I'll give up LIHOP when someone explains Building #7 to me

[matcom]

I KNOW a plane hit the Pentagon because my Brother In Law was driving by that day and SAW it.

I KNOW 2 planes hit WTC (but still do NOT know how those towers collapsed the way they did)

I have NEVER been convinced by ANYONE how/why Building #7 went down, ESPECIALLY knowing what was stored there.

Want to shut up the 'Conspiracy Theorists' (derogatory term btw, IMHO)???

convince me/us that the collapse of Building #7 was plausible. give it to me. i've not heard it yet.

[WCGreen]

1. Read the new issue of Popular MEchanics.....

They did a detail analysis, including structural engineers and demolition experts to explain how and why Building 7 collapsed...


On Edit...

Here is the link....

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[matcom]

4. care to shed some light?

i've only read from structural engineers (4 or 5 at least) that state is was NOT possible without explosives

[WCGreen]

15. I'm just reporting what I heard on NPR the other day...

But first, these guys can't even get it together in IRAQ and Afganistan, what makes you think they could pull off something of this magnitude...

Just asking...


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

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. What makes you think they aren't getting it right in Iraq & Afghanistan?

You don't understand what the PNAC plan is about then.

They want to destabilize the Middle East, not stabilize it. With that understanding, they have been more successful then even they imagined.

[Flabbergasted]

26. Precisely...Its the only way to actally accomplish the overall objectives

Which were very plainly written down about 1998.

[Flabbergasted]

24. They did blow up alot of buildings in Iraq...

Seems they are fairly proficient with Shock and awe

[WCGreen]

29. I'm not trying to change your mind....

But the more time you spend perseverating on conspiracy theories, the less you have dealing with the task at hand....

Beating the GOP in November...

Just my humble opinion....

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

86. they have been very successful in Iraq

divide and conquer.. destroy and rebuild

[LSK]

10. .

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

[BlueEyedSon]

32. Hows about we start the magazine "Popular Conspiracies"?

We'll make a fortune!

[Marie26]

78. Good article

"WTC 7 Collapse

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, 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...

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."...

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

[tridim]

2. Your brother in law saw the plane hit?

Or did he just see a plane flying low?

If he actually saw it hit I have a million questions to ask him.

[matcom]

9. point taken - can't clarify

was driving right by the Pentagon and passed the plane almost on the ground. physics tell me, based on his description that no way the plane could have pulled up. he watched the explosion in his rear view.

i.e.

saw the plane a couple hundred feet off the ground, passed the plane, looked in rear view mirror and saw Pentagon explode.

best he/I can do. don't think and airliner could pull up that fast.

sorry. best I got.

[tridim]

38. I can think of many ways his brain could have misinterpreted what he saw

1. "Hundreds of feet" could easily be >500 feet.. A normal landing approach. Planes flying low look much lower than they actually are. The same thing happens to the moon when it's on the horizon. It looks much bigger in the sky.

2. Was the plane lined up with the pentagon? Hard to judge while driving in traffic and watching in the rear view mirror.

3. There is an airport in the vicinity. I remember the old Denver airport, planes flew right over the highway. They ALL looked like they were about to crash into structures.

From what you described I'd say he didn't see anything of the sort. He may have seen a low flying plane and an explosion, but he didn't see a plane clip light poles, skip off the lawn, crash into the Pentagon and almost completely vaporize into gas. The fact that you and he "can't clarify" tells the story. The brain is far from perfect and can be fooled, especially when something so odd is observed.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Ask me anything

I think I've figured that one out.

If you really want to know, start with Rudy's OEM bunker that he didn't put one toe in on 9-11.

[Richard Steele]

5. They have a VERY simple explanation for that...

[Generic Other]

16. Oooh you are scaring me Uncle Dick!

What BIG teeth you have!!

[rzemanfl]

6. Wouldn't that be MIHOP? n/t

[Fox Mulder]

7. A plane hit the Pentagon???

Someone explain that one to me. I don't buy it.

[INDIA]

8. You believe a plane hit the Pentagon????

You're Drinking the Kool-Aid!!!!!!:sarcasm:

[One_Life_To_Give]

11. After the collapse on 300+ firefighters

Are you going to order your remaining firefighters to try and save building 7?
Or will you spend all your resources trying to dig out your fellow firefighters?

Seems like a no brainer to me. I wouldnt spend any resource trying to protect a piece of property when it means I might not get to another firefighter trapped in the wreakage of the first two.

[LSK]

17. no skyscapers have ever collapsed from fire until 9/11

[WCGreen]

19. yea, but it was jet fuel plus all the combustables inside the

building that weakened the structural integrity of the building...

[LSK]

of WTC 7????

[hack89]

48. There are eyewitness accounts of severe structural damage ..

due to falling debris from the towers plus the multiple fires in WTC7 were allowed to burn unfought. Why is it a suprise that it fell?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...

Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. Show me the pictures?

What pictures?

Oh the pictures that don't exist of this extensive damage and these huge fires.

BTW: Even the FEMA report doesn't think that's what caused the building to fall.

[hack89]

56. I am fine if photos are the only acceptable proof for 911 truth

and look forward to pictures of explosive devices, pools of molten steel, traces of therm ate, missiles hitting the Pentagon, etc etc..

And of course we must now discount the FDNY accounts of explosions - no pictures or tapes you know.

Do you really want to go down this path? Are all eyewitness accounts no go anymore?

[DoYouEverWonder]

59. Sure let's go there

But please read post #57 first.

[hack89]

67. I am not sure exactly what your point is ...

you are aware, aren't you, that FEMA hired NIST to complete the studies for WTC7? The FEMA report is old and outdated news that has been completely overtaken by NIST's recent research.

In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has conducted a three-year, $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study included not only in-house technical expertise but also drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Their report on WTC7 will be out soon - until then there is no official report on WTC7.

[hack89]

69. Can we start with the pictures of molten metal? Thanks. nt

[Bluebear]

22. But not WTC 7? That building collapsed like a house of cards.

Odd, just sayin'.

[tridim]

23. None of which burn nearly hot enough to soften fireproofed steel.

[jwtravel]

85. Hot enough IF fireproofing stripped away!

The planes' impacts and paths through the buildings certainly stripped away a lot of the fireproofing material, enough to allow the fires "thermal access".

[Selatius]

30. There was no jet fuel inside WTC 7

Because no aircraft struck that building.

[DoYouEverWonder]

50. But there was a hell of a lot of diesel fuel

and pressurized fuel lines that ran through most of the 5th floor.

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. Did you know a lot of space on the upper floors

of the towers was empty? Not much to burn on a floor that's unfinished space.

[One_Life_To_Give]

37. But the FD fought all the other high rise fires

I don't think in the hours after the first two collapses the FDNY gave much priority to saving building 7 nor should they have. It's only a piece of property that can be replaced.

As to the first two towers. NIST reports that the fireproofing was torn of the floor trusses. Although they only had a two hour fire rating anyway. So under a best case scenario the FD has two hours to either get the fire under control or get everyone out of the building as collapse of those members can take place anytime after that.

[hack89]

42. No skyscraper was ever hit by a fully laden 767 either ..

don't you think that minor detail played some role this story?

[LSK]

45. World Trade Center 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND???????????????

[hack89]

47. You are right ... I was addressing the

general statement about steel framed buildings falling. WTC7 was severely damaged by falling debris and suffered multiple fires that were not fought.

[jwtravel]

84. It still hasn't happened!

The WTC towers fell from fires AFTER being pummeled by fully fueled large jetliners. A lot of folks arguing the "none have ever collapsed from fire" are, in my opinion, WAY underestimating the damage caused by the jetliner impact or are outright ignoring it. (maybe out of convenience?) As far as WTC7, I have seen photos of one side of it with a large "gouge" in the bottom third of it due to debris impact when the towers were collapsing.

[knowbody0]

12. Wow, your brother, was he on the freeway?

as for your question, get in line with the rest of us. the dots do not connect

[Selatius]

13. Umm, LIHOP would be akin to negligent homicide

MIHOP is just plain homicide. I don't believe the evidence supports MIHOP.

[Gatchaman]

14. Building 7 was built by new Jersey contractors

for the lowest bid and plenty of mob kickbacks. Do you really think it was as well-built as it could have been?

[matcom]

18. show me where it was hit

even with Debris. even IF debris rained down on it HOW does that cause a building to collapse?

i don't even remember it being on fire

[One_Life_To_Give]

41. Wouldn't take much

Buildings are rated in time that they can survive a fire. Time for steel to soften, cement walls to become brittle and breach, etc. That requires someone or something to go in and put the fire out before it gets out of control and burns long enough to bring about complete structural collapse.

FDNY had other priorities that afternoon. The building sprinklers? Water at normal house pressure rises 10-12 stories. So the sprinklers required both water and electricity to run the pumps. Both of which were exceedingly dangerous to those involved in rescue operations on the site.

[Garbo 2004]

43. I saw Steve Spak's video of the WTC site after the towers collapsed.

I just mention it since I was surprised to see that WTC 7 had more fire and damage than I saw from other known views of the building. So much smoke was coming from WTC 7 on that one side that it made it difficult to clearly see the extent of the damage. In the video one can hear the firefighters talking about being pulled back away from the building since they were afraid the building would collapse. They and Spak were standing about a block or more away down the street from WTC 7, so it's not like the video is up close. Unfortunately the video does not include the collapse. The video is what it is, FWIW.

Spak's video is actually kinda boring but it's on the spot not long after the towers fell, he just wandered around the site with his camera. He's a former EMT who does photography on the side and apparently still has connections to the FDNY which is why I guess they didn't shoo him out of the area.

A guy with a "debunking" site which I just came across apparently got this still photo from Spak of WTC 7. http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I don't know why WTC 7 fell, but after seeing Spak's video it seems to me that WTC 7 was not undamaged or only had small containable fires. And the firefighters on site at the time were concerned that it was going to collapse. FWIW.

[Kingshakabobo]

54. I remember this big firefighter they interviewed on scene.....

......he KNEW the building was a goner. He said it in a rather matter-of-fact way. I wish I could find that video. He was a rather large man wearing suspenders working on some kind of support truck - a pump maybe. MSNBc played the video for days.

[hack89]

44. Are eyewitnesses OK?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl


And there is this:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[tridim]

51. All these accounts would indicate the building might fall over,

but not fall straight down at nearly free-fall speed into a neat pile.

BTW, who runs firehouse.com?

[hack89]

60. No ..

Structural damage stresses remaining supports as the weight is redistributed. Fires weaken one of those supports, resulting in a three phase asymmetrical collapse that takes over 8 seconds (definitely not free fall.)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf#search=%22nist%20wtc7%22

[tridim]

71. Newton is wagging his dead finger at you and the nist n/t

[hack89]

73. Care to elaborate?

the pictures clearly show a vertical failure with a kink in the roof - certainly not a classic CD.

I am assuming you didn't bother to look at my link - it shows very clearly what could have happened.

[Kingshakabobo]

53. I remember (on tv) a big (rather fat) firefighter wearing suspenders...

......working on a truck....Maybe a pump truck? Anyway, he was talking about WT7 saying it was going to collapse. He said something along the line: "the structural integrity is gone."

Perhaps he was in on it?:shrug: The bottom line is, the building burned for seven hours(plus) before collapsing. That's not to say ALL buildings that burn for seven hours MUST collapse. It means firefighters know buildings can't burn forever - especially those built like Wt7 and WTC.

The question I have for people that think fire CAN'T bring down a steel framed building: Then why do they bother to fire-proof the steel if it is SO god-damned impervious to fire?? And if they DO fireproof the steel(which they do)...why is it so hard to believe that the fireproofing can be defeated by impact blast/huge amount of jet-fuel........or in the case of WT7 - a fire that burned for 7 hours....a time outside the performance envelope of said fire-proofing?????

[SidDithers]

77. Good questions...

and good luck getting answers from the inmates here in the dungeon.

Sid

[Generic Other]

20. Does LIHOP even have to be proven these days?

That was the conclusion I drew from the Aug. 6 PDB, the ignored FBI whistleblowers, and the massive failure of the USAF.

[Karenina]

25. Ahhh, yes...

what was STORED there. ;-)

[Philosoraptor]

27. bldg. #7 was jealous of the towers & fell just to spite them

[treestar]

28. This is the 911 event that stinks the most

There is no reason for the building to go down because it was hit with debris. If it was taken down as not worth saving or likely to become an environmental hazard or some other lame explanation it would have been better if they just explained that.

Personally, I think the Bushits want zero responsibility for any decision made in reaction to 911. If they indeed did shoot down Flight 93, for example, rather than just facing responsibility for that, they make stuff up so they don't have to be responsible even for a necessary decision. If they had to take down WTC 7 or even the towers due to some sort of decision being made, they would not just come out and own up to it, even if their decision could be defended.

I'm not saying this can be proven but it would not be impossible, IMO.

[Nikki Stone 1]

31. Actually, a rigged tower 7 speaks to MIHOP and not LIHOP

LIHOP could have happened without it.

[Rex]

33. Pixies.

Gremlins?

[LSK]

34. welcome to the dungeon

[Bluebear]

35. Even on 9/11 you can't talk about, well, 9/11

:eyes:

[LSK]

40. I have noticed that they are pretty lenient in GD today

[onecent]

36. What was stored there? I have never known that answer. Thanks. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

49. A lot of fuel

and a lot of generators.

Why they needed so many generators I don't know, especially since the building was build over a Con Ed substation?

However it is the fuel delivery system that is the source of what brought WTC 7. This system covered most of the 5th Floor, which is where the base of the main trusses that held up the building were located.

[tridim]

55. Link?

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. Chapter 5 of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study

5th Floor Scenarios.

From a structural standpoint, the most likely event would have been the collapse of Truss 1 and/or Truss 2 located in the east end of the 5th and 6th floors. These floors are believed to have contained little if any fuel other than the diesel fuel for the emergency generators, making diesel oil a potential source of fire. As noted in Section 5.4, the fuel distribution system for the emergency generators pumped oil from tanks on the lower floors to the generators through a pipe distribution system. The SSB fuel oil system was a more likely source of fire around the transfer trusses. The SSB pump is reported as a positive displacement pump having a capacity of 75 gpm at 50 psi. Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double-wall iron pipe. A portion of the piping ran in close proximity to Truss 1. However, there is no physical, photographic, or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system. And maybe one should mention there was absolutely no evidence of any fire on the 5th floor.

The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential (actually, an hypothesis based on myth, describes it better) rather than demonstrated fact. Assume that the distribution piping was severed and discharged up to 75 gpm onto the 5th floor in the vicinity of Truss 1. Seventy-five gpm of diesel fuel have the potential of approximately 160 megawatts (MW) of energy. If this burning diesel fuel formed pools around Truss 1, it could have subjected members of that truss to temperatures significantly in excess of those experienced in standard fire resistance test furnaces (see Appendix A). If the supply tanks were full at the start of the discharge, there was enough fuel to sustain this flow for approximately 3 hours. If the assumed pipe rupture were incomplete and the flow less, the potential burning rate of the discharged oil would be less, but the duration would be longer. At even a 30-gpm flow rate (about 60 MW potential), the exposed members in the truss could still be subjected to high temperatures that would progressively weaken the steel. For the above reasons, it is felt that burning of discharged diesel fuel oil in a pool encompassing Truss 1 and/or Truss 2 needs to be further evaluated as a possible cause of the building collapse.


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

[BestCenter]

58. Quick question

Just how much explosives would have been necessary to bring down that building?

[DoYouEverWonder]

61. There was about 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel missing

from the two 6000 gallon tanks in the lower level that were found damaged but intact, yet empty of fuel. Would that be enough?

There were two other 12,000 gallon tanks down there too, but they were found intact with most of their contents.

[BestCenter]

62. But, wait.

Wouldn't explosives had caused all of them to explode as well?

[DoYouEverWonder]

64. They were located in a sublevel

There were pressurized fuel lines that ran the fuel up to the generators on the 5th Floor. It is believed that the 5th floor is where the building failed.

[BestCenter]

65. Oh, okay.

So the fires were created by the generator on the fifth floor and the pressurized lines exploding. Gotcha.

[DoYouEverWonder]

75. Without a criminal investigation

there is no why to know if what happened on 5 was deliberate or an accident. However, the system was put in place when Rudy build his OEM bunker and this system had the capability of bringing the building down. Even FDNY warned Rudy not to put this system in and that the location of this system could cause the building to fail if it caught fire.

Oh, by the way, even though WTC 7 was a sprinklered building, most of 5 did not have any fire suppression.

[tridim]

70. The best line of that "report"

5.9 Conclusion:
This report is a JOKE.

My comment:

Why doesn't diesel melt engine blocks when it explodes under high pressure at an ideal fuel to air ratio? Why doesn't it melt the exhaust manifold? We all know the answer.

Regardless if the fire was fed by burning diesel, it's doesn't get hot enough to bring a building down.

[Swamp Rat]

39. So, your brother-in-law took his eyes off the road, trained them on the

Pentagon and saw a Boeing 757 hit the building?

Did he stop and/or go back to help?

Did he testify at the 9/11 Commission? Did he report what he saw to anyone besides friends and family?

I am not convinced a plane actually hit the Pentagon, nor am I convinced building #7 collapsed due to the hits on the WTC.

[BestCenter]

63. Are you calling his brother

a liar?

[Lilith Velkor]

66. welcome to DU

[BestCenter]

68. I don't that's what represents the true spirit, if you will, of DU.

We certainly don't encourage brother-bashing.

[Lilith Velkor]

72. I didn't think so either

Apparently, my whole hometown is fair game. It's very disheartening. :cry:

[Swamp Rat]

76. No bashing. Just simple questions.

The OP is stating his opinion as fact, based on someone else's observations. I just want to be clear as to what, exactly, was seen, and what happened right after (the reaction to what was seen).

Read this whole thread before you decide WHO represents "the true spirit of DU:"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=115532&mesg_id=115532

[Swamp Rat]

74. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[LSK]

79. read into things much????

Its a simple concept that while you are driving on a HIGHWAY, you might not be able to study a airplane flying over and behind you perfectly.

But no, fly right to accusing people of lying.

Way to join DU.

:eyes:

[DoYouEverWonder]

80. Both SR and Matcom

are long time DUers. I think if Matcom has a problem with SR's post, he's perfectly capable of responding and/or defending himself.

[Lilith Velkor]

82. Or not bothering

Since y'all appear to have your minds made up here. :eyes:

[DoYouEverWonder]

83. Then maybe Matcom shouldn't have posted the question

if he didn't want to hear the answers?

[Lilith Velkor]

87. If you were to read the OP, you would see that wasn't the question.

You might even infer that matcom would not waste his time on missile-theory douchebaggery, as I have.

[rman]

81. How could 7 even be the result of Lihop?

The govt Let the terrorists rig the building for CD?
Does it not al least make MIHOP somewhat plausible?

[yodermon]

88. see here.

This is the WTC7 picture you don't see too often. The side of the building that was already mostly obliterated.

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski (ladder 22)

Link at http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm