CNN News Reports WTC Building 7 collapse Minutes before it collapses

Originally posted by deltaboy...Video Link...

Deltaboy, that just looks like smoke, or rather the shadow coming off the smoke. It doesn't look like a gaping hole though. Do you have video that someone is saying their is a gaping hole?

I'm really not on either side of the fence when it comes to any 9/11 topic. I accidentally clicked the wrong thread. But I did want to say that doesn't look like a gaping hole, while I was here.

here is a Steel Superstructure on Fire in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004

NOT THE MADRID one cause the de-bunkers love to mention that it is mainly concrete, thinking that HUGE STEEL is somehow easier to weaken. Remember the steel for these buildings are hard to heat cause of the transfer when one part gets hot.
Thin steel and large steel two different things.










The bloody building was on fire for more then 17 hours

So what was different with the fires of the WTC 7>>??

I mean a plane a b-25 bomber actually HIT THE EMPIRE STATE building causing a large fire and damage.

It didn't cause a global collapse.

WTC7 has no excuse, except when you start to add up that the BBC knew in advance, the video clip with the sound of a bomb, the straight down fall at free fall into its own footprint.

WTC7 has no excuse that day except for explosives.

Did people just go blind?





I might as well circle where I'm talking about. And what kind of hole you looking for? The perfect circle hole?



Like this building that had slight damage?

Imagine the WTC7 with a gash that I am showing that starts from the top and to the bottom where firefighters mentioned about seeing the "hole" from where they were standing.

And Godzilla wasn't here at that time.

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by deltaboy...Video Link...

Deltaboy, that just looks like smoke, or rather the shadow coming off the smoke. It doesn't look like a gaping hole though. Do you have video that someone is saying their is a gaping hole?

I'm really not on either side of the fence when it comes to any 9/11 topic. I accidentally clicked the wrong thread. But I did want to say that doesn't look like a gaping hole, while I was here.

No video, but read here...

www.firehouse.com...

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.

First of all no i don't know "Larry" I just always forget his last name and how to spell it, so I just don't type it because people are gonna know who i'm talking about anyways.

And finally, Silverstein profited hugely from the insurance payout on WTC7. That would be 'the point' of the demolition. And whether 'pull it' referred to pulling the firefighters out of the building, or the demolition of the building - either way operations around WTC7 would be finished and there would be no chance of any one else being injured or killed because of it.

People always think he profited from 9/11 and he just didn't,

911myths.com...

Originally posted by lizziex3
Nick. As shown/heard in the documentary 9|11. People jumping out of windows sounded like explosions, or a big BOOOM when they hit the ground. You should consider watching this video it may change your mind about some things. Also, do you even look at any of the links I provide? I'm pretty sure that page in my last post talks about the various other reasons for explosion type sounds. and theres another link in one of my other posts up there that explains why I dont think there were bombs in WTC.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by lizziex3]

your delusional.....go take your mercury vaccinations and support the war already...

Originally posted by lizziex3
First of all no i don't know "Larry" I just always forget his last name and how to spell it, so I just don't type it because people are gonna know who i'm talking about anyways.

People always think he profited from 9/11 and he just didn't,

911myths.com...

Lizzie.... how do *you* know if Silverstein profited from 9/11? How can you say "he just didn't"? You have no idea whether he profited or not. It seems like the one thing you do know is how to link to a website that claims they know things.

What not try some putting some actual thought and research into this type of thing before you type your opinions? You might as well save something to your clipboard to paste into every post that says, "I believe whatever these guys believe... here's a link to what they believe."

I'll get you started on how to figure out how much money Silverstein made from the deal. All of the following clippings are from Silverstein Properties' website:


First, Mayor Bloomberg weighs in, stating that without Silverstein agreeing to restructure the deal to rebuild ground zero, Silverstein could have "walked away with hundreds of millions in profits."





Because Silverstein held all the cards, i.e., the cards being his ability to walk away with hundreds of millions in profits, he was able to negotiate deals with the city and state to give him tax-exempt financing of $921 million, plus have the state kick in another $702 million.




It's also worthy to note that the $4.6 billion that is due for payments on WTC1 and WTC2 is not the entirety of all the insurance payments Silverstein received. Two insurance companies are kicking in $302 million to rebuild the site, and another two companies still owe $804 million.





Finally, I think it's also worthy to note that the $7 billion total estimate to rebuild the entire site was a number that was put on the table for the lawsuit against the two insurance companies in which Silverstein was trying to get a payout of, coincidentally, $7 billion. However, the centerpiece of the reconstructed ground zero, the Freedom Tower, is only estimated to cost $2 billion.

So before you make claims as if you personally know whether or not Silverstein made money on 9/11, you might want to do a little research. And by research, I mean doing more than looking up what debunker sites say, and parroting it back to this board. We can all read what those sites say.

So, anyone have any evidence that explosives were used, and that they were planted by firefighters?


Didn't think so.


Silverstein's comments were not commands to make the firefighters demolish the building.


What evidence do you have that they demolished the building?


The fire cheif who talked to Silverstein has talked at length about how they had to pull operations from around building seven.

Are you seriously trying to convince people that the NYFD was complicit in mass murder and insurance fraud?

All of this based on speculation and fantasy. . .

Speaking of fantasy . . .

Finally, I think it's also worthy to note that the $7 billion total estimate to rebuild the entire site was a number that was put on the table for the lawsuit against the two insurance companies in which Silverstein was trying to get a payout of, coincidentally, $7 billion. However, the centerpiece of the reconstructed ground zero, the Freedom Tower, is only estimated to cost $2 billion.

From Febuary 2, 2007

designdepartment.wordpress.com...

The cost of the Freedom Tower has soared to $3 billion, according to the Port Authority’s latest estimates. Construction costs for the 1,776-foot tower have been pegged at $2.478 billion, up from the $2.2 billion estimate for steel, concrete, glass and labor projected last spring.

Let's also add this:

www.manhattan-institute.org...

It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?

. . .

With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.

How exactly is he making profits from this again?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So, anyone have any evidence that explosives were used, and that they were planted by firefighters?

LeftBehind are you frikken kidding? You are STILL saying that the CT'ers are suggesting the "firefighters planted explosives"?????

OMG JUST WAKE UP!!!

Nobody is saying the firefighters did anything!

The explosives were planeted in WTC 7 weeks or days before 9/11. NOT ON 911.

You want proof explosives were used? Thats easy!!

Look at the video, it falls symmetrically. No uncontrolled structural damage in the entire world can cause a steel building to fall symetrically.

Originally posted by Connected
LeftBehind are you frikken kidding? You are STILL saying that the CT'ers are suggesting the "firefighters planted explosives"?????

Ok, what exactly do you think it means when someone claims that Silverstein ordered the building pulled when talking to a Fire Chief?


Please explain how a this is evidence without anyone in the NYFD being involved, especially since he was talking to a Fire chief at the time?


Please let's hear your theory on how Silverstein ordered it pulled by some other mysterious party.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by LeftBehind]

Okay. I give up. You are all right. I'm wrong. Larry Silverstien has managed to pull off this super-elaborate insurance fraud, even admitting it on PBS, and the insurance companys have somehow, someway, not cought onto it. He must be the smartest person ever.

You could be right lizzie, perhaps he didn't profit from it. It's really not a major point and I don't think it's worth getting hung up over. Frankly, though, Silverstein's running a business at the end of the day, so I doubt very much that all the numbers are public. But there are so many other uncertainties and just general strangeness surrounding even WTC7 alone, that this is simply another kind of Freudian Slip like Rummsfeld's 'Missile that hit the Pentagon'.

lizzie and everyone, you're right and wrong.

He did profit. He's a businessman. look at the timing: he leases the WTC, a big guly complex that was losing money, for 99 years! maxes it out - six weeks before 9/11. now with the settlement he gets to build the Freedom Tower all to spec. For another 94 years now. Was he really just leasing the Freedom tower in '01? It may ultimately constitiute fraud, but he feels pretty safe - to prove that would be to prove the whole gov't liars and other things would follow.

On the other hand, he did NOT admit to pulling the building on PBS. Why would he? It was a "slip." He had to know how it would sound. He was talking to fire chief becuase he was ordering the fire effort pulled. No one ever claims the firefighters planted the bombs, but the implication in the (most prominent) CT take is that he was ordering the chief to flip the switch on the pre-placed explosives. It may have been standard at the time, people thot - everyone's out, just pull it - and only later were Larry and the chief told "don't mention that." Then he slipped. I think that's the theory as it made sense to me. But it's almost certainly wrong.

Which isn't to say any of the building's WEREN'T pulled. The demo evidence is still strong but I'm skeptical and that's another story. But "pull it" is no longer good evidence. Cause I say so.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Did people just go blind?

Like this building that had slight damage?

Imagine the WTC7 with a gash that I am showing that starts from the top and to the bottom where firefighters mentioned about seeing the "hole" from where they were standing.

I'd just like to point out that, yes that is what I would consider slight damage. The damage visible in this picture is mostly superficial and does not warrant a building falling symmetrically straight down at near free fall speeds into its own footprint, just like the goal in a controlled demolition.

You know what puzzles me more than anything, when people make the claim that it would be impossible to rig a building with explosives without anyone noticing as it would take so much time and careful planning. But then they somehow stop using the same rationale and logics that led them to this conclusion when they claim that WTC 7 collapsed in this manner (symmetrical into its own footprint at near free fall speeds) naturally due to damage received from the falling towers.

Don’t you people see the logical fallacy here? The exact same process you claim would take so long to plan and execute (i.e. rigging a building for demolition. Note that I don’t disagree that this is time and resource consuming effort) actually happens due to mere coincidence (?) without any outside influence other than the building suffering external damage from debris of the collapsing towers and some minor fires (yes, video evidence proves that there were not a raging inferno at WTC 7, not that this really should matter). That is a remarkable conclusion that defies all logic in my opinion.

Originally posted by lizziex3
First of all no i don't know "Larry" I just always forget his last name and how to spell it, so I just don't type it because people are gonna know who i'm talking about anyways.

And finally, Silverstein profited hugely from the insurance payout on WTC7. That would be 'the point' of the demolition. And whether 'pull it' referred to pulling the firefighters out of the building, or the demolition of the building - either way operations around WTC7 would be finished and there would be no chance of any one else being injured or killed because of it.

People always think he profited from 9/11 and he just didn't,

911myths.com...

Silverstein believed that he would profit. On the surface it sure looked like he would, but what insurance companies do, and what judges say can change predicted future.

And still, where are the sources for that poorly written article? Where is there proof to back up their claims that he won't get the 7.2 billion.

If you invested money, then were paid back more than you put in, would you say you made a profit? How can the site say 'not really' when he did get more than he put in? Seems like they have and agenda, no doubt reflected by the site title. I would suggest to anyone who looks in here to back up and conclusions with off site sources before quoting from it.

You know what puzzles me more than anything, when people make the claim that it would be impossible to rig a building with explosives without anyone noticing as it would take so much time and careful planning

Do you actually know what goes into demolishing a building with explosives? It DOES take months of planning, and prep work. Prep work that would be impossible to hide. It's not a simple matter of strapping some explosives to the base and letting it blow.

When a demo company rigs a bldg, they do a lot more than that. First, they have to cut most of the steel support beams part way through, almost to the point of failure. Then they have to string MILES AND MILES of heavy duty explosive wiring, then they have to set up the explosives, which are quite visible.

If they hadn't have cut the substructure as per nomal demolition, they would have had to use a lot more explosives than normal, and the sound, shockwave of such an explosion would not have been missed by anyone!

And you're telling me that they could do all this, with the building open and in full operation, and nobody would see, or suspect anything? You've got to be kidding me.

I'd like to see one piece of evidence other than "It looked like a controlled demolition" that shows me it was.





[edit on 1-3-2007 by sensfan]

*Sigh* You entirely miss the point!

Originally posted by sensfan

You know what puzzles me more than anything, when people make the claim that it would be impossible to rig a building with explosives without anyone noticing as it would take so much time and careful planning

Do you actually know what goes into demolishing a building with explosives? It DOES take months of planning, and prep work. Prep work that would be impossible to hide. It's not a simple matter of strapping some explosives to the base and letting it blow.

Yes, completing a conventional demolition successfully (i.e. controlling how it falls) is a resource and time consuming effort.

What I am trying to make you realize is that you are claiming (or perhaps not you, I’m not certain what you’re views are exactly) that the building fell just as it was a controlled demolition WITHOUT all this hard effort and pre-planning, just as a random coincidence, you must assume.

So taking your claim into account, that the WTC 7 fell displaying many characteristics observed in controlled demolition without it actually being controlled demolition, why do you believe wiring the building with explosives to make it fall the way you claim it fell without it being a controlled demolition has to be such an enormously difficult task?

I’m having trouble wording my self here; my native tongue is not English. However, do you understand what I am getting at? Don’t you see the logical fallacy here?

Originally posted by sensfan
When a demo company rigs a bldg, they do a lot more than that. First, they have to cut most of the steel support beams part way through, almost to the point of failure. Then they have to string MILES AND MILES of heavy duty explosive wiring, then they have to set up the explosives, which are quite visible.

If they hadn't have cut the substructure as per nomal demolition, they would have had to use a lot more explosives than normal, and the sound, shockwave of such an explosion would not have been missed by anyone!

And you're telling me that they could do all this, with the building open and in full operation, and nobody would see, or suspect anything? You've got to be kidding me.

I’m not telling you how it was done nor can I tell you what is required in terms of explosives to enable the building fall the way it did. I can only tell you that it defies the laws of physics, as I understand them, that it fell the way it did without any other sort of energy source being introduced to initialize the collapse. So now I’m just theorizing what other possibilities there are that will explain what was observed.

Originally posted by sensfan
I'd like to see one piece of evidence other than "It looked like a controlled demolition" that shows me it was.

Molten metal found in the basements of WTC 7 at temperatures higher than what you would get from a normal carbon fire. This fits perfectly with explosives/termite being introducing as an energy source.

its important when delving into these kinda "branches" of the main conspiracy to take a mental step back and once again look at the bigger picture.

-don bueno