very good shot of wtc7 penthouse early collapse

video.google.com...
4:10 in (worth listening to the guy talking before that, and there are lots of great angles some of which i hadn't seen in this film)

now how can (relatively minor as far as I'm concerned) damage to the lower /side area and fires in the bottom/middle cause the top PENTHOUSE to collapse quite a few seconds before the rest....

(not that I wasn't already convinced the second I saw decent footage of this whole symmetrical implosion)

sorry if its a repost.

reply to post by diablomonic

now how can (relatively minor as far as I'm concerned) damage to the lower /side area and fires in the bottom/middle cause the top PENTHOUSE to collapse quite a few seconds before the rest....

It's hard to look at any video of the collapse of WTC7 without noticing how much it looks like a controlled demolition. There's no escaping that - even debunkers have to acknowledge it 'looks' like one.

However, you also have to bear in mind that we have no way of knowing exactly how much damage the front of the building sustained. We have some images of the south west corner, and that was clearly traumatised. We also have news footage that appears to show a considerable gash running down maybe two thirds of the building. But there are no images of the middle to west half of the north face, which is where a large chunk of the building was missing (IIRC), according to some firefighter eyewitness accounts.

reply to post by coughymachine


Thanks for the reply

first off, the part of my comment that you are replying to is specifically talking about the top penthouse thing collapsing early. Now this was WAY above any damage from falling stuff, the (probably photoshopped as far as Im concerned) single photo of a relatively small (compared to the volume/structure of the building not in absolute size, which was considerable) gash Ive seen and, from all the images/footage Ive seen, way above the fire region (this is less certain).

so why did it collapse first?

and way more interestingly:
Why did this tiny structure collapse coincide (but not exactly) with the rest of the HUGE building falling down PERFECTLY SYMMETRICALLY as far as implosions go (ie visually, it is one of the most perfect implosions Ive seen, and I have watched footage of many)

dont try to argue that this small structure at the top somehow took out all the huge steel beams holding this building up at the same time to allow it to fall symmetrically at free fall speed, and not only that, but took them out from the bottom up to allow the free fall speed! (ie teleported through the building)


as to the actual collapse, I cannot believe that ANYONE who has any knowledge of physics/engineering and is honest with themselves could believe it is not an implosion. You mention a "considerable gash". It is a considerable gash, if you were talking about repair costs. it is a considerable gash if it was done to a smallish block of flats.
IT IS IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a considerable enough gash to cause a symmetrical free fall collapse of a building of this size and construction, as even IF it took out enough structural supports to somehow collapse this building (which is ludicrous to me but lets just accept it for the sake of argument for a second) the building would collapse TOWARDS the damage, not from the penthouse down because this damage was on one side, not the center!.

IN OTHER WORDS: the fact that the penthouse collapsed first and that the whole building collapsed straight down instead of toppling, at least initially, towards the gash PROVES that this gash is essentially irrelevant to the collapse (and IS irrelevant to the WAY it collapsed)

reply to post by diablomonic


I think you've maybe read my response and assumed I'm a staunch advocate of the 'official' theory. I'm not.

I think it looked like a controlled demolition. I think there's a good chance it was a controlled demolition. That said, there was a lot of damage to the structure from the collapsing towers, much of which I'm sure we've never seen.

It just so happens that the penthouse was located above an area of the building that was said by some eyewitnesses to have sustained considerable damage at lower levels. It's possible this damage could have caused internal trauma below the penthouse that led to this being the initial point of collapse.

I don't know but I feel certain this is what NIST will find.

Ultimately, we are never going to know what happened to WTC-7 for sure, unless it was CD'd and an insider confesses.

There is no way that the penthouse could collapse without the entire eupport structure being severed at the exact same time!! No way possible. The fact is that the penthouse went down first because the main supports were blown all at once and then the middle of the building, where the majority of the huge steel beams were located, were severed.

The penthouse dip is a TELLING sign of a total controlled demo: Here is why: When a building is to be demolished, the sappers must place the charges in locations that will cause the central supports to fail first, thus bringing the rest of the building inwards, down into itself. If the outer supports were blown first, the middle of the building would remain standing , or present obstacles to a clean fall. The central area MUST go first, as seen on all films.

When the inner core supports were blown, after a countdown, the middle dropped first, from the top down, and then the rest of building 7 fell in on the center. If there were damage to parts of the building severe enough to cause a collapse, the building would, without any doubt, collapse not in a perfect manner like it did, but in a partial manner, with parts still remaining standing as the parts damaged sloughed off from the rest.

There is NO WAY to explain a partial collapse from damage that starts at the penthouse, totally unaffected by any debris, and continue perfectly as in a demolition. We see a controlled demo, and we have one. The plane that had to be shot down prematurely was supposed to have hit 7, and when it did not they have to fall back on the back up plan, which was demolition without a cause, rather than with a cause. They just hope that enough media ignorance and denial will keep the issue dead.

You know for the last (god has it been three years) three years I have been poking around I have never heard that the last plane was to hit Building Seven. I must say though.. it would make perfect sense. Everything I have learned about flight 93 and the fact that the Air Force first admitted that they were following flight 93 when it crashed and the fact that the plane just happened to have gone down at the same time as the takeover started and the missing three minutes of data on the black box. My opinion at this point of flight 93 was that the plane was being watched and listened to and that once (who ever did this entire operation) they realized that the passengers were going to actually try and take back the plane, the decision to bring down the plane was made. I have also always believed that there were no rockets or 20mms fired but probably like the other planes they had the QRS-11 hostage takeover chips already in embedded into the flight control and were able to takeover the planes flight controls and then put the big show on for the people of shanksville...gunned the engines flew very low (and the best part) turned the big 757 upside down and fly it like that for a few more seconds then straight into the ground.

One more point about Building seven and the reason I have always believed that there was some sort of countdown and that it was a controlled demolition was that there is a video of the collapse (and forgive me I am new and not sure how to import videos into the thread maybe someone else could) but this video starts with someone filming inside of a building that is close to building seven and it appears that the person filming takes there camera from filming from inside and they hurry up and point the camera at building seven outside of the window at the exact moment that the collapse starts. It always seemed to me to be like one of those videos in Iraq where a soldier is told over the radio by the bomber that the bomb is incoming and bout to hit the big building in front of them that they have been fighting for awhile...so the soldier hurries up and turns his camera on and points at the building right at the moment the bomb hits. I wouldnt be surprised to find out that the person who happened to point that camera out the window at the exact moment that the building began to collapse had a radio and all of a sudden heard the countdown. Just my two cents sorry for the long post.


About Boeing and the QRS-11 Chips...
seattletimes.nwsource.com...


Go to Page 5 on this PDF of archived articles having to do with flight 93, the name of the article isentagon:Air Force was in position to down the highjacked jet. A must read , I believe that the plane tasked with *really* was in control of flight 93 was this plane there referring to and that a lot of witnesses reported seeing.
www.topcops.com...


Took me awhile to find this video with the first part on it where the person hurries up and looks out the window to catch the collapse( for some reason all the videos of this shot , most have that part cut out and just show the building collapse, anyways here it is.
video.google.com...

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


I just happened to read that article about the Boeing lawsuit for embedding the QRS-11 chips, its kind of funny but in the article they do everything to avoid saying that you can remotely control a plane with it with the same kind of detail as a missle...but just incase there are some doubters here is a direct link to the applications and specifications of the chip.


www.systron.com...