Ground zero building catches fire, burns for 7 hours, doesn't collapse

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well the engineers on site saw it...they have all the video...the pictures...the diagrams...all the blueprints...the many firefighter eyewitness testimonies from inside and outside the building... etc...etc...etc... essentially every angle of being there and witnessing it.

....and not a single one of them can see ANY reason whatsoever why it fell exactly like a demolished building does.

really? where did you find such information?

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Actually there is far more evidence leaning towards demolition than not.

So combine the two realities of that encompassing scenario, and see where common sense seems to rest.

its possible, but so far from a slam dunk that you and your God, Alex, play it out to be.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

It's not pure physics. Unless you are a structural engineer and personally examined WTC 7 prior to it's collapse and saw first hand how the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 affected and/or comprimised the structural integrity of the building it is all speculation.

You can take the same building and set off a truck bomb outside it's main entrance and the building could still remain erect. You can take the same building and place a much smaller amount of explosives next to a weight bearing support collumn and probably bring the whole fucker down.

None of us was inside that building so we really have no idea what the structural damage was like inside.

see post #40.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That's an inaccurate statement and you know it.

how so? every single link you have posted has been directly from alex jones.

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well the engineers on site saw it...they have all the video...the pictures...the diagrams...all the blueprints...the many firefighter eyewitness testimonies from inside and outside the building... etc...etc...etc... essentially every angle of being there and witnessing it.

....and not a single one of them can see ANY reason whatsoever why it fell exactly like a demolished building does.

Actually there is far more evidence leaning towards demolition than not.

So combine the two realities of that encompassing scenario, and see where common sense seems to rest.

Was this before or after WTC 1 & 2 fell?

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

see post #40.

Can you provide a link to there reports.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

really? where did you find such information?

its possible, but so far from a slam dunk that you and your God, Alex, play it out to be.

It's all there. People (responders) were there. Firefighters were there. Engineers were there ...the 9/11 commission was there. All the people needed to figure it out were all there trying to figure it out...taking pictures...video...making notes....drawings etc...etc etc...

Are you saying this didn't take place?

jlew24asu

mammasan wrote:

Can you provide a link to there reports.

http://prisonplanet.com/ :rolleyes:

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

Can you provide a link to there reports.

What the 9/11 commission reports? Feel free. This is official public domain information widely available everywhere on the net.

They can't explain #7. They never did.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

http://prisonplanet.com/ :rolleyes:

cmon...use your head, the official 9/11 govt reports.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's all there. People (responders) were there. Firefighters were there. Engineers were there ...the 9/11 commission was there. All the people needed to figure it out were all there trying to figure it out...taking picture...video...etc etc...

Are you saying this didn't take place?

its all where?

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What the 9/11 commission reports? Feel free. This is official public domain information widely available everywhere on the net.

They can't explain #7. They never did.

so if they cant, why can you?

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What the 9/11 commission reports? Feel free. This is official public domain information widely available everywhere on the net.

They can't explain #7. They never did.

I read the 9/11 Commision report and just because the collapse can not be explain doesn't necessarily mean that it was a controlled demo job. I ask again was the inspection of the building done prior to WTC 1 & 2 collapsing or after those two buildings had already come down. And lastly, for arguments sake, let's say that WTC 7 was purposely brought down does that really equate to the whole evnt of 9/11 being a giant government conspiracy.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

its all where?

What do you think the official 9/11 commission report was a result of?

exactly that.

stu gee

spiral out wrote:

Come on the twin towers were questionable but tower 7, what you say is just laughble.

Maybe do some research on buildings that have caught on fire or with randon structual damage and if you come back with evidence of the any of them collapsing symmetrically.

Then we may take you seriously.

Why is it laughable? I think its a credible theory as to why it collapsed.

Id take people more seriously if you didnt come across as someone who thinks they know it all.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

I read the 9/11 Commision report and just because the collapse can not be explain doesn't necessarily mean that it was a controlled demo job. I ask again was the inspection of the building done prior to WTC 1 & 2 collapsing or after those two buildings had already come down. And lastly, for arguments sake, let's say that WTC 7 was purposely brought down does that really equate to the whole evnt of 9/11 being a giant government conspiracy.

Then you need to read post #40 again. It (#7) wasn't due to fire or structural damage.

So exactly what was it then? Do you think a caged steel building is a flimsy structure?

jlew24asu

mammasan wrote:

I read the 9/11 Commision report and just because the collapse can not be explain doesn't necessarily mean that it was a controlled demo job. I ask again was the inspection of the building done prior to WTC 1 & 2 collapsing or after those two buildings had already come down. And lastly, for arguments sake, let's say that WTC 7 was purposely brought down does that really equate to the whole evnt of 9/11 being a giant government conspiracy.

wtc7 was un-salvageable. and not a single person died or was hurt when it came down.

and if it was taken down on purpose, how was it done so quickly? demo teams take weeks to properly place the demo charges in the right spot. and if it was laced with bombs for weeks before hand, how can not one single person come forward. 10s or even a 100 people would have known

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Then you need to read post #40 again. It (#7) wasn't due to fire or structural damage.

So exactly what was it then? Do you think a caged steel building is a flimsy structure?

You still haven't answered my question. Was the inspection of WTC 7 executed before or after the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Then you need to read post #40 again. It (#7) wasn't due to fire or structural damage.

So exactly what was it then? Do you think a caged steel building is a flimsy structure?

why wasnt it due to fire and hundreds of millions of tons of concrete and steel that crashed into the base?

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

wtc7 was un-salvageable. and not a single person died or was hurt when it came down.

and if it was taken down on purpose, how was it done so quickly? demo teams take weeks to properly place the demo charges in the right spot. and if it was laced with bombs for weeks before hand, how can not one single person come forward. 10s or even a 100 people would have known

To add to that precise cuts have to be made on key weight bearing columns in order to control the directions and speed of the collapse. Any engineer or firefighter inspecting the twisted remains of the steel columns from WTC 7 would have easily picked up on this.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

wtc7 was un-salvageable. and not a single person died or was hurt when it came down.

and if it was taken down on purpose, how was it done so quickly? demo teams take weeks to properly place the demo charges in the right spot. and if it was laced with bombs for weeks before hand, how can not one single person come forward. 10s or even a 100 people would have known

We were told in the media by Silverman (the guy who got big cash) it was unsalvagable. Hell, if I were him I be hoping on the insurance deal as well.

There are also video accounts of firefighters being told to stand around and let it burn instead of putting it out.

It still wouldn't have collapsed from fire and the minor structural damage though (according to all the official 9/11 engineers).