B
BlueMoose
Guest
-Maybe I wasnt clear enough. ? .
If one is asking how many minutes are in 1 hour when everybody seeking
answer to what colour is the sky, I really dont have much use for the answer, okey ?
War
WTC Building 7 on 9/11
- Thread starter battig1370
- Start date
-Maybe I wasnt clear enough. ? .
If one is asking how many minutes are in 1 hour when everybody seeking
answer to what colour is the sky, I really dont have much use for the answer, okey ?
War
Dark520:"For all skeptics, please just watch Screw Loose Change, just put it into google, I can't think of the URL right now. Don't come back until you've watched it."
Yes, please. Here's a link: Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition
Yes, please. Here's a link: Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition
-Maybe I wasnt clear enough. ? .
If one is asking how many minutes are in 1 hour when everybody seeking
answer to what colour is the sky, I really dont have much use for the answer, okey ?
War
Lol at war...
Alright, I get what you mean now, but you still haven't answered the questions in my earlier post.
Read-Only- You're right, and I don't know why I keep trying...
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Here are the answers, you can choose in which thread we continue this.
1. In every single controlled demolition, the buildings are destroyed from the bottom up; the base is taken out, then the tower basically crushes itself as it falls. Last time I checked, the WTCs collapsed from the point of impact of the planes down.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
-Irrelevant question regarding WTC7 and that is the topic.
No plane impact in WTC7
2. In any controlled demolition, you will see flashes of light where the explosives went off, please point them out to me as the towers are collapsing... oh, wait there aren't any to point out.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
-So you suggest that if there isnt any flashes, it isnt controlled demolition ?
There isnt any flashes in next clips, in those controlled demolitions.
Also notice that when doing controlled demolition the building is usually stripped totally so the flashes will be easier to see, WTCs wasnt stripped any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Vu15D_0oI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrz...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neMRCoOUGaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-WvQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txGeT...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj7ai...elated&search=
-In this one see flashes but this building is stripped to bones, only
floors and vertical columns left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DziWm...elated&search=
3. Loud bangs happen when the bombs go off, I mean LOUD; you would be able to hear them on a video from outside. Please point out to me the loud bangs in the videos. Even if you were to find some, with no accompanying flashes, there would be no way to prove they were bombs... In a collapsing building there are lots of things that make noise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4NOlUF3A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V1HpRXzFaE (WTC1)
Eyewitness testimonys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5qV...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTcpCOwBwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BGm...elated&search=
And here is case presented by Italian TV that WTC7 was demolished.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Infowars clip, Silverstein says "pull it".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D...elated&search=
Now, I got just one question for you this time regarding WTC7;
How do you reckon that how is it possible to building to collapse in freefall speed due structure damaged by fire ? And if you have another theory why it did collapse, please share it.
WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
QUOTE DARK
Read-Only- You're right, and I don't know why I keep trying...
QUOTE
For the sake of truth man, for the sake of truth...
1. In every single controlled demolition, the buildings are destroyed from the bottom up; the base is taken out, then the tower basically crushes itself as it falls. Last time I checked, the WTCs collapsed from the point of impact of the planes down.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
-Irrelevant question regarding WTC7 and that is the topic.
No plane impact in WTC7
2. In any controlled demolition, you will see flashes of light where the explosives went off, please point them out to me as the towers are collapsing... oh, wait there aren't any to point out.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
-So you suggest that if there isnt any flashes, it isnt controlled demolition ?
There isnt any flashes in next clips, in those controlled demolitions.
Also notice that when doing controlled demolition the building is usually stripped totally so the flashes will be easier to see, WTCs wasnt stripped any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Vu15D_0oI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrz...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neMRCoOUGaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-WvQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txGeT...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj7ai...elated&search=
-In this one see flashes but this building is stripped to bones, only
floors and vertical columns left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DziWm...elated&search=
3. Loud bangs happen when the bombs go off, I mean LOUD; you would be able to hear them on a video from outside. Please point out to me the loud bangs in the videos. Even if you were to find some, with no accompanying flashes, there would be no way to prove they were bombs... In a collapsing building there are lots of things that make noise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4NOlUF3A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V1HpRXzFaE (WTC1)
Eyewitness testimonys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5qV...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTcpCOwBwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BGm...elated&search=
And here is case presented by Italian TV that WTC7 was demolished.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Infowars clip, Silverstein says "pull it".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D...elated&search=
Now, I got just one question for you this time regarding WTC7;
How do you reckon that how is it possible to building to collapse in freefall speed due structure damaged by fire ? And if you have another theory why it did collapse, please share it.
WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
QUOTE DARK
Read-Only- You're right, and I don't know why I keep trying...
QUOTE
For the sake of truth man, for the sake of truth...
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigh* I don't know why, but my internet seems to hate me right now, so Youtube isn't loading... I'll check out the videos later...
On another note, why does it even matter what happened to WTC7? We KNOW that the Pentagon and the WTC weren't conspiracies, so it doesn't seem to make sense that anyone would demolish WTC7 as a conspiracy. Also, no one was even in WTC7 when it collapsed, and the building wasn't going to be reparable, so it was going to be demolished anyway... So, what was the motive of there being a conspiracy surrounding just WTC7?
On another note, why does it even matter what happened to WTC7? We KNOW that the Pentagon and the WTC weren't conspiracies, so it doesn't seem to make sense that anyone would demolish WTC7 as a conspiracy. Also, no one was even in WTC7 when it collapsed, and the building wasn't going to be reparable, so it was going to be demolished anyway... So, what was the motive of there being a conspiracy surrounding just WTC7?
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Quote Dark
On another note, why does it even matter what happened to WTC7?
-I wouldnt be much intrested but when official explanation is near nothing
and illogical assumptions my curiosity takes best of me.
Quote Dark
We KNOW that the Pentagon and the WTC weren't conspiracies, so it doesn't seem to make sense that anyone would demolish WTC7 as a conspiracy.
- Dont tell me what I know or dont know, as far as I know, there is lots of
holes in official reports on those ones too. Open issue, needs its own thread.
So you are saying that because you know you are right
(at least in your own mind) about thing A,
so that means that you are right on thing B too. :bugeye:
Quote Dark
Also, no one was even in WTC7 when it collapsed,
-And this is relevant how ?
Quote Dark
and the building wasn't going to be reparable, so it was going to be demolished anyway... So, what was the motive of there being a conspiracy surrounding just WTC7?
-Aaah, now we are getting somewhere...the right questions, why indeed ?
This could be one answer, maybe the fire and water didnt do damage enough?
Quote from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]
Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]
The collapse of WTC 7 also profited Silverstein Properties to the tune of ~$500 million through insurance payments.
----------------------------------------------------
-Now look all these facts from conspiracy point of view, it does add up.
Is thats why it was demolished we just can guess since the answers has been kinda hard to get.
But now my question. Why all the cover-up with that collapse by fire theorys, why no mentions about wtc7 in official report ? In the first place, why not simply admitting that it was demolished ? And demolished why ?
You know, its not me who should answer these questions...
One would think that if there was such important offices as listed in that quoted article, they would try save as much files and data as possible...no ?
On another note, why does it even matter what happened to WTC7?
-I wouldnt be much intrested but when official explanation is near nothing
and illogical assumptions my curiosity takes best of me.
Quote Dark
We KNOW that the Pentagon and the WTC weren't conspiracies, so it doesn't seem to make sense that anyone would demolish WTC7 as a conspiracy.
- Dont tell me what I know or dont know, as far as I know, there is lots of
holes in official reports on those ones too. Open issue, needs its own thread.
So you are saying that because you know you are right
(at least in your own mind) about thing A,
so that means that you are right on thing B too. :bugeye:
Quote Dark
Also, no one was even in WTC7 when it collapsed,
-And this is relevant how ?
Quote Dark
and the building wasn't going to be reparable, so it was going to be demolished anyway... So, what was the motive of there being a conspiracy surrounding just WTC7?
-Aaah, now we are getting somewhere...the right questions, why indeed ?
This could be one answer, maybe the fire and water didnt do damage enough?
Quote from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]
Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]
The collapse of WTC 7 also profited Silverstein Properties to the tune of ~$500 million through insurance payments.
----------------------------------------------------
-Now look all these facts from conspiracy point of view, it does add up.
Is thats why it was demolished we just can guess since the answers has been kinda hard to get.
But now my question. Why all the cover-up with that collapse by fire theorys, why no mentions about wtc7 in official report ? In the first place, why not simply admitting that it was demolished ? And demolished why ?
You know, its not me who should answer these questions...
One would think that if there was such important offices as listed in that quoted article, they would try save as much files and data as possible...no ?
Present whatever you believe to be reason to believe there was a conspiracy and I will refute it.
It links back to my "Why do we even care what happened to WTC7; if no one was in it.
Don't feel like going through the whole thing you just laid out and responding to each point, but overall it seems like a rather impractical way to accomplish those things.
You seem to be basing your argument over WTC7 on the fact that everything else was a conspiracy, which it wasn't, which also makes you arguments fall apart if you scrutinize them, i.e. If they didn't know that the WTC would be kamikazed, then there's no way that they could have, pre-attack, set up the explosives used to demolish WTC7, which takes weeks to do BTW. That also means that no one could have set up the explosives to take down WTC7 in the 8 hours or so after it had been damaged, simply because it takes too long.
So then, the issue becomes: Was everything else a conspiracy? I don't feel like arguing that point, just Youtube Screw Loose Change and watch it, because it doesn't seem like you've watched it...
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Dark520
Present whatever you believe to be reason to believe there was a conspiracy and I will refute it.
-Lets stay on the topic and you can refute all you want.
It links back to my "Why do we even care what happened to WTC7; if no one was in it.
-Well, I care. Casualties or not. And why I care. I did tell my reason already.
Don't feel like going through the whole thing you just laid out and responding to each point, but overall it seems like a rather impractical way to accomplish those things.
-You should phrase your questions better then.
You seem to be basing your argument over WTC7 on the fact that everything else was a conspiracy, which it wasn't, which also makes you arguments fall apart if you scrutinize them, i.e. If they didn't know that the WTC would be kamikazed, then there's no way that they could have, pre-attack, set up the explosives used to demolish WTC7, which takes weeks to do BTW. That also means that no one could have set up the explosives to take down WTC7 in the 8 hours or so after it had been damaged, simply because it takes too long.
-Its quite opposite, I try to stay in the topic, its you who wants to bring
WTC1 & WTC2 to this discussion, its you who is using logic that "if I cant
show you the proof that WTC1&WTC2 was demolished then WTC7 wasnt
either". You see, I dont care what happened to twintowers at this point,
because the topic is about building 7.
-At this point, I really want to see what is your take on WTC7 collapse,
you havent answer my question about WTC7 yet:
How do you reckon that how is it possible to building to collapse in freefall speed due structure damaged by fire ? And if you have another theory why it did collapse, please share it.
-So what do you think, collapse by fire or collapse by demolition ?
You answer this and we can get forward, I´ve been answering every question that you have asked. You know, I have a clear stand that it was
demolished, all the evidences points that direction too. Whats your stand, I cant tell.
So then, the issue becomes: Was everything else a conspiracy? I don't feel like arguing that point, just Youtube Screw Loose Change and watch it, because it doesn't seem like you've watched it...
-I´ve watch it and I´ve shared my opinion on that too. But I would really want to stay in topic, thats the only way to achieve something, if we are
jumping around this thread will look like almost every thread in here, chaos.
-And you see, its you again who wants to drag this thread to somewhere else, lets just stay in the topic, the WTC7 building, We got plenty of time later to check other aspects of 911.
Thanks
Present whatever you believe to be reason to believe there was a conspiracy and I will refute it.
-Lets stay on the topic and you can refute all you want.
It links back to my "Why do we even care what happened to WTC7; if no one was in it.
-Well, I care. Casualties or not. And why I care. I did tell my reason already.
Don't feel like going through the whole thing you just laid out and responding to each point, but overall it seems like a rather impractical way to accomplish those things.
-You should phrase your questions better then.
You seem to be basing your argument over WTC7 on the fact that everything else was a conspiracy, which it wasn't, which also makes you arguments fall apart if you scrutinize them, i.e. If they didn't know that the WTC would be kamikazed, then there's no way that they could have, pre-attack, set up the explosives used to demolish WTC7, which takes weeks to do BTW. That also means that no one could have set up the explosives to take down WTC7 in the 8 hours or so after it had been damaged, simply because it takes too long.
-Its quite opposite, I try to stay in the topic, its you who wants to bring
WTC1 & WTC2 to this discussion, its you who is using logic that "if I cant
show you the proof that WTC1&WTC2 was demolished then WTC7 wasnt
either". You see, I dont care what happened to twintowers at this point,
because the topic is about building 7.
-At this point, I really want to see what is your take on WTC7 collapse,
you havent answer my question about WTC7 yet:
How do you reckon that how is it possible to building to collapse in freefall speed due structure damaged by fire ? And if you have another theory why it did collapse, please share it.
-So what do you think, collapse by fire or collapse by demolition ?
You answer this and we can get forward, I´ve been answering every question that you have asked. You know, I have a clear stand that it was
demolished, all the evidences points that direction too. Whats your stand, I cant tell.
So then, the issue becomes: Was everything else a conspiracy? I don't feel like arguing that point, just Youtube Screw Loose Change and watch it, because it doesn't seem like you've watched it...
-I´ve watch it and I´ve shared my opinion on that too. But I would really want to stay in topic, thats the only way to achieve something, if we are
jumping around this thread will look like almost every thread in here, chaos.
-And you see, its you again who wants to drag this thread to somewhere else, lets just stay in the topic, the WTC7 building, We got plenty of time later to check other aspects of 911.
Thanks
how can jet fuel burn at a high enough temp to even effect the steel?
peace.
peace.
Not just you. John Kerry of all people, when asked about WTC 7 recently, regurgitated the same story of the building being brought down in a controlled manner. I've seen the video clip myself. If people care enough, maybe I can dig out the link?
And after I watched that, I could not stop thinkin' "WHO told John Kerry that they brought it down in a controlled manner???" That's not in any official report or analysis or theory. So how does he know that? Where did he hear that from?
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Let me start off by saying that you don't seem to get what I was saying in my last post. I reasoned out why it mattered whether or not the other WTCs were conspiracies, because it directly affected how likely WTC7 was a conspiracy. So read it again and stop saying I'm going off-topic; what I said was directly related.
I was on topic as I have already said, so present your case.
I appreciate the thorough answer, but I already knew the gist of it and didn't feel like reading every letter of it.
Again, I've already stated how it is related and why I am bringing them into this, if you can't seem to figure out the logic that's your problem.
I haven't seen anything done on WTC7 determining that it went at freefall speed yet; only the other WTCs, so I can't ansswer your question.
It collapsed because of a) a huge fucking hole in it's side that was torn out by the debris from the other WTCs collapse and b) the fire damage that was fueled by a high-pressure gas line straight to the fifth floor.
No, all evidence does not point to your conclusion, and I have already stated my position above.
Oh yeah, were you the one who said you didn't like the style of the video and therefore all of its facts were bogus?
I've already stated how and why this thread is still on topic, so how about you answer the question:
1. How could they have known to rig the explosives in WTC7 if they hadn't planned 9/11? Or do they just build the buildings with bombs in them just in case such an emergency would occur?
I was on topic as I have already said, so present your case.
I appreciate the thorough answer, but I already knew the gist of it and didn't feel like reading every letter of it.
Again, I've already stated how it is related and why I am bringing them into this, if you can't seem to figure out the logic that's your problem.
I haven't seen anything done on WTC7 determining that it went at freefall speed yet; only the other WTCs, so I can't ansswer your question.
It collapsed because of a) a huge fucking hole in it's side that was torn out by the debris from the other WTCs collapse and b) the fire damage that was fueled by a high-pressure gas line straight to the fifth floor.
No, all evidence does not point to your conclusion, and I have already stated my position above.
Oh yeah, were you the one who said you didn't like the style of the video and therefore all of its facts were bogus?
I've already stated how and why this thread is still on topic, so how about you answer the question:
1. How could they have known to rig the explosives in WTC7 if they hadn't planned 9/11? Or do they just build the buildings with bombs in them just in case such an emergency would occur?
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Quotes Dark
Let me start off by saying that you don't seem to get what I was saying in my last post. I reasoned out why it mattered whether or not the other WTCs were conspiracies, because it directly affected how likely WTC7 was a conspiracy. So read it again and stop saying I'm going off-topic; what I said was directly related.
-Ok, I understand your logic but lets see the first post
Larry Silverstein said, "they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse".
WTC Building 7 was a planned demolition. Why?
-There is no reason to know why, if it wasnt controlled demolition, so first we
should decide was or was it not controlled demolition. You say not, I say yes.
Now in this point I have presented my case by answering your 3 questions
and providing links to back up my claims, and now all the sudden they are
all irrelevant, because now I have to prove that other WTCs were demolished
also. How is this fair I wonder. Lets think about it this way, there is a crimescene where are three dead man laying on the floor, two detectives
then comes to scene looking clues what has happen. Other guy finds some good clues in one body and starts to investigate them, but then
the other detective comes and says "Lets go, no need to check that body, those two bodies was clean, so the case is closed, the coroner will take it from here". -What the fcuk ?
I was on topic as I have already said, so present your case.
“
-Lets start at post64 in this thread, your internet still refusing to show clips from youtube ?
I haven't seen anything done on WTC7 determining that it went at freefall speed yet; only the other WTCs, so I can't ansswer your question.
-in post64: WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
It collapsed because of a) a huge fucking hole in it's side that was torn out by the debris from the other WTCs collapse and b) the fire damage that was fueled by a high-pressure gas line straight to the fifth floor.
a) -That sounds like science, can you show me pictures about that "huge fucking hole". Thanks.
b) -the fire damage that was fueled by a high-pressure gas line straight to the fifth floor. Where did you get that information, can you show some backup ?
No, all evidence does not point to your conclusion, and I have already stated my position above.
-You have stated your position, sure, now waiting some backup.
Oh yeah, were you the one who said you didn't like the style of the video and therefore all of its facts were bogus?
-Twisting words, what I did say was that it was poorly presented case, messy and so on I personally didnt want to use that as my evidence, but if there is some facts about wtc7, please point it out for me.
I've already stated how and why this thread is still on topic, so how about you answer the question:
1. How could they have known to rig the explosives in WTC7 if they hadn't planned 9/11? Or do they just build the buildings with bombs in them just in case such an emergency would occur?
-If it was conspiracy who knows how many years they have been working it.
-So you say it wasnt demolition, then, once again:
How do you reckon that how is it possible to building to collapse in freefall speed due structure damaged by fire and debris from twintowers.
WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
Let me start off by saying that you don't seem to get what I was saying in my last post. I reasoned out why it mattered whether or not the other WTCs were conspiracies, because it directly affected how likely WTC7 was a conspiracy. So read it again and stop saying I'm going off-topic; what I said was directly related.
-Ok, I understand your logic but lets see the first post
Larry Silverstein said, "they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse".
WTC Building 7 was a planned demolition. Why?
-There is no reason to know why, if it wasnt controlled demolition, so first we
should decide was or was it not controlled demolition. You say not, I say yes.
Now in this point I have presented my case by answering your 3 questions
and providing links to back up my claims, and now all the sudden they are
all irrelevant, because now I have to prove that other WTCs were demolished
also. How is this fair I wonder. Lets think about it this way, there is a crimescene where are three dead man laying on the floor, two detectives
then comes to scene looking clues what has happen. Other guy finds some good clues in one body and starts to investigate them, but then
the other detective comes and says "Lets go, no need to check that body, those two bodies was clean, so the case is closed, the coroner will take it from here". -What the fcuk ?
I was on topic as I have already said, so present your case.
“
-Lets start at post64 in this thread, your internet still refusing to show clips from youtube ?
I haven't seen anything done on WTC7 determining that it went at freefall speed yet; only the other WTCs, so I can't ansswer your question.
-in post64: WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
It collapsed because of a) a huge fucking hole in it's side that was torn out by the debris from the other WTCs collapse and b) the fire damage that was fueled by a high-pressure gas line straight to the fifth floor.
a) -That sounds like science, can you show me pictures about that "huge fucking hole". Thanks.
b) -the fire damage that was fueled by a high-pressure gas line straight to the fifth floor. Where did you get that information, can you show some backup ?
No, all evidence does not point to your conclusion, and I have already stated my position above.
-You have stated your position, sure, now waiting some backup.
Oh yeah, were you the one who said you didn't like the style of the video and therefore all of its facts were bogus?
-Twisting words, what I did say was that it was poorly presented case, messy and so on I personally didnt want to use that as my evidence, but if there is some facts about wtc7, please point it out for me.
I've already stated how and why this thread is still on topic, so how about you answer the question:
1. How could they have known to rig the explosives in WTC7 if they hadn't planned 9/11? Or do they just build the buildings with bombs in them just in case such an emergency would occur?
-If it was conspiracy who knows how many years they have been working it.
-So you say it wasnt demolition, then, once again:
How do you reckon that how is it possible to building to collapse in freefall speed due structure damaged by fire and debris from twintowers.
WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
Last edited by a moderator:
That quote was taken out of context; if you had watched Screw Loose Change, then you would have heard the entire conversation on the radio from one of the firefighters. In it, they make clear the they pull firefighters out of the building, not the building itself.
Don't know, haven't tried it yet, I will as soon as I'm done replying.
Again, Screw Loose Change is extremely enlightening, if you had watched it, you would have seen the numerous pictures of the gaping hole and you would have seen my source for the claim about the high-pressure gas line.
Nice job backing up exactly what I just said. You disregard Screw Loose Change because it was 'poorly presented and messy'. Unfortunately, however messy you think the facts were presented does not make the facts invalid.
That^ is exactly why it is relevant to know whether or not everything else was a conspiracy; because WTC7 wouldn't have been possible unless they had planned everything else along with it.
That is a rather flimsy argument; care to explain to me why there would be a difference in falling speed if a building collapsed as opposed to being blown up? If anything, the explosions would have caused upward force on the building, making it take longer to fall than if it were to just collapse.
I think that you could greatly benefit from watching Screw Loose Change again and actually pay attention this time. BTW, Screw Loose Change provides all sources, so you can, if you want, go look everything up.
Alright, let me call attention to these videos and point out some flaws:
No flashes, however it is undeniable that you saw huge plumes of smoke billow out from every ~3 floors up the entire building, you wanna show those to me on WTC7?
This video, compelling as it may be to those who are already convinced and don't scrutinize it, has quite a few flaws.
The first clip doesn't show where they are or what time, nor no visual evidence as to explosions. I think that those might be some nice things to know to know whether or not the firefighters are even near WTC7.
1. That guy's voice is fucking creepy.
2. An explosion does not create a vacuum, it creates a high-pressure wave that spreads out from the point of explosion outwards in all directions. In the video, it claims that the explosion happened 9.5 seconds before the actual collapse. In 9.5 seconds after an explosion, the air pressure would have had adequate time to stabilize within the building, and thus bring it back to the same conditions as there would have been in a normal collapse, therefore, the case they are presenting is absolute bullshit, because the conditions are the same in either case.
No flashes, however it is undeniable that you saw huge plumes of smoke billow out from every ~3 floors up the entire building, you wanna show those to me on WTC7?
This video, compelling as it may be to those who are already convinced and don't scrutinize it, has quite a few flaws.
The first clip doesn't show where they are or what time, nor no visual evidence as to explosions. I think that those might be some nice things to know to know whether or not the firefighters are even near WTC7.
1. That guy's voice is fucking creepy.
2. An explosion does not create a vacuum, it creates a high-pressure wave that spreads out from the point of explosion outwards in all directions. In the video, it claims that the explosion happened 9.5 seconds before the actual collapse. In 9.5 seconds after an explosion, the air pressure would have had adequate time to stabilize within the building, and thus bring it back to the same conditions as there would have been in a normal collapse, therefore, the case they are presenting is absolute bullshit, because the conditions are the same in either case.
That's the way that I remember it.
If this is true, and if we can find the CNN tapes to prove it, then that proves something. Going with what Invert said, the fact is that they can't do a controlled demolition without a lot of preparation. It can't be done in few hours in a building that is already in the process of collapsing. The explosives would have to have been placed in building 7 before that time.
This report is really hard to deny:
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/220407_kerry_wtc7.html
There are hundreds of witnesses to the fact that there was a 20 second countdown before building 7 was collapsed.
Either they have a nearly instantaneous method of doing what it takes weeks for demolitions experts to prepare, or the demolition charges were in place before 9/11/01. The latter is the only thing that is physically possible and I consider this deed to be confirmed. The controlled demolition actually took place.
Another conspiracy theory is unfortunately true.
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/220407_kerry_wtc7.html
There are hundreds of witnesses to the fact that there was a 20 second countdown before building 7 was collapsed.
Either they have a nearly instantaneous method of doing what it takes weeks for demolitions experts to prepare, or the demolition charges were in place before 9/11/01. The latter is the only thing that is physically possible and I consider this deed to be confirmed. The controlled demolition actually took place.
Another conspiracy theory is unfortunately true.