"Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?"

"Steel-framed high-rises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been common for more than 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none have led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse of support columns.

Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; 1 and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members"."

"Building 7's documented vertical plunge and tidy rubble pile with exterior wall fragments on top are exactly the kinds of results that controlled demolitions achieve through careful engineering."

Source: http://www.wtc7.net/

----------

Can someone explain to me these few things (keep in mind this is the building that was NOT hit by a plane):

1. How could this building collapse with just fire, when that isn't strong enough to melt its steel frame? Furthermore, buildings like this one have withstood even worse fires, why would this one be any different?

2. Why was there an inconclusive report and why does no one care?

3. Why does it look EXACTLY like a controlled demolition? The building just vanishes downwards as if explosives went off on each floor.

How could this building collapse with just fire, when that isn't strong enough to melt its steel frame? Furthermore, buildings like this one have withstood even worse fires, why would this one be any different?
WTC7 had the emergency generators for the entire complex and the diesel fuel to run the generators. There were NINE generators on the 5th floor alone, consider how much fuel would be needed to keep them running. The first TEN floors were a power substation for all of southern Manhattan (diesel fuel, like jet fuel, gets hot enough to weaken steel.

Other similar buildings were probably not subjected to similar fires as well as considerable debris falling and damaging the structure from the other two towers.

PS - steel does NOT have to reach it's melting point to lose its ability to support a structure.

It must be the Illuminati. Someone call Dan Brown!

Maddox sums up my thoughts on this....

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

When will people learn to not try to convince either Overdose or Warrior1972 with facts?

WTC7 had the emergency generators for the entire complex and the diesel fuel to run the generators. There were NINE generators on the 5th floor alone, consider how much fuel would be needed to keep them running. The first TEN floors were a power substation for all of southern Manhattan (diesel fuel, like jet fuel, gets hot enough to weaken steel.

Other similar buildings were probably not subjected to similar fires as well as considerable debris falling and damaging the structure from the other two towers.

PS - steel does NOT have to reach it's melting point to lose its ability to support a structure.
Where are the building blueprints? Is there proof these floors actually had those things on them?

How hot does diesel fuel get? At what point does steel "weaken"?

It appears the top floors were offices, why did they just turn to rubbel?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/fib_la_fire_lg_s.jpg

This fire seems far worse then that of what World Trade Center 7 looked like, yet the Interstate Building didn't collapse.

PS: Why would they build a builiding, knowing fires are possible (AND that they have all this fuel in the builiding), but make it so shitty that it would just free-fall if a few fires broke out?

... Where are the building blueprints? Is there proof these floors actually had those things on them?

How hot does diesel fuel get? At what point does steel "weaken"?

It appears the top floors were offices, why did they just turn to rubbel?

Do the research yourself and report back to the forum with the answers to these questions.

**rubble**

I think it's reasonable for you to ask people to support their explanations with evidence, OD, but I think you should apply that same skepticism to that website. I really question the following statements:

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel

Building 7's documented vertical plunge and tidy rubble pile with exterior wall fragments on top

PS - steel does NOT have to reach it's melting point to lose its ability to support a structure.

nice facts brooks.. and you are completely right in your above statement, which was proved just a few hours ago...

Truck fire collapses highway

A stretch of highway near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed yesterday after a gasoline tanker crashed and burst into flames, leaving one of the nation's busiest spans in a state of near paralysis.

The heat was intense enough to melt part of the freeway and cause the collapse, but the truck's driver walked away from the scene with second-degree burns. No other injuries were reported.

"I've never seen anything like it," Officer Trent Cross of the California Highway Patrol said of the crumpled interchange. "I'm looking at this thinking, 'Wow, no one died - that's amazing.' It's just very fortunate."

The tanker was carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline when it ignited around 3:45 a.m. after crashing into a pylon on the interchange, which connects westbound lanes of Interstate 80 to southbound I-880, on the edge of downtown Oakland about half a mile from the Bay Bridge's toll plaza.

The Bay Bridge consists of two double-decked bridges about two miles long straddling San Francisco Bay.

The fire melted a second interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound I-580 located above the first interchange, causing a 250-yard section of the roadway to collapse onto the roadway below, according to the highway patrol.

Witnesses reported flames up to 200 feet high.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the accident showed how fragile the Bay area's transportation network is, whether to an earthquake or terrorist attack.

"It's another giant wakeup call," he told reporters at the California Democratic Party convention in San Diego.



Well gee... i've been hearing for years now that fire CAN'T MELT STEEL... So does this mean that George Bush blew up this bridge?

Nope, it means that real life does not occur like it does on paper... I doubt you can fully predict and apply all the effects that any collision and fire have on a steel structure...

That bridge was not made of Steel.
Every picture I have seen showed what looked like concrete or asphault.

you stand corrected:

Flames on a lower ramp melted the upper deck of a highway on the Oakland/Emeryville side leading to the double-decker Bay Bridge that connects the heavily populated East Bay to San Francisco. As the steel structure weakened, a concrete slab fell onto the ramp below.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/U.S.A/10121946.html

WTC7 had no plane hit it, thus no fuel. This bridge, however, had fuel fueling the fire.

This bridge didn't turn to rubble or fall into its own imprint, which is what happened to WTC7.

WTC7 had a steel frame that turned to rubble, even though fires were not in the top floors. Why did those floors turn to dust, also, when there was no fire on those floors? I mean, did this ENTIRE bridge turn to dust or did it just fall apart? Because if fire DOES melt steel, then WTC7 would have fallen on its side or huge chunks of floors would have been intact once it fell, not turned to basically DUST.

LOL Decka. Stop trying to compare a bridge to a 40 something floor building with steel that had tons and tons more depth of steel and was designed to withstand fire.

That bridge was not made of Steel.
Every picture I have seen showed what looked like concrete or asphault.

I guarantee you there's tons of steel in that bridge. They don't even pour driveways without steel reinforcement.

I guarantee you there's tons of steel in that bridge. They don't even pour driveways without steel reinforcement.

A few rebars do not mean the bridge was "made of steel".

WTC7 had no plane hit it, thus no fuel. This bridge, however, had fuel fueling the fire.

so fuel does melt steel now... interesting...

This bridge didn't turn to rubble or fall into its own imprint, which is what happened to WTC7.

Well it would be hard for a bridge to fall the same way a tall building would.. do i have to discuss the differences?

WTC7 had a steel frame that turned to rubble, even though fires were not in the top floors. Why did those floors turn to dust, also, when there was no fire on those floors? I mean, did this ENTIRE bridge turn to dust or did it just fall apart? Because if fire DOES melt steel, then WTC7 would have fallen on its side or huge chunks of floors would have been intact once it fell, not turned to basically DUST.

I would be interested to see proof that the remains of WTC7 were "dust"...

LOL Decka. Stop trying to compare a bridge to a 40 something floor building.

Why don't you go drop anything 40 floors and see what happens to it.

so fuel does melt steel now... interesting...
:lolhit: I was saying that for the sake of the debate. This bridge supposedly fell due to a FUEL truck. WTC7 had no FUEL. Just fires. Unless someone can prove to me there was fuel in WTC7.

Look at the videos for yourself Decka. If you honestly think that building fell the way it fell just because of a few fires you are ignorant. Have you even seen the video?

PS: Many buildings have had FIRES on many floors before. But none of them collapsed.

I've seen it fall...

However, I didn't know you were an expert on falling buildings.. and had the intellect and experience to take in EVERY effect and possible cause of the building falling...

I have some suspicions of 9-11, but nothing can be proved. Just admit that they are theories and get on with your life.

Mind sharing with us those suspicions, Decka?

Can someone explain to me these few things (keep in mind this is the building that was NOT hit by a plane):

1. How could this building collapse with just fire, when that isn't strong enough to melt its steel frame? Furthermore, buildings like this one have withstood even worse fires, why would this one be any different?

2. Why was there an inconclusive report and why does no one care?

3. Why does it look EXACTLY like a controlled demolition? The building just vanishes downwards as if explosives went off on each floor.
OD, I think I found answers to your questions. Rosie explains it all in this video.:rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtEQk0k3YI

Mind sharing with us those suspicions, Decka?

No problemo..

i'm not gonna go back and dig up sources and facts... But i've done research on 9-11 before... and the things that stick out to me the most are...

1. All the money missing that was underneath the towers.

2. The odd happenings i.e. security relieved a few days before.

3. Flight 93.. the one that crashed in pennsylvania... i heard the wreckage of the plane looked in no way like a plane wreck, and no bodies were found. And strange enough, hopkins airport by cleveland was cleared out and evacuated, forcing people to walk down the highway, at the same time flight 93 was supposed to come in, and there was even a "flight 93" in the log book.

Only problem there is.. where did all the dead people go LOL.

4. Gov't taking cameras from a gas station across the street from the pentagon.

5. The many testimonies of citizens who said they heard explosions, and a few of them, and then after a few hours of being reported, the angle was just dropped.

Thats all that comes to mind... just questions. They can't be answered, but they raise suspicion. I'm not about to go and say anyone is guilty though, like an FT.. that would be irresponsible.

I've seen it fall...

However, I didn't know you were an expert on falling buildings.. and had the intellect and experience to take in EVERY effect and possible cause of the building falling...

I have some suspicions of 9-11, but nothing can be proved. Just admit that they are theories and get on with your life.
ROFL. Why would I "get on with my life"?

If it can be taken a step further and basically proven in an official report then that would be good, wouldn't it? If I move on this issue may never get to that point if there isn't enough support behind doing more research into why it fell.

LOL. Why do you always tell people to "move on with their lives" and that nothing can be "proven". STOP SAYING THAT. It's dumb. Nothing can be proven 100%, so we ALL make educated opinions. And that's what I'm doing. So shut the hell up.

If you don't even want to debate the issue, then don't. But don't tell other people to "move on with their lives" if they feel strongly about it and want to work towards change.

Overdose,
If you're sincerely asking these questions, there are a lot of websites that can give you the answers. Just google it.

However, if you've already made up your mind about this, then I have some questions for you:
1. What actually happened to 7 WTC?
2. If it was a controlled demolition, why did they demolish it? And how exactly did they go about it?
3. Who planned it and who knew about it?
4. Why do conspiracy kooks always just ask questions, never accept the answers, and never provide viable alternatives?

i heard something about that building being a place where a big insider trading thing was going down.. but then again, i've just about heard every conspiracy theory...

I guess it's just IMPOSSIBLE that a building could collapse under it's own weight... floor by floor... some people expect it to TIMBERRRRRR and fall over like a california redwood LOL.

1. WTC7 had no plane hit it, thus no fuel. This bridge, however, had fuel fueling the fire.
2. Why did those floors turn to dust, 1. "As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.

One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants."
http://www.wtc7.net/cache/nyt_engineersbaffled.html

Even the most diehard conspiracists, as well as the Village Voice, acknowledge the diesel fuel storage. This is an odd stand for you to be taking.


2. The building created dust, but it did not turn into dust. Even if your controlled demolition theory were true, the building would not have turned to dust.

:lolhit: I was saying that for the sake of the debate. This bridge supposedly fell due to a FUEL truck. WTC7 had no FUEL. Just fires. Unless someone can prove to me there was fuel in WTC7.

Look at the videos for yourself Decka. If you honestly think that building fell the way it fell just because of a few fires you are ignorant. Have you even seen the video?

PS: Many buildings have had FIRES on many floors before. But none of them collapsed.

Check again, Overdose. There was a ton of diesel fuel in Building 7.

PS: Many buildings have had FIRES on many floors before. But none of them collapsed.

How many of these other buildings were next to two 110-story towers that collapsed?

A few rebars do not mean the bridge was "made of steel".

OK fine. By the way, I'd like to see someone build a bridge out of asphalt.

Anyway:

The steel supporting the overpass turned pliable after the gasoline-fed fire below reached temperatures up to 2,000 degrees — more than four times as hot as the hottest conventional home oven.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-01-sf-bridge-commute_N.htm)

OK fine. By the way, I'd like to see someone build a bridge out of asphalt.
Ouch. Burn.

How many of these other buildings were next to two 110-story towers that collapsed?
Exactly.

OK fine. By the way, I'd like to see someone build a bridge out of asphalt.

Anyway:



USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-01-sf-bridge-commute_N.htm)

I once saw someone build a bridge out of popsicle sticks that was quite tough

Ouch. Burn.

Fresh asphalt is pretty hot.

the fact remains...

this bridge should not have fell from mere gasoline burning temperatures.. according to the minority of "scientists" who remarked on the 9-11 occurance... we all know now that fire cannot melt steel... so this bridge must have been bombed or had charges placed in it... right?

so this bridge must have been bombed or had charges placed in it... right?

Well of course, it's so obvious that the government did this just to shut up the people making the "fuel can't melt steel" argument.

They might have done that as a practice run for when they blow up the Golden Gate.