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

Posted this earlier, Demolitions expert says without a doubt the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was a controlled collapse

Controlled demolition experts says no doubt it was a controlled demolition.

Mabey you should watch the videos.
Here is a silly picture that NIST said happened to the building when obviously that didn't happen.

for comparison

The story making the rounds is that World Trade Center seven had small fire that could not be contained due to the lack of firefighters and water because of the collapse of the Twin tower. The owner and others made the decision to "pull it" due to the great loss of life and destruction. They told the fire fighters to clear the area and they brought down World trade Center 7 in a controlled fashion as the secretary of State, experts in demolitions, the owner of Wtc complex, architects and engineers all claim.

They all have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition since the column that failed was not damaged by fire or collapses. You would not need lots of explosives but just enough to break the 18th pillar. Remember that Silverstein had gutted the building and reinforced certain area while I am sure compromising others. NIST DID NOT TAKE THIS IN TO ACCOUNT

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Posted this earlier, Demolitions expert says without a doubt the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was a controlled collapse

A "expert" who only watched youtube videos......

Whilst real experts who actually examined the wreckage, had portable field seismographs set up in the surrounding area and had access to thousands of personal photographs taken by laborers and site foremen employed by the demolition companies responsible for deconstructing the Ground Zero site say it was not a controlled demolition....
www.implosionworld.com...

So who do you believe, someone who just watched youtube video's, or real experts who examined the wreckage, examined photo's and had portable field seismographs set up in the surrounding area?

Most people believe the real experts, not someone who just watched youtube video's!

Still waiting for you to tell us how they snuck in tonnnes of explosives with no one noticing, and about the explosions from the basement that did not exist!

But I suppose some people just think that the FDNY go around blowing a building up because a civilian tells them to - even though no one apparently knows how they snuck in tonnes of explosives to do it with!

Funny how those POPULAR shows on building demo from TLC or whichever channel went away after 9/12

It was most likely some top secret weapon capable of kinetically demolishing a building without a trace of explosives, like a directed energy weapon which can target the insides of a structure and collapse it.

a reply to: FlyingFox
Not really
www.youtube.com...
www.cineflix.com... of-demolition
www.imdb.com...

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
like a directed energy weapon which can target the insides of a structure and collapse it.

One could just as truthfully say it was aliens, or UFO's even - remember someone showed a video containing a UFO over wtc 7!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
like a directed energy weapon which can target the insides of a structure and collapse it.

One could just as truthfully say it was aliens, or UFO's even - remember someone showed a video containing a UFO over wtc 7!

Or you could say it fell over all by itself, but I doubt anyone would ever believe you. There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building other than its purpose. .. . . What was in building 7 that needed getting rid of? Follow the breadcrumbs and the money trail. . . . .

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
like a directed energy weapon which can target the insides of a structure and collapse it.

One could just as truthfully say it was aliens, or UFO's even - remember someone showed a video containing a UFO over wtc 7!

Or you could say it fell over all by itself, but I doubt anyone would ever believe you. There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building other than its purpose. .. . . What was in building 7 that needed getting rid of? Follow the breadcrumbs and the money trail. . . . .

You tell us. They needed to get rid of what? So who did it? How many people were involved? Why such a complex plan for the removal of one building?

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Posted this earlier, Demolitions expert says without a doubt the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was a controlled collapse

Controlled demolition experts says no doubt it was a controlled demolition.

Mabey you should watch the videos.
Here is a silly picture that NIST said happened to the building when obviously that didn't happen.

for comparison











Won't answer questions. Reposts same stuff. Probably a troll.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building

Apart from the severe damage to it, the unchecked fires, the fact that the FDNY had a transit on it and saw it was bulging, the noises it was making.... and that the FDNY knew it was going to collapse so they pulled out the firemen from it.

Much better to believe that pixies did it, or mythical beam weapons, or invisible explosives....

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
like a directed energy weapon which can target the insides of a structure and collapse it.

One could just as truthfully say it was aliens, or UFO's even - remember someone showed a video containing a UFO over wtc 7!

Or you could say it fell over all by itself, but I doubt anyone would ever believe you. There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building other than its purpose. .. . . What was in building 7 that needed getting rid of? Follow the breadcrumbs and the money trail. . . . .

You tell us. They needed to get rid of what? So who did it? How many people were involved? Why such a complex plan for the removal of one building?

I suggest some simple research into what the building was used for as a start for some good batman detective work.

originally posted by: DerekJR321

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: scottyirnbru "How many people were involved in the planning and execution?" The number needs to be huge.

2 words. manhattan project. huge secrets can and have been kept

They were not kept, the Russians knew exactly what they were doing there - ever heard of Morris Cohen, Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Theodore Hall, George Koval, Irving Lerner, Allan Nunn May, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg?

And plenty of other governments knew exactly what was going on 9/11.

This post isn't about 1 or 2.. but... how could 10 to 20 floors cause enough force to demolish 90+. It can't. It's simple physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Even if you want to believe the "pancake theory" it doesn't work. It has been proven by people much smarter than me that if the buildings collapsed via "pancake", the entire thing would have taken well over 90 seconds. Not 11. Now of course someone will say "oh but there was so much debris pulling down the structure". Okay.. and how much of it was exploded OUTWARD during the collapse? A bunch. So now you have structure, using energy to eject extremely heavy steel beams. And you have the energy that is supposedly strong enough to collapse all the remaining floors, destroy every truss, every core column, pop EVERY rivet at almost the exact same time in order to facilitate a 10-11 second collapse. No. I'm sorry. I know I'm no physicist, but even I can understand that it doesn't work like that.

And in every single wiki leaks cable not one of them mentioned it. All the govts all around the world, over 200 of them, a number of whom absolutely detest the US and they've all managed to stay silent for 14 years.

Pop every rivet at the exact same time? Where did you get this fantasy from? I believe you when you said you were no physicist. Imagine 10 columns carrying 600kn of load. One has been damaged and is now carrying 200kn. This means that 400kn is now displaced to others. Perhaps one is taking 300kn. Now heat it and watch it's strength dissipate. That fails, the load finds another path but this column is also above 500°c and also fails. Repeat. Now imagine this happening faster than I can type. Loads don't get up and walk. They instantly transfer. You don't understand physics. You were correct on that one bit.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building

Apart from the severe damage to it, the unchecked fires, the fact that the FDNY had a transit on it and saw it was bulging, the noises it was making.... and that the FDNY knew it was going to collapse so they pulled out the firemen from it.

Much better to believe that pixies did it, or mythical beam weapons, or invisible explosives....

None of that can explain a building demolition, fires from where, damage from what, why the noises, what was the cause? Please explain in a rational manner?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
like a directed energy weapon which can target the insides of a structure and collapse it.

One could just as truthfully say it was aliens, or UFO's even - remember someone showed a video containing a UFO over wtc 7!

Or you could say it fell over all by itself, but I doubt anyone would ever believe you. There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building other than its purpose. .. . . What was in building 7 that needed getting rid of? Follow the breadcrumbs and the money trail. . . . .

You tell us. They needed to get rid of what? So who did it? How many people were involved? Why such a complex plan for the removal of one building?

I suggest some simple research into what the building was used for as a start for some good batman detective work.

Avoids offering a hypothesis because realises that it starts to get a bit flaky....

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building

Apart from the severe damage to it, the unchecked fires, the fact that the FDNY had a transit on it and saw it was bulging, the noises it was making.... and that the FDNY knew it was going to collapse so they pulled out the firemen from it.

Much better to believe that pixies did it, or mythical beam weapons, or invisible explosives....

None of that can explain a building demolition, fires from where, damage from what, why the noises, what was the cause? Please explain in a rational manner?

Yes it can. Read the final nist report on wtc 7 pages 15 to 28. Damage to fires to structural failure to global collapse. It even goes to the trouble to explain with 3 separate examples why it can't be any one of 6 different explosive plans.

Fires from falling burning debris. Damage from falling burning debris. Noises like windows failing or beams failing or columns redistributing their loads. Fire > structural failure > collapse.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
like a directed energy weapon which can target the insides of a structure and collapse it.

One could just as truthfully say it was aliens, or UFO's even - remember someone showed a video containing a UFO over wtc 7!

Or you could say it fell over all by itself, but I doubt anyone would ever believe you. There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building other than its purpose. .. . . What was in building 7 that needed getting rid of? Follow the breadcrumbs and the money trail. . . . .

You tell us. They needed to get rid of what? So who did it? How many people were involved? Why such a complex plan for the removal of one building?

I suggest some simple research into what the building was used for as a start for some good batman detective work.

Avoids offering a hypothesis because realises that it starts to get a bit flaky....

Suggesting dective work into what the building was used for is a good start, you may not like that i dont have all the answers, but every great journey begins somewhere. So think a little research may yield some of the answers which may or may not be there. Of course in dective work every stone must be overturned and looked under, wether insurance or security. A bit of Batman dectective work wouldnt hurt, actually if there was something to hide then a bit of detective work may implicate many so there may be alot to hide. . . . . Or maybe not who knows. . . . .

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: samkent
Conspiracy believers keep forgetting that all the floors were identical in construction and load bearing abilities.
If floor 68 could not support the debris neither could 67.

This is one of the specific reasons no new sky scrapers will ever be built using tube in tube design.

Column 18 is the one that failed in WTC 7 and it suffered no damage from fire or collapse of the tower.

Actually column 79. And doesn't need to be damaged as heat is the governing factor here. Wrong again.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
like a directed energy weapon which can target the insides of a structure and collapse it.

One could just as truthfully say it was aliens, or UFO's even - remember someone showed a video containing a UFO over wtc 7!

Or you could say it fell over all by itself, but I doubt anyone would ever believe you. There is no reasonable explanation for the falling down of the building other than its purpose. .. . . What was in building 7 that needed getting rid of? Follow the breadcrumbs and the money trail. . . . .

You tell us. They needed to get rid of what? So who did it? How many people were involved? Why such a complex plan for the removal of one building?

I suggest some simple research into what the building was used for as a start for some good batman detective work.

Avoids offering a hypothesis because realises that it starts to get a bit flaky....

Suggesting dective work into what the building was used for is a good start, you may not like that i dont have all the answers, but every great journey begins somewhere. So think a little research may yield some of the answers which may or may not be there. Of course in dective work every stone must be overturned and looked under, wether insurance or security. A bit of Batman dectective work wouldnt hurt, actually if there was something to hide then a bit of detective work may implicate many so there may be alot to hide. . . . . Or maybe not who knows. . . . .

Just more rubbish. Offer up your idea and we'll show you where it lacks joined up thinking and we can go back and forth until you have a stronger idea. That's what a forum is for. Batman is fiction. Conspiracy theory here is fiction. Let's deal in facts.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
fires from where,

So you "forget" that a planes had hit 2 buildings that subsequently collapsed, severely damaging WTC 7?

damage from what,

Again, did you miss the collapse of the other WTC buildings?

why the noises, what was the cause?

When very tall buildings are severely damaaged, with unchecked fires and they start bulging they tend to make noises.

The FDNY saw the damage, saw the fires, and had a transit on the building so knew it was bulging and was going to collapse.
www.911myths.com...

Battalion Chief John Norman Special Operations Command - 22 years From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. www.firehouse.com...

Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. www.firehouse.com...

.Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. graphics8.nytimes.com...

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

That is where the term "pull" came from!