Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

[tontoz]

WTC was not hit by a plane, and many of the other buildings took way more damage than 7 did.

Also firemen were pulled out of there early, and they were busy doing other things like helping out on WTC 1 & 2 collapse.

Like i said, you are a dumbass. WTC7 was hit by the collapse of the other building genius. How do you think the fire started in the first place?

The firemen were pulled out because they were ordered to come out due to fear of collapse. A hole was torn out of WTC7 when the other building collapsed into it. This has been covered a million times on here.

The other WTC buildings that took major damage ended up being demolished because they were beyond repair.

[Sarcastic]

Like i said, you are a dumbass. WTC7 was hit by the collapse of the other building genius. How do you think the fire started in the first place?

The firemen were pulled out because they were ordered to come out due to fear of collapse. A hole was torn out of WTC7 when the other building collapsed into it. This has been covered a million times on here.

The other WTC buildings that took major damage ended up being demolished because they were beyond repair.

Yea, and none of them collapsed despite taking considerably more damage. 7 is the only one to collapse.



Here you can see how much more damage the other ones took, and still remained standing. It is also notable that WTC stood directly next to 2 other buildings (post office and Verizon building), and neither of them received considerable damage nor did they burn down.

[Sarcastic]

Also, did you know that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it actually did?

[bagelred]

Honestly, if you can't see that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you just are in complete denial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

[Sarcastic]

Here is the video of the BBC reporting on WTC 7 collapsing 20 minutes before it actually did. You can actually see the building still standing in the background when the reporter is talking about it going down.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8404862296083#

[bagelred]

Here is the video of the BBC reporting on WTC 7 collapsing 20 minutes before it actually did. You can actually see the building still standing in the background when the reporter is talking about it going down.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8404862296083#

Beat you to it. Heh.

It's as simple as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

[tontoz]

Yea, and none of them collapsed despite taking considerably more damage. 7 is the only one to collapse.



Here you can see how much more damage the other ones took, and still remained standing. It is also notable that WTC stood directly next to 2 other buildings (post office and Verizon building), and neither of them received considerable damage nor did they burn down.

WTC5 was a 9 story building. WTC7 was a 47 story building. Do you not realize the difference?

Since you are an idiot allow me to explain. It takes far more steel/concrete/etc to make a 47 story building than a 9 story building. Therefore the base of the 47 story building is supporting far more weight than the base of the 9 story building and is more likely to collapse if the base gets damaged.

I realize i am probably wasting my time though. I am sure you don't have enough sense to see the difference between a 9 story building and a 47 story building.

[Sarcastic]

WTC5 was a 9 story building. WTC7 was a 47 story building. Do you not realize the difference?

Since you are an idiot allow me to explain. It takes far more steel/concrete/etc to make a 47 story building than a 9 story building. Therefore the base of the 47 story building is supporting far more weight than the base of the 9 story building and is more likely to collapse if the base gets damaged.

I realize i am probably wasting my time though. I am sure you don't have enough sense to see the difference between a 9 story building and a 47 story building.

Nothing I have posted is opinion. Only facts.

I am sorry that you find facts to be so inconvenient.

[tontoz]

Honestly, if you can't see that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you just are in complete denial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

I guess the firemen on the ground are in complete denial then, since they predicted the building would collapse long before it actually did.

[tontoz]

Nothing I have posted is opinion. Only facts.

I am sorry that you find facts to be so inconvenient.

Sure it is a fact that the WTC7 was brought down ONLY by fire and the hole in the building from the where the other building fell into it didn't exist. Sure

I knew you were too stupid to grasp the difference between a 47 story building and a 9 story building. Thanks for proving my point.

[Sarcastic]

Sure it is a fact that the WTC7 was brought down ONLY by fire and the hole in the building from the where the other building fell into it didn't exist. Sure

I knew you were too stupid to grasp the difference between a 47 story building and a 9 story building. Thanks for proving my point.

The damage was very minor. There were other taller buildings in the surrounding areas that took more damage and did not collapse.

WTC 7's collapse is significant because if it is true that small fires can cause a building to collapse, then the island of Manhattan has huge structural integrity issues. I actually live in a 40 story building here in Manhattan that has had 3 small fires just this year.

[tontoz]

The damage was very minor. There were other taller buildings in the surrounding areas that took more damage and did not collapse.

WTC 7's collapse is significant because if it is true that small fires can cause a building to collapse, then the island of Manhattan has huge structural integrity issues. I actually live in a 40 story building here in Manhattan that has had 3 small fires just this year.

Were you there at the time? The firemen were and they said there was a hole 20 stories high in WTC7. I think they know better than you. And there was nothing small about the fires in the building.


I love how you conspiracy nuts just make up nonsense and claim it is a fact.

[niko]

I see, WTC 7 was brought down (not WFC 1,2,3, not WTC 3,4,5,6 but WTC 7) because of what? Or do your convuluted conspiracy theories not contain motives? Because people usually need reasons to do things....

WTC 7 was a complete and total afterthought to everyone, how it is being presented as a smoking gun is beyond me...

[tontoz]

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Funny how eyewitness accounts don't seem to back up your "facts".

[Sarcastic]

Were you there at the time? The firemen were and they said there was a hole 20 stories high in WTC7. I think they know better than you. And there was nothing small about the fires in the building.

And please post pictures of the taller buildings in the area that took more damage and didn't collapse.

I love how you conspiracy nuts just make up nonsense and claim it is a fact.

The damage was described as superficial. It certainly was not enough to cause a collapse. In the reports, the cause of collapse has only been due to fire.

Go look at how much damage the BMCC building took. Go look at the hotel (I think Marriott) and see how much damage it took.

WTC 7 was directly in the middle of the post office and Verizon building. Both of them received about the same amount of debris damage as 7, and had fires too. Neither of them collapsed.