Is the collapse of WTC7 still up for debate? i think we all know by now why wtc7 fell, even if you take away Silversteins freudian slip, the evidence for controlled demolition far out ways evidence of damage and fire.

It's physically impossible for the building to fall like that from fire and damage, case closed??.

I agree: Case closed!

Nonetheless, there are important issues about WTC 7 that should be discussed.

many people still disagree.

how about the people that ran from it as they collapsed? I know two off-hand that would say controlled demolition, case closed.

two out of how many? have you read gravy's newest document on the subject dylan?

well here it is in PDF form if you haven't, i've been told some of the links don't work

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Listen to Gravy. Not nuclear physicists. Hey, why aren't Gravy and that drugged girl Abbie working for NIST? Maybe they could help get that report out a little quicker. :P

actually i trust the numerous firefighters gravy quotes much more than gravy himself.

i mean, these guys were actually on the scene when it happened.

Which ones?

Well I say before a bunch of people who post on internet forums and have no history in demolitions, investigations, physics, and chemistry start deciding when a case is closed, maybe they should read a bit closer into the case. Look at popholdens link. It has some good stuff in it. Here it is in .doc format.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Over the Silverstein quote, he says:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

(emphasis mine)

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...silverstein+wtc

So, he says the FDNY decides to pull it. He doesn't make that decision, they do.

I don't for one moment believe that the FDNY would evacuate - and in doing so stop looking for survivors, their friends and collegues - in order to blow up a building. It makes far more sense if 'pull it' refers to the firefighting operation in WTC 7, which is another argument I've read.

Did he not suggest it in the first place? Would the FDNY have suggested it if he hadn't of mentioned it?

He might have done, without knowing the whole conversation in its entirity it's hard to tell. But he seems to have been giving his oppinion on what "maybe" should happen.

He's just been told the fire can't be contained, it makes sense that he'd think it wasn't a good idea for the firefighters to carry on.

Posting that pathetic link over and over accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Here, follow your own advice...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/septe...bunksitself.htm

from that link.

it is claimed there, the collapse time of 6.5 seconds, is not right due to the penthouse and top section, extending the time to 13.5 seconds.

for the outside (rest of the 44 floors) to collapse in 6.5 seconds, all resistance and support would have to be removed simultaneously, and instantly. so that statement answers it's own question.

the question then should be, surely, is it possible for fire and falling rubble to remove all support and resistance instantly and simultaneously?

f!ckin eh. its most definately NOT possible. but these tools will still argue pathetically about silverstiens comments yet theyw ont even look at HOW IN THE HELL that building uniformly imploded from just a few small fires on one side of the building.....honestly these idiots want us to believe these building are made out of playing cards...

Pope? Jayne?

First of all, Roxdog that link you gave me just completely reafirmed everything that I was saying. Mr. Watson takes everything completely out of context and in the process makes himself and every other CTer out there look like a complete idiot. This guy seems to think that just because there were firemen in the building that means that they were aggresively fighting the fires. They were PULLED OUT. That is why there was no firefighting going on in there! They were pulled out before they had a chance to! How completely blind can you guys be? Everyone here realizes that conspiracy theorists are a complete joke in the real world right? You guys have been pitching this crap for like 5 years now. NOBODY who is in even the smallest position of power takes you guys seriously. ANd if the government is as corrupt as you say it is, why are people like Dr. Jones and Dylan Avery alive right now? If the government can pull off the most intricate, complicated, and devastating conspiracy the world has ever known do you really think that they would let themselves be exposed so easily? Grow up people. Do something useful for your country instead of posting on internet forums thinking that somehow you are making a difference.

And Roxdog I would LOVE to see you try and prove that link wrong that I have posted. You can't, and you won't.

anyone? Bueller?..... Bueller?......

I can't believe people can't see whats right in front of them, comon, this was a fucking strong building, it had to be because of what it housed, it was a well built building that was apparently over desinged. I don't care if i don't have a degree in physics, that building was bought down by contrlled demolition, how can it just magically fall symetrically in 6.5/7 seconds, and don't deny it didn't because it did, it's plainly obvious.When building fall because of structural damage they fall toward the part thats damaged, this building fell straight down.

I don't know if the people denying con dem are being paid to spout this crap, but please give over, other buildings took way more damage from falling debria and still stood up.

For some reason they felt this particular building had to come down that day.

Let's see if Gravy can answer a couple of questions I've NEVER seen him address.

Buildings 4, 5 & 6 are hit with more debris, withstand more damage and sustain worse fires than building 7 yet these buildings are standing the next day. Care to try and explain that one Gravy??

Next...........

NIST ran test on trusses like those found in the WTC towers. Under the fires, these trusses sustained the maxium design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing. This info can be found on P. 143 of the NIST report. As I'm sure you know both towers fell in under two hours. Care to address this one Gravy??


Well Gravy care to give a shot at these two??

OK onto the next issue you will not see touched by Gravy.

We've all seen the video of Jason and Abby debating at Ground Zero. Jason says Molten Steel in the basement of the towers to which Abby replies "well aluminum" or something to that affect.

So let's say Abby is right cause as we know the towers were plated in aluminum so molten aluminum in the basements isn't that far off. Also remember that one of two of the hottest ground readings for days after is under building 2.

If it's molten aluminum in the basements of the towers than what is the motlen metal in the basement of building 7?? There is no aluminum in the steel work of building 7 so that would have to be molten steel/metal. Also one of two of the hottest ground readings for days after is under building 7.

Again I ask why did building 4, 5 & 6 stand for days..... weeks after 9/11 after sustaining more damage and greater fires than building 7??

I'll take this one.

WTC 7 had a weird design. It was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. Because of this, there was a whole lot of space for support columns, so each column had to hold a lot more weight. Thus, taking out just two or three low columns would have made the whole thing collapse on itself.

Also, WTC 7 had trusses on the fifth and seventh floors designed to shift loads from one column to another. When columns on the South side were damaged, unusually high stress would have been moved to the other columns, exceeding their capacity.

Finally, WTC 7 was fuel of fuel tanks which literally threw fuel on the fire.

These are all factors not present in WTC 4, 5, and 6. This is why those buildings could stay up.

Your second question's in the wrong forum. This is the WTC 7 forum. Twin Towers debate goes elsewhere. And the trusses NIST tested didn't have their fireproofing blown off by an exploding plane.

No, the other buildings did not have more fires. That is a false statement so do not use that as fact. A couple of those buildings were pulled down by construction crews due to damage. WTC7 had uncontrolled fires for hours on end and were unfought. The "molten steel" found, had nothing to do with thermite or explosives. First of all, high explosives do not produce pools of metal, look at any demolition. Second, thermite burns itself out in a matter of seconds and would not leave molten pools of metal in the rubble. Seeing as how there was a large amount of diesel fuel in WTC7 (43,000 gallons to be exact that were used for generators) it is more likely that under certain conditions that diesel fuel served as a source for the molten metal. As this is just my speculation, there is still no evidence to support thermite.

How funny. Go look at pictures of buildings 4, 5 & 6 taken the next day and you tell me again they didn't suffer more damage. Did I say anything about thermite straw man?? Didn't think so.

To my knowledge and I will go back and look but NIST did the test with exposed trusses as well.

So what you are saying is that the most important wtc building was the one with the worst
construction design?

Oh and wheren't the fuel tanks in the basement?
Can you explain how fire gets to them?

So if your explanation is right then why did you figure this out and not the
profesional who are paid do find this shit out?

I'm waiting for Quad4_72 to find some pictures of 4, 5 & 6 and expalin exactly how they weren't damaged worse the building 7 on 9/11/2001.

Notice his straw man tactic people. He said and I quote, "No, the other buildings did not have more fires. That is a false statement so do not use that as fact."

I did not say that. I said, "Buildings 4, 5 & 6 are hit with more debris, withstand more damage and sustain worse fires than building 7." Watch the videos that is fact. Buildings 4, 5 & 6 were directly under the towers not a block away like building 7 to say they weren't hit by more debris and sustained worse damage shows total ignorance to the facts he claims to know.

He went on further to say, "A couple of those buildings were pulled down by construction crews due to damage."

All three of those buildings, buildings 4, 5 & 6 were pulled down in the weeks following 9/11. Again that is fact.

I could ask the same question of you.

But the experts DID figure it out. They came to this conslusion, and are all in more or less agreement. It makes sense, too.

Actually I believe the FEMA experts said that the fires in building 7 and how they caused the collapse remain unknown. Looks like we're all in agreement.

Because they were working on photos that had smoke in front of everything. NIST got better photos, and could see that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

WTC 6 looks pretty fecked. how did that not fall down?



The Marriot has taken pretty hefty damage.



Surely this building should have fallen down? I see more damage here than I've seen to Building 7



I mean... how is this still standing?



Why do we not have occurances of these melting all around the world?

Which brings us right back to where we started. Now without quoting the official lie since we've shown that it don't hold water and without quoting Gravy since a lot of his paper depends on the official lie, explain how build 4, 5 & 6 remained standing weeks after 9/11 yet building 7 that was nowhere near damaged as bad as the other 3 buildings goes down in 7-8 hours. Look at the pictures above this post, go find more pictures of 4, 5 & 6 and watch 9/11 Mysteries for even more pictures of the damage to those three buildings.

popeholden youve got a nerve citing papers by gravy

why you here anyway?

im gonna get back in jref if it kills me

for those who dont know, ive been IP banned from JREF because I was destroying the clowns there.

Gravy was reduced to lying about me, Im gonna confront the little toerag at GZ next year.

Any tips on getting back into JREF?

Who the hell is gravy?

Anyway, I *did* explain it. WTC had a weird design that the others didn't. As the pictures show, it took insane levels of damage.

Oh, wait. I'm not allowed to say that, am I?

And you have NOT disproven the mainstream story. You've just kept asking why buildings 4, 5, and 6 didn't fall when WTC 7. I explained it: They had a better, less awkward design. Now you've banned me from saying that, which is fricking rediculous. You can't *ban* evidence.

Nothing HIT Wtc 7. Therefore it's collapse and likeness to a controlled demolition is highly suspect. Simple as that.

Falling chunks of concrete do not start fires.

Sources please. So you believe there was molten metal found underneath ground zero?

We are looking at the same pictures right?? You're going to say that building 7 was damaged more than 4, 5 & 6?? The pictures show 7 took insane levels of damage?? It took nowhere near the insane levels that 4, 5 & 6 took. Also the Mayor's emergency bunker was in building 7 so your saying they put the bunker in the weakest building?? The mainstream story is disproven by the very fact that 4, 5 & 6 did not fall. Not even one of them. If one of those buildings would have went down I'd give more crediblity to the official lie. You have NOT proven the official lie.

Let's get this straight for you one more time. 4, 5 & 6 were directly below WTC 1 & 2. They were in more of a debris imapct field than building 7 which is one block away. These buildings were rained upon with debris unlike building 7 and unlike Mr. Straw man Quad would want you to believe fries in these buildings were worse than in 7. I didn't say "MORE" fires straw man, I said "WORSE".

link? ;)