I like it. Star and flag for you. Great presentation.

This has been discussed here many times, but the debunkers just ignore it or hand wave it away.

But still it's good to revive this and good thread, you put it in perspective nice and simply, hard to deny with a straight face. Shows what a fallacy the idea that WTC7 was a raging inferno, and suffered catastrophic damage is.

But of course WTC7 was a 'unique design' lol, and the debunkers will just refuse to see the connection, claiming different designed buildings, or some other rubbish.

But of course it couldn't have been explosives that did it, cause cause cause...it would take too much explosives to cause a collapse...
It just has to have been that unverified catastrophic damage and those huge raging fires, yeah that's it, and if we say it often enough it might come true...

WTC 7 took the major blunder of the callaspes of the twin towers if u examine the videos taken from sky view u will see most of the debris landing on it.

There was a big hole in the WTC7 before it callaspe. A fireman on seen at the time said they evacuated people from WTC7 because the building was leaning and is going to callaspe because of the damage.

This is so old and been talked about million of times.





[edit on 14-12-2008 by amfirst]

Well im a nut so im just gunna say..

They was demolished and that one wasnt..

Simple!

To much odd stuff happend on that day way to many ifs and buts.. and some very clear evidence..

"pull it"
"No plane hit the pentigon"
"Floors being renivated befor the attacks"
"No one in the command center" WTC7
"Head qauters for the cia in NYC" Held enron papers "apperntly"
"BBC reports it fell 5 or 10mins befor it infact did"
"War games held on the same day"
"Cheny takes the shoot down order away from the pres" and uses it to tell the command not to shoot down the planes "this is automatic and done by genrals incase of an attack"

Just to name afew - nothing odd about what you show here just the truth

It didnt fall down becouse it didnt get DEMOLISHED simple is simple as!!

flagged!

Originally posted by amfirst
WTC 7 took the major blunder of the callaspes of the twin towers

Please quantify exactly what you mean with the word 'major'?

if u examine the videos taken from sky view u will see most of the debris landing on it.

Please quantify what you mean by the word 'most'?

You do realise that the NIST report stated that WTC 7 suffered only seven severed columns, from the WTC 1 impact damage?

You do realise that the NIST report stated that even without the structural damage, that WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires alone?

This is so old and been talked about million of times.

I guess it's worth discussing one more time until people get it right, huh?

I also find it odd that these buildings didn't collapse. It is a well known fact that buildings 5, 6, and 7 were structurally identical and recieved exactly the same amount of damage. lol.

I think its because Larry could not get through to the fire chief to tell him to 'pull' buildings 5 and 6. As an aside, i went to the store yesterday and there was a sign on the door that said 'pull'. Why did the government put a sign there telling me to blow up the building ??? This is a conspiracy worth talking about !!!

=p

I've always thought about this but never bothered to look it up. Ye! a compilation.

Sure WTC 7 took a hit from some debris, but to say it absorbed most of the dmg from the tower collapse is stretching it. 5 & 6 were more or less built in the shadows of 1 & 2, the towers fell ON TOP of them.

WTC 7 on the other hand was across the street from 1 & 2 and somehow managed to fall into its footprint while the buildings immediately adjacent to it were spared the "catastrophic damage" and "raging fires" and remained nearly untouched.

I find it odd that you debunkers continue to attribute the collapse of 7 mostly to splash damage, forever parroting the " big hole in the corner" line (iirc the "hole" used to be a "buldge"). If there was that much damage on one side, and it was already leaning then dont you think it would have fallen more um, naturally should I say.

So whose the culprit, the debris that reportedly damaged 7 of 25 core columns or the seemingly invisible multi floor inferno and "thermal expansion"



[edit on 12/14/2008 by JKersteJr]

starred and flagged lets see what the "debunkers" have to say ... if anything at all...

Let me give my post in the form of a question. Why would they take down WTC 1,2,7 but then not blow up the 5 & 6? If this was planned then why were the others not taken out?

Not to mention they really didn't need to did they, as I pointed out 5 and 6 are RIGHT next to 1 & 2 and suffered tremendous damage.