Should we just focus on Building 7?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I am not mocking, (cant watch the video yet) do any of these videos explain how people managed to rig it for demo?

since everything I have seen and read requires a pretty invasive procedure to rig a building to drop?

I really am looking for an explanation.. if I can find one I will certainly take a second look.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I am not mocking, (cant watch the video yet) do any of these videos explain how people managed to rig it for demo?



since everything I have seen and read requires a pretty invasive procedure to rig a building to drop?



I really am looking for an explanation.. if I can find one I will certainly take a second look.

Why on earth do you think someone would video themselves commiting a crime like rigging a building to fall, its criminal and would be pretty stupid to video yourself commiting a crime like this.

Just think about the question your asking for a moment, would you yourself film yourself breaking the law and then post it on youtube?

a reply to: Jchristopher5
2.25 seconds? I think not.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Not asking for video proof, asking if any of them tries to explain how they managed to rig it with demo.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I have to laugh a little at your thought process. I've seen it many times before from other people.

You understand that it is quite invasive and time consuming to rig a building for demolition, especially sky scrapers of that height, in order to fall almost straight down in its own footprint in a controlled fashion.

However, you believe the official story; that a little damage to the facade and one or two support structures from debris, and some heavy fires, caused the building to collapse in such a way that its identical with controlled demolition.....

Do you see the problem with that logic?

If you believe the official story, that the building was destroyed by a little damage in just the right locations and fires... you might as well believe the building can be demolished with very little controlled demo rigging.

Perhaps if WTC 7 was a controlled demo, whoever did the demo didn't need to rig the entire building. Maybe they knew that if they only took out 1 or 2 columns, and started a bunch of fires, the building would come down on its own. Exactly as the "official story" suggests it came down.

Do you see what I am saying?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Is the OP claiming the BBC were in on a 9/11 conspiracy?......

No, not necessarily. I was stating a fact, it was reported on the BBC before it collapsed, with the building in the background.

I don't know exactly what to ascertain from that fact, but it is the least important of the points that I referenced. Typical "OS" style to pick the one aspect of something that you want to poke holes in.

So the people in charge of the media distribution section of the 9/11 conspiracy group just jumped the gun a little? let the news out before the building even collapsed?

So they went to all that trouble only to tell people about an event before it actually happened?

Why hasn't the BBC since caught onto this fact? are they now in on the conspiracy?

Why announce early? It's a valid question. I have a theory: They knew the specific time it was coming down of course as they had planned it to come down. They announced say five/ten minutes early to the media outlets that the building was coming down. They did this so that all the media would have their cameras pointed at it to FILM the collapse, just as with the second tower. You think this is an insignificant point? Sensationalism and visual input are KEY in this operation.

They would have had a time attached to the pre-planted detonators. That timer mechanism could have failed due to the buildings shaking etc. Being the professionals that the goverment are, they would have had a remote back up detonator device. Once it is relayed that the planned timer didn't work, they initiate the back up but this results in a longer delay than anticipated betwen announcing that the building is down/about to come down, making them look silly when the BBC (who clearly rushed to be the first to report this story) began to report that it was down. Note from that BBC report (if you have watched it in full) that they mention building 7 being 'down' but then the rest of the report they do not mention it, this is possibly also due to the error being realised and the BBC being told to reign it back in and hold off with the details. In these kind of high octance, emotional, fearful and heightened incidents, the BBC just follow orders, believe me. They are under strict instructions at times like these to report things in a certain way, I am in no way saying they are implicated. Another theory could just be that they didn't bank on the BBC relaying their 'news' so quickly. The BBC like to be first, so I am not surprised if they rushed to report this at the beginning of a planned report (again watch the video) which was a general update about the whole situation.

It really doesn't take a huge team to orcasrate these events. These people are professionals, but slip ups do happen and this is what we are focusing on here. There are CLEAR inconsistencies in the whole 9/11 saga and if you are blind to that then have a merry ignorant life, or if you just haven't read all the facts, I urge you to do so, and you'll soon see just why people get so passionate when trying to let others see how we have all been lied to in the most shocking , inhumane and apalling way.

Remeber - this is all for the orcastrated illusion of 'the war on terror' that was manifested out of 9/11 to keep the masses controlled. It is a huge topic so I won't go into it all here but, believe me, I watched that BBC news report LIVE AT THE TIME. I clearly remember the fact that after it, NO MENTION OF BUILDING 7 WAS EVER SPOKEN OF.

It was so extreme that i actually began to believe I was mistaken. I kept asking people in the days afetr 9/11, did you hear about the 3rd building that came down? What about building 7? No one had heard about it. At the time I wasn't online and around a year later when I finally did get a pc and get online, the strange thought had never left me, what about that other building? I know they mentioned it that day but nothign since! I am not saying it wasn't reorted on in US media, but in the UK there was barley a whisper. I wasn't hunting for it detective style, and Im sure ther would have been small reports on it, but the magnitude of it didn't add up. A third building demolished but no one is talking about it?! Why? My senses told me - this is bizarre! An lo and behold once i got online and began searching for it, I was reassured that i wasn't imagining things and this did really happen.

I wasn't even aware at that time that they had pre-empted the announcement of it coming down and I STILL found the whole lack of info suspicous. Over the years as more info comes out, my suspicions are confirmed time and time again.

It used to be taboo to even hint that 9/11 was an inside job, I did so and received what I can only call venomous abuse. This is what the governemnt play on. The visual aspect is what sticks in people's minds. It's basic psychology. It was utterly horrific and traumitising to watch, no one can dispute that. Being in the city at the time or having friends/family who were...I understand the pain and the distress, the fear, the worry, the anger. But those emotions have been manipluated and planted there by our so-called protectors and orcastrators of society. The sociopaths that we let run our country have different morals to us. It's a well researched fact that people in positions of huge power (governemnts, mega corps etc) usually get there by being ruthless and by cold logic. They lack the empathy that the majority of humans have. They can make these cold calculating decisions and the sooner we realise that our world is run by HUMANS and humans ARE FLAWED the better for all of us.

I find 9/11 VERY believable just based on those facts alone.

Peace to you

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Hey there I am happy to work with you guys to build a website to promote the truths? I know there are many sites on 9/11 out there but if it helps I can offer my help in this way to spread the word. It would be great to get content from people who are probably reading this thread let me know what you think.

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Hey there I am happy to work with you guys to build a website to promote the truths? I know there are many sites on 9/11 out there but if it helps I can offer my help in this way to spread the word. It would be great to get content from people who are probably reading this thread

let me know what you think.

This is a very generous offer, thank you. I will consider it, if it helps get the message out.

My initial thought is that the world doesn't need another 9/11 website. We have so many, including "911 Thuth (Architects & Engineers, Scholars, Pulots), rethink911, etc.

But, let's what others think. I am not against the idea.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Thermite could have been used for sure, why would you say that it cannot ???

My question was for anyone to tell me how it could be done. Personally I think it can;t, but thats besides the point, right? I';m to remain open right? My challenge is for someone who claims this to describe how a building is rigged with the stuff to collapse like the twin towers did.

After all that is the claim, right? So show me…

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Are there enough websites specific to building 7? I would love to, im a student of web design and keen to get more experience.

What other ways do you plan to get the message out?

a reply to: daftpink

They announced say five/ten minutes early to the media outlets that the building was coming down.

Why bother 'announcing' to the media of all places ahead of time that anything at all was going to happen?

How would they go about that, by phone? Radio? Commo on every level was clogged on 911.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I am not mocking, (cant watch the video yet) do any of these videos explain how people managed to rig it for demo?



since everything I have seen and read requires a pretty invasive procedure to rig a building to drop?



I really am looking for an explanation.. if I can find one I will certainly take a second look.

Why on earth do you think someone would video themselves commiting a crime like rigging a building to fall, its criminal and would be pretty stupid to video yourself commiting a crime like this.

Just think about the question your asking for a moment, would you yourself film yourself breaking the law and then post it on youtube?

His point is well made. 'Rigging' a building to collapse by explosive demolition is impossible to hide. Suggesting they could somehow go about that secretly only shows how little you know about the actual process.

But do tell…

a reply to: ParasuvO

I would love to see how WTC7 got "damaged" by debris from the towers.

I would love for people to review any footage instead of making ignorant statements like…

Perhaps several of the beams that were ejected 500 yards through the air as if shot by a Guns of Navarone Defgun impacted it ??

How far away was tower seven again? Clue: It wasn't "500 yards".

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Are there enough websites specific to building 7? I would love to, im a student of web design and keen to get more experience.

What other ways do you plan to get the message out?

I am pretty new to this, despite it happening 13 years ago. I have only become convinced that the US Government was involved in 9/11 for a few months. I am currently sitting down with interested (or semi-interested) family and friends to show them what I have. I am focusing on the broader picture (with a particular focus on 7). I did the first one last night and it went well.

Part of me would like to write a book (I have started it), but there is already so much great material out there, I really don't know that I could do any angle that has not already been explored (and dismissed or ignored by the MSM).

So, I don't know. I think that we can all help by educating ourselves and those around us. But, you have to be careful. It's like one's view on religion . You don't want to shove it down people's throats, otherwise they will be less than receptive and may sour on the subject.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Perhaps if WTC 7 was a controlled demo, whoever did the demo didn't need to rig the entire building. Maybe they knew that if they only took out 1 or 2 columns, and started a bunch of fires, the building would come down on its own. Exactly as the "official story" suggests it came down.

You mean like fire weakening column 79 ?
Just like the official report says. Hmmmm

Nist report summary paragraph 3

NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors.

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Hmmmm

Now why doesn't the Grand Poobah Richard Gage address the issue of column 79 ?
He has had 13 plus years to come up with his own models/proof that column 79 could not have brought down the building !
It's simple he has a vested interest in continuing the 911 mythology.
It's his JOB ! If 911 goes away, his income goes with it.
No one in the business would ever hire him again.

Now some one, anyone please show us proof that column 79 could not have started the failure.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Point out where I said I believe the full official story... I'll wait.

This is why so many have trouble listening to the truther movement. You go on the attack if anyone questions your official story.

I used to work with a guy that produced a couple 9/11 movies and we had long discussions on the topic.

That's the bad change I have seen from the movement, the with us or against us is supposed to come from the powers that be, not the people trying to challenge the official story.

How about the possibility that the Shanksville plane was destined to fly into Bldg. 7, as a grand finale?

Towers 1 and 2 were in the way so they had to be blown and hit the ground first.

Meanwhile Fl.93 was busy being ‘high-jacked’. People had already been in Bldg 7 early and mussed it up a bit, leaving it to look as though everyone left in a hurry.

New Plans had to be made and that’s why the foreknowledge of #7 coming down and why it was previously wired for demolition.

??

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I am not mocking, (cant watch the video yet) do any of these videos explain how people managed to rig it for demo?



since everything I have seen and read requires a pretty invasive procedure to rig a building to drop?



I really am looking for an explanation.. if I can find one I will certainly take a second look.

Why on earth do you think someone would video themselves commiting a crime like rigging a building to fall, its criminal and would be pretty stupid to video yourself commiting a crime like this.

Just think about the question your asking for a moment, would you yourself film yourself breaking the law and then post it on youtube?

Maybe you should think about YOUR question for a minute. Why on Earth would anyone EVER try and carry out a demolition in front of literally tens of millions of witnesses and then insist that it was an act of terrorism when engineers and experts could clearly debunk it IMMEDIATELY? Gee, maybe because that never happened? Maybe because it was NOT a controlled demolition, lol? Just saying...

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I am not mocking, (cant watch the video yet) do any of these videos explain how people managed to rig it for demo?



since everything I have seen and read requires a pretty invasive procedure to rig a building to drop?



I really am looking for an explanation.. if I can find one I will certainly take a second look.

Why on earth do you think someone would video themselves commiting a crime like rigging a building to fall, its criminal and would be pretty stupid to video yourself commiting a crime like this.

Just think about the question your asking for a moment, would you yourself film yourself breaking the law and then post it on youtube?

Maybe you should think about YOUR question for a minute. Why on Earth would anyone EVER try and carry out a demolition in front of literally tens of millions of witnesses and then insist that it was an act of terrorism when engineers and experts could clearly debunk it IMMEDIATELY? Gee, maybe because that never happened? Maybe because it was NOT a controlled demolition, lol? Just saying...

Yet, what we have is exactly that. Many architects and engineers have stepped forward, risking jobs and reputations, to say exactly that: it was clearly a controlled demolition.

So, your premise is quite flawed. Building 7 is clearly a controlled demoltion, for the reasons already mentioned. If you want to continue to believe that our lying government is being honest, THIS TIME, despite all the proven lies, then that is your choice.

For me, I have reached the inescapable conclusion (the only logical conclusion) that it was demolished.

Meant to post this in this thread, they all look alike to me.

My favourite truther remarks are things like 'a fifth grader knows enough physics to know it's not possible' or 'I'd believe it, if I was 13'. They're probably right! A fifth grader probably wouldn't understand it, just like them, because they only have a highly simplistic view of the physics involved and can't even to begin to comprehend the bigger picture, luckily I'm not crippled by this nor are the majority of reputable scientists and engineers that actually work and therefore don't have to sell their souls peddling drivel to people that just don't know any better. Like the collapse of the buildings, every truther I see talks about them as if they're solid blocks - they're not built out of lego guys!

Keep looking at things in an over simplistic way and one will only ever come to the simplest sounding solutions which are usually unworkable in reality. Usually why something 'simple' like 'it was done with explosives' has to morph into it was done with micro nukes and lasers with explosives that don't deteriorate as the narrative has to be modified to take into account all of the many little hurdles that kind of imply - well no, not likely.
It's happened before when trying to prove that we live in an geocentric solar system and explain retrograde motion of the planets using epicycles. The model became convoluted and ridiculous trying to support the notion that Earth was central to the Solar System. Of course, it was wrong and the irony was it became ridiculous trying to explain the 'obvious and simple' 'fact' that everything went around us.

Occams razor is supposed to lead you down the path of making as few assumptions as possible so you use reliable data to come to a possible conclusion. It doesn't mean you look at things with the eyes of an infant, which is what most truthers seem to do and only leads them to completely idiotic and simplistic conclusions - which look great - if you're a fifth grader!

There's a reason not everyone is a physicist, or an architect, or a demolitions expert, etc, etc. There's a reason why you have to be a cut above the rest and spend decades of education and experience to actually achieve anything.
These things aren't simple, a fifth grader can't do it sorry! And a fifth grader level of education, or even high school or college isn't really enough to really get into the nitty gritty of the processes involved. The average truther I've come across in real life can't grasp the most fundamental principles of physics and yet keeps parroting the same 'a fifth grader would understand it' crap while not even being at that high of a level!
The average truther does exactly what they criticise the so called 'OS Supporters' (an insulting term, there's a difference between not believing garbage and falling hook line a sinker for every aspect of the official story) of and just parrot some crud off a YouTube video or a truther website.
Every truther I've spoken to in real life - as soon as I start probing them for any kind of understanding about the simplest things just starts repeating phrases like 'I don't know', 'I don't understand physics very well, but I know that a 5th grader would get it'. Without their truther cheat sheet handy the conversation devolves either into something where they are practically expressing faith like a religious person - in their 'truther' overlords - or them having a tantrum. No offence, I haven't come across a truther in real life that actually knows anything relevant at any level to have come to an independent conclusion. I know there must be some smart ones out there, I just haven't met them yet.

I've never seen any 'truther' actually say anything of any sense when it comes to most things, especially the collapse, and they just repeat the same simplistic garbage without even beginning to touch on actually very simple things like the stresses on the components and the joints that made up the buildings. They seem to have no idea what the concept of stored potential energy means, nor how a drop due to weakened metal of only a foot even (for instance) would transfer an enormous amount of energy which would cause individual joins to fail and cause a cascading effect. If truthers are so clever why are they unable to think beyond blocks? Why do they get confused about and ignore kinetic energy?
I seriously feel like I AM watching 5th graders, in a special school, when I read most truther garbage.

What would have been suspicious would have been if there were complete scientific reports all ready to roll and explain away what anyone saw. But instead people had to wait years to see any results. Why is this? Is it because after all of that scheming no one though that it would be a good idea to explain what happened on that day, you know the day where their meticulous plan which had been in the work for decades came into fruition?
Or is it because it was a random event no one expected and they have to gather data, experiment and try and work it out?
The fact we had to wait so long and there are still uncertainties actually goes against the concept of a massive inside job conspiracy. Why is it truthers and the hardcore conspiracy guys in general think that there are always going to be a load of clues like some crap game, clues which undoubtably only they are ever going to 'get' because everyone else is just a 'sheep'. Them and their 5th grade level of physics.