Counter-Conspiracy: World Trade Center 7

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



When global collapse starts it's closer to 7 seconds. If you're counting from when a portion of the penthouse falls in, it's longer (14+ seconds). I don't think anyone is being misleading about this. It all depends on what you call "collapse". The people who believe every side of the official narrative like to count this part of the penthouse falling as "total collapse" but others look at as when the total collapse starts -- ie: the entire building. So, you may be right and you may be wrong about the time - it's subjective.

And much like your post, one can pick apart anything. His errors are small and it is bewildering that the BBC would report a building collapsing that hasn't collapsed, but then does - out of nowhere - just minutes later. Many people do find this odd. It's nice to hear your opinion and you make some valid points - but that doesn't change the fact that they reported a building collapased that's actually standing in the background of the reporter. That also doesn't change the fact that it collapsed from local fires and the failure of one column just minutes later.

a reply to: cestrup

When global collapse starts it's closer to 7 seconds. If you're counting from when a portion of the penthouse falls in, it's longer (14+ seconds). I don't think anyone is being misleading about this. It all depends on what you call "collapse". The people who believe every side of the official narrative like to count this part of the penthouse falling as "total collapse" but others look at as when the total collapse starts -- ie: the entire building. So, you may be right and you may be wrong about the time - it's subjective.

Sorry but no it is not "subjective" the collapse time starts when we can first observe the start of the sequence of collapse and that is when we first see the "kink" in the east mechanical penthouse. That is when the building started to collapse. You cannot just ignore this because it does not quite fit into your theories of what happened that day.

it is bewildering that the BBC would report a building collapsing that hasn't collapsed, but then does - out of nowhere - just minutes later

Not really, not when you put events into their correct context it actually kind of starts to make a bit of sense.

That also doesn't change the fact that it collapsed from local fires and the failure of one column just minutes later.

Where are you getting minutes from, this building was burning uncontrolled for almost 8 hours or so.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: cestrup

When global collapse starts it's closer to 7 seconds. If you're counting from when a portion of the penthouse falls in, it's longer (14+ seconds). I don't think anyone is being misleading about this. It all depends on what you call "collapse". The people who believe every side of the official narrative like to count this part of the penthouse falling as "total collapse" but others look at as when the total collapse starts -- ie: the entire building. So, you may be right and you may be wrong about the time - it's subjective.

Sorry but no it is not "subjective" the collapse time starts when we can first observe the start of the sequence of collapse and that is when we first see the "kink" in the east mechanical penthouse. That is when the building started to collapse. You cannot just ignore this because it does not quite fit into your theories of what happened that day.

it is bewildering that the BBC would report a building collapsing that hasn't collapsed, but then does - out of nowhere - just minutes later

Not really, not when you put events into their correct context it actually kind of starts to make a bit of sense.

That also doesn't change the fact that it collapsed from local fires and the failure of one column just minutes later.

Where are you getting minutes from, this building was burning uncontrolled for almost 8 hours or so.

OMG, burning uncontrollably!! There must be photos of this horrible fire, right?? I mean it actually caused "free fall" for a portion of the collapse so it must have burnt the builiding to a crisp inside to the point that there was actually, no resistence from the pesky steel-framed building. Thanks for clearing that up!

As to the collapse times, yes, I can see why people use either time frames. So, it is subjective because it's perplexing that a fire 20 floors below would cause the east wing of a penthouse to suddenly collapse. Man, I hope demo experts are studying WTC 7. They don't need all those charges. Huge waste of money. Just take the blueprints to NIST and have them show which column to weaken with some heat and let it roll. Probably save them millions of dollars pending on how much the bill from NIST is.

Look, I've read your posts. You're entitled to your opinion and you're well-spoken. But, do these guys opinons matter to you? Are they all mistaken? Why would those little office fires in WTC 7 make people think it was "coming down"?

edit to add: Yes, these quotes are for the towers but relevant to the conversation.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.


Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.


Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.


Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.


Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.


Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.


Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
... you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.


Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
... and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
...
I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.


Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
.. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.


Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.


Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ...


Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.


Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.


Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.


James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.


Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.
...
My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.


Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.


Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.


Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off.


Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.


John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off.


James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we're running.


Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.


Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18]
When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino


Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.


Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that.


Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook.


Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.


Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up above.


Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder ...


John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy.


Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.


David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.


Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.


Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came.


Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... that's when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions.


William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47]
At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down right on top of us ...

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Where are you getting minutes from, this building was burning uncontrolled for almost 8 hours or so.

So what? Building 1, 2 and 7 are the only steel and concrete buildings to collapse due to fire. The Windsor tower in Madrid burned for 24 hours and didn't collapse. There is no way possible fire alone brought those buildings down simply because the fire isn't hot enough.

a reply to: buster2010

No actually just Building 7 or are you forgetting to two planes that smashed into WTC 1 and 2.

WTC-7 was a very unique building and I see this argument of "well show me another building that has collapsed due to fire".

The point is totally mute unless you can show me another identical copy of WTC-7 that is subjected to the exact same stresses.

a reply to: Blowback

Lmao! man I love your avatar gif!

a reply to: cestrup

OMG, burning uncontrollably!! There must be photos of this horrible fire, right??

Right!




CLICK ME

At the end of the day we can all clearly see that those buildings were all demolished with controlled explosive charges! The video evidance of that speaks for its self, like the guy in the video said what were they made of cardboard!

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: buster2010

No actually just Building 7 or are you forgetting to two planes that smashed into WTC 1 and 2.

WTC-7 was a very unique building and I see this argument of "well show me another building that has collapsed due to fire".

The point is totally mute unless you can show me another identical copy of WTC-7 that is subjected to the exact same stresses.

Buildings 1 and 2 were designed to survive the impact of planes larger than the ones that hit them. And what stresses did building 7 have? It was hit by a little piece then caught fire and burned for hours. There was nothing unique about building 7 it wasn't built in a way that made it in any way different from the other buildings. The only thing unique about building 7 was that it held all the FBI investigations on the wrong doings that was going on in Wall Street. Just like the "plane" that hit the pentagon hit the accounting dept days after Rumsfeld reported trillions of dollars were missing.

a reply to: cestrup

Your quote are not relevant to the debate they are about the other two towers.

Lets just stay on topic, the saga of WTC-7 is huge, I have a massive thread covering it if you want to check it out.

But right now we are talking about the video posted by OFFTHEGRID specifically about the BBC Report.

None of your comment really has anything to do with that.

This is something I always find very interesting with people who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. The 9/11 conspiracy I think can be thought of as a massive bike chain, each link in the chain represents a individual component of the conspiracy, for example, Operation North woods in one link, another is the "missing $2.3Tn", thermite and so on.

This thread happens to be discussing another "link in the chain", the BBC report on WTC-7. Now as I have shown in my first post that is a weak link because basically it makes no sense to try and say the BBC had prior knowledge and gave the game away early nor is there any evidence for this. As such this becomes a weak link, and so those who believe the conspiracies try to deflect by moving on to another link they perceive to be stronger rather than just accepting that this "BBC link" is weak. The reason for this is simply because after so many links become broken the entire conspiracy theory that is the bike chain falls to bits and that represents a huge threat. So again rather than accept that this is a weak link you would deflect to what you perceive to be a stronger link, when that is exposed as being weak again, rather than accepting it for what it is you move onto another link.

And round and round we go, you move from one link in the chain of conspiracies to another, it means that almost all threads regarding 9/11 end up off topic by the second page of posts simple because truthers will not accept the weak links for what they really are. DEBUNKED.

So in the spirit of staying on topic please tell me what evidence you have that the BBC had any kind of prior knowledge of WTC-7's demise.

a reply to: buster2010

Look yet again a perfect example of what I am talking about above with this bike chain of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

This thread starts off about the WTC-7 BBC Report, when I expose the weaknesses to that you move onto another link pointing out that no other building has collapsed due to fire and when i point out that that does not really matter you then start talking about how WTC1 and 2 where designed to survive plane crashes, again another link in the chain.

But that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, we are talking about the WTC-7 BBC report.

Lets stay on topic. please.

dble post

I would like to know why all these threads about 911 is about conspiracies that would lead you down long dead ends, theories and arguments that take away the attention from the real perps of 911.

The information and evidence that leads people to finding out the truth about 911 will not be found in the rubble but in the paper work and in the operational impossibility of this attack to occur without a severe amalgamation of multiple agencies, software hijacking at the FAA by Israeli company Ptech, Israeli agents shadowing, living next to and possibly guiding the 911 hijackers through flight schools and seeing that they complete their 911 mission.

But no nono nono.... Lets talk about dew weapons or collapses and rubble dust. Sigh, this topic is still the part of the 911 coverup.

Imagine if we discussed real issues pertaining to 911 instead of this over done, over documented topic.

Talk about how there was no plane crash in Shanksville, no flight 93 or Israeli involvement.

If this video is real, check out these flashes in WTC 7 before it fell

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Are you forgetting that both towers were built to withstand a collision with a commericial airliner? I'll take the word of the men who designed it over an internet debunker. There's nothing mute about WTC 7. Every building is unique is you want to go that far. A couple fires on a floors and a study done by NIST that is only a computer simulation with data locked away - does in no way - sufficiently explain to people why that building collapsed the way it did. How did their real world simulations go again? You know, where fire and steel are actually involved.

a reply to: Mianeye


you show me a picture of one floor with fires on one side of it as if that's convincing? OMG! That building is doomed! Everyone run, it's gonna blow!

If I were you, I wouldn't have posted that video - I've seen bonfires that look more out of control than that. GMAFB

a reply to: cestrup

Very good post!



The big whigs at BBC, like all major news medias, were in the know about 911. This was a planned event so that TPTB could destabilize muslim countries while using the USA to do the dirty work. This was a trick, a scheme. A building collapsing from a fire is laughable. There's nothing in that building that would burn hot enough to cause this reaction. Larry Silverstein & friends got away with murder and crimes against humanity. Israel basked in joy.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Mianeye


you show me a picture of one floor with fires on one side of it as if that's convincing? OMG! That building is doomed! Everyone run, it's gonna blow!

If I were you, I wouldn't have posted that video - I've seen bonfires that look more out of control than that. GMAFB

Is that really all you could come up with, i am disappointed, well, good luck .

Psst, you forgot to click the link

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: cestrup

Your quote are not relevant to the debate they are about the other two towers.

Lets just stay on topic, the saga of WTC-7 is huge, I have a massive thread covering it if you want to check it out.

But right now we are talking about the video posted by OFFTHEGRID specifically about the BBC Report.

None of your comment really has anything to do with that.

This is something I always find very interesting with people who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. The 9/11 conspiracy I think can be thought of as a massive bike chain, each link in the chain represents a individual component of the conspiracy, for example, Operation North woods in one link, another is the "missing $2.3Tn", thermite and so on.

This thread happens to be discussing another "link in the chain", the BBC report on WTC-7. Now as I have shown in my first post that is a weak link because basically it makes no sense to try and say the BBC had prior knowledge and gave the game away early nor is there any evidence for this. As such this becomes a weak link, and so those who believe the conspiracies try to deflect by moving on to another link they perceive to be stronger rather than just accepting that this "BBC link" is weak. The reason for this is simply because after so many links become broken the entire conspiracy theory that is the bike chain falls to bits and that represents a huge threat. So again rather than accept that this is a weak link you would deflect to what you perceive to be a stronger link, when that is exposed as being weak again, rather than accepting it for what it is you move onto another link.

And round and round we go, you move from one link in the chain of conspiracies to another, it means that almost all threads regarding 9/11 end up off topic by the second page of posts simple because truthers will not accept the weak links for what they really are. DEBUNKED.

So in the spirit of staying on topic please tell me what evidence you have that the BBC had any kind of prior knowledge of WTC-7's demise.

I even pointed out that my quotes wasn't relevant to WTC 7. So I don't understand why you needed to reiterate that. I was simply pointing out that there were many things said that day contrary to the people you claim "knew" that building 7 was coming down. I won't answer the rest of your diatribe because you're just marginalizing "truthers" like we're all the same. Which is pretty stupid when you think about it. I don't care what you think about truthers or what you think you know about me.

I don't have any other evidence to why the BBC said what they said and neither do you. You just accept their apology and add in your opinions. That's all they are really. And there are a plethora of sources that you get these narrated opinions trying their best to discredit any conspiratorial talk about 9/11.

Here's what we know:

A building was on fire, showing absolutely no signs of visible collapse
A news station claims it collapsed, possibly confused, as the building is standing behind them
The building then collapses.
What are the odds of this?? Considering a building has never globally collapsed due to localized office fires. How does it acheive free fall due to fires stories below? How did those fires clear a path of no resistence to the point that parts of this structure fell as if they were in a vacuum?

a reply to: Mianeye


No, you broke the rules: because "is this all you can come up with" was what I used to argue your hilarious pictures and videos. Do you really have to have me link you to images of building fires that did not collapse? And then embarrass you by comparing what you posted with them?

Look, you can't use "is this all you can come up with" to argue my "is this all you can come up with" - that breaks the entire dynamic of conversation. I stated that one picture of one floor on one side, engulfed in flames (so roughly 1-5% of the entire building) doesn't convince me that this building is doomed to acheive a collapse that particularly resembles one that is controlled.