Watch the news - B777 missing

[scrivy]

So do you buy the story that Building 7 fell at freefall speed into it's own footprint due to some office fires?

Yip....... it was amazing!!!
It was the first ever documented highrise to fall due to fire, and it wasn't even mentioned at all in the 9/11 commission report.
They were so in awe of it that they chose never to talk about it......

[Woodman]

So do you buy the story that Building 7 fell at freefall speed into it's own footprint due to some office fires?

Generally buildings in cities have firemen all over it putting the fire out. Did Building 7 have anyone at all trying to douse the fire? Probarbly not.

Has anyone ever left a skyscraper to just burn and see what happens? Get back to me when you know.

[R650R]

Has anyone ever left a skyscraper to just burn and see what happens? Get back to me when you know.

Yes several times in high profile fashion post 911 and nothing collapsed with fires way more intense.
The reason all those firefighters died is they had utter faith those steel framed buildings could survive fire as none had ever collapsed due to fire before.
Also little reported is a fire the WTC suffered back in 1973 that didn't collapse them either...

Madrid tower first big fire...

[Katman]

Generally buildings in cities have firemen all over it putting the fire out. Did Building 7 have anyone at all trying to douse the fire? Probarbly not.

Has anyone ever left a skyscraper to just burn and see what happens? Get back to me when you know.

Yes, there were firefighters in Building 7.

Yes, there have been skyscrapers that have burnt fiercely for many more hours than Building 7 did without falling.

Here's one....


Do so reading.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

[Woodman]

[QUOTE=R650R;1130725892]Yes several times in high profile fashion post 911 and nothing collapsed with fires way more intense.
The reason all those firefighters died is they had utter faith those steel framed buildings could survive fire as none had ever collapsed due to fire before.
Also little reported is a fire the WTC suffered back in 1973 that didn't collapse them either...

Madrid tower first big fire...

Were they all of the same design ? too many variables to just say that some didn't so then tower 7 must be the same. Hardly scientific.

[Akzle]

Yes several times in high profile fashion post 911 and nothing collapsed with fires way more intense.
The reason all those firefighters died is they had utter faith those steel framed buildings could survive fire as none had ever collapsed due to fire before.
Also little reported is a fire the WTC suffered back in 1973 that didn't collapse them either...

Madrid tower first big fire...

[IMG]

yeah, but there was no burning arabs then, we all know that arabs burn hotter than normal people.
Except their passports. Arab passports will survive a fire that will cut through 3 foot steel foundations like thermite.

[Katman]

Were they all of the same design ? too many variables to just say that some didn't so then tower 7 must be the same. Hardly scientific.

Do you understand the concept of freefall?

[imdying]

Do so reading.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

Got any links that aren't fan fiction sites? Or maybe some where they've looked at building fires fueled by jet fuel? Even one similar fire would be nice.

[Katman]

Got any links that aren't fan fiction sites?

I'm sure you can take each example in that link and find plenty of information elsewhere about each one if that site doesn't fit your agenda.

Building 7 was never fueled by jet fuel.

[imdying]

I'm sure you can take each example in that link and find plenty of information elsewhere about each one if that site doesn't fit your agenda.

Building 7 was never fueled by jet fuel.

None of the buildings in that link were fires fueled by jet fuel, not even one of them.

One conspiracy at a time, whatever did or didn't drop 7 doesn't refute the big two though, that is a logical fallacy.

I'd be careful about throwing around the concept of sites that fit agendas.

[Katman]

None of the buildings in that link were fires fueled by jet fuel, not even one of them.

One conspiracy at a time, whatever did or didn't drop 7 doesn't refute the big two though, that is a logical fallacy.

Let's stick with Building 7 for a second.

It was never fueled by jet fuel.

(And besides, the vast majority of the jet fuel in the Twin Towers would have burnt off within the first few seconds of the initial explosions.)

[YellowDog]

Let's stick with Building 7 for a second.

It was never fueled by jet fuel.

(And besides, the vast majority of the jet fuel in the Twin Towers would have burnt off within the first few seconds of the initial explosions.)

Just like the walls of Jericho, building 7 collapsed as a result of the resonance pitch created by what was going on in close proximity to it.

Obviously

[Ocean1]

So do you buy the story that Building 7 fell at freefall speed into it's own footprint due to some office fires?

No............

[imdying]

Let's stick with Building 7 for a second.

It was never fueled by jet fuel.

(And besides, the vast majority of the jet fuel in the Twin Towers would have burnt off within the first few seconds of the initial explosions.)

No, lets stay with the big two that were hit by jet airliners.

No, the vast majority would not have burnt off in the first few seconds. Even if that were physically possible (which it isn't), assuming a half full fuel tank, you're talking about the release of 700 billion joules of energy in a few seconds (which, ironically, would easy explain those two building collapsing, although it would have been quite quick).

/edit: That's NZ billion, not US billion, just so we know I'm not fudging that by a factor of one thousand

[Katman]

No, lets stay with the big two that were hit by jet airliners.

No, the vast majority would not have burnt off in the first few seconds. Even if that were physically possible (which it isn't), assuming a half full fuel tank, you're talking about the release of 700 billion joules of energy in a few seconds (which, ironically, would easy explain those two building collapsing, although it would have been quite quick).

Why not stay with Building 7?

It was never hit by anything other than debris from the collapsing North Tower - which only caused superficial localised damage.

It was never fueled by jetfuel - only by office supplies and furniture.

Yet it collapsed uniformly at freefall speed straight down into it's footprint.

Demolition experts could only hope for as good an outcome.