Just starting the thread for you. Please explain what you think happened to building 7.
WTC Building 7 Anomalies
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
Just starting the thread for you. Please explain what you think happened to building 7.
Hey, I dunno, but it looks exactly like a controlled demolition, the owner of the building said that day that they decided to pull it, you can see a series of windows blow out - same line down a number of floors, but not other windows, just as they would in a controlled demolition, the building does not look very damaged, I have never seen a building go down from fire damage like that. I gotta say that the onus is on the other side, the ones who think the fires, which do not look serious, somehow caused a nearly perfect floor to floor flattening of the building, nicely in sequence.
Have you ever watch a building being prepped for a controlled demolition? All the support columns are laid bare and the explosive attached and wired. Nobody noticed this going on? It was done by Ninja demolitions experts? They had the ability to cloud men's minds, not to mention the security cameras?
1) this is really not a good explanation for what happened, it simply raises issues around my implied explanation. You ever seen a building that mildly damaged by fire, fall down perfectly like that? 2) You are assuming a demolition has to be done in the very open, public way, the way one does with a building that has been abandoned. I don't think this is the case. I am not an expert, but I would assume charges could be brought in over time and put in place with leaving permanently open the places they are attached to supports. I don't know. But let me know about how the fire did this and pass on some other examples, preferably on film so we can see how they also looked like controlled demolitions.
Have you ever looked at the NIS:T report on WTC 7?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
Are you an expert in CD? How could you tell the difference between a fire-induced collapse and a CD? All controlled demotions use very loud explosives that can be heard for miles...How do you account for the lack of any audible explosive sounds? There are numerous videos of the collapse, and none show the tell tale explosive sounds like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28
I know when I want to covertly demolish a building...I always announce it to the media. Could it be that Silverstein was talking about "pulling" the firefighters from the area?
The FDNY reported kinks in the outer structure hours before the collapse. They predicted the building would fall. The building burned for 7 hours without any firefighting efforts.
If you believe that building 7 was CD'ed, then please answer these questions:
1. Why would they cd a building that no one outside of NY had ever heard of..and why did they wait 7 hours to initiate the collapse?
2. Why did they wait for everyone in the building to be evacuated before initiating the charges? (no one died in building 7)
3. How did they manage to plant the explosive charges in the building without anyone noticing?
Clearly you didn't read my post carefully, since I specifically said I was not an expert. People did report explosions. I would also assume that steps could be taken to reduce the sounds. IOW a normal controlled demolitions is, as the other poster mentioned, exposing all the supports, often you can see into the building and see the actual charges from outside the building because all the non-support walls on some lower levels are gone. Again, I don't know.
Why did one set of windows blow out just before collapse in a vertical line, just as in cds? If it was the building distorting why this perfect line?
Why haven't other fires made such a perfect demolition, when even profession demolitions often go wrong?
ARe there other examples of fire induced collapses of healthy buildings anything like this? Maybe there are. I don't know.
He said it, not them. You are assuming he was in on the conspiracy, if there was one, I was assuming the opposite.
Without much fire. So why don't demolition teams make kinks in the outer structure of buildings?
I could come up with some reasons, but the official explanation bears the onus of proof. I am skeptical of it.
Come on, you haven't read any conspiracy explanations for this? You don't know whose offices were in that building?
Yeah, if we wanted to blow up a building in Europe with help from inside a similar building - again check out who had offices there - we could not set the charges without being discovered by those not in the know. Please.
Pineal, the work involved in setting the charges is extensive and exacting. (haven't you ever seen shows on the Science channel, or Discovery on controlled demolition? there have been many). WTC 7 was not an empty building on a lot somewhere. It was a working office building. Nobody is planting explosive charges on the buildings support beams without being seen.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Im not exactly sure why (I have ideas), but with the way the building went down, like a controlled demolition, and being that there were no exterior explosions, and the fact that 2 powerful media outlets reported this early makes me think that people knew WTC7 was going to fall. And remember they weren't presenting this as a warning, they both say WTC7 has already collapsed, and you can see in both links I posted it is clearly still standing as this news of its collapse is reported.
superstring01
Moderator
When a building explodes, the air inside the building needs to expand outward. It usually happens nearest the weakest point that precipitates the collapse. Windows blowing out are a normal part of a building's collapse, even if it seemed convenient enough to allow basement-of-mother's-house-dwelling conspiracy nuts to use it as a foundation for their weird 9/11 belief system.
~String
superstring01
Moderator
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I already showed you the links on Youtube of the very news reports that im talking about.
Evidence required is a set of eyeballs. The building is very obviously demo'd - it free falls all as one piece, collapsing upon itself. This really is a modern litmus test for who can think for themselves.
Beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what happened on sept 11 2001. I really don't believe much said about any of the conspiracy theories, official or not. We will simply never know the complete truth.
Beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what happened on sept 11 2001. I really don't believe much said about any of the conspiracy theories, official or not. We will simply never know the complete truth.
Then why should we take your opinion of "it looks like a cd" seriously?
True...lots of stuff explodes in a fire...however there were no loud explosions right before the building collapsed..as in other cds
Then you would assume wrong. There is no viable technique to muffle the sound of 180+db explosives so that it would not be recordable at all on the tapes we have of the collapse.
Apparently you don't know about a lot of things
From the video of the collapse I have seen..this is not true
Because most fire are fought..this one wasn't.
The Windsor building fire burned for hours, and the steel area of the building collapsed. There really hasn't been a fire like in the WTC 7 in the history of building fires...where the fire burned for 7 hours without any fire fighter efforts.
There rest of this makes no sense...so I have no answer for gibberish.
superstring01
Moderator
YouTube is not a "credible" link. How about a peer reviewed study or report.
~String
Actually, String..both are legitimate links. Fox was just reporting what the BBC was reporting.
There were many false reports on 9/11 in the media...they were reporting truck bombs at the capitol that day.
The FDNY were reporting that building 7 would probably fall. Somewhere in the reporting process someone confused "may fall" with "has fallen"...truthers, rather than see this error in reporting, would rather believe that evil "perps" that initiated the attacks, sent press briefings to all the know news agencies, informing them that were about to blow up building 7, and somehow fox and the BBC fucked it up and reported it early.
Your right about the litmus test. It clearly points out the cranks and tells the rest of us who to ignore.
They have videos of the muther fucking planes hitting the second building that I watched live as it happened. Now before you say "A 767 can't bring down a building" I will say do you know the size of fucking 767? They are huge!!!!. The physical force in itself is obvisously not enough. But a fire + an already weakened superstructure = falling building. And now you say "But jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel". I will then say... was jet fuel then the only thing in the building to burn? Also, how hot does the steel have to get to deform or lose strength? Not as hot is has to get to melt for sure (to lazy to get the exact numbers). I consider it falling as it did by the grace of god because it could have been so much fucking worse if they fell sideways. Also, to the fact that the planes hit at the top so what you really had was the top falling on the bottom part causing it to suddenly collapse, the quickest path for that is straight down.
Not to hard to understand if you bother to try, open YOUR mind and use it.
Last edited:
My own pet thing is not that the buildings were brought down in any sort of controlled demolition.... it's the possibility that the attacks were allowed to occur.
Admittedly, Occam's razor says it was stupidity on the part of my government...but I don't trust anybody.
Admittedly, Occam's razor says it was stupidity on the part of my government...but I don't trust anybody.