WTC 7 photos. Debunk.

The dude who made this thread must be retarded. If u look at the video, smoke is clearly billowing out of the building 7 floors, if it we're only smoke from WTC1 and 2, then it wouldn't be covering the whole side of building 7.

1150 what ever his name is, he needs a reality check, he has to open his eyes before making a fool of himself

Originally posted by sharplaya77
The dude who made this thread must be retarded. If u look at the video, smoke is clearly billowing out of the building 7 floors, if it we're only smoke from WTC1 and 2, then it wouldn't be covering the whole side of building 7.

This is why I wanted to repost those images, even though it was a different thread.


Look at the locations of WTC4, 5, and 6:




Notice that WTC5 is to the South and East of WTC7. This is where the smoke is primarily coming from in the following image:




And this is WTC5:




WOW!, right?


WTC4 and 6 were also on fire, as were the footprints of WTC1 and 2, but we won't even concern ourselves with that. There was some smoke coming from WTC7, but really, how much do you think?

And more importantly, where is the freaking fire? The fact that you have to point to the smoke at all is pretty sad. Think about it.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by bsbray11]

bsbray11

That is pretty conclusive. Bldg 7 was a controlled demolition. it shouldn't have collapsed in 6 seconds. Those pictures tell a lot.

I posted this in the 'pull it thread', the dept store in Seoul South Korea that pancaked in 1995 was 5 story's, a poor design, a design that lend it self to a 'global collapse', yet the 5 story's took 20 seconds to collapse.

blogs.nationalgeographic.com...

You can read about the store in the above link.

How a 47 steel structure came to fall without resistance when combined witht the pictures you posted is conclusive evidence.

The bldg taken down in a controlled fashion.

When you see that and read this article from the 90's it becomes crystal clear.

www.pbs.org...

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

Then when you are reminded of the fact that the CIA had some offices in Bldg 7 it becomes even more clear.

Look what she says here speaking of the Oklahoma building

The whole building was basically full of, you know, classified information. So we actually had a contract with them to remove any classified materials from the building that we could locate—thousands and thousands of pieces of paper.

Sounds familar.


The government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).





[edit on 2-2-2007 by talisman]

When WTC 7 collapsed, thousands of SEC documents relating to on going investigations were lost forever. Apparently those offices were used, in part, as a storage facility. Some of these cases included investigations into wide-spread naked short selling and strategic failure to deliver schemes involving some high profile brokerage houses.

How convenient.

Why do you all think that the firefighters on the scene, who witnessed large fires in WTC 7, are liars?

Do you have any eyewitnesses that say there was hardly any fire in WTC 7?


All of the evidence points to structural damage and uncontrolled huge fires in WTC 7?

WTC 7 Lies .pdf

Why do you think the firefighters are in on it and/or liars?

And do you have any evidence to back it up?


How does your "smoke from other buildings" theory account for this?

/f3tvd

[edit on 2-2-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How does your "smoke from other buildings" theory account for this?

/f3tvd

[edit on 2-2-2007 by LeftBehind]

I'd say that's pretty conclusive as to there being fires in the building. I still think it fell peculiar. When's the NIST report for 7 coming out again? Soon I hope.

Originally posted by Griff
I'd say that's pretty conclusive as to there being fires in the building.

No one's saying there wasn't any fire. LB can hit that straw man all he wants, but the fire in the building was still ridiculous, and it's a real shame that no one can point to all that smoke as some kind of evidence that WTC7 was burning to the ground.

Some of you people here will accept ANYTHING but the truth. I gave the link to Screw Loose Change twice, and even though the part about WTC7 is at the very beginning and you would only have to watch 15 minutes at most to get all the information, I know most of you wont even look at it. I will now go out of my way once more to provide a link to the demolition of the Landmark building last year. As you can see, controlled demolition looks nothing like any of the WTC buildings collapsing. It is only 37 seconds long and I urge you to take a look if you have not yet.

Landmark Building Demolition

and for those that missed my posts with the SLC link.


SLC

I would also like to add some info about the tallest steel structure ever imploded using CD.

CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.

Controlled Demolition, INC

[edit on 4-2-2007 by lizziex3]

lizzie, can you compare and contrast for us how a commercial company would go about demolishing a building such as the WTC, versus how a military power could go about doing it?

And look at the info you just posted: CDI went through all that trouble to make sure this building would come straight down into its footprint, no? Had to even produce the building's structural information to find how to bring it down in such a controlled manner, and you'll even see in the video that it still leans some and isn't perfect.

WTC7 was taller than this building, 47 stories tall, and skinny, and still comes down into its footprint, accelerating at free-fall. What happened to WTC7 would be a job well done for a demolition team, and the reason demolition teams exist at all is because things don't naturally fall down like that. There are reasons for this that can be explained with the most basic physics, but no one wants to hear physics.

Originally posted by bsbray11

No one's saying there wasn't any fire.

Really?

Then what did you mean by this?

Originally posted by bsbray11
And more importantly, where is the freaking fire?

It sounds like you don't believe that there is any fire, or not much fire.

If this is what you mean, then why do you think the firefighters are liars and/or in on it?

WTC7 was taller than this building, 47 stories tall, and skinny, and still comes down into its footprint,

This is false. 7 did not fall perfectly into it's footprint. It damaged many of the surrounding buildings and left huge piles of debris in the streets.

www.911myths.com...



[edit on 4-2-2007 by LeftBehind]

did you watch the video? it looks nothing like what happened to WTC7. and Left Behind is right, WTC7 definintely didn't just "fall into it's footprints". There's just no getting through to 911 truthers.

Oh, and did you read that article? It took 4 months to prepare a smaller building and a couple hours for WTC7? Okay then. Oh, I don't think military officials blow up buildings. Even the government hires CD, INC when they want something demolished.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by lizziex3]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by lizziex3]

This is is not 'In it's own footprint'??...



I don't think it could have been any more 'in it's own footprint', do you?

Please open the PDF LeftBehind supplied and go to page 82. You will see how it did not fall into it's own footprint. I will admit that from that picture it LOOKS like it did, but that is only one picture, and it only looks that way because of the distance.

a hint for getting to pages faster than scrolling while viewing a PDF: Simply go to the bottom of the page where it says for example page 1of190 simply erase the one and type in 82, then press enter and you will be taken to the page. This is something I just realized you could do so I thought I would share.

izziex3

Oh, I don't think military officials blow up buildings

That isn't true. You should read the book called

www.amazon.com...

Life As an Army Demolition Expert by Robert C. Kennedy

The army has the ability to blow up bldgs, and they can do it very well.

Recently the Israeli army demolished 3 bldgs

www.washingtonpost.com...

NETZARIM JUNCTION, Gaza Strip, Oct 26 - The Israeli army blew up three 13-storey Palestinian Authority buildings in the Gaza Strip on Sunday, sending shock waves from the deafening explosion kilometres away.

"It was very accurate, very well done. I hope there is no collateral damage.

One security official said plans to demolish the buildings were drawn up about a year ago but the decision to implement them was taken only after Friday's attack, which was claimed by the militant Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups.

Keep in mind not all demolitions even by the so called *PRO's* are successful, there is some damage at times to other buildings, but the attempt of a building falling into its own footprint is obvious, as was in Bldg 7.

If it was just a random event that caused this, that would mean that Demoliton experts are not really needed, that random damage and fires can do the trick 'more or less'; that is ludicrous. It takes a lot of knowledge to take down a building as in Bldg 7, even if some damage was done to surrounding buildings.

Its also important to remember not all demolitions look the same as well.

Remember Bldg 7 felll at about 6.5 seconds, Sampoog Dept Store in Korea which was a real pancake collapse, was a 5 story building and it took 20 seconds.

So its obvious something is wrong with a 47 story building falling in 6 seconds.





[edit on 4-2-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by lizziex3
Please open the PDF LeftBehind supplied and go to page 82. You will see how it did not fall into it's own footprint. I will admit that from that picture it LOOKS like it did, but that is only one picture, and it only looks that way because of the distance.

Look at the image offered above, or this one:




If it didn't fall into its footprint, then where did it fall? What am I looking at in this image, if not the very site in which WTC7 stood?


Or do you mean some of the stuff that fell out around the edges? Does all of that mean that WTC7 didn't fall into its footprint, but its footprint AND a little outside of it? What are you trying to show us, exactly, and what in the hell is the point? I'm looking at where this building landed, and if you can't get through to me that it didn't fall into its footprint then I'd say that's one up for me, because it sure as hell did by all the photographs I've ever seen.

Thanks for the info first of all, I didn't know about the military demolition experts. Anyways, I am done debating this topic, all the information that disproves the controlled demolition theory is in the PDF LeftBehind provided, as well as in the links I have provided in my earlier posts. There is just too much information the Truthers put out that is either out of context or just a lie, and it seems no one is willing to take a look at the other side. When I first started researching 9/11 I was very skeptical and almost started to believe the Truthers, but I like to see all sides of things, and after all the days of not sleeping I have chosen my side.

Well of course your photo shows nothing, it is from after the cleanup.

Here is a picture taken before that.

i26.photobucket.com...

Notice how much of it is in the street.

7 also managed to cause severe damage to the surrounding buildings. The exact opposite of falling into it's footprint.





Please read the .pdf I linked to, it exposes many of the demolition claims for the lies that they are.

www.911myths.com...

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Wow LB. Some fell into Barclay. Jesus, what a revelation. Next you'll tell me that the Sun is hot.

Some fell into Vesey, too, and also into all three neighboring buildings excluding the rest of the WTC complex. Did you have a point here, or do you not realize that you're not establishing anything? By your standards, the Landmark Tower didn't fall into its footprint either, because I'm sure you saw it leaning as it fell. Maybe smoke made it fall down, too?


Seriously dude, the reason I always have you on ignore is because of how stupid points like this are. The building freaking fell into its footprint. I want you to understand what I mean by that, because knit-picking does not negate all the photos showing where the vast majority of that building mass landed: right down at its base level. What do you seriously think you are establishing by pointing some crap that rolled over onto Barclay, or in any other direction? What do you think WOULD have happened if it was a demolition? Folded down perfectly into a neat little box?

[edit on 5-2-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by lizziex3
Everyone needs to watch the video Screw Loose Change. Yes, it's three hours long due to all the useless angry rambling the narrator puts in, but it is still the best debunking video i have ever seen. For example, they show a building being torn down using controled demolition and then compare it to the falling of the towers. they look TOTALLY different.

I can't believe people still use this as an argument.

Ofcourse it looked different.. The towers were explosions, not implosions. And they were top down explosions because otherwise it'd be a little too obvious that the impact didn't cause it.

It's not about how it looks but how it reacts. There's actual PHYSICS behind our claims, not just looks, you know.

hm.. edit messed up?

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Shroomery]

Sry for the double post, edit messing up

quote: Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why do you all think that the firefighters on the scene, who witnessed large fires in WTC 7, are liars?

Do you have any eyewitnesses that say there was hardly any fire in WTC 7?

Just a couple of million who can see it with their own eyes on video..
How long do you think you can keep up with the "oh there were fires we just can't see them" argument? It doesn't work for WTC 1, 2 and it wont work for WTC7 because it's obvious there are no raging infernos.

quote: Originally posted by LeftBehind
All of the evidence points to structural damage and uncontrolled huge fires in WTC 7?

Huge fires? What evidence are you talking about then? Hearsay? I think when physical evidence and hearsay don't match, the former wins. Even if that hearsay comes from a fireman.

quote: Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why do you think the firefighters are in on it and/or liars?

Nobody has to be in on it. The world isn't black and white like that. The mind, and memories are very moldable especially in a traumatic situation. Now you can argue all you want about what you heard people say, the point is YOU don't have any evidence to back up their claims.

quote: Originally posted by LeftBehind
How does your "smoke from other buildings" theory account for this?
/f3tvd

I agree that there is smoke coming from the building. But notice in this video that you can only make out a couple of spots where it is actually coming out of the building, the majority is just smoke hanging against the building. Giving the false impression of the entire building being engulfed.
Doesn't anyone find it a little bit odd that fires would spread through 47 stories to produce this smoke but not reach the other side of the building?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please read the .pdf I linked to, it exposes many of the demolition claims for the lies that they are.

www.911myths.com...

What an excellent pdf.

Too bad I can't copy the text from it, but I would like to mention the bit about the term "pull". Starting page 37.

Notice how in EVERY instance that it's used, they always refer to the persons, a few examples.

"pulling the poeple"

"pulling guys"

"pull everybody"

you get the picture.

Also, throughout this section, ONLY the word "pull" is colored red. What are they trying to do here? Convince us "pull" is an english word that is actually being used today? Nobody is argueing that. Nobody is arguing that the term is used for other things. But it IS used in demolition terms and not just to pull a building with cables. There's a phone call to CDI and common sense to prove that.

The point is that Silverstein never said to pull anyone out, his words were the following.

"maybe the smartest thing is to pull IT, and then we watched THE building collapse".

Not "them", "the firefighters", "the guys", but "it".

You can discuss the term all you want, but without the context, that pdf, like most "debunking" material tries to sidetrack without any substance.

Too bad some people fall for junk like that.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Shroomery]

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Shroomery]