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

originally posted by: Power_Semi

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.

The odds of the passport making it through the building unscathed are actually very good. This is why:



And yes lots of other personal items from the other passengers were found.

Question for those saying controlled demolition...

Wireless or wired?

My understanding is the people that bring down buildings for a living use wired because it is the safest and most reliable way to do so, circa 2001 honestly don't know now.

If it was wireless how was it secured? If it was wired... Where/when did they wire it...

Answer these questions and I'll be converted.

a reply to: irishhaf

I don't know but safety is the last thing on these evil bastards minds.

a reply to: TheMadTitan

Wireless ran the risk of premature detonation... Seems like that would be something you want to avoid?

I really do get a bit bored now of explaining this to people.

But.

Hearing a explosion and there actually being a explosion are two totally different things.

This is actually a classic case of Pareidolia, or seeing what you want to see. Truther have this preconceived notion that WTC-7 collapsed via controlled demolition, you have a confirmation bias that means you are actively seeking out any evidence to back this up. So a bang, say caused by falling masonry, steel, a compressed gas tank blowing or a car back firing or in this case the interior of WTC-7 collapsing, becomes a "explosion", it becomes explosive proof that explosives were used to bring down those towers.

..... All because you heard a "bang"

Honestly its actually hysterical just how flawed this line of thinking is and how many of you will rally around to defend it as "proof" of explosives.

This toppled over nonsense. Go look at the sampoong department store in South Korea. Structural failure. Straight down. That's what happened here. All this primary school nonsense about melting steel. 1st year university level structures and materials. Steel loses 50% of its structural strength at about 500°. Then the graph really plummets. A candle is about 1000°. It's note Tring to bend physics.

originally posted by: Power_Semi
What are the odds of 3 buildings all collapsing into their footprints

Why do truthers keep bring up this obvious lie? None of the buildings fell into their own footprint - just look at the damage done to all the other buildings!

on the same day in the same place after a fire, when it's never happened anywhere else in history - anywhere in the world.

So exactly how many other tube in tube buildings have been hit by heavy high speed jet airliners any where else in the world?

So it certainly looks like if a tube in tube building is hit by a heavy high speed jet airliner it will collapse!

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.

So if Flight 93 was meant for WTC 7 - why was flying SOUTH, the wrong direction....??

Why did the hijackers dial in the VOR beacon at Reagan National airport in Washington DC if headed for
NYC ?

Like all other truther claim makes no scene.........

a reply to: firerescue

That's for another thread. Would you please refrain from calling people truthers. These people are real people who have opinions, intelligence and have reviewed the evidence that the official story has holes in it.

Wtc was damaged. They weren't going to fight the fires. They brought it down for safety.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Wtc was damaged. They weren't going to fight the fires. They brought it down for safety.

Are you trying to say then that there was some kind of explosive fail-safe built into WTC-7 so that in the event of a disaster it could be safely demolished?

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
They brought it down for safety.

Since when does the FDNY use explosives to demolish buildings?
When did they carry the tonnes of explosives into the buildings and spend man years wiring them up, with no one noticing?

Some very simple questions you refuse to answer, as if you did it would show how silly your conspiracy theory actually was!

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
This toppled over nonsense. Go look at the sampoong department store in South Korea. Structural failure. Straight down. That's what happened here. All this primary school nonsense about melting steel. 1st year university level structures and materials. Steel loses 50% of its structural strength at about 500°. Then the graph really plummets. A candle is about 1000°. It's note Tring to bend physics.

HAHAHAHAHA.

WOW. You're comparing a FIVE FLOOR department store collapse with a 110 story high rise!?!?!

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

At the temperatures you quote steel is liquid it has NO strength at about 550 c it's down to 50% it wasn't just jet fuel burning was it.

You people cant seem to see or understand more than one thing at a time !

Office fires can reach 1000 c it's been tested and shown..

WTC 7 had impact damage from the North Tower collapse, the fires were allowed to burn also it didn't fall straight down that can be seen if you look at images after the collapse.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Shadow Herder

I knew that none of those buildings were brought down by fire when I was watching it happen live. Common sense really is all it takes. But given how daft I know the western populace to be now after all is said and done, videos and eye witness testimony can be shown until the cows come home, and those folks will still cling to the official story.

I watched it happen live. The heat of the jet fuel can do this. You need an engineering degree, not just common sense.

The heat of the jet fuel?? At a distance of 3-5 football fields from where the planes impacted, jumping over 2 other buildings and crossing a street, while managing to NOT ignite for 8 to 9 hours??

That is some amazing jet fuel

originally posted by: firerescue

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.

So if Flight 93 was meant for WTC 7 - why was flying SOUTH, the wrong direction....??

Why did the hijackers dial in the VOR beacon at Reagan National airport in Washington DC if headed for
NYC ?

Like all other truther claim makes no scene.........

"truther" lol, not really. it was just an idea I put forth.

However you can enter the VOR for LAX if you want and then head to Cuba.

Obviously the simple explanation tends to be the right one, so I would agree with you if they truly had DCA entered on the VOR. Where did you get that info?

Glad I missed this one.The same 'controlled' (no evidence) demo pundits digging up the same tried and true guessectomy based on ten seconds of footage.

Heres the video with no sounds of explosion at @7:20. Depends on which enhanced audio version you aspire to…

But if an explosive had been used, one single explosive charge placed exactly where the collapse initiated, the size of the charge necessary would have generated a sound of 120 decibels up to a half mile away. Thats loud as hell for all you rebel muthas…

Two minutes into here:
Oh, thats right This NIST video is bull (official) story.

Any other than conspiracy to bring down the towers is bull, right?

(pssst) you're right. It was done to start endless war. Get your head out of the rubble.

No way The Architect would not still be harping on about this... x_x

originally posted by: haven123

Irrelevant. You've applied a standard to something entirely different. Is there a loading on the tree? Is it static or dynamic? How long did it burn for?

Nice picture, although entirely irrelevant.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
This toppled over nonsense. Go look at the sampoong department store in South Korea. Structural failure. Straight down. That's what happened here. All this primary school nonsense about melting steel. 1st year university level structures and materials. Steel loses 50% of its structural strength at about 500°. Then the graph really plummets. A candle is about 1000°. It's note Tring to bend physics.

HAHAHAHAHA.

WOW. You're comparing a FIVE FLOOR department store collapse with a 110 story high rise!?!?!

Yes. Because you are looking at progressive collapse. That's what happens. 10 floors, 20 floors, 100 floors. Progressive collapse. All easily digestible through reading actual technical journals as opposed to conspiracy websites. What do you think should have happened?