WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

reply to post by Swing Dangler


If you think the Shanksville plane may have been planned to hit WTC 7 why do you suppose that, having taken off in New York, it was making a bee-line for Washington when it went down ?

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by Alfie1
It is alleged that WTC 7 was, along with WTC 1&2, wired for demolition pre-9/11.

However, WTC 1&2, were hit by planes which might obscure any controlled demolition. But no such obscuring provision was made for WTC 7 which was 355 feet from WTC 1. It was by chance that debris from WTC 1 damaged and started fires in WTC 7 and cut off water supplies. This could not have been planned for.

The idea that WTC 7 was going to be demolished willy nilly in the cold light of day is absurd. Similarly absurd is the idea sometimes put forward that the purpose of destroying WTC 7 was to hide secrets contained therein. Is blowing up somewhere and distributing stuff over half Manhattan the optimum way of dealing with secrets ?

Is it not obvious that WTC 7 was collateral damage flowing from the terrorist attacks on WTC 1&2 ?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Alfie1]

I have a question. Did you ever happen to eat paint chips as a kid? Because this is a pile of CRAP! You have provided NO data to back up you're ridiculous claims . What is the point of this thread? To reinforce your denial and project it on others who know better? Get some kind of attention im guessing?

If you don't like the thread and have nothing to contribute then I am not sure why you are bothering to post; it's not compulsory.

I think it is important because I believe any objective consideration of the facts shows that WTC 7 could not have been a cd unless you accept that the supposed perps were just going to blow it up as it stood and that is incredible. Many truthers say it was WTC 7 that drew them to trutherism so it is particularly important to look at the circumstances carefully.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
"The Buildings fell perfectly within their own footprints", or "The Buildings fell at freefall speeds".

Well WTC 7 DID fall into its own footprint, not perfectly as that is impossible. If all four outer walls end up ON TOP of the debris pile then the majority of the building fell in its footprint, an impossible feat unless controlled...



And also WTC 7 did fall at free-fall speed for a few seconds, as admitted by NIST...

www2.ae911truth.org...

Maybe you should do more research before denying everything...

reply to post by Alfie1


Utter poppycock!

NIST hands over their bulldinkery and you buy it

hook, line and sinker!

Originally posted by Alfie1
I think it is important because I believe any objective consideration of the facts shows that WTC 7 could not have been a cd unless you accept that the supposed perps were just going to blow it up as it stood and that is incredible. Many truthers say it was WTC 7 that drew them to trutherism so it is particularly important to look at the circumstances carefully.

That is just a ridiculous assertion. A desperate attempt to deny the obvious, to yourself and others.

The funny thing is the 'perps' did 'blow it up' as it stood and the final outcome of the collapse resulted in what a controlled implosion demolition is supposed result in, all four outer walls ON TOP of the debris pile, which means the majority of the building collapsed into it's own footprint...



Buildings do not collapse symmetrically into their own footprints from asymmetrical damage, and fires. That can only happen from controlled implosion demolition.

science.howstuffworks.com...



Not 'trutherism', facts...

Originally posted by The_Zomar
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1637b3ed1200.jpg[/atsimg]

This image always speaks volumes. Notice building 3 did not collapse, look at it's placement compared to building 1 an 2.

People actually think building 7 caught on fire from debris and burnt to the ground? It's laughable that people would be so gullible.

Why are so many people in denial that Building 3 collapsed on 9/11. It did.

Is it because it doesn't fit in with your controlled demolition theories?

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by The_Zomar
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1637b3ed1200.jpg[/atsimg]

This image always speaks volumes. Notice building 3 did not collapse, look at it's placement compared to building 1 an 2.

People actually think building 7 caught on fire from debris and burnt to the ground? It's laughable that people would be so gullible.

Why are so many people in denial that Building 3 collapsed on 9/11. It did.

Is it because it doesn't fit in with your controlled demolition theories?

911research.wtc7.net...

does that look collapsed to you?

how do you people not see what happened...you offer no proof...you simply say what you were told by others...all you did was say building 3 collapsed.....evidence please?

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK you say I make a " ridiculous assertion " about WTC 7 but neither you, nor anyone else, has actually refuted the facts :-

(a) you, and many other truthers, claim that WTC 1 , 2 & 7 were controlled demolitions.

(b) with WTC 1 & 2, if they were controlled demolitions, there was incredibly ingenious cover-up by way of plane impacts and collapses starting at the impact points.

(c) WTC 7 had no cover-up. It was hit by chance by falling debris from WTC 1. No-one could have planned for WTC 7 to be hit by debris; and to such a degree as to damage it and set fires without knocking it down. If it had been knocked down, and was rigged for cd, then all the undetonated charges and detonators etc would be there in the rubble.

(d) if you leave out WTC 7 being hit by rubble, which you must because it was a chance happenstance, you are left with the supposed perps obviously planning to blow it up as it stood with half the world watching.

(e) given the care lavished on the supposed cover-up of WTC 1 & 2 is it credible that the perps would have planned to blow WTC 7 up with no cover ? Their lives were on the line.

Please show me where my deductions have gone wrong .Your earlier suggestion to the effect that the perps thought no-one would notice if WTC 7 was cd'd as it stood in broad light of day is simply untenable.

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG

Originally posted by stirling
9/11 WAS an inside job......i couldnt have been accomplished if it werent.
A few other relevant questions....
Where are the huge jet engines(2) which should have definately survived the pentagon attack?(they couldnt have been destroyed as they weigh toins and are 8 ft in dia.)
we only saw one piddlingly small engine rotor part recovered.
Where are all the suitcases and luggage, tail assembly,etc... that should have strewn the pentagon lawn?
The truth is there are so many holes in the official theory that it can never explain the reality of what occured.

Let me refer you to this for your answer:

Source

[edit on 1-9-2010 by KILL_DOGG]

By the way....I forgot to mention this earlier...but this vid is about the flimsiest proof of anything to show that the airplanes could have disappeared. First off we don't really have any specific numbers....for all we know it could be a 1/16th model of a jet. and if it is real size (prolly is) then it is still not as large as a 757. Then there is the issue of speed....how fast was it going? finally....the planes went into the towers (broke through the wall) and in shanksville into the ground (pentagon also went through the wall....although I dont believe that was a plane)...this jet flew into an immovable object....that changes everything because there was no immovable objects that the 757s hit

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK

 

ANOK you say I make a " ridiculous assertion " about WTC 7 but neither you, nor anyone else, has actually refuted the facts :-

(a) you, and many other truthers, claim that WTC 1 , 2 & 7 were controlled demolitions.

(b) with WTC 1 & 2, if they were controlled demolitions, there was incredibly ingenious cover-up by way of plane impacts and collapses starting at the impact points.

(c) WTC 7 had no cover-up. It was hit by chance by falling debris from WTC 1. No-one could have planned for WTC 7 to be hit by debris; and to such a degree as to damage it and set fires without knocking it down. If it had been knocked down, and was rigged for cd, then all the undetonated charges and detonators etc would be there in the rubble.

(d) if you leave out WTC 7 being hit by rubble, which you must because it was a chance happenstance, you are left with the supposed perps obviously planning to blow it up as it stood with half the world watching.

(e) given the care lavished on the supposed cover-up of WTC 1 & 2 is it credible that the perps would have planned to blow WTC 7 up with no cover ? Their lives were on the line.

Please show me where my deductions have gone wrong .Your earlier suggestion to the effect that the perps thought no-one would notice if WTC 7 was cd'd as it stood in broad light of day is simply untenable.

A: Yes this is a claim that many of us make....your point?

B: I don't see why it has to be "incredibly ingenious"...looking at the evidence it seemed like it wasn't the smoothest operation in the end. This video may help show my point....it was a matter of the right people in powerful positions as well as simply contracting people to "work" on the building. (should watch the whole series in my opinion....very good one)

www.youtube.com...

C: How is this fact? where is this proof? you just said that it was not covered up (when in reality they claimed fire and debris caused it) and if I remember correctly the 9/11 commission never actually tied up that loose end by explaining its collapse in the report. Also the classic questions that have never been answered....when has fire ever cause a steel structure like that to fall and where is the proof that it was debris....to fall like that it would have had to have been extreme amounts debris and in precise places to fall in such a uniform manner. show me a video of large amounts of smoke or fires in the building please?

D: This is not necessarily the ONLY cause but by far the most realistic when you consider all the evidence

E: Actually there lives were not on the line all that much....perhaps you didn't notice the immense blame game that happened almost instantly afterwords...not to mention its blamed mostly on "terrorism" and "evil" 2 very faceless and very impossible to identify groups. The answer to that can not be explained away like you are wanting....for all we know they could have not realized that the buildings wouldn't fall that far and hit that building or something.

reply to post by Dennislp3


Is this another 'hologram' thing again? ugh why do people fall for this nonsense?

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Dennislp3

 

Is this another 'hologram' thing again? ugh why do people fall for this nonsense?

you mean a 3d model? what exactly are you referring to cause I haven't posted any vids like that....if your talking about my 9/11 coincidences vid then why don't you watch it.....this proves you don't even see what is presented before commenting on it...

reply to post by Dennislp3


I am asking you to go back to the planning stage of this alleged operation. In relation to WTC 1 & 2 it was obviously planned that the cd would be disguised by planes crashing into them and by having the demos initiated from the impact points.

However, the plan for WTC 7 was evidently no plan at all beyond blowing it up as it stood. You mention the debris from WTC 1 and subsequent fires but that only happened by chance. Or are you suggesting that it was planned that the collapse of a huge skyscraper should just wing WTC 7 and start fires ? Can you believe that ?

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
The minute you or anyone can explain to me, how building 7 fell straight to the ground WITH NO RESISTANCE, i'll believe the original story.

+1 buildings that come down from plains and or collateral fire act much differant than buildings brought down.

Anyone who thinks this must also think a 747 shrunk to 12 foot total wing span before hitting the pentagon.

reply to post by Alfie1


Again with more of your irrelevant questions.

None of that matters.

How do all four walls of a building end up on top of the debris pile, land in its own footprint, from a natural collapse?

That can not happen regardless of your claims. I don't have to show you how it was done, or who did it, when the final outcome proves it was done. It's up to crime investigators to find out who did it.

And if you all really cared, and were not just hear to support the OS, instead of arguing with me you would be checking out what I say. None of you have any credibility with me and can't be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Have a read of the discrete NIST report on WTC 7. Fires, started by debris from WTC 1 and burning uncontrolled for hours, brought the building down. If you know different please let us know.

Building 7 was deliberately ordered to be demolished by governor/mayor/statesman after fire gutted a level. As I recalled, I watched it on youtube where the high-level man admitted ordering a take down of building 7.

But now I can't find that video anywhere!

Originally posted by ANOK
That can not happen regardless of your claims.

You keep repeating that hoping that by repeating a lie enough it will make it true. Except reality does not state a lie repeated enough becomes true!

None of you have any credibility with me and can't be taken seriously.

What makes you think someone repeating a lie constantly has any credibility with anyone?

reply to post by dereks


LOL how am I lying?

You can try discrediting people all day long, haven't you figured out yet that doesn't work here?

You need to show evidence I'm wrong. Obviously you have none.

Quit with the BS and answer the question...

How do all four outer walls end up on top of the debris pile, land in its own footprint, from a natural collapse due to fire

reply to post by ANOK


I think the same can be said of you. You have no evidence that it is impossible. In fact, with regards to random chance in events especially as unpredictable as 9/11, I would think that even the slightest probability would make what really happened viable.

You cannot demand evidence without providing your own. Stating that something is impossible is not a fact, but an opinion.

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, you are just obsessed with your interpretation of the collapse of WTC 7. Doesn't the fact that NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers, 120,000 plus membership, ( and the Institute of Civil Engineers in my country come to that ) do not agree with you give you pause for thought ?

Anyway, not that this thread was about that; it was about the circumstantial evidence showing that a cd of WTC was absurd and you haven't addressed those circumstances at all except to suggest that the perps were prepared to blow up WTC 7 without any cover on the basis that no-one would notice !