WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

reply to post by okbmd

Third guy said people inside witnessed massive explosions at nine in the morning . What type of controlled demolition gets initiated at 9am but doesn't cause a collapse until 5pm ? And how many people were killed in WTC7 ?

Know a number of people who workin WTC 7 for Soloman - none of them
told me of any explosions in the building. One guy I worked with who was there was outside smoking when first plane hit, watched as 15 minutes later the second plane hit.

Now the aircraft impacts probably sounded like explosions to those who did not witness the aircraft impacts.....

[edit on 4-9-2010 by okbmd]

reply to post by knowneedtoknow


Nevermind that explosion at 9 seconds, just tell me how anyone can watch the collapse starting at 36 seconds and think that it's anything other than a controlled demolition.

Perhaps WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the steel and concrete version of a house built with playing cards!

It's a pity that they weren't built the same as Bldg 5 and 6. They took a more direct pounding and still didn't collapse into dust.



The beauty of all these attempts to debunk the obvious truth (CD) is that it keeps the information fresh and in-your-face as well as building the fervor for bringing the guilty to justice. We've been smacked in the face time and time again for at least 200 years but 9/11 was the big one that sent us reeling. It's taking time to come to our collective senses and when we do, look out!

reply to post by thedman

Know a number of people who workin WTC 7 for Soloman - none of them
told me of any explosions in the building. One guy I worked with who was there was outside smoking when first plane hit, watched as 15 minutes later the second plane hit.

Now the aircraft impacts probably sounded like explosions to those who did not witness the aircraft impacts.....

That’s funny because most people that were at the WTC during the false flag attacks and the demolition of the WTC question the government story.

I can make up garbage to, if I want, and post nonsense that I know someone working in the WTC and he said he heard “multiple explosions” before and after the plane flew into the WTC, Oh yes, he was outside smoking to.

Does that statment sound credible? No it does not.

Does this make you credible? Is your hearsay information credible? No it is not.





[edit on 4-9-2010 by impressme]

1. Alfie1 you got alot of thinking to do.

2. Your a CIA agent of some sort trying to give false information

It's astounding that anyone would psotulate such a lame "theory" at this stage of the matter. Sorry, Alfie, your concept has no legs. Seriously, try doing some research before you pointlessly consume any more web space with this gibberish.

Thanks again for further various responses but I was really hoping that members would address the situation at the WTC as I set out in the op.

WTC 7 is often quoted by truthers as a "smoking gun " proving controlled demolition but I suggest that, on the contrary, it in fact proves a gaping hole in truther theories.

What I think people need to do is to look back and consider what alleged perps must have planned if they rigged WTC 1, 2,&7. The obvious inference is that the intention was to bring down all 3 buildings on 9/11. So, how did they intend that to look ? Their lives were on the line so effective cover-up was essential. And indeed, for WTC 1 & 2 there was very elaborate cover-up. Planes flown into them and a cd so sophisticated that it could apparently be initiated from the plane impact points.

But then, as regards WTC 7 they evidently made no provision for cover-up at all. You have to forget about WTC 7 being hit by debris from WTC 1 because that happened by chance and could not have been part of the planning.

Therefore, if you believe WTC 7 was a cd, you have believe that the perps planned its demolition to go ahead as it stood there in perfect order and in sight of likely thousands of witnesses.

I suggest that this is so wildly improbable as to amount to reasonable proof that WTC 7 was not a cd. It was collateral damage from a terrorist attack on the Towers.

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfie1 , I personally , feel like you make a good point in the OP .

Those are legitimate questions . They are also questions that will continue to remain unanswered , because they are too logical and take a smithering of common sense to answer in an honest , unbiased way .

You will never get an honest , intelligent answer to these questions from the TM . They will do everything to avoid answering in a direct way , as you can see from the posts right above yours , as the name-calling and personal insults tend to run in groups around here . It's what is known as herd-mentality .

I have dogs that are able to reason in a more logical manner .

I think it insults my intelligence to say there were no explosives used to bring down wtc7.
media.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 4-9-2010 by remymartin]

[edit on 4-9-2010 by remymartin]

Well I suppose if the OP is correct we should be seeing a new breed of demolition firms emerging from the study of WTC7's collapse.

Using computers like NISTs, they can calculate how a few swings of a wrecking ball and a couple of small but strategically placed fires can accomplish exactly what formerly required months of expensive planning and preparations by a team of professional demolition experts.

They will save skyscraper owners heaps of bucks.

I have'nt heard of any, but do you know if any such firms are operating using the new principles already?

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]

If you have no knowledge of science/engineering and have not reviewed many of the truth docs you are only sowing confusion with assertions that are incorrect.
You show a fighter jet being accelerated to 800 km/hr and slammed in to a block of concrete. The commercial airliners were estimated to be flying much slower than that. Also, the building shell is much less rigid that the block of concrete used in the test.
The initial penetration of the Pentagon was approximately 16' in diameter, much too small to accept the wings. There was no damage done to the sections of the building adjacent to the crash penetration. There was also no sign of fire that one would expect from the crash of a fully fueled commercial aircraft. There have also been photos showing structural members bowed 'out' away from the center of the Pentagon indicated an internal source for the explosion.
If you continue to lend support to those that want to dupe you then you most likely will be duped.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Thanks again for further various responses but I was really hoping that members would address the situation at the WTC as I set out in the op.

WTC 7 is often quoted by truthers as a "smoking gun " proving controlled demolition but I suggest that, on the contrary, it in fact proves a gaping hole in truther theories.

What I think people need to do is to look back and consider what alleged perps must have planned if they rigged WTC 1, 2,&7. The obvious inference is that the intention was to bring down all 3 buildings on 9/11. So, how did they intend that to look ? Their lives were on the line so effective cover-up was essential. And indeed, for WTC 1 & 2 there was very elaborate cover-up. Planes flown into them and a cd so sophisticated that it could apparently be initiated from the plane impact points.

But then, as regards WTC 7 they evidently made no provision for cover-up at all. You have to forget about WTC 7 being hit by debris from WTC 1 because that happened by chance and could not have been part of the planning.

Therefore, if you believe WTC 7 was a cd, you have believe that the perps planned its demolition to go ahead as it stood there in perfect order and in sight of likely thousands of witnesses.

I suggest that this is so wildly improbable as to amount to reasonable proof that WTC 7 was not a cd. It was collateral damage from a terrorist attack on the Towers.

Alfie, your logic is flawed. You're looking for something to keep you from facing the truth. Buildings do not fall at free-fall speed. NIST even admitted that the building went through a free-fall phase. There were other buildings that were damaged by debris but did not fall. As for the towers, they were designed to redistribute load in the event of a catastrophic impact. There has been one such accident in the 40s when a bomber flew into the Empire State Building. The architect that was involved in the design stated a few months prior to the impact that the towers could withstand multiple impacts from that size aircraft. In all history there have been only 3 hirises that 'fell' supposedly due to fire, the two towers and WTC7. Time to wake up.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by baboo]

reply to post by aethron


" ...what formerly required months of expensive planning and preparations by a team of professional demolition experts. "

Wonder why not one single individual who helped prep the buildings while working for the demo company during those 'months of expensive planning and preparations' has ever come forth to tell the world that he helped prep the buildings ?

Did they kill everyone who worked for the demo company , or were they all evil government agents ?

You guys desperately need to get real .

reply to post by baboo


Every single statement that you made has been repeated WORD-FOR-WORD by just about every truther on here .

When are you guys gonna come up with your own opinions instead of just following the herd ?

Comparing the Empire State building to the twin towers is ridiculous . Comparing a bomber that was travelling much slower , to the airliners that were traveling much faster , is also ridiculous .

reply to post by aethron

Originally posted by aethron
Well I suppose if the OP is correct we should be seeing a new breed of demolition firms emerging from the study of WTC7's collapse.

Using computers like NISTs, they can calculate how a few swings of a wrecking ball and a couple of small but strategically placed fires can accomplish exactly what formerly required months of expensive planning and preparations by a team of professional demolition experts.

They will save skyscraper owners heaps of bucks.

I have'nt heard of any, but do you know if any such firms are operating using the new principles already?

But the new method only works on substandard designs such as WTC 1, 2 and 7. Of course, the larger buildings require the randomly placed impact of a large jetliner so probably a bit prohibitive.

reply to post by remymartin


Ok that's funny the video stated no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire? And your going to believe a demolitions expert who thinks fire cant collapse a steel framed building?

The Kader Toy Factory fire, which occurred on May 10, 1993. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 all collapsed as a result of that fire.

In January of 1997, the $15 million dollar Sight and Sound Theater in Lancaster County, Pa collapsed due to fire.

Two large department store fires in Athens, Greece, These fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed

1). The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections. (So to say a fire cant damage steel is well kinda silly, It causes expansion which is all thats needed to make a structure unstable gravity will do the rest.)

reply to post by okbmd

Originally posted by okbmd
You guys desperately need to get real .

I'd say "desperate" applies to anyone who refuses to admit what the evidence tells them. You ignore the physical evidence because it doesn't fit with your viewpoint and because you can't fathom an acceptable motive or plot. You're desperately trying to explain away the monster under you bed but in this case, it's actually there.



reply to post by okbmd

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by baboo

 

Every single statement that you made has been repeated WORD-FOR-WORD by just about every truther on here .

When are you guys gonna come up with your own opinions instead of just following the herd ?

That's the problem with truth. It doesn't need a lot of fabrication so tends to look and sound the same over time. Lies are harder to keep straight.

If you weren't so caught up in defending the OS, you'd probably notice that your lot all use exactly the same arguments. The difference is the quality of evidence used to support the arguments.

Unfortunately, people have a natural tendency to defend a position once they've stated it and there's probably just as many people who defiantly insist on a beam weapon story as those who believe that WTC 7 was not CD.

reply to post by dragonridr


Or so you say. Where's your supporting references including photos that show the similarity between the different building collapses? Or is this just meant to send us off on a wild goose chase?

Time waster? Me thinks so.

reply to post by dragonridr


There is one, well at least one, major difference between WTC 7 and ALL those other collapses.

All four outer walls ended up ON TOP of the debris pile, and there is only one way that can happen.

WTC 7 post collapse...


The Kader Toy Factory...


Just the roof collapsed, not a global collapse of a multi-story building into it's own footprint.

Sight and Sound Theater...
www.interfire.org...

Again another simple roof collapse of a single story building, not a multi-story building that collapsed into it's own footprint.

None of those examples are anything like the collapse of WTC 7. None of them had multiple floors of resistance to collapse through, none of them were complete collapses with the outer walls on top of their debris pile. In fact the walls are still standing, they are just simple roof collapses.

If you can find a multi-story building, WTC 7 was 48 floors, that collapsed with all four outer walls ON TOP of the debris pile from fire you might have something. BTW all four walls being on top of the debris pile means the majority of the building landed in its footprint. But I know you won't find one, I've looked.

Originally posted by baboo
The architect that was involved in the design stated a few months prior to the impact that the towers could withstand multiple impacts from that size aircraft.

And again we have a truther telling lies.... he was not involved with the design of the WTC - why do truthers keep bringing this lie up?