|
|
|
|
Title: HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL?
Added: Sep 22, 2006
Author: losvigil
Duration: 4:18
Description:
was the collapse of WTC building seven a planned controlled demolition ?
Related Videos:
Videos related to 'HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL?'
Channel: News
abc nbc cnn
Youtube Comments: 12023
TimReed22222 Says:
May 24, 2012 - "Even if the fires weakened the steel? How did it bring down such a HUGE building?"There are many papers written by real structural engineers that address this question that are freely available on the internet. Have you bothered to read any of them?"Like they said in the video the fires were small"What video? Who said this? Certainly not the firefighters, THEY described MASSIVE fires - and who would know better?.Truthers are the ONLY ones who claim the fires were small.
paulyoc123 Says:
May 24, 2012 - why do 380 people dislike this it just points out the facts
xianforaday Says:
May 24, 2012 - Nope. Neither did the steel in WTC 7. There are quite a few examples of various types of steel structures collapsing from fire. WTC 7 happens to be the one and only skyscraper to do so. But what difference does that make, unless you're claiming nothing can happen if it hasn't happened before. The point is that fire weakens structural steel. This has been well-know for a long time and is the reason steel is commonly coated with fireproofing.
putyourweedup Says:
May 24, 2012 - there are many engineers who are also speaking out agaisnt the 9/11 commissions conclusion on how the tower collapsed. i may not be an engineer, but i have took the time and researched about the structures of WTC 1, 2, and 7 and also the fluid inside the jets. i am not claiming i am smarter either, your just trying to make it seem that i am to make me look bad. in order for the wtc's to collapse the way the did, it would take a lot more damage than the jet could have been able to create.
SlashVixen Says:
May 24, 2012 - Ok, everyone who believes the official story...how did WTC7 disintegrate like that if it was fire and falling debris?
TimReed22222 Says:
May 25, 2012 - "there are many engineers who are also speaking out agaisnt the 9/11 commissions conclusion"No - actually the number is quite small! Out of 140,000 structural engineers in the U.S. alone, how many are "speaking out"? Just a tiny handful. And how many papers or studies have they done? None that I know of.Every serious study of the towers done by REAL structural engineers has concluded the same thing: That plane-crash damage + fires brought those towers down.
putyourweedup Says:
May 25, 2012 - @TimReed22222 they cant speak out when the media and gvmnt try to shut the lm up. anytime they do get media time there just made out to look like fools. your not even stating facts just numbers without sources. jet fuel burning at max 1800 degrees F
putyourweedup Says:
May 25, 2012 - @putyourweedup could.not cause the.towers to.collapse symetricaly in near free fall speed into their own footprints
fattony123082 Says:
May 25, 2012 - that building was extra reinforced ... kind of odd how everything went down like that ...
TimReed22222 Says:
May 26, 2012 - "they cant speak out when the media and gvmnt try to shut the lm up."That's just an excuse. What evidence do you have that there are any knowledgeable engineers who know something but are being pressured to keep quiet? None, I'll wager.The bottom line: There is no significant professional dissent from the conclusion that those buildings were brought down by religious zealots crashing jetliners into them.
Orgasmosexicon Says:
May 26, 2012 - Great, so please explain the rapid controlled demolition fall. Sorry idiot, it's only possible with controlled demolition - but go ahead, keep pretending otherwise you mornic dimwit
Orgasmosexicon Says:
May 26, 2012 - You can't show temperatures high enough to weaken the steel, loser.Your entire argument relies on spurious denials of the truth.
Orgasmosexicon Says:
May 26, 2012 - Wrong, the number is far greater than that defending the official story. Before you start idiotically pretending that all 140,000 engineers in an organisation agree with your crap, you need to provide SIGNED STATEMENTS showing that they agree with you. And YOU CAN'T - so you LOSE idiot.
Orgasmosexicon Says:
May 26, 2012 - But no examples other than in controlled demolitions of steel-framed skyscrapers going down in mere seconds.You lose, bugger off liar.
TimReed22222 Says:
May 26, 2012 - "Wrong, the number is far greater than that defending the official story"Is it? How much greater? Can you provide a figure? I'm asking specifically for STRUCTURAL engineers who are on board with the inside job. How many of them are there?
lijebaley01 Says:
May 26, 2012 - Sorry bud. There is no explanation for the rapid controlled demolition fall, because that is not how it fell.
lijebaley01 Says:
May 26, 2012 - Any one can check the reasons the 'strucural engineers' have signed on. Here's one: "I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded. The reason would be to go to war." and another: "Buildings collapsed all by "controlled demolition" methods. Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed." Pretty high tech reasons.
xianforaday Says:
May 27, 2012 - So what if WTC 7 was the one and only case of a steel skycraper collapsing from fire? You're obviously claiming nothing can happen if it hasn't happened before. That's pretty stupid. You lose.
xianforaday Says:
May 27, 2012 - "Before you start idiotically pretending that all 140,000 engineers in an organisation agree with your crap, you need to provide SIGNED STATEMENTS showing that they agree with you."Hahaha! That's just your own personal kooky rule. Do we need signed statements from all scientists that they believe in gravity and evolution Sorry crackpot, the 911 demo theories are either laughed at or ignored by the scientific community.
xianforaday Says:
May 27, 2012 - "You can't show temperatures high enough to weaken the steel"Right. Office fires are nice and cool. People just jumped from the towers because they were sad. LOL
Orgasmosexicon Says:
May 27, 2012 - 3 steel skyscrapers going down in mere seconds?You're obviously claimingbullshit
Orgasmosexicon Says:
May 27, 2012 - First, the towers didcome down like controlled demolitionThe odds of this happening to these three buildings are astronomical
Orgasmosexicon Says:
May 27, 2012 - please explain the rapid controlled demolition fall. Sorry idiot, it's only possible with controlled demolition - you're not man enough to admit you were wrong
TimReed22222 Says:
May 24, 2012 - "the fire caused by the jet could not have weakened the tower so much that it could collapse symetrically and into its own footprint in nearly free fall speed"That's quite a mouthful! Are you an engineer, specifically a STRUCTURAL engineer? No?Then what makes you more qualified than the REAL structural engineers who studied 9/11 and concluded EXACTLY THIS: That the plane-crash damage in concert with the office fires are EXACTLY what brought the towers down.What makes you smarter than them?