Building 7, the untold story *slide show*

Here is a simple, yet very informative slide show telling the story of building 7. The largest 9-11 smoking gun. There has never been a logical informative explanation of why and how..... This pretty much sums it all up, and I beg all people who believe the official story to debunk. I have a feeling that there will be little to no debunking this argument.

911research.wtc7.net...

You have a feeling there will be no debunking huh?

Lets take a peek at that slide show shall we?

Slide one mentions that the collapse of WTC7 was "virtually" unknown.

Thats funny, because they showed videos of it collapsing almost as much as they showed videos of the Towers collapsing. Of course, we can let that one go as someone's opinion (misinformed as it may be).

Slide two says that the collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds...

Not quite.....

Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[2] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.

www.debunk911myths.org...-10

CBS News. (2001, September 11). CBS Sept. 11, 2001 4:51 pm - 5:33 pm (September 11, 2001) [Television]. WUSA, CBS 9, Washington, D.C

So at least 15 seconds from start to finish for the building to collapse....

To be continued.......

[edit on 15-2-2008 by Swampfox46_1999]

if you look at the collapse, how can you possibly begin to say that the the building took 15 seconds to collapse? no way

video.google.com...

that is not 15 seconds.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Maybe you're not asking yourself the right questions? I'll help you...

How do you explain the lack of resistance in the collapse?
How do you explain the almost perfect symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires?
How do you explain the almost perfect footprint collapse?
How do you explain the classic penthouse 'kink' that is indicative of a controlled demolition? (collapse the center first and the buildings outer walls and columns fall in instead of out)

And please, I know all the stock de-bunker answers so don't bother repeating them cause I'll just ignore them. They don't answer those questions sufficiently. I want your answers, if you even bother...

[edit on 15/2/2008 by ANOK]

Weedwhacker, your getting schooled in this forum and have yet to debunk anything. You failed at trying to prove a plane crashed in Shanksville, you have failed to prove that Flight 11, etc, was not part of a mock hijacking exercises scheduled for 9.11, and now you will fail at trying to prove Wtc was not a Controlled demo.










Yupi pretty undebunkable, Controlled demolitions at Wtc 7 on 9/11

I say Pull It! I don't know who did it. But no plane hit building 7 and the fire couldn't do it. There's no reasonable explanation other than controlled demolition. Slide 15 is good - shows evidence of thermite. The evidence of the thermite reaction is also a dead giveaway for all 3 buildings. All you need is Iron oxide and Aluminum and a magnesium fuse. We did in my college chemistry class and melted a piece of railroad track!

Pull it! Yeah like ole Larry told them to do. Funny how supporters say that he was talking about pulling the firefighters.....that makes no sense. Nobody says it like that

Simple facts people...

Yes, it was brought down on purpose to cover up the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) ongoing investigations into illegal activities in the stock market trading and corporate mismanagement (think Enron) by destroying key evidence, like computers and paperwork. Corporate America was under attack, oh no!

Also, somewhere recently I read comments from someone suggesting that they may have killed some key witnesses to the other events that day, even though they claimed no fatalities in WTC7 clapse. Some involved in the cleanup and rescue operations have openly said that is untrue. Imagine: Ssome governmental figure in a position of power, "Hey, we would like to get your statements, let me lead you over to WTC7 where other agents are handling those matters." So sad, no disrespect to anyone, we were all duped that day, even an insurance company for billions of dollars. Insurance fraud should be legalized!

[edit on 15-2-2008 by percievedreality]

Lets see...where was I.....oh yes slide three (dont worry, Ill get back to the members of my fan club.

Slide three shows a couple of the videos of the collapse not much to debunk there, other than to say, I would sure like to see a video of the tower side of wtc 7s collapse.

Oh wait....

www.debunk911myths.org...

From CBS News...approximately 5 seconds into the video you see the east side of the penthouse collapse, about 7-8 seconds later you see the west penthouse/rest of the building collapse


Slide 4

Says the exterior walls ended up on the top of the pile...except from the one pic shown, it appears that the wall opposite the tower side has ended up atop the pile, which would indicate the building collapsed around/into the damage section of wtc 7.

Slide 5

Collapsed close to within its footprint....not quite, but we will go with it.

Pile was 2 stories high...picture on previous slide indicates at least 3 stories high, that we can see (which 2 or 3 stories, really doesnt mean a thing)

Fall only visably damaged one other building....not that you can tell from the pic posted. However, since the damage was to the area facing the tower, and wtc 7 collapsed around that....what force would cause it to spring other directions to damage other buildings? (quick, where are the physics experts)

Then the last part about collapsing a building into its own footprint is the objective in a CD.....NO KIDDING SHERLOCK? REALLY?? Imagine that....

Slide 6

A bunch of pretty much meaningless info. Yes the Bankers Trust building might have been a bit closer...but then again, the BT building didnt get clobbered by Tower 1, WTC7 did.

Slide 7

Yes, post a pic from two weeks into the cleanup and say, look the Tower didnt drop anything across Vesey Street. Except we know from videos of the Tower's collapse that large portions of it DID fall across WTC 6 (leaving pretty much only its shell) and DID rip a huge hole into WTC 7.

Slide 8

The "fire" slide. States that there was only fire in "isolated regions of two floors"

Except we know from the testimony of the firefighters (and other witnesses) that there was fires on floors 6,7,8,9,10,13,14,19,20,21,22,29 and 30 (isolated fires indeed)

Slide 9

Consists of pics from other high rise building fires....except none of which suffered damage from another building hitting them and firefighters were able to fight the fires.

Slide 10

Supposition/opinion

Slide 11

Pretty much a bunch of misleading information there, already debunked numerous times on ATS.

Slide 12

Ah yes, the "steel was shipped to India/China".

The steel, along with the rest of the debris, ended up in piles at five separate locations in the NY/NJ area, where the investigators had all the access they needed to study the steel. Again, debunked numerous times on ATS.

Slide 13

More supposition and opinion. The major damage to the building wasnt as "asymmetrical" as is stated. The evidence available (eyewitness, photo and video) suggests that the heaviest damage to WTC 7 was close to the center of the south side of the building....in other words. close to symmetrical.

Slide 14

The evidence of explosives....of which, there isnt any. Remember, all the steel was shipped overseas....so how did anyone find explosive residue? You cannot have it both ways.

Slide 15

OOOOH the "secret" command center.......except it wasnt much of a secret anything. It was public record that the city had a command center there.

Slide 16

"Fires have never damaged a single column in a steel-frame highrise"

Do I really need to post all the buildings that this HAS happened to?

"Furthermore fires in Building 7 were not even severe or widespread"

Not according to FDNY and the videos made there that day.

"Building 7 was in the immediate vicinity of the mass murder in Lower Manhattan on 9/11/01."

Okay, so I agree with this one

"It likely contained evidence pertinent to an investigation of that crime."

Nah, dont think so. Highly unlikely that Mohammed and his merry men had any of their stuff in WTC7

"The evidence that Building 7 was deliberately demolished is overwhelming."

Not even close.

Although I will give the creator of that site a "D" for effort.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


You are right, nobody says like that in regards to a controlled demolition....not even the professionals that bring down buildings. Im not sure where people get the belief that a building owner, on the spur of the moment, can order a governmental agency to demolish a building......

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Dr Steven Jones is my favorite truther. He recovered some samples of the steel. From the slide show page 15, intergranular melting. What caused the molten metal?

I know there were pools of liquid steel under the big towers.



[edit on 2/15/2008 by Bigwhammy]

I belive that there is a possibility that all the towers were rigged for a controlled demolition if they failed to collapse from the aircraft impacts (Notice I said I believe there is a possibility and not that I believe it is fact).

there is also a possibility that flight 93 was supposed to impact building 7 and that a failure to take or keep control of the plane brought it down before it could even change to the correct course.

If 93's intended target was building 7, then it was supposed to come down that day for whatever reason and so it was pulled.

Would have been more convincing if a plane had hit it though, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
...From CBS News...approximately 5 seconds into the video you see the east side of the penthouse collapse, about 7-8 seconds later you see the west penthouse/rest of the building collapse

Don't know too much about demolitions do we? The penthouse collapse is what is known as the 'kink'. It is a sign of a classic controlled demolition. The penthouse fell first because the central columns were taken out first. That causes the building to fall in on itself instead of falling outwards. And there is no denying WTC 7 fell into its own footprint...



How do you explain damage to one side of the building causing the penthouse, in the middle, to collapse first? Does that really make any sense?

Says the exterior walls ended up on the top of the pile...except from the one pic shown, it appears that the wall opposite the tower side has ended up atop the pile, which would indicate the building collapsed around/into the damage section of wtc 7.

Huh? That’s a really wild conclusion. Take another good look at the above pic and the collapse itself. Does it really look like it fell towards the so called damage? Sorry but both still and video show the building falling pretty much symmetrically. The pic above clearly shows the outer walls lying on top of each other.

Collapsed close to within its footprint....not quite, but we will go with it.

Well you either need a new monitor, or glasses, because it’s quite clear that it fell into its own footprint. Please see above pic again, it’s plainly clear.

what force would cause it to spring other directions to damage other buildings? (quick, where are the physics experts)

Why do you think demolition companies go to so much trouble to make a building fall into itself? Because if they don’t the building will do everything but fall into its own footprint.

Then the last part about collapsing a building into its own footprint is the objective in a CD.....NO KIDDING SHERLOCK? REALLY?? Imagine that....

You obviously miss the point of that statement, and using caps doesn’t help your argument.

Except we know from videos of the Tower's collapse that large portions of it DID fall across WTC 6 (leaving pretty much only its shell) and DID rip a huge hole into WTC 7.

For one there is no proof of any huge gash in WTC 7 that damaged any major building structure. The damage was more likely only cosmetic, my opinion. If there were major damage to one side of the building we would have seen a localized collapse on that side of the building, if anything.
How do you think WTC 5 and 6, which had far more damage than 7 and were closer to the towers, managed to remain standing through all that destruction? I guess those building were collapse proof or something? Or more realistically that is how buildings normally act from asymmetrical damage and office fires?

The "fire" slide. States that there was only fire in "isolated regions of two floors"
Except we know from the testimony of the firefighters (and other witnesses) that there was fires on floors 6,7,8,9,10,13,14,19,20,21,22,29 and 30 (isolated fires indeed)

Again there is no proof of this other than words typed by somebody. Visual evidence i.e. photographs of WTC 7, show no sign of raging fires on all those floors you mention. Even when it collapsed do you see any fire or smoke? And even if there was major fires raging throughout the building it would still not globally collapse into its own footprint.
Your comment about physics just shows you either don’t understand the physics involved, or you just choose to ignore them because they contradict what you want to believe.

Consists of pics from other high rise building fires....except none of which suffered damage from another building hitting them and firefighters were able to fight the fires.

Again, damage to one side of a building, nor office fires, will cause a building to globally collapse into its own footprint [so the damage is a mute point, and so is the fire]. If you think it does you seriously need to brush up on some basic physics.

Supposition/opinion

At least theirs are educated opinions…

The major damage to the building wasnt as "asymmetrical" as is stated. The evidence available (eyewitness, photo and video) suggests that the heaviest damage to WTC 7 was close to the center of the south side of the building....in other words. close to symmetrical.

I’m not sure you understand what they mean by asymmetrical? It means equal damage all around the building, not just one side of it.

The rest I’m not going to waist my time with. You get an F….wasn’t even a good effort…

[edit on 16/2/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Slide one mentions that the collapse of WTC7 was "virtually" unknown.

Thats funny, because they showed videos of it collapsing almost as much as they showed videos of the Towers collapsing.

Wow. Now I really missed this one. I saw the towers collapsing all day on TV (all WEEK!) but WTC7 falling was only aired maybe once a station if that, and I certainly didn't catch it that day. I never even heard of Building 7 until a few years later. I am sure I'm not alone on this. So much for debunking.

So at least 15 seconds from start to finish for the building to collapse....

Your timing becomes completely irrelevant as soon as I start measuring the roof line's acceleration (rather than fall time, with an arbitrary starting point).

Originally posted by bsbray11

Wow. Now I really missed this one. I saw the towers collapsing all day on TV (all WEEK!) but WTC7 falling was only aired maybe once a station if that, and I certainly didn't catch it that day. I never even heard of Building 7 until a few years later. I am sure I'm not alone on this. So much for debunking.

"Turn away here folks, there is nothing to see here."

Yeah...this pretty much explains where the USA is at today...(no personal offense here to bsray)

People have become so complacent with no compulsion to learn! People need to think about the priority of staying informed! This means more than the AP reports or cable news....the truth will set us free, people!

BTW, the WTC7 destruction WAS broadcast that day, in fact it is fairly common knowledge amongst 911 truthers that at least two news outlets reported the fall too early (ie - before it actually happened) People need to know these things! Rather than re-opening 911 investigation we get investigations in to the ethics of our professional sports and now horse racing. Are you kidding me? ATTENTION: The logic has left the planet!

[edit on 16-2-2008 by percievedreality]

[edit on 16-2-2008 by percievedreality]

One more thought I had about this thread and how it has progressed. Rather than argue (debunk) line for line for line for line (literally) about how the building fell, let's brainstorm the MOTIVE(S) for why it may not have been an "accident".

Why did another multi-million dollar building fall over 200 feet away from the towers after having received some cosmetic damage. 40 stories...straight down...no way man, anyway you look at it. Keep in mind, our government can kill 6 or 7 servicemen that flew live nukes in the USA last August and cover that up! Auto accidents and apparent suicides (hmm), while state investigators saying things like they had no knowledge of what I am talking about or this nuke incident or maybe they would have "investigated better"



[edit on 16-2-2008 by percievedreality]

For one there is no proof of any huge gash in WTC 7 that damaged any major building structure. The damage was more likely only cosmetic, my opinion. If there were major damage to one side of the building we would have seen a localized collapse on that side of the building, if anything.

Guess what - your opinion doesn't matter. What does is that of the FDNY
who were at the scene.

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

Lets see building heavily involved in fire, completely on fire, fire on all
floors....


Maybe should peruse this for complete account of damage/fires in WTC 7
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

reply to post by thedman



Ok, if we're to believe all of the NYFD's personelle words as gospel. What of the firefighter who said one of the Twin towers only had 2 small isolated pockets of fire, and it would "easily" be extinguished by 2 water lines?

Obvioiusly he was mistaken right? No one is perfect? People make mistakes. Especially when thier radios that didn't work in 93' we're still not working 8 years later.

There's groups of NYFD and NYPD that meet and they do not buy the "official story". They must be correct yes?

Show me any pictures of building 7 that show 1/3 or more of that building in flames, and I'll eat my hat. The entire building eas engulfed in flames? Wow that musta been some show. Too bad I missed it while I was glued to the news channels all day.

Really c'mon you believe that WTC7 was entirely engulfed in flames? perhaps, entire engulfed in explosions when they decided to "Pull IT". But flames, no, if the building was entirely enguled in flames, we would have seens flames comeing out from the top of the building, no?

There was thermite filmed pouring out of the corner of one of the Twin towers (it was so rediculous it looked like a small team of welders were up there with a dozen cutting torches, going to town on the corner beam). Plus there were traces of thermite/thermate found in the rubble of building 7. Hmmm, coincidence? No wonder the thousands of tons of EVIDENCE, was quickly sold off, and gotten rid of as quickly as possible.

The World Trade Center complex WAS a crime scene, and should have been treated as such. How would you debunkers rate Mr.Guiliani's job as the "man in charge" in conducting the crime scene investingation.On a scale of 1 to 10. I mean is it normal practice for detectives to go into crime scenes, and sell or detroy 80-90% of the evidence? To me that's criminal.

It's just too much for me to swallow that the bombings in the UK on 7/7 were identical to staged practices, which included the EXACT stations that were bombed. Also that on 9/11 the Exact same type of Wargames were supposedly going on at the exact same time, including the exact same scenarios (planes being hijacked , flown into buildings ect.) Oddly enough both the main media stations in the UK, and the US, were privy to the Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center 7, before it even happened, as they reported on thier stations.

Really , you guys that are trying to debunk this, I Hope you are doing it for some other reasons (I'm not saying any in particular, because I don't wanna get in trouble with staff) or something, because I can't believe anyone could/would be this gullible to eat the plate of crap our government tried to serve us on 9/11.

Watch Terror Storm 2nd ed. and just take a look at the many countries, namely the United States long, long history of false flag operations, and self inflicted wounds used numerous times as a pretext for war.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


and bbc reported it fell 20-30 minutes before it actually did...
i dont think anyone can debunk that mishap