The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

Originally posted by phroziac
I saw those charges go off on live tv when it happened and immediately stated there was bombs in the building. Im surprised everyone else didnt notice it.

Id really like to know why none of the following items fell into the street like that saudi passport: toilets, desks, filing cabinets, chairs, toilets....

Infact i wonder if the planes directly hit bathrooms. Imagine sitting on a toilet taking a crap and all of a sudden a jet hits you......

Also, i get a little freaked out when i go to the wtc subway station. Especially when im on one of those fancy trains they bought after 9/11...i just start thinkin about all the people that died there.... :/

Read and watch the video two prior to yours. You saw what you wanted to see. The video is a hoax.The dude that made it came forward - and even showed how he "watermarked" the video with a text message. How do you know that other artifacts (like a toilet seat) were not found?

But I digress - let me get the truther-manifesto down:
We invented Al Queda
We mind-controlled OBL/UBL
We found 19 unsuspecting young zealots willing to kill themselves (not bin Laden, the US Government) in the name of America, not their religion, taught them how to fly, and told them to slam this planes into these buildings, and they were more than happy to comply.
Because some artifacts from the event were found in pristine condition, there is no way they could have been on those planes.(Some people actually survived the Hindenburg explosion without a scratch, btw)
This event, which would have had to involve at least 100's if not 1,000's of people, was done in the name of hellions looking to own the oil in the middle east. Yet OPEC really has us by the sacks to this day.
Those evil people at FOX NEWS were in on the whole thing.
As with all other conspiracies, with SO MANY PEOPLE requiring participation, the CIA makes sure no one talks (Kennedy, Kennedy II, MLK). No one. Ever.
The detonators and bombs were installed without anyone suspecting anything. Heck, professionals just walked right into the WTC front door with TNT and Thermite and no one suspected anything (hidden in briefcases, I guess)
And oh yeah, we didn't go to the moon, either.

Knowledge shared by more than two people is no longer a "secret" but somehow this event totally does away with that sort of logic. Did we secretly start WWII? I guess the GOP invented Hitler. Can't wait for that movie.

There is more "proof" that our current President was not legally entitled to run for POTUS yet we MUST get to the bottom of THIS. What is it you are really looking for? To pass time?

Originally posted by Firewater

This vid should cover everything.

Debunked. And....Debunked. And, oh yeah DEBUNKED.

PEOPLE - by "pull-it" the dude means to stop engaging the fire and trying to save the building. Too much loss of life - pull the firefighters out. (Oh what an EVIL MAN!!)

So which is it truth-pack - "We needed to protect the firefighters so it intentionally did burn" or "We pulled the trigger on detonation?"

Wow in the face of facts over rumor.....it's like I said - people who think we never went to the moon will never be convinced. I guess what fascinates me is how people refuse to accept what is really fact vs. very poorly thought-out fiction.

reply to post by flashtrum


That has not been debunked, it's just your opinion.

"Pull it" only means one thing, no matter how you try to spin it

Especially seeing as the building actually did collapse, and happened to fall into its footprint exactly like an implosion demolition.

Or was it all just a coincidence? I don't think so.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

No that doesn't fill the bill. You won't get a symmetrical collapse that way. And in fact the buildings withstood the collisions. You know that.

Well, yah. For a little while. Two planes. Two fires. Two collapses. I'd call that 2 for 2. Or 3 for 2. 5 for two? How many buildings were destroyed that day, anyway?

As far as your video goes, let me amend my statement. It is impossible for a building to collape in near perfect symmetry, except in a controlled demolition.

"Near perfect symmetry." Near? But not quite, huh? Afterwards it looked like one hella mess to me, covering acres. I don't know what you mean to imply by "near perfect symmetry".

I'm talking about the dynamics of the "collapse". If the "collapse" wasn't kept on course all the way down, by explosives, the part being destroyed would have sheared off the base of the tower early in the process.

And if you mean to imply that the buildings were brought down with explosives then I would ask, where are the firing train components that always litter the site of a controlled explosive demolition?

Have you googled it? There is research on that subject on the web. The rubble left in the aftermath of 9/11 was carted off to different destinations.

This would include miles of spent shock tube, bits of blasting cap, and maybe some wire and unexploded charges. All that stuff is brightly color coded so as to be readily identifiable for safe removal in the aftermath before cleanup and removal of debris.

That makes sense in a legal, supervised, licensed controlled demolition, which is being cleaned up by professionals in the field. The aftermath of 9/11 was completely different though in the priority attached to investigation and in the manner in which it was carried out. It is easy to find something when you know what you are looking for.

On September 11, 2001, people didn't realize that the President and some of his cabinet members were war criminals in waiting. They didn't know what they were looking at and would be operating under every expectation that a thorough police investigation into the collapse would be undertaken.

Was Larry "Pull it." Silverstein ever taken in for questioning?

Here is a story of mine, my friend Frank began squatting a country house, with the idea of developing more country squats, the squat where he encountered a CIA man was in "Tighton", or Titon, not sure of spelling. Frank thinks he may have disturbed the authorities more than averagely for a squatter, because two intelligence operatives appeared on his rustic scene: one was a CIA man, the other a name well known to British politicos, David Shayler. Frank said "I was in no doubt that David Shayler was still working for the government, the whole thing of putting him in prison for 6 months because of so-called whistle-blowing is rubbish, all that's been fabricated to just make it easier for him to infiltrate left-wing scenarios, to sort of mould his image so he might be accepted by left-wing groups. I began to think there must be some underground structures underneath this particular country house, because I could see I was really drawing the heat there. Loads of things happened that were mysterious with those two men, but the main thing is we (Frank & a few real squatters) asked the CIA guy what he thought about 9/11, did he think it was an inside job, were there explosives planted in the towers. He answered 'Of course we had explosives planted in the towers before the planes hit. We had explosives planted in the towers yeeeeaaaars before the planes hit the towers. You guys don't know how far in advance we plan these things. When guys like that guy Webster Tarpley noticed a demolition squad was mysteriously missing for two weeks before the planes hit the towers, all the squad were actually doing was going round PRIMING the explosives. All they needed to do wuz go around flickin' switches. No way could they have actually planted explosives, placed the actual explosive packages, into the structures of the buildings just two weeks before the planes hit, but we knew we could do it YEARS before the planes hit. So yeh, it was all planned out in a boardroom." Interesting to see references to "internet shills": one guy responded: Squatters can be trusted NOT - on another thread: answered: "Really? Squatters have always been of ABOVE average intelligence in my experience, being a railway worker for 32 years travelling on trains for nothing all the time, I've seen a helluva lot of situations first hand and people of low intelligence do NOT handle squatting well. You need REAL tradesmen to help out. Have you ever seen the wiring, the cables, the points being sorted in a place being started as a squat in England? Then organising bringing in electricity from the lamp-posts & stuff like that? You MUST have people that know what they're doing with that stuff. Then sorting the plumbing next, just for instance -I have watched low-brow sorts try to do what high-brow sorts do do in terms of squatting, & even if they manage it to some extent, they soon scamper off to government-granted council houses." But a government shill tried to act like he knew, & tried to put people off my post.
I hope British readers find it interesting that the sculpting of David Shayler's media image was clearly for political/infiltration purposes.

reply to post by ipsedixit

I do so love having my posts edited and handed back to me. I know we are not that far off on here. I think you have given some thought to events. I could go back and find my post and re edit it back to you, but I have already covered this topic in this thread a bunch and it is kinda getting old repeating myself. Besides you don't link me directly to what I said anyway, just your posts.

So I am going to close out my time here and bring a post I made earlier on this thread. Please don't be offended, I am not picking at you specifically. Just some of the ideas presented by others who claims are reaching. The evidence is all in front of us already. We don't have to make anything up.

Thanks for your time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by LoonyConservative


May I ask you a few counter questions sir? It is reasonable to look at Mr. Cheney, seeing as nearly every single illegal operation in U.S. History has been run from the office of the vice president. Examples; then VP nixon ran the assasination units against castro in the late fifties. It is said then vp johnson was in cullusion with the Bay of Pigs planners. Future president george bush was one of the main leaders in the bay of pigs, as the invasion forces were launched from offshore oil drilling platforms owned by Zappata Oil, which he owned. Johnson was also the green lighter for the now known to be fake Gulf of Tonkin incident, and was involved in the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. THEN vp george bush, then former head of the CIA, directed the Iran-Contra operations from his office. Coincidently, a future President and his wife, via Mena Arkansas, were involved in this, then all documents connecting them to it were destroyed in the OKC bombing. SO the office of VP tends to pop up alot in these covert ops, I think due to plausible deniability. Where are the oil imports? Going to China my friend, via the oil contracts secured by Marvin Bush, who got most of the contracts for oil production in Iraq. Coincedently, he was also the guy in charge of the security at the WTC complex in the year prior to the attacks. During the same period, all floors, one at a time, were renovated by contractors unknown, who had full access to all of the core supports via the elevator shafts, and the supporting lattices on the outer portions of the building. By coincedence, he also sat on the board of the insurance company that gave old larry silverstein his policy and massive payoffs. As to bringing the building down to save rescue resources, I must ask if you understand how long it takes to plan, and place the demolition charges to bring down a building of any height over ten stories? Weeks to months good sir. WTC 7 also happened to be a government building, where it is theorized the computer aided detonator for the other two towers was housed. In the weeks prior to the attacks, all of the original documents for the larges SEC investigation in history were moved to that building ( kinda like how the clinton records involving mena ak. was moved to the Murrah Federal Building a month prior to its bombing). If the originals are destroyed, it can be argued in court the documents are fake, lol. Far too many coincidences for my taste, like how the OKC bombing debris were cleaned up by the same company that years later cleaned up the WTC debris. They are not the only contractor that does this work, so why give them the same job decades apart? Find out who owns that company, you may be suprised, lol.

reply to post by flashtrum


the f-117 steath fighter was a closely kept secret for nearly twenty years, with over ten thousand men and women involved in its development, manufacturing, testing, and fielding as an operational unit (service personel and pilots, security, etc.). A job like this would only require a hundred guys at the most, with some in key positions in the government. All tasks are compartmentalized, with the guys on the ground not being told what they are doing or why. Some would of course have to be killed. The black guy, whose name I cant remember at the moment, who worked at WTC 7 and claimed in interviews he had heard explosions in his building prior to the twin tower collapses, steped over bodies trying to escape tower seven. The techs involved in the demo perhaps? Operation Northwoods, the event that never occured, was placed on Kennedy's desk in 1961. It called for the U.S. government to stage terrorist attacks in the United States, highjack and destroy airliners, using drone aircraft if pratical, and sinking ships. All with real loss of life, to blame the Cubans to justify an invasion of Cuba. Hundreds of planning and clerical personel were involved, along with over a thousand operational personel selected to go if approved. It took over thirty years of this to come to light. Gulf of Tonkin, which I was taught in highschool was our justification for sending combat troops, other than advisors, to vietnam, never happened. The declassification of this info took nearly fourty years. Why is it so impossible to you to think a large number of people being involved in an operation means it cant be kept a secret? I have just told you of a few things that were kept secret for decades.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Aside from building 7 which was struck by no airplane, it does not matter one iota how big the planes were. It wouldn't matter if the Titanic and the Olympic hit them, they were struck near their tops. This does not cause steel-frame buildings to collapse in their entirety the way they did. Not in this universe, and not in the next, no matter how much you try to get your brain to make it work for whatever reason that you can't accept that the buildings were wired.

My main arguement here is that you can't say that this has happened before. In the world eternal, a theory isn't a fact, so unless you can simulate the event, you can't claim that "it isn't" or that it "can't" happen

Originally posted by 007Polytoks

Using your logic, WTC 6, and several other buildings in the direct vicinity should have undoubtedly collapsed that day. WTC 6 had the entire tower fall straight on top of it, and fires burnt through it for most of the day, and yet surprise surprise it didn't collapse....

Was WTC 6 built the same way that WTC 7 was? Was WTC 6 A skyscraper? Using my logic, those two differences are enough to stick with my original claim that this hasn't happened before and it's illogical to compare it to other high-rises that were simply on fire.

Originally posted by 007Polytoks
WTC 6 received the impact of thousands of tons of tower 1, and was in the direct vicinity... It had less reason to be structurally sound ie: was not as tall, and had much less important offices. Yet stood the huge impact.

This is an excellent point, but once again, they were not built the same.

Originally posted by 007Polytoks
Either way the NIST report clearly states that FIRE, read closely here.... FIRE was the cause of the collapse, not the structural damage received. So unless you want to argue with NIST about changing their report, your ideas that this differs in any major manner from other high story fires, is highly ignorant, and fallacious.

# NIST. If they did their jobs correctly, this #ing thread wouldn't even exist, now would it? For the record, yes, i'd argue with them, cause there was heavy structural damage to building 7 aside from just the fire. it's ignorant to compare them to other buildings that were just on fire, cause they didn't recieve the same amount of damage, PERIOD.

Originally posted by Gyrocopter
steel buildings do not fall from fire

You're right, they don't. They fall from structural damage, which all three buildings incurred.

reply to post by verschickter


verschickter I think perhaps english is not your first language as you seem very confused about the terms you are discussing. Just imagine the term "blow job" in which there is very little blowing as that would prove painful.
Pulled out or pulled back is not the same meaning or even semantics of pull it.. Pull it is in fact a demolition term. Watch any docs videos or movies about demolition and you will hear that term being used. In fact the same terms you are debating are also used in the porn industry and each have different meanings.

reply to post by Kang69


The thing that I find most interesting about the WTC7 building is a fact that a BBC reporter had reported that the building fell an entire 20 minutes "BEFORE" the building actually fell! I'm not sure how to add a video to ATS, but I will give a link to the video itself.
ENHANCED VERSION : News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens!
In my oppinion, I think they were told what they could report but someone was confused about "when" to report it and they recieved a call telling them to cut the live feed because the WTC7 building had not fallen yet and they made up the "lost the live feeds" story to try covering themselves.
Media like the BBC apparently is in on the cospiracy and should not be trusted in any such events as this. But I am glad that they do mess up from time to time... it gives us truth seekers a nice big smile to know that in some form the truth always comes out!

reply to post by exponent


My reply was specific to building WTC 7 . That was the building we were talking about .

Originally posted by intrptr

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by intrptr

 

I guess you have made every body here look like an idiot and you are the smartest thing that walks . If you had a bit of sense you could see the whole picture and explain why Rudy Giuliani moved his disaster control center from the WTC 7 . From a specially hardened 23rd floor to a building 2 blocks down the street 2 weeks before the 911 event . How about the missing Comex gold from the WTC or the applications for demolition permits by the NY port Authority for the WTC asbestos white elephant .
I'm sure you aren't an Architectural Engineer and probably haven't seen too man demolitions of buildings . Foot print is subjective to interpretation by those that do the demos . The actual way the building fell is all that is needed to determine that it was a demolition . And that was by made by countless qualified people who signed a petition to reveal the truth . The fact is how the building came down is not the issue . Who and why and what's going on and why are we being lied to . Then if building 7 was a demo who is responsible for all those deaths directly or indirectly .

I have no problem understanding that the whole thing was planned beforehand. And other things are suspicious too. Here's a post I made earlier in this very same thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Leave anything out?

My point was more to why they came down, not Rudy Guliani.

The actual way the building fell is all that is needed to determine that it was a demolition.

Saying you don't need any evidence except "the way it fell" is not evidence.
If you consider why Rudy moved his Disaster Command Center from a hardened bunker to an office building 2 weeks before 911 and all of the other unlikely coincidences , one would have to question the veracity of the official version alone . Then there was no fire of any intensity in the building where by the structure would tear it's self apart . Now for office help that knows nothing of structural steel structure some of the theories might seem plausible . But most are smarter than that . I doubt you are an engineer or someone who has any experience with steel structures . The fact is that columns would buckle in long column failure if the floors did shear away from their connections . That woulds cause the exterior facade to fall away from the building , not even close to the footprint . The other mitigating factors that decry foul with the whole 911 conspiracy and it is massive and official says nothing here is as it seems . Or at least as it is supposed to seem . Those that were behind this assumed we would accept the official story . They think we are all stupid !

Originally posted by hequick
reply to post by flashtrum

 

the f-117 steath fighter was a closely kept secret for nearly twenty years, with over ten thousand men and women involved in its development, manufacturing, testing, and fielding as an operational unit (service personel and pilots, security, etc.). A job like this would only require a hundred guys at the most, with some in key positions in the government. All tasks are compartmentalized, with the guys on the ground not being told what they are doing or why. Some would of course have to be killed. The black guy, whose name I cant remember at the moment, who worked at WTC 7 and claimed in interviews he had heard explosions in his building prior to the twin tower collapses, steped over bodies trying to escape tower seven. The techs involved in the demo perhaps? Operation Northwoods, the event that never occured, was placed on Kennedy's desk in 1961. It called for the U.S. government to stage terrorist attacks in the United States, highjack and destroy airliners, using drone aircraft if pratical, and sinking ships. All with real loss of life, to blame the Cubans to justify an invasion of Cuba. Hundreds of planning and clerical personel were involved, along with over a thousand operational personel selected to go if approved. It took over thirty years of this to come to light. Gulf of Tonkin, which I was taught in highschool was our justification for sending combat troops, other than advisors, to vietnam, never happened. The declassification of this info took nearly fourty years. Why is it so impossible to you to think a large number of people being involved in an operation means it cant be kept a secret? I have just told you of a few things that were kept secret for decades.

The Stealth Bomber wasn't designed and built in an an alleged criminal conspiracy. Apples to Oranges.

What about the other points to the truthers agenda? The US "made" 19 muslims take a kamikaze ride into these buildings? The Pentagon strike - was that a diversion? Same with the plane that went down in Shanksville - destined for the White House or the Capital?
CIA mind-controlled OBL? Oil from Iraq still controlled by - right - OPEC and not George Bush?

Heck at least with the JFK conspiracy you have some dead bodies to point to, the alleged assassin lived in Russia, had two other men going by his name, and the hit on Oswald by a guy with mob ties. This stuff came our within the first 5 years. It's been 11 and there is no more out there than there was on 9/12/01.

You have ZERO here except an interpretation that "pull it" somehow ONLY EVER means detonate and bring down a building. Couldn't possibly come close to meaning pull out the operation to try and save the building.

Sorry but you won't convince me it was in any American interest to bring down these buildings. Anyone from either the rescue or cleanup (firefighters, volunteers) efforts find any evidence? The guy that posted the video with the charges already said it was a hoax, and he watermarked the video as proof. You have ZERO proof. You have a theory (and an agenda against who was in the White House). That's ok by me, but I would bet you a cheap lunch no one will ever come forward, there is no trail of artifacts, and all you will be left with is posting messages on the net claiming all of that fuel could never possibly cause enough structural damage from top to bottom to make the buildings fall in that matter. If they didn't fall sideways then uh-oh. I've done some average Joe research - looked at both sides. There is certainly much more proof that Al Qaeda (enemy not CIA operatives) had an agenda against the US and carried out these attacks. CIA must be some sort of higher being to allow so much proof of that sort and erase anything pointing to an inside job. Guys telling stories on an internet board about meeting a CIA operative in a squatting house isn't proof (might win you a Reader's Digest award, but it's not proof).

I guess all of the intel gathered when OBL was killed was made-up, too. I wouldn't be on ATS if this type of stuff didn't interest me. As for this incident, nah. More proof Barrack was unconstitutionally sworn into office.

That's my bet. If I'm proven wrong, then so be it. I really doubt it though.

reply to post by flashtrum


Can you explain, or better yet demonstrate, how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns?

If you understand basic physics and engineering then you'll understand the significance of this vid. Those that will inevitably claim it's not relevant are either too stupid to understand, or have an agenda.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by flashtrum

 

Can you explain, or better yet demonstrate, how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns?

If you understand basic physics and engineering then you'll understand the significance of this vid. Those that will inevitably claim it's not relevant are either too stupid to understand, or have an agenda.

Certainly food for thought Anok. It says phase 2, is this NIST wearing the right hat at last or what?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by flashtrum

 

Can you explain, or better yet demonstrate, how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns?

I have a proposed demonstration of the pull in force.

I will take a flexible tube, fill it with water, and freeze it.

I will then attach the ends to two columns and place a weight in the center.

Wile the water is frozen it will transfer the force from the weight, directly into a compression load on the columns, through the stiffness of the frozen tube.

What do you predict will happen when the water thaws.

Originally posted by smurfy
Certainly food for thought Anok. It says phase 2, is this NIST wearing the right hat at last or what?

Yeah I wish it had more info on the conclusion of their results.

It had no connection to 911...

The purpose is to study the relationship between seismic resistance and collapse resistance, slab contribution to catenary effects, comparison with various analytical models, etc.

The first phase was taking out corner supports...



To me it just demonstrates that the idea of trusses sagging from heat creating a catenary force on the columns is an extremely far-fetched hypothesis. It happening on the same day in two buildings is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by ANOK
To me it just demonstrates that the idea of trusses sagging from heat creating a catenary force on the columns is an extremely far-fetched hypothesis. It happening on the same day in two buildings is just ridiculous.

Remember that it happened to two buildings of the same design under near equivalent circumstances. Seems less unlikely when you look at it realistically instead of from a "everything is impossible, truth blah blah" perspective.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK
To me it just demonstrates that the idea of trusses sagging from heat creating a catenary force on the columns is an extremely far-fetched hypothesis. It happening on the same day in two buildings is just ridiculous.

Remember that it happened to two buildings of the same design under near equivalent circumstances. Seems less unlikely when you look at it realistically instead of from a "everything is impossible, truth blah blah" perspective.

But fire is never the same lol. Fire is not going to create the exact same damage.

And no I am not looking at it as everything is impossible, what a weak claim. Stereotyping to simply ignore what I'm presenting. I bet you didn't even watch the vid?

Can you demonstrate how it's possible for lightweight trusses sagging from heat to pull in columns much more massive than themselves, and not break the connections first?