Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

People call WTC-7 the smoking gun but its only because they do not understand WTC-7

I like that video a truther done called "this is a orange"



It really does for me sum up the truthers argument for WTC-7

"It looks like a controlled demolition so it MUST have been a controlled demolition"

And from their the conspiracy has grown from this utterly ignorant stand point.

If you really take the time to study what happened at WTC-7 (and that means no A&E for 9/11 truth) then you really do start to see that yes it looked like a controlled demotion but that does not mean it was a controlled demotion.

So far there has not been any actual proof brought to light that proves that there was any kind of explosives that resulted in WTC-7's collapse, there is however a body of literature that supports the theory that it was caused by office fires in a combination of other factors.

But for truthers it will always look like that orange.

a reply to: nOraKat

Yep, I agree that ALL the rules of Physics went out the window on that day! I saw a vid of a skyscraper building in, I think spain? that burned for over 24 hours and STILL DID NOT Fall down! The wtc's burned for what, little over an hour? (not sure of exact time frame,) but it was NO WHERE NEAR 24 hours!!

Engineers and Architects that Built those buildings stated that they could withstand multiple jet plane impacts before they would even think of coming down. Said they were like the screen on your door. Punch a hole in it, and the rest is just fine.

originally posted by: SyxPak
Engineers and Architects that Built those buildings stated that they could withstand multiple jet plane impacts before they would even think of coming down.

No they did not, another truther made up story!

This is what is so amusing about truthers, they love to make up nonsense about 9/11, whilst if they had done a simple check they would realise it was just nonsense!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Watchfull
a reply to: 8675309jenny

I agree with every word Jenny has said...

From a fellow engineer.

No one claimed that the fire melted steel....

If you actually read my post, you will see that I merely agreed with Jenny, who also did not claim that fire melted steel.

What was stated is that jet fuel and office furniture cannot melt structural steel, add the fact that there was regulated fire retardant protection, and intumescent material used throughout the building, accompanied by the self contained sprinkler system, it is blatantly obvious that fire did not down this building.

Next.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: real_one

Is that a good idea? that may bring out terrible memories for some New Yorkers

I'm sure everyone has heard so much about 911 by now, that they are numb to it.

originally posted by: Watchfull
What was stated is that jet fuel and office furniture cannot melt structural steel,

Who claimed it could melt steel? What has melted steel have to do with the WTC buildings collapsing? You seem confused.

a reply to: Watchfull

What was stated is that jet fuel and office furniture cannot melt structural steel

Nobody said that steel was melted only that it got hot enough to become weakened

add the fact that there was regulated fire retardant protection, and intumescent material used throughout the building

The Fire protection is a good point but and its a big but, fire protection is rated on how long it will last against fire, these fires where burning for a good 8 hours or so uncontrolled before collapse.

accompanied by the self contained sprinkler system

No, just no.

There was a self contained sprinkler system but that only worked for the upper floors (i think its the top 20 but i would have to check)

The lower floors had a sprinkler system that was fed from the external water main which was cut off when the first tower collapsed meaning that WTC-7's bottom 20 or so floors had no sprinkler system to fight any of the fires and the firer fighters themselves did not attempt the extinguish any of those fires.

it is blatantly obvious that fire did not down this building.

On the surface,yes, when you really look into it, not so much.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Something else to consider regarding WTC 7, it had major work done to it from 1989, one would expect it to be very professionally done and to have included modern fire preventions etc.

In November 1988, Salomon Brothers withdrew from plans to build a large new complex at Columbus Circle in Midtown and agreed to a 20-year lease for the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center.[32] The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers. This led to the alternative naming of the building as the Salomon Brothers building.[33] Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building – and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation", said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors."[33]

en.wikipedia.org...

If they really what people to pay attention to building 7 fall they shouldn't mark it as an conspiracy. They should act as a charity trying to add a memorial to the people that died or suffered due to building 7's fall. They're more likely to get attention this way, after they have their attention then you give them the other info you have.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors."

I see what you are getting at, but there is a whole world of a difference between removing portions of a floor as part of a contorted construction job and floors collapsing on to each other during a uncontrolled fire.

a reply to: ObjectZero

They should act as a charity trying to add a memorial to the people that died or suffered due to building 7's fall

I hear what you are saying, really i do.

BUT...........

nobody died at WTC-7, in fact there were not even any serious injuries as far as I know.

originally posted by: LukeDAP

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: real_one

Is that a good idea? that may bring out terrible memories for some New Yorkers

Yeah, I thought the exact same thing...

"Hey, remember when a friend of yours died on that horrible day? Here's a huge screen to remind you of that!"

]#

hey remember when millions died in concentration camps during world war 2 , here be constantly reminded about it but don't you dare question it !

it's very similar we are reminded all the time about 9/11 , should we not question it just because people died

originally posted by: Fylgje
Good. They should show the dancing Israelis too. I'm kind of surprised that the many agents(Silverstein, Bloomberg, Giuliani, etc., etc) who were in on 911(IMO), didn't head this off at the pass and keep it from being shown. I hope millions see it and maybe MAYBE that brain will start seeing it for what it is. This building was demoed. This was a planned event. Now, the middle east is destabilized. Saddam out of the way, Gadaffi gone, Assad hanging by a thread, and Iran in the cross hairs. Israel still isn't the epi-center yet, though, so their plan hasn't succeeded yet.

Yes and show the interview where the dancing isreali explains that the reason they were there in new york was "to document the event", indicating that they were aware that the attacks were going to take place.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

And then there's the witnesses who reported "molten steel":

a reply to: hellobruce

You go on and on about how I, and others, made up 'stuff' that we can consistantly back up. Here's something else I made up.

originally posted by: SyxPak
Here's something else I made up.

You certainly did, he did NOT build nor design the WTC.

Again, you go to a silly truther website and do not bother to actually check their claims. If you had done just a little bit of checking you would know that!

He was 12 years old when the WTC design was revealed to the public. Perhaps that is why it fell down, it as designed and built by a 12 year old!

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thanks for expressing a logical argument, rather than the usual pink haired goblins.

I still remain unconvinced that the building came down due to fire.

Sprinkler water from the upper floors would filter down to the lower floors, not extinguishing, but certainly hampering the spread of fire.

I confess to not seeing the plans, but, judging by the size, there must have been over 50 structural columns that all failed at the same time, many separated by concrete compartmentalised firewall divisions.

As there have been other tall buildings with fire raging much more, and for much longer still standing, I find it difficult to follow your logic.

No, just no.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: SyxPak
Here's something else I made up.

You certainly did, he did NOT build nor design the WTC.

Again, you go to a silly truther website and do not bother to actually check their claims. If you had done just a little bit of checking you would know that!

Actually, John Skilling who was the lead structural engineer for the WTC said the following:

In 1993 after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, John Skilling said in an interview to the Seattle Times that according to their studies the World Trade Center was strong enough to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The only thing they were worried about was, in case of an airplane crash, the dumping of all airfuel into the building which would cause a horrendous fire. The building structure would still be there.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Actually, John Skilling who was the lead structural engineer for the WTC said the following:

In 1993 after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, John Skilling said in an interview to the Seattle Times that according to their studies the World Trade Center was strong enough to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The only thing they were worried about was, in case of an airplane crash, the dumping of all airfuel into the building which would cause a horrendous fire. The building structure would still be there.

The problem with that is was not hit by a 707 traveling at low speed, it was hit by 767's with a empty weight of 60-70 thousand pounds more, they were also heavily loaded with fuel travelling at much higher speed.
www.911myths.com...

Note that according to this, the towers were not specifically designed to survive the impact from a plane. Rather, Robertson carried out some calculations on the existing design to assess what the results of impact might be. Further, whatever the truth about the speed of the plane, there’s no indication that the design considered the effects of the fire. Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it:. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires. www.nae.edu... And even the later documents reported by NIST apparently left the issue open to question. Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase. "Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said www.nytimes.com...