10 story hole in WTC 7 - Page 9

c6gunner · 18th January 2007, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by einsteen

Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?

Really? Can you provide a link to these videos?

I doubt anyone would have stood looking at it for 7 hours, no. However, we have firefighters on record as saying that it was noticably leaning. This tilt would have kept increasing until the point of collapse. At a certain point, anyone with half a brain would probably stop, look at it, and think "holy crap, that thing's coming down any minute". From the on, yeah, they probably would have been watching it.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing those videos, any time you can dig up the link.

einsteen · 18th January 2007, 08:25 AM

mancman, the greening pancake model for wtc7 will give 8.5 seconds if it starts from the top (assuming E1=0) and will be faster if it starts at the bottom. If you blow up the bottom of wtc1 his formalism will give 9.2 seconds. Free fall one storey and the second stage of collapse will also be free fall because of the kinetic energy of the whole building.

The Doc · 18th January 2007, 08:26 AM

Post #243:

Quote:

Einsteen said:
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak

Post #320

Quote:

Einsteen said:
they were demolitions

Come on man.

einsteen · 18th January 2007, 08:28 AM

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a.../W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 18th January 2007, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

OTers often quote the firefighters saying WTC 7 is going to collapse as if it were proof
I'm just saying that not all the chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

Did any of the chiefs that did not say they thought it would collapse actually say "I don't think it will collapse" or actually disagree with those that stated they thought it would; or were they just silent on the issue?

Mancman · 18th January 2007, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by einsteen

mancman, the greening pancake model for wtc7 will give 8.5 seconds if it starts from the top (assuming E1=0) and will be faster if it starts at the bottom. If you blow up the bottom of wtc1 his formalism will give 9.2 seconds. Free fall one storey and the second stage of collapse will also be free fall because of the kinetic energy of the whole building.

8.5 or 8.3 seconds, all well and good.

But it clearly didn't collapse from the top. So such an analysis is fairly useless.

If we apply Greenings second stage to the 7 story collapse model, we'd have 174-25.9m = 148.1m of building left, with a starting velocity of 21.11m/s. Final velocity would be 57.87m/s, average of 39.49m/s, time of 3.75s + 2.36s = 6.11s.

CurtC · 18th January 2007, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by einsteen

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a.../W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.

That paper says

Originally Posted by Kuttler

It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds. Could this possibly happen as aresult of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down?

And then goes on to show that a top-down collapse, such as what happened in the Twin Towers, can't explain the 6.5 second collapse of WTC7.

Well no duh! It clearly didn't collapse top-down! Why did he even bother to write this paper up?

Belz... · 18th January 2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by einsteen

that image is consistent with the expected column damage.

Indeed. And this brings up an interesting question. If the building was so damaged that firefighters thought it would collapse, why was there any need to detonate explosives ?

Belz... · 18th January 2007, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by einsteen

Do you say that wtc1,2 were controlled demolitions ?

No, I said this:

Quote:

So this whole thing is due to the fact that you think only a controlled demolition can lead to a building collapsing ? That's kinda funny, considering your (alledged) stance on WTC1 and 2.

And it happened to be a question, which you didn't answer.

Quote:

they were demolitions but uncontrolled although methodical.

Contradiction.

Also speculation, since you are yet to provide any evidence to support that claim.

But assume the top block fails we have for wtc1 an initial kinetic energy of 2.4GJ and per storey that amount will be released, mass accumulation will even give more. This energy picture is valid (although it is a requirement) but for wtc7 you have no initial momentum.[/quote]

You have forgotten a very important and CONSTANT source of momentum.

Quote:

Isn't it "show your math" what you guys always scream.

Yeah. Please do so.

Belz... · 18th January 2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by CurtC

Well no duh! It clearly didn't collapse top-down! Why did he even bother to write this paper up?

Because winning is easier when you're fighting a strawman.

aggle-rithm · 18th January 2007, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by einsteen

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a.../W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.

Interesting. So why did they blow it up?

There must have been a really, really good reason, considering the financial bath taken by the building owners, the loss of the Con Edison substation, and damage to the surrounding infrastructure caused by the collapse. There must have been some massive payoff, one having nothing to do with propoganda, since its collapse went almost unnoticed in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

Atomic Glee · 18th January 2007, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Patently ridiculous. It takes months to rig a building like 7 with complete, unobstructed access.

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

Atomic Glee · 18th January 2007, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

I submit that indeed rigging a huge, occupied building with explosives and/or exposing and cutting columns (even at man minutes per column this would take quite a while) with nobody noticing or even more significant nobody commenting on it even in passing in the subsequent 5 years since the event, while not impossible, is so much more unlikely than the prevailing explanation as to safely be ignored.

Indeed (and once I hit 15 posts, I think, I can show the forum some photos I took of a *real* controlled demolition's prep work). A CD involves months and months of very, very conspicuous prep work. The idea that it could be "hidden" in a building *still in use* is absurd.

aggle-rithm · 18th January 2007, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas.

My home town!

Interestingly, my wife and I were cleaning the garage this weekend when she found an old brick and tried to throw it away (women!). It was a brick from the Medical Arts Building in Fort Worth, which was demolished in the mid-seventies. I was one of the many witnesses of the event, and they let us in afterwards to collect souvenirs (not sure if they would still do that today, what with liability and all).

ETA: And here it is!

MortFurd · 18th January 2007, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by einsteen

Sigh.... smokebombs was only mentioned in order to show that not all processes with a lot of smoke involve a lot of fire. No wtc7 didn't contain smoke bombs.

Why on earth is it for everyone here (I say here explicitly) so self-evident that a building implodes itself in such a way because some random damage and minor fire. I really don't get it

http://users.telenet.be/netdata2/afb...en-zwijgen.jpg

Please remember to NOT hotlink; use URL's in the future.

Posted By:jmercer

"Random damage"

From the NIST report, page L22:WTC7-NIST.jpg

Looks like a 10 story chunk taken out of the corner, a good 1/3 the width of the building.

You seem to really not "get" reality.

Atomic Glee · 18th January 2007, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

My home town!

Interestingly, my wife and I were cleaning the garage this weekend when she found an old brick and tried to throw it away (women!). It was a brick from the Medical Arts Building in Fort Worth, which was demolished in the mid-seventies. I was one of the many witnesses of the event, and they let us in afterwards to collect souvenirs (not sure if they would still do that today, what with liability and all).

ETA: And here it is![/url]

Heh - the guy who runs fortwortharchitecture.com is a friend of mine!

The Medical Arts Building is my favorite "lost" Fort Worth building. It was gorgeous, and Burnett Plaza (the replacement) is...not so much. I should know - without getting too specific on location, I live across that park from the Medical Arts/Burnett Plaza site.

jaydeehess · 18th January 2007, 11:49 AM

What it increasingly comes down to is that there are two ways WTC 7 could have been brought down.
Mode 1) Impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 weakened the structure and the subsequent fires further weakened key columns such that the column structure below the east penthouse was completely compromised. The collapse began there and falling debris and shifting load then compromised the ability of nearby columns resulting in a horizontal progression of the collapse ending as the perimeter frame also started to collapse. (the screenwall and west penthouse sink as the perimeter frame starts to fail and disappear from sight indicating that the column structure beneath them failed before the perimeter frame)

Mode 2) Explosives were loaded in such a way as to mimic 1) meaning that they were placed on the same columns that failed as per the NIST computer sims (barring any finding of a problem with the original simulations)

As to determining which of these is true we have two camps.
Camp 1) states that there was indeed damage to WTC 7 including damage in the vicinity of those key columns, AND that due to the obvious fire in the building, the presence of deisel fuel in the building and that one floor in the region involved is a mech floor with no windows, it is completely within reason to assume that there could easily have been fire in the vicinity of those key columns.

Camp 2) states that there is no definitive evidence of damage to those key columns and no definitive evidence that there was a substantial fire in the vicinity of those key columns and therefore Mode1 above cannot be said to have occured and therefore it is as likely to have been explosive demoltion.

Now Camp 2 manages to simply ignore the fact that Camp 1 has evidence of damage and evidence of fire while they have absolutly no evidence of explosives. No flahses of explosives going off, no loud crack of explosives going off. Furthermore Camp 1 often cites the NYFD as being involved in the supposed explosive demolitions yet it has never been the pervue of any municipal fire dept to use explosives in any manner.

jaydeehess · 18th January 2007, 11:54 AM

What the hell is this "Random damage"? Perhaps the genius means "minimal damage". It is indeed somewhat random in that one could not have predicted where the damage would precisly occur while of course there is some pattern to it in that it all occurs on the southen part of the building that being the area closest to and facing WTC 1&2.

I would have thought that a physicist would actually understand the meaning of the word "random".

Randomly positioned heavy damage impacted Banker's Trust but owing to the differences in what was damaged, how the building was constructed, and the amount/duration of fires, it managed to remain standing.

Belz... · 18th January 2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

Welcome to the forum, Atomic.

Coritani · 18th January 2007, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

Hi mate. You've reached the 15 post mark, which means you can now post links and the like. Could you please post those pictures? I'm very interested in seeing them.

Atomic Glee · 18th January 2007, 01:58 PM

Aaaah, there we go! Out of 15 Post Pergatory!

Anyway, here's some photos I took of a *genuine* controlled demolition and its prep work - the implosion of Landmark Tower in downtown Fort Worth, TX, the second-tallest building imploded ever. As I mentioned, I live just a couple of blocks away from this site, so I had a great opportunity to observe the work being done to the building in preparation for its date with the ground. These photos are hosted on my own web server.

The prep work took *months* of time, and involved the removal of the building's base, removal of several steel columns in its frame, the gutting of the interior, etc. etc. etc. These two photos show the crew from Midwest Wrecking hard at work on the exposed base of the tower's structure. It's not the work of a few "guys in hard hats," but a small army of them with heavy equipment and months of time, not to mention an exposed structure to play with.

Nobody would notice that sort of work in an office, right? Not to mention how it'd be, I'd say, impossible to do all this in an active office building with nobody noticing, or even do it at all - how long would all this take without being able to get at the whole frame like that? The mind boggles.

This shot was taken just a day or two before implosion:

As you can see, the building has been draped with protective netting, and further netting is going on the base. A lot of cables were strung around the columns on the base as well, to help control the collapse of the columns after the charges blow. The mount of dirt was a wall built around the trench dug around the building - Landmark Tower was surrounded by several restored historic buildings, and the drop had to be precise to minimize the chances of damage to the other buildings (more on that later). I believe (trying to remember exactly when this photo was taken) you can see some of the many, many charges on the columns in the foreground, and this is after they removed a lot of columns to weaken the building. I think you can even see how much wider some of the column spacing looks, thanks to the removal of so many columns. Speaking of which...

After they removed a lot of columns, they had to keep the building stable while charges were placed and the last bits of demo work were carried out. This is just one of several large wood block columns erected to stabilize the tower as work finished.

All this work brought us to this:

Note: downtown Fort Worth is actually really pretty. It was a dark, dreary, rainy day when the implosion occurred, so the photos I took then aren't all that attractive. I was on the 13th floor of the Burnett Plaza office tower to get the implosion shots.

2nd Note: I saw a thread here where somebody posted footage of the Landmark implosion, and somebody commented on the lean the building executed before coming down. That was intentional. The implosion was designed to lean Landmark north and west a bit before dropping it straight down into the trench dug around it. The plan worked perfectly, as it dropped really nicely into the trench and the only notable damage to the historic buildings around it was a handful of broken windows. You can really see the lean in that first shot!

So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*

aggle-rithm · 18th January 2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*

It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions.

JonnyFive · 18th January 2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*

Nice pictures, very well done.

As has been pointed out, the act of demolishing a building is a very involved process. You don't just stick a couple blocks of C4 on it and hit a button.

But wait, you've failed to disprove that the evil Jooz used their Joo magik to plant magical explosives to bring down the towers from the top down, and also the WTC7 for some reason, possibly without demolishing the towers for some reason I don't know I'm just asking questions.

JonnyFive · 18th January 2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions.

Joo magik, dude, Joo magik.

Atomic Glee · 18th January 2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions.

No kidding!

And remember, this was a 30-story skyscraper, 2nd-tallest imploded building ever, and it took massive amounts of work and a large number of charges. The amount of work required to bring down something like the WTC, significantly larger, would be frightening I bet.

uk_dave · 18th January 2007, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

No kidding!

And remember, this was a 30-story skyscraper, 2nd-tallest imploded building ever, and it took massive amounts of work and a large number of charges. The amount of work required to bring down something like the WTC, significantly larger, would be frightening I bet.

Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour.

Oh and BTW....

Welcome to the forum!

Alt+F4 · 18th January 2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by einsteen

Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?

The police were refering to Stuyvesant High School, not WTC7.

CurtC · 18th January 2007, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Note: downtown Fort Worth is actually really pretty.

Seconded. Downtown Fort Worth is a great place. It's pretty much an ideal city in my opinion.

jaydeehess · 18th January 2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour.

Or have parts of a bloody tall building fall on it and have subsequent fires burn for 7 hours.

I'll also add;
Welcome to the forum Atomic Glee!

rwguinn · 18th January 2007, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by CurtC

Seconded. Downtown Fort Worth is a great place. It's pretty much an ideal city in my opinion.

Too D**n many foks in there for me.
I only go ther when we got visitors who insist. Otherwise To the Imax or S. on University to the zoo is as close as I get.

CHF · 18th January 2007, 03:35 PM

einsteen,

can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet?

Oh and explain to me why the conspirators blew up WTC7 at 5:20 pm. Why not blow it up at 10:35 after the second tower came down? All the dust everywhere...

Why blow it up 7 hours later? Just so that it would stand out?

c6gunner · 18th January 2007, 03:53 PM

Hey "einsteen", you get a link to those videos yet?

jaydeehess · 18th January 2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

einsteen,

can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet?

Oh and explain to me why the conspirators blew up WTC7 at 5:20 pm. Why not blow it up at 10:35 after the second tower came down? All the dust everywhere...

Why blow it up 7 hours later? Just so that it would stand out?

I might add that if they blew it shortly after WTC 1 went down they could also have had it fall to the south towards WTC 1 and cause less damage to surrounding buildings than it did when it actually did collapse 7 hours later.

Now einsteen or others will likely bring out that old saw that the collapse of WTC 7 did not kill anyone and that had WTC 7 collapsed shortly after WTC 1 then many more would have been killed. In posts above it was shown that the personell from the OEM office were still evacuating when WTC 1 fell and so they'd have been killed if #7 went with it. However, the supposed perpetrators of this supposed crime had absolutly no compunction about killing people. 3,000 did die! That the personel in #7 might have been OEM , or other gov't agency people would mean nothing. These same perpetrators killed people at the Pentagon, they killed police officers, they killed firefighters, no one's life meant anything to them and to argue otherwise is to truly fictionalize matters.

Atomic Glee · 18th January 2007, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour.

Right. I figured that went without saying, but when dealing with woo I guess it's a good idea to make things clear.

Atomic Glee · 18th January 2007, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

einsteen,

can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet?

No kidding. To use the Landmark implosion as an example again, well, just listen to the amount of charges that can be (very clearly) heard, and seen.

(And believe me, they could be *felt* too. I was down the street in a 40-story office tower and I felt the blasts.)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

uk_dave · 18th January 2007, 10:33 PM

(CT Mode on)

But...but....but.... you DO realise that the Landmark implosion (if indeed there is such a thing) was staged by the government to produce the very evidence you official theory conspiracists are now depending on? I mean, it's SO obvious!!

In fact every controlled demolition in the last 50 years has been an overly elaborate staged event leading to this moment when they can claim that the WTC towers did not look like the previous staged CD events.

So there!!

(CT mode off)

Damn it's too easy to think like a woowoo.

Christopher7 · 18th January 2007, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by c6gunner

This seems to be one of the favourite deflections of people like you. What exactly did you expect them to do with the steel? Spread it all over the streets of downtown NY and leave it there for a couple years?

Dumb question

Quote:

By your statement you attempt to suggest that the investigators did not have adequate access to the evidence. This is simply not the case. I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence. If your claims are correct, there should have been dozens of them complaining to the media.

Obviously you didn't bother to click on the link provided.
I was quoting a government report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

pg 5

"Lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure"

pg 27

"Nist possesses 236 structural elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7"

Quote:

This is an outright lie. The first reports of steel corrosion were in regard to steel taken from WTC7. There was a lot of worry at the time over whether other steel-frame buildings might be suffering from similar corrosive effects, and whether this could result in future collapses elsewhere. I'd give you a link to back this up, however, as a new member I can't post links. Google "wtc7 steel corrosion" and try out some of the links.

Before calling someone a liar you should take a minute and view the evidencd provided.

uk_dave · 18th January 2007, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Before calling someone a liar you should take a minute and view the evidencd provided.

Can you post that statement over on the LC forum too?

Coritani · 19th January 2007, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Dumb question

Why?

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Obviously you didn't bother to click on the link provided.
I was quoting a government report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

pg 5

"Lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure"

pg 27

"Nist possesses 236 structural elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7"

You obviously didn't read his question:

Quote:

I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence.

note: I know it's technically not a question. You know what I mean...

He asked if any 9/11 investigators were unsatisfied with the access they had to the evidence. Do you have any or do you not?

Christopher7 · 19th January 2007, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Did I ever say it was a 'certainty'?

Methinks you're getting me confursed with someone else.

I think not

post #160
C7
"No one can justifiably claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty"

Post #190 starts with
C7 [responding to uk_dave post #183]
"Who are these experts who say it's a certainty?"
and ends with
"You didn't name any experts"

To which you replied
post #191
quote C7: "You didn't name any experts."

Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandeler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
etc.
etc.

If you are looking for plausible denyability here......

fagedaboudit

Meanwhile, back at the point:

Do you know of any experts who have investigated the collapsed of WTC 7 that say:

"WTC 7 collapsed from debris damage/fire"

Not possibly or aparently, but for sure, 'with certainty'

18th January 2007, 08:25 AM	#322
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917	mancman, the greening pancake model for wtc7 will give 8.5 seconds if it starts from the top (assuming E1=0) and will be faster if it starts at the bottom. If you blow up the bottom of wtc1 his formalism will give 9.2 seconds. Free fall one storey and the second stage of collapse will also be free fall because of the kinetic energy of the whole building.
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917

18th January 2007, 08:26 AM	#323
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,154	Post #243: Quote: Einsteen said: - wtc1,2, an architectural freak Post #320 Quote: Einsteen said: they were demolitions Come on man.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

18th January 2007, 08:28 AM	#324
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917	It is 8.3 seconds from the top http://www.journalof911studies.com/a.../W7Kuttler.pdf Kuttler used Greening's model.
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917

18th January 2007, 08:30 AM	#325
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Originally Posted by Christopher7 OTers often quote the firefighters saying WTC 7 is going to collapse as if it were proof I'm just saying that not all the chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse Did any of the chiefs that did not say they thought it would collapse actually say "I don't think it will collapse" or actually disagree with those that stated they thought it would; or were they just silent on the issue?
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

18th January 2007, 08:36 AM	#326
Mancman Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 973	Originally Posted by einsteen mancman, the greening pancake model for wtc7 will give 8.5 seconds if it starts from the top (assuming E1=0) and will be faster if it starts at the bottom. If you blow up the bottom of wtc1 his formalism will give 9.2 seconds. Free fall one storey and the second stage of collapse will also be free fall because of the kinetic energy of the whole building. 8.5 or 8.3 seconds, all well and good. But it clearly didn't collapse from the top. So such an analysis is fairly useless. If we apply Greenings second stage to the 7 story collapse model, we'd have 174-25.9m = 148.1m of building left, with a starting velocity of 21.11m/s. Final velocity would be 57.87m/s, average of 39.49m/s, time of 3.75s + 2.36s = 6.11s.
	__________________ R.I.P Dr. Adequate

18th January 2007, 08:23 AM	#321
c6gunner Student Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 45	Originally Posted by einsteen Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ? Really? Can you provide a link to these videos? I doubt anyone would have stood looking at it for 7 hours, no. However, we have firefighters on record as saying that it was noticably leaning. This tilt would have kept increasing until the point of collapse. At a certain point, anyone with half a brain would probably stop, look at it, and think "holy crap, that thing's coming down any minute". From the on, yeah, they probably would have been watching it. Anyway, I look forward to seeing those videos, any time you can dig up the link.

18th January 2007, 09:55 AM	#327
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,248	Originally Posted by einsteen It is 8.3 seconds from the top http://www.journalof911studies.com/a.../W7Kuttler.pdf Kuttler used Greening's model. That paper says Originally Posted by Kuttler It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds. Could this possibly happen as aresult of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down? And then goes on to show that a top-down collapse, such as what happened in the Twin Towers, can't explain the 6.5 second collapse of WTC7. Well no duh! It clearly didn't collapse top-down! Why did he even bother to write this paper up?
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

18th January 2007, 10:27 AM	#328
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a multiverse of my own creation Posts: 16,226	Originally Posted by einsteen that image is consistent with the expected column damage. Indeed. And this brings up an interesting question. If the building was so damaged that firefighters thought it would collapse, why was there any need to detonate explosives ?
	__________________ - "Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain." - "My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him." -- Conan and Subotai, Conan the Barbarian Current avatar from Jaestudio.com

18th January 2007, 10:33 AM	#329
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a multiverse of my own creation Posts: 16,226	Originally Posted by einsteen Do you say that wtc1,2 were controlled demolitions ? No, I said this: Quote: So this whole thing is due to the fact that you think only a controlled demolition can lead to a building collapsing ? That's kinda funny, considering your (alledged) stance on WTC1 and 2. And it happened to be a question, which you didn't answer. Quote: they were demolitions but uncontrolled although methodical. Contradiction. Also speculation, since you are yet to provide any evidence to support that claim. But assume the top block fails we have for wtc1 an initial kinetic energy of 2.4GJ and per storey that amount will be released, mass accumulation will even give more. This energy picture is valid (although it is a requirement) but for wtc7 you have no initial momentum.[/quote] You have forgotten a very important and CONSTANT source of momentum. Quote: Isn't it "show your math" what you guys always scream. Yeah. Please do so.
	__________________ - "Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain." - "My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him." -- Conan and Subotai, Conan the Barbarian Current avatar from Jaestudio.com

18th January 2007, 10:35 AM	#330
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a multiverse of my own creation Posts: 16,226	Originally Posted by CurtC Well no duh! It clearly didn't collapse top-down! Why did he even bother to write this paper up? Because winning is easier when you're fighting a strawman.
	__________________ - "Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain." - "My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him." -- Conan and Subotai, Conan the Barbarian Current avatar from Jaestudio.com

18th January 2007, 10:49 AM	#331
aggle-rithm Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 6,746	Originally Posted by einsteen It is 8.3 seconds from the top http://www.journalof911studies.com/a.../W7Kuttler.pdf Kuttler used Greening's model. Interesting. So why did they blow it up? There must have been a really, really good reason, considering the financial bath taken by the building owners, the loss of the Con Edison substation, and damage to the surrounding infrastructure caused by the collapse. There must have been some massive payoff, one having nothing to do with propoganda, since its collapse went almost unnoticed in the wake of the terrorist attacks.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

18th January 2007, 11:17 AM	#332
Atomic Glee New Blood Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 10	Originally Posted by Belz... Patently ridiculous. It takes months to rig a building like 7 with complete, unobstructed access. Hi all, first post here. If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even possibly be hidden from view.

18th January 2007, 11:22 AM	#333
Atomic Glee New Blood Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 10	Originally Posted by twinstead I submit that indeed rigging a huge, occupied building with explosives and/or exposing and cutting columns (even at man minutes per column this would take quite a while) with nobody noticing or even more significant nobody commenting on it even in passing in the subsequent 5 years since the event, while not impossible, is so much more unlikely than the prevailing explanation as to safely be ignored. Indeed (and once I hit 15 posts, I think, I can show the forum some photos I took of a real controlled demolition's prep work). A CD involves months and months of very, very conspicuous prep work. The idea that it could be "hidden" in a building still in use is absurd.

18th January 2007, 11:28 AM	#334
aggle-rithm Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 6,746	Originally Posted by Atomic Glee Hi all, first post here. If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. My home town! Interestingly, my wife and I were cleaning the garage this weekend when she found an old brick and tried to throw it away (women!). It was a brick from the Medical Arts Building in Fort Worth, which was demolished in the mid-seventies. I was one of the many witnesses of the event, and they let us in afterwards to collect souvenirs (not sure if they would still do that today, what with liability and all). ETA: And here it is!
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. Last edited by aggle-rithm; 18th January 2007 at 11:31 AM.

18th January 2007, 11:36 AM	#336
Atomic Glee New Blood Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 10	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm My home town! Interestingly, my wife and I were cleaning the garage this weekend when she found an old brick and tried to throw it away (women!). It was a brick from the Medical Arts Building in Fort Worth, which was demolished in the mid-seventies. I was one of the many witnesses of the event, and they let us in afterwards to collect souvenirs (not sure if they would still do that today, what with liability and all). ETA: And here it is![/url] Heh - the guy who runs fortwortharchitecture.com is a friend of mine! The Medical Arts Building is my favorite "lost" Fort Worth building. It was gorgeous, and Burnett Plaza (the replacement) is...not so much. I should know - without getting too specific on location, I live across that park from the Medical Arts/Burnett Plaza site.

18th January 2007, 11:49 AM	#337
jaydeehess Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles from the border Posts: 4,966	What it increasingly comes down to is that there are two ways WTC 7 could have been brought down. Mode 1) Impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 weakened the structure and the subsequent fires further weakened key columns such that the column structure below the east penthouse was completely compromised. The collapse began there and falling debris and shifting load then compromised the ability of nearby columns resulting in a horizontal progression of the collapse ending as the perimeter frame also started to collapse. (the screenwall and west penthouse sink as the perimeter frame starts to fail and disappear from sight indicating that the column structure beneath them failed before the perimeter frame) Mode 2) Explosives were loaded in such a way as to mimic 1) meaning that they were placed on the same columns that failed as per the NIST computer sims (barring any finding of a problem with the original simulations) As to determining which of these is true we have two camps. Camp 1) states that there was indeed damage to WTC 7 including damage in the vicinity of those key columns, AND that due to the obvious fire in the building, the presence of deisel fuel in the building and that one floor in the region involved is a mech floor with no windows, it is completely within reason to assume that there could easily have been fire in the vicinity of those key columns. Camp 2) states that there is no definitive evidence of damage to those key columns and no definitive evidence that there was a substantial fire in the vicinity of those key columns and therefore Mode1 above cannot be said to have occured and therefore it is as likely to have been explosive demoltion. Now Camp 2 manages to simply ignore the fact that Camp 1 has evidence of damage and evidence of fire while they have absolutly no evidence of explosives. No flahses of explosives going off, no loud crack of explosives going off. Furthermore Camp 1 often cites the NYFD as being involved in the supposed explosive demolitions yet it has never been the pervue of any municipal fire dept to use explosives in any manner.

18th January 2007, 11:54 AM	#338
jaydeehess Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles from the border Posts: 4,966	What the hell is this "Random damage"? Perhaps the genius means "minimal damage". It is indeed somewhat random in that one could not have predicted where the damage would precisly occur while of course there is some pattern to it in that it all occurs on the southen part of the building that being the area closest to and facing WTC 1&2. I would have thought that a physicist would actually understand the meaning of the word "random". Randomly positioned heavy damage impacted Banker's Trust but owing to the differences in what was damaged, how the building was constructed, and the amount/duration of fires, it managed to remain standing.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 18th January 2007 at 12:02 PM.

18th January 2007, 01:06 PM	#339
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a multiverse of my own creation Posts: 16,226	Originally Posted by Atomic Glee Hi all, first post here. If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even possibly be hidden from view. Welcome to the forum, Atomic.
	__________________ - "Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain." - "My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him." -- Conan and Subotai, Conan the Barbarian Current avatar from Jaestudio.com

18th January 2007, 01:54 PM	#340
Coritani Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 319	Originally Posted by Atomic Glee Hi all, first post here. If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even possibly be hidden from view. Hi mate. You've reached the 15 post mark, which means you can now post links and the like. Could you please post those pictures? I'm very interested in seeing them.
	__________________ The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. - Winston Churchill

18th January 2007, 01:58 PM	#341
Atomic Glee New Blood Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 10	Aaaah, there we go! Out of 15 Post Pergatory! Anyway, here's some photos I took of a genuine controlled demolition and its prep work - the implosion of Landmark Tower in downtown Fort Worth, TX, the second-tallest building imploded ever. As I mentioned, I live just a couple of blocks away from this site, so I had a great opportunity to observe the work being done to the building in preparation for its date with the ground. These photos are hosted on my own web server. The prep work took months of time, and involved the removal of the building's base, removal of several steel columns in its frame, the gutting of the interior, etc. etc. etc. These two photos show the crew from Midwest Wrecking hard at work on the exposed base of the tower's structure. It's not the work of a few "guys in hard hats," but a small army of them with heavy equipment and months of time, not to mention an exposed structure to play with. Nobody would notice that sort of work in an office, right? Not to mention how it'd be, I'd say, impossible to do all this in an active office building with nobody noticing, or even do it at all - how long would all this take without being able to get at the whole frame like that? The mind boggles. This shot was taken just a day or two before implosion: As you can see, the building has been draped with protective netting, and further netting is going on the base. A lot of cables were strung around the columns on the base as well, to help control the collapse of the columns after the charges blow. The mount of dirt was a wall built around the trench dug around the building - Landmark Tower was surrounded by several restored historic buildings, and the drop had to be precise to minimize the chances of damage to the other buildings (more on that later). I believe (trying to remember exactly when this photo was taken) you can see some of the many, many charges on the columns in the foreground, and this is after they removed a lot of columns to weaken the building. I think you can even see how much wider some of the column spacing looks, thanks to the removal of so many columns. Speaking of which... After they removed a lot of columns, they had to keep the building stable while charges were placed and the last bits of demo work were carried out. This is just one of several large wood block columns erected to stabilize the tower as work finished. All this work brought us to this: Note: downtown Fort Worth is actually really pretty. It was a dark, dreary, rainy day when the implosion occurred, so the photos I took then aren't all that attractive. I was on the 13th floor of the Burnett Plaza office tower to get the implosion shots. 2nd Note: I saw a thread here where somebody posted footage of the Landmark implosion, and somebody commented on the lean the building executed before coming down. That was intentional. The implosion was designed to lean Landmark north and west a bit before dropping it straight down into the trench dug around it. The plan worked perfectly, as it dropped really nicely into the trench and the only notable damage to the historic buildings around it was a handful of broken windows. You can really see the lean in that first shot! So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and nobody remembering it or noticing.
	Last edited by Atomic Glee; 18th January 2007 at 02:00 PM.

18th January 2007, 02:02 PM	#342
aggle-rithm Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 6,746	Originally Posted by Atomic Glee So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and nobody remembering it or noticing. It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

18th January 2007, 02:02 PM	#343
JonnyFive Insurance Underwriter of Doom Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by Atomic Glee So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and nobody remembering it or noticing. Nice pictures, very well done. As has been pointed out, the act of demolishing a building is a very involved process. You don't just stick a couple blocks of C4 on it and hit a button. But wait, you've failed to disprove that the evil Jooz used their Joo magik to plant magical explosives to bring down the towers from the top down, and also the WTC7 for some reason, possibly without demolishing the towers for some reason I don't know I'm just asking questions.
	__________________ "If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.

18th January 2007, 02:04 PM	#344
JonnyFive Insurance Underwriter of Doom Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions. Joo magik, dude, Joo magik.
	__________________ "If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.

18th January 2007, 02:17 PM	#345
Atomic Glee New Blood Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 10	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions. No kidding! And remember, this was a 30-story skyscraper, 2nd-tallest imploded building ever, and it took massive amounts of work and a large number of charges. The amount of work required to bring down something like the WTC, significantly larger, would be frightening I bet.

18th January 2007, 02:19 PM	#346
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,627	Originally Posted by Atomic Glee No kidding! And remember, this was a 30-story skyscraper, 2nd-tallest imploded building ever, and it took massive amounts of work and a large number of charges. The amount of work required to bring down something like the WTC, significantly larger, would be frightening I bet. Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour. Oh and BTW.... Welcome to the forum!
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,627

18th January 2007, 02:31 PM	#347
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 4,853	Originally Posted by einsteen Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ? The police were refering to Stuyvesant High School, not WTC7.
	__________________ "It is degenerate in that it tends to reverse the existing order. It is essentially immoral in that it will undignify marriage. It is ruinous to the progress of civilization in that it conduces to undermine religion." - Dr. Cyrus Townsend Brady, arguing against women's suffrage, 1915.

18th January 2007, 02:56 PM	#348
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,248	Originally Posted by Atomic Glee Note: downtown Fort Worth is actually really pretty. Seconded. Downtown Fort Worth is a great place. It's pretty much an ideal city in my opinion.
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

18th January 2007, 03:10 PM	#349
jaydeehess Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles from the border Posts: 4,966	Originally Posted by uk_dave Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour. Or have parts of a bloody tall building fall on it and have subsequent fires burn for 7 hours. I'll also add; Welcome to the forum Atomic Glee!

18th January 2007, 03:26 PM	#350
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 5,309	Originally Posted by CurtC Seconded. Downtown Fort Worth is a great place. It's pretty much an ideal city in my opinion. Too D**n many foks in there for me. I only go ther when we got visitors who insist. Otherwise To the Imax or S. on University to the zoo is as close as I get.
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

18th January 2007, 03:35 PM	#351
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,795	einsteen, can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet? Oh and explain to me why the conspirators blew up WTC7 at 5:20 pm. Why not blow it up at 10:35 after the second tower came down? All the dust everywhere... Why blow it up 7 hours later? Just so that it would stand out?
	Last edited by CHF; 18th January 2007 at 03:37 PM.

18th January 2007, 03:53 PM	#352
c6gunner Student Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 45	Hey "einsteen", you get a link to those videos yet?

18th January 2007, 04:34 PM	#353
jaydeehess Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles from the border Posts: 4,966	Originally Posted by CHF einsteen, can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet? Oh and explain to me why the conspirators blew up WTC7 at 5:20 pm. Why not blow it up at 10:35 after the second tower came down? All the dust everywhere... Why blow it up 7 hours later? Just so that it would stand out? I might add that if they blew it shortly after WTC 1 went down they could also have had it fall to the south towards WTC 1 and cause less damage to surrounding buildings than it did when it actually did collapse 7 hours later. Now einsteen or others will likely bring out that old saw that the collapse of WTC 7 did not kill anyone and that had WTC 7 collapsed shortly after WTC 1 then many more would have been killed. In posts above it was shown that the personell from the OEM office were still evacuating when WTC 1 fell and so they'd have been killed if #7 went with it. However, the supposed perpetrators of this supposed crime had absolutly no compunction about killing people. 3,000 did die! That the personel in #7 might have been OEM , or other gov't agency people would mean nothing. These same perpetrators killed people at the Pentagon, they killed police officers, they killed firefighters, no one's life meant anything to them and to argue otherwise is to truly fictionalize matters.

18th January 2007, 06:53 PM	#354
Atomic Glee New Blood Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 10	Originally Posted by uk_dave Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour. Right. I figured that went without saying, but when dealing with woo I guess it's a good idea to make things clear.

18th January 2007, 10:33 PM	#356
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,627	(CT Mode on) But...but....but.... you DO realise that the Landmark implosion (if indeed there is such a thing) was staged by the government to produce the very evidence you official theory conspiracists are now depending on? I mean, it's SO obvious!! In fact every controlled demolition in the last 50 years has been an overly elaborate staged event leading to this moment when they can claim that the WTC towers did not look like the previous staged CD events. So there!! (CT mode off) Damn it's too easy to think like a woowoo.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,627

18th January 2007, 11:12 PM	#357
Christopher7 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,093	Originally Posted by c6gunner This seems to be one of the favourite deflections of people like you. What exactly did you expect them to do with the steel? Spread it all over the streets of downtown NY and leave it there for a couple years? Dumb question Quote: By your statement you attempt to suggest that the investigators did not have adequate access to the evidence. This is simply not the case. I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence. If your claims are correct, there should have been dozens of them complaining to the media. Obviously you didn't bother to click on the link provided. I was quoting a government report: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf pg 5 "Lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure" pg 27 "Nist possesses 236 structural elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings." "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7" Quote: This is an outright lie. The first reports of steel corrosion were in regard to steel taken from WTC7. There was a lot of worry at the time over whether other steel-frame buildings might be suffering from similar corrosive effects, and whether this could result in future collapses elsewhere. I'd give you a link to back this up, however, as a new member I can't post links. Google "wtc7 steel corrosion" and try out some of the links. Before calling someone a liar you should take a minute and view the evidencd provided.