Should we just focus on Building 7?

As a new "Truther" I have been shocked to the amazing details behind the 9/11 conspiracy. You could outline 100 very questionable, curious, and generally unexplainable events around 9/11. But, there is one facit that stands out as the smoking gun. I know there are other threads on Building 7, and this one might get locked as a result, but I wanted to bring it to "top of the stack" again, because or is absolutley damning to the official story. The 9/11 defenders of the official story have no where to go with Building 7, no place to hide. They can deflect and call us "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" but they cannot avoid these simple facts:

1. Building 7 fell at free fall velocity for 2.25 seconds, and crumbled into it's footprint in a way identical to a modern demolition. This 2.25 second freefall was acknowledged in the NIST report.
2. The building's demise was left out of the tainted "Official 9/11 report" (aka "The official conspiracy theory"), likely because of the fact its fall is not explainable.
3. It's fall was reported in the BBC before it happened, and you can clearly see the building in the background.
4. The NIST report refused to provide a model of its collapse, saying it "might jeopardize public safety".
5. The leaseholder, Larry Silverstein confirmed the obvious, that the building was demolished in a 2002 PBS interview.

Based on these facts, it's a slam dunk, why do we even bother with the 99 other points to try to prove the official 9/11 story is a lie?

No reasonable person can argue with the fact that Building 7 was demolished. A building demolition requires a great deal of pre-planning and execution. It simply could not have been wired on the day of 9/11.

In other words, the facts surrounding Building 7 conclusively prove that the official story is a lie. If this part is a lie, then we can probably assume there are others. Also, if we were lied to about Building 7, which we clearly were, then it gives plenty of reason to DEMAND a new 9/11 investigation.

You should drive these facts home to your friends and family, and we should demand a new investigation. That is what I am doing. Here is a short video which reviews these points.


Short Building 7 Smoking Gun video

Here is the FULL collapse. Draw your own conclusions, but do that with ALL the info.

I'm with ya. Well written post. I concur 100%.

Something else bothers me. The Pentagon. How come I can't see more than a couple frames of the explosion? How does that affect National Security when it happened already?

a reply to: XP100

Yes, so much about the pentagon is problematic for the official story. But, I would argue the facts are a bit less conclusive than BUILDING 7.

My point is that maybe us "truthers" try to go too broad. Again, all one needs to do is prove one lie, conclusively, to question the rest of the story. We have that with Building 7.

So, why are we even arguing about whether the official story is a lie? It clearly is a lie, based on Building 7 alone.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I agree with your OP. Building 7 has always been a bigger problem for me to explain then the other two towers. The typical response that the ground shake from the other two caused a perfect footprint collapse is ridiculous and patently absurd.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Your first problem to overcome is almost never talked about on conspiracy sites.

Firefighters:
They were watching the building all day.
They continued measured its leaning all day.
Every single firefighter lost friends that day.
Some firefighters lost brothers or fathers that day.

For your 'smoking gun' to be true it would mean that hundreds of firefighters sold out their families lives for some government payoff.
Not possible !

Your belief is WRONG !

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Your first problem to overcome is almost never talked about on conspiracy sites.

Firefighters:
They were watching the building all day.
They continued measured its leaning all day.
Every single firefighter lost friends that day.
Some firefighters lost brothers or fathers that day.

For your 'smoking gun' to be true it would mean that hundreds of firefighters sold out their families lives for some government payoff.
Not possible !

Your belief is WRONG !

No it's not wrong, yours is, and you reek of desperation with your post. Trying to pull at our heart strings about the great fire fighters who gave or risked their lives that day. I acknowledge them and pin none of this on them. They were innocent victims, like most of the other 2,000 plus that died.

Please, you need some new material.

a reply to: Jchristopher5
Building 7 is indeed the best proof of controlled demolition, there is just no arguing those facts.

edit: I see you have the video link working now.

soulwaxer

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Not to mention the activities that took place in Building 7 - 'Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker”.' Remember the 7

a reply to: Jchristopher5

The smoking gun for me is the extra part of the fuselage on Flight 175 as it strikes the second tower:

www.serendipity.li...

Also, during that strike, what looks like an incendiary of some form is seen leaving the other side of the building. You can check all footage of Flight 175 and you will see the extra part on that plane in every bit of footage.

May I remind also, that there is so much wrong with ALL the events of 9/11.

Actually, I lie about the smoking gun, I also have a problem with no plane at Shanksville and the impossibility of fitting an airliner into the hole at the Pentagon. I also can't fathom how hijacked planes can fly around the most heavily defended airspace in the world freely, as if they were allowed to.

IMO, 9/11 is the biggest con of the 21st century

Another possibility is that he knew what was going to happen to the other buildings so had 7 "Prepared" for that very moment when he could use 9/11 as the cover-up for his insurance scam.

Whatever the explanation, he's guilty of something because it was definitely demolished.

Peace

a reply to: Jchristopher5

we should demand a new investigation

Why bother? You already said…

why do we even bother with the 99 other points to try to prove the official 9/11 story is a lie?

Don't watch this, you minds already made up.

a reply to: intrptr

How do you sleep at night, defending something as indefensible as the events of 9/11?

Since I am not allowed to consider the obvious on here, I can only assume that you are either uneducated on the events, or have been safely rocked into Sheep-hood.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
As a new "Truther" I have been shocked to the amazing details behind the 9/11 conspiracy. You could outline 100 very questionable, curious, and generally unexplainable events around 9/11. But, there is one facit that stands out as the smoking gun. I know there are other threads on Building 7, and this one might get locked as a result, but I wanted to bring it to "top of the stack" again, because or is absolutley damning to the official story. The 9/11 defenders of the official story have no where to go with Building 7, no place to hide. They can deflect and call us "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" but they cannot avoid these simple facts:



1. Building 7 fell at free fall velocity for 2.25 seconds, and crumbled into it's footprint in a way identical to a modern demolition. This 2.25 second freefall was acknowledged in the NIST report.

2. The building's demise was left out of the tainted "Official 9/11 report" (aka "The official conspiracy theory"), likely because of the fact its fall is not explainable.

3. It's fall was reported in the BBC before it happened, and you can clearly see the building in the background.

4. The NIST report refused to provide a model of its collapse, saying it "might jeopardize public safety".

5. The leaseholder, Larry Silverstein confirmed the obvious, that the building was demolished in a 2002 PBS interview.



Based on these facts, it's a slam dunk, why do we even bother with the 99 other points to try to prove the official 9/11 story is a lie?



No reasonable person can argue with the fact that Building 7 was demolished. A building demolition requires a great deal of pre-planning and execution. It simply could not have been wired on the day of 9/11.



In other words, the facts surrounding Building 7 conclusively prove that the official story is a lie. If this part is a lie, then we can probably assume there are others. Also, if we were lied to about Building 7, which we clearly were, then it gives plenty of reason to DEMAND a new 9/11 investigation.



You should drive these facts home to your friends and family, and we should demand a new investigation. That is what I am doing. Here is a short video which reviews these points.





Short Building 7 Smoking Gun video

Yes Yes and Yes again focus on building 7 because there is no logical explanation for it collapsing. Its the smoking gun to the 911 inside job our government did to our own people.

Is the OP claiming the BBC were in on a 9/11 conspiracy?......

Truthers (they use it to demean us, but I wear the quest for truth as a badge of honor),

What is the best 9/11 truth organization to join? I want to get really involved and I am a bit confused where to invest my time and money. Thanks!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jchristopher5

we should demand a new investigation

Why bother? You already said…

why do we even bother with the 99 other points to try to prove the official 9/11 story is a lie?

Don't watch this, you minds already made up.

ANY explanation that tries to brush something off by saying ''there is a first time for everything'' haha, clutching at straws much? I notice it also says Architects & Engineers have no experience in sky scaper construction, which is a lie, as is the part of thermite being unable to bring down buildings.

The smoking gun isn't just WTC7, it's an accumulation of inconsistencies.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Is the OP claiming the BBC were in on a 9/11 conspiracy?......

No, not necessarily. I was stating a fact, it was reported on the BBC before it collapsed, with the building in the background.

I don't know exactly what to ascertain from that fact, but it is the least important of the points that I referenced. Typical "OS" style to pick the one aspect of something that you want to poke holes in.

The only way for 911 to be an inside job is for hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved in the plot and the cover up that followed. The sheer amount of people involved would need to be enormous.
The global warming crowd says that getting that many people to agree to lie is impossible.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
The only way for 911 to be an inside job is for hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved in the plot and the cover up that followed. The sheer amount of people involved would need to be enormous.
The global warming crowd says that getting that many people to agree to lie is impossible.

No, the key to 9/11 is having people know only what they need to in order to carry out what part of the plan was required, the rest can be made up of deliberate errors. Evidently those in the chain of command that day who failed their duties recieved promotions, strange don't you think?