Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court, March 2015

originally posted by: Shamrock6
***snip***

Do you really think those buildings shut down at 5? Have you ever watched a large office building? Vans come and go, all day long. So do trucks. So do cars. And people.

I'm still sifting through things, but if your argument is based on flimsy crap like people seeing vans at a high rise office building and the idea that the buildings shut down promptly at 5, that's pretty weak.

I'm sorry, but I've actually heard from a Truther that employees brought their own toilet paper, their own stationaries, coffee, water for the office water cooler, cleaning supplies etc etc.

Sounds just as reasonable as any other proof of false flag operation regarding WTC.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: hellobruce
That is the thing I think about..still 7 fell pretty much an equal free fall..you have to admit it is unheard of in history. I understand the 20 story gash but a free fall has very specific requirment that do not appear to be met by the damage.
I have no answers only reasonable question.

There is amble evidence that the fall time was up to about 15 seconds. MUCH longer than free fall.

The reason it is disputed is that the dust cloud makes the last part of the fall difficult to follow.

However - it should be possible to calculate the first part of the collapse if one knows the distance between each floors window cills. Find a video sequence from a fixed camera and mark off the spot of the position of the lowest window cill visible in all frames. Then calculate the time it takes the top floor window cill to the marker. Knowing distance and time....... Viola!

Someone?
.

a reply to: CriticalStinker Well, since it is only truthers that claim that jet fuel melted steel, your post really does not apply. Those of us who know better, know that the jet fuel, helped set everything ELSE on fire. We also know that, left unchecked, an office fire CAN burn hot enough to soften, not melt, steel to the point that it can no longer support a load. Why in the hell do you think they coat the steel with fireproofing???

a reply to: Debunkology. You might want to check the professions of some of those folks. A bunch of them are not engineers or architects....and even then, its less than one percent of the folks in the field.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle I will add you to the list of people who consistently accuse the FDNY of lying about that day. It is not hard to find videos of WTC 7 on fire.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

As always I'll play Devils advocate against myself. I'm fully aware everything was on fire after impact. I find that to be a conclusion anyone would go to. Jet fuel is such a hot topic because it burns the hottest out of everything. Now I'm not sure if all that combined can soften steel but I'll just agree that it can. So now that I agreed to that if you can just explain the molten pools of steel days after you may have just won me over.

Building 7 going down is absolute proof 911 was pre-planned and a black operation.


Why?

Simply because it’s clear it was a controlled demolition.

And they have to be planned beforehand.

So someone knew the attack was coming.

Therefore someone either took it down on the back of the major attack (taking advantage of that) on the twin towers, or it was part of the operation and had to be planned long before the attack.

Or some other deep reason for its demise…such as: an operation within the black op?

Since the take down of building 7 was an anomaly…it didn’t have to be done. No one died.


Did some group within the conspiracy take it down JUST TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE OPERATION?

Or did Silverstein do it just to make a buck…then if that’s the case he knew 911 was going to happen.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Debunkology. You might want to check the professions of some of those folks. A bunch of them are not engineers or architects....and even then, its less than one percent of the folks in the field.

Oh I see. So, the 2,334 architects and engineers are not architects and engineers.....

Could you not clutch at anymore straws?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

911research.wtc7.net...

Look at the bottom one, every floor caught on fire and the building didn't fail. And to stay on topic were talking about building number seven. And I'll just say yes it was on fire, it wasn't even that bad, so why a complete building collapse in seconds? Why not partial structural failure? And I'll even humor the partial failure slowly causing the rest, but not in seconds. So I ask you to show me another comparable building that fell in mere seconds from am office fire.

The question is this:

Why did the conspirators take 7 down?

They say because on the 23rd floor they had the Giuliani security room where the plot was likely directed.

But does that make sense?

Maybe?

But I say the taking down of 7 may have been to see how stupid or how brainwashed the world is.

Since, with all due respect, anyone who believes fires can do that to a building is an idiot or uniquely brainwashed


911 may have been to see how brainwashed the world is, among other reasons

originally posted by: Willtell
The question is this:

Why did the conspirators take 7 down?

They say because on the 23rd floor they had the Giuliani security room where the plot was likely directed.

But does that make sense?

Maybe?

But I say the taking down of 7 may have been to see how stupid or how brainwashed the world is.

Since, with all due respect, anyone who believes fires can do that to a building is an idiot or uniquely brainwashed


911 may have been to see how brainwashed the world is, among other reasons

From what I gather, Larry Silverstein made $500 million dollars simply because that building went down in insurance claims. Also, that building contained important documents. Like the trillions of dollars that went missing from the Pentagon. Which was declared by Dick Cheney to the mainstream media a day before 9/11.

I have to ask?

Why does this matter, the opinion of a judge is no better than that of any lay-person.

If you had the chief engineer for the worlds largest demolition corporation arguing it was controlled demolition i could see the point.

This proves nothing, it changes nothing, it does nothing to make any of the conspiracies any more or less credible.

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Debunkology. You might want to check the professions of some of those folks. A bunch of them are not engineers or architects....and even then, its less than one percent of the folks in the field.

Oh I see. So, the 2,334 architects and engineers are not architects and engineers.....

Could you not clutch at anymore straws?

Apart from the fact they are not all architects & engineers the REALLY IMPORTANT thing is they are not all STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS guess who rank amongst their best clients ARCHITECTS!!!!

Most architects will struggle with even some simple structural issues and will get STRUCTURAL engineers to do the hard part CALCULATIONS.

Why don't we see 100,000's of engineers across the globe saying something probably because they are to busy
at your 2,344 !!!

a reply to: CriticalStinker You mean the molten aluminum, copper, and zinc? That's easy. There was huge fire in the bottom of the pile. Books, clothes, paper, paneling, carpeting...literally tons of easily burnable fuel from the shopping center under the towers and that was amongst the offices that were in the collapse. Air coming into the bottom from the PATH tubes.... So, oxygen, fuel, and heat..makes for a nice fire, hot enough to melt quite a few metals.

a reply to: Debunkology

Oh I see. So, the 2,334 architects and engineers are not architects and engineers.....

No, they actually also list students among their members.

In fact most of the engineers are not experts in fields pertaining to 9/11, for example what would a maritime or agricultural engineer know about the structural collapse of high rise buildings.

a reply to: Debunkology


It's not clutching at straws, it is pointing out that quite a few members of A/E 911 Truth, are not engineers or architects. Nor is it clutching at straws to point out there are tens of thousands of engineers and architects that do not agree with Box Boy Gage and his minions.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have to ask?

Why does this matter, the opinion of a judge is no better than that of any lay-person.

If you had the chief engineer for the worlds largest demolition corporation arguing it was controlled demolition i could see the point.

This proves nothing, it changes nothing, it does nothing to make any of the conspiracies any more or less credible.

If you want an unbiased opinion from one of the former worlds leading buildings demolition expert who is watching the video of Building 7 for the first time, then watch this video.

a reply to: Debunkology

If you want an unbiased opinion from one of the former worlds leading buildings demolition expert who is watching the video of Building 7 for the first time, then watch this video.

AHHH this frustrates me!!!!!

Do you honestly think I have not seen that video before a thousand times??

Really go look through a few of my threads on this subject

Sure this guy is shocked, but come one, they had to go to Poland to find a demolitions expert who would be "shocked" on camera to be seeing this for the first time. That makes me wonder why they had to go to Poland to get a guy, how many others did they have to approach before the got to scraping the bottom of the tub before they got to that guy.

What about all the demolition experts who were there at the scene when WTC-7 fell who have said categorically that they at no point suspected it was a controlled demolition.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Nicely put, while I think you pose a good argument the one thing that still gets me is no large steel building has fallen due to fire, some smaller ones but never a large one. Plenty of large ones have had severe fires though. However I know anomalies exist but why three in one day and never again? The third being the most curious as I said before, the fire wasn't severe, and would only justify a partial failure, not a complete failure in seconds.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I notice that you do not point out the Windsor Madrid Tower...the second one up from the bottom, which sustained a fire induced collapse of the steel framed upper 17 floors. Of course, not that it matters, because NONE of the buildings on that page suffered the severe impact damage that WTC 7 did.







And, WTC 7 did not fall in "mere" seconds. FDNY was watching the building burn, pieces falling off, and the entire building slowly shifting all afternoon....until it passed the point of no return and it came down. The building, was pretty much doomed from the moment that WTC 1 carved the heart out of it.