World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Unfortunately the burden of proof is over to you if you wish to question it.

I don't need silly advices and nobody needs proof to question anything, even if the lack of proof is a big question itself.

Also, if anybody needs to come up with a story that applys on every little detail of that day just to discuss parts of it, we won't be discussing anything regarding 9/11 at all. You didn't think this through, did you?

This is where the flimsy threads snap.

Actually I just demonstrated why some people wish it would. And now... back to the core of this topic.
One column failed you say? Doesn't look like that, does it?

Seriously, though. The "plane fusilage" penetrated at least 6 walls: the outer perimeter wall, the inner perimeter wall (E ring), the D ring (at least 2 walls) and the C ring (another 2). Not to mention the number of inner walls, unknown to me. I feel that's a 'large number' if you keep in mind that these were solid (thick) steel reinforced walls.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

WRONG

The fuselage of American 77 PENETRATED 2 WALLS - The E Ring and C RING

There was no D ring wall on the 2 lowest floors - the ones the plane penetrated

Solid Steel...?? WRONG AGAIN !!!

Pentagon walls were made of ordinary brick E ring had a facade of cut limestone

As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall without having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between.

There is no doubt by the evidence and audio visual, witness testimonies all claim it was a controlled collapse not to mention the owner of World Trade Centre complex was witnessed on the phone talking to his insurance carrier telling them he was going to pull building 7 or in his words ,control demolition. Shortly after the order was given they watched the building implode

This thread is not about the Pentagon.

Lost way back in the beginning of this topic is the eye witness account of Barry Jennings, emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority and the #2 man just under the mayor, that there was an explosion in building 7 and the stairs collapsed right out from under him and his associate Michael Hess, BEFORE either of the twin towers fell - this was still in the morning when both were attempting to get to the offices of the emergency management in building 7. He stated that the lobby looked like it had been hit with a bomb, the stairs collapsed while they were walking down them, he even had to be pulled to safety from them, and that he and Hess both saw the twin towers still standing after that event - this would be hours before building 7 collapsed into its own footprint at free-fall speeds. He also stated that when he was in the building he was told (by phone) to "get out, now."

Jennings died under mysterious circumstances with no public statement on cause of death days before the NIST report was released.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Jennings died under mysterious circumstances with no public statement on cause of death days before the NIST report was released.

How convenient for him to die just before the NIST report came out......i wonder how many other people have conveniently disappeared whom may have had knowledge concerning the events of that day.....

So again, why was it imperative to bring down building 7? Because as planned, and thoughtful as people make this out to be, how would possibly, blatantly obviously, bringing down building 7 be a good idea?

originally posted by: ghaleon12
So again, why was it imperative to bring down building 7? Because as planned, and thoughtful as people make this out to be, how would possibly, blatantly obviously, bringing down building 7 be a good idea?

What would they have done if there was no severe damage to building 7, no unchecked fires burning in it and the building was not bulging, creaking and groaning?

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
There is no doubt by the evidence and audio visual, witness testimonies all claim it was a controlled collapse not to mention the owner of World Trade Centre complex was witnessed on the phone talking to his insurance carrier telling them he was going to pull building 7 or in his words ,control demolition. Shortly after the order was given they watched the building implode

This thread is not about the Pentagon.

Nope. Incorrect.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

witness testimonies all claim it was a controlled collapse

Really? Every witness says it was a controlled collapse? Every one?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ghaleon12
So again, why was it imperative to bring down building 7? Because as planned, and thoughtful as people make this out to be, how would possibly, blatantly obviously, bringing down building 7 be a good idea?

What would they have done if there was no severe damage to building 7, no unchecked fires burning in it and the building was not bulging, creaking and groaning?

Again, outright lie. There wasn't severe damage to the building none of which caused directly or indirectly the controlled collapse of World Trade Center 7. NIST report stated this clearly, so maybe reread that before you regurgitate such ignorance.

One of the last survivor/witness out of World trade Center 7 said he heard no groaning or creaking but did hear explosives going off before the collapse of the Twin towers while in building 7

Building 7 was according to sources that overheard the owner with his insurance that he was going to bring down building 7 with controlled demolitions so he cleared the area and pulled building 7 before the fire became out of control due to the lack of firefighters and water. If he didn't do this building 7 would of became a 50 story inferno. The decision was made to pull building 7 and they watched it collapse.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Unfortunately the burden of proof is over to you if you wish to question it.

I don't need silly advices and nobody needs proof to question anything, even if the lack of proof is a big question itself.

Also, if anybody needs to come up with a story that applys on every little detail of that day just to discuss parts of it, we won't be discussing anything regarding 9/11 at all. You didn't think this through, did you?

This is where the flimsy threads snap.

Actually I just demonstrated why some people wish it would. And now... back to the core of this topic.
One column failed you say? Doesn't look like that, does it?

There is an official report that took many highly qualified and highly capable people many years to produce. If you disagree with that report the burden of proof of an alternative story falls on the person who is questioning. There is evidence vs speculation. If you have evidence that tears apart the OS then that's good, it's a start but it needs to account for all of it. Otherwise we are left with a half terrorist attack half coincidental collapse story. That doesn't really work.

The final point. "One column failed you say? Doesn't look like that, does it?" actually gets right to the heart of this problem. It doesn't look like it. That's the sole issue. It looks like something else. Unfortunately we can't compare it to many different videos because we witnessed a unique event. The pretext of this whole argument is this looks like something else. Charlie Chaplin looked like Hitler. But he wasn't.

One column failed and that brings down a building? Yes. Because that failure cascades to the other columns which have been heated and now are being asked to carry a larger load despite being less able. They fail. The cascade continues. Uh oh. This happens quickly. Incredibly quickly because loads transfer instantly. They don't get up and walk. So yeah it looks like every column fails almost instantly and provides zero resistance because that's pretty much what is happening.

Explosions you say? Well. Windows under heat loading. Flammable items inside. Smaller steels buckling and snapping.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ghaleon12
So again, why was it imperative to bring down building 7? Because as planned, and thoughtful as people make this out to be, how would possibly, blatantly obviously, bringing down building 7 be a good idea?

What would they have done if there was no severe damage to building 7, no unchecked fires burning in it and the building was not bulging, creaking and groaning?

Again, outright lie. There wasn't severe damage to the building none of which caused directly or indirectly the controlled collapse of World Trade Center 7. NIST report stated this clearly, so maybe reread that before you regurgitate such ignorance.

One of the last survivor/witness out of World trade Center 7 said he heard no groaning or creaking but did hear explosives going off before the collapse of the Twin towers while in building 7

Building 7 was according to sources that overheard the owner with his insurance that he was going to bring down building 7 with controlled demolitions so he cleared the area and pulled building 7 before the fire became out of control due to the lack of firefighters and water. If he didn't do this building 7 would of became a 50 story inferno. The decision was made to pull building 7 and they watched it collapse.

It really does detail the damage that he building had suffered. You should really try going back and looking at it. It's got a pretty colour diagram based on the location and level of windows.

Go tell us how they did it. Go on. Go explain how they wired it up. Go on. Go tell us why. Go on.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ghaleon12
So again, why was it imperative to bring down building 7? Because as planned, and thoughtful as people make this out to be, how would possibly, blatantly obviously, bringing down building 7 be a good idea?

What would they have done if there was no severe damage to building 7, no unchecked fires burning in it and the building was not bulging, creaking and groaning?

Again, outright lie. There wasn't severe damage to the building none of which caused directly or indirectly the controlled collapse of World Trade Center 7. NIST report stated this clearly, so maybe reread that before you regurgitate such ignorance.

One of the last survivor/witness out of World trade Center 7 said he heard no groaning or creaking but did hear explosives going off before the collapse of the Twin towers while in building 7

Building 7 was according to sources that overheard the owner with his insurance that he was going to bring down building 7 with controlled demolitions so he cleared the area and pulled building 7 before the fire became out of control due to the lack of firefighters and water. If he didn't do this building 7 would of became a 50 story inferno. The decision was made to pull building 7 and they watched it collapse.

Go on.

You will have to ask Silverstein how and when he wired the building all the this thread proved is that World Trade Center 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion as the owners and evidence shows. According to NIST it would of took less than 9lbs of explosives to take down building seven at column 79, the one that NIST claimed failed and initiated the progressive collapse but they discount this plausible theory on videos that lacked explosive sounds, but thanks to the freedom of information release blasts can be heard over the 120db range.

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
all the this thread proved is that World Trade Center 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion as the owners and evidence shows.

There is no evidence for a controlled demolition, just a silly conspiracy theory not based on any facts, just based on hearsay and nonsense.

Some people are so desperate to prove the FDNY blows up buildings, and lie. Why is that, I wonder?

The government did it gave them a reason to invade Afghanistan or which ever country to
Get there oil or
Whatever they have that we need!

originally posted by: Calilove
The government did it gave them a reason to invade Afghanistan or which ever country to
Get there oil or
Whatever they have that we need!

And yet we went to war in Iraq based on a lie of weapons of mass destruction. Hmmm. That's odd.

On mobile so not replying to some posts until later but just one major point to bring forward and I have said this before nobody on either side of this debate can fully know the structural damage done to the towers by the aircraft or to WTC 7 after the tower collapse.

Think about that !

a reply to: waypastvne

Just curious, do you actually believe what you posted has any credibility; that the air in the cabin weighed 1,500 pounds and therefore represented an unstoppable force? You must be joking posting this. Are you joking?

Please tell me you're only joking.

JD

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ghaleon12
So again, why was it imperative to bring down building 7? Because as planned, and thoughtful as people make this out to be, how would possibly, blatantly obviously, bringing down building 7 be a good idea?

What would they have done if there was no severe damage to building 7, no unchecked fires burning in it and the building was not bulging, creaking and groaning?

Again, outright lie. There wasn't severe damage to the building none of which caused directly or indirectly the controlled collapse of World Trade Center 7. NIST report stated this clearly, so maybe reread that before you regurgitate such ignorance.

One of the last survivor/witness out of World trade Center 7 said he heard no groaning or creaking but did hear explosives going off before the collapse of the Twin towers while in building 7

Building 7 was according to sources that overheard the owner with his insurance that he was going to bring down building 7 with controlled demolitions so he cleared the area and pulled building 7 before the fire became out of control due to the lack of firefighters and water. If he didn't do this building 7 would of became a 50 story inferno. The decision was made to pull building 7 and they watched it collapse.

Go on.

You will have to ask Silverstein how and when he wired the building all the this thread proved is that World Trade Center 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion as the owners and evidence shows. According to NIST it would of took less than 9lbs of explosives to take down building seven at column 79, the one that NIST claimed failed and initiated the progressive collapse but they discount this plausible theory on videos that lacked explosive sounds, but thanks to the freedom of information release blasts can be heard over the 120db range.

I admire your belief that this thread counts as proof. Could you gimme a link to this FOI request that details the 120db explosions. Thanking you in advance.