Why did WTC7 collapse?
Fire damage
Side Score: 11
|
 |
Controlled demolition
Side Score: 30
|
|
|
|
|
Take a look at this presentation put together by NIST on the technical details of how the building collapsed. Side: Fire damage
Very interesting. Two main points stand out for me: 'Founded in 1901, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce' from the NIST homepage and on the 'Failure Sequence Timeline' page of the presentation: '8.2 secs' for an amazingly complete pulverisation down to about the third floor. It just seems so incredible that such a massive building which wasn't struck by anything conspicuously large could simply drop so soon after anything at all was amiss. Side: Fire damage
I think it sounds a little incredible, myself. By the way, if the government had seriously explored the use of controlled demolition practices in the collapse of the WTCs, I, and many others,wouldn't be so suspicious of them. Based on the evidence, it is the most reasonable explanation! Yet the 9/11 commission dismissed the CD (controlled demolition) hypothesis out of hand, ignoring any data that supported it. Side: Controlled demolition
I examined the NIST report, but I think the more compelling hypothesis can be found in the link I provided. According to NIST, an intial column(s) failed which resulted in a "vertical progression" followed by a "horizontal progression." I'm sorry, but this building wasn't made of dominoes. NIST also exaggerates what they call "disproportionate" collapse. If you watch the footage on youtube it is entirely consistent with other recorded demolitions. It is even more "proportionate" than most. Side: Controlled demolition
Good point. The most relevant factor is the melting point of steel. An out-of-control fire like that is very inefficient and the black smoke indicated a lack of oxygen (meaning there is no way that the fir became hot enough to melt steel, especially not the inner-core of the building). Side: Controlled demolition
|
You are correct, but that aint a BBC video. The BBC bit ends where they get a state terror apologist to claim that if you knew how the buildings were constructed you wouldn't doubt that they fell of their own accord. The BBC is covering this up. Theres a BBC hit piece on WTC7 on Sun 6th where they will try and make the proof that WTC7 was brought down by explosives go away with more silly arm-waving. Side: Controlled demolition
We've seen the footage of WTC 7 collapsing straight down, into it's own footprint, at nearly free-fall speed, so many times that it can start to look "normal" somehow. Nevertheless, it is not normal. Buildings don't collapse straight down, into their own footprint, at nearly free-fall speed--at least, not without proper planning. I'm surprised all the Demolition companies didn't go out of business after 9/11. Apparently all you have to do is set a steel-frame building on fire for a couple of hours and they collapse perfectly without any planning or explosives. Right? Take a look at what happens in this failed demolition video. According to the 9/11 pancake theory, the force of the remaining upper floors of the building hitting the ground should have precipitated a massive "vertical failure" resulting in "global collapse." an unsuccessful controlled demolition
Side: Controlled demolition
Even if fire damage could bring a build down it would take ages and the structure would not just suddenly turn into powder, would be a very slow/gradual, all-over-the-place fall. Also explain the molten steel as well...since jet fuel isn't capable of that, only "weaking the steel". Side: Controlled demolition
|
