Was Building 7 Pulled?

[RepresentativePress]

Nice use of a misleading photo Chris.

He isn't using a misleading photo, look at it from the side of the impact damage: 9/11 Charlatans EXPOSED Denying Building 7 Damage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWa6vI1aUvw&list=PL9D3FBD3ED9B84927

 

[DGM]

He isn't using a misleading photo, look at it from the side of the impact damage: 9/11 Charlatans EXPOSED Denying Building 7 Damage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWa6vI1aUvw&list=PL9D3FBD3ED9B84927

By "misleading", he means leading away from his belief.

 

[RepresentativePress]

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.

That's why NIST made a computer model to show what the collapse of WTC7 would look like with damage from WTC1 and a model to show what it would look like without that damage from WTC1. And what they determined is that the damage from WTC1 DID influence how it collapsed, it DID look different.

You should know your "expert" has been pointing to the wrong computer model and complaining that it looks nothing like the real collapse! See: Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoto0GyEkM&list=PL9792134412F365B3

 

[Muc]

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.

If that is your assessment of my previous post, then this a) sets the bar pretty high for your description of someone who actually accuses a whole lot of people of the deliberate cover-up of an enormous mass-murder on basis of evidence that is somewhere between scanty and non-existent, and b) you have a very romantic image of what went on in Nazi Germany.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Are you saying no debris hit WTC 7? Gage, and other nuts of 911 truth say stuff was ejected hundreds of feet, and WTC 1 and 2 were giant office fires, with more heat energy before collapse equal to 2,700 TONS of thermite. Did you try to do the math? Did 911 truth lie? Are you saying stuff was ejected, but missed WTC 7?

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

How many years? How many hours of work? Got some real numbers, or do you make it up as you go? Come on, if you are going to say it, back it up with numbers, it might help your point. Wait, this statement is pointless; totally useless for any theory you, or anyone has.

You might not understand what probable means.

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

Yes, NIST is saying the debris did not alone cause the collapse. Darn, the damage only started the fires which destroyed the WTC.
You fail to understand the damage did not contribute to the collapse, does not mean it did not start the chain. Again, this is repeating what NIST said, and you agree with NIST, but you have no idea why you posted another wasted point.

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.

Are you making up stuff now? What does this mean for your thermite insanity?

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.

steel-expansion is a fact, NIST did not make it up, it happens

What are you talking about?

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

Not sure anything can beat the lies of CD and thermite.

The hysteria and vitriol here is truly amazing!

Yes, you need to stop spreading silly claims of CD, and the fantasy of the inside job; all based on fantasy.

It's an orgy of Richard Gage hate.

Who hates Gage. He only spreads lies to make money; who hates Gage?

Burn the flag of truth.

Gage has no truth, and 911 truth is based on NAZI-like lies dumbed down for the CTers who donate money freely without thinking.

Nazi-mentality unleashed.

Yes, Gage's propaganda machine is NAZI-mentality; the bigger the lie, more nuts donate more money.

Germany in the 1930's.

MM

Gage is like the NAZI stuff. In the world of 1930, Gage would be the fool at city center preaching woo, and only a few would agree. Here Gage has the Internet where he can lie and get to the 1 percent who are nuts on 911; and the 0.05 percent nuts enough to donate money.


As for 911 truth, ReThink911, is an oxymoron. Thinking is a skill not used in 911 truth. Not sure why you support a liar like Gage; why?

 

[JSanderO]

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

The collapse of 1 and falling debris in my understanding of it... had nothing to do with the collapse of 7.

The collapse of 7 was imitated in the load transfer region below floor 8 and around the core area and to the north.. well protected from falling anything from tower 1. Tower 1 debris DID cause damage, but not fatal damage much as it damaged all the surrounding buildings when it came down.

What appears to explain the collapse was likely fires which were no fought for 7 hrs in the mech area where the load transfer structures were located. Though NIST and Con Ed are very dodgey about the diesel in the building... there are thousands of gallons with plenty of BTU to weaken a few critical parts of the transfer structures initiated a progressive global collapse.. much as we witnessed.

Of course to determine if this was the case, NIST would have had to get all the steel from down there, and carefully examine it to see what made it brake apart. Was that a RESULT of the top somehow collapsing on it? Or was the failure down there what caused the top to drop so easily.

Early on there was speculation by ASCME and FEMA and others including Cantor who designed the structure that this region and the truss connections needed to be carefully studied carefully. If they were we never saw the reports. Cantor said he though diesel had cooked the trusses. I'd offer that his opinion is about as expert as one could find.

Now if they were cooked by unfought fires... what does this imply? How DID those fires start? Could it have been of electrical origin related to the massive sub station the building was built over and why those massive transfer structures had to be used?

The problem with this hypothesis is that it puts several people in the hot seat (pun intended)... Guiliani, Con Ed, Silverstein Properties, Salomon Bros, PANYNJ the NYC DOD, City Planning Commission, who approved the retrofits and the original bizarre design and allowed an office tower to be built over a power station.

Irony.. Cantor now sits on the Planning Commission.

The NIST explanation for 7's collapse is a dodge at best. And they know it. But they are not sharing the evidence with the public. What you don't know can't hurt them.

Just sayin'

I wish more people would re think 7 and open their minds up to what likely happened.

 

[beachnut]

The collapse of 1 and falling debris in my understanding of it... had nothing to do with the collapse of 7. .

It started the fires, and destoryed the infrastucture required to fight the fires. 1 and 2 collapse is a cause of the collapse, part of the chain.

And it would have caused your claim too; can you explain how?

The NIST explanation for 7's collapse is a dodge at best. And they know it. But they are not sharing the evidence with the public. What you don't know can't hurt them. .

Got evidence for the dodge at best opinion? no

It sounds like your claims, except the silly CT stuff you added. Now I see why you found it easy to be fooled by Gage, and Balsamo. You are prone to CTs.

 

[JSanderO]

It started the fires, and destoryed the infrastucture required to fight the fires. 1 and 2 collapse is a cause of the collapse, part of the chain.

And it would have caused your claim too; can you explain how?


Got evidence for the dodge at best opinion? no

It sounds like your claims, except the silly CT stuff you added. Now I see why you found it easy to be fooled by Gage, and Balsamo. You are prone to CTs.

I am not a forensic investigator. I can only base my thinking on what I see and read. NIST's 7 explanation seems hardly to make sense to me. I don't doubt that heat weakened the steel and led to the collapse... but not at the location they say it did.

Open your mind... you might learn something new occasionally.

 

[George 152]

Open your mind... you might learn something new occasionally.

Wow.
That's a great mirror you're looking into..
You -could- reflect on your statement

 

[beachnut]

I am not a forensic investigator. I can only base my thinking on what I see and read. NIST's 7 explanation seems hardly to make sense to me. I don't doubt that heat weakened the steel and led to the collapse... but not at the location they say it did.

Open your mind... you might learn something new occasionally.

An Open Mind? Is that what made you join Gage, and Balsamo?

I did not say your claim was wrong, it is your probable claim, based on??? Where is your paper? Too bad Gage did not fund it. But no, my tax dollars are not needed to study stuff because you want to blame someone for a building fire collapse due to terrorism. Is your claim as probable as NISTs? And that is based on? Any papers?

NIST claim is a probable cause based on their report. There are engineers who also have other ideas.

Joining 911 truth to search for the truth, or get a study you want, is nonsnese, as you found out. 911 truth is based on lies and zero reserach; it is like bigfoot.

Your idea is okay. What did NIST say about that? Where is your paper?

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.

What about the OP. A great example why 911 truth is worthless claptrap.


The OP is typical 911 truth. Total nonsense, zero comprehendsion. They pulled the fire support, not WTC 7. The "pull it" nonsense is enough to discredit the entire 911 truth movement, when they don't comprehend, or attack the silly claim.

I hope your 911 truth experience did not cost money. You can apply the insight into fraud you fell for into annuities, insurance, and other scams and save thousands.

Someone took time to find a home for this... and that. Thanks

 

[Redwood]

I am not a forensic investigator. I can only base my thinking on what I see and read. NIST's 7 explanation seems hardly to make sense to me. I don't doubt that heat weakened the steel and led to the collapse... but not at the location they say it did.

Open your mind... you might learn something new occasionally.

Check this screenshot of Vince Dementri's video taken late in the afternoon.

You can see that WTC 7 is ablaze at the northeast corner, right underneath the east mechanical penthouse, which was the first part of the building to collapse.

In the shot of the burnt bus parked next to Fiterman Hall (30 West Broadway), with WTC 7 in the background, you can see that the WTC 7 fire hadn't spread to that part of the building yet. (It was taken soon after the collapse of the North Tower.)

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by chrismohr
"http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.p...1&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.

Perhaps you can share a photo that you consider as less misleading. It might have been useful if someone had taken some shots from Vesey St., between WTC 7 and the North Tower, but everyone was kinda antsy at that point, and survival would have been problematic.

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

Which tells me that they gave careful consideration to their judgments. What does it tell you?

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

Correct, in that it was not the proximate cause of the collapse. For that matter, the airliner impacts were not the proximate cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers. It was the fires that destroyed all three. Only the Marriott and St. Nicholas' were directly destroyed by falling debris.

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.

This is correct.

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.

Basically correct. Fire was the proximate cause of the destruction of all three. It took longer to figure out how the WTC 7 fire started the collapse.

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

Yes, those Nazis were really brutal in their Internet forums. Is it true that debunkers are putting in a big order for some Zyklon B?

 

[JSanderO]

Also notice that if Larry Silverstein would have referred to the firefighters when using the term 'pull it', then he would have said: And THEY [the firefighter authorities] decided to pull it. What he actually said was: And WE decided to pull it. Did Larry Silverstein have the authority to be a part of the decision-making process for what to do with the firefighters? Of course not. That was something for the fire department to decide. So 'pull it' in this context means to literally pull the building below ground.

Easy to speculate on what happen with bits and pieces taken out of context. LS appeared to have consulted with his insurance company because he was perhaps concerned about replacement cost, repair reimbursement, loss of income and who knows what else. He may have passed the conversations along to the FDNY, for example and they decided that they didn't need to fight the fires or protect the building and let things take their course... which apparently seemed to be that it would not survive.

Way way way too much speculation parading as fact.

 

[JSanderO]

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?

Well some parts of the building DID descend at FF. That's to be expected.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The collapse of 1 and falling debris in my understanding of it... had nothing to do with the collapse of 7.

The collapse of 7 was imitated in the load transfer region below floor 8 and around the core area and to the north.. well protected from falling anything from tower 1. Tower 1 debris DID cause damage, but not fatal damage much as it damaged all the surrounding buildings when it came down.

What appears to explain the collapse was likely fires which were no fought for 7 hrs in the mech area where the load transfer structures were located. Though NIST and Con Ed are very dodgey about the diesel in the building... there are thousands of gallons with plenty of BTU to weaken a few critical parts of the transfer structures initiated a progressive global collapse.. much as we witnessed.

Of course to determine if this was the case, NIST would have had to get all the steel from down there, and carefully examine it to see what made it brake apart. Was that a RESULT of the top somehow collapsing on it? Or was the failure down there what caused the top to drop so easily.

Early on there was speculation by ASCME and FEMA and others including Cantor who designed the structure that this region and the truss connections needed to be carefully studied carefully. If they were we never saw the reports. Cantor said he though diesel had cooked the trusses. I'd offer that his opinion is about as expert as one could find.

Now if they were cooked by unfought fires... what does this imply? How DID those fires start? Could it have been of electrical origin related to the massive sub station the building was built over and why those massive transfer structures had to be used?

The problem with this hypothesis is that it puts several people in the hot seat (pun intended)... Guiliani, Con Ed, Silverstein Properties, Salomon Bros, PANYNJ the NYC DOD, City Planning Commission, who approved the retrofits and the original bizarre design and allowed an office tower to be built over a power station.

Irony.. Cantor now sits on the Planning Commission.

The NIST explanation for 7's collapse is a dodge at best. And they know it. But they are not sharing the evidence with the public. What you don't know can't hurt them.

Just sayin'

I wish more people would re think 7 and open their minds up to what likely happened.

What happened was right in front of the nose of our faces. Damage from whatever caused much of the building to be pulverized into dust after an orderly descent leaving a fire below the rubble that could not be extinguished until December 2001.

If you advanced past the 5th grade you know that fire and damage from fire are not orderly. Period.

All the posturing and shilling in the world can't escape the smooth orderly fluidity that was the "collapse" of WTC7.

How the controlled demolition collapse was done is of no consequence.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Real end of the world stuff!

Human sacrifice,

dogs and cats living together

... mass hysteria!

Lolz! Talk about misleading photos, how about the grossly false gif that the moron truthers use that does not show the collapse of the penthouse.

/nice Godwin too, what a fail.

 

[plague311]

Easy to speculate on what happen with bits and pieces taken out of context. LS appeared to have consulted with his insurance company because he was perhaps concerned about replacement cost, repair reimbursement, loss of income and who knows what else.

Honestly, I don't think Larry was on the phone with insurance companies while 9/11 was happening. His family lived in NY, and he had spent a day watching people he knew die...all....day....long. To say that his first thought was to call his insurance company, about a building that hasn't stopped burning, to find out what he should do is just absurd. It does go to show what certain people would do in those situations though.

He may have passed the conversations along to the FDNY, for example and they decided that they didn't need to fight the fires or protect the building and let things take their course... which apparently seemed to be that it would not survive.

Way way way too much speculation parading as fact.

I am going to be frank here, but why would the FDNY give two flying ***** about what Larry's insurance company, or Larry himself, wants or feels. They don't, they couldn't possibly care less. Larry had no part in the decision making process, despite whatever slip of the tongue people want to bring up.

The FDNY makes decisions based on their assessment of the situation. Can lives be saved? Are there lives to save? Is there any point in proceeding with firefighting efforts? etc. NONE of their decisions that day, after all the terror and horror, were based on the financial doings of others. I guarantee that

 

[DGM]

I am going to be frank here, but why would the FDNY give two flying ***** about what Larry's insurance company, or Larry himself, wants or feels. They don't, they couldn't possibly care less. Larry had no part in the decision making process, despite whatever slip of the tongue people want to bring up.

The FDNY makes decisions based on their assessment of the situation. Can lives be saved? Are there lives to save? Is there any point in proceeding with firefighting efforts? etc. NONE of their decisions that day, after all the terror and horror, were based on the financial doings of others. I guarantee that

 

[plague311]

What happened was right in front of the nose of our faces. Damage from whatever caused much of the building to be pulverized into dust after an orderly descent leaving a fire below the rubble that could not be extinguished until December 2001.

If you advanced past the 5th grade you know that fire and damage from fire are not orderly. Period.

All the posturing and shilling in the world can't escape the smooth orderly fluidity that was the "collapse" of WTC7.

How the controlled demolition collapse was done is of no consequence.

So you're saying that since it looks like a CD, that it doesn't matter if you can't explain any aspect of how that CD occured, it just is one?

Did I sum that up properly?

 

[The Big Dog]

Easy to speculate on what happen with bits and pieces taken out of context. LS appeared to have consulted with his insurance company because he was perhaps concerned about replacement cost, repair reimbursement, loss of income and who knows what else. He may have passed the conversations along to the FDNY, for example and they decided that they didn't need to fight the fires or protect the building and let things take their course... which apparently seemed to be that it would not survive.

Way way way too much speculation parading as fact.

I know several of the lawyers and several of the decision makers at the insurance companies that were involved in the coverage litigation with Silverstein and I have discussed this issue with them, and I can assure you that everything you just post is absolutely ridiculous.

I've never met a single lawyer or insurance professional involved who was a truther. They alternatively pity and mock the truthers.

And yes they know all about it because some of the real bottom feeders in the truth movement contacted them.