Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This video show's a really intense fire of a Skyscraper in Madrid,Spain.This building burned for 18 hour's and did not fall.

How could WTC 7 fall with the minimal debris damage and small fire?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3422960340283884442&hl=en

Because the official story says so.

Or, alternatively, because the damage was not minimal. It was actually extensive. Statements otherwise are either misinformed or lies.

bullshit. bullshit

Not to mention that the building wasn't hit with a plane...might have missed that?

And good defense, Deano nope

Because the media is controlled by our evil government and they are only going to tell the american people what they want you to hear which are the fairy tales that the 9-11 commission has been saying.

Originally posted by Bespin Bart
Not to mention that the building wasn't hit with a plane...might have missed that?

And good defense, Deano nope

that point holds no water because there have been many cases in the past where a jetliner struck a building yet those buildings just like the apartment complex that was struck by a plane in new york recently by that new york yankees pitcher,stood their ground and did not collapse.yet somehow for the first time in history,the towers collapse -"in freefall manner no less" the way buildings do when they are blown up because the structures allegedly were weakend.

That plane was so much smaller, so the force of it hitting could not have been as great as a jetliner.

And if our government is evil, then why don't you just move to a different country?

the evil is global

Then just kill yourself and it'll all go away.

that wont solve the problem

Originally posted by Alkaselzer
That plane was so much smaller, so the force of it hitting could not have been as great as a jetliner.

And if our government is evil, then why don't you just move to a different country?

Dude when I said commercial airliners I meant Jet airliners as huge as the ones that hit the towers.geez.Im not just talking about that one incident..There have been many cases before where commercial jetliners have crashed into buildings yet THOSE buildings did not collapse,they stood intact yet somehow for the first time in mankind,these towers collapsed when a jetliner hit it. I have been to some 9-11 conferences and I know this to be true because the researchers there were showing pics of commercial airliners-THE SAME SIZE AS THE ONES THAT HIT THE TOWERS since you did not understand thats what I meant by commercial airliners,huge commercial airliners that crashed into buildings and those buildings stood and did not fall-I repeat-did not fall!!!!!! yet for the first time in mankind history,these towers allegedley fell because a commerical airliner hit it.Yeah right.how many more fairy tales are you going to listen to?

Originally posted by Deano
the evil is global

yeah its hardly just here in the states.

And what, rambling about it on a message board where nobody gives a damn will solve everything?

of course it wont. but it can help a few people to look at different opinions instead of just mainstream news all the time

Parker, you did not say 'commercial' when talking to BB.

Please stop ranting like that. It is not a constructive way to post.

And there has never been a situation in the past similar to the one on 9/11.

And before they decide to twist words, that is to say that there has been no situation where a commercial jetliner struck a skyscraper...

And indeed, you were talking about the Yankee's player's plane that I responded to.

Thats irrelevent because a skyscraper would be less likely to fall instead of a building.thats laughable to believe that two towers would fall simutanoulsy at once as well like they did freefall no less within 30 minutes no less the SAME way buildings do like the kingdom where the seatte seahawks football team used to play when explosives were set off to detonate it.The towers fell the exact same way buildings like that one did that have been detonated and thats laughable that fires could have done it.contrary to what people think infowars proves all that.You can accept the truth what info wars says with all the experts Jones brings on or not.the fires were very minimul.Firefighters were recorded saying they thought the fires could be contained before the collapse.I been to 9-11 conferences,I have heard the recordings.

something else that has been mentioned many times before in the past is that WT7 the third building that collapsed later on that day,all you got to do is look at the photos and you can see that that buildng was never hit by any debris yet it somehow catches on fire and you can hear Larry Silversten saying that the best thing to do is pull it which demolition experts have said means in demolition terms-to set off explosives to take it down.

Didn't Ush just tell you to stop ranting?

building 7 wasn't hit by a plane!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Or, alternatively, because the damage was not minimal. It was actually extensive. Statements otherwise are either misinformed or lies.

When a building burns for 19 hours in a blazing inferno, that's not significant damage?

No, it depends on various factors.

How hot was the fire, how durable the building matieral is ect.

Originally posted by Blax X
No, it depends on various factors.

How hot was the fire, how durable the building matieral is ect.


On the meridian plaza fire:

"It was the largest high-Rise office building fire in mordern american history"


"More than 11 hours of uncontrolled fire growth and spread, interior fire fighting efforts were abondoned due to risk of structural collapse"

Which did not happen mind you.

"From the 22nd floor to the 29th floor, the fire consumed all combustible material"

"Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, fire fighters notices significant structural displacement in the stair enclosures.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf



"After The fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders--sagged and twisted--Some as much as three feet, under sever fire exposures, developed fissures in the reinforced concrete floor assembelies in many places."

Despite this extrodinary exposure, the columns continued to support their load

Originally posted by Blax X
No, it depends on various factors.

How hot was the fire, how durable the building matieral is ect.

I just posted a damage report and a link describing the damage in detail.

Are you asking for a damage report on wtc 7?

Damage Report:

The type of metal is not described, so that particular metal used for that particular building might be able to perform better under pressure and heat then the steel used in the Towers.

Link:

... That thing is 113 pages long, if I am not mistaken. I skimmed few the first twenty pages or so and didn't fidn anything about the temperature nor the steel used in the building. The burden of proof is on you, so you are going to have to go read through that report yourself first, find the answers to the questions I asked, and come back to me :P

Originally posted by Blax X
Damage Report:

The type of metal is not described, so that particular metal used for that particular building might be able to perform better under pressure and heat then the steel used in the Towers.

The metal was described in the document I gave you, it was strucutral steel reinforced with concrete.




Originally posted by Blax X

Link:



... That thing is 113 pages long, if I am not mistaken. I skimmed few the first twenty pages or so and didn't fidn anything about the temperature nor the steel used in the building. The burden of proof is on you, so you are going to have to go read through that report yourself first, find the answers to the questions I asked, and come back to me :P

I did read the report, your emphasis seems to now lay on the things that the report did not cover in detail. The temperture can only be estimated by looking at the smoke and the effect it had on the structure.
So, i generally answered most of your questions except for the exact temperture.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The metal was described in the document I gave you, it was strucutral steel reinforced with concrete.

What type of structural steel? Different minerals in different steels increase or decrease structural support.






I did read the report, your emphasis seems to now lay on the things that the report did not cover in detail. The temperture can only be estimated by looking at the smoke and the effect it had on the structure.
So, i generally answered most of your questions except for the exact temperture.

Im not deliberatly making questions that are not in your report. if that is what you were trying to say.

And yes, that is how temperature can be measured. When fires occur, the officials tend to measure how hot th fire was for statistical purposes.

I.E. next time use steel that is more resistant to this temperature, or that temperature.

EDIT: The temperture of the fire isn't as relevant, what matters is what temperture did the fire heat the structural steel. And were straying too far from the intial question which was why did wtc 7 fall despite taking less damage then the madrid building. I used the meridian plaza building as an example, because I t clearly suffered more damage and had burned for far longer than wtc 7.

I took, once took I should say, a vested interest in the whole 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I did tons and tons of research on both sides of the debate and for a while was either convinced or on the fence.

I am now of the opinion, that the goverment were not the ones "pulling the strings" so to speak, on 9/11. They may have known 9/11 was going to happen, I don't doubt that, but they didn't actually do it themselves.

Bomb-sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building the day before, mass evacuations of the each tower were done about a week prior, stock-put options were increasing for boeing, the owner of the towers put terrorist insurance on the towers (about a month or something before) and (when 9/11 happened) he wanted each plane crashing to count as seperate acts of terrorism, which he got billions from, plane jet fuel could not have weakened or melted the supports, there is videos showing little bursts shooting out of the sides of the tower seconds before it collapsing, several several interviews with people in the trade center that heard second, third, fourth, etc explosions, I haven't even mentioned Iraq, oil, motives for the government to do it, Israel, etc), so many more reasons, more than I have the time to list.