Starfleet Jedi

So what is the logical, most plausible explanation of the fall of WTC7?

Has there been any official word from the US government on that?

Well, as I understand this, the falling debris damaged north wall of the building, if I recall corretly, and started fires, which were fuelled by the tanks in the basement. The FDNY, after long fight with the fire has decided to pull it and left the building and cordoned it, foreseening its collapse.

After fire has weakened skeleton of the building, it fell down.

So that's the official explanation, after six years?

There is nothing better they have found yet?

Why would something better be needed?

Your not considering the controlled demolition angle are you?

What's to consider? WTC7 fall bears no resemblance to controlled demoliton.

Kazeite wrote:What's to consider? WTC7 fall bears no resemblance to controlled demoliton.

Yes I know but WTC discussions seem to have a habit of involving this.

Be that as it may, here's the Wikipedia article, which goes into the issues of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_7

One possibility is that the Twin Tower collapses did more damage than FEMA first thought to WT7's structure, and the removal of a number supporting columns may have severely compromised the building's structural integrity.
-Mike

As a side note: what's going on with the WTC site? Are they making a memorial, are they rebuilding the site completely with new buildings, a combo deal?

I want something better, because I want something that fits with everything. We're not talking about looking at films or TV shows, and knowing in the back of our minds that it's all about special effects, and fake from the get go.
This is real, and everything in such a context should be explainable, especially so many years after the incident.

Thus far, I've seen two pictures, or more I think, showing that WTC7 was clearly badly damaged. Seems that many got it wrong. I can't even remember what's the name of the site where I found them.
If I tried to search for it on Google... it'd be quicker to search for a site that has nothing to do with it. There are just so many of them, full of stuff that would take much time to read.
I might have missed a key paragraph somewhere at mid section of page 42, article #58 written in nov 2003 or whatnot, but seriously, I waste enough time of certain hobbies and personnal affairs, can't find more for this.

However, it doesn't mean I don't keep asking myself a few questions.

The key problem I have here is that I don't get is that story about this Sliverstan guy that I read a while back, talking about the WTC7, who said they had to "pull it" or so.
I'm not really aware of all the nuances of english, slang or lingo, or whatelse, so I may be missing something.

Even Kazeite says they had to pull it.

Considering the rather puzzling amount of questionable claims and unexplained elements regarding the crashes and building collapses, there's no need to say that I'd take anything with a big grain, even if it's official. So unless I find a good explanation of what this guy meant, I don't take any explanation as good enough, and I'll consider that there's something better, namely, an explanation that takes into account all aspects of this event, including reaction from people, talk and more.

A simple confirmation, or debunk by the guy in question, would be more than enough to know what he meant, and settle this.
Now, maybe he did, but I admit that I could have missed it. That said, it would be such an "important" confirmation that I don't think it would be so hard to find if it was ever made.

So I'm still waiting for a better explanation.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I'm not really aware of all the nuances of english, slang or lingo, or whatelse, so I may be missing something.

A bit off-topic, but where exactly are you from?

"Pull it" in demolisher lingo means a method of controlled demolishing where cables are attached to load-bearing colums. Then, when those cables are pulled by machines, the whole building falls down.

Of course, the whole building must be specially prepared beforehand :)

Conspiracy theorist however mantain that explosives were used, which, as per above, is not how you "pull" a building.

Usually in the movies "pull out!" is uterred when brave soldiers must retreat from hostile area under enemy fire :)

Keep in mind that Silverstein said "they" (FDNY) have decided to "pull it". Which means that if there is a conspiracy, if firefighters themselves blew up the building, they're in the conspiracy, and they let other firefighters die.

Curiously, none of the conspiracy theorist dares to directly accuse FDNY, and if they happen to make a statement that point at FDNY as the perpetrators, they vigorously deny it afterwards.

Cpl Kendall wrote:As a side note: what's going on with the WTC site? Are they making a memorial, are they rebuilding the site completely with new buildings, a combo deal?

If you had followed the links in the Wiki article, you would know that both a memorial and the construction of new WTC buildings are underway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Tower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trad ... r_Memorial

The WTC 7 article towards the end shows the replacement building for the original WTC 7 nearing the completion of it's construction (the building was completed and opened on March 6, 2006).
-Mike

Well you got me there. Thanks for the info.