Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

[miller-time]

maybe a small portion of the government had a hand in it...

however, no building was rigged with bombs, no building was shot with a missile...(a plane might have been shot down)


it can only go so far until it reaches "stupidity"...

the average 9/11 truther is deep into "stupidity"...


maybe a few folks in the gov understood it was going to happen...that is POSSIBLE...what is impossible is a staged demolition complete with droned planes and all that silly mess...

agreed, some things might not add up and there may be co-conspirators on the US side but some of the claims are just out right dumb. 9/11 truthers are the same as young earth creationists. they have an all or nothing attitude, it is like they think if one of their claims is proven false then all of their claims are false which isn't true. you can be right about some things and wrong about others, the world is shades of grey not everything is a dichotomy.

[Sarcastic]

so ****ing what!

tell me why this is significant goddamnit! somebody!

You don't think it's significant when news is reported BEFORE it happens?

Imagine if Kennedy was reported to be shot 20 minutes before he was.

[shlver]

You don't think it's significant when news is reported BEFORE it happens?

Imagine if Kennedy was reported to be shot 20 minutes before he was.

The reporter says "details are very sketchy." Common sense says it was a miscommunication.

[miller-time]

You don't think it's significant when news is reported BEFORE it happens?

only when you have emotionally invested yourself in a mass conspiracy and are trying to make everything fit.

speaking on significance then. which do you think has a higher level of statisical significance; mistakes being made by a broadcasting stations during a day of chaos, or broadcasting stations being let in on secret information that they have no reason to know about and then accidently reporting before they should?

one of those things is more likely to happen then the other.

[shlver]

lol. These idiots prefer to debate by neg reps?

no their not

common since says u have no common since

Can't even spell correctly.

[Sarcastic]

The reporter says "details are very sketchy." Common sense says it was a miscommunication.

Yea no shit it's sketchy. Reporting news before it happens is definitely sketchy.

[Abd El-Krim]

You don't think it's significant when news is reported BEFORE it happens?

Imagine if Kennedy was reported to be shot 20 minutes before he was.

Good comparison, because the bullet took hours to reach JFK after it was fired and the entire world was speculating on every which thing for every second of that duration...

If you believe the BBC report is part of a grand conspiracy, consider the implications as to the number of people involved. And how is this massive group of people that was so stupid that they broke the news 20 minutes early able to tie up every other lose end? And why the **** would they need that news early anyway? I'm pretty sure that they didn't need to be fed WTC7 destruction plans by the illuminati to report the news, it was kind of hard to miss when it happened.

Of all the truther claims, I find this one to be the most indicative of the level of intellect coming up with the shit. It adds nothing to the idea of a conspiracy, it's just something weird that happened and you mongoloids run around acting like it's a headshot.

[johndeeregreen]

EXACTLY.

No building had ever fallen due to fire.

EVER.

Son, you are beyond stupid.

[Jasi]

Ok here we go, replying to all of your so called facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&t=39s


I've never seen this side view before, but you can clearly see those systemic demolition spikes right before the point of the collapse.

They are normal when a building is collapsing, because air is pressed downwards.

In planned demolition, those bursts happen *before* the collapse, not during it. There is no need of explosions when the collapse has already started.

To sit there, and mockingly scoff at the notions, and ideas presented, makes you a jackass. imo. If you cant think outside the box for just a moment, then what good are you? More people should be questioning, at ALL times.

Not when the same ideas have been rebutted again and again for almost 10 years.

If someone wants a prize for being imaginative (thinking outside the box) ok, very good: well done, theorists, you're very imaginative.
But what happened was real, and it has been explained. Conspiracy theorists have no consistent alternative explanation, let alone proven.

In the entire history of steel frame high rise buildings, WTC 7 is only the third one to ever collapse due to fire.

The first two were WTC 1 & 2.

Incidentally, WTC 1&2 were the first two buildings with that structure to have a B757 crash into them in that way.
Incidentally, WTC7 was the first one to have a 1700 feet tall tower collapse almost upon it, and to burn uncontrolled for hours.

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

WTC5 and WTC6 were 9-storey builidings, WTC7 was a 47-storey building. Need I say more?

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.

Exactly. They didn't receive considerable damage. They weren't hit by the same amount of debris. Look at here.
WTC7 is big guy in the middle, taking most of the sh!t right into its facade.

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

Yes. They were reporting wrong news by Reuters. The day was hectic and info were flying around; at that time the collapse had already been predicted, and rumours of this may easily have been distorted from ear to ear.

Your alternative explanation of this? BBC are part of the conspiracy? They were perfectly aware of what was "really" happening, but were so stupid to read the script in advance? PLEASE REPLY

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

False. Are these your "facts"?
Name even only one that was taller and took more damage, and show appropriate pics.

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.

Small fires? Please, pretty please.
They're almost all over the facade of a 600 ft building.


You can sleep tight, as long as you don't live next to a 1700 ft building about to collapse upon you causing fires all over your building that burn unchecked for hours.

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.

Again. They both are lower, they both took less debris, did not have fires and had a different structure than WTC7.

Here is a story of a building in Spain that had a raging fire for over 24 hours and did not collapse.

Windsor Tower was very different in structure than WTC towers: most importantly, it had a relevant concrete core, that WTC7 didn't have; it also had two storeys wholly in concrete, to give more solidity.

Hmm pull what I wonder?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2340306101329#

And why did Mr. Silverstein decide to take out a large insurance policy on WTC7 in July of 2001?? Perhaps a profit was to be made, but no it was just a coincidence...

Because everyone does it when taking on the lease of anything?

Also... profits?
Let's see.

IN:
Insurance: 3.5 billions.

OUT:
Lease contract of the towers: 3.2 billions.
Rents lost over 13 years: 2.6 billions.
Costs for re-building: 1.7 billions.

You do the sum.

It's weird that engineers were able to predict that WTC 7 would come down, but no one could predict that either WTC 1 nor 2 would come down. If they did, they could have "pulled" out the firemen in them, and saved their lives.

Even if they know that there is an actual risk of collapse, firemen go inside buildings if there's people in, to try and save those people's lives. This happens daily in the world.

The lease holder of WTC7 himself has admitted to demolishing the building. Why are you retards still arguing? The fact that he collected a fat check after demolishing the building doesn't really help his case either. But of course that's overlooked cause the dumbass sheep of this country will believe anything they are told.

Read and shut the hell up.
http://******************.com/WRHART...?q=cutter.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

He said:

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

Now I have some questions here about this, PLEASE REPLY

1) Note, "they" decided to pull. So it would be the firemen now who are heading the conspiracy?
They were heroes, hundreds of them lost their lives trying to save their fellow men. You should be ashamed of yourself.

2) Since when "to pull" means "to demolish with explosives"?
Demo crews that use this verb it in their work, use it as in "to pull down with cables", nothing else.

3) Why would the decision to demolish follow the remark that "we've had such a terrible loss of life"? What on earth is the logical connection? Why the smart thing to do to avoid further losses is demolishing a building?

4) WHY OH WHY would Silverstein confess on TV such a secret and tremendous element of conspiracy? Did an experienced and successfull business-man instantly become stupid as hell?

Silverstein meant (very very simply - but Ockham won't be able to rest in peace until these conspiracy theorists don't stop...) "pull the contingent of firefighters out of the building". So as not to have further losses.






---To be continued---

...or maybe I can stop here if you feel embarassed enough.
Maybe, who knows, you will have the gentle kindness to reply to some of our questions.


Who and how planned the demolition? How did they manage to do it without being noticed by all the people in there in the days/weeks before?


Do you have evidence of your theories? Not just little strange things aimed at refuting ours, but something that actually proves your systematic and consistent explanation (if there is one) of how it all went?
(For example, where are the wires and detonators used for the explosion?)


Why - OH, WHY - the conspirators would plan such an incredibly complex, risky, intricate job?


How many people are involved in this conspiracy, according to you?

[tontoz]

[Hazard]

Now I have some questions here about this, PLEASE REPLY

1) Note, "they" decided to pull. So it would be the firemen now who are heading the conspiracy?
They were heroes, hundreds of them lost their lives trying to save their fellow men. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Save your ****ing guilt trips buddy, do you know which fire men he was talking about? If you do then I would love to hear some names and testimonies.

2) Since when "to pull" means "to demolish with explosives"?
Demo crews that use this verb it in their work, use it as in "to pull down with cables", nothing else.

Oh ok pull it down is not at all destructive, he surely was referring to pull the firemen out of the building, cause umm you know you refer to firemen as "it". Genius.

3) Why would the decision to demolish follow the remark that "we've had such a terrible loss of life"? What on earth is the logical connection? Why the smart thing to do to avoid further losses is demolishing a building?

You tell me, I'm as lost as you are.

4) WHY OH WHY would Silverstein confess on TV such a secret and tremendous element of conspiracy? Did an experienced and successfull business-man instantly become stupid as hell?

Again stupid question, I'm not him I do not know.

Silverstein meant (very very simply - but Ockham won't be able to rest in peace until these conspiracy theorists don't stop...) "pull the contingent of firefighters out of the building". So as not to have further losses.

Shame on you referring to the firefighters as "it".

---To be continued---

...or maybe I can stop here if you feel embarassed enough.
Maybe, who knows, you will have the gentle kindness to reply to some of our questions.

I think you should stop, cause I'm so embarassed...

[miller-time]

You tell me, I'm as lost as you are.



Again stupid question, I'm not him I do not know.



Shame on you referring to the firefighters as "it".






I think you should stop, cause I'm so embarassed...

[Hazard]

Maybe he meant "it" as in the rescue effort? You know, like pull the plug? Anyway, it definitely seems as if you're looking at an innocent shadow and seeing a monster. Like others have said, what's more likely? That he meant to end the rescue efforts, or that he went public with the order to demolish the building? His quote makes no sense in the context of the conspiracy, this is an argument of semantics.

I'm open to any possibility. Do I think our government is ****ed up enough to orchestrate this type of thing? Yes. Is it likely? Well as of now majority is against it, so obviously I cant argue against the majority. I watched 9/11 truth and it had a lot of messed up shit in it, that had me believe that it was an inside job without a doubt in my mind. At this point I am on neither side, but I will never rule out that possibility until all the facts are out in the open, and I don't expect that to happen for about 50-60 years. So these little conspiracy theorists and the anti conspiracy theorists can sit here flinging crap at each other all day, it won't change anything.

[LilKateMoss]

Let's see who can solve this little rebus puzzle.



Hint: it describes pretty well what's going on here.

[lurch67]

Let's see who can solve this little rebus puzzle.



Hint: it describes pretty well what's going on here.

You need to sew the ogre some gangsta pants and mail them to Detroit?