Building 7 Exploding BEFORE WTC1 "Collapse"

[DGM]

I think I should have much less trouble telling that lady that she probably is slightly off on her memory than you would be telling Mr. Nigro that he is a co-conspirator, if not perpetrator, of mass-murder, fraud and arson.

I don't think from her comments I would necessarily accuse the FDNY of anything. It was known early on that the building was badly damaged and considered a loss. Why would it be strange to hear someone in the FD saying the building would have to be brought down? No one said anything about when. I think she over heard what she said but, didn't get the context right.

 

[Thunder]

The Duetsche Bank has been brought down. Very slowly, but very surely.

 

[Gorgonian]

Well Oystein lets let the concerned citizens decide.
I could easily pull out David Chandler''s three-video series that proves that WTC7 came down in freefall for 2.2 seconds. 100 feet or more of complete freefall. That means that all the structural steel holding up that that 100-odd feet had been taken out of the equation uniformly and simultaneously across the entire building allowing the freefall to take place. This can only occur in controlled demolition.

It means no such thing. The interior of the building collapsed well before this point as evidenced by the penthouse collapse and is clearly visible in false color video of the event. This is a poor jump to an absurd conclusion.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Well Oystein lets let the concerned citizens decide.
I could easily pull out David Chandler''s three-video series that proves that WTC7 came down in freefall for 2.2 seconds. 100 feet or more of complete freefall. That means that all the structural steel holding up that that 100-odd feet had been taken out of the equation uniformly and simultaneously across the entire building allowing the freefall to take place. This can only occur in controlled demolition.

But it should suffice for me to ask the ask the concerned citizens watching whether the left picture became the right picture in 6-odd seconds from only fire as NIST claim - and only a small amount of asymmetric fire at that. There comes a time when pictures like these tell the real story. Debunker crapola has had it's day.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later

Actually the first picture is how it looked before it was on fire for 7 hours, that would be around 24,000 seconds of fire

And the second was what it looked like two days after the collapse. Or somewhere around 130,000 seconds after the collapse... the date on the picture.

I think you have demonstrated your honesty Bill... But of course this is the answer you were looking for.

 

[bill smith]

It means no such thing. The interior of the building collapsed well before this point as evidenced by the penthouse collapse and is clearly visible in false color video of the event. This is a poor jump to an absurd conclusion.

Let me let you in on a secret. When the interior structure of the building has collapsed then the exterior has nothing holding it up. Freefall, as we have already established ensues.

 

[bill smith]

Actually the first picture is how it looked before it was on fire for 7 hours, that would be around 24,000 seconds of fire

And the second was what it looked like two days after the collapse. Or somewhere around 130,000 seconds after the collapse... the date on the picture.

I think you have demonstrated your honesty Bill... But of course this is the answer you were looking for.

Good old Tom. Keep the faith

 

[Thunder]

hey Bill-

why did the penthouse collapse first?

 

[bill smith]

hey Bill-

why did the penthouse collapse first?

Personally I suspect that there was something in there that they wanted at the bottom rather than at the top of the rubble pile.

 

[DGM]

Personally I suspect that there was something in there that they wanted at the bottom rather than at the top of the rubble pile.

Bill, even for you that makes no sense.

 

[Gorgonian]

Let me let you in on a secret. When the interior structure of the building has collapsed then the exterior has nothing holding it up. Freefall, as we have already established ensues.

Why do you think that's a secret? Of course, I realized the building collapsed and there was a brief period of freefall while the exterior collapsed with no interior structure. This is not surprising at all and requires no delusions of super-secret demolition methods.

 

[Oystein]

Let me let you in on a secret. When the interior structure of the building has collapsed then the exterior has nothing holding it up. Freefall, as we have already established ensues.

Great! That is basically correct!
Can happen in CD, can happen with other modes of collapse initiation.

 

[Oystein]

Well Oystein lets let the concerned citizens decide.
I could easily pull out David Chandler''s three-video series that proves that WTC7 came down in freefall for 2.2 seconds. 100 feet or more of complete freefall. That means that all the structural steel holding up that that 100-odd feet had been taken out of the equation uniformly and simultaneously across the entire building allowing the freefall to take place.

Right. Even NIST concluded as much.

This can only occur in controlled demolition.

Wrong. CD is basically just a method of collapse initiation. You can't tell a CD from a different kind of collapse initiation by just looking at the fall speed.
If you sever supports 100 feet above the ground, the building's gonna fall more or less freely for 100 feet, no matter how you sever the supports.

But it should suffice for me to ask the ask the concerned citizens watching whether the left picture became the right picture in 6-odd seconds...

You are repeating an old truther lie. You surely know very well that the collapse took at least 13 seconds and more likely about 18 seconds from initiation to completion. The 2.2 seconds free fall and 6 seconds for the north fassade are only episodes of the whole process. You can't look at those 6 seconds without taking into account what happened during the 7-12 seconds before them (partial collapse of interior, loss of lateral bracing)

...from only fire as NIST claim - and only a small amount of asymmetric fire at that. There comes a time when pictures like these tell the real story. Debunker crapola has had it's day.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later

This is an appeal to an argument from incredulity. Rejected.
It is a stupid fallacy to think two pictures shown to any layman would trump a large and detailed engineering analysis by trained expert forensic engineers.

 

[bill smith]

Great! That is basically correct!
Can happen in CD, can happen with other modes of collapse initiation.

It cannot happen naturally when all the dozens of massive and seperate support columns fail at exactly the same time allowing the building and all four corners to go down simultaneously and evenly. Accidental collapse would mean that a few columns would fail and th building would collapse at those points leaving the rest intact and supported. Asymmetrical collapse in other words.

 

[beachnut]

Personally I suspect that there was something in there that they wanted at the bottom rather than at the top of the rubble pile.

8 years of delusions. You need to figure out fire, structural engineering, physics, math, and logic before you spew failed delusions based on ignorance.

 

[TJM]

It cannot happen naturally when all the dozens of massive and seperate support columns fail at exactly the same time allowing the building and all four corners to go down simultaneously and evenly. Accidental collapse would mean that a few columns would fail and th building would collapse at those points leaving the rest intact and supported. Asymmetrical collapse in other words.

If it fell symmetrically, how did it fall across Barclay street?

 

[Oystein]

It cannot happen naturally when all the dozens of massive and seperate support columns fail at exactly the same time allowing the building and all four corners to go down simultaneously and evenly. Accidental collapse would mean that a few columns would fail and th building would collapse at those points leaving the rest intact and supported. Asymmetrical collapse in other words.

This is your layman's fantasy and intuition, right? Or how would you support these claims?

For starters:
1. How do you know all 4 corners went down simultaneously?
2. Support columns are never "separate". They are always connected. You know that the interior columns did not fail simultaneously but in sequence over a period of several seconds as evidenced by the fall of the two penthouses, right? It turns out that once lateral support is gone, the rest of the interconnected columns will fail in very rapid succession, i.e. very close to simultaneously. These things can be simulated in computers and have been simulated. You can do experiments that inform your intuition, such as stomping an empty beer can.

 

[Oystein]

Personally I suspect that there was something in there that they wanted at the bottom rather than at the top of the rubble pile.

What informs this personal opinion of yours, other than your or other truthers' imagination?

 

[bill smith]

This is your layman's fantasy and intuition, right? Or how would you support these claims?

For starters:
1. How do you know all 4 corners went down simultaneously?
2. Support columns are never "separate". They are always connected. You know that the interior columns did not fail simultaneously but in sequence over a period of several seconds as evidenced by the fall of the two penthouses, right? It turns out that once lateral support is gone, the rest of the interconnected columns will fail in very rapid succession, i.e. very close to simultaneously. These things can be simulated in computers and have been simulated. You can do experiments that inform your intuition, such as stomping an empty beer can.

I will let my post stand against yours and the concerned vitizens can decide. I love to watch you guys hanging yurselves over and over. Nothing personal.

 

[TJM]

I will let my post stand against yours and the concerned vitizens can decide. I love to watch you guys hanging yurselves over and over. Nothing personal.

As a concerned vitizen, I'd think how I'm hung is rather personal.

 

[Oystein]

I will let my post stand against yours and the concerned vitizens can decide. I love to watch you guys hanging yurselves over and over. Nothing personal.

In other words, you are unwilling and more likely unable to support your assertion with facts and arguments, right?