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

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Try "MikonATSrender" link below mine from wiki. Same data different source.

Are you saying that the link I provided is bogus? If so explain why please.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer
Anyone with a modicum of sense would find the collapse of WTC7 troubling, but not ignorant Americans in which we seem to have a bounty.

"For Dr. Harrit, a scientist who taught chemistry for 40 years at the University of Copenhagan, this amounted to an allegation of scientific misconduct and a baseless attempt to damage his hard-earned reputation. So he decided to seek recourse under Denmark’s strong libel law — and give himself the opportunity to prove in a court of law the scientific legitimacy of his 9/11 research."

smart move.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

It is a smart move! Libel is no joke and getting the facts out on the building 7 collapse is worth the costs.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: RoScoLaz4

It is a smart move! Libel is no joke and getting the facts out on the building 7 collapse is worth the costs.

He lost the libel case, as he had no facts about WTC 7 and the court decided it was ok to call him a idiot....

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
"For Dr. Harrit, a scientist who taught chemistry for 40 years at the University of Copenhagan, this amounted to an allegation of scientific misconduct and a baseless attempt to damage his hard-earned reputation. So he decided to seek recourse under Denmark’s strong libel law — and give himself the opportunity to prove in a court of law the scientific legitimacy of his 9/11 research."

smart move.

Except he did not prove that in a court of law - the court decided he was a idiot! So not a very smart move at all!

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Of course they're shocked. It doesn't make any sense why the building fell.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer
Interesting, we'll see where this goes.

Rebel 5

So what was the official reason given for building 7 collapsing?

originally posted by: ArchangelOger
I'll say one thing, I've always been on the fence regarding the twin towers 'conspiracy' but from watching that particular video it sure looks like a controlled demolition to me.

It is most amazing to me to see those towers pulverize into dust in mid air, and hear people say they are "on the fence".

The towers is WAY more convincing not to mention the lack of a debris pile, the lack of heat, and the cars burnt, flipped upside down, 8 blocks away.

I also used to be bewildered how people wouldn't know about Building 7. I was a college student at the time & had actually skipped a morning class that day (was out kicking it w/friends until early that morning lol). So while I was trying to decide whether I was going to go to my later classes or just stay at home, I turned on the tv & BAM! The 1st plane had just hit & people were panicking. At the time, everyone thought it was just an accident.

I was listening to System of a Down's "Chop Suey" when the 2nd tower was hit (still think of 9/11 every time I hear it). I immediately called one of my best friends & was like WTF?! We had just seen "Fight Club" & couldn't believe someone was attacking the New York's towers like at the end of the movie. At the time, everyone was sure there were numerous bombs in the buildings, so they thought it was a coordinated attack between already placed bombs & the planes. They were saying at least 20,000 could be killed. Fast forward to Building 7. All of us, family included, were watching when it went down and we were like huh? It was an obvious controlled demolition, so we thought that maybe the attackers were still on the ground & had maybe planted bombs all throughout the area. I watched Ehud Barak's speech & didn't even know who dude was lol. I just remember thinking, hey what's this gotta do with the MidEast?

Fast forward to 2011 & I was stunned that the college students I was working with had never even heard of Building 7. And our recently emigrated coworkers hadn't heard of it either, including a guy from Iraq! I showed them youtube videos during break and they still didn't fully believe it.

Just remember that nobody in the mainstream talks about 9/11. And during the Bush years, you were considered a traitor if you questioned the official govt story (at least, in the Tennessee you were). So many people still don't know much about 9/11.

a reply to: hellobruce

hello, bruce. he may have lost the libel case but the manouver was indeed smart. this guy will figure out more ways of sticking in the craw of the OS. good luck to him.

originally posted by: ParasuvOIt is most amazing to me to see those towers pulverize into dust in mid air

indeed. amazing to the point of incredulity. i watched the 'event' live on TV and the very last thing i expected was for either, never mind both, of the towers to collapse. i exclaimed aloud at the moment the first tower fell;

' no f###ing way did it fall ' because it was immediately obvious that something was wrong with that picture.

originally posted by: truthster013
The problem with WTC7 is even proof that it was taken down in a controlled demolition will not prove anything to those who believe the official story. What will likely happen if anyone ever really presses this issue in the public eye is that the US government will finally be forced to admit they took it down with explosives. However, they will simply add that the reason they didn't say anything about it is because it was a matter of national security to divulge why. We know that several security agencies had offices in that building. By simply saying it's a matter of national security they will likely just count on the public trusting that the collapse of the building is a sort of security precaution taken to ensure that classified documents or information didn't wind up in the hands of terrorists. A simple explanation by the government that "yeah we blew it up but the reasons are a matter of national security" will be all that is needed for those who want to keep believing the official story. Further, once the government is forced to admit it, people will stills shout down 911 truthers saying we don't respect national security and need to keep our mouth shut. There is no win here. LOL

I see why you say that, however there is a big but. Without going the whole gamut that WTC7 was a real target for 9/11, which does stretch things a bit, it does seem that WTC7 did have a lot of important documentation on investigations ongoing belonging to the FBI. What they referenced to is not so clear, or as to the exact nature of the documents, other than some records were recovered, and is as often mentioned, including hard drives. Enron was supposed to be the biggy in the knockdown scenario, but they got busted anyway later the same year. What is clear, is that stuff was taken in or out of WTC7 in travel cases before it collapsed, (travel cases were certainly taken out) that there were secret service police personnel going in and out of the building, after the twin towers had collapsed, all at a time when it was said to be creaking and groaning, and at some time when explosions were being heard, and presumed to be from WTC7, and when it was known that the building had been evacuated of people.
Thing is WTC7 doesn't gel, in any which way, so there is a story there, no matter what.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
So what was the official reason given for building 7 collapsing?

Incredibly, I think they left it out of the official 9/11 Report. So I don't think there is an official story. The explanation usually given on tv is that it collapsed because of the raging fires inside of it. Then there's the interview with Larry Silverstein (sp?) who basically said in an off-hand remark that it was too damaged so they "pulled it". And there's live video of firefighters at the scene telling people to get back b/c it was too damaged, so it was going to be brought down.

My questions if they ever do admit an alphabet-agency had to intentionally bring the building down: How & when did they plant the explosives? The building came down a few hours after the other towers went down, so when did they have time to plant those explosives? And if they didn't plant them after the destruction of the 1st 2 towers, were the explosives already there? In other words, are all of their buildings filled with explosives in case of a need to bring them down?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
So what was the official reason given for building 7 collapsing?

Incredibly, I think they left it out of the official 9/11 Report. zw

you "think" they left it out? So you never bothered to even check....

And there's live video of firefighters at the scene telling people to get back b/c it was too damaged, so it was going to be brought down.

Care to show us this video of fiirefighters saying it "was going to be bought down"?

How & when did they plant the explosives?

There were no explosives....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
So what was the official reason given for building 7 collapsing?

Incredibly, I think they left it out of the official 9/11 Report. zw

you "think" they left it out? So you never bothered to even check....

And there's live video of firefighters at the scene telling people to get back b/c it was too damaged, so it was going to be brought down.

Care to show us this video of fiirefighters saying it "was going to be bought down"?

How & when did they plant the explosives?

There were no explosives....

Wow, way to be combative.

1. On the Tower. Took a full 30 seconds to find these, and they're not even the ones I was referencing.
Firefighter on 9/11
2nd & longer video


2. As for the report. It's been years since I've looked at it, hence "i think" it...
However, here you go...

3. As for the explosives. Did you even read my post? I was saying that even if they admitted that an alphabet-agency did bring it down, my follow up questions would be "blah blah when did they plant the explosives?". So why choose that point to attack when it was clearly stated as a conditional, hypothetical follow-up question?
But since you asked...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I can accept it was damaged but surely there must be a report somewhere that describes the buildings defects at the time before the planes hit the building. The local government who controls the district should hold such a report. I don't live in US just seems very bizzare there is no report of any kind at any level of government that details what the building condition was before the planes hit.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
1. On the Tower. Took a full 30 seconds to find these, and they're not even the ones I was referencing.
Firefighter on 9/11

Nothing there about bringing building down, just a fireman saying it was unstable, which they knew, remember they even had a transit on it and knew it was moving....

2nd & longer video

Where exactly did a fireman state "so it was going to be brought down." in that video?

As for the report. It's been years since I've looked at it, hence "i think" it...
However, here you go...

Why not just go the report on the collapse of WTC 7....
www.nist.gov...

I was saying that even if they admitted that an alphabet-agency did bring it down

Why would they admit that, when no agency was involved in it?

as a conditional, hypothetical follow-up question?

It makes as much sense as asking "when did the invisible pink fairies use their pixie dust to bring the building down"!

Remember, there is the same evidence invisible pink fairies bought the building down as explosives or thermite were used to bring it down!

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I can accept it was damaged but surely there must be a report somewhere that describes the buildings defects at the time before the planes hit the building. The local government who controls the district should hold such a report. I don't live in US just seems very bizzare there is no report of any kind at any level of government that details what the building condition was before the planes hit.

Wait, do you mean the Twin Towers or Building 7 (aka World Trade Center 7 aka WTC7)? The Twin Towers were the only ones in New York directly hit by planes. Building 7 and several other buildings in close proximity to them got hit with debris, a lot from when the first 2 towers collapsed. Building 7, a 47 story building, had a massive fire raging on several floors. During the hours before it fell, the BBC announced Building 7 had fallen, while it was still visible in the background. Here's a list of youtube vids that show it

And actually, there were maintenance closures for the Twin Towers leading up to 9/11 but I don't know enough about it to be sure. There are a ton of threads here about it though