World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: Mianeye

watch videos of botched building demolitions, or buildings that have been on fire for hours, even days, and they do not fall, yet alone fall straight down into their own footprint. That is what will always get me...sure fire can damage a building but a building that big, damaged by fire at different structural points, while perfectly fine at other points, will likely topple over, not fall straight down.

a reply to: SyxPak

Hey There,

The 9-11 threads have gotten more entertaining over the years, I suppose because the mind numbing absurdities of the OS cheerleaders gets more colorful.

The Shanksville threads are the all time winners with me when it comes to the official story absurdities.

a reply to: Witness2008

Hey Hey!
Now now silly, You know darn well that a plane can completely disappear into the ground!! LMFAO!!! Wow ! Yah, that one kills me!! LMFAO!!! I mean ya just cant make this stuff up!! LMAO!!!

maybe we should look up all the new building codes
that went into effect after 9/11 because of the historical
firsts in steel frame skyscrapers experiencing catastrophic
collapse due to office fires.
Oh wait there weren't any...

Anyone ever wonder if Flight93 really was brought down by passengers who took out the hijackers and then couldn't fly the plane ?

It just occured to me that Flight93 was probably meant for WTC7 and after it crashed they just went ahead with the demo anyway. Serious epiphany moment here.

a reply to: Witness2008

Witness here's something I just put together. I think it fit's here in This Thread...

In the World of the Disillusioned,
they make sense to themselves,
even some of the time...

Areas of falsehoods in other's eyes,
look to the one living the fantasy,
completely fine...

We may kid and joke about the malady,
of the one infected by such a disease,

But the one who is trying to convince us
of their world,
may be simply trying to put their confused mind,
a little more at ease...

So compassion at times we must show to those,
who have this impairment of the brain.

Maybe We should help them to see the errors of their thoughts,
to help keep them from going completely insane...

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Some good thoughts there 86! Ya might be on to something!!...

Aren't most people now aware 9/11 was an inside job?

I don't get out much, but I used to talk to people from all around the world. Italy, Greece, France, Germany... And all of them say the US government was behind 9/11. Even the young ones who are only 16-17 years old.

I think it's accepted more as a fact now. Just nobody can do anything about it.

It's a *combination* of fire and structural damage that we see at WTC Plaza. Steel doesn't have to be "melted" liquid to weaken it. Anyone implying that or quoting the melting point in regards to this event is either unskilled in science or a liar. 1 & 2 could easily have fallen EXACTLY as seen by the jet plane's impact and subsequent fires, which clearly were raging. Do the math of loaded 737 at full chat...the force is not inconsequential. There are structures which swayed in the wind.

Much of what is contended in this forum is outright tortured logic. MIHOP vs LIHOP....that's the real debate. We can assume a great deal of obfuscation of the events, Shanksville maybe a shootdown, Cheney's orders, drills, controlled demo. Sure, any of these "lies" could lead to the deeper truth, and are worth investigating. However, details of the hijacking can also lead to more inside info, and maybe it's a more legitimate subject of debate.

The issues that nag me, the entire "telephone"-at-altitude drama, "Let's Roll", the whispered "it's a frame" of the stewardess, the extreme flight profile and manouvers at near sea level, lack of Pentagon video (which only now seems weird)

Sorry for my hastily-arranged post.

More on topic is WTC 7. It may have been "assisted", demo, yes. Truth be known, it may have been a prudent act, just like shooting down flt 93. Some of the issues raised in this thread, aside from the thud in the videos, like WHO and WHAT was the story behind those tenants. That is, it was no ordinary building we are talking about, but rather a military command post, plus document repository. So, no...maybe there is more than meets the eye. It's not exactly like knocking down some old silo on a Midwest farm....or is it?

a reply to: SyxPak

Nicely done.

Impaired is a very gentle way of of describing the official story folks. I think I'll continue to use that instead of a few other not so nice words.

I would say that today, it is a minority of people, in fact almost nobody, who would agree that that OS is correct. After watching and examining this evidence, and the words of many thousands of engineers, architects, pilots etc who all question the OS to the point where not only is not true but in fact quite the opposite - that it was a controlled demolition - the evidence all supports that - and the whole thing is a cover up for a massive conspiracy.

So the next logical step is why is the media not covering this? Well of course if this gets out, or the moon hoax, or Sandy Hook or Boston Marathon smokebomb hoax fiasco get out then it would soon follow that all would get exposed and there would be some very angry people about.

So this can not happen. If it does, the whole NWO agenda falls over.

I have given up. I still of course inform people about the 'truth' and encourage them to research, but I have no hope of this ever coming mainstream. It would be the end of the world as we know it (which may not be a bad thing in reality).

Cheers

ps this explains the barrage of shills that converge on posts like this

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Yep. A plane could not hit WTC7 if the Twin Towers were still standing.
So the hijackers waited for the collapse of the two towers before changing course to NYC.
At the plane's speed it would have reached WTC7 a full 20 minutes before it collapsed.

Unfortunately for the devils, the passengers got control of the plane and the plan was ruined. However, they already had the explosives set in WTC7, so decided to pull it anyway.

Flight 93 was meant to be the cover for Tower 7's collapse.

a reply to: Witness2008

Thanx! Yah, Impaired it is then eh?!...
LOL!!

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Video #3 in the OP captures a very audible and powerful explosion. For a building that 'caught fire' from falling debris this explosion is so out of place. No wonder the 911 commission report utterly ignores building 7 - there is just no way they can fudge that one. Explosion. Free-fall collapse. Inside job.

So, you're saying that a single explosion brought down building 7?

Do you acknowledge that there was an explosion, especially in video #3? And having heard this explosion, can you determine that it wasn't several simultaneous explosions, versus a "single explosion" as you imply?

Again:



I'd like to see the hard-core debunkers at least admit that there was indeed an explosion before the free-fall collapse of building 7. So many of the past 911 debunkers wouldn't even acknowledge such explosions occurred and derisively dismissed the witness statements of such.

The witnesses to the explosion state that they heard it as a series of explosions, i.e. near-simultaneous detonations. Craig Bartmer, a NYPD officer, has stated publicly he heard "a number of explosions in rapid succession." Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority, has also publicly stated that he experienced multiple explosions in WTC7, and these occurred before the twin towers fell, he also states he was told to "leave, and leave now," by unknown persons, just prior to the detonations.

It was just after the first attack on the North tower, but before the second plane hit the South Tower, when Barry Jennings escorted Michael Hess to the World Trade Center Tower 7. Mr. Jennings recalls a large number of police officers in the lobby of WTC 7 when they arrived. The two men went up to the 23rd floor, but could not get in, so they went back to the lobby and the police took them up in the freight elevator for a second try. When they arrived on level 23, at the Office of Emergency Management they found it had been recently deserted, "coffee that was on the desk, smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half eaten sandwiches".
At that point he made some phone calls, and an un-named individual told them to "leave, and leave right away". Jennings and Hess then proceeded to the stairs, and made it to level 6, when there was an explosion, and the stairwell collapsed from under their feet, Mr. Jennings was actually hanging, and had to climb back up. They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing. This is an important detail, as many debunkers have used Mr. Jennings statements out of context to claim the damage came to WTC 7 from the towers collapsing, not the case according, to Mr. Jennings.

Barry Jennings: World Trade Center 7

You don't need to melt steel to weaken it. Steel goes through various physical changes in heat. Steel gets real brittle or elastic depending on how long it is cooked. Still shady stuff went down that day.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Preaching to the choir here I'm afraid.

I've been saying this since I watched them over and over and over and over again on news stations the day of and the many months after.

Brought down by fire my @$$.

Anyone who believes that needs to study building demolition, specifically controlled demolitions.

Wouldn't hurt to also check out other buildings that have been struck by aircraft and the damages they suffered. Not one that I've found has even partially collapsed from an aircraft crashing into it.

The melting point of the construction-grade steel girders is 2,795 degrees, well beyond what jet fuel and the associated things being burnt in it's path could possibly heat the steel to.

Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Well, to be exact, construction-grade steel melts at 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. That's a proven fact, as can be seen from the website: www.chemicalelements.com...

Video on one explanation: www.youtube.com...

Plus if a plane hit that far up, the building would have toppled, not fell straight down like in a demolition...so many people buy that bull$h!t theory...I guess the fluoride in the water is really starting to work along side our failing education system.

Oh, and during clean up, DAYS after the 'crash' there was *still* molten steel in the bottom floors....do the math over 2700 degrees, and held for *how* long?

Right, jet fuel. Whatever.

*rolls eyes*

Sorry for ranting - just so sick of people claiming 1+1 = 3,451 to the quintupled power by the root of 37.

The steel doesn't meed to melt in this scenrio. It inly needs to lose enough structural integrity to not be able to the thousands of tons of building above it anymore. GG, you have proven nothing.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Anyone ever wonder if Flight93 really was brought down by passengers who took out the hijackers and then couldn't fly the plane ?

It just occured to me that Flight93 was probably meant for WTC7 and after it crashed they just went ahead with the demo anyway. Serious epiphany moment here.

Hey,
nice theory - that would make perfect sense and explain the WTC7 anomaly - good work!

I've always thought that one of the big problems with trying to "prove" whether 911 was an inside job, whether the towers were brought down by demolition, etc or not, is that it's impossible to prove or disprove - there is no solid evidence at all for any of it.

All there is is conjecture - if expert 1 says the steel couldn't have melted and the buildings collapsed, expert 2 will say that it could have.

It all comes down to who you believe.

So what I did was instead think about the weirdness factors and think about the odds of whether it could all have happened on the same day, in the same place, at the same time.

For example, what are the odds that on the day that hijackers allegedly took over some planes and flew them into buildings, that there was an imaginery exercise taking place where some hijackers took over some planes and flew them into the very same buildings (this also happened on 7/7 in London - which makes it even more weird).

What are the odds that all of the militarys jet fighters were conveniently miles away at that time, on exercise?

What are the odds that the hijackers passports (was it just their passports - were any effects of other people on the plane found?) could magically fly out of the aircraft and through the fireball unscathed, and then what are the odds that someone would find them among all of the rubble and among all of the debris in the blind panic?

What are the odds that a TV crew interview a guy who predicts - amazingly - that the towers must have collapsed after the fuel melted the steel - a guy on the street as it happens explaining the finer points of the structural integrity (or lack of it) of the towers!

What are the odds that tower 1 would fall, and what are the odds it would fall neatly into it's footprint rather than randomly, so that it didn't demolish the buildings around it.

What are the odds that tower 2 would do the same thing.

What are the odds that WTC7 would then do the exact same thing - even though it hadn't been hit by a plane, so couldn't have been "melted" by jet fuel?

What are the odds of 3 buildings all collapsing into their footprints on the same day in the same place after a fire, when it's never happened anywhere else in history - anywhere in the world.

Start looking at all of the weirdness and the odds of it all happening and the story is so unbelievable it would make the director of a no budget B movie blush with embarrassment.

originally posted by: Power_Semi

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Anyone ever wonder if Flight93 really was brought down by passengers who took out the hijackers and then couldn't fly the plane ?

It just occured to me that Flight93 was probably meant for WTC7 and after it crashed they just went ahead with the demo anyway. Serious epiphany moment here.

Hey,
nice theory - that would make perfect sense and explain the WTC7 anomaly - good work!

I've always thought that one of the big problems with trying to "prove" whether 911 was an inside job, whether the towers were brought down by demolition, etc or not, is that it's impossible to prove or disprove - there is no solid evidence at all for any of it.

All there is is conjecture - if expert 1 says the steel couldn't have melted and the buildings collapsed, expert 2 will say that it could have.

It all comes down to who you believe.

So what I did was instead think about the weirdness factors and think about the odds of whether it could all have happened on the same day, in the same place, at the same time.

For example, what are the odds that on the day that hijackers allegedly took over some planes and flew them into buildings, that there was an imaginery exercise taking place where some hijackers took over some planes and flew them into the very same buildings (this also happened on 7/7 in London - which makes it even more weird).

What are the odds that all of the militarys jet fighters were conveniently miles away at that time, on exercise?

What are the odds that the hijackers passports (was it just their passports - were any effects of other people on the plane found?) could magically fly out of the aircraft and through the fireball unscathed, and then what are the odds that someone would find them among all of the rubble and among all of the debris in the blind panic?

What are the odds that a TV crew interview a guy who predicts - amazingly - that the towers must have collapsed after the fuel melted the steel - a guy on the street as it happens explaining the finer points of the structural integrity (or lack of it) of the towers!

What are the odds that tower 1 would fall, and what are the odds it would fall neatly into it's footprint rather than randomly, so that it didn't demolish the buildings around it.

What are the odds that tower 2 would do the same thing.

What are the odds that WTC7 would then do the exact same thing - even though it hadn't been hit by a plane, so couldn't have been "melted" by jet fuel?

What are the odds of 3 buildings all collapsing into their footprints on the same day in the same place after a fire, when it's never happened anywhere else in history - anywhere in the world.

Start looking at all of the weirdness and the odds of it all happening and the story is so unbelievable it would make the director of a no budget B movie blush with embarrassment.

I think this is one of the most convincing arguments on this thread so far. The amount of shadiness surrounding 9/11 is too much to be brushed aside. There was something going on for sure.

a reply to: samkent

Ah Sam..you are going to have to do better than that.....

OP nice ...the OS is so piss weak it could not punch its way out of a wet paper bag

Is there a percentage of people within the US who thinks that this has been staged ? And those who do believe this to be a true terror attack?