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

Permabanned
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Posts
707
Location
The Choppa!
Not sure if repost: Rare footage shows building 7 on fire and windows buckling.

dw7fn.jpg


:D
 
That video was released some time ago.

The building still fell at almost terminal velocity speed.

It's also a fact that only 3 steel buildings have ever in history collapsed due to fire. These were all on 9/11.
 
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.
 
It's hardly the towering inferno is it? all it shows is that there were localised fires on up to 4 different floors.

The theorists have never never denied that there were fires just that they were not capable of collapsing the building like it (supposedly) did all 3 did that day.

It's laughable evidence of a 'fire collapse' when you compare it to burning skyscrapers like this (which never fell) though:
 
To those saying controlled demolition, if it was a controlled demolition then why make it look like one? Why not blow it up any old way?
 
It's also a fact that only 3 steel buildings have ever in history collapsed due to fire. These were all on 9/11.

Ajnd that's a load of rubbish.

Steel buildings collapse all the time due to fire - most warehouses (even multi floor ones) are steel framed these days as it's cheap and fast, and when they catch fire they often collapse just from the fire, let alone the damage of an aircraft hitting them, and the sort of weight above the damage that the towers had.

The reason you don't see it very often with sky scrapers is fairly simple, AFAIK no other skyscrapers have been hit with a hundred+ ton aircraft that has spilled hundreds (thousands?) of litres of aviation fuel all over the inside of the building, whilst at the same time knocking out most of the buildings fire fighting gear.

Basically the two towers were at the same sort of level of fire prevention that used to be common a hundred+ years ago, when buildings much smaller did burn down with depressing regularity, and those were from fires started by things like candles and oil lamps at a fairly low level, not on the 60th+ floor after pumping equipment, pipework for the sprinklers and water storage tanks were damaged.

You cannot seriously say "no other buildings have..." when there hasn't been the same circumstances (and especially when other buildings with a steel frame have...although as i've said before the towers were iirc a different design to what came before, and most of what came after in how exactly they were designed to handle stresses, as they were built based on lessons from older buildings, and newer ones in turn learned from them).
 
That video was released some time ago.

The building still fell at almost terminal velocity speed.

It's also a fact that only 3 steel buildings have ever in history collapsed due to fire. These were all on 9/11.

No, lots of steel structures have collapsed. One very similar to wtc.

Madrid tower or was it Windsor tower fire for example, built in two ways concrete and steel, the steel pasrt similar to wtc. Guess what happened to the steel half of the building.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom