Building 7, the untold story *slide show*

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by IvanZana

 

One building was so badly damaged by WTC 7 that it had to be torn down.

Which one eh? Quite obvious that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and an excellent one at that.

As you can see no building had to be torn down..


[edit on 16-2-2008 by IvanZana]

Alfred P. Murrah Building. Oklahoma City Bombing.

Not even that building collapsed, I guess stupid Timmothy Mcviegh should of just set it on fire with a can of kerosene and a match. Would of done more damage.

Give me a break... No body is stupid enough to believe the WTC 7 was anything but a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Thank you very much.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by thedman

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

Lets see building heavily involved in fire, completely on fire, fire on all
floors....


Maybe should peruse this for complete account of damage/fires in WTC 7
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Hmm. I've seen video of 7 falling and I didn't see a "fully engulfed building".

Try again. If the fire was hot enough to fell a building, the windows wouldn't be intact.

Just more disinfo.

Edit:

BTW, I would not listen to those who are known to work for the government. Posting ANYTHING other than the official story will get them into trouble.

So, my point is. Government employees are not to be trusted.

[edit on 2/17/2008 by Griff]

Hmm. I've seen video of 7 falling and I didn't see a "fully engulfed building".

That is because WTC 7 was filmed from the North side (recognizable
from the black and metallic design), the side which was not damaged
and involved in fire. It was the South side (red granite) which
was struck by the debris and caught fire. Just because you didn't
see it or the cameras didn't film it doesnt mean it did not happen.

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
Pull it! Yeah like ole Larry told them to do. Funny how supporters say that he was talking about pulling the firefighters.....that makes no sense. Nobody says it like that

Unless the video was expertly edited, he says:

video.google.com...

Not only that, but look closely at how the building collapses squarely. If that was some random collapse due to fire/damage, I'm Lord Lucan!!

[edit on 17-2-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 17-2-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by thedman


That would be the oposite of fully engulfed, would it not? Plus, the video showing the SOUTH facade before collapse, also doesn't show a fully engulfed building. Video does not lie or be mistaken, people can.

reply to post by IvanZana


Don't get me started on the Murrah building. Did you know that only one column is holding the rest of that building up? As stated by CDI, Inc. themselves. I can post the proof later if need be but I'm on my iPod touch right now.


So, if I've accidentally alerted someone or hit foe by mistake, that is why. I'm just testing my new toy.

I can’t add much to the discussion here — it’s already perfectly complete. I just wanted to compliment IvanaZana — big time — for some FANTASTIC pictures! I’ve never seen those images before, and if there are any fence sitters remaining, they ought to convince ‘em (that WTC was a controlled demo).

As stated before, as a “no-planer”, it is my belief that flight UA93, or to be precise, the phony report of flight UA93 (none of the 9-11 flights or hijackings existed in reality), was ‘intended’ to hit WTC-7. But for some reason — technical difficulties with generating holograms or CGI feeds perhaps — this never happened. So the fake non-corporeal Boeing 767 was ‘crashed’ in Shanksville. Again, nothing really crashed in Pennsylvania but rather was only reported as having ‘gone down’. Big difference.

As some may of you may know, I support the idea that WTC-7 was nuked (along with WTC-1, 2 and 6). And a good guess of who might have lent their ‘expertise’ in how to do this, would be Controlled Demolition Inc. Had to throw that in there, being that the name CDI was brought up in connection with the Oklahoma City Bombing (which they arranged also IMHO).

Thank you again IvanZana for comprehensively linking WTC-7 photos and videos!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods



Thank you wizard for the compliment.



I am confident now there is not much to debate over WTC 7.
Watch this video.

Originally posted by IvanZana

Alfred P. Murrah Building. Oklahoma City Bombing.

More from CDI:

www.pbs.org...

SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.

While talking about the Murrah building.

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.

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

What's that again debunkers? I thought demolition experts never used the word "pull" when describing building demolitions.

reply to post by IvanZana


Under 10 seconds huh? Well using the same seismology lab that "CT'ers" love to use, according to the seismic readings, it took WTC 7 eighteen seconds to collapse from start to finish.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

And on the actual seismic readings, no spikes that would indicate explosive charges detonating.

reply to post by Griff


Oh this is hilarious. My employer, the Government, doesnt give a rip as to what I post on the internet, provided I do not use a government computer to do so. Somebody has been watching too many episodes of the X Files.

Which one eh? Quite obvious that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and an excellent one at that

Ivan, google 30 west broadway, then get back to me.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by IvanZana

Alfred P. Murrah Building. Oklahoma City Bombing.

More from CDI:

www.pbs.org...

SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.

No doubt eh, a couple of pre-set fires were used to cover the explosions of WTC 7.


THere is no doubt that wtc7 was controlled demolitions. Look how tall the building is and how close it is to the buildings, No way in a billion years can a building fall like that unless it was pulled down by controlled demolitions.



[edit on 18-2-2008 by IvanZana]

Explosions heard at WTC 7





This video has never been debunked.

there is no way that building 7 took 18 seconds to collapse. Look at the video and you can clearly see that it did not take that long. Please show me real video evidence that the building took that long.... bet you cant

reply to post by Jeff Riff


The roof line accelerated at free-fall (~9.8m/s^2), so regardless of where anyone starts timing the collapse, it can be proven that the building experienced no loss of kinetic energy as it destroyed itself (as the building suffered "global collapse"). Which is impossible. Without another source of energy, at least.

reply to post by IvanZana


Yeah Interesting video footage! How did those cops know "The Buildings about to blow up?"

Did he ever reply about the Molten metal video? I missed it if he did.




Oh yeah I almost forgot, "Pull it"

[edit on 2/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]

from what I recall, wasnt building 7 built quite strong? Does anyone have any info on that?