Creative Speculation

Bolo Boffin

(23,872 posts)

19. Well, they were for normal circumstances.

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:49 PM

Dec 2011

The main problem with 7 actually wasn't these structural problems. If the lower half of the building had had a sprinkler system with its own water supply, the way the upper half was, the fires would have been knocked out and the building would have been fine - damaged from the debris of WTC 1's collapse, but still standing. However, the lower floors' sprinklers systems, both primary and backup, were hooked up to the water main. That was obliterated in the collapses of the towers, and them's the breaks.

But yes, that fatal flaw in column 79 is rather horrendous in retrospect. I'm pretty sure the new WTC 7 wasn't built out over the access ramp.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Solving the Mystery of Building 7 [View all] Richard Charnin Dec 2011 OP

Thanks for posting n/t Pachamama Dec 2011 #1

Very powerful video. Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #2

exactly libodem Dec 2011 #21

I hope some day soon Politicalboi Dec 2011 #3

Actually all 3 fell with resistance. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #4

True but... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #5

"can only happen in a controlled demolition" Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #6

The top part (penthouse?) seemed to sink first Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2011 #15

The collaspe was already happening inside the building. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #16

These buildings weren't awfully well built? Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2011 #18

Well, they were for normal circumstances. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #19

WTC7 wasn't designed to withstand thermal stress William Seger Dec 2011 #20

The shear studs were designed to take the lateral loads, so the girder seat didn't need to be. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #37

How do 7 floors fail in freefall? NIST did NOT explain it. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #34

Not true William Seger Dec 2011 #7

Two videos by David Chandler which expose the NIST "analysis of WTC 7 Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #26

Yes, Chandler is a major source of "freefall = controlled demolition" idiocy William Seger Dec 2011 #29

Nobody says the perps blew out 8 floors while the building was already falling. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #35

Gage's solution to the mystery: Magical silent explosives William Seger Dec 2011 #8

Anyone that watches this video and concludes that it is anything teddy51 Dec 2011 #9

Anyone who LISTENS to the videos and concludes that it's a controlled demolition William Seger Dec 2011 #10

They weren't silent, a large number of witnesses said they heard teddy51 Dec 2011 #11

Baloney William Seger Dec 2011 #13

That is just not true zeemike Dec 2011 #23

You're making things up. zappaman Dec 2011 #24

Many sounds of explosions Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #27

No firemen described "a series of small bangs" emanating from WTC 7. n/t zappaman Dec 2011 #28

Everything I said is true William Seger Dec 2011 #25

What piqued my interest was what was housed in Building 7. canoeist52 Dec 2011 #12

All very good reasons NOT to blow up that building. n/t Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #14

Apparently they were destroying all the evidence Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #17

Why do you need tons of explosives? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #38

I'd heard there was a bunch of libodem Dec 2011 #22

and gold Remember Me Dec 2011 #30

Last night, I listened to 2 UTube interviews.... gblady Dec 2011 #32

You forgot the CIA and the DoD on the 25th floor. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #36

I accept the eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage and multiple large fires hack89 Dec 2011 #31

You are more accepting than is FEMA or NIST Ace Acme Dec 2013 #39

Care to substantiate that statement. hack89 Dec 2013 #42

I'm saying FEMA did not quote any of those statements, nor did NIST. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #44

But such damage fits into NIST's explanation hack89 Dec 2013 #46

Dr. Griffin has pointed out that the FDNY accounts are mutually exclusive and all over the map. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #48

Dr Griffin is a CT loon hack89 Dec 2013 #49

Dr. Griffin's alleged lunacy can not make contradictory statements consistent. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #50

No, it couldn't have been the massive, uncontrolled fires that took WTC7 down cpwm17 Dec 2011 #33

There were no massive fires. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #40

Who are you going to believe? cpwm17 Dec 2013 #41

I am going to believe my informed eyes, and understand that what looks like smoke Ace Acme Dec 2013 #43

Apparently you didn't watch the video cpwm17 Dec 2013 #45

I watched the video years ago. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #47

Obviously you didn't watch this video cpwm17 Dec 2013 #51

I watched the video years ago, and I watched it now, and everything I said was correct. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #52