The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
Your right, this IS beating a dead horse.

Where is all the oil imports from Iraq? years later why are gas prices so high? You take a theory on WTC7 and turn it into Cheney bashing.

So no the evidence is not in my face.. if you look at the debris field WTC7 was covered in it, and was damaged . oh and some of that debris was on fire.. seems to me that the logical thing to do would be indeed to "pull it" instead of wasting more and more resources on a building that cant be saved, when those same resources could be used to help injured people etc.

There was nothing for Larry to gain by bringing 7 down... the lease for the WTC complex was for 1, 2, 4 and 5... Larry was involved with WTC 7 in that his company was the one that built it. but at the time of 2001 he only owned the leases to 1 2 4 and 5

edit on 20-6-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)

You obviously don't understand the point...

They wouldn't want the war to get cheap oil from iraq if their goal is to make money on oil, they would want the oil that their current sources provide to skyrocket in value so they have a much larger markup and larger profit margin, not to mention all of the military contracts that has made Haliburton billions.

You miss the whole point when you make asinine responses like where is all the cheap oil and why are gas prices so high...

Gas prices would still be $1.50 a gallon if we hadn't invaded iraq.

People who sell oil and gas WANT the prices high because their costs of getting the oil and gas DON'T change.

Jaden

Knocking my head over this.

Because I talked to someone who was intimately involved in helping Silverstein's legal team in his lawsuit against Boeing and other airline manufacturers as a result of the terrorist attack. And he told me WTC7 was demolished because its structural integrity was too dodgy.

And ATS by and large didn't believe me.

Oh well.

You can review that thread here.

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Knocking my head over this.

Because I talked to someone who was intimately involved in helping Silverstein's legal team in his lawsuit against Boeing and other airline manufacturers as a result of the terrorist attack. And he told me WTC7 was demolished because its structural integrity was too dodgy.

And ATS by and large didn't believe me.

Oh well.

that's funny, cuz I have a very close friend that was ALSO on Silverstein's legal team and this person says the exact opposite.

but nobody believes me either cuz like you, my statement is not backed by any believeable evidence,

reply to post by ipsedixit

Basically it is impossible for a building to collapse in near perfect symmetry without the aid of explosives of some kind.

You mean like hundreds of tons of fuel filled airliner at hundreds of miles an hour type explosives?

Or...

Originally posted by intrptr

Originally posted by Mianeye
Video 3 is a fake

Here is the guy who made it, and explanation on how.

He knows that. He already brought the hoax video and this one you found in an earlier thread today. This is his new thread and he is bringing the hoax again. Here's his post in the other thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the post above that where he brings the hoax demo of WTC7. This whole thread is basically a copy of this post that has already been shown hoax on ATS in another thread earlier today.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mods?

edit on 20-6-2012 by intrptr because: links...

Here is the fallacy behind the video-faker's contention. Just because he altered and added special FX to a real video of WTC collapsing and it fooled anyone does not mean that the building was not the work of demolition. Okay, so he fooled a bunch of folks by adding explosions, a soundtrack and a UFO. This does not take away from the validity of the original (unaltered) video, nor does it disprove that WTC 7 was the work of demolition.

Sure, you can fake a video about UFOs, but that doesn't mean that there are not UFOs. You can fake a video about **anything** (like the ending of a football game or some other sports event), but it does not replace the reality that already happened. He can fake videos about WTC 7 all day and night and fool thousands of people, but in the end, a faked video about WTC 7 does nothing more than show the world how good of a lier he is. Heck, he might even get a job offer from people who might be getting ready to stage the next dramatic cinematic attack event.

Faking videos about WTC 7 (or anything else) does not supercede the reality that actually happened. At the end of the day, all the guy has done was to fool good people. It does not discount the evidence that is out there, ---the REAL video evidence and scientific principles that scream that WTC 7 could not have fallen the way it did due to the little damage it took.

reply to post by intrptr


ehhhhh. wrong answer try again...



Jaden

There's must be a lot of people around here with very sore foreheads and heavily dented walls

9/11 stinks, from the terrorists getting pulled over in their vans on the morning of the attacks, to the basement explosions and then onto the missing plane wreckage, my forehead is fine but my nose is clogged with the stench of government corruption.

Originally posted by GhostLancer

Here is the fallacy behind the video-faker's contention. Just because he altered and added special FX to a real video of WTC collapsing and it fooled anyone does not mean that the building was not the work of demolition. Okay, so he fooled a bunch of folks by adding explosions, a soundtrack and a UFO. This does not take away from the validity of the original (unaltered) video, nor does it disprove that WTC 7 was the work of demolition.

Sure, you can fake a video about UFOs, but that doesn't mean that there are not UFOs. You can fake a video about **anything** (like the ending of a football game or some other sports event), but it does not replace the reality that already happened. He can fake videos about WTC 7 all day and night and fool thousands of people, but in the end, a faked video about WTC 7 does nothing more than show the world how good of a lier he is. Heck, he might even get a job offer from people who might be getting ready to stage the next dramatic cinematic attack event.

Faking videos about WTC 7 (or anything else) does not supercede the reality that actually happened. At the end of the day, all the guy has done was to fool good people. It does not discount the evidence that is out there, ---the REAL video evidence and scientific principles that scream that WTC 7 could not have fallen the way it did due to the little damage it took.

Or we could look at another way, He showed us what gullible fools the Truthers are.

Wow I did not not this thread would get this many replies.

For you people about the hoax video: Again, he could have added the flashes and sounds, but the windows exploding before the initial collapse are in every WTC7 video.

For you guys trying to debunk this thread: Send me a video of a building with light fires collapsing instantly, losing it's structural support at the same time so It falls precisely in it's own footprint.




Again, not one skyscraper in history has ever fallen because of fire. Even then, the fire would have to destroy every core column at the exact same time. We can also look at wtc5, and no collapse obliviously.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Kang69

This is a rather new video, that many people have not seen.

Do you think the US government used the force field from the alien spacecrafts warp drive to make WTC7 fall at free fall speed ? Are UFOs powered by thermite ?

Why would anyone star your retarded post?

here something i don't understand

So The building was 741 feet tall and it fell in 15 seconds, so that's about 49 feet per second assuming it didn't accelerate(which it seems it did). For 2.5 of those 15 seconds a "portion" of it fell at free fall speed. that's over 100 feet the building fell without meeting any resistance! how is this possible?? 100 feet worth of steel/concrete (58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns) just broke apart at the same time due to fire?

Are you sure? this doesn't seem logical.

Originally posted by Gyrocopter
here something i don't understand

So The building was 741 feet tall and it fell in 15 seconds, so that's about 49 feet per second assuming it didn't accelerate(which it seems it did). For 2.5 of those 15 seconds a "portion" of it fell at free fall speed. that's over 100 feet the building fell without meeting any resistance! how is this possible?? 100 feet worth of steel/concrete (58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns) just broke apart at the same time due to fire?

Are you sure? this doesn't seem logical.

Momentum transfer from the already falling interior.

Originally posted by Glowd33
Why would anyone star your retarded post?

I was not the one who presented that video as evidence.

So what purpose do you think the alien spacecraft, shown in the video, played in the destruction of world trade center 7 ? Do you think Larry Silverstein was aboard the UFO giving the command to pull it ?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Glowd33
Why would anyone star your retarded post?

I was not the one who presented that video as evidence.

So what purpose do you think the alien spacecraft, shown in the video, played in the destruction of world trade center 7 ? Do you think Larry Silverstein was on giving the command to pull it ?

I heard Spock was in it with a camera mumbling to himself "illogical, illogical".

reply to post by waypastvne


this does not explain how their is no resistance. something can't crush something else without meeting some type of resistance. in order for their to be free fall,100 feet worth of the 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns would have to all fail at the same time, fire can not do this.

not to mention the SFRM that protects the steel.

the building burned for 7 hours. the SFRM protects the steel for approx 4.5 hours, then the steel gets affected?(thats assuming their was somehow enough direct fire to destroy the SFRM evenly over multiple beams). Also assuming the fire was in direct contact with those beams the exact moment the fire started (which is basically impossible).
After the fire proofing is destroyed how long does it take for a fire to weaken the actual steel? longer then 2.5 hours i would hope. Ive had pots on the stove longer than that, my food never ended up all over the place.

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

in order for their to be free fall,100 feet worth of the 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns would have to all fail at the same time,

But they didn't fail all at the same time. The core columns failed first and transferred momentum into the outer columns.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

in order for their to be free fall,100 feet worth of the 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns would have to all fail at the same time,

But they didn't fail all at the same time. The core columns failed first and transferred momentum into the outer columns.

you cant have both,what don't you understand. I repeat you can't have the 58 perimeter columns intact and have a free fall acceleration, its just not possible. NOTHING IN THE WORLD can fall through something else with out meeting some type of resistance. even NIST agrees the building went into free fall. That youtube video up their with all the vérinage demos is a perfect example, the only portion where those building might go into freefall is the few floors where they destroyed all the columns. once the crushing portion of the demo starts their is a measurable amount of resistance everytime.

I am sure we have all heard the words "pull it" before and in the context of pulling a building or demolishing a building with explosives and I doubt if the words meant "pull my finger" in this context.

Is it possible that a fuel laden Jet caused the twin towers to collapse, yes it is possible according to everyone who does not believe that explosives were used but that never happened to WTC7 and whilst we on that topic, what happened to all the fuel in the Pentagon plane never mind all the other missing pieces of that story.

Would a buildings need to blow out first in a controlled demolition if only the middle support beans are rigged, I think windows explode when there it too much pressure on them from above like when you crush a car from the roof down.

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

you cant have both,what don't you understand. I repeat you can't have the 58 perimeter columns intact and have a free fall acceleration, its just not possible. NOTHING IN THE WORLD can fall through something else with out meeting some type of resistance. even NIST agrees the building went into free fall. That youtube video up their with all the vérinage demos is a perfect example, the only portion where those building might go into freefall is the few floors where they destroyed all the columns. once the crushing portion of the demo starts their is a measurable amount of resistance everytime.

What you don't understand is the interior started falling 6 sec before the exterior. It had 6 seconds worth of kinetic energy. Part of that energy was used to accelerate the exterior columns. It's not that hard to understand.

Why do people think it is so hard to rig a building with bombs? I am not sure what happened on 9/11 but thinking planting bombs in your own building would be difficult really hasn't put much thought into it. You dont need to wire the building you can simply use wireless detonation. The terrorists use it in Iraq when setting off IED's and they use simple devices like garage door openers. Imagine what kind of explosives you could get from our own government for the right price.