Wasn't it caught on video that someone or a couple of people said by mistake the building was 'pulled'?
I am an architect and in the industry this usually means demolished by force among other things. I don't remember when or where I heard it but this was pretty strange for me to hear because you can't setup a building to be demolished with charges in the amount of time that was given. So my only conclusion after seeing the video of it's collapse was that it fell the way they said it did or they had the building already set up with charges to fall before hand.

Interesting I will go look now. . .

Larry Silverstein's (Building owner) Quote:

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

Your, "approximate collapse plume" is false. There was a gigantic crater in the roof of WTC 5 from where a large piece of wreckage from WTC 1 fell on it. This crater is the same distance from WTC 1 as WTC 7 was.



Fire fighters reported that the collapse of WTC 1 destroyed the water supplies to teh fire suppression systems in WTC 7. They also reported that the fires were burning out of control and were causing three story tall bulges in the structure. This necessarily gives the NIST report at least some measure of credibility, and necessarily means you conspiracy people are resorting to grasping at some pretty far fetched straws to keep your conspiracy stories alive.

What I now find really funny is that I can't find the other guy that said this also. I remember there were two people and one was in the military at a briefing. This is what made me remember the situation, for two individuals said it unrelated, in different contexts. I always found that a bit odd and now find it even odder that I see no trace to this other interview, if you can find it please share.
But even so I don't think the twin towers fell victim in the same way. It was two planes, and it was a catastrophic failure of steel due to fire caused by fuel. There is no data to compare this to because it never happened on this scale before then. 2 other steel frame buildings have fallen in recent history due to fire but it takes a lot more time and they are partial collapses. But then again they didn't have the open plan layouts that the WTC had which contributed to the collapse causing the pancake effect.
I am not arguing the conspiracy hype on this though because anyone with enough power could get someone to do this for them whether it was the military, the PTB, Islamic terrorists, whatever!

Originally posted by airspoon
That is the approx. main collapse plume. I don't think anyone is denying that building 7 was struck by debris, though we are saying that it didn;t,

If this is your standard truster logic then it's little wonder why you subscribe to these conspiracy claims. "Noone is denying that WTC 7 was struck by debris though you're saying it didn't" is a contradiction. Either you acknowledge WTC 7 was struck by debris or it wasn't.

nor should it have been struck by so much debris that a complete collapse would ensue, especially the way that it did. This is even in spite of the fact that the buildings under the two towers didn;t collapse and they took the full brunt of the plume.

This is a disingenuous statement. WTC 7 was five times the size of the "buildings under the two towers" I.E. WTC 6, so the support columns in WTC 7 were under 5 times the stress and therefore would cause 5 times the damage if they failed. WTC 6 was also built around an open air arena and was essentially hollow (which is why there was a large crater in WTC 6), so the columns in WTC 7 technically were under 10X the stress.

Chopping down a 47 story tall tree is going to cause more to come crashing down than an 8 story tall tree. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

The whole truster or official conspiracy theory is based on falseghoods and the word of certain individuals who not only have extreme conflicts of interests, but who have also been caught lying on numerous accounts before.

I agree that the trusters are subscribing to everything those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out, as they seem to explicitly trust everything Dylan Avery and Alex Jones says regardless of how often they've been caught lying red handed. Why are you arguing in favor of them and their preposterous conspiracies, then?

At least the truther or official conspiracy theory non-believers require at least a little evidence before coming to a conclusion.

I have yet to find a single conspiracy truster who wasn't relying on incorrect information that dishonestly enhanced their conspiracy claims. WTC 7 is a sterling case in point- fire fighters on the scene specifically reported that the fires were burning out of control in WTC and were causing the support columns to bulge outward, which to me, gives the fire induced collapse scenario at least some credibility. What do the conspiracy trusters say in response to this? They either pretend they never heard this, or they accuse the fire fighters of being secret agents in collusion with the conspirators. Sheesh, little children behave in this way.

Really, this is the truster argument?

No, the truster argument is that some sinister secret force integrated throughout society is incessantly plotting to murder us all for no reason...though the jury is still out on who it is exactly, becuase the conspiracy trusters are getting into fist fights amongst themselves over what this "blatantly a conspiracy" even is. The trusters really need to go off to the side and hash it out amongst themselves whether 9/11 was the work of the gov't, the Jews, secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists, or whatever, and then get back to us.

You'll need to forgive me as there are more "blatantly a conspiracy" scenarios than there are grains of sand on the beach and I've lost track. Are you a "controlled demeolitions" truster, a "nukes in the basement" truster or a "no planes" truster?

Good post airspoon, your are 100% correct WTC 7 is the smoking gun.

symmetrical collapse of a building that's main structure was sound with localized outer damage and fire, I am not buying it.

there have been many argument where a friend called me out on not agreeing with the Gov and NIST report.
in the end the Gov truster always gets heated and starts using insults not logic thats when I say I am done arguing I wanted to have a discussion, google WTC 7 and do 30min of research then get back to me.

I get responses like what world trade center 7, and I just laugh.
never fails to shut em up.

Well we have known since it happened that the whole entire thing was staged but by who? Given the gravity of the situation I would say the only agency who has the balls and the resources is the C.I.A !!!! They have started this and have it covered pretty well considering the last two Presidents have worked for them. The only solution is a complete disillusion of government. Then hunt them down and try them for crimes against humanity.

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Well we have known since it happened that the whole entire thing was staged but by who? Given the gravity of the situation I would say the only agency who has the balls and the resources is the C.I.A !!!! They have started this and have it covered pretty well considering the last two Presidents have worked for them. The only solution is a complete disillusion of government. Then hunt them down and try them for crimes against humanity.

The last 2 where working for the CIA? For all we know EVERY Preident worked for the CIA since it has been created. Kennedy was the only one who wanted to "scatter the CIA into thousand pieces" after the bay of pigs disaster. Well what happend to him we all know.