CNN News Reports WTC Building 7 collapse Minutes before it collapses

Originally posted by bsbray11

Most of that smoke is coming from other buildings and the burning footprints.

Why do you insist on lying about this after being shown time and again that it is entirely false.

There were fires in WTC 7 and the building was quite a bit larger than five and six.

Why do you deny the facts and call all the rescue workers and firemen on the ground that day liars?



In the above picture you can clearly see that the opposite is happening. The smoke from 7 is going towards 5 and 6.

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Originally posted by MoeGigz

I guess we can't have BBQ grills anymore....they will melt from the heat. Right?

I got rid of my grill within hours of 911.....and my kerosene heater for my garage.
I feel much safer now.

If you are foolish enough to think that this:



Is in any way comparable to this:



Then it's no wonder that you believe in the 9-11 denial theories.

Originally posted by CameronFox
SMALL FIRES??? Guys... watch the video!!! Look at the smoke POURING out of the building! yeah small fires.....

In a steal building.

Maybe they threw in a few explosives at the last moment to just bring it down because they couldn't stop the fires... Maybe that's what the broadcast was about demo'ing the WTC7 building?

Originally posted by lizziex3
Nick. As shown/heard in the documentary 9|11. People jumping out of windows sounded like explosions, or a big BOOOM when they hit the ground.[edit on 27-2-2007 by lizziex3]

Ain't it a bitch when a debunker needs to be debunked. Now, I never saw a UFO or anything too crazy like that (wish I did). However, interestingly enough, someone committed suicide right outside my window by jumping off of the roof. Ain't that a bitch. I have first hand knowledge to debunk the goofy nonsense you're presenting here. I realize that it's not your nonsense per se, but it's someone elses nonsense that you're chosing to believe because to even consider the possibility that 911 was anything other than what the official story says it was terrifies you to your core. And you know what, I understand, and if I weren't so cynical I'd probably be clicking my ruby slippers right along with you. However, I've seen some evil people do some evil things in my life with my own two eyes, so to me, nothing is off of the table until it is disproved.

Don't get me wrong, some of the CTs are crazy, and some are straw men, but when debunking becomes this dishonest it no longer speaks to the intellectual in me, instead it reveals itself as empty reassurance designed for people willing to cling to anything just to believe the official story. And yes, I've seen lots of bad debunking, but I take this one personally. It's like telling an abductee that ETs don't exist.

Anyway, I digress. Human bodies are mushy little meat sacks, and they make almost no noise when they hit the ground. You see, I was in my living room on the third floor watching TV on a Saturday morning sometime in June a few years back, and everything was cool, or so I thought. As I was debating with myself about whether or not to go to the gym before noon my friend calls to inform me that his grandfather just killed himself by jumping off of the roof, and he asked me if I had noticed. I didn't notice, but when I looked out of my window sure enough my friend's grandfather's corpse was lying warm and dead on the concrete below, with a little blood trickling from his head. Now I hadn't heard a god damned thing. The thud blended in with my TV and the backround noise outside, and this window faced a private parking lot in a fairly quiet neighborhood (for Yonkers).
Now let's play the numbers game. This guy jumped ten stories, and I've dropped plenty of things off of that roof to know it took about three seconds to hit the ground, so he was probably doing about 60mph, or 50% terminal velocity. Now, it took the jumpers around seven seconds to hit the ground (not much faster than the towers fell actually, but we're not discussing that now) from whatever floor they were on. This is grusome footage of the jumpers
So, at seven seconds we're at about 88% terminal velocity and we're doing about 106mph. Now if an old man hits the ground at 60mph and doesn't make enough of a sound to distract me from the TV, people hitting the ground at 106mph aren't going to make explosions unless they ate taco bell for breakfast...
See what I did, I put some humor in there, and yes I know I'm a terrible person.

Allrightythen, hope I cleared up that mystery. Honestly though, I don't think anyone was buying it anyway. Although, if anyone was, please contact me, I have this wonderful bridge for sale.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Then it's no wonder that you believe in the 9-11 denial theories.

9-11 denial is not a theory, it is a religion, and mainstream media is its pope.

You have voted Sunsetspawn for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Dude, I've seen the movie (it's called 9|11, google it), i've heard them fall to the ground. It didn't sound like a huge giant explosion, but in my opinion they could've easily been mistaken for small bombs. I'm not even going to comment on your little boohoo pity me story.

Honestly.. bodies making a BOOM when they hit the ground? Even my mind isn't deluded enough from all the movies I watch to think that is true, unless Agent Smith is driving your face down to the cement at 500 mph, then you would hear a boom!

You have voted Sunsetspawn for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

(Agent Smith the Matrix character, to avoid confusion)

[edit on 27-2-2007 by BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by freakyty

9-11 denial is not a theory, it is a religion, and mainstream media is its pope.

I agree, except for the last part.

I thought the mainstream media was against the denial theories.

I thought prisonplanet and alex jones was the denial theories vatican and pope?


I was not aware that the MSM was a proponent of bomb/thermite/thermite/no plane/holographic plane/Bush was driving the dam planes/HE SAID PULL IT/ firefighters and EMT workers are liars/hardly any or no fires in WTC 7/moved taxi/bombs in the basement theories.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by LeftBehind]

I hope the government did it. People need to realize that if we want something we're gonna get it. They forced the government to kill em...they are to PC to let their government go to iraq and just take the oil. they had to create a reason so that people would not cry about an unjust invasion. They had what we needed now we're gonna have it all. This is if the 911 junk is true...most likely not. People die every day only different thing there is that is was alot. I didn't know any of those peeps and did not cry when they died..makes me laugh to watch people cry about people they had no clue existed till that day. Get over it and move on.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by soulstealer2099]

Originally posted by lizziex3Maybe when Larry said pull IT, he ment pull the firefighting operation?

I'm pretty sure that this can't be true because according to the NIST and/or FEMA reports, and according to other sources, there were no firefighters in the building to "pull."

This is where the story starts to get convoluted....

To believe that fires caused the collapse of WTC7, you have to believe there were some pretty big fires.

To have pretty big fires still burning 8 hours later, this would mean that there were few, if any, firefighters in the building putting out the fires.

To believe Silverstein was referring simply to removing the firefighters from th building, there would have to be firefighters in the building to "pull."

But there weren't any firefighters in WTC7 to pull.

BTW, since when did Silverstein get to command the NYFD and tell them when to "pull" firefighters from a building?

Well I have no idea then why he said pull it. but I am fairly certain there were no bombs due to the amount of time it takes to set up a building for demolition. And yes, there weren't very many firefighters to begin with trying to stop the fire because there was no water to fight it with. Larry might have had the authority to tell them to leave since it was his building, and it was under special circumstances? Plus I don't know if this has been brought up before but after he said pull it he said something like "there's been such terrible loss the best thing to do would be to pull", what would be the point of blowing up WTC 7, and how does that have anything to do with loss of life?

Anyways, I never said that the people jumping out of WTC were the sole reason people were hearing explosions, okay? There are a lot of things that can randomly blow up when a building is on fire, without there being planted explosives.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by lizziex3]

Lizziex3: The amount of time taken to plant cutter charges is hardly evidence that it couldn't have been a controlled demo. I'm not saying it was or wasn't - I just wouldn't use that as the sole basis for your conclusion.

And I would imagine that in circumstances such as those of 9/11, chain of command is more important than ever. I highly doubt that any authority would have changed from the established structure on a day like that. Also, why would the NYPD give the owner of a building responsibility over when to pull out the firefighters working in it? In such a situation, the safety of the firefighters is the ultimate concern, but the owner of the building would have little to no concern with the safety of the firefighters and would be solely concerned with protecting his building. It seems highly unlikely that any building owner would be given that authority under any circumstances.

And finally, Silverstein profited hugely from the insurance payout on WTC7. That would be 'the point' of the demolition. And whether 'pull it' referred to pulling the firefighters out of the building, or the demolition of the building - either way operations around WTC7 would be finished and there would be no chance of any one else being injured or killed because of it.

Originally posted by nick7261

I'm pretty sure that this can't be true because according to the NIST and/or FEMA reports, and according to other sources, there were no firefighters in the building to "pull."

Where are you getting this, sources please.

What you are stating is categorically false.

To believe that fires caused the collapse of WTC7, you have to believe there were some pretty big fires.

I would have to say that yes, a fire that was causing most of a 50 storey building to produce those huge clouds of smoke from almost every floor would constitute "pretty big fires."

To have pretty big fires still burning 8 hours later, this would mean that there were few, if any, firefighters in the building putting out the fires.

Based on what? Because you say so? How about the fact that they didn't have enough water pressure and they were busy trying to save as many poeple as they could from the two 110+ story buildings that had jsut collapsed.

Based on the extensive eyewitness and video evidence, there was almost no attempt made to save 7 due to the structural damage, the massive fires, and the ongoing rescue operations. So while it is true that there were no firefighters in the building, there were firefighters and rescue crews in the vicinity of 7.

BTW, since when did Silverstein get to command the NYFD and tell them when to "pull" firefighters from a building?

Good question, since the "pull it" is taken by 9-11 deniers to mean Silverstein ordered the buildings demolished, you have just demonstrated the absurdity of this idea. Silverstein made no commands or orders in his statement.

The actual quote.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

They made the decision to pull all operations away from building seven, not Silverstein.

Originally posted by lizziex3

Originally posted by TheStev

Originally posted by lizziex3
Seriously? You can't figure this out? To PULL does not mean to blow something up, it means to PULL the firefighters out.

Second of all, you need to realize that Prison Planet and Loose Change are both big giant frauds. This webpage explains that in an easy way. I would not doubt that this "mike" guy is fake.

www.pointlesswasteoftime.com...

There are plenty of demolitions experts who would testify to the use of the term 'pull' to explain the demolition of a building. Also, if what was being 'pulled' was 'the firefighters out of the building' wouldn't it be 'pull them' not 'pull it'?

Hell, maybe that is what he meant, but the fact that 'pull' is used frequently in controlled demos, and the fact that he said 'it' and not 'them' adds enough ambiguity and uncertainty that 'Seriously, you can't figure this out' is not warranted.

Originally posted by lizziex3
Nick. As shown/heard in the documentary 9|11. People jumping out of windows sounded like explosions, or a big BOOOM when they hit the ground. You should consider watching this video it may change your mind about some things. Also, do you even look at any of the links I provide? I'm pretty sure that page in my last post talks about the various other reasons for explosion type sounds. and theres another link in one of my other posts up there that explains why I dont think there were bombs in WTC.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by lizziex3]

I don't care how high they have fallen from, human bodies hitting concrete make a 'thud' and not a 'big booom'.

If you watch that video you'll see what I mean. Anyways, this has been explained before so many times. Yes, they do use the term pull. they use the term pull meaning to PULL a building down using cables. Not to set off bombs. And the EMT and firefighters don't even have anything to do with demolishing buildings so it doesn't matter anyways. Maybe when Larry said pull IT, he ment pull the firefighting operation?

"Larry". Know him do you?

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by nick7261

I'm pretty sure that this can't be true because according to the NIST and/or FEMA reports, and according to other sources, there were no firefighters in the building to "pull."

Where are you getting this, sources please.

What you are stating is categorically false.

Actually, what he is saying isn't false, go read the reports yourself:
FEMA WTC 7 Report

Page 21, Third Full Paragraph
"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

Now you may say this totally "debunks" anything the truth movement is saying by agreeing the fire was "burning out of control". Yeah? Well, then if the fire proceeded throughout the day by automatic or manual operations, then who was Mr. Silverstein "pulling" from the building?

Page 23, Second Full Paragraph
"With the limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study. Fires were observed to be located on some of the lower levels about the 10th floor for the majority of the time from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7. It appears that the sprinklers may not have been but may have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

So... FEMA is telling us manual firefighting operations were stopped fairly early in the day. And yet again, I pose the question - What was Mr. Silverstein "pulling" from the building? The problem is, there are no timestamps to the exact times of when these decisions were made to halt manual firefighting operations - but can't we assume "fairly early in the day" means before 5:23 pm?

Page 24, Second Full Paragraph
"Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

And once again, I'll continue to specify the same question I've been asking in this thread. Then what on earth was Larry Silverstein talking of when the decision was made to "pull"? There have been three seperate instances within the FEMA Report on WTC7 where they describe minimal-to-none manual firefighting operations on that day.

And like I said above, this could be seen in negative light towards the movement as a reason why a seven hour fire would destroy a building, or you can look at it from an equally reasonable approach as to what Larry Silverstein was refering to when he said "pull" in regards to the WTC7 scenario.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

In the above picture you can clearly see that the opposite is happening. The smoke from 7 is going towards 5 and 6.

To have me believe that the synchronous destruction of WTC 7 was caused by fires then you'll need a lot more smoke where your big red arrow is. Hasn't BSBray11 previously shown that the asynchronous damage and fires highlighted and detailed would have caused a collapse to one side if at all?

They did not pull people from the building. They pulled everyone back from the aread around the building.


Please read my last post.

Or even better read the thread where this is being discussed.

Pull It

Or perhaps a this .pdf file that exposes most of the lies some of you are espousing.

www.911myths.com...


Uknumpty.

Try this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That photo was posted to show how silly it is to believe that all the smoke from 7 was coming from that small burnt out building in the picture, wtc 5.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by nick7261

I'm pretty sure that this can't be true because according to the NIST and/or FEMA reports, and according to other sources, there were no firefighters in the building to "pull."

Where are you getting this, sources please.

Can I cite your post as a source?

LeftBehind: "So while it is true that there were no firefighters in the building, there were firefighters and rescue crews in the vicinity of 7."

What you are stating is categorically false.

You say that my averment that there were no firefighters in WTC7 is "categorically false," and about 30 seconds later, you write:

LeftBehind: "So while it is true that there were no firefighters in the building, there were firefighters and rescue crews in the vicinity of 7."

This speaks for itself, but is typical of most of your posts, which can be summarized as, "Ooooh.... there was a big fire in WTC7!, and "I demand EVIDENCE that explosives were used in WTC7!."

Based on the extensive eyewitness and video evidence, there was almost no attempt made to save 7 due to the structural damage, the massive fires, and the ongoing rescue operations. So while it is true that there were no firefighters in the building, there were firefighters and rescue crews in the vicinity of 7.

Thanks for helping to prove my point that Silverstein's "pull it" quote and explanation doesn't make sense because there were no firefighters in the building to pull, and there was little if any attempt to put the fires out in WTC7 all day.

Good question, since the "pull it" is taken by 9-11 deniers to mean Silverstein ordered the buildings demolished, you have just demonstrated the absurdity of this idea. Silverstein made no commands or orders in his statement.

The actual quote.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

This is still a very perplexing quote.

First, like you said, with everything going on that day, why did the fire department commander personally call Silverstein to comment on the fate of WTC7??? And why would Silverstein have the audacity to even give his opinion about what to do re WTC7?

Just try to imagine this call.

Fire Commander: Mr. Silverstein, I'm not sure we're going to be able to contain the fire in World Trade Center 7.

Silverstein: You know... so many people died already today.. In fact there are probably hundreds of people still trapped in the rubble from WTC1 and WTC2 that you could be helping instead of trying to save WTC7. I DO have insurance on this building you know... Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull everybody away from WTC7 and let them try to save some lives.

Fire Commander: Good idea, sir.

Do you even see the absurdity of the entire context of this conversation? In an event of the magnitude of 9/11, why would the fire commander even be having a conversation with Silverstein about something so relatively inconsequential as WTC7? And why would Silverstein think his opinion of the situation even mattered?

They made the decision to pull all operations away from building seven, not Silverstein.

Now you're contradicting yourself again. You just said there weren't any "operations" going on to put out the fires at WTC7. So what exactly did they decide to pull?

lizziex3,

You can't understand how explosives could have been used because of the time it would have taken to actually plant them in the buildings.


This makes sense if you believe that the Islamists were the ones that did it and that they did it on 9/11.

However, if you will take into account that it was done/orchastrated by the government, over many years, then that explains how this highly technical job could have been performed.

Question: Why the hell would our government do something like this?

Possible Answer: National Security.

If some hypothetical conversation, say around 1980 took place that said:

Who is our greatest threat to America in the world today and predictably in the future?

Well, we think Iran Mr. President ( or some military high ranking official)

What can we do to protect ourselves efficiently.

Not Much Mr. President.

Why not?

We do not have land bases that we can launch an assult from to fight a war with Iran.

Cant we use Missles and Aircraft carriers.

Not to take the country itself sir, we could only hinder them by air power alone, with the exception on a nuke.

Well, we sure as hell aint nuking anyone and catching hell from our alies due to fall out, so what can we do.

We can make falseflag operations to 1. Get our allies to allow us into the region 2. Get the American congress and people behind a military retaliation conflict.

Ok, now how do we get land bases in the Middle east to stage a offensive war against Iran.

Well sir, we can falsely lay out reasons to invade Iraq, the central area we would like to stage from, and invade that nation. We will not leave the area and will set up a permanent military base in which to fight anywhere in the middle east.

Ok sounds good, I hate that this falseflag will cost lives, innocent lives.

Sir, its for a greater good.

How you going to do it?

We will bring down a national land mark, in such a manner as to get the sypathy of the world and America. Once in motion, we will put out propaganda to keep the plan on track

Very well, get on with it gentlemen.


Well we are back to today here in 2007. Is this a bunch of crap, could be. It also might be nearer to the truth than you would like to think.. It would help answer why something like common sense in regards to buildings falling would take on such a crazy path. If your common sense says something is wrong with this picture, odds are there is something wrong with this picture. 9/11 has way to many questions not answered to say, No further investigation is required

I've never given much creedence to the whole "bombs in the buildings" concept, but i do have a question. WTC7 was built along the lines of WTC 1 and 2, right? Steel-reinforced? My question is, what in that building was fuel enough for a fire hot enough to weaken the steel? It was an office building, correct? I dont know of anything common to an office building that is a sufficient fuel. In 1&2, you have jet fuel, and while there's been some debate on if thats enough, I can give that the benefit of the doubt, you know? I mean, we aren't talking a wooden house here. An office fire, even on a grand scale, shouldn't have phased WTC7, I wouldn't think.

But I could be wrong. I've never read much up on this, until now. So could one side or the other fill me in?