Building 7 Explained - Sep 6, 2011

[greyl]

There are already thousands of web pages and many videos that provide a more relevantly complete story about WTC7 than Conspiracy Industry sites will, but this video is one of the latest. It's 3 and a half minutes long, and includes footage of the beginning of the collapse that misleading Truther sites do not want anyone to see.

Building 7 Explained - Sep 6, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

A serious video: The "unexplainable" collapse of 7 World Trade Center is the most compelling case put forth by 9/11 Truthers. But there is more than enough evidence that Building 7 collapsed due to fire — no secret demolition ninjas necessary.

The text below is for people interested in actual inquiry, and are legitimately examining both sides' arguments for inconsistencies, intellectual dishonesty, and logical flaws.

1. Things conspiracy believers do not want you to know:
(a) WTC7 underwent a slow, internal progressive collapse, plainly observable in the full-length CBS video, which is rarely shown on conspiracy sites.
(b) The 1,500 "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. Examine the list for yourself. Then, look at the 750 (better credentialed) names at dissentingdarwin.org, and ask whether the latter list puts biological evolution in serious doubt.

Text continues at link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

For good measure, here are a few links with information so-called Truther sites don't want anyone to see:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc7-new-evidence-from-old-photos.html
http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/wtc.htm


More important than a post full of links, is a reminder on how we might all approach sorting through it all in a search to sift truth from out of the bullshit:

The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.

Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.

Mike Williams
www.911myths.com

[whatchamacallit]

1. Well that settles it

lol.

[hang a left]

2. Shame on you!! How can you live with yourself??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

Side by side analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY

Scientific explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

At the end of this video John Gross actually admits that NIST is NOW investigating controlled demolition in the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o

Here is Scott Grainger, Fire Protection Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nvWh2aTdCs&

Here is Kathy McGrade Metallurgical Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ziLE23Soo&

Here is Ron Brookman a Structural Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM_l_4sJ-sY&

Here is Tom Sullivan he is a Explosives Technician/Loader
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg

And just for lulz: Here is a newscast from the BBC that reports the collapse of World Trade Center 7, 20 minutes before it was imploded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

[cpwm17]

3. Why don't you address the issues in the video?

All you did is write an insult and paste links to other videos. Can you think for yourself?

[zappaman]

4. Watch the video in the OP and see for yourself

All of your questions will be answered.
Take a look for yourselves people.
Don't let these apologists and traitors to their country divert you from seeking the truth.
It is all right there in the video.
We all have eyes, ears, and a brain.
Don't let others deter you.

[Nostradammit]

32. And while you're at it, watch another one of his videos here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_vmP5vOH4E&feature=relmfu

Watch as he makes sport of the sexual molestation of children.

[jakeXT]

5. Years ago debunkers would be screaming about a gash, southwest corner damage and images NIST would

release some time...

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. some did, and then they learned something

I still see people claiming that WTC 7 didn't suffer any damage. When one looks at the structural damage that it suffered, it's pretty reasonable -- at least at first blush -- to assume that the damage contributed to the collapse. Also, it's psychologically appealing to assume that being so recklessly wrong about an observable fact makes a big difference to the analysis.

However, apparently it doesn't. NIST did an exhaustive engineering study and concluded that the structural damage didn't initiate the collapse, although the debris initiated the fires. At that point, at least some people who had thought otherwise read NIST's analysis, decided that NIST had good arguments, and changed their minds.

Imagine that -- changing one's mind in response to evidence and argument. No wonder some people are uncomfortable.

[Flatulo]

15. That's kind of why I suspect that Gage is a charlatan. He seems

intelligent enough to be aware of these points, yet he continues to push the old 'structural damage could not have collapsed 7' meme. Yeah, no shit - way to prove your opponent's point.

By the way, does anyone know where Boloboffin has been? He was all over the Bldg 7 saga as it unfolded, but I haven't seen him post down here in ages. I really enjoyed his posts.

Maybe he took a hiatus? This forum can takes years off of your life.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. yes, Bolo is probably taking a break from the interminable repetition

There are some people here who are actually interested in figuring things out, but overall, the forum is the unholy progeny of Gresham and Godwin. I've spent some extra time because somehow it seemed appropriate, around the 10th anniversary, but there has to be a limit.

Functionally, Gage is a charlatan: he isn't an expert, but he plays one on TV. How he experiences it subjectively, I don't know; does he know that he is blowing smoke? A few times I've been involved in fairly intricate discussions (about crappy arguments for election fraud) with people whom I consider basically reasonable and smart, and when their positions became really hard to maintain, they abruptly declared that the discussion was a waste of time. And then they went out in public venues and repeated talking points that, from my standpoint, they had every reason to believe were bullshit. Why?

I think it happens for at least two reasons other than conscious charlatanry. One is that they believe their conclusions, or assumptions, for reasons independent of the rational arguments that they adduce in support of those conclusions. Since they "know" that their conclusions are right, they actually use the conclusions to buttress the "supporting" arguments -- so they do experience any attempt to engage those arguments as a petty diversion. (I suspect that human beings are innately predisposed to react in that way by default, especially when tribalism is involved.)

(If one construes that charlatanry can be unconscious, then a supposed expert who consistently cannot distinguish between relevant evidence and psychic bolstering is a quintessential charlatan.)

The second reason, I think, is that they think of themselves as socially engaged public intellectuals who are trying to raise consciousness and lead a movement to demand a Real Investigation. In that role, they tend to blur the distinction between truth and utility. Thus, an argument that I would regard as patent bullshit, they may regard as "perhaps overly simplistic" but basically pointing in the "right direction." Gage may think of himself not as incompetent or dishonest, but as an unusually effective popularizer of cutting-edge science -- and if sometimes he has to, umm, bend the edge a bit, well, y'know, that just helps people break through their denial!

[Flatulo]

25. I'm insufficiently self-disciplined to not be guilty of the behavior you describe.

I've heard it called 'protecting one's narrative'.

I caught myself doing this with mechanical CAD software a few years ago. I had learned how to use Pro/Engineer, which was the Cadillac of mechanical design software, back in the late '80s. I became pretty good at it, even an expert, if you will. I more or less built my career around it. By the mid-mineties, Pro/E had gotten so good through constant improvement that companies stopped looking at anything else and it became the de-facto standard. If you needed mechanical design software, you simply ordered Pro/E.

Around 1993, a group of disaffected PTC employees (the company that owned and marketed Pro/E) left to start their own company, calling it Solidworks Corporation, and they set up shop about 15 miles from where PTC was headquartered (ouch!). They released their first product in 1995. It was an immediate hit, and they used the tried and true business model of offering 80% of the functionality for 20% of the price to start taking huge amounts of business away from PTC.

I was a die-hard Pro/E user and could find nothing good to say about Solidworks, even though people I knew and trusted had started using it and were claiming that it was pretty damn good. I would go to great lengths to point out these really obscure little areas of functionality that Pro/E had and Solidworks did not, like the ability to generate variable pitch and radii helices, third order surface tangencies and other features that almost no one used. I gleefully got into flame wars on CAD forums.

I got laid-off in 2009 after using Pro/E for 20 years. I was lucky or charming enough to find work almost immediately with Evergreen Solar in Massachusetts, who were using Solidworks. They were stupid enough to hire me despite my having almost no experience with it. After a few weeks I was pretty good at it and over time discovered that it actually had a lot of neat features that Pro/E didn't have.

Upon reflection I realized that I had expended massive amounts of time and energy trying to 'protect my narrative'. I now use both CAD packages fluently and when I look back upon my days as a rabid Pro/E defender I wonder what the hell I was thinking. I had lost all my objectivity and had become a fanboy.

But enough about that.

AT least these CAD wars didn't make people deranged. I've seen some pretty disturbing stuff on Truther sites; talk about 'treason', 'trials' and 'retribution'. Is this a new generation of fanboy, from a new generation of kids who've been raised believing that they're the center of the universe? Kids who have never heard the word 'NO' in their lives? Gage in no way fits this description, but a few who do seem to have hitched their wagon to him.

Edited for spelling and clarity

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. yeah, I think that's sort of how it goes

although, conveniently, I can't think of an embarrassing personal example right now :). Not that your example is all that embarrassing. When all the tools more or less work, arguments about the best tools are largely subjective; there isn't much basis for reality testing. Of course it can be construed as embarrassing that "engineers can't even be objective about their tools, FFS!" -- but unreasonably dissing a CAD program isn't comparable with making a design error that leads to people's deaths. Some things you have to get right; some things, you just need to get right enough.

Come to think of it, I guess your story is an example of how we all can venture outside our areas of expertise, with consequently impaired judgment, without realizing it. Your expertise at some kinds of analysis doesn't automatically translate into expertise in software assessment -- and on some level you know that. When you discovered that Solidworks was good stuff, you realized how wrong you had been, but you didn't have to massively update your self-concept in order to do it. Something I didn't mention about the folks I mentioned is that they're bona fide experts or specialists in some field other than the one they're opining upon. I sort of envy their confidence that their expertise is fungible, but it leads them to say some really silly things. By the same token, some people do make better generalists than others; they don't know everything about everything, and they know it; they have good bullshit detectors and aren't afraid to use them on themselves.

Bear in mind that it's really easy to post crazy stuff on the internet -- by which I mean (1) it's easy for almost anyone to post something that anyone can read, and (2) where social dynamics are involved, the internet seems to foster certain pathologies. I don't rule out your hypothesis, but I suspect that what you perceive as a generational difference is largely a matter of technology use. Internet users tend to be younger than usual, but I've encountered plenty of toxic personalities who aren't young.

[Flatulo]

27. Well said. I wish I were a better generalist, given my age, but

I worked in the same specialty for over 30 years and invariably inbreeding sets in. I could have easily ventured out of my comfort zone, but there were sufficienly few people who were good at what I did (disk drive actuator motor design and sub-micron mechanical vibrations) that the work commanded a premium. I made a fuck-tonne of money and am now gainfully semi-retired (due in no small part to chronic back problems).

But I have had the good fortune of working with some truly brilliant people who had wander-lust and jumped around quite a bit. They tend to be better at becoming generalists because they see so much more of the design world.

I kind of cringe when I see people exclaim "So-and-so is an architect (or engineer), so he/she must know what he/she is talking about!" They don't understand that as man's works have become infinitely more complex over the last 100 years, the engineering field had become increasing compartmentalized and someone who is educated and trained in automotive engineering just can't speak with any authority about medical devices, even though engineering principals remain the same.

I don't know exactly what Richard Gage's area of expertise is, but it cannot possible be 110 story tall structures.

[Cheap_Trick]

7. This is the damage that supposedly caused WTC 7 to collapse into it's own footprint

(just like the twin towers did)


And yet THESE buildings DIDN'T collapse, and they had much more intesne fires going on that burned a lot longer....









This one in Madrid burned for 20 hours, and yet did not fall:

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. as I said in the other thread: incorrect (straw man)

Fire.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. You realize you just posted three buildings with reinforced concrete supports

instead of steel frame, and that last picture, ALL of the steel frame construction on the building collapsed to the ground 3 hours into the fire, right?

Good freakin' grief. Way to prove your opponent's point.

[terrafirma]

10. Because in Truther Land

All buildings are constructed equally.

[Flatulo]

11. You obviously did not puruse the NIST report on Bldg 7.

If you had, you would know that NIST concluded that the exterior damage did not significantly contribute to the collapse, as was initially thought. It was 7 hours of interior fires weaking the steel skeleton. In fact, the exterior of building 7 only fell after the interior collapsed, kind of like a person who has had his bones removed.

Here's a link to the NIST animation of the interior collapse sequence, which is also 100% consistent with the video evidence, which showed the penthouse collapsed a full 8 seconds before the exterior 'skin' fell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iDfJ3SoPWo

Time to update your links.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. They also concluded the fuel tanks weren't contributors.

Which flies in the face of common sense perhaps, but again, is consistent with the video evidence of the fires. Also consistent with the tanks being largely found intact in the rubble.

[Flatulo]

13. Which really goes to show you, you just can't trust

Only your eyes. The truth is often a cconvergence of visual observation, eyewitness accounts and rigourous engineering analysis.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. I often use a hypothetical to help illustrate the collapse.

This seems to help people who think of the exterior of the building beginning motion as the 'beginning' of the collapse. Keeping in mind that the penthouse and roofline equipment vanishes SOMEWHERE about 6 seconds before the exterior motion, I ask them to pretend to pause time, just before that motion, and attempt to walk through the front doors of the building and out the back.

If the penthouse fell DOWN, the building is already collapsing. One would not be able to walk through the building, because the interior is already raining down. Floors, support beams, the whole shebang. Debris would already block the path.

The penthouse vanishing is the key. It goes somewhere. One only needs to answer where it went, to know for a fact that SOMETHING bad was happening inside where you couldn't directly see. It can't fall, unless what is under it is gone already.

[William Seger]

21. Good point

A similar argument can be made about the tower collapses: Several minutes before the collapse begins, in both buildings, exterior columns are seen to be bowing slowly inward at one floor. Whatever hypothesis you formulate for the underlying reason, the only way that buckling can happen is if the floor is no longer performing its structural function of restraining the columns horizontally. Then, the entire line of columns is seen to buckle inward suddenly to initiate the collapse. That slow buckling before the collapse is direct evidence that the proximate cause of the collapse was the loss of structural integrity which happened gradually, not from explosives blowing out the columns.

[Flatulo]

24. Unless you're Spooked. Then the cause is externally

placed bombs specifically designed to blow the columns inwards, so that explains that. Of course, no one ever saw these bombs being planted or going off.

I wish I could make this stuff up.

[defendandprotect]

16. Excellent post -- and they certainly haven't stopped building steel frame buildings ....

and they're certainly not falling from fires!

[hack89]

18. The steel portions of the Madrid building did collapse

the concrete portions did not.

In your other pictures, I missed the damaged done by a fully laden 767 crashing into the building at high speed. Is the damage on the other side? Why to Truthers keep glossing over the minor detail that it was not fires alone but massive structural damage and fires that brought down the WTC? Can't you be more honest in presenting your facts?

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. yo, hack, this is a WTC 7 thread

Yes, it's kind of weird that some people want to talk so much about WTC 7. But at least I can't fault them for not showing jumbo jet damage.

[hack89]

20. Ok - my point about massive structural damage is still valid.

plus the Madrid fire does show that fire can weaken steel structures to the point of collapse.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. except that for WTC 7, the structural damage probably wasn't crucial

NIST concluded that 7 would have fallen even without the initial structural damage (assuming the same fires). So structural damage -- as distinct from fire initiation -- is somewhat of a red herring, except perhaps to dramatize the silliness of the stuff about the towers falling neatly into their footprints.

There is a sort of symmetry. Initially, most of the damage is superficial. When the collapse begins, most of the action happens beneath the surface* -- we see the penthouse cave in, and then we can't see much for several seconds.

Yes, the Madrid fire does in fact show roughly the opposite of what the poster intended to argue.

*ETA: Arguably an awkward colloquialism here -- given the familiar camera angles, it's more that most of the action happens behind the surface.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Well, that same structural damage cause

(the south tower collapse) also cut water mains to 7, and reduced the number of available/willing fire fighters on hand. But I agree, the impact damage to 7 served to likely light fires only. Maybe shortened the building's life by minutes, if anything.

[wildbilln864]

41. how long did it take....

for them to collapse?
those steel portions?
an month?
a week?
:eyes:
you guys will fall for any bullshit!

[zappaman]

42. I looked it up for you.

You're welcome.

Both the North Tower and South Tower took less than 30 seconds to fully collapse, and the South Tower, though hit second, collapsed first.

Parts of the South Tower reached the ground about 9 seconds after its collapse began at 9:59 AM EDT, approximately 56 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 40 floors caved in within 25 seconds thereafter. Debris flattened or filled the seven basement levels within a few seconds.

The TV mast and roof from the North Tower struck the ground about 11 seconds after the descent began, at 10:28 AM EDT, 102 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 60 floors completely collapsed within 10 to 15 seconds after being bypassed by the falling upper floors.

Most of the interior collapse was hidden by dust and debris, which also spread over the surrounding buildings and streets.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_did_it_take_the_Twin_Towers_to_collapse#ixzz1YYEVttO7

[wildbilln864]

44. sorry to confuse you but.....

I was replying to hack's claim, "The steel portions of the Madrid building did collapse

the concrete portions did not." How long did the steel portions in the Madrid fire burn before collapsing?

[zappaman]

47. my bad.

here ya go..

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm


and found this too.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

[Ezlivin]

28. Where can I read about the new building codes as a result of this research?

Since this new research conclusively proves that "Building 7 collapsed due to fire" I'm sure that we'll have to rethink how we build steel-framed buildings in the future.

Have any steel-framed buildings constructed in approximately the same time-frame as WTC 7 been examined in light of what we now know?

Are the building codes being revised or revamped by any organization?

What changes will have to be made in the construction of future steel-framed buildings as a result of this study? Or, better, what did we learn from the purely fire-induced collapse of WTC 7 that will help avoid future progressive collapses that result in total destruction of a building?

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. a good start is NIST's FAQ

which you can find here. Changes to the International Building Code are described near the end of the FAQ. The FAQ also addresses many other questions that are... well, you know.

[Flatulo]

30. Buildings present some special design challenges

My older brother is a licensed structural engineer (P.E. in all 50 states). We discussed this a while back.

In the past few decades, high rise design has focused on earthquake resistance. Gadgets like tuned mass dampers, pendulums and flexible foundations change the dynamic behavior of the structure so that the response to a wide range of ground motions doesn't result in catastrophic stresses.

But unlike roadways and bridge spans, which can use load-bearing flexible shear mounts to take up any dimensional change due to thermal expansion (you'll often see large rubber pads sandwiched between metal plates at the supports), buildings are pretty much welded and bolted together. There is no built-in compliance between the various sub-assemblies that make up the structure. So when the temperatures increase dramatically, thermal stresses are induced in the members.

Think of it like this: if you take a steel beam and fix it at one end and heat it up, the other end will grow by some amount because it is unconstrained. If you repeat the experiment with both ends fixed, the plate wants to expand, but it can't, so stresses develop along its length. It's pretty easy to calculate this stress, and if it exceeds the Euler conditions for a member, either buckling failure will occur or the joint(s) holding the ends will fail. The NIST report claims that this is what happened on the 13 th floor of bldg 7, causing the infamous column 79 to fail.

Railroad tracks are laid out with gaps between the segments to cope with thermal expansion, and even so you can find pictures of tracks wildly buckling due to ambient temperature changes. Imagine if the temperatures were to fluctuate by many hundreds of degrees, as in a fire when the fireproofing fails (which it ultimately will)?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/4360255/Heatwave-in-Melbourne-plays-havoc-with-the-Australian-Open.html

As far as I know, there is no current scheme to cope with this in high-rise steel structures. Of course, the hope is that fire will never get to exposed steel, but as we now know, it can happen if the fires burn out of control long enough (in the case of bldg 7, 7 hours).

I hope this isn't too obvious, but I'm throwing it out there in the hope that someone might actually read it.

Edited for spellign and clarity

[MrMickeysMom]

31. "How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC "

Yes, I've seen those sites... the one's that (play bizarre martian music here) "conspiracy theorist" don't want you to see!

They start out with the same mixture of bull-pucky in the attempt to insult the opposite side of their opinion. Only one problem.... the loss of one column is one of the most absolute pieces of horse shit ever to be shoveled from underneath a donkey's ass.

Please go do something constructive, like finding some "serious" science links. The so-called, "de-bunking" web sites are not serious at all, and you make yourself look even more foolish than these web sites paint you guys.

:rofl: un-fucking real!

[cpwm17]

33. What serious science links are you referring to?

So you disagree with just about every structural engineer, the New York Fire Department, and the NIST that fires took down WTC7? So then they must all be in on it.

Where did you get your engineering expertise? How would the loss of a critical column not cause its collapse? I assume you're referring to this link: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

So it's only a coincidence that a large uncontrolled fire engulfed WTC7 for 7 hours (fire video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&feature=player_embedded

No, that fire couldn't have anything to do with the collapse. Anyone who believes that is "foolish".

[MrMickeysMom]

36. "Anyone who believes that is "foolish"...

... thus, your missive exhibits.

[cpwm17]

38. You posted three comments

And not anything remotely constructive. You've got nothing.

[MrMickeysMom]

39. Well... if you say so, buddy

:eyes:

[zappaman]

40. make that 4.

:boring:

[LARED]

34. Here's something constructive

Donkeys don't poop horseshit, horses do.

[MrMickeysMom]

37. Let's have a nice golf clap for that astute observation!

:applause:

[William Seger]

35. Willful ignorance: Last bastion of willful delusion

The irony is that pinning their hopes on WTC7 being the "smoking gun" they so desperately sought for so long has brought the majority of the "truth movement" down into irrelevancy. It's the roadblock at the end of a dead-end street and they're too prideful to turn around. In all of Trutherdom, it's hard to find a better example of how impossible it is to reason someone out of beliefs that were never based on reason.

[wildbilln864]

45. nice projecting! nt

[William Seger]

50. "I do not think it means what you think it means"

I know the answers to these three questions. Do you?

1. What's the difference between a shear connection and a moment connection?
2. Which was used in WTC7 to connect floor beams to girders and girders to columns?
3. Why does it matter in the NIST hypothesis?

The reason that WTC7 fell lies in the answers to those questions, and the reason that the NIST hypothesis is the best so far offered is that the real evidence fits that hypothesis much better than any other that's been advanced. If you don't know the answers to those questions and don't know what evidence any valid hypothesis needs to explain, that's ignorance. If you don't care to know the answers because it would ruin your controlled demolition delusions, that's willful ignorance. If you can't find any non-imaginary faults in the NIST hypothesis, then you don't really have a valid reason for rejecting it. If you can't tell me what should have prevented the collapse or stopped the collapse after it started, then you don't really have any valid reason for that belief. If you think structural experts and history will ever decide that Gage's magical silent explosives are a better explanation than the NIST hypothesis, then you are protecting your delusions with willful ignorance and you are hoping for a redemption that will never come.

It's weird how certain "truthers" think all criticisms are reversible by just saying so -- almost as if they don't understand them.

[William Seger]

48. (Delete, misplaced)

[wildbilln864]

43. at least he named his blog correctly....

because it is indeed pisspoor!

[wildbilln864]

46. no.

The NIST reported STEEL TEMPS NO HIGHER THAN 250C (about 500F) in all but THREE of the WTC steel sample they tested.

So, at only 500F in small pockets, how weak is the steel?

[William Seger]

49. The OP subject is WTC7

Don't derail the thread with a WTC1/2 topic that's been discussed to death elsewhere. If you think that's a good enough reason to believe in magical silent explosives, then start another thread and see how it works out for you.

[mrarundale]

51. One interesting thing about wtc7

is that the floors/ceilings were designed to be removable in case tenants (secret intelligence agencies) wanted higher ceilings or or to remodel. It's almost like......no, that's too crazy

also, I can't understand why they would build another structure when they couldn't even fill up the TTs with tenants and, in fact, when it was built PA had an agreement with the fed government that they would have to fill a lot of the space since there was no market for it. It's almost like....

[deconstruct911]

52. It's almost like...

It was built for mega ritual purposes...