WTC-7 fires started before the towers collapsed

[zenoist2]

I heard the first fire reports for wtc7 were around 930 AM too..

If its true then they were started deliberately and had nothing at all to do with towers collapsing.rubble

[zenoist2]

I beleive it was a conspiracy or at the very least the govt had preknowledge.

However in this case its perfectly possible that debris from the planes impact had hit wtc7 and caused several SMALL fires.

There never was a raging inferno though and it still doesnt explain its symmetrical collapse.

Also the squibs go from the bottom to the top as 7 collapses from the top down, making total nonsense of any claims it was ejected air from the collapse.

[PoetryHownd]

The government would never lie to its own people, I am smart enough to know that much.

[scotdawg01]

There was a show on tv (channel 4, uk) a couple of weeks ago about unseen footage from 9/11 that clearly shows smoke rising from the side of building 7 before either of the twin towers fell. It was taken from ground level on what would be the left side of the building if facing the towers. can't remember what the show was called though.

[grooovy7]

Who cares where it fell? Why did it fall? The only modern steel building known to fall from fire, no jets hitting it, in all of history. And what of the remains? Cut steel seen in photos of rubble piles, but hauled off with lightning speed, while we were being asked to donate blood and pray for the victims families. Maybe we wouldn't see.

[peterene]

yes buildings are demolished in sections so 12 sec time isn't uncompatibile with CD theory

[pepelapiu2004]

>> Unfought Fire + damage + Diesel tanks +

>> The unique support structure + time

Well the fires would have to occur solely on the South side because the North side shown no fire damage. And the debris damage would also have to occur solely on the South side because we can't see any debris damage on the North side. So how do you suppose a building that gets damage from both fire and debris only one one side can fall down so perfectly vertically at the speed of free fall?

[pepelapiu2004]

Wouldn't you expect that a building with fire and debris damage solely on a single side would topple over instead of literally disintegrating perfectly vertically into it's own footprint?

[justplainwrong]

It didn't fall into its own footprint. Why do you insist on making false claims?

[pepelapiu2004]

You are arguing ridiculous semantics. Who cares if it didn't fall EXACTLY into it's own footprint or not? The point is that it feel down perfectly vertically. How does a building with fire damage to only one side and debris damage to only one side falls down in such a perfectly symmetrical and vertical manner?

[justplainwrong]

Gravity was pulling it DOWN...which direction do you think it should have fallen? The "in its own footprint" is a false claim. The "perfectly symmetrical collapse" is a false claim. How can you be demanding the truth when your own claims avoid it?

[pepelapiu2004]

When a tree falls, it's gravity that pulls it down. Just because gravity is vertical, it doesn't mean that everything that gravity pulls is going to fall down perfectly vertically.

So how is it that a building with debris damage to a single side and fire damage to that same single side can fall down so perfectly vertically?

[CultOfTheGlenda]

Trees aren't hollow filled with rooms and made out of a brittle substance (concrete).

[pepelapiu2004]

WTC7 was not a concrete building, while it might have had SOME concrete, it was known to be a steel structure. Steel isn't "brittle" at all.

But my point was that yes, gravity is vertical, that still doesn't explain how a building falls completely vertically.

Watch my other video, the compilation one, and tell me what you think. Tell me that looks like a fire collapse

[CultOfTheGlenda]

Actually gravity is radial. Nice try though.

[pepelapiu2004]

@CultOfTheGlenda

Yeah, you are right, gravity is radial. But for the purpose of the discussion, I think we both agree that gravity is, well, vertical. Please let's not pick at insignificant details here, ok?

[CultOfTheGlenda]

If the gov't desired to demolish why would they both with the arab terror plot?

Oh to go to war with Afghanistan? So then why bother with a controlled demolition AND an arab terror plot?

Occam would not be pleased with this theory.

[pepelapiu2004]

@CultOfTheGlenda >> Occam would not be pleased with this theory.

You are getting ahead of yourself here. I haven't given you any "theories" yet so please tell me what do you think caused the collapse of that building?

The History channel, NIST and the 9/11 commission tell us that it was a fire collapse, do you believe that?

[CultOfTheGlenda]

watch?v=t6qm7hMyoNo

5:03

You can see the south tower falling at an angle. I know you are talking about WTC7, but it had different circumstances. It was so fucked by two huge structures collapsing near it.

[pepelapiu2004]

WTC7 was positioned North of the towers. So you would have to agree that if it received any damage from the collapse of the towers, it would be strictly to it's South face (the side facing the towers) ..... agreed?

[CultOfTheGlenda]

Considering WTC was made of glass on the exterior, not really only the south side. I would be willing to bet much debris was pushed through the bottom floor. Let's also not forget diesel rained from above.

[pepelapiu2004]

Well, I find it kinda peculiar that WTC5 and WTC6 (which were directly between the towers and WTC7) would have to suffermore damage then WTC7, being closer and all.Yet they didn't go down perfectly vertically. In fact both WTC5 and 6 were completely engulfed with fire and they had severe damage from the towers, yet they stood erect.

But WTC7, further away, with a lot less damage and a lot less fires, collapsed perfectly vertically inside 6.5 seconds as if it had been dropped into the ground !!!

[pepelapiu2004]

>> Considering WTC was made of glass on the exterior, not

>> really only the south side.

Okay, so let me re-phrase that:

Would you agree that THE MOST DAMAGE would occur on the South face, directly toward the towers?

If you don't agree with that, you are going to have to hit Google Pictures and find me any evidence of debris damage to the other 3 sides..... you won't find any.

[CultOfTheGlenda]

Videos show no evidence of any explosions. No one heard explosions. So no way it was a controlled demolition.

[pepelapiu2004]

>> So no way it was a controlled demolition.

Now how did you get such an idea? I didn't say it was a CD, how did you get to such a conclusion? I only asked what do you think caused that collapse.

Never the less, just answer my question:

The 9/11 commission, the NIST, your TV and your guberment all tell you it was a fire collapse. Look at my other video one more time and just tell me if you believe them? Do you beleive fire can bring down a building in this manner?

[CultOfTheGlenda]

Planes crashed into the building. That is controlled?

No one heard explosions.

[darion65]

@CultOfTheGlenda

Are you saying no one heard explosions? Are you really claiming that. 9/11 commision report opmitted 500+ statements from workers, firefighters, police about hearing seeing and feeling explosions in all the buildings. There is video evidence of explosions being recorded all day long.

To claim there was no one to hear explosions was a complete lie.

[justplainwrong]

A false claim is a false claim. It has nothing to do with semantics. If it's not true..and you obviously KNOW it's not true, why keep repeating the lie?

[pepelapiu2004]

If you can look at my other video is a compilation of all the videos of WTC-7. If you can look at it and deduce that GRAVITY took down that building then you have a serious problem. I suggest you look at the other video I have, it is very obvious the building comes down straight down perfectly vertically and symmetrically. That is what demolition experts try to do, only they spend weeks and months of work and preparation to achieve these results.

[pepelapiu2004]

That is what demolition experts try to do, only they spend weeks and months of work and preparation to achieve these results. But if you want to believe that fires on a single side and debris on a single side can do the same job as a team of experts working for months then you have a very serious flawed mind. Gravity doesn't work in such a perfectly symmetrical and vertical manner.

[justplainwrong]

"Gravity doesn't work in such a perfectly symmetrical and vertical manner." ??

It pulls things towards the center of the earth. That's considered vertical.

Explain what you mean about gravity being asymmetrical.

[justplainwrong]

Gravity pulls down. Gravity pulled WTC7 down, it also pulled down WTC1 and WTC2. And it will pull down any other building that is unable to withstand it. Again I ask.....with gravity pulling down...what other direction could the building have gone?

[mikegarlicbread]

justplainwrong - Why do some controlled demolition buildings fall at an angle if gravity was pulling it perfectly vertical?

Google controlled demolition videos- and see that some of them fall at an angle. Why do they fall at an angle if ur claim is true? Wonder where these brainless guys come from!

[justplainwrong]

"Why do some controlled demolition buildings fall at an angle if gravity was pulling it perfectly vertical?"

Because in many cases certain parts of the building are rigged to fall before others, resulting in the building falling towards one side.

"Why do they fall at an angle if ur claim is true?"

?? My claim is that earth's gravity pulls DOWN, not sideways. Do you disagree with that statement?

[Skeptic121]

How about we put it this way: We can compare the collapse of WTC7 to the collapses of other buildings known to have been brought down by controlled demolitions. When we do, we observe that WTC7 fell very straight, landing in an area slightly LARGER than its own footprint. There are only a few controlled demolition videos in which large buildings fall as straight as WTC7 fell. In fact, there has never been a building as tall as WTC7 brought down by an acknowledged controlled demolition. OK?

[justplainwrong]

Whoops...guess the building only burned uncontrolled for 7 hours...not 8.

[pepelapiu2004]

Is it your opinion that fire caused WTC-7 to drop out of the sky in 6.5 seconds in such a perfectly vertical manner?

[justplainwrong]

No.

[pepelapiu2004]

Okay ...... so what do you think caused that building to collapse?

I also invite you to see my other video which is a compilation of all videos of WTC-7's collapse

[justplainwrong]

Unfought Fire + damage + Diesel tanks + The unique support structure + time

[pepelapiu2004]

>> Unfought Fire + damage + Diesel tanks +

>> The unique support structure + time

Well the fires would have to occur solely on the South side because the North side shown no fire damage. And the debris damage would also have to occur solely on the South side because we can't see any debris damage on the North side. So how do you suppose a building that gets damage from both fire and debris only one one side can fall down so perfectly vertically at the speed of free fall?

[justplainwrong]

That would be where the "unique support structure" comes into play. I assume you've studied the impact of the cantalevered load transfer trusses.

[pepelapiu2004]

I can't continue on this ridiculous YT messaging system. email me at pepelapiu(at)gmail(dot)com of you want to discuss it in a more adequate manner.

[justplainwrong]

Looks like you got your numbers wrong too...it wasn't 6.5 seconds.  (The penthouse is part of the building too). But no, I don't believe that the collapse was caused by fire...there was also a large portion of the building "scooped out" as reported by FDNY.

[pepelapiu2004]

Yup, including the penthouse it would be 18 seconds. But never the less the bulk of the building collapsed in 6.5 seconds ... if you don't include the puny penthouse boxes.

[justplainwrong]

The penthouse is part of the building...why wouldn't you include it? Your post said that WTC7 "dropped out of the sky in 6.5 seconds" this is completely wrong. (Unless you only count the last 6.5 seconds)

[pepelapiu2004]

Anyway, the penthouse collapsed in 12 seconds and the rest of the building collapsed in 6.5 seconds ..... is that more agreeable with you?

[justplainwrong]

You're getting closer...now take 12 + 6.5 and you'll have the total collapse time :).

[pepelapiu2004]

>> there was also a large portion of

>> the building "scooped out" as

>> reported by FDNY.

So is it your opinion that the collapse was caused by falling debris inflicting damage to the South face of the building?

[justplainwrong]

No. That was a factor, but it was not the sole cause.