Wtc 7 - Windows blown out in the lobby

[zenoist2]

more info on the elevators here design build that sort of thing

watch?v=WigGq8IlOh8

[scotfreak]

that video is of building one

[phlyegles43]

@scotfreak No its not...

[scotfreak]

@phlyegles43 yeah you're right. i realized that like 30 seconds after i posted that

[blueshadow1996]

Notice towards the end of this newsclip you can see the shattered windows leaning inwards and the dusts on the corner of the windows.If it was a blast coming from inside there would be no dust piled up as the force of the explosion would push it outwards the glass would have been blown out not kocd i..

[RAMIJARMAK]

Yourr The Best...All Of that Its all About U.S.A YOur Own Gouverment Fuck Them.....R.I.P For All The PPl

[Clarrisani]

Hm. Broken windows = explosives. I'll keep that in mind in case a window here breaks.

[RAMIJARMAK]

@Clarrisani Yourr The Best...All Of that Its all About U.S.A YOur Own Gouverment Fuck Them.....R.I.P For All The PPl

[Ahlywog]

@Clarrisani Might a good idea if your window breaks during the course of a terrorist attack.

[Clarrisani]

@Ahlywog Doubt it will happen where I am. I don't live in prime target for terrorists. Unlike the Twin Towers, of course. Mind you, there were plenty of broken windows in Christchurch and Japan. Explosives there too?

[Ahlywog]

@Clarrisani Terrorist attacks there too?

[Clarrisani]

@Ahlywog Earthquakes.

[Ahlywog]

@Clarrisani Then I fail to see the correlation.  You're comparing broken windows from an earthquake with broken windows from a terrorist attack in which explosions and "secondary devices" are reported liberally by everyone that day?

[Clarrisani]

@Ahlywog There were no secondary devices. They THOUGHT there might be explosives because they were panicking and they had just been attacked by terrorists flying planes into the building and they had bee subjected to bombs in the past, but as it turned out there were none this time. I am simply pointing out that windows break for many reasons. In the case of WTC7, the windows were shattered by the collapsing buildings of WTC1 & 2.

[Ahlywog]

@Clarrisani They thought the multiple ground level explosions they were hearing were from secondary devices. It wasn't an unfounded fear that in the course of the terrorist attack their MIGHT be bombs because of the 93 bombing. Ground level explosions were heard. Cars were reported exploding. If these were not fully investigated (and they were not) to disprove the bomb theory then you cannot say for sure that there were none.

[Clarrisani]

@Ahlywog As I have said in the past "explosions =/= explosives". GIven that the debris WAS sorted through despite what the deniers try to make people believe, there was nothing found that indicated that explosives were present. Anyhow, what was the point of having explosives? The towers fell on their own, which was better than what Al-Qaeda was expecting to happen.

[Weirdo10o4]

People broke windows with weapons even to escape the dust.

[TheCrimsonImbecile]

If windows are broken and no debris perhaps it was due to sound

[Jordan8414]

"After both tower collapses you can see the wtc 7 promenade with doors and window intact. But I found pictures with broken windows too. As I can't see heavy debris, was the paper that did this? "

This video is not after both collapses. At this point in time, only the south tower (tower furthest away) has collapsed. You can see this due to the footbridge to 7wtc still being intact, after the North Tower collapse this footbridge collapsed. The pictures you're talking about were taken after both

[Skeptic121]

Regarding thermite and thermate:

Thermate ( -ATE) cuts steel like a hot knife through butter but makes little noise.

ThermATE is thermite with added sulfur. The sulfur is heated to the plasma state, then acts like a plasma cutter. The evaporated steel in WTC7 that you mentioned was studied by Prof. Jonathan Barnett. He deliberately stayed out of this controversy. You want me to prove who put it there and when? Do cops have to prove who did it before they say a crime has been committed?

[Skeptic121]

Physics has a difficult time explaining the simultaneous collapse and a nearly impossible time explaining the free fall. NIST has a convoluted story that the interior of WTC7 collapsed progressively, rather than simultaneously, leaving the facade intact.

Of course, that story begs the question why the facade dropped simultaneously at free fall acceleration for 25 meters or 2.25 sec.

Dr. Sunder (NIST) finally admitted free fall when pressed by David Chandler (see his videos on YouTube).

[richardcameron]

If it was simultaneous as you contend, how come the penthouse collapsed several seconds earlier? It was held aloft by one of the trusses FAR below, meaning there WAS progressive collapse. Everyone's seen the video. Too bad it takes your theory apart and leaves it in the dust showing just what a lightweight you are.

[Skeptic121]

If we accept NIST's story that the internal structure collapsed progressively, we still have to explain the simultaneous and free fall collapse of the visible (north and west) facade. If the facade was strong enough to survived the internal collapse as NIST claims, why did it suddenly and simultaneously collapse? Since the facade dropped at free fall for 2.25 seconds, we know 25 meters of its vertical support was suddenly removed. That is physics not conspiracy!

[73mandala]

@richardcameron You say that 1 of the wtc towers weighed "hundreds of millions of tons" BAHAHAHAHA and you have the gall to call others "lightweights" BAHAHAHAHA you are a prize wanker......Hundreds of millions of tons hahahaha you simpleton

[lizardfirefighter110]

We just do not know if the glass was on the inside or the outside.

[richardcameron]

I guess then hundreds of firefighters failed to notice planted explosives, or perhaps for fun they decided to pact with Bin Laden and rig the thermite charges themselves. Only you seated at home watching You Tube could figure it out. Thank you.

[Skeptic121]

The thermite was INSIDE the columns so it was hard to notice. Search YouTube for

horseshoe + WTC

and take a look at the core columns bent in the shape of a horseshoe without cracking or kinking. You're welcome!

[richardcameron]

I never understood this argument. How does a horseshoe shape suggest thermite? Steel loses 1/2 it's strength at 1,100 F, so naturally at 1,800 F these would bend as the structure collapses.

And what 'bending' qualities does termite have? Thermite lesions are distinct, unmistakable, like a welder's torch.

Not to mention who got into the structure and placed this massive quantity of thermite INSIDE a steel column?!

[Skeptic121]

The horseshoe shaped core column was bent without any kinks or cracks, thus was hot enough to have lost nearly all its strength. Enough thermite inside the columns can raise the temperature to that point in seconds. Why? Unlike fuel fires, thermite has its own oxygen.

"Thermite lesions" are not distinct. You might be thinking of thermATE, which cuts. The difference is thermATE has sulfur, which turns to plasma which cuts steel.

The outer columns had access ports.

[Skeptic121]

For those who didn't take high school physics:

WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 25 meters. This fact proves that a 25 meter section  was removed suddenly and completely from the vertical support structure of WTC7. Beams weakened by fire can NOT explain free fall. WEAKENED beams still exert some upward force, precluding free fall. That's physics, not conspiracy.

[richardcameron]

Watch: 9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

[lizardfirefighter110]

richardcameron, the firefighters did notice the explosions. 118 to be exact. Dude, do you ever check anything out. Other firefighters stated that they saw molten steel 5 weeks later. "Rescue workers are having a hard time with their boots melting on top of the pile", weeks later. I think it is just easier if you look at my favorites. Bring a tissue, it is a very sad message. The message has the potential to take your happiness away.

[Steenville]

One of those events that only happen in America.. many strange things going on over there. Magic bullets, falling towers..

[gartnerfan]

Have been explosives used in the lobby???

Who exactly is jumping in line to follow the crazy notions of fucking Yoda

Have been conspiracy nuts in head hit with hammer as babies?

[felicity5150]

Barry Jennings states that a huge explosion blew up the lobby before either of the towers fell. If you don't know who he is, google him. He died a few days before the final WTC7 NIST report came out. No word on cause of his death. It's been kept hush hush. Barry was a city official and credible witness to bombs going off in WTC7 that would have discredited the NIST report. Chalk one up to the bad guys.

[jgoemat]

@felicity5150 So they kept setting off explosions one at a time until the building finally collapsed?  You look at a building demolition and you can hear those explosions from blocks away, yet only the guys in the building heard them? Could it have been firefighters working? "Explosions" is a vague term.

[marvelfannumber1]

@felicity5150

Now let's think about this logically- Why would they blow out the lobby 7 hours before 7 wtc collapsed excacly?

[wtf0804]

@marvelfannumber1 Because truthers do not think things threw.

[USSManhattan]

What did that, more than likely, is the huge blast of air displaced by the collapse of the neighboring North and/or South Tower.

[BradleyMSmith]

If you believe as one, xxclaudespeedxx does that the reinforced, fireproof, steel support beams of the World Trade Centre's melted at a maximum temperature of 1200 degree's, then you are an idiot.

People's blatant stupidy infuriates me. It is scientific fact that steel looses its structural integrity at 3000+ degree's.

It honestly feels at though you are making an active effort to be an idiot.

[richardcameron]

Steel begins losing structural integrity at temperatures closer to 1,000 F. Then its own weight becomes a liability as it must support millions more steel beams above the beams warmed by fire. After an hour at 1,200F and with a load of millions of tons above, that steel might as well have been a gumby doll.

Nor was it properly insulated because the impacting planes shook all insulation loose. Spray insulation? Please.

WATCH AND BE HUMBLED:

9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

[dangurami]

And why did all steel beams melt exactly at the same moment, so instead of the top toppling over in the direction of the first fatally weakened beam, it was falling precisely vertically???

There has been not a single example in history, where a building that has collapsed, did so symmetrically!

And why did the steel beams collapse from top down to bottom, though the material on top, that had already collapsed, was completely pulverized and had no weight on the lower floors?

[dangurami]

Sorry, my last phrase was about the falling of the two towers.

My point is, in all the buildings the collapse happened to be exactly symmetrical. This is a feat which usually requires demolition experts since a random collapse always starts at the weakest spot and the strongest spots are usually left standing.

[richardcameron]

Watch: 9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

Beams did not melt all at once. Who thinks that? The central support structure -- one of three for higher floors -- failed first. That is why the penthouse falls seven seconds before the rest. There goes your notion of a uniform collapse.

As for precedents, show me one instance where jet fuel fire and millions of tons of debris collapse on top of an all steel building with no brick/concrete, followed by a less symmetrical collapse.

[Skeptic121]

richardcameron:

You ask for an example of a building severely damaged "followed by a less symmetrical collapse."

Most KNOWN controlled demolitions of large buildings are followed by a less symmetrical collapse than WTC7's. The Landmark Tower is the best example of a symmetrical collapse, but that building was half the height and a quarter the width of WTC7.

Can you find a controlled demo of a building anywhere near the size of WTC7 in which the collapse was as straight?

[richardcameron]

I don't know of any building as large as 7 that was ever brought down. And from overhead photos of the wreckage I disagree that this was a straight collapse approaching professional demolition. Not sure what any of that proves.

Take a look at the RK Owens videos here. I choose to believe his research and the testimony of the hundreds of firefighters who'd spent hours inside and knew damn well its collapse was a certainty. Thus, zero deaths from that collapse.

[Skeptic121]

richardcameron:

You write "steel begins losing" strength at 1000 degrees F. The key word is BEGINS. Gradual heating can explain a collapse, but not a collapse at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds (25 meters) as NIST has now acknowledged. Free fall means NO strength, not just "begins losing" strength.

[richardcameron]

Skeptic, the temperatures were estimated at closer to 1800 degrees F, which is plenty to bend steel to the point of collapse when one considers the millions of tons of overhead pressure. I also disagree with those who assume this collapse was free-fall. None of the towers was close to free fall speed, including WTC 7. The penthouse and center fail six seconds before the rest of the building, but this was only visible from one side. Thus, the widespread misconception of free fall.

[Skeptic121]

richardcameron wrote: "I also disagre with those who assume this collapse [WTC7] was free fall."

NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, acknowledged that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 25 meters. NIST acknowledged this fact because David Chandler proved it; they replicated his measurements. His videos are here on YouTube. The people at NIST, unlike some folks on YouTube, understand the concept of instantaneous acceleration.

[richardcameron]

Chandler ignore the 5 seconds between the penthouse collapse and when the rest of the structure went down. That is not free-fall unless you're willing to ignore the evidence to suit your bias.

[Skeptic121]

richardcameron:

You have fallen for a version of the "speeder's fallacy" from Feynman's famous lectures: "Officer, I've only gone sixty miles in the last hour! How can you ticket me for 75?" Cops ticket for instantaneous speed, not average speed. Similarly, WTC dropped at free fall for only 25 meters, NOT for its entire descent.

Explanation: a 25 meter section of vertical support was removed suddenly and completely. Physics, not bias; ask any physics teacher on the planet.

[richardcameron]

Watch: 9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

[Skeptic121]

I watched it a long time ago!

The guy who made it pretended not to understand the issue so he did not have to address it.

BTW, he made it before NIST acknowledged free fall for 2.25 seconds.

[lizardfirefighter110]

richardcameron, Skeptic121 is talking about free fall speed later in the fall, not at the top. For gods sake do your homework. In your spare time maybe you could take a look at the new scientific paper on Nano-thermite by Niels Harrit and others. Your world few is not reality, Im sorry to give you the bad news. 9/11 was inside job. I would bet my life on it. I didn't bet my liberties, but some were taken anyway.

[richardcameron]

You believe that WTC I and II were at free fall velocity too?

[Skeptic121]

The towers did NOT drop at free fall acceleration (the correct term, BTW).  David Chandler measured the initial collapse of the north tower at two thirds of free fall acceleration.

WTC7, in contrast, DID drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 25 meters. Meaning 25 meters of vertical support was removed suddenly and completely.

Hope that clears it up!

[richardcameron]

Not cleared up at all. The upper floors were on three trusses. When the final two went simultaneously, any meaningful resistance to fall was gone. And with floor 13 and several floors below already collapsed, the building fell unrestricted before encountering resistance. There's free fall. Nothing but fire.

But if you want to believe thousands of persons conspired to install thermite and fly planes into WTC I & II, and NOT ONE has talked, go right ahead.

[Skeptic121]

"When the final two trusses went simultaneously"

You are begging the question: why did they "go" simultaneously and "go" at free fall acceleration for 25 meters?

"any meaningful resistance to fall was gone"

How about the peripheral columns? Didn't they support the facade (brickwork) at all? What took all of them out at the same time?

The problem with fire is that it WEAKENS steel, thus no free fall... The evidence says WTC7 did not fall from fire and damage alone. Sorry if that offends.

[richardcameron]

No offense.

You that essentially everything over the 13th floor was on three trusses. One went first, as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse, shifting the entire weight of the structure onto two tresses, neither designed to balance or support the entire structure. PHYSICS explains "simultaneous" collapse.

You must take into account unique design (incl. vulnerabilities) of the structure.

Facade? Under hundreds of millions of tons? Ha! U may as well point to air resistance.

[Skeptic121]

richardcameron: I don't want to embarrass you, but:

Bazant and Zhou estimated the mass of the upper half of each tower to be 141 * 10^6 Kg.

Kg = 2.2 pound, one ton = 2000 pounds

That's about 155,000 tons. Your estimate "hundreds of millions of tons" is about a thousand times too large if each towers was about twice the mass of WTC7.

Could your mistake possibly persuade you to take another look at the evidence?

[richardcameron]

You're only embarrassing yourself, bowing to these self-proclaimed experts. 155,000 tons? This is one of the largest office buildings in the world on a square footage basis.

Where was all the thermite required to evaporate this steel so thoroughly throughout the entire building to result in free fall? 2 pounds thermite to melt 1 pound steel.

And who placed the thermite? When? Prove it.

[Skeptic121]

richardcameron:

Sorry, but the towers and WTC7 were not "hundreds of millions of tons". Bazant and Zhou estimated the towers were about 300,000 tons. They are at MIT so I trust them to calculate the approximate mass of the buildings! WTC7 was certainly less than the towers. BTW, Bazant and Zhou wrote the "official story" on the towers collapse. They are definitely NOT truthers! Last but not least, they are hardly "self-proclaimed experts."

Maybe you should read more about 9/11...

[lightman514]

@richardcameron what a retard question.. who placed it and when? .. oh it was geoff and it was on the 23rd of january... good on you rich.

[lightman514]

@BradleyMSmith lol, thats funny... the other thing I find funny is when the plane hit the towers.. the fire proofing was 'blown off'

[jameskuk]

@BradleyMSmith Then why does structural steel have fireproofing? Of course it looses some structural integrity below 3000 degrees.. but I am also logical and also believe they were demolished with assistance.. there is no doubt about it :)

[phlyegles43]

@BradleyMSmith

Who said it melted. It softened. And your a blatant lier if you say it takes 3000+ degrees to cause steel to lose its integrity.

@footjob56

What controlled demolition takes place seven hours before the building collapses. Dont be a so purposefully ignorant. There was debris falling from the first collapse that would have easily impacted the lower floors of building seven.

[Crastics07]

I was there, it is obvious as far as I know it that the other building blew the windows out. Come sense, also no explosions, support beams gave way, like a stack of dominoes. They call it the domino affect.

[cocacola443]

Buildings aren't made of dominos.

[Crastics07]

It's not the building but when the implosions of each floor collapsing, in there technical way of saying it, domino effect.

[cocacola443]

So what started the collapse? The domino effect is, according to wikipedia "a chain reaction that occurs when a small change causes a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence."

Perhaps you want to apply the debunked "pancake collapse" theory of the Twin Towers to wtc7? :D

[Crastics07]

LMAO, there you go, that makes more sense, I just considered it that way because I always figured that since the floors are collapsing on each other it was a similar effect, but good work. Now I can complete the thoughts to what the situation was called, if you know what I mean.

[xxclaudespeedxx]

demolition theories suck

[xxclaudespeedxx]

explosions explosions eplosions!!! dont you guys get that TOWER I abd TOWER 2 collapsed because the support beams got melted by the fuel from the plane and the towers let go

and WTC7 collapsed because of heavy damage from TOWER I and TOWER 2 pretty obvious!

[cocacola443]

"NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers."

Both FEMA and NIST said it collapsed primarily due to fire damage, not structural damage caused by the towers collapse. Even _your_ "obvious" statement contradicts this.

Yeah even though there were 5 other buildings closer to the twin towers. Look at an overhead view of the WTC complex, and you'll see that 7 was not close to the Twin Towers.

[armycorpsleider]

and this is made after towers 2 collabsed one is stil standing

after the last colabse this is crucht

[FenderBender2]

the windows are blown out becuase of the force from the collapse of wtc1 and wtc2 its bloody obvious????