World Trade Centre 7, debate or name call?

[eyes_west]

World trade centre 7 was the third building to completely collapse on 9-11.

It was hit by debris from the collapse of the twin towers.

It did contain fires.

It was a 47 storey concrete and steel framed building.

At 5.20pm (new york time) World Trade Centre 7 collapsed.

The collapse time is recorded at 6.5 seconds.

obviously people who question the official story will have a theory as to why this building collapsed as it did.

to the people who hold the official story as being true maybe you could post some POSITIVE COMMENTS.

Calling people names who hold an opposite view to you is a waste of time and unhelpful.

Hopefully there will be a debate as to how or why this building collapsed as it did.

Submit a theory and let people debate the merits of it WITHOUT SLURS, please.

[edifice.]

Do you realise the magnitude of the undertaking of bringing down a large building by the controlled use of explosives?

[Defeated Romanticist]

Wasn't there some fuel tank or some such or something?

[eyes_west]

there was a massive amount of diesel fuel in the building.

would this be capable of bringing the whole building down?

[edifice.]

there was a massive amount of diesel fuel in the building.

would this be capable of bringing the whole building down?

Perhaps in conjunction with the effects of the Towers collapse beside them. You still need to address my concern about deliberate demolition.

[eyes_west]

The main question i would have about wtc7 is how did it fall so fast?

If it was damaged by debris and fire surely it would have toppled over where the building was weakest.

But to fall straight down and in 6.5 seconds seems at odds with the fire theory/ and debris theory.

[edifice.]

The main question i would have about wtc7 is how did it fall so fast?

If it was damaged by debris and fire surely it would have toppled over where the building was weakest.

But to fall straight down and in 6.5 seconds seems at odds with the fire theory/ and debris theory.

6.5 seconds? From when?

[eyes_west]

[quote=edifice.]

there was a massive amount of diesel fuel in the building.

would this be capable of bringing the whole building down?

Perhaps in conjunction with the effects of the Towers collapse beside them. You still need to address my concern about deliberate demolition.[/quote:biyfbn5g]

The deliberate demolition would take weeks to prepare.

It certainly could not be done on the day, especially in a building that was on fire.

If it was a deliberate demolition it was an inside job by members of the government. The amount of government agencies working in the building itself meant security was extremely tight there. Osama Bin Laden could not have been able to have explosives planted in building 7.

If it was not a deliberate demolition, that leaves structural damage caused by large pieces of falling debris and/ or fire.

If fire weakened the steel in the twin towers enough to bring them down then fire must be an option in bringing down building 7.

But is there proof of a raging fire?

[edifice.]

The deliberate demolition would take weeks to prepare.

It certainly could not be done on the day, especially in a building that was on fire.

If it was a deliberate demolition it was an inside job by members of the government. The amount of government agencies working in the building itself meant security was extremely tight there. Osama Bin Laden could not have been able to have explosives planted in building 7.

If it was not a deliberate demolition, that leaves structural damage caused by large pieces of falling debris and/ or fire.

If fire weakened the steel in the twin towers enough to bring them down then fire must be an option in bringing down building 7.

But is there proof of a raging fire?

So what exactly are you saying if you're discounting Bin Laden and deliberate demolition by explosives?