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

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruMaybe you'd like to try the who how and why questions? All other conspiracy chaps seem to want those questions to go away.

Well, if I gave an explanation. It was not any weirder than your version, there was just about as much proof for my version than there is for yours - still you're saying that my version is ridiculous. Unless I say what you want to hear, I'm told it can't be. Well, I can play that game all day too.

Go ahead, repeat the boxcutters field day BS once more - it won't convince me. I will tell you it was an alien ray.

But heck, why not: I'll give you another plausible theory (only to see it being shot down with no arguments once more): in most buildings that contain classified data that is not allowed to fall in the hand of an enemy, charges are put in place so the building can be demolished if necessary. The authorities do not report this to the public for many reasons: firstly it would probably scare people whom would think the building might explode spontaneously, secondly as it would provide a good indication where the sensitive data was stored. This was also the case in WTC7, which housed a number of 3 letter agencies / secret services. When it became clear that the building was open to anybody that wanted to go in (actually, some guys with a camera entered WTC7 and recorded stuff) and it also became clear that the police, firemen and others were fully occupied with WTC1 and 2, they feared that sensitive data might fall in the hands of the public. Hence it was decided to order everybody out and engage the built-in charges.

I bet you call it BS yet agaijn. And again, as I told you: yes, right, BS - it was an alien ray.

But anyway, I now provided TWO theories that are more plausible than the official story. No building has ever and will ever implode like that due to fires and structural damage. Even if a building collapses it is a more gradual process; typically you'd see part of the building sag and then collapse, pulling other parts with it - but as it takes a lot of energy to do this, and the structure does not evenly resist, it takes some time and is an irregular process. But what we saw was a totally regular collapse, free fall speed. Your OSBS does not explain that, the model NIST made is not open for inspection AND does not match observation. You, my haggish loving friend, tell these most improbable stories, where I give a solid, scientific explanation: alien ray.

Ugh.

Ok. So these buildings which are wired to blow but the don't tell the public about. You know this because.... You may have created a slight contradiction. So the plan you have created is to destroy wtc7 to hide some secret data. That takes care of that. What your plan doesn't take into account is why they needed to destroy 1 and 2 and the Pentagon and shanksville. There are 3 floors of this 47 storey building that are occupied by your 3 letter agencies. If you want to include the securities and exchange commission and the irs then that makes 5. The majority of the building was let by citibank. I'm not entirely sure that they would need to wire their offices for demolition. So you've a scenario that involves the destruction of 3 massive buildings for the removal of some sensitive data. Surely an office fire would be sufficient?

You mention the look of the collapse. This is the other big issue. You've nothing to compare it to because we are looking at a unique event. We've all seen controlled demolition videos. We've all heard what that sounds like. The live feed videos of the collapse don't have the sounds that you'd associate with an explosion. They honestly don't. You can talk about how windows would muffle the blast (140dB remember) but they would struggles to do this and contain a shock wave associated with a blast.

"Even if a building collapses you typically see it sag and pull other parts with it" I paraphrase. Watch the video. This is what you see. The penthouse collapses then the column line under this gives way forms a slight v on the facade and pulls the building down.

You then assert that no building will ever collapse like that due to fires and structural failure. That's a pretty serious claim. How do we assess that? We can't. You made a statement that can't be proved or disproved. It's an opinion not a fact.

Free fall speed over a short time yes. Over the total event, no. Why would you not see free fall speed as a series of columns fail completely. That's exactly what you would see. Then it stops being free fall speed as the material starts to gather at the base.

There isn't as much proof for your theory as the OS. It pretty much comes down to what you want to accept as evidence. The conspiracy theory had a much lower burden of proof for accepting evidence. You claim explosives but all these scientists and engineers state that there is no evidence. You still claim explosives. There is physically no evidence.

I don't know what you mean by haggish. Do you mean haggis? Is that a racist comment because I'm scottish? (I joke of course)

1 more thing i forgot to add

if the iron was heat treated that will harden too.
i dont meant treated by this event. i mean heat treated during manufacturing.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Yes, we were certainly looking at a "unique event".

Actually, three "unique events". Absolutely unique, as there is not another example of a modern steel high rise building collapsing in such a manner from fire damage.

And it happens 3 times on the same day in the same city block. Yep, most unique.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Ok. So these buildings which are wired to blow but the don't tell the public about. You know this because....

I know this in exactly the same way YOU know that OBL was responsible. Or YOU know that a plane hit the Pentagon. Or YOU know that it is feasible that an aluminium plane simply flies right through a concrete-and-steel building. Or YOU know that it is normal for a building to stand for 6 hours and then suddenly collapse, free fall speed. Or YOU know that mr Atta was the head master of the box-cutters outing. I know this - like YOU know things - from heresay, reading about it on the Internet, reading books. We both have the same information, but you choose to believe whatever they tell you, regardless if it is against widely known and accepted laws of nature.

So the plan you have created is to destroy wtc7 to hide some secret data.

No, the plan is to prevent others to get their hands on papers and plans stored in such buildings. So, some buildings are rigged with explosives in advance.

That takes care of that. What your plan doesn't take into account is why they needed to destroy 1 and 2 and the Pentagon and shanksville.

Well, as I told you: that was simply a warning by our former alien friends, whom we tried to screw. Their ethics are very strong: they keep their agreements and expect the other party to do so too. We signed an agreement - and broke it. We were warned to stop, but we continued. So, they told us again, and this time they said they would bring down two of our main buildings in the capitol city and punch a hole in the Pentagon, just to make sure we would get the picture of what might happen if we still continued. And so they did. The government simply had to think quick and made up this beserk cover story, which also allowed them to invade various countries to ensure a steady flow of oil to the US of A.

There are 3 floors of this 47 storey building that are occupied by your 3 letter agencies. If you want to include the securities and exchange commission and the irs then that makes 5. The majority of the building was let by citibank. I'm not entirely sure that they would need to wire their offices for demolition. So you've a scenario that involves the destruction of 3 massive buildings for the removal of some sensitive data. Surely an office fire would be sufficient?

Well, according to the story YOU advocate, merely on column had to be brought down, so perhaps that one column was rigged, which also would explain the muffling of the initial explosion. Also, most confidential papers are kept in at least fireproof safes or closets.

You mention the look of the collapse. This is the other big issue. You've nothing to compare it to because we are looking at a unique event.

That's what all OS believers say: that this is something that never happened before, so I can't compare it to anything and should therefore take it face value. But if I, OTOH, say that this was an alien ray - and you never saw that before, did you? - you are NOT willing to take it face value. Well, likewise.

We've all seen controlled demolition videos. We've all heard what that sounds like. The live feed videos of the collapse don't have the sounds that you'd associate with an explosion. They honestly don't. You can talk about how windows would muffle the blast (140dB remember) but they would struggles to do this and contain a shock wave associated with a blast.

140 dB? Who told you such nonsense? NIST? 140 dB is sufficient to permanently damage your hearing no matter how short the exposure. Now, have you ever actually been to a controlled demolition? Do they, prey tell, hand out ear plugs to the audience? If not, how come these people can still hear anything after the blast? BTW: ear plugs need to be worn if you are exposed to sounds over 85 dB. Explosions can be louder (but then the public is kept away and the demolition team indeed wears earplugs) or muffled by walls, surrounding buildings etc.

But - in this specific case - it was the alien ray, breaking the bonds between the molecules, which causes a rumble. Told ya: alien ray.

"Even if a building collapses you typically see it sag and pull other parts with it" I paraphrase. Watch the video. This is what you see. The penthouse collapses then the column line under this gives way forms a slight v on the facade and pulls the building down.

No, that's not 'sagging'. That's indeed free fall collapse, a physical impossibility unless something is destroying the lower portions of the structure so they do not stop the downfall. Action == reaction, remember?

You then assert that no building will ever collapse like that due to fires and structural failure. That's a pretty serious claim. How do we assess that? We can't. You made a statement that can't be proved or disproved. It's an opinion not a fact.

If so, then please refrain from stating YOUR opinions as facts too.

I also did not say that buildings will not collapse due to structural damage and fires - though it never happened before 9/11 - but I DID say it would not happen in the way it did. Free fall collapse requires a force / energy to be added to the process. If the floors of WTC7 all had collapsed - per the official version - the walls should have remained standing, or should more of less irregularly have collapsed. Instead the entire construction came down with free fall speed. That is a very strange thing: where did the energy come from to take away the resistance of the lower parts of the structure?

Alien ray. Told ya.

Free fall speed over a short time yes. Over the total event, no.

Oh, sure, now it's allright: the laws of Nature were only suspended for a short time! Foolish me, that I can't see that THAT makes sense.

Why would you not see free fall speed as a series of columns fail completely. That's exactly what you would see. Then it stops being free fall speed as the material starts to gather at the base.

Because the colums and floors already had caved in according to the NIST version, just the walls were still standing, and then suddenly the came down with free fall speed. So, what removed the lower parts of the walls then?

Alien ray.

There isn't as much proof for your theory as the OS. It pretty much comes down to what you want to accept as evidence. The conspiracy theory had a much lower burden of proof for accepting evidence. You claim explosives but all these scientists and engineers state that there is no evidence. You still claim explosives. There is physically no evidence.

Please note that I don't claim "explosives". I merely say that some form of additional energy had to be provided to get the result we got. Alien ray.

I don't know what you mean by haggish. Do you mean haggis? Is that a racist comment because I'm scottish? (I joke of course)

I know. So did I

NIST FOIA Cbs-net dub5 09

On YouTube, you can watch this in higher def..720p I think.

If you watch closely, at the upper right side side of the building, about one floor down and beneath the penthouse- you can SEE AN EXPLOSION INSIDE THE BUILDING.
And guess what, it coincides precisely with the large explosion sound heard on video.

When you watch, you will see a row of three or four windows, and when the explosion sound is heard, the windows light up yellow with fire inside.

This is below the penthouse, and is obviously taking out the supporting beams, as theorized by many.
The penthouse falls right down and through the building immediately after the explosion, and we then see sunlight behind the uppermost windows, as the penthouse and roof are gone!!

Furthermore, this is a good and interesting video to run through motion magnifying software. This allows you to investigate the unapparent motions of the demolition, which in reality were caught on tape.

Download the video, and upload it here lambda.qrilab.com... if you wanna.
This sight will run MIT motion magnification software for you, and present the video magnified in the context of your selected parameters.

This guy Barry Jennings was trapped in WTC 7 before the collapse of both towers, BEFORE. They were trapped by explosions that blew out stairways and floors before the collapse meaning falling debris had yet to damage building 7.
This man heard big explosions within tower 7, because he was in it.


He died mysteriously 2 days before the final NIST report on building 7

a reply to: Shadow Herder

What probably happened is that there was a change of plans. If this man is right, the major initially planned on occupying the emergency control room in WTC7. At that time it had not yet become clear that this was a major attack ("I thought a Cessna had hit the building") and WTC7 was the nearest emergency operations bunker, makes sense to me.

I guess that as it became clear that WTC1 had been hit by a bigger plane, it was decided not to take the risk and evacuate WTC7, including the staff (the half eaten sandwiches and 'still smoking' coffee, remember). The staff probably joined the major at the other location.

Has anybody ever tried to find a member of the majors staff to ask if they indeed were told to leave WTC7 to join the major at another location?

What IS strange is that WTC7 already was on fire just after the first plane hit WTC1. Now, a huge amount of burning kerosine was ejected from that tower, perhaps some of it ignited fires in WTC7, which in turn led to the explosion of that boiler. But still, it's a very strange story.

What probably happened was that he went in because he was told a Cessna hit the building. At that point they moved Giuliani after he was trapped inside WTC 7 for 10-15 minutes. OEM was seen in the lobby and made the call to move before the second tower was hit. The OEM offices were upgraded with its own ventilation and BLAST PROOF glass.

They evacuated building 7 early in the A.M with no fire crews present. They decided to implode the building as the eyewitnesses claim.

What is strange is the fires and explosions within world trade center 7 were present before the 1st tower came down. Kerosene was not the cause of the fires in building 7 as NIST has found.

He like many other heard massive explosions from within Building 7 before the second plane and before any collapses.

Someone asked who was housed in the Building 7
Kurt Sonnenfeld: The Secret Service,
the Department of Defense,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Emergency Management’s “Crisis Center” occupied huge amounts of space there, spanning several floors of the building.

Other federal agencies had offices there as well. After September 11, it was discovered that concealed within Building Seven was the largest clandestine domestic station of the Central Intelligence Agency outside of Washington DC, a base of operations from which to spy on diplomats of the United Nations and to conduct counterterrorism and counterintelligence missions.

....so they already had explosives on-site.

Thanks for the thread, OP been following it an applaud you for remaining vigilant in the face of adversity.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Shadow Herder This "kid" stills has a copy that my wife recorded that day. You know, when it was happening live. There is no explosion that would indicate a demolition charge...... I dont care what your altered YouTube videos show.

Must be a lot of altered videos overall then if that one video makes it proof there was no sound. Maybe that recording is the issue, where it it missed the sound.

a reply to: dreamingawake. True. There is no shortage of disgusting individuals in the "truth" movement who will go almost any length to make their theories believable. But, by all means continue to believe in YouTube videos with questionable soundtracks over the broadcast quality videos still maintained by the various news agencies that were there that day.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Someone asked who was housed in the Building 7
Kurt Sonnenfeld: The Secret Service,
the Department of Defense,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Emergency Management’s “Crisis Center” occupied huge amounts of space there, spanning several floors of the building.

Other federal agencies had offices there as well. After September 11, it was discovered that concealed within Building Seven was the largest clandestine domestic station of the Central Intelligence Agency outside of Washington DC, a base of operations from which to spy on diplomats of the United Nations and to conduct counterterrorism and counterintelligence missions.

Sounds like a great target. Finance, military, and government. All hit on the same day. Gosh, it's almost like it was planned or something. --rolls eyes--

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: dreamingawake. True. There is no shortage of disgusting individuals in the "truth" movement who will go almost any length to make their theories believable. But, by all means continue to believe in YouTube videos with questionable soundtracks over the broadcast quality videos still maintained by the various news agencies that were there that day.

Unfortunately so as it exists for those who are greedy to sell products.
And also there's no shortage of disgusting individuals who who go to any lengths to dismiss the Truther movement also for greed or other agendas.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Common sense is normally all it takes to dismiss most of the Truther movement. Normally does not require any great effort.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Common sense is normally all it takes to dismiss most of the Truther movement. Normally does not require any great effort.

As it usually doesn't take much effort to dismiss the whole OT-believer movement. But common sense is not him- or herself anymore, if partaking in any cover-up.

Twisted meanings at the core of this Newspeak_ish rabbit hole.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

With the convoluted reasoning used to create most of the truther theories out there, I would disagree. Take this thread, someone keeps posting how WTC 7 had been wired for demolition for months prior to 9/11/01, but that someone had to make some serious leaps and bounds to come up with ideas on why their theory is right.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

but that someone had to make some serious leaps and bounds to come up with ideas on why their theory is right.

I can remember the lack of any scientific study regarding the complete collaps of all WTC-buildings. Can you? There is no need nor base to redicule the OP, collapse and explosions have been caught on video.

And NIST didn't come up with a coherent theory to explain it all, neither did any OT-believer who did partake in this thread. We have to live with different opinions on the matter as long as there is no scientific study to nail the topic with. In respect thereof, something to consider as well.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You cannot remember the studies done by the engineers? The lack of demolition related evidence in the debris that was gone through in the landfills? You cannot remember that?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

but that someone had to make some serious leaps and bounds to come up with ideas on why their theory is right.

I can remember the lack of any scientific study regarding the complete collaps of all WTC-buildings. Can you? There is no need nor base to redicule the OP, collapse and explosions have been caught on video.

And NIST didn't come up with a coherent theory to explain it all, neither did any OT-believer who did partake in this thread. We have to live with different opinions on the matter as long as there is no scientific study to nail the topic with. In respect thereof, something to consider as well.

What you meant to type was "Nist didn't come up with a coherent theory that I agree with to explain it all". What Nist did do was come up with a coherent theory to explain it all. And there is the rub. There is no more evidence that they can show you because it's all on show. You are relying on YouTube videos and out of context quotes and a day of panic and garbled information. The evidence quite obviously removes these elements of doubt but you don't wish to accept them.