BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

So you trust information posted on conspiracy sites because it is backed up by the mainstream media? Is this different than the mainstream media that is funded by huge corporations with huge agendas and know what happened on 9/11?

I commented on this subject in a previous post, albeit it was very late last night. IF explosives were used, they would have been used to sever support columns. The blast pressure would have been for the most part concealed because the force would have been directed towards their inner targets (the columns). The pulverization of the concrete still what would have been caused by the collapse of the building.

If you are saying that explosives are what caused the pulverization of the concrete, then it would have required a free air detonation. The enormous blast pressures would have clearly been visible by the dozens of cameras fixed on the towers throughout the collapse. It was the collapse that caused the pulverization of the concrete. It was the collapse that fractured the support columns. If you look at the sheer mass of the building and its enormous potential energy, why is this so hard to understand? The pulverized concrete by explosion point is null and void. The remaining argument regarding the nature of the collapse has already been calculated. Explosives were not needed to cause the collapse.

 

Um, hello, enormous blast pressures were both seen and felt. Blast pressures strong enough to send people flying through the air, coinciding with a pyroclastic flow commonly seen only with volcanoes and nuclear detonations. We are talking about HIGH ENERGY here. The energy we saw with the ensuing collapses is not the type of energy you would see from a typical building collapse, no matter how high or how large the buildings were.

And as far as the pulverized concrete.... I believe there was an explosion/explosions which first wiped out the core columns, which was likely located in the sub-levels and other key points throughout the core, as well as explosives that were planted on the outer frame of the building. This is what caused the buildings to pulverize. Demolition squibs are clearly visible as the towers came down.

VIDEO CLIP: Demolition squibs and pyroclastic flow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qDB40lkZrk

This is FINE POWER we are talking about that covered most of lower Manhattan. The entire content of those building's concrete was reduced to dust. All that was left at Ground Zero was steel beams. Even the building's contents were reduced to dust. One firefighter stated that the largest piece of debris he found in the rubble was half of a telephone keypad.

 

Here's an 8 minute video excerpt for you debunkers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y1FfabdFbs

 

Here is MIT's Jeff King on the controlled demolition of the towers and WTC-7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FujppU50EpA

 

So the fact that it was closer is more important than whether a WTC tower actually fell on it?

That's a lie. A quick google search proves it: http://www.kmaofny.com/case_studies_3.html

Why don't you quite posting youtube videos to cover up your previous mistakes and start backing up what you say?

 

Note: when Rat says "MIT's" Jeff King, he means someone who got a degree in electrical (not structural) engineering from MIT 30 years ago and has spent the last 25 years working as a doctor.

Rat just wants to give the impression that he's currently a professor of a relevant discipline at MIT.

 

Pepik,

I post clips from YouTube because video clips can provide better evidence than I can by just stating it. I know you're afraid of the evidence and that's why you wish I would stop posting the videos. You're a coward who can't back up anything he says, rather nit-pick over minor details.

I will admit I was wrong about the damage to the Verizon building, but to me it's a moot point since the building was demolished and it did fall into its footprint. The reason the Verizon building was damaged is because it's only a matter of feet away from WTC-7

Here is more video evidence pointing to controlled demolition in WTC-7. Here you see a WTC rescue worker saying WTC-7 is about to blow up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

Now that I've admitted a mistake, why don't you go back and listen to the interview with the EMT who said that they were going to bring down WTC-7.

 

Which video, Skip?

 

That's fine. The problem is that you abandon your arguments so soon after you make them. You post graphs which you claim show the tower would collapse in 96 seconds. But when challenged, you can't explain how the calculation works, later say that physics doesn't matter, and then abandon the argument completely. You repeat this process over and over.

If I can't back up what I say, why was I right? How come when your facts are proved wrong, they become nit picking? When your theories are wrong, who needs physics? See the trend here? Where's your backup to the 96 seconds, coward?

You now have one person who says they heard it was "going to come down... or get taken down" and then when prompted say they think they heard "taken" down but notes they aren't saying they believe it was CD. This does not corrobate with your other witness who says a 20 second countdown was broadcast over emergency channels, which would have been heard by every emergency worker at ground zero, yet which is not corroborated by anybody. These two witnesses contradict each other, but of course to you that is no problem. You can set your standards as low as you want, even to Prisonplanet levels, but nobody has to accept this garbage as evidence.

A few feet? Its across the street. 30 Broadway, across the street behind it, was also damaged. The post office, across the street on the opposite side to Verizon, was damaged too. So it fell "in its own footprint" yet it damaged buildings across the street in three directions.

 

If you don't even understand the graphs you post, don't post them.

The first graph is based on the collapse starting up from a standstill every story. It's right on the graph.

The second graph means that the collapse came to a complete stop every ten stories and then started up again. You believe that happened?

.

 

For anyone interested in the math,

time to free fall through 10 stories:

t = sqrt (2h/g) = sqrt (2*10*3.78 / 9.81) = 2.8 seconds

h=3.78 meters (height of a story)
g=9.81 m/s^2 (acceleration due to gravity)

Starting from a standstill 11 times throughout the collapse (110 stories divided by 10):

t total = 2.8*11 = 31 seconds

.

 

That's more deception by the 'truthers'.

That was a piece of steel that underwent hot sulphidation which could occur during diesel fires or potentially any fire where sulfur is present.

The truther groups immediately claimed sulfur from thermite, but there was sulfur in the large diesel fuel tanks and pressurized diesel lines in WTC7, in plastics, oil, transmission fluid, gypsum wall board, etc. Thermite would have melted through the metal and left a different type of microstructure, as opposed to metal that is eroded gradually in an atmosphere that contains sulfur.

The metallography of the steel shows that it sulphidized between the grains and the grains fell off but didn't melt. Similar behavior is seen in eroded smokestacks where there is sulphur in the waste gases. That can occur at temperatures as low as 400 C, far below the melting point of steel.

Hot sulphidation isn't the same as vaporization and occurs well below the melting point of steel, although laymen in the media have mistakenly reported it as a vaporization.

Jumping to conclusions by claiming the sulfur had to come from thermite is like claiming Saddam had nuclear weapons because he tried to buy some aluminum tubes from China.

.

 

If 7WTC was hardly damaged as truthers claim, the building and its contents would have been easily secured. The truther claims about blowing it up to secure data don't make sense. Pieces of debris damaged buildings across the street from 7WTC.

No one would create a rubble pile like that with the intention of trying to cover up data. So now the claim is that Enron data was in there and they wanted it destroyed? The story keeps getting more fringe. Next people will be claiming that documents about Elvis were in there.

The burden of proof is on the conspiracy groups that are making these claims. They've been searching for a smoking gun for over 5 years and haven't come up with anything. It's all been hearsay, speculation, inuendos, quote mining, and journalist bloopers.

.

 

"Next people will be claiming that documents about Elvis were in there."

Typical Ad Hominem Response, care to actually give a real argument?

 

So let me get this straight. The US government rigged the WTC buildings with explosives. Flew the planes into the buildings via remote control. Brought down two of the largest buildings in the world using controlled demolition with everyone in the world with a television watching. Concocted a story about a phantom terrorist group and blamed it on them. Fooled the whole world into thinking 9/11 was conducted by Islamic extremists, and tricked many nations into joining the fight against this phantom group. But then they told the BBC that WTC7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did? A building that, according to the official story, was supposed to be a collapse caused by fire and structural damage?

 

No, the government didn't do any of this....Global Corporate interests that control the government. The point of the BBC story is to show that the media was given a script on 9/11 to follow, who fed the BBC the information that WTC7 fell already? Even when it fell everyone was baffled, so how did the BBC KNOW it was from "structural damage". Also, I don't claim to know what happened on 9/11...All i know is there have been tons of unanswered questions and this just adds to the list, and the majority of Americans are starting to question 9/11 or atleast realize we are going into tyranny and being lied to daily by our government and media.

So keep calling us kooks and nutcases and using ad hominem attacks on us, you're just afraid of facing up to reality.

 

Which makes the usual amount of conspiracy theory sense, seeing as the top executives of Enron went on to be convicted and imprisoned.

Where's yours?

They weren't baffled, they were expecting it. That's why they cleared everyone out of the area. Remember, two buildings had already collapsed, the firefighters were very concerned about the other damaged buildings at this point. And it was pretty easy to figure structural damage could be the cause since one of the tallest buildings in the world had just fallen on WTC 7 and carved a 10 story high gouge out of it.

OK.

 

When are you going to show us that 10-storey "gouge" in WTC-7, "Pepik", because I have yet to see it.

 

............................................................................................................

I saw this from my car on the NJ Turnpike, Jersey City. Twas true, didn't know it was colapsing because it was obscured by dust or smoke.