Senator Kerry: Building 7 was a Controlled Demolition

i am not convinced; in a couple of frames it seems to originate from 5-6, there's no gap in those frames and smoke is infamous for sticking to walls. i am not saying all the smoke originates from 5 and 6 but a lot of it did, and nobody is lying, it is known there were 8 floors on fire across wtc7, the fact there's no visible fires on that facade reinforces my point. regardless, steel bdgs dont happen to come down symmetrically in a perfect and mathematical collapse. if you believe that you'd have to ignore two major laws of physics, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. wtc7 collapse implies that all 91 columns, all bolts and all floors gave way ay the same time. it is preposterous and physically impossible without explosives helping to clear the way. now more and more renown physicists and structural engineers are voicing their support for the demolition hypothesis, being the only one to account for all the evidence and more.
Quote from Haroki:

It contradicts Bitstream's statement that the heavy smoke came from 5&6. So no strawman, just some misunderstanding on your part

Many debate the fires, so that's a lie.....

Firemen on the scene say there was plenty of fire, and they expected it to fail from the fires and amount of physical damage sustained from the collapse of the towers.....

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

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, 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.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html



No debate, eh?
More...
 
Quote from Bitstream:

i am not convinced; in a couple of frames it seems to originate from 5-6, there's no gap in those frames and smoke is infamous for sticking to walls. i am not saying all the smoke originates from 5 and 6 but a lot of it did, and nobody is lying, it is known there were 8 floors on fire across wtc7, the fact there's no visible fires on that facade reinforces my point. regardless, steel bdgs dont happen to come down symmetrically in a perfect and mathematical collapse. if you believe that you'd have to ignore two major laws of physics, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. wtc7 collapse implies that all 91 columns, all bolts and all floors gave way ay the same time. it is preposterous and physically impossible without explosives helping to clear the way. now more and more renown physicists and structural engineers are voicing their support for the demolition hypothesis, being the only one to account for all the evidence and more.
More...

Believe me, I'm not trying to CONVINCE you of anything. That'd be a colossal waste of time. Just saying that heavy smoke came from 7, and the firefighters there, in live recordings are saying that they are afraid of the building collapsing from the fires that they can't fight due to lack of water pressure and exterior damage and killing more of their bro's. What do you make of their beliefs?

Also, there HAVE been other steel buildings to collapse from fire - so to say otherwise is a lie.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."



I still have never seen a reason why 7 WOULDN'T have fallen straight down, no matter what the reason. Matter of fact, I can remember reading a paper from the implosion web site - I can't find it right now - and the guy writing it says that he would expect it to come down like that. Yet no papers I've read yet why it shouldn't. I'd be willing to read whatever you have on the subject.....

And every example I've seen of CTers citing why the laws of momentun and conservation of energy prove their point, I've read counterpoints why the Ct version is a poor example that would get you a flunking grade if you were a physics student.
 
Quote from Haroki:

Believe me, I'm not trying to CONVINCE you of anything. That'd be a colossal waste of time. Just saying that heavy smoke came from 7, and the firefighters there, in live recordings are saying that they are afraid of the building collapsing from the fires that they can't fight due to lack of water pressure and exterior damage and killing more of their bro's. What do you make of their beliefs?

Also, there HAVE been other steel buildings to collapse from fire - so to say otherwise is a lie.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."



I still have never seen a reason why 7 WOULDN'T have fallen straight down, no matter what the reason. Matter of fact, I can remember reading a paper from the implosion web site - I can't find it right now - and the guy writing it says that he would expect it to come down like that. Yet no papers I've read yet why it shouldn't. I'd be willing to read whatever you have on the subject.....

And every example I've seen of CTers citing why the laws of momentun and conservation of energy prove their point, I've read counterpoints why the Ct version is a poor example that would get you a flunking grade if you were a physics student.
More...


high rise steel frame bdg never colllapsed, due to fire, before and after 911, and that's what we refer to.

your last statement is as poor as it gets when the best physicists in the world agree that conservation of energy and momentum are two basic laws you cannot get around in the case of a free fall complete colllapse. if you want to debunk 7 you have to come up with an explanation as of why those 2 basic laws were violated...or maybe they didnt appply on 911?

this is one of the last professor, who wrote a paper years back on the towers, to come forward [look at the credential] saying 7 was demolished:


http://www.911blogger.com/node/8101



...and demoltion expert danny jovenko that didnt enen know WTc7 collapsed on 911 when he was shown the video had this to say:


"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

the video has been pulled from both goog and youtube for a change...hopefully will be up again soon and i can post it.
 
Steven Jones who is a physics professor has completed some interesting and convincing studies here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/


But IMO it's a waste of time and energy trying to convince others that the official story is highly questionable. I gave up recently when an acquaintance could not see how 200000 tons of steel and concrete would prevent a building from falling as fast as a ball dropped from the top floor, and he is a professional builder. As Russo said at the end of this video (quoting Nick Rockefeller): "Look how stupid everybody is". http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&hl=en
 
Quote from Bitstream:

high rise steel frame bdg never colllapsed, due to fire, before and after 911, and that's what we refer to.

your last statement is as poor as it gets when the best physicists in the world agree that conservation of energy and momentum are two basic laws you cannot get around in the case of a free fall complete colllapse. if you want to debunk 7 you have to come up with an explanation as of why those 2 basic laws were violated...or maybe they didnt appply on 911?

this is one of the last professor, who wrote a paper years back on the towers, to come forward [look at the credential] saying 7 was demolished:


http://www.911blogger.com/node/8101



...and demoltion expert danny jovenko that didnt enen know WTc7 collapsed on 911 when he was shown the video had this to say:


"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

the video has been pulled from both goog and youtube for a change...hopefully will be up again soon and i can post it.
More...

Hey, you're making some progress now - so now I see you agree that steel buildings CAN collapse due to fire alone. I really don't see the difference between why a smaller building WOULD collapse, and why a larger building absolutely - according to you - CAN't collapse due to fire. Perhaps you could explain it to me, keeping into account the fact that both would be built using the same engineering factors........

The problem with your physicists are that they aren't building engineers and aren't familiar with how buildings are ENGINEERED. Here's someone who knows how it works.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51540

Third, Fetzer and Jones argue that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed so neatly without a controlled demolition. Architects clarify that any such building is designed to load-shift. The failure of part of a floor causes other parts of that structure to compensate and take up the load. This means that each floor must always fail symmetrically. As long as any part of the floor remains intact, it is designed to pick up the remaining load. Thus, it was inevitable that the towers collapsed symmetrically and down the center. Furthermore, controlled demolitions start from the bottom up. The WTC collapse bears no resemblance to that whatsoever.

So that explains the near symmetrical failures of 1,2 and 7. ANd explains how 1 and 2 survived the plane impacts - load shifting.

Now read this to see a GOOD breakdown of the collapses. It's rather long and takes a few rereads, but well worth your time if you're seeking some truth...

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
 
Haroki,

Thanks for the contribution. I sincerely appreciate your viewpoint and hold the Hegelian approach to truthseeking in high regard.

I will take a close look at what you've posted and carefully consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top