Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court, March 2015

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
And actually, there were maintenance closures for the Twin Towers leading up to 9/11 but I don't know enough about it to be sure.

There were claims of closures made by truthers, but they have nothing at all to back those claims up.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Building 7 I meant. There must be a gov report somewhere (probably at district council level) that describes the exact condition of building 7 before plane incident. That surely has to be the place in investigation building 7 find out its what is condition was before the sept attack.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
1. On the Tower. Took a full 30 seconds to find these, and they're not even the ones I was referencing.
Firefighter on 9/11

Nothing there about bringing building down, just a fireman saying it was unstable, which they knew, remember they even had a transit on it and knew it was moving....

2nd & longer video

Where exactly did a fireman state "so it was going to be brought down." in that video?

As for the report. It's been years since I've looked at it, hence "i think" it...
However, here you go...

Why not just go the report on the collapse of WTC 7....
www.nist.gov...

I was saying that even if they admitted that an alphabet-agency did bring it down

Why would they admit that, when no agency was involved in it?

as a conditional, hypothetical follow-up question?

It makes as much sense as asking "when did the invisible pink fairies use their pixie dust to bring the building down"!

Remember, there is the same evidence invisible pink fairies bought the building down as explosives or thermite were used to bring it down!

Yeah, I'm wasting my time with you. You clearly didn't read the posts I originally wrote or the post I was replying to, so it's kind of pointless. And for the record, the NIST report isn't even the 9/11 Commission Report, which is what we were referring to. Of course you'd have had to read the posts to see that. I might as well link to a 9/11 Truth report that concludes differently. It's not what we were talking about in the above posts, but neither was the report you linked to. (BTW, I notice you didn't dispute my comment on Silverstein saying to pull it, the video full of explosions & witness testimonials of explosions, or even watch the videos I linked at all. If that's the case, then why even reply?)

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
And for the record, the NIST report isn't even the 9/11 Commission Report, which is what we were referring to.

You are not even aware what mandate for the 9/11 Commission Report actually was - but here it is

Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplo- macy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.

So exactly where in that mandate was "Investigate why the buildings collapsed"?

I notice you didn't dispute my comment on Silverstein saying to pull it,

So you now think it is the job of the FDNY to blow buildings up.... as has been discussed here many many many times before, they were talking about the pulling the firefighting teams out, which they did, that is why no one was killed due to the collapse of WTC 7.

the video full of explosions & witness testimonials of explosions, or even watch the videos I linked at all.

Did you watch the video's? Apparently not, as they do not have in them what you claimed!

If that's the case, then why even reply?)

To point out all your crap and false claims.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Building 7 I meant. There must be a gov report somewhere (probably at district council level) that describes the exact condition of building 7 before plane incident. That surely has to be the place in investigation building 7 find out its what is condition was before the sept attack.

I'm not aware of anything reporting the condition of Building 7 before 9/11. Honestly, this is the first time I've even thought of that. I guess there would have to be some inspection records since Larry Silverstein bought the World Trade Center buildings on July 24, 2001. So normally, I'd think there would have been an inspection for insurance purposes.

Love seeing topics like this. I've been telling my friends that the 9/11 movement would be much better off focusing all the attention on the collapse of building 7.

I was 11 the first time I said those words.

Life is a trip.

originally posted by: zinuru
Love seeing topics like this. I've been telling my friends that the 9/11 movement would be much better off focusing all the attention on the collapse of building 7.

I was 11 the first time I said those words.

Life is a trip.

My guess is it'll be another 50 or 60 years before the truth is confirmed by the US govt. Kind of like how the Lusitania (sp?) was indeed also carrying weapons to the UK for WWI, Propaganda Due in Europe, Operation Paperclip, or similar situations. By that time, those generations will have forgotten how monumental 9/11 & its repercussions were, and times will roll on. Remember, the FBI's 17,000+ pages & files on MLK still aren't scheduled to be released until 2027.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

If anyone knows the work involved and equipment needed to set up a real demolition to fall so perfectly...in a building full of staff in various businesses only emptied at 9am the day of the WTC attack.......!!!!!

Well, no more needs said, because I don't want to expose the idiots.

Good to know that once you get outside the United States, some people will have a normal, sane reaction to things like WTC 7 falling.

In the United States, a spell has been cast and people are not sane.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Building 7 I meant. There must be a gov report somewhere (probably at district council level) that describes the exact condition of building 7 before plane incident. That surely has to be the place in investigation building 7 find out its what is condition was before the sept attack.

I'm not aware of anything reporting the condition of Building 7 before 9/11. Honestly, this is the first time I've even thought of that. I guess there would have to be some inspection records since Larry Silverstein bought the World Trade Center buildings on July 24, 2001. So normally, I'd think there would have been an inspection for insurance purposes.

Renovated in 1989

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...

originally posted by: SanitySearcher
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

If anyone knows the work involved and equipment needed to set up a real demolition to fall so perfectly...in a building full of staff in various businesses only emptied at 9am the day of the WTC attack.......!!!!!

Well, no more needs said, because I don't want to expose the idiots.

Why "idiots"? Your post is kind of proving our point. Watching the building go into a freefall like that is exactly what a controlled demolition looks like. So the point we're making is that if it was a controlled demolition, it had to have been planned ahead of time. Unless they were somehow able to completely setup the 47 story building in that short amount of time, which i don't think they could. Even a shoddy setup wouldn't work because there are numerous videos of controlled demolition's gone wrong, where only portions of the building falls down. So it would have to be done with expert precision to get it done correctly.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Thanks.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

It seems that judges in Demark not only have to be experts in law but also STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Watching the building go into a freefall like that is exactly what a controlled demolition looks like....... if it was a controlled demolition

Except for the man months of work required to wire a building up, with no one noticing the tonnes of explosives or km of wire, or the holes bashed in the walls, then there are the silent explosives that they used, as no one heard tonnes of explosives going off, then they also used blast free explosives, as no one saw windows being blown out by the tonnes of explosives used...

Also they would have found all of those tonnes of explosives and km of wire if they could not have set it off, as the only reason it collapsed was it was severely damaged by the collapse of WTC1 and the fires...

Also how do you explain the building leaning and the FDNY having a transit on the building watching it lean.... this is before your magical explosives were set off, remember....

So when you look at the claim it was wired and fired for demolition you really see what a silly idea that was!

Another interesting fact is that *never* in the entire history of steel structure buildings has one fallen due to a fire.

On 9/11/2001, 3 of them fell, all on the same day, due to fire.

---

Also I am convinced Wikipedia is a part of the conspiracy - (from the Wikipedia 9/11 article)

"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians."

uuuh huh

originally posted by: nOraKat
Another interesting fact is that *never* in the entire history of steel structure buildings has one fallen due to a fire.

On 9/11/2001, 3 of them fell, all on the same day, due to fire.

You must have missed the planes that hit 2 of them, and the severe damage done to the third... duh!

despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians."

That is very true.... there are only a few that support conspiracy theories.

Just goes to show how easy the dim public are to manipulate. You would think after an event like 911 everyone would be aware of building 7. Yet 99% are blissfully ignorant.

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Stop embarrassing yourself kid.

Said by someone from the James Bond school of demolition, a few egg timers attached to the walls and the whole building blows up....

Of course judges were shocked, just like the couple thousand proffesional architects & engineers for 9/11 truth were shocked. It's a simple explanation.

Get a pen, drop it on the floor. It will fall at free-fall speed until it reaches the ground. That is because there will be no resistance underneath the pen. THAT is the same way Building 7 collapsed.

A steel structed building does not collapse that way if hit by debris or being set on fire.

End of.