My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

reply to post by ProudBird


Yeah, he probably didn't need a BA from DeVry to link to Judy Wood. LOL.

reply to post by Juanxlink

Remember those at the BBC knowing-reporting it beforehand?

More silliness.

Part of the problem of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement".

They never deal in facts, only in rumors, and hear-say and the same ole', same ole' that has become so prevalent.

Hopefully, there will be future generations of people who will learn, by examining the EVIDENCE, rather than simply 'judging' from RUMOR.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

What you are missing in your post is that Internal collapse started at least 7 seconds before the outer shell collapsed. There is direct video evidence for this. And it negates the suggestion that failure was instantaneous.

Can you prove your claim since your entire argument rests upon it?

Failing to do so will make you look like a gratuitous debunker.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Proof was already posted on page 2. But all you require to find the proof yourself is knowing how Google works, and 1 minute of time. And of course a genuine interest in the truth.

I will direct the same issue at you. The main argument from truthers is that building 7 must be CD because it looks like CD. Your post suggests that you subscribe to this argument (correct me if I am wrong). Do you realize what the little fact I pointed out means for this argument? Can you explain why many truthers sites avoid this fact like kryptonite?

These well-documented posts convinced me but now I need to know what was so important about this building that it had to be destroyed? What was kept in this building that posed such a threat to someone big?

Originally posted by AnotherEnergyVictim
These well-documented posts convinced me but now I need to know what was so important about this building that it had to be destroyed? What was kept in this building that posed such a threat to someone big?

This is the amazing thing about 9/11. So much BS flying around and so many people are not aware of important but simple information.

The SEC was in that building. Certain important financial cases involving lots more money than the cost of that building kind of disappeared.

fightingforliberty.ning.com...

It is so curious how it reminds one of the missing trillions of dollars from the Pentagon budget which also disappeared because the supposed airliner just happened to hit the accounting department that was researching the missing funds.

psik

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Juanxlink

 

Remember those at the BBC knowing-reporting it beforehand?

More silliness.

Part of the problem of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement".

They never deal in facts, only in rumors, and hear-say and the same ole', same ole' that has become so prevalent.

Hopefully, there will be future generations of people who will learn, by examining the EVIDENCE, rather than simply 'judging' from RUMOR.

Just to clarify, you're saying it's only a rumor that the BBC reported the collapse before it happened?

reply to post by -PLB-


Once again, substantiate your claim.

You talk a lot of hot air without any links, explanations as to how Building 7 went down a catastrophic collapse in such a short time or even pretending to adopt proof to back up your assertions.

You simply come across as an officially sanctioned contrarian or in other words, a debunker.

The fact is that if the American people suddenly become aware of Building 7, the ramifications would be serious. The US government mobilised the American people into wars around the world on the back of 9/11 and many sacrificed a great deal. An acceptance of 9/11 as being an inside job would probably bring lynchings back into fashion.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Apocalypse1

 

Logical fallacy.

Ooh, sorry. I didn't realize those were the only planes scheduled to fly that day.
Or that they were the only planes with Arabs on 'em.

"CORRECTION"

On September 11, 2001, those were the only (known) flights with "Arabs on 'em" (as you put it) who were INTENT on HIJACKING 'em.

The rest of the flights, that MIGHT have had "Arabs on 'em" (as you put it) were fine....they landed, per FAA order. Just fine. However, there is ONE OTHER big question mark.....it is UNITED 23....JFK to LAX....never got off the ground.....(look it up).

BIG (eta)...the only "ARABS" that may have happened to be on ANY of the flights that day who were intent on mayhem??

Well, we know of at least 19.......

The rest who might "happen" to be Arab, who were completely innocent on other flights? Well....it's like saying,

"Well, there were some Catholics and Mormons and Atheists on the flights, on 9/11. And, some Lutherans and Buddhists and Methodists, too!!"

Gee.

The ones who did this may (or may not) have subscribed to any one "faith".....but, they all certainly had a similar AGENDA!!!!

edit on Fri 4 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Too late. You already said in so many words that all the planes hijacked that day were all the planes that were gonna' be hijacked that day so there were no planes left to hit WTC 7.

Epic Fail.

However it is nice to see you back tracked a bit and admitted that fl. 23 may have also been hijacked had it got off the runway, and you know what? It may have been scheduled to fly into WTC 7. Who knows.

I also want to add that your claim that "UAL 93? SAME course....to the D.C. area. This is blatantly clear." is false. No one knows for a fact what fl. 93's target was. You might wanna' do a little research yourself and Google "Fl. 93 three mile island."

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Varemia

 

To get the building to fit required long cantilever trusses to span the distance - more like a bridge than a
skyscraper

These trusses were under tremendous stress

Do you realise how strong bridge construction is for you to bandy around structural concepts? Bridges are rarely blown up without systematic pre-cutting.

The span of a cantilevered truss is about off setting bending moments. A long span using cantilevered trusses means corresponding heavy projections on the opposite side of the centroid. When the trusses go the opposite over hangs keel over and do not free fall vertically downwards.

BTW, load transfers from cantilevered members to a loadbearing column or foundation is never rigid so a collapse always means a keel over.

Sorry, but your assertions are baseless.

reply to post by Apocalypse1

I also want to add that your claim that "UAL 93? SAME course....to the D.C. area. This is blatantly clear." is false. No one knows for a fact what fl. 93's target was. You might wanna' do a little research yourself and Google "Fl. 93 three mile island." [/ex

So why were the hijackers dialing in the VOR beacon at Reagan National which is one mile from the Pentagon

If were on course to 3 Mile Island would be using the beacon at Harrisburg airport (which is actually in
Middletown where 3 Mile is)

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
.... so a collapse always means a keel over.

I'm calling BS on that. Let's see some links that substantiate it, please.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


So, you are too lazy to read page 2 and too lazy to do a 1 minute Google search. And ignore everything I write. You basically don't care about truth. Can you give me one reason why I should spoon feed you the information you want?

Are any of you going to be original? You all post the same boring arguments which have been debunked many times not only here but on many other sites.There was nothing controlled about that building falling.Same with the Towers. OP thinks he's original when this has been done to death.Search is your friend.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is so curious how it reminds one of the missing trillions of dollars from the Pentagon budget which also disappeared

Yes, they are the same as the trillions was never missing, as you would know if you did some proper research - and remember, proper research is NOT visiting truther sites and reposting their lies here!

reply to post by -PLB-


The insides of WTC7 started collapsing prior to the exterior shell collapsing, is that the information that explains it falling with zero resistance?

The NIST report says that the collapse started at a specific column (column 79) This column was way off to the far side of the building, so why the uniform drop, and why didn't the rest of the undamaged columns cause at least an uneven collapse, or offer any resistance whatsoever?

The following shows the back of building 7, just prior to it's perfect CD collapse:







Yes, it had to be the fires that brought number 7 down!

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

Since early afternoon had anticipated WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. Building had fires on multiple floors

"Building had fires on multiple floors"
Yes, because fires on 8 out of 47 floors constitutes a freefall collapse into it's own footprint.
Thanks. I was about to find a comedy on Netflix, but this'll hold me over

reply to post by ProudBird


I agree, wholeheartedly.

Real Science, investigated by qualified experts, like structural engineers, metallurgists, physics professors, architects.....but all must be highly qualified.

I know just the place! These folks have been studying this very subject for a decade:

Architects & Engineers for 911 truth. Over 1850 qualified members, and 14,000 regular members.
They have been putting out nothing but science and fact regarding the controlled demolitions of World Trade Center Towers 1,2 & 7, and are constantly finding and publishing new information, and are regularly receiving new evidence from their FOIA requests, even this long after the false-flag attacks of 9/11.


They are strictly non-profit, and any support is appreciated, I'm sure.
www.AE911Truth.org

Originally posted by Whaler31
reply to post by -PLB-

 

The insides of WTC7 started collapsing prior to the exterior shell collapsing, is that the information that explains it falling with zero resistance?

The NIST report says that the collapse started at a specific column (column 79) This column was way off to the far side of the building, so why the uniform drop, and why didn't the rest of the undamaged columns cause at least an uneven collapse, or offer any resistance whatsoever?

The following shows the back of building 7, just prior to it's perfect CD collapse:

Yes, it had to be the fires that brought number 7 down!

edit on 6-5-2012 by Whaler31 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2012 by Whaler31 because: Youtube linking problems

edit on 6-5-2012 by Whaler31 because: finding youtube number in the url

Do you know when the firecracker sounds were added which are not evident in any of this footage ?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Whaler31
I know just the place! These folks have been studying this very subject for a decade:

Architects & Engineers for 911 truth. Over 1850 qualified members, and 14,000 regular members.
They have been putting out nothing but science and fact regarding the controlled demolitions of World Trade Center Towers 1,2 & 7,

And just look at the quality of their work!


Funny how truthers think that this is "science and fact"!