what made building 7 collapse?

as i read the article here it asked many questions and i wonderd how many answers could come from this like why did building 7 collapse it wasn't hit by any plane and if it was bought down by fire it would be the first steel framed tower to be brought down by fire here is the link see if you can debunk any of the questions www.globalresearch.ca...

how can this be under staff supervision when i just posted it?

Somebody doesn't like the idea of this subject me thinks.

I believe that explosives brought down tower 7.
But 11th Sept is a very fueled (pardon the terrible pun) debate, that has so many conclusions to it from so many sources, it could have been Orb Ufos, seen in some videos.....could have been hoaxed, as in some videos (definitely not my opinion btw)..... or if you believe the propaganda of fox news, it was passenger planes and terrorists, from what we've heard previously.
i think it is one of them things we will never actually know, ever. This is probably more under wraps than the Ufo subject is to the US government. Its that important IMO.

The whole 9/11 Conspiracies forum is under staff supervision. www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might be interested in this new video by dprjones in regards to the WTC 7 collapse. I found it rational and fairly interesting, but I know it's cause much rage among some members. You can make of his analysis what you will.

reply to post by Lasheic


Thanks for that vid. I am still undecided on my beliefs on this 911 thing, it is good to see a video that is not of the conspiracy type every once in awhile. It does have an agenda as do all of them but I think it is very important to see both sides of the debate.

What made WTC 7 collapse?

The same thing that made WTC 1 and 2 collapse:

The leaseholder already admitted that he had building 7 brought down through a contolled demolition after it revieved fire damage to a few floors. Interesting thing about it is that it was already rigged to be demolished before 9/11. If building 7 was rigged to come down, then it is very easy to believe that the towers were rigged as well.

reply to post by AliBruh

The leaseholder already admitted that he had building 7 brought down through a contolled demolition after it revieved fire damage to a few floors.

I believe this statement to be incorrect. It has become a sort of "urban legend" in this discussion.

Unless there is obvious, verifiable and exact words to that effect, from the "leaseholder"?

What will be necessary to see is an actual quote where the leaseholder specifically "admits" that "he had building 7 brought down..."

Else, this is merely a claim, without substantiation.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Unless there is obvious, verifiable and exact words to that effect, from the "leaseholder"?

What will be necessary to see is an actual quote where the leaseholder specifically "admits" that "he had building 7 brought down..."

Well actually Silverstein had no authority over what was going on.

The fire commander was the emergency incident comander and decided to bring the building down as quoted from Silverstein.

reply to post by REMISNE


Let's assume you're correct. It would be safe to say that scores, if not hundreds of firefighters would know about this, that Silverstein and Hayden and Nigro obviously know, and that at one point they owned up to it.

Why have they changed their story?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Let's assume you're correct. It would be safe to say that scores, if not hundreds of firefighters would know about this, that Silverstein and Hayden and Nigro obviously know, and that at one point they owned up to it.

How would hundreds of firefighters know what 2 people talked about on the phone?

So the incident commader decided to bring down the building, something that he has the authority to do in an emegency.

reply to post by REMISNE

The fire commander was the emergency incident comander and decided to bring the building down as quoted from Silverstein.

OK.

You have elected to pick up this ball, you have possession of it, so now it's time to show your stuff.

The "EIC" (emergency incident commander) "decided to bring the building down".

HOW? When was this decision made? IF it was made just that afternoon, then HOW did this "EIC" manage to successfully install the "explosives" and such that are claimed by the Conspiracy Theorists?

This makes no sense to me, and it fails the sense-test in many reasonable people's minds as well.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I believe it was the "thermite paint", same as was used in the Towers

I'm so tired of the "pull it" statement being taken out of context.

IMO, there were no explosives, no controlled demo.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You have elected to pick up this ball, you have possession of it, so now it's time to show your stuff.

The "EIC" (emergency incident commander) "decided to bring the building down".

Well according to the official story Silverstein stated the fire commander decided to PULL IT, which could only mean the building since the firemen were already out of the building beofre the call was made.

Basically the incident commander called Silverstein to let him know that they could not save his building. The incident commander in this case the fire commander has the authority to bring down a building in an emergency.

According to Chief hayden the firemen wre out of the buidling around 3PM the building came down about 5:30PM.

HOW did this "EIC" manage to successfully install the "explosives" and such that are claimed by the Conspiracy Theorists?

Well he probably gave the order to the demo teams there to take down an already unstable building.








[edit on 8-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Let's assume you're correct. It would be safe to say that scores, if not hundreds of firefighters would know about this, that Silverstein and Hayden and Nigro obviously know, and that at one point they owned up to it.

How would hundreds of firefighters know what 2 people talked about on the phone?

So the incident commader decided to bring down the building, something that he has the authority to do in an emegency.

The incident commander, according to you, brought the building down. He had the authority to do this.

How did he accomplish it? On his own? And why did he decide to keep it secret from his men? After all, he was acting within his authority. Apparently.

Originally posted by REMISNE


Well he probably gave the order to the demo teams there to take down an already unstable building.

Let me get this straight. These demo teams were on hand, waiting in case they were needed, and are fully mandated for use by the incident commander?

He and Silverstein decide to use them, presumably not in secret. They blow up the building (going into a flaming inferno to do so, but we'll leave that for a moment).

But suddenly it's now a big secret. They're all covering it up.

Why?

reply to post by REMISNE

Well he probably gave the order to the demo teams there to take down an already unstable building.

So, there are "demo teams" just sitting around, like on stand-by, waiting for the call to action?

You correctly said it was about 1500 when they all decided the building was a "lost cause", in terms of attempting to extinguish the fires in order to save the building.

Actual collapse time was not really "about 5:50"...it was closer to 5:20 (1720 hours).

Regardless...this standing-by "demo teams" managed to get into the building, unobserved, and accomplish their tasks in a little more than two hours?

Can you see why this is failing the sensiblity test, for me?


Now...having said that, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the first part of the misunderstanding that has caused all this waste of time, talking about it:

The "Pull it" comment.

I think it's been shown, time and again, what that actually meant, in context, that afternoon. It referred to 'pulling' the efforts to save the building. It was deemd too dangerous to have people INSIDE the building, by that stage of development, as it was apparent that the building was unstable, and collapse was imminent.

This is all weel-researched, well-known stuff....unfortunately, there are always new people hearing the "Pull it" statement, as spun out of context, for the first time, and being fooled by the CT groups who continue to misrepresent the phrase.

Most egregious, also, is the concocted "reasons" that are inferred, and "wink, wink, nudge, nudged" --- mainly, I think, started by the "Loose Change" dudes....the alphabet-soup tenants of the building.

Really, again, non-sensical when you think about it logically. The FIRES were out of control, burning merrily away. Stuff was already being destroyed, and even IF the builidng had not collapsed, likely just about everything would have been gutted, anyway. SO, there was NO REASON to 'CD' the building!!!

NOT, as "loose Change" and others suggest, to 'hide' anything, like on-going SEC investigations, or whatever is the 'claim-du-jour'....

I feel, though, that logic is missing....seems someone has "Pulled It"...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The incident commander, according to you, brought the building down. He had the authority to do this.

Yes, fire commanders and Fire marshalls have the authority to bring down a buidling in an emergency if they feel there will be a farther loss of life or more damage.

How did he accomplish it? On his own?

He probably discussed it with other experts or superiorers in the incident command group.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The incident commander, according to you, brought the building down. He had the authority to do this.

Yes, fire commanders and Fire marshalls have the authority to bring down a buidling in an emergency if they feel there will be a farther loss of life or more damage.

How did he accomplish it? On his own?

He probably discussed it with other experts or superiorers in the incident command group.

But they all kept it secret. Even though they were acting within the law and quite properly.

Why?