Disprove MIHOP -- explain WTC7.

[neverborn]

I don't really believe MIHOP, I'm in the LIHOP camp firmly.

But how do you explain WTC7 ? :/

[Media_Lies_Daily]

1. No, how do YOU explain it?

[neverborn]

5. I can't!

That's why I'm asking!!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. Building gets heavily damaged by falling debris from the...

...towers,

building catches fire,

the large reservoir of fuel oil in the building catches fire and adds more intense heat to the already burning fires,

structure begins to fail,

structure fails,

building falls down.

Next.

And please don't tell me that you want to discuss the phony-baloney stories about planted explosives in the WTC.

[neverborn]

8. It was the way it fell...

http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

I'm not preaching that as truth, because I don't know the truth.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi

http://whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7big.rm

I've seen controlled demolitions before, and 7 was eerily similiar.

[BattyDem]

9. For a long time ...

I never believed that it could be a controlled demolition/planted explosives. However, during the last couple of years, I've read things and I saw videos and photos ... I'm not saying I believe that it happened that way, but I do believe it's a possibility. There are too many unanswered questions ... too many things don't add up. :tinfoilhat:

[TomNickell]

42. Controlled demolitions work because that's the way bldgs fall.

They fall straight down.

Unless the foundation collapsed on one side, or something pushed it -real- hard, it is going to fall straight down.

That's the way Gravity works. It falls straight down.

There's no other force to make the building do anything else.

[Stephanie]

12. What MLD said

As a New Yorker I am sick of these planted explosives stories. It's BS. It didn't happen. Giuliani had two HUGE tanks of diesel fuel in Building 7 for his emergency bunker, which was widely ridiculed until we actually needed it, at which time it burned to the ground.

You need to understand one fact of life in NYC - there were THOUSANDS of witnesses downtown that day. There were NO explosives. NONE. It DID NOT HAPPEN.

[yella_dawg]

56. I've seen video of a half dozen of those NYC witnesses

going on and on about hearing the explosions. NYFD who, one assumes, are familiar with the normal sounds of burning buildings. Were you a witness? You seem so sure.

[hang a left]

21. That is the official story MLD

You can if you want, but I don't buy official stories anymore. I was sure you didn't either.

[NMDemDist2]

2. what about WTC7??

[Rex]

3. Get ready for a 200+ thread.

nt

[Must_B_Free]

4. Just another coincidence, just like all the rest

Hatfield suicide
Crazy lady suicide
cars rolling away by themselves
baxter ratshot
ice on wings
trifecta
Pentagon emergency drill
etc....

[tom_paine]

55. You can't deny that

And the Bushevik Maid who died when her car "spontaneously rolled over her" is right out of The Omen.

What kind of monsters will Bush's Great-Granchildren be?

The kind that will kill their servants by rolling a car over them (just :wtf: did she see that got her whacked by Poppa, Junior, or one of the Monstrous Caligulas???)

AND HOW ABOUT THIS? NO RECORD OF THE STORY IN GOOGLE:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Bush+maid+died+rolled

Like Winston Smith, I saw the story with my own eyes, but now it's UnHistory.

Creepy, but not surprising for Bushevik-Occupied Imperial Amerika.

[demodewd]

6. I Can't

I can't..not like the "official" version...that's one of many reasons I'm MIHOP.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

10. Stuff happened....

there were some fires somewhere in the building, some damage maybe, ya know alot happened that day, alot of people died and it lost its two sisters. I think the building was nervous and exhausted and just collapsed. It had a long tiring day and just wanted to lie in its footprint for awhile. Besides, 47 story steel framed buildings, that house the offices of the SEC, IRS, secret service, OEM and several banking institutions, collapse all the time..

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10041194.html

[neverborn]

11. WTC7 and Put Options

are nagging me to MIHOP

[The Traveler]

13. Speculation

I'll give it an honest try. As you will see, this is gonna take some reaching.

A falling WTC tower is really massive. The kinetic energy transferred into the ground would be huge. Some of that energy would be transformed to heat (like a bullet hitting a steel wall ... not all the energy gets transfered by deforming the wall or deforming the bullet but goes into heating both the wall and bullet fragments).

Still, a lot of energy would be transferred into the foundation concrete and ground. This would manifest as a shock wave transmitted through foundation concrete. In the absence of other factors this energy would tend to be dispersed in a symmetrical pattern around the center of impact. I dunno ... but if the towers and WTC 7 were coupled together by structural concrete and steel, it is possible that could have acted as a wave guide transferring the bulk shock wave to the structure of WTC 7 ... a coupling would act like a lens, focusing the impact energy. I don't know enough about the engineering of the place to tell ya if that is the case, but I don't see in the drawings I have just perused an obvious path that would "channel" the energy over to building 7. (Were they connected by an underground parking deck? That could do it.) Given the distance between them, I think such a mechanical coupling would be required since I would expect the energy to dissipate as 1/r**2 without it. (1 divided by the square of the distance separating the impact point and the structure of WTC 7).

I know WTC 7 was impacted by debris, which could have weakened the structure, but I am skeptical that debris impact alone could have done the damage. WTC 7 was too far away.

Fires ... nah. Unlikely. Don't believe it. Burning of structure materials is quite different from a fuel/air detonation. Combustion temperates are much cooler. Building materials by themselves just don't burn hot enough to melt structural steel wrapped in concrete.

So by REALLY reaching up my ass, I can come up with something that sounds plausible ... if you accept a lot of "ifs" along the way.

But looking at the footage ... it sure looks like someone blew the place. With knowledge of the structural plans, the necessary charges could be planted in under an hour.

[Stephanie]

14. No. WTC 7 BURNED ALL DAY

It collapsed late in the afternoon. It was the denouement of the horrific day. The fire was ignited by flying debris (a friend who lived several blocks away returned to her building to find a steel beam had flown through the window and landed on her neighbor's bed) - and fueled by Giuliani's diesel. The fire raged all day long despite firefighters' efforts with hoses. It could not be saved. It fell down.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

15. Any evidence of this out of control fire?

Watch the video of the collapse. Where do you see one lick of flame on this building? Are you saying that only the half you cant see was on fire?

[Stephanie]

17. This theory is such CRAP. I suppose you have been looking at some

30-second video on the internet. I suppose you are anywhere from 1000-3000 miles from NYC. You most likely watched TV all day on 9/11 but saw a lot more talking heads and replays of the two towers than you saw footage of WTC-7 burning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4:10 p.m.

WTC Building 7 in ruins.
Building 7 of the WTC complex is reported on fire.

(4:33 p.m.)

This photo of Bush speaking to Cheney shortly after leaving Offutt is later used for Republican fundraising.
President Bush leaves Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska for Washington.

5:20 p.m.
Building 7 of the WTC complex, a 47-story tower, collapses from ancillary damage. No one is killed.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&timeperiod=0:10am-11:50pm%2011%20Sept%202001&startpos=200

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paul thompson - that is a beautiful site re-design. It looks REALLY good. And it's very functional.

Anyway, the article above states that TV reported WTC 7 was on fire around 4:10 pm. I remember it as burning earlier than that, but it could be my memory. Regardless, the fire was of sufficient intensity to destroy the building.

You know, one of the most over-played PSA's on Air America is the one about fire safety. Where the voice of the FIRE asks the waitress if she has any gasoline cans in the garage. That's what this was, on a grand scale. That was thousands of gallons of diesel fuel.

Look, this election hinges on credibility. We need to choose our battles. Although this rule doesn't apply to the other side, we need to back our assertions up with facts.

[neverborn]

18. When has a steel frame building collapsed because the inside was on fire?!

This site is trending me MIHOP...

http://www.wtc7.net/steeldisposal.html

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

[Stephanie]

19. My last post on this -

===

Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7's remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis.

What is the evidence for this? I doubt this is true. And don't tell me to prove the opposite. You make an assertion that cites NOTHING to back it up.

===

It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers.

BULLSHIT - what is significant quanitities? It is right across the street! TWo 110 STORY buildings collapsed right there. You believe there weren't significant quantities of debris? The debris pile was several stories high!

===



I live up the street from there and I remember the day well, but you want me to draw my conclusions from an ANIMATED GIF????

===

[neverborn]

20. No...

How about the several videos on the second link?

[Stephanie]

22. I am done with this tonight

This is too infuriating.

They LIHOP for sure, but there is NO CHANCE there were explosives in those buildings - not with the THOUSANDS of EYE-WITNESSES PRESENT BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE EVENT.

It may look that way in the ANIMATED GIF, but that's not what happened.

Do some real-world research. How many thousands of gallons of diesel fueld did Giuliani have in WTC 7?

[neverborn]

25. Sigh.

I didn't just ask you to look at the FOUR VIDEOS IN THAT LINK, DID I!?

I'm not MIHOP. I'm LIHOP trending MIHOP. You insulting me and acting condescending is just making you look bad.

[rman]

27. FEMA isn't so sure the diesel was the cause

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) http://www.fema.gov
World Trade Center Building Performance Study http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
Chapter 5 - WTC7 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

5.7 Observations and findings (page 31)
(...)
"The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

[nomatrix]

28. You'll be back

I wonder how this slipped by your real-world radar?

Heightened Security had Just Been Lifted
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

"Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed."

Don't you just hate it?

[rman]

26. doesn't show wtc7 was 'ablaze' or anything like that

the article just says it was on fire and later collapsed. it doesn't prove the fire was out of control, nor that the building collapsed due to the fire. (Again: official FEMA conclusion on WTC7 collapse: cause unknown - google it)

[Bushknew]

32. Exactly, if the WTC7 was burning all day, whereÕs the Fing smoke?

For a building that supposedly collapsed by fire, it didnÕt reveal much smoke.

[sangh0]

44. There was plenty of smoke

I saw it with my own eyes

[JHB]

47. (expletives DELETED)!!!

Evidence? How about news reports all freaking day saying it was on fire?!

[The Traveler]

23. Look structural engineering is not my thing

So I'm really going out on a limb here. But ... concrete rebar does not burn easily. It takes more than flying debris and burning rugs and furniture to heat it up enough to achieve combustion. I don't think the fire is enough to do the job, and at the time someone on the news attributed the failure of the structure to stresses imposed by the mechanical shock of the towers collapsing. (But I never heard that repeated afterwards. On the other hand, I haven't done a lot of research on this.)

I've heard it said (more speculation) the FDNY blew it on purpose. I can believe that. There was no way to save the building as such ... it was clearly totalled, and they had other things to do with the manpower.

One thing to note however ... as the structure falls it will compress the air beneath it, producing a "puff out" effect that could look a lot like the demolition scenes we are all used to seeing.

Interesing speculation, but the only way to know for sure is a detailed analysis of a kind far beyond my skill and available resources to perform. An adequate mechanical shock, damaging the structure, followed by prolonged heating might have done the job. My intuition tells me the shock wouldn't have been enough to significantly damage the structure. Though if there was structural coupling between the towers and WTC 7 that becomes a lot more likely.

All that being said, the point you make ... we don't need to get too freaky with this ... is well taken. On the other hand there are many, many reasons to suspect either government negligence (probable) or actual tacit complicity (quite possible). That being the case looking for inconsistancies, new interpretations of evidence, and so forth is not only natural but necessary.

I myself have not bought into LIHOP/MIHOP yet ... but as I learn more, and as more facts emerge ... let's just say I am beginning to feel kinda uncomfortable about it.

[rman]

24. a few fires on a few floors

(as can be seen on several videos and photos)
first time ever a steel frame highrise collapsed due to a few fires.

hence the official conclusion of FEMA wrt WTC7, "we don't know":

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) http://www.fema.gov
World Trade Center Building Performance Study http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
Chapter 5 - WTC7 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

5.7 Observations and findings (page 31)
(...)
"The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Of course no further investigation can take place since all the rubble has quickly been removed, the steel sold to several 3rd world nations.

[Beam Me Up]

16. There is this KOOKY conspiracy of thought

that says WTC 7 COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. I tell ya, these conspiracy theorists, they are ONE LOLO BUNCH. Have you ever heard of anything more preposterous? A steel frame building collapses becuase it is burning inside. You can point out to them that this is UNPRECEDENTED but that never seems to get through to them. Conspiracy theorists are like that. They get something in their head as true and you just can't dissuade them.

BMU

[Bushknew]

29. A link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1797&mesg_id=1797

[Senjutsu]

30. Say that WTC7 didn't collapse for the "official" reason...

put aside the argument about whether or not it collapsed for the reasons official stated.

Why would the cause of it's collapse have been faked? What nefarious purpose did collapsing it serve for the supposed MIHOP cabal?

In other words, what in the heck does explaining the WTC7 collapse have to do with the validity or invalidity of the MIHOP theory?

[rman]

36. what WTC7 collapse has to do with MIHOP:

Depends on the explanation, doesn't it?

First - there is no official explanation:

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) http://www.fema.gov
World Trade Center Building Performance Study http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
Chapter 5 - WTC7 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

5.7 Observations and findings (page 31)
(...)
"The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Second - there are indications that a controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse.

If the latter is proven, then MIHOP is proven. That is regardless of what exactly was the motivation for controlled demolition; one can show that something was done and how it was done without knowing why it was done.

[sangh0]

45. You totally missed the point

Of course, proving that WTC7 was bombed would show MIHOP. However, that wasn't the question asked. What was actually asked is, if it was MIHOP, why would they have wanted to destroy WTC7?

It's a question about motive. Not motive for making/letting 9/11 happen, but specifically, motiive for destroying WTC7. The motive I've seen expressed for MIHOP is that they wanted a massive attack on the US in order to generate support for their PNAC plan. So how does destroying WTC 7 further the PNAC plan?

I don't see the motive

[neoteric lefty]

31. I think you have to prove intentional destruction

rather than others have to explain against it.

[Guaranteed]

33. Right...and there were missiles on the bottom of the planes.

:eyes:

[neverborn]

34. No there weren't.

WTC7 is plausible, missiles on the bottom of the planes is not.

I'm LIHOP but have trended into MIHOP more and more.

[OpSomBlood]

35. Don't buy it.

There's much more compelling evidence that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania than WTC7 was deliberately destroyed.

It's very strange that all of those passengers' cell phones seemed to work perfectly even though in my personal experience you can't get a signal once you're airborne. That was the most suspicious thing to me about 9/11.

[rman]

37. evidence that wtc7 collapsed on its own accord isn't compelling either

"The best hypothesis" (regarding diesel fuel fires as cause of the collapse) "has only a low probability of occurrence" - FEMA report

And the way in which it collapsed is exactly like a controlled demolition (rubble mostly within the footprint of the building).


Those two things by themselves do not prove controlled demolition, but neither is it compelling evidence that wtc7 collapsed as a result of damage caused by the crashes and the collapse of wtc1 and 2.

[RafterMan]

38. WTC7 "disproves" MIHOP

If you were the person in charge of the program to Make It Happen, why would you add further risks to the plan by messing with WTC7? Would you be worried that somehow the collapse of both towers will be insufficiently spectacular and WTC7 will clinch the deal? If you didn't think the towers were enough, why not add something significant to the list, rather than something that people are just going to forget after a few days?

If you had seen the huge interconnected space beneath the whole Towers complex, you'd be wondering why more buildings didn't fall.

[Az]

39. Controlled demolition makes no sense

Explain the logic please. You decide to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible by destroying the two tallest buildings in the world. So to add to the chaos you also decide to destroy WTC7 with carefully placed explosives to cause a CONTROLLED demolition? How does this make sense.

The entire area is going to be demolished due to the collapse of the two main towers. What sense does it make to go to the trouble of creating a controlled demolition of WTC7? It makes no sense.

Possible reasons.

Terror: The 2 tallest buildings in the world just got blowed up(sic). Do you really think a 3rd building going poof is going to add to the TERROR (said in a scifi spooky voice).

Insurance: All the buildings around the towers were damaged. There is no means to bring down the two main towers without such damage to be missed. All the buildings had to come down.

Explanations for why the building did fall the way it did.

Safety: Building structures in crowded innercities are designed by code to collapse on themself in the case of catastrophic failure for safety purposes. It would be a really really bad idea to have buildings in proximity to each other that if they fall down cause the entire city to collapse in an extended and tragic domino like mishap.

Gravity: Gravity points down. Nuff said.

[rman]

62. "designed by code"

"Building structures in crowded innercities are designed by code to collapse on themself in the case of catastrophic failure"

If that would be true then there would never be the need for carfully planned demolition to minimize damage to the surroundings; all you'd have to do is cause catasytrofic failure anywhere in the building, to cause it to neatly implode on itself.

Remember Oklahoma? Half the building had collapsed because the bomb damaged critical supports in that part of the building, the other half was still standing and had to be demolished by traditional means. That was very serious catastrophic failure to the building, yet it did not collapse on itself. And that was just a standard brick/concrete building, not an extra strudy steel frame building that WTC7 was (extra sturdy because of the power substation, tanks of diesel fuel and generators that it housed).

"It would be a really really bad idea to have buildings in proximity to each other that if they fall down cause the entire city to collapse in an extended and tragic domino like mishap."

No. It's why buildings are designed and build so that they don't just fall down to begin with, even if severely damaged (see Oklahoma).
It takes quite some damage to cause a building to collapse, and how exactly it collapses if it does, depends on where the damage is. To make it fall down neatly requires a lot of effort, see controlled demolition. In case of severe 'uncoordinated' damage there's no way to know in advance where the building will be damaged so that the structure starts to fail. Thus there's no way to tell how it will collapse, let alone that you can be sure it will collapse on itself.

[EV1Ltimm]

40. wtc 7 had a "clandestine" cia office...

which handled foreign spies working for the us.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00711F63C5D0C778CDDA80994D9404482

IF, and that's a BIG IF, the building was purposefully brought down AND IF my spy movie knowledge were applicable to real life events, i'd say the building was pre-wired to keep the identities of it's foreign agents secret... because one thing is for sure, controlled demolitions take DAYS to set up, not hours. and how could they get enough explosives to bring down a building since all air-traffic was restricted over the wtc site and all of the roads leading into the city were gridlocked?

[TomNickell]

41. ROFLMAO!!

HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!!!

How do you 'disprove' the 'theory' that the world is flat?

How do you 'disprove' the 'theory' that the world was created in 4004 BC?

How do you 'prove' a fact witnessed by thousands of people?

WTC7 burned for several hours, was hit by falling debris, shaken by the collapse of the twin towers and then fell down.

There is NOTHING to explain.

We all need a good Horselaugh now and then, but enough Horse Shit, already!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. Let me add

that the building sat above (spanned over and sat on a huge truss) a subway line. This made the building particularly vulnerable to catastrophic structural failure when the steel was heated by the several gazillion gallons of diesel fuel in the emergency power generator's tank.

-signed- an architect.

[neverborn]

57. Question

You -knew- what the thread was about by its subject line. You then hopefully READ some of it. It's me, asking about MIHOP. Because I'm interested. I don't know what the deal is with certain people and their insulting bullshit attitude, but it's REALLY FUCKING IRRITATING.

[TomNickell]

64. No, I didn't read it.

I don't read sites about Scientific Creationism, Flat Earth, Scalar Electromagnetic Waves, Alien Abduction, Clinton's Mass Murders, Vince Foster, International Jewish Conspiracies, Pentagon-Hit-By-Missile, Pyramid Power, Herbal Cures for Cancer, Cold Fusion, Bush-Can-Cause-Earthquakes, Bush-Blew-Up-the-Space-Shuttle, Magnets-Cure-Cancer, Animal Communication, Water Witching, Telekenisis, Black Helicopters, UN-Troops-in-the-USA,

or LIHOP/MIHOP.

I -do- post a dissent when this HorseShit appears.

Most people--sensibly--ignore such threads. Unfortunately, this creates the appearance of universal agreement as the Conspiracists rush in to confirm whatever idiotic assertion someone has dredged up. This is dangerous.

Maybe if someone had told Timothy McVeigh there were no Black Helicopters there might have been created just enough doubt to stop his planning.

I used to argue these things. It's useless. Like arguing with a Scientific Creationist or a Jehovah's Witness. I used to do that, too.

Now, I just have a very big HorseLaugh and move on.

[MadHound]

46. I don't know the specifics of the WTC7 collapse

But let me say this as a former fireman. Any building that collapses , due to fire, accidental explosions, or stress on the building is highly unlikely to go straight down into it's own footprint. That in and of itself is very suspicious. Generally in a catastophic fire where the building collapses, one section or another will go down first. Also, a lot of debris will be forced out and away from the building as it collapses due to the release of structural tension and superheated air expands violently.

It is also highly unusual for the entire structure of a steel frame building to collapse completely. Steel is durable, tough material, generally anchored to the bedrock underneath in large buildings and in most cases, even in highrises, some portion of the steel frame will remain standing.

Not to say that such a situation couldn't occur, massive out of control fire in large building do strange thing. But the odds of such an occurence in and of itself starts bordering on winning the lottery type odds. Couple that with the fact that ALL THREE WTC buildings collapsed straight down, and your probabilities start approaching impossiblities.

I have done some fairly extensive research on the Twin Towers being intentionally demolished, and there are definite signs pointing in that direction. First of all, the physics of the matter would point away from a straight down collapse. Even if it was an impossibly hot fire that collapsed the frame, the tower itself would buckle into the direction that is was being the most weakened at, ie, if the portion of the fire that was melting the frame was on the north side, the top of the tower would start falling towards that north side, bringing the rest with it. Secondly, there have been witnesses, both firement who know what explosions sound like, and civilians all of whom heard explosions immediately before the collapse, along with seeing a bright sequence of lights race down the buildings, like a sequence of explosions going off.<http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm>
Third, I just don't think that the fires in the Twin Towers were big enough or hot enough to cause that kind of damage. Firefighters on the scene in each of the towers were only calling for three hoses for each fire. Even if all of those hoses were 2 inch lines, three hoses is NOTHING. It is not a building threatening fire, especially in that size of a building. Also, in the North Tower, after the plane plowed into in, we see lots and lots of black smoke. This isn't the sign of a raging out of control fire, this is a sign of a fire that is being at least partially smothered. The fire retardant carpets, drapes, and other material aren't providing a good footing for the fire. The sprinkler system has activated and working properly(also attested to by eyewitnesses). This is a building with a fire that is entirely controlable, not a building that is in imminent danger of collapse. The South Tower fire was suffering from a completely diffeent problem, a lack of fuel. Unlike the North Tower, where the plane hit dead center, the South Tower was hit a relatively glancing blow in the corner, and the plane itself expended most of it's fuel in a showy but harmless fireball that burned out outside of the tower itself. Yes, there was a fire inside, but again, with little quality fuel available and suprression measures already underway, this is a fire that should have and could have been controlled.

I honestly believe, and the further I research, the more my belief is born out, that what we saw on television that day was the Big Lie, right before our eyes. Much like the Warren Commission and other powers that be telling us that Kennedy was shot from behind and only behind, contrary to film and eyewitness evidence, I believe that we are being fed a line of bullshit, while the truth is there before us, plains as three towers falling straight down.

[Lostnote03]

49. Thanks....

.....I'm in agreement with your analysis.....The hoses alone should cast real-time doubts on the raging inferno scenario....The "contents/investigations" within the WTC7 are now destroyed due to the "let it burn" directive.....Possibly however the manpower simply was not available due to the existing chaos.....

[neverborn]

58. Rense is not credible...

[rman]

61. why's that....

[NecessaryOnslaught]

59. An eyewitness account from 6 blocks away

From the Director of the Hayden Planetarium...

From: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sent: 10AM, Wednesday, 12 September 2001
Subject: The Horror, The Horror

Upsetting enough, but then...

4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion. A dense, thick dust cloud rises up in its place, which rapidly pours through the warren of streets that cross lower Manhattan.
--------------

6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.

http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advisors/sept11account.html

[Bushknew]

48. This is what a skyscraper on fire looks like folks.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

See all the MASSIVE amounts of smoke coming out of the building?

Show me ONE picture where MASSIVE amounts of smoke is coming out of the WTC 7 building.

If the skyscraper was on fire ALL DAY then MASSIVE amounts of smoke should be coming out of it.

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse!

NEVER

How can you make a person understand that if THEY want to ignore that FACT?

Answer, you canÕt.

[sangh0]

51. I see smoke

in the picture at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

[JHB]

54. OK. Here's ONE picture with MASSIVE amounts of smoke from WTC7

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Figure 5-18 on page 21.

Only a sliver of WTC 7 can be seen behind World Financial Center 1, but that's enough to verify it's still standing at the time of the photo.

See that big, black cloud of smoke. It's not coming from WFC1 (it didn't catch fire), it's coming from WTC 7.

[Bushknew]

50. How can a building be on fire only on one side?

When a building has been totally engulfed in flames all day why É

donÕt we see smoke and fire coming out of the buliding at ALL angles?

Are we to believe that the building collapsed because only one side of the building was visibly on fire?

[sangh0]

52. Very easily

I don't know where you got the idea that a bldg must be "totally engulfed" in order to be on fire.

I live in a tow story brownstone. One evening, one room upstairs caught on fire. Not the entire bldg. Not even an entire floor. One room.

[Bushknew]

53. I didnÕt say that

<<I don't know where you got the idea that a bldg must be "totally engulfed" in order to be on fire.>>

I said:

Are we to believe that the building collapsed because only one side of the building was visibly on fire?

If the building was on fire all day, then we should be able to see fire and smoke coming out of the building at ALL angels.

[neverborn]

60. Agreed.

The whole WTC7 thing is suspicious. It's trending me MIHOP, but I don't know enough yet...

[rman]

63. and did the building neatly collapse on itself as a result?

i didn't think so.

[TomNickell]

65. ROFLMAO!!--HEADING TO 200 POSTS!!!!!

Anybody know the record for 'Mosts Posts on a Completely Bullshit Topic'?