WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

reply to post by Alfie1

WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

I am sorry, did you say PROOF?

I see opinion. When you provide proof, please let us know. this thread is a pathetic as someone starting one that says "proof 9-11 was an inside job" and then go on and on about how the buildings fell.

Please note for future threads, (opinion) does not equal (proof)

*deleted*

[edit on 1-9-2010 by okbmd]

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.

If you think WTC 7 did not suffer significant damage from WTC 1 how do you explain these pics ?

www.youtube.com...

Anyway, you are drifting from the point. How did the wicked perps plan to demolish WTC 7, with the world watching, and with no cover story in place like the planes to WTC 1&2 ?

reply to post by Alfie1

That my dear Alfie,
is a load of BULLSH€t! No steel framed buildings before or since have EVER collapsed in such a manner. Either you or your sources are agent's of disinformation. Say hello to the lad's & lasses at MI6 for us. PEACE.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Alfie1

 

WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

I am sorry, did you say PROOF?

I see opinion. When you provide proof, please let us know. this thread is a pathetic as someone starting one that says "proof 9-11 was an inside job" and then go on and on about how the buildings fell.

Please note for future threads, (opinion) does not equal (proof)

I am trying to get into the the spirit of trutherism here and trying to use truther language.

However, I really do believe that the truther belief in a controlled demolition of WTC 7 is complete cr-p. How did the perps hope to get away with it when they had apparently planned nothing but to blow it up ?

reply to post by Alfie1


So these buildings were Fire Traps then, as your logic is : Fire and the building collapses completelly ?

Did tonns of jetFuel land in building 7 when number 1 hit it ??
Ive read that the JetFuel did not burn long enough and cant burn hot enough to bring the towers down..
(what Ive read)..

Originally posted by Klaatumagnum
reply to post by Alfie1

 

That my dear Alfie,
is a load of BULLSH€t! No steel framed buildings before or since have EVER collapsed in such a manner. Either you or your sources are agent's of disinformation. Say hello to the lad's & lasses at MI6 for us. PEACE.

Never mind what you think steel framed buildings should or should not do; do you think the perps planned to cd WTC 7 whatever ? Could they have known elements of WTC 1 would fall on it ? Did they care about their lives if found out ?

wtc 7 had fires on only several floors

no steel structure has ever completely fallen by fire

the center of the building goes first, a sign of CD

the "pull it" video...

the police radio countdown

police and firemen caught on tape saying the building is coming down, how would they know? are they all psychic?

Oklahoma city was done by agents working around mcvey, agents who had government ties, so that too was an inside job. why take all the tapes and never release them?

theres too many suspicious ways involved with 9-11 that it could not have been just airplanes that brought the towers down, i think the majority now believes that, many just dont want to think about it. Ignorance is bliss so to speak.

WTC 7 Fire Alarm System Shut Down on 9/11 – And Every Morning from September 4th

Smoking Gun #1: The fire alarm system in WTC 7 was effectively shut down at the off-site monitoring station on 9/11 until 14:48 PM because it was in TEST : ALL condition. That means the operator monitoring the system would not be informed of any fire alarms. However, fire alarm data is recorded in a history file.

Smoking Gun #2: The system had also been shut down every morning for a week before 9/11!

Smoking Gun #3: There is only one fire alarm at 10:00 AM, which was recorded in the history file. No other fire alarms were recorded up to 14:48 PM when the system returned to normal (after the 8 hour TEST condition ended). Even though the system was in TEST condition, it would record fire alarms -- they would not be reported to the operator, but would be recorded in the history file. During TEST condition, no specific location of the fire alarm would be transmitted -- only the designation AREA 1 is used, meaning the fire alarm occurred somewhere in WTC 7. Fires were reported during this time period. But, no records of fire alarms in the history file!

Smoking Gun #4: NIST provides no information about the fire alarm record history after 14:48 when the TEST condition ended and the system returned to normal. WTC 7 collapsed at 17:20 PM. Fires were reported during this time period. There should have been fire alarms reported to the monitoring station and their specific location recorded in the history file.

Background Information:

TEST condition is used during maintenance or testing so that: “… alarm signals are not shown on the operator’s display, but records of the alarm are recorded into the history file.”

This is important to understand. If there is an alarm signal during TEST condition, the operator at the monitoring station (which was offsite, and not within WTC 7) would not see it. But, the alarm would be recorded in the history file.

During TEST condition, any alarm data would be represented as AREA 1 – meaning the entire building. Therefore, specific data such as the location of fire detectors would not be transmitted – all data would be represented as AREA 1.

For the preceding 7 days, the WTC 7 fire alarm system was placed in TEST mode every morning!

Only one fire alarm was recorded, at 10:00 AM, shortly after the collapse of WTC 2. NIST states the alarm was probably triggered by smoke or dust from the collapse.

Conspiracy Theory:

My theory is that the fire alarm system was disabled to set up the story that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. “… a great amount of information is normally collected and stored by any fire alarm system from fire detectors installed throughout a building.” The lack of data simplified the cover-up – no inconvenient fire alarm data to contradict the official story.

Link to my original post: Link to my original post with more info and the fire log

Originally posted by trutherman
police and firemen caught on tape saying the building is coming down, how would they know? are they all psychic?

Here you show you know nothing about what happened.... actually try watching this video


"We were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. (Deputy Chief Peter Hayden"

"Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. ... Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies [sic: this should probably be "Brandeis"] came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. (Fire Captain Chris Boyle "
skepticwiki.org...

So the building showed signs of collapse, it was creaking and bulging.... No one had to be psychic to predict its collapse!

theres too many suspicious ways involved with 9-11 that it could not have been just airplanes that brought the towers down,

Exactly was suspicious about it?

I suggest you read the whole link, all your other questions are also explained

[edit on 1/9/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by stirling
yet it fell into its own footprint.

Why do truthers persist with this lie? Here you can see the damage WTC7 caused when it collapsed, so it did not fall in its own foorprint!
skepticwiki.org...amage_caused_by_WTC7.jpg

Water was available in sufficient quantities by utlising the fire boats in the river just adjacent to the building,more than enough could have been pumped.

Yet another truther lie, WTC 7 was at least 400-500 metres from the water, and buildings WFC 2, 3 and 4 were between WTC 7 and the river as shown here
skepticwiki.org...:WTC_site_plan.png

9/11 WAS an inside job

Except there is zero evidence to show that... just truther lies!

reply to post by The_Zomar

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

WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) didn't collapse? More like it was crushed by WTC 1& 2 falling on it.

On more thing - lobby of WTC 3 had been reinforced with steel cage to support it after suffering heavy damage from 1993 bombing.

Some 40 people (including many Firefighters) died in the building

.The collapse of the South Tower (2 WTC) nearly split the hotel in half (such damage can briefly be seen in the documentary film 9/11), and the collapse of its twin destroyed the rest of the hotel aside from a small section (as seen on the picture) that was furthest from the north tower. Fourteen people who had been trying to evacuate the partially destroyed hotel after the first collapse managed to survive the second collapse in this small section.

As a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the hotel was destroyed. Approximately 40 people died in the hotel, including two hotel employees and many firefighters who were using the hotel as a staging ground.

Remains of WTC 3



Complete structural overview and damage analysis

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by thedman


You just proved my point. I did not know it took that much damage, but it still stood.

Building 7 completely collapsed.

And the damage done to building 7 was hardly significant...

[edit on 1-9-2010 by The_Zomar]

reply to post by Alfie1


Dear OP, In the title of this thread it mentions "proof".
Could you please submit your "proof" as all I see are vague possibilities.
Thank you.

reply to post by Alfie1

Is that the best you can do Alfie? When someone asks you to provide evidence that WTC7 collapsed from fire you authoritatively refer to the NIST report (as if they actually provide evidence, but they don't, just computer models that can be tweaked any which way to produce the desired results and they are not even independently audited) and argue from personal incredulity. I suggest you take some time looking over this site and learn how to reason deductively before creating anymore threads. www.theskepticsguide.org... Hopefully, there's enough information here for you to understand the distinction between opinion and proof. BTW, when you say "proof" do you mean in the mathematical sense, or "proof" in the legal sense, as in beyond reasonable doubt?

Originally posted by dereks
Why do truthers persist with this lie? Here you can see the damage WTC7 caused when it collapsed, so it did not fall in its own foorprint!
skepticwiki.org...

amage_caused_by_WTC7.jpg

Regardless of whether it caused damage to other buildings it DID fall into it's own footprint. Not only that the outer wall ended up ON TOP of the debris pile, which is impossible from a natural collapse.

Remember the 'penthouse kink'? Read this and pay attention to the implosion gif...

science.howstuffworks.com...

WTC 7 was very close to other buildings, to expect no other buildings to have been damaged from a controlled demolition just shows you know nothing about them. In a normal situation the other buildings would have been covered to help protect them. To have dropped WTC with so little damage to other buildings show that it was a very well planned demolition. If it had gone wrong there would have been far more damage.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

See even controlled demolition can fail if not set up perfectly, and you expect a natural collapse from fire to mimic a perfect controlled demolition? As demolitions go WTC 7 could not have been done any better.

reply to post by dereks


unfortunately dereks, no matter how often I post that video or the accounts from the firefighters commenting on the stability of the WTC7, those "truthers" always run and hide from it as if it were daylight on a vampire.

Not one has managed to explain why it was leaning, not one has managed to explain why no one heard demo charges going off. I even had one say hearing demolition charges is irrelevant! Can you believe that? The fact that no one heard any series of detonations just prior to collapse is irrelevant. So who is really interested in the truth? Sure as hell aint the truthers as I see em.

reply to post by okbmd


That was common sense?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

not enough HAHA to fill the page.


More evidence out there where fire fighters claim bombs to be in that building that so called debris falling from buildings 1 & 2 to cause it to fall.

wow, unbelievable people still believe the official story. i bet these same people fell for the gimmicks of Obama's speeches to elect him into office. There are way too many sheople in this world. Just way to many.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
A significant section of the Delft School of Architecture collapsed pretty much like that after a fire in 2008.

There was an explosion before it came down, a collapse wave, rubble projected outwards, what Truthers call "dustification".

I guess Dick Cheney really hates Dutch architecture students.

My god, you're right! It's just like WTC 7!!! The whole building fell straight down within seconds. NOT!!!




Alfie1 - what a pointless thread. No "proof" and no chance that you'll even consider the real evidence.

Originally posted by Alfie1
However, I really do believe that the truther belief in a controlled demolition of WTC 7 is complete cr-p. How did the perps hope to get away with it when they had apparently planned nothing but to blow it up ?

"Truthers" aren't wrong about a controlled demolition just because it doesn't seem to make sense. We cannot know why this was done for sure but we know for sure that the building could not collapse the way it did without explosive assistance. Eye witness reports of explosions going off in WTC 7 long before the towers fell confirm that the building was under direct attack. It was probably those early explosions that caused the structure to weaken and the building to lean.

I'm convinced that WTC 7 was rigged to be the 3rd tower brought down by an aircraft crash but the plan went wrong when the aircraft went down in Pensylvania. The impact had to be timed to occur after the first two towers fell opening up a clear flight path. Whether I'm right or wrong is not important. It's the evidence of the collapse that proves it wasn't due to fire or collateral structural damage.

The video you linked to showed huge sections of WTC 1 being blown over WTC 6 to impact themselves into WTC 7. Did you never stop to think what force would be required to hurl those sections in an arc that distance? If the falling upper section expended it's force in ejecting those sections and demolishing tens of floors above them, where did it find the energy to continue smashing the remaining floors?

What's the opposite of a "truther?" I suggest that a good name is "dimwit!" However, I wouldn't want to get into the typical anti-truther trick of name calling.

Goodnight!