911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[haissem123]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

 

[haissem123]

i don't know what direction does a damaged building normally fall? toward the area it's damaged most?

 

[SAYIT]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?

 

[haissem123]

7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams

 

[Skylar]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings.

I ask again, what direction was the building supposed to fall? If you have no answer, just admit it. But offering vague innuendo that it should have fallen some other direction but down.....but then failing to name what direction that was is arguing by insinuation. Meaning that even you know you can't back up your narrative with evidence.

And again, show us any skyscraper that has collapsed that ever fell any direction but strainght down. You can't. The force of gravity only pulls in one direction with any significance. And that's the direction such skyscrapers are going to fall.

plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

'Pull' in demolition parlance means to attach cables to a building and literally pull it over with bulldozers. Its usually limited to buildings that are say, 3 to 9 stories tall. The WTC was 47. And its ridiculously clear from the FDNY quotes that the expected the building to collapse due to fire and structural damage.

The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down

Assistant Chief Frank Fellini

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fellini_Frank.txt

Fire and structural damange. Not a single mention of bombs or charges . All of which you already know. And Chief Fellini is hardly alone;

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.

We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate at the scene….

Chief Daniel Nigro.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

Fire and structural damage again. You claim to give weight to the FDNY and their assessment. Unless they disagree with you. And then you ignore them entirely. WHich is just silly.

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area –
Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on.

And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been. That's about it

Chief Frank Cruthers;
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt

In fact, there's not a single mention of explosive demolition as the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 from the FDNY. Not once. Not ever. And downright astonishing....the folks you're accusing of demolishing the building and then covering it up.....are the FDNY themselves! They lost 343 of their own. Why in holy hell would they then participate in the very conspiracy that cost so many of their men.

Not only is your conspiracy contradicted by utterly overwhelming evidence, it just doesn't make the slightest sense.

Worse, the building was on fire. Heavy fires. 'On almost every floor'. There's no system of explosives that that can handle being on fire. Charges would explode or be reduced to bubbling puddles of goo. Detonators would have detonated. Wires would have melted. Transmitters, receivers or timers would have been reduced to melted plastic and twisted wires. But in the midst of a massive building fire, they wired it to explode....in minutes?

Um, no.

Worse still, there were no girders cut in a manner consistent withe explosive demolition. The collapse initiated in virtual silence, and there are no such thing as 'silent explosives'. With actual controlled demolition being ludicriously loud. There was no residue of explosives found in any dust sample, nor any apparatus of explosives ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire, not a single charge, not a single cut, not a single timer or transceiver. Nothing.

How do you deal with these numerous, overlapping, conspiracy killing holes in your claims? You pretend none of them exist. But why would we or any rational person play pretend just because you do? Either your argument works...or it doesn't. And as you're demonstrating with each rout from the crippling inconsistencies between your claims and the evidence......your argument doesn't work.

 

[daws101]

How is this still going on lol.

Its still going on because its still relevant and its still not settled
in that the BIG LIE is still being promoted in the mainstream media.

relevant to whom?

 

[daws101]

again. point to one building in history out of the many that have had fire earth quake damage etc.. and show me one that fell straight down into it's own basement? If you can find one that fell at all. you won't be able to as it's impossible unless a miracle. how many miracles did you see that day? all buildings fell straight down. makes no sense it could happen so perfect by coincidence. i can't believe how gullible all you people are.

bullshit
Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.

Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11
​

Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7 Building 7

 

[SFC Ollie]

7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams

Bullshit. Typical truther lie. You have totally ignored what was happening before and during the collapse of the east penthouse. Your 7 seconds is closer to 20 seconds.

 

[Skylar]

7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams

Bullshit. Typical truther lie. You have totally ignored what was happening before and during the collapse of the east penthouse. Your 7 seconds is closer to 20 seconds.

Exactly. The penthouse didn't fall off of the WTC 7. It fell INTO it. Demonstrating undeniably and incontrovertibly that the internal structure of the WTC 7 was already collapsing before the facade fell.

This is the part of truthers that is so awkward. They're given a script to recite. Someone goes off script and decimates what they're reciting. And......they just keep reciting the script. At no point do they actually think or question what they've been told to mindlessly repeat. They simply ignore the legions of conspiracy killing holes in their beliefs.

No person genuinely interested in what happened ever would.

 

[Montrovant]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?

I would guess that the poster means it is odd that the buildings collapsed straight down, without any particular lean to any given side. The whole 'falling into their own footprint' thing. I found it odd when it happened, that neither of the tower tops had enough extra resistance on one side to cause them to fall to the side.

 

[Skylar]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?

I would guess that the poster means it is odd that the buildings collapsed straight down, without any particular lean to any given side. The whole 'falling into their own footprint' thing. I found it odd when it happened, that neither of the tower tops had enough extra resistance on one side to cause them to fall to the side.

I wasn't. There's no structure in the buildings capable of stopping a collapse once its initiated. And as the debris field is accelerated under gravity, the energy of impact from the debris field increases exponentially. Worse, it gains mass with each floor it destroys.

Greater velocity and greater mass translates into wildly greater energy with each impact. Meaning if the first floor couldn't catch the debris field when it was lightest and slowest....then there's nothing that could catch it until you reach the ground as each impact after is heavier and faster..

Each floor, however, has roughly the same static resistance as the first floor the debris field impacted.

 

[haissem123]

please. enough. you believe any stupid luck or engineering story you want. any and all honest and smart engineers of all kinds agree. the towers were not taken down by planes fires or their own fires. we all agree the owner took out extra policies and collected much more then they were worth and save billions not having to remove asbestos on the iron structure that was being worked on and most conclude was being set to fall not to remove asbestos. I wonder how many working in that industry, if asked, would sacrifice a few thousand for their fair share of a few billion dollars say a few million each? that's exactly what goes on in the market every day and we pyschopaths take that bet and sell those lives daily. so in reality, the were done unto themselves and they did unto others. just my honest opinion. Sorry, i was duped into these ill gotten gains for a while myself. now, knowing the evil of my former ways, would rather starve then reap rewards off the enslavement and suffering of others. shalom

 

[haissem123]

still waiting for any other buildings that collapsed from plane fire or fire etc... where are they out of all the towering infernos over the past? buildings of similar construct.

 

[haissem123]

were are the attendance records and why are they or should they be hidden from the people's sight? they should be public record and as one who lost a cousin, whose boss conveniently and uncharacteristically stayed home among others, I don't know why the other families aren't demanding to know who called out that day. cover up is a lack of honest information.

 

[Skylar]

please. enough. you believe any stupid luck or engineering story you want. any and all honest and smart engineers of all kinds agree. the towers were not taken down by planes fires or their own fires.

Says you. The NIST says otherwise. The FDNY clearly picks a side on the collapse of WTC 7, citing fire and structural damage as the cause of the collapse, correctly anticipating its collapse by hours.

Why would I ignore them and instead believe you?

we all agree the owner took out extra policies and collected much more then they were worth and save billions not having to remove asbestos on the iron structure that was being worked on and most conclude was being set to fall not to remove asbestos.

Silverstein certainly had the towers insured for terrorist attacks. Gee, I wonder why he would ever think to do that. I mean, its not like the WTC had *ever* been the target of terrorist attacks before.

Oh, wait. There was that whole 1993 bombing attack that cost an estimated $500 million dollars to clean up and repair. 500 million. Let that number role around in your head a little. And then ask yourself, what idiot WOULDN'T insure against terrorist attacks?

As for the asbestos......um, who is 'we' in 'we agree'. Because you only seem to be citing yourself. And I certainly don't agree with you. The Port Authority put the asbestos costs at closer to 200 million. And they'd already paid it. That's 1/10th your made up number.

And of course, you're not taking into account all the rent that silverstein lost. The WTC 1 and 2 had 95% occupancy and was brining in 200 million in income a year, with income projected to rise significantly as rent prices continued to rise. Plus the 120 million a year in base rent he had to pay the Port Authority. One World Trade Center doesn't open until the end of this year.

That's 13 years of lost income and rent that had to be paid. That's *at least* 2.6 billion in lost revenue....with the number almost certainly closer to 3 billion as office rental space in Manhattan has increased 24% since 2001. With the same rental space generating almost 250 million a year.

Plus another 1.56 billion rent that silver stein still had to pay to the Port Authority. Bringing his total losses from the WTC plaza alone to 4.5 billion dollars.

And of course, WTC 7 isn't part of that. He lost all the revenue from that building plus had to pay to have his 47 story skysrcaper rebuilt. And you never mentioned any of it. Either you didn't know....or you didn't care. But why would a rational person dismiss what you did?

I wonder how many working in that industry, if asked, would sacrifice a few thousand for their fair share of a few billion dollars say a few million each? that's exactly what goes on in the market every day and we pyschopaths take that bet and sell those lives daily.

Wow. You're accusing the man of being a mass murder based on exactly jack shit. Don't you think that's the kind of accusation you'd want to be kinda sure about before you start slinging it about?

 

[Skylar]

still waiting for any other buildings that collapsed from plane fire or fire etc... where are they out of all the towering infernos over the past? buildings of similar construct.

Still waiting for any other skyscraper that fell any direction but down. If you're going to insinuate that the building should have collapsed in a different direction, you're going to need to back that shit up with some examples.

But instead you run from your own insinuations. Which speaks volumes.

And the WTC 7 was the first steel frame building to collapse due primarily to fire.

 

[Skylar]

were are the attendance records and why are they or should they be hidden from the people's sight? they should be public record and as one who lost a cousin, whose boss conveniently and uncharacteristically stayed home among others, I don't know why the other families aren't demanding to know who called out that day. cover up is a lack of honest information.

Attendance records for what?

Jesus....are you insinuating *another* conspiracy you can't possibly back up with facts? If you have evidence that certain people 'conveniently and uncharacteristically stayed home among others', then show us. But these vague innuendos aren't an argument.

They're an excuse for one.

 

[haissem123]

they keep records of everybody that enters the towers as to have accurate evacuations I presume. But on that fateful day, we the people seeking truth through all info, aren't allowed to see those that stayed home that day. why not? if it's the truth, why hide it? cause it will point to a certain group of chosen few that had more then a clue that something was gonna happen that day? yep, you betya. It will be all the big bosses in the know

 

[Skylar]

they keep records of everybody that enters the towers as to have accurate evacuations I presume.

You're presuming a lot. I genuinely don't know. And neither do you.

But on that fateful day, we the people seeking truth through all info, aren't allowed to see those that stayed home that day. why not? if it's the truth, why hide it?

Several problems with that narrartive. First, you're claiming you're not being given access to records that you have yet to factually establish even exist. You *presume* they do. And that presumption may or may not be accurate.

Second, if they did exist, they wouldn't be public records...they'd be private. And the refusal to turn over private records to any ol' schmo that demands them isn't an indication of a conspiracy. Ask me for my SSN or my bank balance, and I'll demonstrate the concept for you.

cause it will point to a certain group of chosen few that had more then a clue that something was gonna happen that day? yep, you betya. It will be all the big bosses in the know

Again, you don't know that. You *presume* it. Based on absolutely jack shit. This pattern of you imagining 'smoking guns' that you can't factually establish even exists is getting rather obvious. If you have evidence to back your latest conspiracy insinuation, present it.

Otherwise, you're literally imagining another conspiracy based on nothing.

 

[haissem123]

I know my cousins boss knew to stay home that day. i know they keep records of people entering buildings of this size and importance. You think they don't? Shall we go to google or did that conspiracy police get there first? lol. would you know or care if they did? lol. you presume all is coincidence and is as it seems or has been told to you.