What happened to WTC 7?

While browsing on Youtube I found this video.I know we all disagree on what exactly happened that day but,I think this vid is a great overview on both sides of the WTC 7 debate.

a reply to: mike dangerously

It was brought down deliberately.

www.wanttoknow.info

Search: Black eagle trust fund.

There's a PDF you can download. It explains a lot.

a reply to: mike dangerously

i like the videos they make.

i have a hard time believing that a flammable item from down the block flew into the WTC7 , started a fire, the fire grew quickly, and brought down the building on its own footprint.

a reply to: mike dangerously

After I saw building 7 fall the way it did,
I honestly don't bother with any other 9/11 evidence

Building 7 is smoking gun.

a reply to: PredatorCrackling

It is soo cool that investigation took only 2 years . Maybe they have been planing this for a years

a reply to: subfab

These pics, and these links.
CLICK ME.
CLICK ME 2

a reply to: Mianeye

thank you for the links. hadn't seen those before.

a reply to: Mianeye

Your link fails to answer one very important question. If their was a huge gash on one side, why did the entire building freefall? The entire building goes into freefall within it's own footprint, exactly what we would expect from a controlled demolition.

This is not what we would expect from damage to one side of the building and fires. Thier is no scientific reason that I am aware of that can explain how it fell exactly like a demolition. Unless it was demolished.

Nice try.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Nice try.

At least i try, you provided nothing but your lack of understanding

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Isurrender73

Nice try.

At least i try, you provided nothing but your lack of understanding

I don't need to understand. I need a model created by science that can duplicate the conditions and explain the freefall.

I have not found one scientific study done that explains this. I don't have the means to do such a study, so it is hard for me to try to be anything other than objective and science minded.

Smoking gun #2

Destruction of crime scene evidence. Why did we allow the crime scene evidence to become China's recycled metal?

Rule #1 of investigation. Don't destroy the evidence.

Building 7 and destroyed evidence, 2 smoking guns.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: subfab

These pics, and these links.
CLICK ME.
CLICK ME 2

The debunking at those links fails miserably to explain how transformer explosions or collateral damage from the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 caused all parts of WTC7 to collapse at the same time and at the same speed. This simply could not have happened. Every support at ground level would have had to be destroyed simultaneously in order for the building to drop at near free-fall speed as one mass. Structural failure due to damage could not have pervaded the whole building, nor would partial damage have resulted in simultaneous collapse of the whole building. Instead, what we see in the videos is classic demolition behaviour, with crimping in the roof visble a second or two before wholesale collapse begins. International controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko declared the fall of WTC7 to be controlled demolition when he was shown a video of it.
www.youtube.com...
No amount of cherry-picking of evidence, false argument and other deceptions by debunkers can refute this.

I wonder why i even try sometimes

a reply to: Mianeye

i think that's fairly obvious.

originally posted by: Mianeye
I wonder why i even try sometimes

I don't bother anymore.

Everyone sees what they want.

Debate is pointless.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
a reply to: Mianeye

i think that's fairly obvious.

You have a point or what, i would like to hear it

a reply to: Isurrender73

I have not found one scientific study done that explains this. I don't have the means to do such a study, so it is hard for me to try to be anything other than objective and science minded.

That's because you have only looked at conspiracy sites.
Try reading the long PDF document from the investigation.

In a nut shell 7 was suspended over a power sub station.
It didn't have the center supports planted in a concrete foundation as you would expect.
When the fire weakened the center supports too much they failed.
As you expect and saw the center of the building fell first pulling the outside down.

But the conspiracy sites think that is too mundane.
They prefer people planting explosives. It sounds sexy.

a reply to: mike dangerously

WTC 7 ???

It got tired, then fall down and go BOOM!!!! /s

a reply to: samkent

When the fire weakened the center supports too much they failed.
As you expect and saw the center of the building fell first pulling the outside down.

Uh....and I thought it was a fire in the eastern corner of floor 13 that caused the collapse. I must have read a different NIST report.....

originally posted by: subfab
and brought down the building on its own footprint.

Why do you claim WTC 7 fell into its own footprint, when it obviously did not - how do you explain the substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: subfab
and brought down the building on its own footprint.

Why do you claim WTC 7 fell into its own footprint, when it obviously did not - how do you explain the substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building?

in the videos i see of the building collapse, the whole building comes straight down. it didn't topple over on its side. it didn't come down in chunks. a lot of structure damage would have to occur to have a sky scrapper come down as fast as it did and in the manner it did.