingly stupid when the people who are really studying this figure out what happened!

Not controlled demolition. Why are the grand conspiracy crowd so fixated on controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is exactly what the bad guys (conspiracy or no) do not want. They would much rather have seen the buildings fall over. More destruction that way. In fact building falling over is exactly why construction codes require buildings to be designed to fall in that manner rather then topple over onto other buildings in disasters. Do you honestly think it would be a good idea to design buildings that would be giant domino sets? Bad idea.

Now if you were talking about reall "terraists" then yes but the fact is Bushco needed very specific targets takin out with as little "colateral" damage as possible.

The towers were chosen for the shock value and it seems building 7 was chosen for more specific reasons.

Have you ever visited the WTC site. If you were there before and after you would be confused as to how two very tall buildings collapsed into their relitively small easments without damaging surrounding buildings.

Building 7 is even more confusing as all the other buildings around it are intact.

I believe if it was a controlled demolition it was done that way in an effort to minimize damage to other key parts of downtown like the Stock Exchange for example.

That would be far more damaging in the long term to our economy than the WTC itself.

hotels that were imploded in Las Vegas. They fall similar in fashion.

via my late father who used to work there & was a structural engineer:

The plane hit the inside, caued a fire, which melted the steel structure (it was very hot), which caused the upper floors to collapse on the lower ones, which created a "pancaking" effect- since the floors with rubble on them couldn't stay up with the added weight, which caused the collapse.

What is your explination for it?

that these two towers had just cratered the area didn't you? Think about the ground level damage of the Two Towers crumbling into the area must have caused. Its suprising Tower 7 didn't fall earlier. We are talking about a lot of energy being put into the ground there. The foundation was compromised in the extreme. Big buildings like firm foundations. Without them they go fwoomp.

:shrug:

peace

And they later had to be demolished. The damage in the area was extensive. The height of a building places more stress on the foundation. Pretty straight forward.

surrounding buildings were intact.

Try this list on for size:

Destroyed on September 11th

1 World Trade Center
2 World Trade Center
Marriott Hotel
4 World Trade Center
5 World Trade Center
6 World Trade Center
7 World Trade Center
St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church
North Bridge

Sustained damage, but would be restored or already restored

1 Liberty Plaza
East River Savings Bank
3 World Financial Center
2 World Financial Center
1 World Financial Center
4 World Financial Center
N.Y. Telephone Building
90 West Street
Winter Garden of WFC
Millenium Hilton
Federal Bldg (90 Church Street)

that is the other issue i have... the more there are the more implausible it sounds to me.

engineer challenge: how often to buildings collapse into their own foot print when attacked with explosives, or other violent means, and last but certainly not least FIRE?

peace

a terrorist or a conspiracist would want a building to fall that way.

It is reasonable to expect that construction standards mandate that buildings over a certain height must be designed such that they will fall inwards rather than fall over. You do not build such structures without consideration of how they will come down. There is no sense to why someone would want to destroy a building as an act of terror in a controlled manner.

Please if you wish anyone to consider your theories you are going to have to establish what the motive for such a blast would be.

and as you RIGHTLY point out 'TERRORIST' wouldn't want to do that but the TERRORIST in the WH would.

:hi:

peace

Minimize damage. They knocked the two tallest buildings in the world down. Any other damage is just chump change. And you think they wanted to minimize damage? Then why not take out the Statue of Liberty? Much less economic cost and enough terror to scare the populace into compliance. They struck the single most devastating economic target they could get to. This was about causing damage. And it succeeded.

Ok, cards on the table. Why do you believe the terrorists could not have managed to pilot some planes into the buildings and that caused the damage? Why does it have to be so orchestrated? Look inside yourself and see what it is you are really struggling with. Where is the sense in limiting damage in the most damaging scenario ever carried out in US history? To repeat Maccovern's excellent list this was the minimized damage of the day:

1 World Trade Center
2 World Trade Center
Marriott Hotel
4 World Trade Center
5 World Trade Center
6 World Trade Center
7 World Trade Center
St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church
North Bridge

Sustained damage, but would be restored or already restored

1 Liberty Plaza
East River Savings Bank
3 World Financial Center
2 World Financial Center
1 World Financial Center
4 World Financial Center
N.Y. Telephone Building
90 West Street
Winter Garden of WFC
Millenium Hilton
Federal Bldg (90 Church Street)

8 Buildings at the center of the US economic district were destroyed.
11 Buildings were damaged and saved.

This is not minimizing damage. This is obliteration. So why in the midst of this destruction do you believe there was a need to take the risk to plant charges to create a controlled demolition?

Let us try another tact. Is that the best way they could have done it? Such an operation would have required an army of participants. You would need engineers to survey the buildings and plan the explosives. You would need the cooperation of security teams inside the buildings that would die in the resulting explosions. You would need the cooperation of nearly every civic service within NewYork to close its eyes while you planted the charges and waited. To what purpose? The risk increases exponentially with each person you add to the conspiracy. You think they can find that many sociopaths that will stay silent? It simply doesn't work. Its too great a risk when they have so many alternitives.

You can have your conspiracy without all the grand schemes. You only need George and Co to ease back on security and press some buttons and the terrorists will follow through on the rest. Jet planes crashing into buildings do a lot of damage. Even if the buildings had not fallen over this would have shattered our sense of peace. There is no need for more damage than that.

Think things through logically. What was the intent? What is the most effective way to achieve it? What is the least amount of risk needed? Then apply what we do know. Two planes crashed into the tallest structures in the world. The structures fell down causing massive collateral damage destroying a number of close by buildings. How are the planes crashing into the buildings not enough to send terror throughout the nation? Why the need for more damage but oddly controlled damage? It doesn't fit.

Seriously I understand your need to make things fit your beliefs. I feel your pain as well. But needing something to be the truth and reality are two different things. Fight for that which is most likely. George and Co left our defenses down and practically invited terrorists in. They don't need more than that for their purposes. They knew the type of damage they wanted to do to us and merely had to let them do it while making sure they themself were secure and far away when it happened.

Peace

call me suspicious but that doesn't look right to me and i still haven't heard an explaination that fits.

now YOU have a hardtime understanding why someone else would have used the cover of a well known upcomming terrorist attack to hide their own work then i am left to conclude that you haven't really thought much about this and how tramitically it has changed outr nation for the worse to benifit a few dastardly men.

if history is not enough to make you suspicious nor your own eyes than all i can say is get out of my way unless you have some PROOF to offer other then your own limmitted understanding and imagination.

how many buildings have you seen that feel in their OWN FOOTPRINT other than CD ones.

peace

Why? Why would they want the building to fall in its own footprint? Just answer that. There is no sense to it. The most destructive attack was an attempt to limit damage? Does that make any sense? It went down 7 hours after the attack. Officials had been warning everyone away from the buidling because it was unstable.

So Why?

how many times to i need to say that?

if you knew two planes were going to hit the towers that day but they were not enough to actually bring them down but you NEEDED them to come down or you wanted to be in control of their fall to minimize damage what would you do?

now this is a perfectly logical possibility so don't go flying off the handle and try to insult my inteligence or my psycology and just think about it.

peace

What damage was minimized? 8 buildings destroyed. 11 Buildings severely damaged. They flew 2 jets into them. This is not minimizing damage. Minimizing damage is not blowing up any buildings. Minimizing damage is stopping the terrorists. from getting on the jets.

You are saying the blew up the buildings to minimize damage. Say that again. They blew up the building to minimize the damage. Do you see the contradiction? If they blew up the building they wanted to cause damage. And those 2 jets kind of threw a monkey wrench into the whole minimize damage theory as well. You don't initiate a controlled demolition by slamming a pair of fully fueled jets into a building.

I'm sorry. You are going to have to provide some sense of how the damage was minimized and how that is sensible. Simply saying to minimize the damage is not an argument.

notice that the buildings on either side of wt7 sustained very little damage the wtc7 is completly gone.

i think you get the picture now.

btw have you ever heard of controlled demolition? why do they blow them up that way? to MINIMIZE DAMAGE but completly destroy the target.

now if those towers were to fall to one side or the other you would have had much more destruction, surely you can see that right?

so if i knew i had two planes going into the towers and i needed a few buildings to dissapear with minimum damage to surrounding buildings this would provide the PERFECT OPPROTUNITY.

don't get me wrong i am not saying that is what happened just a PLAUSIBLE explaination considering the evidence.

peace

as to why they would want to minimize damage while causing the greatest damage ever to strike the US. Thats the problem here. There is no reason to minimize the damage when you are destroying the most valuable things in the area.

Yes there are anamolies that we need to investigate. But everything you do not understand does not immediately mean it was planned that way and all went according to that master plan.

why is that so hard to understand?

i am asking for reasonable explanation why wtc7 fell uniformally in its own foot print or at the very least other examples where this occured thus far i haven't seen any.

just because i don't have all the answers is no reason for me to give up or make up some theory when i am looking for answers to REASONABLE questions.

you don't have any either so why keep bugging me or trying to make me look like a kook?

get back to me when you have some answers, i will be all ears.

peace

You said:
notice that the buildings on either side of wt7 sustained very little damage the wtc7 is completly gone.

WTC7 is larger and quite different from the buidings that surround it. If all the other buildings were clones of WTC7 - you might have a point...

lets stay focused.

peace

... The building caught fire from the adjacent towers and burned unchecked for hours.

It was a burned out hull that FDNY couldn't stop.

The building collapsed straight down under its own weight via the thermally weakened structure.

again, there was NO LARCENY INVOLVED

thanks :hi:

btw: please find another steel building in history that has collapsed from a fire as well.

thanks :toast:

peace

... they fell because the fire weakened the structural steel.

Once again, study the video close. The building was fully engulfed and evidence of it can be seen from the smoke rising from the windows before collapse.

Also, I know first hand witnesses that would tesify to my accounts on these threads.

There was no more conspiricy around WTC7 further than the inital attack on the two towers.

and the building fell in it's OWN footprint... pretty bizzar, no?

peace

... heat induced structural failure, not the initial impact.

Likewise, WTC7 collapsed straight down under itself by the same mechanism.

or a natural collapse that was so uniform?

those are the 2 big issues and so far i haven't seen any.

peace

Eyewitnesses (I'm one) don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. And there are at least a million eyewitnesses.

many heard explosions ESPECIALLY the first responders and reported what they heard over their radios.

peace

See my message #225 about the explosions, and stop making a fool of yourself. It's annoying.

Because they needed 3000 deaths.

If you study the Bible you'll find that "3000 deaths" is used repeatedly in association with conscription into a new era -
(for example, "New World Order" or "Everything changed after 911".)

The religious fundamentalist terrorists who created the event most likely had this in mind for the overall script.

I study the Bible. This is the first I've heard of this. I just did an online search for the phrase and came up empty.

Which book of the Bible discusses the New World Order?

almost always for high rises and most buildings. their center of gravity is such that they really, physically have little choice. things fall DOWN, they don't fall out. tho sometimes after a rough night i do fall over.

the only steel buildings i've seen that had been damaged to the point of collapse that did so in their own foot print are the ones that were done on purpose... all the others that were accidental or bomb related didn't collapse so cleanly.

do you have any evidence of such, i would love to see it, and it shouldn't be hard to find since it is so natural for buildings to fall so cleanly.

thanks :hi:

peace

that we get to see demolished are not that tall. This was a 47 story building. Its foundations had just been hammered by the Twin Towers crumbling into the ground. 5 other buildings were destroyed. There is no need for charges to bring this one down. Your increduality is based on your lack of experience with demolition. This does not constitute evidence. It simply constitutes your's and my horror at the monstrousity committed on that day. Our minds real and seek something to latch it upon. Something to make it all make sense even if it is horrible. We seek to set things in such a way that someone must have had control of the situation. Control is not always present. Life is uncertain. We only have each other to lean upon.

no matter how tall.

now how bout some proof to back up your thoughts?

peace

they happen to right next to the two of the biggest buildings in the world that have just catastophically collapsed...

and why so cleanly?

peace

I'm no Engiweenie, I'm just a guy who used to enjoy blowing stuff up as an adolescent (in a much kinder, gentler time, before a kid with a bunch of firecrackers became a Terra-ist).

I assume by "footprint" you mean the area that the building used to occupy, ie within the foundation, right? How would a building fall OUTSIDE of it's footprint? How often does that happen? Even big buildings, if they suffer only partial destruction, still fall pretty much within their footprint. Look at the collapse of the Federal building in OKC. When the building failed, it didn't fall sideways, it fell DOWN. In geologic terms, that pattern of debris fall is commonly referred to as a "slump", it falls down, and then balloons out at the base.


About the ONLY way I can figure to get a building to fall sideways as it fails is by something on the order of a nuclear detonation at a distance, with one entire side of the building drastically weakened suddenly, and accompanied by a HUGE pressure wave, giving sideways momentum.

thats the other problem most buildings ive seen destroyed by natural or bomb attacks didn't completely fall in their own foot print.

this is way too clean for my eyes though i am not an expert.

i was in downtown kobe after the quake and i have seen steel structures where their foundation gave way and they toppled over... in tact, lying in the street, with my own eyes.

peace

The entire structure didn't collapse, but once the bomb went off, severing the structural supports near ground level, most of the building "pancaked".

The front fell off. The floors directly behind pancaked. Most of the building was left standing.

(

better picture)

B7 was across the street off site and the two buildings on either side still stand.

None of the buildings imploded on their own footprint other than WTC 1, 2 and 7.

Is that a technical term? I LIKE IT!!! :)

click on the little blue line that is underlined. on that page you will find the links to the following to answer your question.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, by Professors Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson
A Nation Challenged: The Site; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel (NY Times)
Diesel suspected in 7 WTC collapse (Chicago Tribune)
Collapse of tower 7 examined (The State, S.C.)
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center (N.Y. Times)
7 World Trade Center
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center

the web is a wonderful thing, use it please.

got any official sources that explain it?

peace

:) That's the strange thing we're considering here. It was collapsed in a rapid series of explosions like the others, but it turned out that no plane was even needed to do that. The planes were just added on to create a scapegoat to blame this on... the whole point of the propaganda opperation. And most of the evidence about those planes and how they got there was destroyed when the buildings they hit were demolished...see how neatly this whole criminal plan fits together.

As for the pancakeing truss theory you heard, a number of scientists and engineers believed it for a while after the event, but those who went on to study all the data some more disproved it. There's lots of evidence of explosives, the accounts of firemen who saw, heard and felt them for example. It very often happen that first official theory of why something happened turns out to be false, even if lots of experts believed it. More evidence turns up and we often have to revise our ideas.

I have posted a thread here before about the National Institute of Standards and Technology and others finding evidence that led them to give up the pancakeing truss theory.

As for the pancakeing truss theory you heard, a number of scientists and engineers believed it for a while after the event, but those who went on to study all the data some more disproved it.

Zzzzzz.... nothing you have posted, either with links or personally, has been able to support that some mass, nefarious conspiracy was/is at play here.

There's lots of evidence of explosives, the accounts of firemen who saw, heard and felt them for example.

So firemen actually saw explosives planted, just waiting to go off, hmmm? Why didn't they radio in that the place was rigged to blow?

and you have added ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11! What's YOUR theory of what all happened, and what evidence and independent reasoning do you have to show for it?

Don't fool yourself that a cover-up based on nothing but prejudice is going to stop more independent minded people who are not political and media suckers from figuring out what really happened. And then all the little moments of prejudiced stupidity will be forgotten.

sorry to hear about your father.

peace

In the second impact the plane hits near the corner at an angle and most of the fuel burns OUTSIDE the building, yet this building falls first.

so many questions...soo many people wanting to avoid the "heat" for national security ....right.

You see the building collapsed in the crater. You have your answer. There is a limited ability to search a site. A controlled demolition after a pair of jets has smashed into a building makes no sense. Even the most brazen of conspirators would not bother with a controlled demolition. If you are going to plant explosives then plant them so they cause the maximum damage. Make the building fall over not down. Why on earth would anyone want a controled demolition of the building?

and why doesn't it make sense to have a CD durring a terrorist attack especcially if you KNEW it was comming MONTHS in advance?

seems like it would be the IDEAL time, well if you wanted it to go undetected that is.

peace

The crater came from the worlds two tallest towers collapsing. Add into this the falling debri piercing the surrounding building structures and you have more than enough localised desrtuction to level 7. There were constant warnings throughout the day about other buildings being in danger of collapsing. 7 was one of them that fell.

Tall buildings are not solid blocks of wood. They are structures held aloft by engineering and balance. Destabalize that balance and it falls.

The question still stands if you are going to knock down the tallest buildings in the world and kill thousands ... why on earth would you give any notion to a controlled demolition. Why would you not want the builings to fall over instead of down. It takes extra effort (particularly dangerous in secretive conditions) to bring about a controlled demolition. Why take the extra risks for a controlled demolition when an uncontrolled fall would bring more terror and destruction?

if there was so much destruction in the area and if you study the film of the towers collapse they fell pretty much in their own footprints WITHOUT much heavy debrie being ejected so why was it's neighbors still standing?

and why did it's roof go just before it's base?

looks a little too clean to me but i admit i am not an expert, would love to hear what the 'OFFICIAL' theory is, though.

as to your second question, to cover it up as a target.

peace

Bulding seven did not fall into the crater. This is obvious if you actually know where building 7 was or if you have ever visited the site. You are also the only person I have ever seen make such a claim.

Have you even seen the site at all?

A controlled demo was used to limit damage to other important buildings in the area. Bush had his shock value from the attack, "collateral" damage needed to be controlled.

it would make no sense, since those kinds of terrorists would love to maximize the damage.

HOWEVER, you have to think out of the box on this.

In all three cases of attacks, the damage was minimized-- The WTC was attacked before most of the workers had arrived, the Pentagon was hit in the one place where damage would have been minimized (after the plane allegedly made a spectacular 270-degree loop at super high speed). Wow.

Now consider this-- how many of the TOP people (CEOs of big companies, Pentagon brass, etc.) were killed in the two attacks? Lots of the WTC CEOs just happened to be at a "charity event" at Offut AFB hosted by Warren Buffet on that day. Whew! Lucky for them, eh? Bu$$$h must have gone there later in the day to congratulate them on their great luck.

Meanwhile, back in NY, the WTC is in the heart of New York's financial district. A foreign terrorist group would want to maximize damage. BUT... a "terrorist group" that rubs elbows with the financial power brokers of the country would want to MINIMIZE damage, and would not want SERIOUS disruption in the financial system of the country, because, after all that is where they make their bread and butter.

it is being investigated and analyzed by engineers up the ying yang. the hyatt regency collapse was studied for years and believe me, this one is and will be as well. it is all out there and in the open in engineering and construction trade journals. unlike some others on this thread i have provided links to legitimate analysis done by top people in their profession.

can somebody PLEASE tell one dam good reason how the FBI can release the photo's and names of the 19 hijackers if they all used fake id's?

I'll wait for my answer....

and it was on the 40th floor on Salomon Brother's options trading floor of WTC 7. (equity options) The thing i used to marvel at every day on arriving to work was how close the building was to WTC 1... and how, on sitting at my desk and eating my breakfast that WTC 1 was 60 floors above me up in to the clouds, yet it was as if i could reach out the window and touch it....

My "window" would be in the photo you picture a coupla stories beneath the left side of the air vent across the building's front at the top... as i think the building was 46 or so floors... i don't remember as i never went "up" beyond to 42 to the bond floor.

Given the proximity of WTC7 to 1, i was surpised it did not fall at the same time, and it actually DID NOT surprise me that it fell later.
... nor does it surprise me that it fell from street level as the wtc 2 rubble surely had eviscerated the building at street level.

The long and short: no conspiracy theory.

There used to be a circular tunnel connecting the wtc 7 with the plaza that i used at lunchtime. I challenge only the poeple on this board who have used that walkway to speak up on the new conspiracy theory that 7 was an insideous act... bollocks.

And I don't see what walking the tunnel has to do with having an opinion on the subject.

The deutche bank building on liberty street had to come down and it was farther away than 7. 140 west street and world fi... were heavily damaged and yet further away.

The point about the round tunnel was that you are aware of how narrow vesey street was, and how far up in to the sky wtc1 went considering how concrete masses fall downwards tending to not fall perfectly downwards. I was surprised the millenium hotel still stands, yet it was significantly further.

What i've observed is that the "event" has been hyjakked by people who were not there, and have never been there to mean something else than what it was.

I accept that the WTC was a command and control center for the american global debt markets, and may have been a legit economic-military target given its function... as don't we bomb command and control facilities also when attacking opponents.

The people i knew who died (jumping off 1) would be more than furious to discover that their unfortunate demise has been perverted as a reason to mass murder 1000's of people, including invasions and bankrupting the american treasury. More than that, the people I knew who died would have been fucking livid. They were all globalists, free traders and benign imperialists at worst.... but certainly not the basis for a mass murder extermination campaign driven by militarist fuckheads in washtington.

Those fuckheads have never been to the WTC except to marvel at the pit... and who are they to claim any sort of comprehension as what was an appropriate foreign policy memorial action to monument the victems deaths... surely this was not another litany of foreign policy abuses and mass murders of brown people.

I hear ya sterling, and perhaps i made my point wrong, but i see the even hyjakked by a bunch of people who've never been there.

But I don't buy the "official" story either.

I never used the tunnel but I am well aware of how close all those structures were to the WTC towers. The fact that the only building across the street that went down was 7 is suspect in and of itself but the WAY it went down much like the towers does not add up. I was in the Northridge quake of 94 and like B Pilgram I find it hard to swallow that building 7 went down they way it did. Buildings in LA that had been damaged at the ground floor or foundation level tipped over broke apart, collapsed in sections, not disintegrated on to the footprint.


I think if our Gov was involved they wanted maximum shock value with minimum damage to infrastructure. Thus a controlled demo of specific buildings might be possible, and that is what they looked like to me. But like I said I do not claim my hunch is right only that like the other "oddities" about 9-11 we deserve better answers than we have been given.

Please!

The WTC buildings collapsing has very, very little in common with an
earthquake in California, but you insist on making this comparison
over and over and over again.

the day after, when i rode my bike through town, i saw plenty of destruction but nothing that i can rember breaking as cleanly as wt7 but i have also seen many buildings attacked with explsions, thanks to modern media, and i've seen CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on the teeVee as well and if i had to break down all the DIFFERNET TYPES of building destructions i have seen into ONLY two groups they would be these...

CLEAN

and

DIRTY

guess where most types i've seen belong to...
the clean ones were definately the minority group since they only contain the CD types of destruction i have seen with my own eyes.

guess what category wt7 falls into...

now maybe you can see why many folks might have a problem with this.

peace