WTC Building 7 Anomalies
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
kx000
Valued Senior Member
The police helo pilots said that because they could see the side bowing in 8 minutes before WTC 2 went down but due to different frequencies they couldn't reach the fire fighters and get the word out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I_NXk-Iqjk
That building doesnt look like its going to fall. if not for secondary explosions. It could be fuel lines going off, but thats just a major design flaw in that case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0_Ns2ShYKc
barring credibility this guy has statments of dead bodies and explosions in WTC7 which was not hit by a plane.
If I am the judge of anything, its man, and Kenneth Johannemann did not kill himself. Layed off from a job as a janitor were he made crap money anyways. He does not have the look of a man whos had a terrible life, or is manic deppresive. He carried a burnt man out of the bassment of the WTC basment.
It begs the question, can a bowing 777 bring down a 450,000,000 kg building, twice, in one day? That defies logic. The story DOES NOT fit.
So to summarize the thread so far, basicly nobody claims that they rigged building 7 on Sept 11th, while it was on fire, but the conspiracy is that the building was loaded either a few days earlier or even years before.
Now anyone who buys this shit, once more explain this:
1. How did they know that the building would get at least decent damage, so they can use that damage as a cover story for the demolition?
2. A building full of explosives and being on fire for hours wouldn't have explosions going on constantly that can be seen and heard for everyone outside? Now I know, some claim that there are explosions being heard, but sure they can not be seen.
3. How do you rig a building of this size without anyone noticing? And anyway, what is the purpose of it, to protect/hide sensitive material??? Let's stick to one conspiracy at a time. It is either protect or hide... The protecting thing is ridiculous, to hide it, they could have just started a fire with a gas explosion, no planes were needed...
Now I don't expect answers and this is my 3rd post going without plausible answers, so unless someone can come up with a decent storyline, the thread is over....
Now anyone who buys this shit, once more explain this:
1. How did they know that the building would get at least decent damage, so they can use that damage as a cover story for the demolition?
2. A building full of explosives and being on fire for hours wouldn't have explosions going on constantly that can be seen and heard for everyone outside? Now I know, some claim that there are explosions being heard, but sure they can not be seen.
3. How do you rig a building of this size without anyone noticing? And anyway, what is the purpose of it, to protect/hide sensitive material??? Let's stick to one conspiracy at a time. It is either protect or hide... The protecting thing is ridiculous, to hide it, they could have just started a fire with a gas explosion, no planes were needed...
Now I don't expect answers and this is my 3rd post going without plausible answers, so unless someone can come up with a decent storyline, the thread is over....
Hey, let's stick to 7, we like that number so much...
There is a huge building on fire. There is electricity and gas all over the building. Not to mention huge diesel tanks inside. It just makes sense that those things explode. People hear explosions at other big building fires too.
Just watch the movie Towering Inferno...
Dead bodies? Sure, the building was hit and damaged by huge debris while people were inside. It had a 20 stories large hole in it. Makes sense that there were casualties...
"but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
There is a huge building on fire. There is electricity and gas all over the building. Not to mention huge diesel tanks inside. It just makes sense that those things explode. People hear explosions at other big building fires too.
Just watch the movie Towering Inferno...
Dead bodies? Sure, the building was hit and damaged by huge debris while people were inside. It had a 20 stories large hole in it. Makes sense that there were casualties...
"but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Last edited:
He was discussing events in WTC 1, not WTC 7 and the elevator shafts ran all the way from the impact location on WTC 1 down to the basement. The overpressure from the impact and conflagration caused a fuel/air mix to create huge fireballs/explosions in the lobby and sub-basement of WTC 1.
All well documented to have occured right after the plane hit.
No it does not "defy logic" considering the impact on the building of both the horrendous impacts that caused severe structural damage to the core and the ensuing fires that ultimately cased the steel framed buildings to fail.
Indeed the NIST report explains the damage from the impact of the collison and the subsequent fires quite well.
If you need help understanding the report simply ask.
Arthur
Last edited:
Why yes it does.
To anyone who understands that steel frames must remain vertical to retain their load carrying ability. That's the East side of WTC 2 and the impact of the plane was off centered and caused so much structural damage on the East side core columns that the whole building tilted towards the East (7" off of vertical) and the forces on those perimeter columns went up by ~24% to handle that tilt. In this picture you can see the raging multifloor fires that are weakening the perimeter columns and because of that, those columns are pulled in over 5 ft from vertical and thus their load carrying ability is being greatly reduced. Their failure, by buckling just a few moments after that picture was taken, is when the top block starts to move down. Once the top starts moving downward, the only thing keeping the floors from failing are the truss seats and they could only handle the weight of 6 additional floors, so they rapidly failed as well.
There were no fuel lines in or on the fire floors nor any significant secondary explosions.
Indeed the downward movement of the collapse clearly occurs prior to any expulsion of air that would be caused by explosives.
Last edited:
Please explain. In my experience, in explosive demolition, the air (smoke) is expelled in advance of any visible movement of the building.
Thank you
Hardalee
That's the same thing that I said.
The downward movement occurs before the expulsion of air.
Had explosives been involved we would have seen the air come out first.
In addition, the bowing in of the perimeter columns is clearly representative of a significant failure of the building's structure and is clearly caused by the fire, not by explosives.
Arthur
No conflict, Hardalee and I are saying the exact same thing.
And in the collapse, no explosions either.
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/?action=view¤t=WTC2Collapse.mp4
And in the collapse, no explosions either.
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/?action=view¤t=WTC2Collapse.mp4
like i said, it's speculation on my part but it DOES explain a couple of very big anomalies.So why did Silverstein tell the fire department to "pull"? I guess the fire department was supposed to tell the "intelligence community" to blow the building?
He was on NATIONAL FREAKING TV!! Ooops! I just admitted to blowing up my own building.
Of course there is no such thing...just a term from JREF. You said the collapse looked like a cd...the only thing you left out..it didn't sound like a cd. Every single video of a building implosion features extremely loud, clear explosive sounds that start seconds before the collapse. (like this) The videos of WTC7 collapse lack these tale-tell explosive sounds. How do you explain that?
I guess it was NF that mentioned insurance fraud.
What does it explain?
It could happen with CD.
No reason that CD charges couldn't be used to create the same damage and fail the same columns in the same order the fire did.
The problem is (besides the obvious one of the inability to place these charges without being detected) is that there are secondary effects from explosives that weren't seen or heard.
Invariably the smarter members of the conspiracy groups always migrate to the use of NanoThermite as the medium because of the obvious lack of these effects and because they can assign nearly miraculous attributes to the stuff.
And the gullible eat it up.
Arthur
Fortunately for them Arthur, the company that makes Hush-A-Boom[sup]TM[/sup] silent explosives also makes Not-So-Brite-Nanothermite[sup]TM[/sup]...a substance that burns white hot, but gives off no light or smoke, and can cut through steel without leaving any traces of iron slag on the columns.
No it isn't...I just told you that.
Oh..and will this be the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
No it isn't