Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

The gov. did it, research it & see. Was it not odd how they fell like it was a controlled demolition? Do you think the USA defences are that crappy, they had lots of time to stop the planes. As said in this topic, that was the first time 3 steel building callapse from fire. One huge timing of events that started this economic craphole we are going through. Plus if that vid. was around for a long time, why didn't they have it on tv like maybe 10 years back when it happened? Government are just puppets for who really controls the world, big corporations.
 
Last edited:
The building still fell at almost terminal velocity speed.
Firstly, no they didn't. They fell 20-25% slower than 'free fall'. Secondly, they were literally designed to pancake.

It's also a fact that only 3 steel buildings have ever in history collapsed due to fire.
An extraordinary event being extraordinary doesn't mean anything.

These were all on 9/11.
And it could have been on 10/11.
 
The gov. did it, research it & see. Was it not odd how they fell like it was a controlled demolition? Do you think the USA defences are that crappy,.

Seriously, the US defences for Air were, and this is going to blow your mind completely, intended to stop Aircraft crossing the Border INTO the US.

The threat prior to 911 from Aircraft was always an External Threat - IE bombers coming into the airspace, or on a more common level Drug Smugglers trying to get a small aircraft past the coastal patrols.

Now tell me why the US would have lots of Anti Aircraft defences inside the country in non secure areas given that in mind?

Also bare in mind that at the time no one knew quite what was going on - aircraft go off the radar, or off course at times for all sorts of reasons and the first thought isn't going to be "well no ones ever flown a passenger plane into a building on purpose before, but this might be the first", it's going to be "we've got to try and contact them to make sure they're aware they're off course" or "oh **** I hope they haven't crashed".

Even previous hijackings had always had minimal loss of life, at least initially unless the passengers or pilots interfered, so the procedure was always to co-operate and get the aircraft onto the ground where it would be vulnerable to the counter terrorist/hostage rescue teams.

Hence it wasn't unusual for the US to not have more than a couple of aircraft at any sort of "ready" status to cover the interior of the country - and those often would not have been armed (things like the missiles for fighters/interceptors have been known to accidentally fire or go boom due to malfunctions or even simple mistakes).

As for any sort of fixed defences - the aircraft were not known to be hijacked at first, let alone the reason for the hijacking, and fixed defences are quite risky to leave unattended, and even when you've got definite IFF for "friends or Foe" they've been known to occidentally shoot down friendly aircraft - so you don't deploy them in an area with a lot of commercial aircraft unless you absolutely positively have to (once deployed you need to protect them otherwise they can be used against your own aircraft!), and even then you don't turn them on unless you know for certain you've got a hostile aircraft.
 
Windsor tower in Madrid. The metal frame part collapsed, while the concrete reinforced bit stood.

This was a partial collapse over almost 3hrs... (Start of collapse to end of collapse, not start of fire which was reported 1hr 40mins before the start of the collapse.)

WTC1 had complete catastrophic collapse in 7 seconds, from the time of impact it was down in less than an HOUR. WTC took longer at 17 seconds but also fully collapsed, this also took longer from time of impact at 102 Minutes. WTC7 fully collapsed in 37 seconds, 4hrs after it became damaged by WTC2 debris.

But, yeah, other than that, exactly the same.
 
Windsor tower in Madrid. The metal frame part collapsed, while the concrete reinforced bit stood.

That didn't collapse though, it was demolished as it was uneconomical to repair. The was significant damage to the steel structure on the upper floors but it wasn't a steel skyscraper it was a combination of steel and concrete and due to its structure being divided into two halves (think a hollow WTC with an Empire State building in the middle) the steel part was actually much less structurally sound than in a normal tower.

The only steel framed skyscraper to have ever collapsed due to just fire is WTC 7.

Source BBC:

In 1991 a fire in the One Meridian Plaza skyscraper in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours and did not collapse.

In 2005, a 32 storey building in Madrid burned for a whole day, there was a partial collapse, but the building remained standing.

WTC7 burned for seven hours and suffered a total collapse.

Fire protection engineers point out that the fires in Philadelphia and Madrid were fought, whereas in WTC 7 the fires burned without being fought, and the key sprinklers on the lower floors did not have any water because the mains had been cut by the collapse of the Twin Towers.
 
Was it not odd how they fell like it was a controlled demolition?

The Towers fell from the top downwards which no CT nutter can deny.
That means there would have to be an explosion on every floor going from the top down set off at exactly the right time.
If it had fell from the bottom then I would be on your side but it didn't.
 
The Towers fell from the top downwards which no CT nutter can deny.
That means there would have to be an explosion on every floor going from the top down set off at exactly the right time.
If it had fell from the bottom then I would be on your side but it didn't.

Meh, not a big deal. I could rig the erotic gherkin to collapse dramatically on a lazy Friday afternoon, and do it without any of the occupants of the building noticing.
 
The Towers fell from the top downwards which no CT nutter can deny.
That means there would have to be an explosion on every floor going from the top down set off at exactly the right time.
If it had fell from the bottom then I would be on your side but it didn't.

Actually they collapsed at the point of impact/most of the fire, as you would expect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=BEwY8uZ4BAI

It looks nothing like a controlled demolition, it just looks like top down in some vids because of all the smoke but the upper 3rd of the tower was intact at the point the part below gave up and the upper third came down crushing the floors below sequentially, kinda like when you stomp on a beer can.
 
Actually they collapsed at the point of impact/most of the fire, as you would expect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=BEwY8uZ4BAI

It looks nothing like a controlled demolition, it just looks like top down in some vids because of all the smoke but the upper 3rd of the tower was intact at the point the part below gave up and the upper third came down crushing the floors below sequentially, kinda like when you stomp on a beer can.

Fair enough, I take your well made point but that means that just below that top 1/3rd 'controlled demolitions' would have to be setup.
It's totally ludicrous.
 
Ironically if that were true the towers would most likely have survived, the Empire state building took a direct hit from a B-25 bomber lost in fog, two floors were gutted by the jet fuel fire and the impact was so severe that some parts made it all the way through the building and out the other side, an engine made it into a lift shaft and broke the cables sending the lift plummeting to the bottom however the emergency brakes slowed it enough to save the occupants despite the immense weight of the engine. Without the asbestos coating on the steel framework the WTC were far less resilient to fire than the older concrete skyscrapers.
It's also worth remembering that the ESB and WTC had completely different designs. The ESB was built like a fortress - solid girders throughout - while the WTC was a narrow core linked by trusses to the externals walls, which took the weight of the floors.

WTC1 had complete catastrophic collapse in 7 seconds, from the time of impact it was down in less than an HOUR. WTC took longer at 17 seconds but also fully collapsed, this also took longer from time of impact at 102 Minutes. WTC7 fully collapsed in 37 seconds, 4hrs after it became damaged by WTC2 debris
The speed of the (externally noticeable) collapse was due to the WTC's design. When the core buckled, all of the weight above the impact point was transferred to the external walls, which gave way immediately. At that point, the top third of the building began moving downwards, hitting floors that could only take their own weight.
 
The gov. did it, research it & see. Was it not odd how they fell like it was a controlled demolition? Do you think the USA defences are that crappy, they had lots of time to stop the planes. As said in this topic, that was the first time 3 steel building callapse from fire. One huge timing of events that started this economic craphole we are going through. Plus if that vid. was around for a long time, why didn't they have it on tv like maybe 10 years back when it happened? Government are just puppets for who really controls the world, big lizards.

FYP
 
How did the Jet-Fuel which allegedly caused the Super-Hot burning fire which weakened the steel and made the Towers collapse get into WTC7 to do the same thing?

IIRC Steel Framed building do not collapse on themselves due to 'fire' the Twin Towers collapsed due to the Jet-Fuel mixture, there was no Jet-Fuel in WTC7.

It's always puzzled me how the Twin Towers collapsed the way they did, collapsing above and around where the Planes hit I could understand, but why the rest would collapse the way it did just does not make any sense to me, the explanations given never ring true either, only 'Controlled Demolition' makes any sense to me regarding the actual collapses.

I don't care if you have faith that aliens did it, or whatever. That's your business. But when you ignore the sensible explanations and claim that the only explanation that make sense is one that is absolutely impossible with any technology known to exist, I decide that you are spewing propaganda in a deliberate attempt to spread ignorance. I do care about that.

And no, I wasn't joking about the aliens. The controlled demolition "explanation" requires technology vastly in advance of anything known to exist, so claiming it's alien technology is no less implausible than claiming it happened that way.


As for why the floors below the impact points collapsed - what would you expect to happen when they were hit from directly above by the floors above the impact points? That's a lot of kinetic energy and the lower floors weren't made from adamantium reinforced with a structural integrity forcefield.
 
IIRC Steel Framed building do not collapse on themselves due to 'fire' the Twin Towers collapsed due to the Jet-Fuel mixture, there was no Jet-Fuel in WTC7.


.

That entire paragpah is total fail.

Yes steal buildings do fall from fire alone and no need for jet fuel. Look up Windsor tower fire in Madrid for a steel tower collapse from fire.

It did collapse from the impact point. One of the towers can be seen leaning before the collapse above the impact point.

How does controlled demolition make sense. It was top down, tilting over all around the point of impact.
 
I wonder whether people run to these "the government did it" conspiracy theories because their minds literally cannot conceive that anyone could hate a country enough to fly planes full of innocent people into buildings.
 
Back
Top Bottom