Very new video WTC7 KINK

If anything, this video is more proof that it WASNT a controlled demo. you can see it fall in an angle, towards its weakest point, just as it should.

Thankyou for helping debunk the wtc7 conspiracy.

Originally posted by lizziex3
if anything it goes against your theory. you can see it falling at an angle torwards the corner that giant pieces of debris smashed into it. it also looks NOTHING like a controlled demo. if you want to see what a controlled demo actually looks like go to youtube and search for the landmark building demolition.

Why would the perpetrators of 9/11 want it to look like a conventional demolition? Comparisons to demo jobs done on other buildings is, if anything, a red herring in this case. Also, I don't know about you but I see it buckling inward for the most part, not towards a corner. Regardless, it hardly goes against the CD theory.

They are trying to shift focus on what is obviously 100% demolition.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
If anything, this video is more proof that it WASNT a controlled demo. you can see it fall in an angle, towards its weakest point, just as it should.

Too late in the collapse for that crap to fly.

Having a building fall into itself is a trick to avoid collateral damage. You saw the penthouse fall. This is because the column under it was taken out first. Then the rest were all taken out simultaneously.

The building fell straight down into itself until it got nearer the ground and the pile at the base was becoming larger, and this is when it folded into itself. If you look at photos of the debris piles, you can see how this helped by the general spread of debris. This was a very tall, very massive building.

I am amazed at the amount of debunkers.

wow, what are they defending anyway?
Alquadia?
Their precious government?

I am convinced that the mass mind is under subversive control via the media and the dumbing down of education add to that Einstein said the Universe and Stupidity are infinite and you have a bunch of people controlled by mindcontrol via the media uneducated in science and physics.

Poor misguided people.
I rarely watch TV and I am disgusted everytime I do.
I saw George Tenet on Meet the Press on the weekend
OH man what a liar or incompetent idiot.
the ex head of the CIA is selling a book based on his incompetance
give me a break.

The collapes is ovbiously not from fire.
thanks for the video and the next piece of the puzzle.



[edit on 7-5-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
Angle eh?

Your onto something there mate. The light reflections on the windows seem to suggest the building fell at an angle (either towards or away from the camera), which would go against controlled demo.

Explain what you mean by this, if you could please.

Would go against a controlled demolition?

The building collapse, in the first place, wasn't that perfect, CD or not, because you had a pile of rubble it was falling on. It wasn't falling through a hole in the Earth, of course you expect it to tilt and jolt in other directions as it hits debris from its own structure when its almost to the ground.

[edit on 5/7/2007 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Doesn't show much except the building is going down, course its already in the midst of going down in the video.

It shows that the pockets of fire that were spread throughout WTC7 burnt away enough of the center of the building to weaken the steel and make it fall perfectly inward on itself.

Man, if only all fires could be that convienient! The insurance companies would be a lot happier that they wouldn't have to paid out for extra collateral damage when buildings fall to the side or break apart and end up damaging other buildings/cars/etc.

You know, that's 3 for 3 in one day. I guess in the future the CD companies are gonna save a fortune in explosives when demolishing tall steel structures. It's a proven fact that they cannot fall any other way than inward upon their footprint. Just throw some jet fuel on it.

edit: that was sarcasm

[edit on 7-5-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Thats because nobody has ever seen a damaged, on fire steel weakening building collapse ever in history.

Maybe thats because a steel building has never collapsed due to fires and structural damage in history.

And will never collapse again due to fire of that I am sure (unless they plant again some explosives)

Originally posted by Masisoar
Explain what you mean by this, if you could please.
It wasn't falling through a hole in the Earth, of course you expect it to tilt and jolt in other directions as it hits debris from its own structure when its almost to the ground.

Controlled demolitions do not fall at an angle, the purpose of a CD is to bring the building straight down in on itself.

This is obviously countered by the fact that wtc7 fell in one direction and landed across the street in front of it.

911research.wtc7.net...

None of the camera angles really show the tilt during collapse because they're all perpendicular to the direction of fall. That's why it looks like it's going straight down in all the videos.

There a CD with an angle

Wait. No.

The whole argument about wtc being a controlled demo is that it fell straight down. If you are conceding that it fell at an angle you lose the whole point of your argument.

For tall building yes thats the way they fall.
For buildings like the WTC7 thats the way they usually do it...
Let me know if you find any similarities.

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
Wait. No.

The whole argument about wtc being a controlled demo is that it fell straight down. If you are conceding that it fell at an angle you lose the whole point of your argument.

I do not share that opinion on the matter.

I'm sorry I don't concede.

Originally posted by SimonGray

Originally posted by piacenza
I am not going to explain what is new in this video if you cannot see it it means you dont wanna see it.
I give you a hint angle...

If you wish to create posts, you should provide at the very least some comments as to why you created a new topic in the first place.

If you expect others to blindly understand the jist of your own thinking, REFUSING to give commentary, such threads will be trashed by the moderator team.

thank god thank god! Simon Gray is here!

dude just check all of this guys posts... he is a 9-11 troll... if you disagree with him you are "an idiot" or an "uneducated moron"... he offers no valid counterarguments he just flames the people that disagree with him... BAN this DUDE!


Coven out

Originally posted by piacenza
The thread is about a new WTC7 video.
What other explanation would you like me to add.
I see something new in this video which I did not see in any other videos.
The new thing its about how the building collapses which is different from other angles.
They way the building leans (don´t know if the spelling is correct) while the building collapes its totally new.
From this point of view you can actually see that the building not only collapses on its own footprint but that the left part actually leans towards the center (heavily) actually demonstrating the use of controlled demolition.
Sorry if you guys could not see it I tought it was blatant.

you need to thoroughly investigate CD... Controlled demolition is always done to cause the building to fall in its own footprint... CONTROLLED DEMOLITION...

the video you posted next is what is called a PULL... There are a few explosives at the base of the building and it is then PULLED down and laid out using cranes. there is a large group out of Las Vegas called Controlled Demolition, that all they do is... guess what... CD.... and they have disproved all theories saying that 9-11 was a CD.

Plus, as the owner states in one 9-11 video "if anybody would have had to of been involved in a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, it would have been my company. and I guarantee I have never had a contract for the demolition of a building still in use by the public."

The video you show shows a building collapsing... even from a different angle it is not collapsing in the fashion of a CD... it is collapsing in the fashion of a CD and a PULL... you cannot do both at once... this is a very complex science of engineering, chemistry, geometry, and trigonometry to pull off a controlled demolition. you cannot use two different equations and yield a constant result. also the delay in the left side of the building falling in is characteristic of a building's structural integrity failing, not of a building intentionally demolished.

Once again before you flame me Piacenza... I do not believe EITHER story to 9-11; neither the CTer's or the Government really know what happened... and if they do neither are telling us all of the facts... only the facts as they interpret them...

Coven Out

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
Whatever it is, it sure as hell doesn't look like a natural collapse from fire-weakened steel and superficial damage to me.

Thats because nobody has ever seen a damaged, on fire steel weakening building collapse ever in history.

heh. and why is that?
sorry, couldnt help but to be a bit smug.



[edit on 7-5-2007 by lasse]

Originally posted by BrokenVisage

Originally posted by lizziex3
if anything it goes against your theory. you can see it falling at an angle torwards the corner that giant pieces of debris smashed into it. it also looks NOTHING like a controlled demo. if you want to see what a controlled demo actually looks like go to youtube and search for the landmark building demolition.

Why would the perpetrators of 9/11 want it to look like a conventional demolition? Comparisons to demo jobs done on other buildings is, if anything, a red herring in this case. Also, I don't know about you but I see it buckling inward for the most part, not towards a corner. Regardless, it hardly goes against the CD theory.

Look if it was a CD it was a CD.... they didn't blow the frickin buildings up... chunks of building did not scatter over every inch of New York... It was not an Explosion...

this is a matter of Physics... it is a fairly complicated subject, which I have tried explaining more than once to the poster of these videos. You cannot blow up a building without using standard CD practices if you are CDing... it will not fall properly... there are literally 20 page equations to figure out where to place and how much to use charge wise... One mistake and a CD that would have harmed none, harms hundreds of thousands.

your argument is actually a red herring because you are going on the assumption that there are many different ways to do a CD... there are two... the wrong way or the right way... if you do it wrong, it won't look real it will look like a hollywood set, a building exploding outward... if they did it right you would have had a perfecty broken buildling, flat to the ground... oh yeah... that would have been empty for a few months too!.
oh yes... please look at the aftermath photos of WTC 1 and 2... those jagged walls sure look like they meant for that to happen.... NOT!

Coven Out

Originally posted by piacenza

Please note the rail yard to the right of the building (the angle that the building is falling towards... Then notice the buildings behind the building being demoed. Anybody else catch why the building fell that way?

SAFETY ISSUE... No Train On Tracks... NO PEOPLE AROUND... Business Behind ... PEOPLE PROBABLY INSIDE... hmmm wonder why they dropped it in the direction of least threat to the community...

Coven

Originally posted by timeless test
Perhaps I'm being a bit dim, (but then I suppose you have to expect that from a "brainwashed zombie", thanks kix), but can you explain what exactly this poor quality video tells us about WTC 7 that all the other poor quality videos don't tell us?

It shows the left side of WTC7 leaning to the right towards its middle. This inclining is the classic sign of a controlled demolition, in which an explosion is set off in the middle of the building in the basement, making the sides of the building lean over towards the middle, thus causing it to fall into its footprint.