BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

It would have been demolished in the weeks that followed. Watch some of the videos of the fires and the amount of smoke coming from that building from nearly every floor on the south side (the videos that the conspiracy sites don't show). They never could have cleaned and rebuilt that building. It would have ended up like Banker's Trust.

Even if it had stood with damage, there would have been issues regarding its construction after the collapse of the towers. People would have modified the construction and put up a new building in light of all the security issues in the wake of 911. The new WTC7 has a concrete core that the old one didn't have and other safety features.

Some of the conspiracy groups are already claiming that the new WTC7 has explosives planted in the concrete core ready for a collapse in the future.

.

 

The best approach for saving information from WTC7 would have been to save the building if possible and secure the data. Demolishing the building would put information into a rubble heap that people could pick through or where papers could float away into the hands of others. The firemen made an effort initially but it wasn't possible to save the building after the fires spread.

.

 

Banker's Trust is currently being demolished. Read about it on the web.

.

 

In case you didn't know, WTC-7 fell perfectly into its own footprint. Nothing was scattered out. No papers, nothing. Besides, the entire area was locked down and secured. Nobody was picking through anything.

Also, all fire crews were out of the building by 11 AM.

 

These three photographs were apparently taken by an amateur photographer before much of Building 7's rubble had been removed. They show large exterior wall sections lying on top of the rubble pile.


From above

 

Where does it say this on the graph? Hell, you could even cut that number in half and it still would be much longer than it took for those buildings to collapse.

I posted the other graph as well that showed every ten floors collapsing at a rate of 32 seconds.

 

Actually, "we" don't have emergency workers who said that, we had an anonymous email to a conspiracy theorist which was completely unverifiable and totally uncorroborated with any other witness testimony. It also sounded completely loony.

The fact that you consider this kind of thing evidence is why you are so easily convinced of conspiracy theories.

Also, both the Verizon building and 30 West Broadway were damaged by the collapsing WTC7, which makes your theory that it fell in its own footprint completely void.

Are you saying that you are cutting and pasting theories in here which you don't understand?

 

It was supposed to be.

 

According to this site, yes. This site said one of the towers fell in 8.1 seconds. That is actually faster than gravity. Their explanation..... The explosives created a vaccum which "sucked" the building towards the ground.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/TwinTowersandGravity.htm

The thing is with trying to take into account these estimates of free fall speed, is the accuracy of measurement. Using the building height of 1368ft and 32.2 ft/sec*sec, free fall speed would equal 9.218 seconds. A variance of less than 4 seconds (9/11 "truth" sites estimate anywhere from 8-16 seconds) would cut the gravitational acceleration in half. A variance of 7 seconds would bring gravitational acceleration down to 10.7ft/sec. This means that according to 9/11 truthseekers, gravitational acceleration could have been anywhere from 10.7ft/sec to 41.7ft/sec.

Here is an example of the importance of measurement in what I do. When determining natural frequency, a variance of measurement of only 10 thousandths can affect +/- 3Hz. This may be irrelevant, or it may be catastrophic.

My point is that using the "free fall" evidence is baseless. "Truthseekers" claim 8-16 seconds. The 9/11 commission I believe endorses the 10 second figure. Even at 10 seconds, which you may think is only slightly longer than free fall speed, is 80% of gravitational acceleration.

Shaggie, it is much easier if you leave physics out of this. Throwing around terms like gravity, max acceleration, velocity, displacement, inertia, etc... only complicates things. BTW, I appologize if my math is skewed, its been a long fucking day.

 

How about this EMT's testimony, taken from a nationally syndicated radio show called Guns and Butter. Is the other EMT's testimony still uncorroborated with eyewitness testimony, or are you going to make some more shit up?

The testimony supports the evidence, thus making it valid in my book. It is the nonsense that is coming from the government which is the real conspiracy theory.

The Verizon building was closer to the towers, yet it did not collapse. And no, it was not damaged by WTC-7. And if you don't believe that WTC-7 collapsed in its own footprint, first look at the collapse itself (which it is unlikely you have done), then look at the pile of rubble remaining from aerial photographs.

No, I am asking other disingenuous people -- such as yourself -- to explain themselves, instead of making up convenient lies.

 

But you are using the same fuzzy math and techniques of deception that Shaggie is. You both want to make it more confusing than it really is. I don't need physics to prove to me what happened on 9/11, and neither do others with the eyes to see. You can only look at so much of what happened that day and brush if off as mere coincidence, which the coincidence theorists love to do. All a person needs to do is look at the collapse of WTC-7. All a person needs to do is listen to some of the testimony of the firefighters who reported bombs in the buildings. All a person needs to do is watch the towers explode into powder in a matter of 10 seconds. It's just too obvious to anyone who isn't in denial, and there is no need to confuse people with numbers. Most people can look at things and see with the instinct they have that something isn't right. Let the debunkers continue to try and debunk. They are losing because more and more people are waking up.

 

The thing is, physics is the only thing that can be certain, that is why it is of importance. Physics is the only thing that can be scientifically proven. Things like "hearing" explosions cannot be. It is possible that there were explosions. It is also possible that the what they thought were explosions were actually the mechanical joints fastening the floor trusses to the perimeter columns failing under the pressure of hundreds of tons of steel and concrete. Purely speculation, but there are many possible events that could be mistaken as "explosions" to somebody that is experiencing such a situation. Again, that is just a speculatory example, do not hold that statement as a claim to any evidence.

There are many unknowns about the WTC collapses. What we do know, which can be calculated and proven through modeling, is found using physics. We know how the mass of the building, we know the stored energy of the building, we know the support structure of the building, we know the force applied to the supports, we can calculate what stress is applied to the supports when 10,20,30% of the support structure is removed. The estimated loss of support structure (where the plane hit) is a variable that can be applied to the equation. Using these values we can calculate why the support structure failed and why the remaining lower section of the building continued to collapse when the stored energy of the upper half was released. Many people argue the temperature of the fire, jet fuel, combustables, etc.. There is strong scientific evidence that states the structure would have collapsed, catastrophic failure, without the additional loss of strength of heated steel.

I have nothing to gain by denying malicious government involvement in 9/11, only something to lose. My viewpoint is derived from reading scientific studies and analyzing the evidence. It is also derived from a somewhat different view of what accused parties are capable of and what threat they pose. There is no doubt that some of the claims have made me think and maybe even second guess some aspects, but most of what is out there is not enough for me to disavow what I know, and what can be proven to me scientifically. With that note, it is too GD late and I cannot think about this shit anymore.

 

I know I said I was done, but I just wanted to comment on this. IF explosives were used, it would have been shape charges to cut support columns, causing a collapse. The concrete turning to powder would still have occured due to the compression forces of the building collapsing, not from the actual explosion. Shape charges would not cause the mass pulverization of the concrete. Again, they would have been used to sever support columns.

If the pulverization of the concrete is infact believed to be a product of explosives, the method of detonation would be quite evident from the exterior of the building. Back in the day I would be able to actually calculate this, but the PSI of pressure released from the detonated HE would have blown every sqaure inch of glass out of that building before any collapse was initiated (gasses from an HE detonation expand at something like 26,000 ft/sec). Since this obviously did not happen, any explosives would had to have been used as shape charges, directing their blast inward to the targeted support columns. This all being said, as I stated in the previous post, physics can explain the collapse and I do not believe explosives were needed or used. Personally, I believe the explosives agrument is null and void. Seriously now, my brain is on lunchbreak. I'm out.

 

buildings have feeling to and when wtt7 saw all its brothers and sisters fall, it lost hope and fell down too

 

I don't discount physics. I discount the skewed physics of people with an agenda.

 

Well the fact that Prisonplanet is actually mostly funded by their readers...and mainstream media is funded by huge corporations with huge agendas who know what happened on 9/11 and don't want to talk about it...makes me trust them a little bit more.

 

?

Are you joking?

You do know it was a building that contained thousands of investigations into Wall Street by the Security and Exchange commission, 90 some percent of them were destroyed completely, and you think it just fell down because it was upset that 1 and 2 did? lol

 

Ok...Call it a conspiracy when in reality it's all backed up on mainstream sources and you can't really dispute that, you just disagree so yo ucall it a conspiracy theory.

 

Controlled Demolition is just one part of this thing, even if it were proven false there are still many reasons to believe that many prominent figures had foreknowledge and were even involved. Just look at the motive. Also...Look at the fact that the BBC has admitted they reported WTC7 collapsed 20 minutes beforehand after this article got big. Who fed them the information that it was going to collapse. because even people in New York didn't know it was going to. And I would like to you explain why, no matter how the towers collapsed, they turned to dust and now hundreds of first responders are sick from that dust. If they pancaked or weakened like you say they would have...1. fallen a lot slower and 2. not pulverize into dust and little beams. If you haven't seen this picture yet, I would look at it, it's right after the collapse, do you see any floors left or computers or anything that would have been left if it had just weakened and buckled?

http://cdn-90.liveleak.com/liveleak/6/asdjdhhd/2007/Feb/28/LiveLeak-dot-com-32615-wtcphoto.jpg