Why is the the story of WTC#7 in the dungeon, instead of on 60 minutes?

[European Socialist]

It happened in the media capitol of the world, yet has anyone seen McPravda do a segment on it? Has anyone explained how a building collapses in its own footprint by getting hit by debris?

[bling bling]

1. I thought it collapsed after burning all day long.

I thought it went down around 5pm that day. Is that not right?

[Warpy]

5. It did.

However, no one has adequately explained what started the fires or why the building's collapse started in a section that was AWAY from the end that was damaged by debris, although that's where the worst fires were.

[European Socialist]

9. I heard it was a couple of small fires. That's the problem--where's the ..

press coverage.

[Skink]

2. "So I said let's just pull it".

Larry Silverstein.

[Warpy]

7. And voila! Six weeks of painstaking work

drilling columns, placing charges, and wiring them together and programming a demolition sequence was accomplished in MINUTES!

They MUST be SUPERMEN!

[Marnieworld]

8. Precisely eom

[wildbilln864]

21. Nonsense!

Why would it take six weeks?
Why drill columns when the charges could be place onto the column? Glue? Magnets?
Perhaps more info is needed! Click here.
50+ floors were shutdown for 36 hours. I don't think you'd need to rig every floor or even every other floor. The buildings weight could be used to do damage when supporting structures are disabled. If you rigged the building fom the 50th floor up at criticle places and blew out supporting structure in the basement. How well could the lower 50 floors hold up against all that weight? Wild speculation? Yes, so what!?

We have been asked to risk the lives of our precious sons and daughters and possibly grandchildren in this War On Terra of which S11 is the foundation!
We need all the truth and nothing less! This happened on Bush's watch after several ignored warnings! Now they deny investigation!?
Crazy conspiracy theories will be eliminated when the real investigation is done!
JMO!

[petgoat]

27. Drilling is for Concrete. You don't drill steel columns.

Thermate is much simpler.

[Atman]

3. LOTS of people have explained it. But no one will broadcast it.

Seriously, something to think about. What do you think would happen to our country as a whole, our national sense of self, our faith in government institutions, should it be proved to the American people that we were attacked by our own government in order to start a war-for-profit?

I honestly think the country would pretty much collapse at that point. How that "collapse" would manifest itself, I don't know. Anarchy? Rioting in the streets? Attacks on any politician? I don't know, I just don't know. But I think there is some merit in the argument that there is some stuff the American public just isn't equipped to handle.

I am not saying this as an apology or excuse for what was allegedly done to the WTC and the surrounding secrecy. But I really think we all need to seriously consider what the heartland's reaction would be, what the nation's reaction would be, if we all suddenly learned that the entire top level of government was fighting AGAINST us, instead of fighting to PROTECT us. I don't think it would be a scenerio any of us would wish upon those will still be living in this country after we're gone.

[Sinti]

25. I can see it in my mind's eye right now. It certainly won't be pretty.

The alternative, of course, is to allow these people to continue to control our destinies. I'm not talking about the * administration, I'm talking about the big money interests that brought you this nightmare. They pull the strings, make the bombs, and are free to demand a cup of blood and a pound of flesh for every one of us that wishes to exist under the auspices of their corporatocracy. I don't believe, even if we (Democrats that is) win, that they'll let go.

Given those choices, I'd personally rather die on my feet... others may have different feelings.

[petgoat]

28. I agree, Sinti

We're never going to overthrow the people behind a $500 billion a year
illegal drug industry. (Saudi oil is worth $150 billion a year)

But why don't we see how far we can get?

[thereismore]

4. because the answers to questions about WTC7 throw the 9/11 story

into tailspin. Nobody from the corporate media wants to go there "on the record" and publicly.

[MrPrax]

15. Exactly...

If trying to officially explain the possibility of the two largest buildings falling due to airplanes crashing into them (at different places on the building), you must use a different set of 'physics' to explain WTC7 which didn't have all that evaporated air fuel cooking steel beams causing them to fall down on it's own footprint...like the other two did.

You know I am skeptical of official conclusions, but don't necessarily endorse the alternative theories, largely because it is unnecessary...let them explain this official story first that they believe doesn't consistute a 'conspiracy' theory in and of itself.

I was listening to an interview with one of the apologists, Mark Fenster (Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture). He for some reason keep comparing this to the JFK assassination. It struck me however that if you notice, the weakest part of the JFK story is 'motive'.

The Warren Commission spent most of it's time looking at the 'how' part of the mechanics and conducted lots of tests and then establishd the questionable 'magic bullet' theory'. Motive of course is where MOST conspiracy theories about JFK take their cue. They explain that without some motive, the lone nut gunman theory looks weak, no matter how the mechanics look.

The 9/11 thing is the exact opposite; the Commission spent all it's time on 'motive' and virtually NO time on proving the mechanics or establishing a 'theory'. I always thought that was an interesting difference.

The Commission or anyone could secure one of the world's many many empty skyscrapers and conduct tests to prove this contention. Afterall, if there is potential that buring buildings fall down, then it would be good to know which ones, what kind of materials, what building techniques should be avoided, etc. Notice none of that concern has ever been voiced even though most people saw three building fall down.

It's similar to the part about how the hijackers names didn't turn up on the airline flight lists -- if this is TRUE, then why is the US especially concerned about 'no fly' lists anyway IF the terrorists can simply remove their names anyway...maybe they should be investigating that little loophole in their terror net, before declaring it was 'some guy' in cave working with a whole raft of suspicious 'names' put forward by the Bush administration.

What it really comes down to is there are a lot of people, especially on the Left, that won't touch the issue -- not because it's controversial -- but because it forces people to look at government and elites in an entirely different light and in doing so would make people compelled to do something about it. It's much easier to scream 'conspiracy' and avoid the whole question of examining our foundations as a society

(why do these topics get moved here all the time?)

[BIG Sean]

6. I don't get the whole WTC #7 issue?

Let me start off by saying I live in New York, I was in the WTC 15 minutes before the first plane hit, and I did lose friends that day. So, needless to say, I have an interest in what happened.

About WTC #7, if my memory serves me correctly, I could swear that we were told that day that tower 7 was unsafe for the rescue workers and that they had a fear of it coming down (Or parts of it coming down) and killing more firemen, police and construction crews that were in ground zero looking for bodies and surivors. So, a decision was made to pull the building down. I know that people say "Do you know how long it would take to rig a building that size?" and my answer is: "No. Do you?" The best in construction were there that day, and things were done in record time all over the place. Its like asking "Do you know what it would take to get 500 firemen and policement to one place so fast?" No, I don't..but it was done. Right?

[Marnieworld]

10. well here's some info for you

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion2.htm

It describes the steps involved with a controlled demolition. There was too much to summarize here but it sounds very time consuming and complex. If these things were done on that day I imagine there would have been video and reported coverage of the efforts since it was the very epicenter of attention.

Pardon the pun but this building coming down that day is the smoking gun of the real story not being told.

[European Socialist]

12. OK--Why no coverage? That is what makes me suspicious.

[rman]

19. The official story re WTC7 is NOT that it was demolished,

the official story is that it collapsed because it was "on fire" all afternoon. In this case "on fire" means that there were fires on several floors, even though it suggests something more dramatic.
These fires do not explain why the building collapsed completely in almost perfect symmetry, starting at ground level, as can be seen in various videos of the collapse. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=cameraplanet+9%2F11+wtc+7

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. Bernie Kerik was in charge of communications that day

It would have been very easy for them to send out word that the building was in danger of collapse, knowing they were the ones that would collapse it.

Steel buildings don't just collapse, even if they have been damaged by debris and have small fires burning. Most of the fires didn't get going until after 2:30 PM, they did not burn all day has some people claim.

[petgoat]

29. Interesting post, Sean

A major question for me is WHY was Building 7 seen as unsafe?

Was it because of obvious structural damage and massive fires?
Or was it because FDNY believed bombs had brought the towers down
and thus thought bombs might bring WTC7 down too?

I suspect the unique structure of WTC7 (the transfer trusses) meant
that someone who had studied the blueprints over a period of weeks
could probably have devised a plan to bring the building down
symmetrically with only a few charges. I suspect a structural genius
could have accomplished this feat in a few hours.

But if WTC7 was brought down by explosives because it was a safety
hazard, why won't the authorities admit it?

[jobycom]

11. There's no mystery, it's been easily explained.

The building was severely damaged by three things: and odd design, damage from falling debris and the concussion of the larger buildings coming down (there some talk of reverberations along the subway tunnels that may have weakened it, too), and an intense fire that burned for hours.

YOu have to really, really be trying hard to find a conspiracy to see anything odd in this building collapse. Reminds me of when James McDougall died. He ahd been sick, he had a long history of heart problems, his doctors and lawyers had been saying th stress of jail was killing him faster and he could die at any time. So the moment he died, all the wacko Republicans started screaming that someone his age just didn't die unexpectedly like that, so Clinton must have killed him.

Same with WTC7. The building was heavily damaged, the media showed it leaning, showed the leaning increasing over a couple of hours, and spoke to several experts who all said they were afraid it would collapse. So obviously when it collapsed people saw it as proof that it had been brought down by the government in a controlled explosion to hide secret documents after they had set up the whole twin towers collapses.

It makes no sense to me.

[paparush]

13. In light of that damage, I could see the building crumbling piecemeal..

collapsing a little here, caving in a little there...but to watch it drop like a rock, straight down, in an instance, with no yaw or pitch...it was just WAY too clean.

[The Straight Story]

16. They did bring down other buildings intentionally

and had no qualms about saying so, due to the heavy damage they had incurred. Had they needed to drop 7 they would have done the same, no need to lie about it. Shit happens.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. They had to lie

because the damage wasn't that severe.

[William Seger]

18. How many structural engineers agree with you?

(Hint: it's a number very close to 0.) There's still no consensus on why the first truss tower collapsed, but after that happened, there's no mystery about why the rest of the building collapsed: The rigid upper structure transfered the gravity load to the other vertical supports, which collapsed because they couldn't carry that load; and that effect quickly propagated through the whole building in what's called a "progressive failure." It dropped "like a rock, straight down" for the same reason that rocks drop straight down: that's the direction of gravity.

If you must have a conspiracy theory, there's no rule that conspiracy theories need to be totally idiotic, and in this case, there's no need for the idiotic "controlled demolition" hypothesis. If you wanted to take out the building, all you would to do is take out that one truss tower.

[LSK]

14. this is the 1st time I ever heard of it leaning

Was it made out of bricks or something??? :shrug:

[rman]

20. There's no evidence showing that falling debris damaged WTC7

so severely that it would completely collapse. If it was damaged to such an extent, the damage was on the side facing the towers - there is clear evidence that no such damage was on any of the other sides of the building. Such asymmetric damage does not explain the almost perfect symmetry of the collapse.

[jobycom]

26. Wrong

"NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."

skip

"Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

But what are a few ugly facts to a beautiful theory, right? Much easier to claim that NIST is just covering for Bush. And then we can claim the world is flat, global warming is a myth, and evolution is nonsense. Science should be thrown out in favor of silliness at every opportunity.

[rman]

31. "evidence" as in photos, video.

Claims of PM or NIST are not facts.

It is claimed NYPD has photos showing the south face of the WTC, and supposedly those do show severe damage. But as with the Pentagon videos, those are not released to the public.

[mhatrw]

22. Ummm ...

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. This is what you call an intense fire?

This picture is of the north side of the building, there are no pictures of the 'raging' fire on the south side of the building.

You can see from the shadows cast on the surrounding buildings that this pic was taken later in the afternoon. This is not a building in any danger of total collapse.

[petgoat]

30. The media showed it leaning?

Got link?

If "earthquake damage" from the towers' collapses damaged WTC7, why
didn't the FEMA report say so, and why hasn't NIST released its
WTC7 report yet, 8 months overdue?

The "odd design" was transfer trusses involving MASSIVE structural
members not easily damaged by catapulted tower debris or by
fire.

You are making unjustified assumptions favorable to the official
story--as so many do, and as I did before I started to consider
the actual facts.

[European Socialist]

17. Back to the dungeon--why not put the grassy knoll in here too.