Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

reply to post by DeeKlassified

Where is the video of this fireman saying WTC7 was going to collapse? An actual real testimony in person?

Here's a vid talking about the mis reporting.
Along with numerious other mis reportings that day.
Are they all part of the same conspiracy? No one mentions about the other collapsed building reports.

Here's another

Originally posted by GenRadek
They also reported car bombs in DC, car bombs on the bridges. Plane crash into the Sears Tower. Plane crashing into the Mall. Let me guess, all of those were suppose to happen but they forgot and acidentally reported all those reports too?

Yes but WTC 7 actually did collapse, as reported. A huge 47 story building, visible behind the news caster.

You don't accidentally report something like that.

WTC 7 did collapse, globally into its own footprint, so waste your time attempting to debunk this until you're giddy with pride, it makes no difference.

reply to post by samkent


There is no way that someone can predict that a steel framed building on fire is going to globally collapse into its footprint.

Why?

Because there is no precedence for such an event, because steel framed building do not collapse that way from fire. They had nothing to base such a claim on.

If they reported other buildings collapsed before they did, then whoever was in charge of press releases screwed up big time eh?

reply to post by samkent


Yes, but it was not a misreport about WTC7 collapsing because it did actually go on to collapse.

The BBC reported correctly, but too soon! In the original clip the male reporter said that the report came from Rudy Giuliani. not Reuters. The BBC are just covering their ass.

The quotes from the firemen, are just quotes, same quotes on some dubious websites.
Still no actual video statement from the firemen that supposedly surveyed WTC7, who allegedly decided it was going to collapse?

As for the second video, that fireman is too far away, with too much smoke in the way to make any kind of judgement about WTC7, and he does not even mention WTC7, so who knows what building he is actually even supposed to be talking about!

I personally think the firemen statements in text are tosh, to fit the narrative. If you have any videos of the firemen that officially assessed WTC7 giving a detailed statement about WTC7, then please do share, would love to see a real video of one of the people assigned to deal with WTC7 talking about what happened to WTC7...

Seeing as so many people had gathered to watch it come down, and Harley Guy had people filming WTC7 from his apartment, and other film crews recording it too, you'd think there would be some officials or firemen assigned to WTC7 giving a detailed interview on camera? Now where are those videos?! Strange that I don't seem to locate any?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ParasuvO

 

Damage accounts from those that were there and witnessed it all:

sites.google.com...

Here u go.

That video of WTC7 leaning is just the very last part of the building, pretty much all of it had fallen straight down, and the very last bit moved to one side.

That is not remotely close to a building leaning prior to collapse, and then falling in the direction of the lean, for the whole journey down. If it had been leaning and followed the natural direction of the lean, then most of the building would have fallen in the direction of the lean, and that would be clearly evident in the video, but it is not, or any video in existence.

George Bush Senior was the Architect of 911 just as he was the Architect of the Kennedy assassination....you just don't get to be the head of CIA for doing nothing, just as your father gets away with treason for selling fuel additives to the Nazis so the monarch can have their war and everyone can line their pockets for the next 80 years all the way into the NEW WORLD ORDER

ALL roads lead to Bush

Cheney's Halliburton and Bin laden construction rigged all 3 buildings using their international demolition teams
The terrorist attacks were financed entirely by the CIA using your tax dollars

Osama bin laden was groomed just as Lee Harvey Oswald, both playing the suckers roll as the patsy that never got to utter the words before the courts, just as it was planned

Originally posted by Spacespider
Their plan did not go as planned that's why.
The plane that they say hit pentagon was supposed to hit building7
building 7 was prepared with the same kind of explosions as twin towers
They had to go along with the destruction of building 7 because it was rigged with explosions to hide their tracks

Im not sure why they struck a missle at the Pentagon but Im pretty sure Flight 93 that crashed in Philadelphia was the one that was suppose to hit Building 7.

Originally posted by Spacespider
Their plan did not go as planned that's why.
The plane that they say hit pentagon was supposed to hit building7
building 7 was prepared with the same kind of explosions as twin towers
They had to go along with the destruction of building 7 because it was rigged with explosions to hide their tracks

Im not sure why they struck a missle at the Pentagon but Im pretty sure Flight 93 that crashed in Philadelphia was the one that was suppose to hit Building 7.

reply to post by cass1dy09

Im not sure why they struck a missle at the Pentagon but Im pretty sure Flight 93 that crashed in Philadelphia was the one that was suppose to hit Building 7.

Then Why was it headed to Washington?
Why was the auto nav set to Washington?

reply to post by ANOK

There is no way that someone can predict that a steel framed building on fire is going to globally collapse into its footprint.

Why?

Because there is no precedence for such an event, because steel framed building do not collapse that way from fire. They had nothing to base such a claim on.

But they did predict it.
Just because it had not happened before doesn't mean it's impossible.

I'll bet you cannot find ONE architect on the entire planet that will say . ..
"It's impossible for ANY steel framed building to fall from fire."
I'll bet even Richard Gage would not say that.

The only way that this issue will be solved is if the people involved in it admit to it.

We all know that is wasn't just terrorists that done all this.
Its clear that the taliban was funded by CIA in the 70s and 80s.

In my eyes the US Government and the taliban are hand in hand and to prove this fact, on the night of 911 when ALL planes in the US was grounded did a single lire-jet take off with bin-laden's parents on board taking them back to Afghanistan, that was authorized by George W Bush.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

This has led to many of my friends to start looking at all the evidence of the O.S and to start questioning it. People are waking up and beginning to see that all is not what it seems.

Math? Maybe but...

There has been a slow but steady move of public opinion on 9.11 going on now for quite some time. Even here in the deep south (US) and the middle of patriotism-central, there is a quiet but firming suspicion that the nation was misled.

Now, very few speak of it openly. You go down to the corner Waffle House for coffee and breakfast and sometimes there's an inter-table chat going on. There are small, diner-sized eateries and people are grouped close to each other. Subject matter can range from gas prices to the war in Afghanistan to the economy to jobs to local issues. But try and stir this micro-community with the subject of 9.11 and the room goes silent.

Ten years ago... it would have been quite different. And sometimes, as you get up to leave, you'll be approached by someone in the parking lot who will address the subject on a personal level, offering a few words that speak of that aforementioned suspicion. It generally has less to do with math than it does a better-late-than-never application of common sense.

Half a century from now, 9.11 will be like JFK... the obvious is just all too obvious but the proof of the truth is still a ghost singing in the wind.

reply to post by redoubt

There has been a slow but steady move of public opinion on 9.11 going on now for quite some time. Even here in the deep south (US) and the middle of patriotism-central, there is a quiet but firming suspicion that the nation was misled.

So why has the 911 section here, all but dried up in the past year?
Even the conspiracy shows on tv have moved on.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

What would be the point of cutting out the penthouse collapse in the video?

The penthouse collapse, as you call it, was simply the center columns collapsing first, so the outer walls can fold in on top, in order to put most of the building in its own footprint.

Classic implosion demolition. The penthouse collapse does not help your argument, why after all these years do you still think it does?

Becuase unlike you, who simply does just enough research to come to the "controlled demolitions" conclusion you want to come to, I look at all the facts from all sources to see where the trail really leads, and the facts are not on your side.

The penthouse collapse is a critical piece of evidence that indicated the way the building actually fell. Instead of falling straight down as in a controlled demolition...and let's face it, if it did fall straight down Gage would have left it in the video...it topped over toward the impacted side of the building. NIST used that penthouse collapse footage and ran several models which would explain how the penthouse collapsed in the way we saw, and the one sequence that made the most sense was that WTC 7 did NOT fall down symmetrically (I.E. the south side fell exactly in the same way the north side in the video did), but rather the south side folded inward into the building like a clam shell and collapsed six seconds before the north side did, and the penthouse was actually falling down with the rest of the south side.. That means the penthouse video is proof the building DID NOT FALL SYMMETRICALLY in the way Gage is claiming it did.

Was NIST correct in that it fell in this way? We'll probably never know, but however you look at it, the more research we do, the further we irrefutably get away from that beloved "secret controlled demolitions" story Gage keeps pushing. He knows this or otherwise he'd have addressed this in his so called "thorough research", so he simply pretends it never happened so he can continue to make false claims that the whole building fell symmetrically. That makes Gage a complete fraud, regardless of whatever pretty word you want to use to describe what he's doing. The proof is in the pudding- you notice Gage steadfastly refuses to do any modelling on his own, despite the fact that he claims he has the unique skills and resources to do it.

Personally, I find it quite telling how the conspiracy proponents steadfastly make excuses that Gage isn't tampering with the evidence, and once it's been shown he IS tampering with the evidence the conspiracy proponents turn around and make excuses that the video he's tampering with isn't important. Why does anyone need to tamper with evidence if it isn't important?

Originally posted by Anok

Yes but WTC 7 actually did collapse, as reported. A huge 47 story building, visible behind the news caster.

You don't accidentally report something like that.

WTC 7 did collapse, globally into its own footprint, so waste your time attempting to debunk this until you're giddy with pride, it makes no difference.

Let's put this conspiracy myth to bed right now. It's your argument that your're really not nitpicking over 20/20 hindsight and that the people at the BBC should have been experts in knowing the proper names of foreign building before they become historically significant, correct? Let's put that to the test.

What is the name of this building, and where is it? I'll give you half credit if you can even tell me what city it's in without looking it up.



Otherwise, if you're unable to identify the proper names of buildings in other countries then you are in no position to be commenting on such abilities for other people.

reply to post by samkent

So why has the 911 section here, all but dried up in the past year? Even the conspiracy shows on tv have moved on.

Good question and since I was not her for the past year, I couldn't say for sure.

But I have seen mentioned that the 9.11 threads here at ATS were under heavy moderation at some time during that span. I don't know why but I do know what I read.

Besides that... I know what I hear being said in the parking lot at the Awful Waffle. Were you there? Or... are you the angry guy who never smiles and keeps his cell phone to his ear while shoveling down 3 eggs sunny-side up?

No matter. Thanks for the reply

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by samkent

 

There is no way that someone can predict that a steel framed building on fire is going to globally collapse into its footprint.

Why?

Because there is no precedence for such an event, because steel framed building do not collapse that way from fire. They had nothing to base such a claim on.

If they reported other buildings collapsed before they did, then whoever was in charge of press releases screwed up big time eh?

Once again, only in your world does it happen that if someone predicts something unprecidented happening, and it does, all of a sudden, it must mean it was all staged and planned cause its never happened before.. Such an odd world you live in.

Firefighters are trained, TRAINED, in observing building and making educated guesses as to the stability of a building. It does not matter if it is a ramshakle outhouse on fire or a 100 story superhighrise, if it is showing signs of severe structural integrity loss, then it is safe to say the building is in danger of collapse. When firefighters arrive on scene to a warehouse fire and the roof has collapsed, chances are there will be more collapses and they steer clear of the building. That way when it does fall, they are safe. If a building is showing signs of imminent collapse, they know it. Just because you do not see it in grainy distance videos, does not mean it did not happen. You have been shown HUNDREDS of accounts, pictures, and video of damage and fire done to the WTC7. You refuse to acknowledge any of it because it does not feed into your delusion. Sad really.

What you need to know is that firefighters are not morons nor are they ignorant. When they see a building showing obvious signs of structural damage and potential failure, they will treat it as such. To them it doesnt matter, if its showing signs, heads up, it may fall. Unfortunately for you, in real life, just because something has not happened yet, does not mean it will never happen, or is impossible. I'm pretty sure you would have been one of the designers of the Titanic, assuring everyone how unsinkable it is because no iceberg has ever sunk such a large ship before. Afterwards, youd be the one claiming a conspiracy that it was sunk intentionally, because ice can never sink a ship of steel.

Also you keep throwing around "in its footprint" as if it means something. Well which way is a building suppose to fall? Up? How exactly did it fall in its footprint if it destroyed a building behind it and damaged structures next to it, oh, and fell across a street in front of it? When a building collapses, it goes down. You do know the laws of gravity? The ones you tout so much and claim so knowledge of? With gravity, objects fall down. When a building experiences structural failure, it goes down. The structure of WTC7 with its ConEd substation at the base is what facilitated the collapse as it happened. That is why it fell "down". When I drop an apple, it will fall straight down. Depending on how a building is built is how it may collapse.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

That video of WTC7 leaning is just the very last part of the building, pretty much all of it had fallen straight down, and the very last bit moved to one side.

That is not remotely close to a building leaning prior to collapse, and then falling in the direction of the lean, for the whole journey down. If it had been leaning and followed the natural direction of the lean, then most of the building would have fallen in the direction of the lean, and that would be clearly evident in the video, but it is not, or any video in existence.

If I were you, I would actually study the design of the WTC7 and how its substation impacted the overall structure. Then study the NIST report about it. It is pretty cut and dry, and gives a good description of why it fell the way it did. The building would not have titled over in one solid block because it is NOT a solid block. I do not understand why this simple concept is impossible for the Truth Movement to understand.

Originally posted by ANOK

Yes but WTC 7 actually did collapse, as reported. A huge 47 story building, visible behind the news caster.

You don't accidentally report something like that.

WTC 7 did collapse, globally into its own footprint, so waste your time attempting to debunk this until you're giddy with pride, it makes no difference.

Uncanny! You know all the names of all the buildings in NYC? Thats amazing!! Let us see how good your skills are in here:



Name the brown building to the middle right of the picture. No wikipedia or google please!