Was Building 7 Pulled?

[George 152]

Just got to stop you and check credentials folks, this will only take a minute:

Is anyone here unaware that an Anders Lindman thread is for entertainment purposes only?

...

OK. Good.

Carry on and thank you for your patience.

I had the feeling that he was demonstrating the paucity of educational facilities in where ever he is currently a resident of

 

[Brass]

It wasn't pulled, since it never fell. It molecularly dissolved in mid-air.

Stop making us real truth seekers look like crazy conspiracy theorists with your religious free-fallism, my religion is better than yours.

No-plane truth/no-collapse truth is the only truth that is supported by all the scientific evidence. PRAISE THE LORD!

Yet, doesn't provide any scientific evidence.

El oh el.

 

[1337m4n]

Mods please move this thread to "Humor".

 

[Redwood]

Please identify the underground cavern on any pre-9/11 maps you can find.

Dr. Evil's Underground Lair discovered?

 

[plague311]

I think my definition of "small" may vary from your definition of small in regards to the debris pile. I am positive the debris from building 7 covered 2 different streets, and was strew about a bit more than you think. There are some people that have issues comparing the sizes of things in pictures, and then equating them to real life sizes. I think that might be part of your issue here. You have seen a few pictures and a video or two, but your brain can't put into context the scale of the rubble pile.

I am not calling you stupid, I am merely saying maybe you just haven't taken the time to really grasp the size of the debris pile.

 

[Pinch]

Ummm....what year is this? 2003? 4?

 

[beachnut]

I think I have posted about this in another thread, only as a brief mentioning. This thread is meant to examine the question about whether building 7 was pulled in more detail.

Pulled here means, in addition to controlled demolition, that the building was actually pulled towards the ground at a speed greater than free fall.

The seismic recordings of building 7 falling show only small signals. This indicates that the building was pulled into a huge underground cavern.

Gravity pulled WTC 7 down. What a legacy you leave for your grandkids. Really great stuff.

WTC 7 collapse took over 16 seconds - not near your fantasy free-fall - get a stopwatch. Got physics?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think I have posted about this in another thread, only as a brief mentioning. This thread is meant to examine the question about whether building 7 was pulled in more detail.

Pulled here means, in addition to controlled demolition, that the building was actually pulled towards the ground at a speed greater than free fall.

Yeah? How would you accomplish that?

The seismic recordings of building 7 falling show only small signals. This indicates that the building was pulled into a huge underground cavern.

Oh? How did it get back out (since the crews cleaning up the debris consistently failed to notice any cavern.)

How do you suggest a huge underground caver could exist under lower Manhattan and not be well known? Don't you think the people examining the underground's suitability to carry the foundations of high-rise buildings, and the people constructing the subways through the very same underground would have, sort of, noticed?

What would be the purpose of this thesis?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I can imagine a huge cylinder sucking out a vacuum underground, below the building. And with shape charges the foundation is cut loose, which together with the vacuum sucks the entire building underground, faster than free fall.

Programmed in HTML5, right?

I haven't examined how much rubble building 7 produced above ground. If my theory is correct, the pile of rubble would have been small.

Unfortunately, it was anything but small.

http://www.debunking911.com/b7verizon2.jpg

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The pile of rubble from building 7 was too small without an underground cavern. Speculation: Maybe they planned it like that so that the too small piles of rubble from the WTC towers wouldn't look suspicious. In the case of the towers however the reason for the lack of debris was because the towers were to a large extent hollow. That also explains how the top of one of the towers could tilt so much during the collapse and still fall straight down.

Are you moving towards a "no-buldings" fraction? Or are you observing the obvious: Buildings are, to a large extent, hollow.

Your personal interpetation of the laws of gravity, I won't even comment.

Hans

 

[Sabretooth]

You know that place in Nevada where they were going to bury all the radioactive waste in the U.S.? They really need to build a place like that.

For the topic of this thread to be buried in, that is.

We have something worse. It's called AAH.

 

[Wolrab]

Mods please move this thread to "Humor".

I start the yearly "move the sub-forum to regular CT" to see what the people who post here think, and it's moved within hours to forum management where only a miniscule percentage of those here could see it. AL starts the 10,000th ridiculous "Pull It" crap thread, proving my point that this sub-forum is a travesty. He even has magical caverns and faster than freefall! Maybe the sub-forum should be renamed "The 9/11 Retread Fantasy Delusion Forum" with the subtitle "Where whack jobs get legitimacy so the con men can sell another book and tour the world!"

It's Groundhog's Day here. Instead of "I Got You Babe", it's "They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haa!".

 

[Battman]

The pile of rubble from building 7 was too small without an underground cavern. Speculation: Maybe they planned it like that so that the too small piles of rubble from the WTC towers wouldn't look suspicious. In the case of the towers however the reason for the lack of debris was because the towers were to a large extent hollow. That also explains how the top of one of the towers could tilt so much during the collapse and still fall straight down.

So much stupid in one little post.
How big should the debris pile have been?
Wasn't WTC7 also largely hollow also?
Did WTC7 have an underground parking garage? Lookie there: one cavern.
Why are you asking such stupid questions more than 11 years after the fact?
Ever heard of gravity? Look it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

 

[The Almond]

I think I have posted about this in another thread, only as a brief mentioning. This thread is meant to examine the question about whether building 7 was pulled in more detail.

Pulled here means, in addition to controlled demolition, that the building was actually pulled towards the ground at a speed greater than free fall.

The seismic recordings of building 7 falling show only small signals. This indicates that the building was pulled into a huge underground cavern.

Is this 2006 again? I feel like this might be 2006, and I accidentally invented time travel. But instead of warning people about the financial collapse and the Great Recession, I'm back here, on JREF, arguing with morons about the word "pull."

 

[oody]

Wouldn't it have created a Giant Sucking Sound?

 

[Bell]

I guess it was pulled. After all, the US needed a reason to go to war with Iraq.

 

[jhunter1163]

So we have a building that was near the targets, caught fire due to being so close and provided another example of how fires can cause a steel structure to collapse.

Don't forget about all the flaming debris that fell on it when the towers collapsed...

 

[Redwood]

Quote:
So we have a building that was near the targets, caught fire due to being so close and provided another example of how fires can cause a steel structure to collapse.

Don't forget about all the flaming debris that fell on it when the towers collapsed...

Flaming debris fell well past WTC 7; it fell a considerable distance up West Broadway, setting fire to stranded buses and autos, as seen in this photo.

No, the collapses of the Twin Towers were not "symmetric", as Gage likes to claim. If you really think about it, if the debris from the North Tower fell a little more to the west, most of it would have missed WTC 7, and really clobbered the Verizon Building next door, and 101 Barclay St., just across the street north of Verizon. Obviously, the Conspirators knew just where the debris would fall, or deliberately guided it! Those guys are amazing.

 

[chrismohr]

Building 7

Don't forget about all the flaming debris that fell on it when the towers collapsed...

This picture from the NIST Report shows just what a vast amount of debris, flaming and otherwise, plowed into Building 7...

 

[Miragememories]

"http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=28461&d=1372338583
This picture from the NIST Report shows just what a vast amount of debris, flaming and otherwise, plowed into Building 7..."

Nice use of a misleading photo Chris.

Of course using a straight ahead photo with a flattened perspective eliminates any accurate perception of what we are seeing. Which I have to assume is the reason you chose it.

Your source, the NIST, spent years determining a final hypothesis for what caused the global collapse of WTC7.

The NIST's engineering conclusion was, that the damage from the collapsing towers did not factor into WTC7's global collapse initiation.

After the global collapse of WTC7 was initiated, the distribution of the remains would have been influenced by the south side damage created by WTC1.

After years of thinking about it, the NIST chose to re-work the steel-expansion hypothesis they created to explain the global collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 -- office-furnishing's fires inducing extreme steel expansion and fatally crippling column 79.

But your distortion is mild compared to the posts that preceded you.

I am surprised you make no comment since you know the line is being repeatedly crossed.

The hysteria and vitriol here is truly amazing!

It's an orgy of Richard Gage hate.

Burn the flag of truth.

Nazi-mentality unleashed.

Germany in the 1930's.

MM