Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

reply to post by Unity_99


If there truly was a massive explosion in WTC7 that gutted out the lower floors while the Towers were still standing, then they must have had one hell of a Neuralyzer set up to wipe everyone's memories of that moment. I mean, really, not one firefighter, police officer, paramedic, civilian, newcaster noticed a massive blast from the base of WTC7 even as EVERYONE'S eyes were trained on the WTC buildings for the entire event?? I mean really?

Care to point out thisdamage here, between the collapses?


That lobby looks pretty intact for having a bomb ripping through it, knocking out stairs and collapsing the bottom floors.

You ridicule the debunkers about really ignorant topics which have been answered ad nauseum many times in the past, and think its all bs and nonsense, and then you go and post something so ignorant and so misinformed that it boggles the mind people still believe that. How do you explain the lack of any evidence of any massive blasts inside WTC7 prior to the WTC collapses? No eyewitnesses, no video, and yet, even REALy video taken inside WTC7 after the first collapse which STILL does not show any evidence of major damage as said by Barry Jennings. Which only leads to the correct conclusion that Barry was talking about the impact WTC7 took during the second collapse and his escape from the damaged building.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Unity_99

 

Care to point out thisdamage here, between the collapses?

That lobby looks pretty intact for having a bomb ripping through it, knocking out stairs and collapsing the bottom floors.

Going through the list of ready made excuses I've seen so far to explain why they don't want to admit they're wrong, I'm putting money on either...

a) they'll claim it's disinformation created by sinister secret agents

-OR-

b) they'll change the subject to avoid answering and instead drop innuendo how "suspicious" it is that Barry Jennings own family won't tell anyone how he died...which essentially means Jennings' own family are all sinister secret agents too.

In the end, every answer comes down to everything being the work of sinister secret agents.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by kurthall

 

the BBC said it went down before it did.

Can you name the buildings in brittons parlament?
Why would you expect them to know the ones in WTC? I didn't know there were that many.
All reporters were repeating things they heard that day. For all they knew it could have been a much smaller building below their field of view.
Somehow this error became a cornerstone of a conspiracy.

Remember Dick Cheney saying he was in charge? Many things were taken out of context that day.
If you are a man you know what you say is not always what your woman hears. Deal with it.

The firemen reported that the building was leaning long before it came down. But the conspiracy believers never seem to remember it.

The BBC called it the Salomon Building (WTC7), so they had a detailed description of which building it was. Obviously they did not know which building WTC7 was exactly, but that is irrelevant, they got the name of the building correct, that is all that matters. And as we know, that building was still standing when the BBC announced it had collapsed.


They were not the only people to report it early, a couple of other new channels did too, so someone told all these news people early, and it did 'collapse' in the end, so again, the building they were referring to was the correct one, no confusion about it being WTC7.

As for it leaning, there is not footage of it leaning at all, that is rubbish, if it was leaning then it would not have collapsed straight down. NYPD officer Craig Bartmer gives a video statement that says WTC7 was not in danger of collapsing, or that badly damaged, where are the video statements from people saying WTC7 was leaning?

BTW, the person that informed the BBC and other channels that WTC7 had collapsed before it actually did was Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and we all know how corrupt he is!

reply to post by DeeKlassified

As for it leaning, there is not footage of it leaning at all, that is rubbish, if it was leaning then it would not have collapsed straight down. NYPD officer Craig Bartmer gives a video statement that says WTC7 was not in danger of collapsing, or that badly damaged, where are the video statements from people saying WTC7 was leaning?

What time of day did he make that statement? 11:00AM?????

FDNY Chief Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also 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 col- lapse. 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 col- lapse. "

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

where are the video statements from people saying WTC7 was leaning?

Here you go :- www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

where are the video statements from people saying WTC7 was leaning?

Here you go :- www.youtube.com...

He doesn't actually mention WTC7, so he could be talking about any other building.

However, if he was talking about WTC7, then why did it collapse straight down if it was leaning?

Leaning buildings do not normally collapse straight down on themselves.

reply to post by samkent


I've seen a few statements posted on here before, supposedly from firemen, but the sources are normally dubious, some random websites that no one would give an ounce of credibility to. Where is the video of this fireman saying WTC7 was going to collapse? An actual real testimony in person?

Seeing as no steel framed building had collapsed due to fire before 9/11, then I doubt the firemen would have thought it was going to collapse! Surely a 'senior' fireman would know fires don't bring down skyscrapers!?!

There was a video posted on here supposedly showing people inside WTC7 after the towers had collapsed, if WTC7 was in such a bad state why did people go in there? We know there was damage reported by Barry Jennings, and we could see small pockets of fires, but no video or video testimony from anyone saying WTC7 was leaning.

I have seen the collapse video many times, from many angles, and not once do you see WTC7 'leaning'. That is utter nonsense. Can you actually prove with a video or a picture that it was 'leaning'? You do realise that a leaning building will not collapse neatly into itself?!

All except one or two videos of the WTC7 collapse have had their sound deliberately removed to hide the noise of explosions, and the videos that are available with audio clearly display a low frequency explosion just before WTC7 collapses. That audio has been analyzed many times, and it might not be fully audible on normal speakers, but with studio speakers one can hear it, and can see the explosive frequencies in a spectrum analyzer.

reply to post by DeeKlassified


Oh really? So you would have known exactly which building was the Salomon Building if they said it? Really? That is amazing. I didnt even know there was a WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. I didnt even know they gave names to them.

As for the tilt, yeah it did. Firefighters saw it tilting. Even during the collapse it fell towards the damaged side.

reply to post by DeeKlassified


I would actually go and do some research into fire safety and precautions regarding steel buildings and fires before making such ignorant comments. Especially about signs of structural failure and impending collapse. There are plenty of materials about this online and even here on ATS which I have even posted before. ATS search is a good start.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


What would be the point of cutting out the penthouse collapse in the video?

The penthouse collapse, as you call it, was simply the center columns collapsing first, so the outer walls can fold in on top, in order to put most of the building in its own footprint.

Classic implosion demolition. The penthouse collapse does not help your argument, why after all these years do you still think it does?

Originally posted by lambros56
It's never too late to question the events of that day.
Some people are late into the debate because they knew nothing about building seven.

The usual debunkers have brought nothing to the table yet again.
Anyone who believes rhe official theory has either got to be crazy....or hasn't done their research properly.

Look, I have no doubt we were looking for any reason to get into Iraq again, but if something does not make sense, it's usually not true. In this case, it does not make sense to try to pull of such an elaborate plan just to justify returning to Iraq to finish what George H. bush didn't. Merely blowing up one building would have been enough, and would have been easily accomplished had this been the "inside job" everyone here want to see.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

Oh really? So you would have known exactly which building was the Salomon Building if they said it? Really? That is amazing. I didnt even know there was a WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. I didnt even know they gave names to them.

As for the tilt, yeah it did. Firefighters saw it tilting. Even during the collapse it fell towards the damaged side.

I said it was irrelevant if the reporter or the viewers new what building WTC7 was, it makes no difference.
The issue it they were told about it collapsing way before it collapsed.

I never said I knew of WTC7 at the time that BBC report went out, in fact I saw the video years later, but it make no difference, WTC7 had not collapsed when various reporters said it had. So whoever gave them the info, released that info too early!

Even Harley Guy had a film crew in his apartment filming WTC7 because they knew it was coming down, there was an audience watching it come down, and amongst that audience were well known reporters. All of them were informed it was coming down.

reply to post by GenRadek


You need to look at that research yourself if you still insist a steel framed building can collapse into its footprint from fires and asymmetrical damage.

Can you show us all where in your research where it shows steel framed buildings, 47 stories tall, globally collapsing into their footprints from fire and asymmetrical damage?

Do you know the tallest building ever imploded was only 23 stories? Do you understand why? I'll tell you, because it's extremely difficult to do, and no demolition company would normally attempt it. Yet you want to believe a 47 story building did exactly what an implosion demolition is designed to do, from asymmetrical damage and fire?

Can you not see how illogical your argument is? Maybe you should do some physics research so you can understand your other "research", from 911 myths.

reply to post by GenRadek


Care to point out any damage at all ??

Looks like a robust perfectly sound building that is bothered with some dust.

Care to show anyone which way it was leaning ? And which way did it lean when it fell, you are the only one who can see it..

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

I would actually go and do some research into fire safety and precautions regarding steel buildings and fires before making such ignorant comments. Especially about signs of structural failure and impending collapse. There are plenty of materials about this online and even here on ATS which I have even posted before. ATS search is a good start.

I tell you what, put your money where your mouth is and show me one video of a high rise steel framed building, that is on fire, and is 'leaning' and then proceeds to collapse at free-fall speed, straight down into itself.

When you can present a video meeting this criteria, then we will discuss about 'research' regarding steel buildings..

Looking forward to see if you can come up with anything that meets this unique criteria....

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh really? So you would have known exactly which building was the Salomon Building if they said it? Really?

The collapse of WTC 7 would have come from a press release, the BBC read the press release, so the BBC knowing which building was which makes no difference.

Someone either released the press release too early, or the collapse of WTC 7 was postponed, and the press release time not changed.

If WTC leaned when it collapsed then why did it not fall in that direction? Why did it fall vertically? Don't claim it didn't because we have the post collapse pics.

The leaning idea comes from one video, a video that only shows ONE side of the building. What you don't see is that the leaning is the outer walls falling inwards. If we could see the whole building in that vid we would see ALL 4 outer walls also leaning inwards.

reply to post by ANOK


They also reported car bombs in DC, car bombs on the bridges. Plane crash into the Sears Tower. Plane crashing into the Mall. Let me guess, all of those were suppose to happen but they forgot and acidentally reported all those reports too?

reply to post by ParasuvO


Damage accounts from those that were there and witnessed it all:

sites.google.com...

Here u go.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Merely blowing up one building would have been enough, and would have been easily accomplished had this been the "inside job" everyone here want to see.

Yeah but then Larry would not have got all his insurance, and the land he leased cleared and cleaned, for free, all ready to rebuild. Which is btw how Larry made his fortune, buying up old complexes and rebuilding.

There was more to 911 than just an excuse to invade Iraq.