Lets get WTC 7 straight here..

Now delete this thread if this has been extensively reviewed.

Let me put it like this:

Are WTC 1 and 2 sorta like parents to WTC 7?

If so, WTC 7 wouldnt be much help to us if it doesnt have the other WTC's (I strongly suggest correcting me if im wrong)

So, if that's the deal, then would this fall into place?

Fireman: Bomb

Does this make sense from the uneducated mind of mine?

What are you talking about, parents of WTC 7? WTC 7 was built seperately from the twin towers of a different design plan.

What exactly is it you are trying to say?

Like, business wise. Without those two WTC, whats the need in having WTC 7 operating? But you are saying seperately, which tells me that WTC 7, standing or not, could still go on with its operations without the need of WTC 1 and 2. I was thinking maybe since they had WTC in the name, they were all connected in a way.

Like, if one goes down, everything goes down, or at least is effected in some way.

Its all I was saying: I was thinking that they were all connected in a big way.

There was plenty of business activities in WTC 7 that didnt relate to the north and south towers. Thats why they rebuilt it.

The WTC 7 building housed Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities.

The government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). [2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, I see. That makes sense to me now.

Ok, I see what you are saying here.

No, WTC 7 did not need the other two buildings.

Besides, WTC 7 have a number of government offices, like the CIA and NYC command center.

Originally posted by BigMoser
Now delete this thread if this has been extensively reviewed.

Let me put it like this:

Are WTC 1 and 2 sorta like parents to WTC 7?

If so, WTC 7 wouldnt be much help to us if it doesnt have the other WTC's (I strongly suggest correcting me if im wrong)

So, if that's the deal, then would this fall into place?

Fireman: Bomb

Does this make sense from the uneducated mind of mine?

I don't know the reasons why WTC 7 was included, but seeing that it fell into a vacuum for the 1st 100 meters, I'd say it was indeed taken down on purpose.

Check out this video, which has be posted on different threads here before.

video.google.com...

Edited for spelling.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

When you say a building fell at the acceleration due to gravity in a vaccum, you can't tell for sure. When you see a building collapse you only see the outer wall. It's possible that the center and all the innards of the building were collapsing beforehand and the wall only began at a certain point afterwards. That could create the illusion that a building is falling faster than it really is.

I'm no engineer, though.

Originally posted by Johnmike
When you say a building fell at the acceleration due to gravity in a vaccum, you can't tell for sure. When you see a building collapse you only see the outer wall. It's possible that the center and all the innards of the building were collapsing beforehand and the wall only began at a certain point afterwards. That could create the illusion that a building is falling faster than it really is.

I'm no engineer, though.

ebaumsworld.com...

Watch this video & tell me if you see the outer wall fall before the core of the building. I don't see this, yet the building totally colapses, and it was a controlled demolition.

What does this have anything to do with Newton's laws??? If something starts to fall, then it sarts to fall, and the time accumulated afterwards is constant with those laws that have been proven. . . It has no bearing on the perimeter on the building.

Amazing isn't it! How they were able to get the bombs into building 7 to demolish it (just in time) for Sept 11, and just hours after the WTC buildings were exploded. They even left the border wide open during all this time, just in case.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

What makes you think the explosives would have to have been placed after the towers fell?

I'm sure if this whole thing was planned, which is becoming painfully obviouse it was, they would have done it before the day of the attack, not during...

Originally posted by ANOK
What makes you think the explosives would have to have been placed after the towers fell?

I'm sure if this whole thing was planned, which is becoming painfully obviouse it was, they would have done it before the day of the attack, not during...

Yes, the bombs were planted in all 3 buildings prior, to 9-11.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Amazing isn't it! How they were able to get the bombs into building 7 to demolish it (just in time) for Sept 11, and just hours after the WTC buildings were exploded. They even left the border wide open during all this time, just in case.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

I guess if you were gonna make a movie that would be a great plot, but we all know in the real world, that it's usually a lot less glamorous, a lot less dynamic, a lot more mundane, and a lot more calculated. . . That would be easily digested by the masses.

originally by HITLER

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted... they more easily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie... It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously"

It would have been the least plausible time for something like that to happen, therefore according to the statement above, it can't be discounted. . .

[edit on 3-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

...No, I said that, in response to claims that buildings fell at the acceleration due to gravity in a vaccum, that all you can see is the outer wall. Meaning the outer wall could fall after the inside. Just an idea.

Originally posted by Johnmike
...No, I said that, in response to claims that buildings fell at the acceleration due to gravity in a vaccum, that all you can see is the outer wall. Meaning the outer wall could fall after the inside. Just an idea.

Since the evidence of the strucutral failure began well before the point in time where the controlled demo proponents begin thier stopwatch, the whole "speed of the collapse" argument is wrong anyway.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Johnmike
...No, I said that, in response to claims that buildings fell at the acceleration due to gravity in a vaccum, that all you can see is the outer wall. Meaning the outer wall could fall after the inside. Just an idea.

Since the evidence of the strucutral failure began well before the point in time where the controlled demo proponents begin thier stopwatch, the whole "speed of the collapse" argument is wrong anyway.

Again I don't see why it would matter if the whole inside of the building collapsed a 1/2 hour before the outside wall started to fall. It still fell @ 100 meters in 4.5 seconds, which is freefall in a vacuum speed. Can you dispute this video evidence? If so, where am I going wrong? What produced a vacuum? Thanx-