much physics involved in explaining the effects of flying airplanes full of jet fuel into towers at 500mph. i won't claim to understand it all, so i am all for investigating and such. wtc7 was close enough to be impacted by the collapseS in ways we will never know.

whether or not wtc7 free fell for a few seconds at first is pretty much a non-issue for me until there's a lot more to justify the import of that *smoking gun*

but nano-thermite? no. i do understand enough re: that compound to conclude for myself it was not used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

This image is interesting.

Notice how the only properties destroyed are those owned by the WTC. The position of WTC 7 and its damage compared to every other building on the perimeter sure is odd.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2z7338y.jpg

This photo of the Bankers Trust Building (the closest building to WTC falling debris) illustrates the worse case scenario damage along the perimeter. It appears as though 80% of the offices could have been used the next day.

http://i51.tinypic.com/avlhz5.jpg

Now go back and look at the top photo. Should WTC 7, with it's large buffer zone between WTC 1 and itself, have been damaged to the point of total collapse? Why didn't the Bankers Trust Building suffer devastating damage since it was right across the street?

Look around. Everything happening in the world right now is the result of 9/11. While most of us are upset over the events of the past decade, the world's most powerful people have benefited greatly in this time span.

Why does this have to be explained?

Two very large jet planes full of jet fuel crashed into the two towers. WTC was by flaming debris and the building caught fire. Within hours both of the two towers fell, dropping millions of tons of concrete, steel, and debris at the foot of WTC7. So at this point we have a large building with an out of control fire, no water water pressure to put the fire out, and two very tall towers that feel at the foot of the building....

And you have to ask why the building fell? Really?

The towers were in the WTC complex itself, surrounded by the other buildings of the WTC complex. Being as those buildings surrounded the towers, it's obviously logical that the surrounding buildings would have suffered the most damage.

Why are you comparing WTC7 with the Bankers Trust Building? These two buildings were nearly a city block apart. When I say "city block" I mean the distance between WTC7 and the Bankers Trust Building was FULL city block, which including both towers and multiple other buildings.

Why did WTC7 fall and not this other building? Gee, I wonder why. Why don't you question why the buildings next to WTC7 didn't fall? All of the buildings suffered various degrees of damage that day, some more than others.

What do you mean "everything happening in the world right now"? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The economic issues we are having isn't because of 9/11, or Afghanistan, but because of the US housing market. What's happening in Libya has nothing to do with 9/11, nor does what's happened in Egypt have anything to do with 9/11. The only thing that 9/11 caused was tight security at airports (and tighter security over all), we invaded Afghanistan, and we are now hunting down terrorists.

WTC7 falling in to its own footprint all on its own due to the 9/11 attacks requires the same level of faith/belief as Jesus being the son of god.

And of course in your post to Matt26oz you fall back on the typical smarmy response of 'gee i wonder why'. Yeah, so do a lot of other people which is why a proper investigation should have been done. And if you think that a proper investigation was done then, this right here is what we call the successful indoctrination into the cult/religion of America. God bless you, sir.

This isn't exactly a bunch of idiots questioning the issue

No, it doesn't require any faith at all. When tall buildings come down they don't tip over - they collapse.

What do you mean a proper investigation wasn't done? Did you not hear about the 9/11 commission report? Funny, because not only did it document 9/11 pretty well, but it was also released as a book - which I have.

(I've also read "Debunking 9/11" and even "Debunking debunking 9/11". )

In fact, there was an investigation into WTC7 - multiple investigations:

<<source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center>>

So don't imply there wasn't an investigation into why WTC7 fell - there was.

Rochard I like you because you are naive. I think you just want to believe that the US government isn't evil and that there is no such thing as conspiracies and I'm afraid one day the truth is going to ruin your innocence. I want to be your friend so I can live in your fantasy world with you because quite honestly, it sounds a lot better than the truth.

it's not either or. you can not trust the government and also not believe every crackpot theory that pollutes the internet. don't be a knee jerk simpleton.

50 nonsensical theories.

The ground shaked cause of the falling buildings, the ground under the building cross the street gave or the foundation gave in? Could it be that?

Just bumping because nobody can explain building 7...

Rochard: I will get back to your posts...

:D

WTC 7 was not a surrounding building. There is a large area between it and tower 1.

It was to illustrate what happened right across the street from WTC 2. It opens the question of why there was very manageable damage along the surrounding perimeter of the complex, yet WTC 7 (located in this perimeter and not next to a tower) fell down.

The damage to each building on the perimeter of the complex is predictable when looking at its neighboring buildings. WTC 7, however, is an anomaly. Its damage is very unexpected.

The same people are manipulating all of this, and they aren't done yet. WW3 is approaching.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disaster_resi...7_collapse.cfm

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build08/art028.html

ok debunk.

(BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE)

For MediaGuy...and others. There was major damage done to WTC7.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Just because flashes are visible does not necessarily mean that it was a controlled demolition.

Mediaguy, Everyone else.


WT7 did not fall at free fall speed for the whole try. This is in the NIST report that you included in your post, but,

Even if it did, or even if it did for a short time, this is not proof that it was a controlled demolition. It might look like it, but it's not absolute proof.

Just because WT7 looked like it fell straight down, does not mean that it did. We saw only 1 or 2 angles of the collapse. The cameras were also very far away reducing the amount of detail that could be scene. There is no way, from the views that have been presented, that anyone except the close minded could assume that the building fell in a straight line.

And again, if it it fall completely straight, it does not mean that it was a controlled demolition.

I have watched all the videos and documentaries over the years and while some of them are very entertaining, and some of them raise some very serious and interesting questions, there is no proof of any single explanation that does not bring 10 more questions with it.

9/11 was a terrifying event that cost lots of lives during and after the event and forever changed our world. It is time though to accept the facts and to stop paying any attention to the lunatics out there who believe in something that simply has not been proven to exist. The so-called "truthers" have milked this for 10 years already. Time to move on.

This demonstrates that there was damage to the building.
Banaciski. Fireman Ladder 22

?They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.?

Demonstrates that it had been damaged and there were heavy fires
Nigro. Chief of Department

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


Demonstrates large amount of damage is noted on the South side
Boyle. Captain

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what`s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn`t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn`t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we`re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn`t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn�t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I`m standing next to said, that building doesn`t look straight. So I`m standing there. I`m looking at the building. It didn`t look right, but, well, we`ll go in, we`ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody`s going into 7, there`s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Q Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

A Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Q Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

A Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we`ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


Demonstrates that there was a discernible bulge
Hayden. Firefighter

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.



These are just a couple of on the spot visual records recorded by Firefighters, many more are available if one cares to look, unless of course all of these guys are in on the explosives conspiracy as well.
Iit demonstrates that there was substantial damage to the building, it demonstrates that by visual examination alone, bulges could be seen.

Now if you were actually interested, you would find out how it was constructed, what was unusual about the design and how it had been modified. (quite considerable in order to accommodate the electrical sub station if I remember correctly) You would also find out how long it actually took to fall, and you would also have a look at the debris field to discover that it did not fall within its own footprint.

All the information and actual facts are there, all you have to do is actually have a look, rather than just accept a video that has been put together by people interested in their own particular agenda.
As to the comments that prior to 9/11 nor post 9/11, no steel re-enforced building has ever collapsed, then again, prior to and post, there was never a situation where dirty great jet aircraft had been piled into one.

In order for controlled demolitions to be used, it would require a substantial number of explosives to be attached, and those are drilled into load bearing pillars, it would then require thousands of feet of detonating cable (and no they would not use wireless because they could have been set off at any time by random radio transmissions) and many hundreds of detonating caps, and not one cable found? Not one person noticed hundreds of charges being drilled into pillars, not one person saw one cable sprawled across a walkway?

Seriously!

You are correct. Let's use your earlier graphic as a point of reference.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2z7338y.jpg

Between WTC1 & WTC2 (the two towers that fell) and WTC7 is WTC6. WTC6 was pretty much destroyed and suffered a partial collapse.

Keep in mind that multiple things happened to these buildings. Some were hit by planes, others by debris, others by flaming debris, some were hit by the towers when they fell, and others suffered damaged from the ground shaking when they fell.

Why did WTC7 fall and not the Bankers building? They were different buildings, built differently, and suffered different amounts of damage. That's like asking why one building fell during an earthquake and others around it did not? Different buildings, different designs, different amounts of damage, and in this case different causes of damage.

No, it's not an anomaly. Your talking about huge buildings and hundreds of millions of tons of debris that fell down over a large amount of space. All the buildings suffered damage. Some of the buildings fell, and some of the buildings didn't.

10 years later... here we are.

And yet no one has come forward saying "Oh, the US government was behind it".

Go re-read my post. I never said there wasn't an investigation done. And keep in mind I also didn't say that your govt conspired in the 9/11 plot.

My point was that you were and are buying in to what they (the ones who wrote the existing report) have spoon fed you. 1500+ of the professionals you trust to design your structures are questioning it. Don't you think that should give you pause for thought?

The questions behind this building falling are completely separate from the fact that two passenger aircraft were hijacked and did slam in to WTC1 and WTC2. As a rational thinking human being you should at very least acknowledge the possibility that due to the high profile tenant list, what information was potentially being housed in WTC7, it is very possible that it was brought down for security reasons.

You didn't?

What did you mean when you said this?

A proper investigation was done. It was one of the few investigations ever to be released as a book and sold to the public. For some reason people think a "proper" investigation wasn't done. It was.

Your making it sound like "thousands of experts" are saying that these buildings were brought down by explosives. But for every "thousand experts" that believe in this, there are thousands more who believe it wasn't done by explosives.

I'm not being spoon fed anything. I've the 9/11 Commission Report, and I've "Debunking 9/11". I've read from both sides. Nothing convinces me that this didn't happen, more or less, that it didn't go down as we believe it did. Are there things we don't understand, things that questionable? Of course. Your not talking about one minor incident (like a car crash), your talking about hundreds of things that happened over the course of an entire day at multiple locations and in some cases spread out over entire city blocks. And your talking about thousands of witnesses.

You have one witness who says it was a missile who hit the Pentagon, and another who says it was clearly a large passenger jet. People see different things. If ten people watch the same car accident from ten different views, you'll come out with six different stories about exactly what just happened.

The biggest problem with the 9/11 Truth movement is that no one can explain why anyone would want this to happen? So we can invade Afghanistan? What the fuck for? Did the US military industrial complex want a war? Because we weren't spending enough money on our military in 2000?

Keep in mind that the entire 9/11 Truth Movement is a business in itself.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for another independent investigation. Regardless if the first one was correct or not, another look doesn't hurt anything or anyone so long as it does not prove the first report to be false or the building to have actually been blown up.

What I find more disturbing is the fact that they won't look into it further if it pleases the people. It would be good to finally put an end to it, one way or another.

lol like another investigation would convince the true believers .. like showing a christian rock sold proof of evolution ... it doesn't matter, they wont believe it.

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-si...ding-7-on-911/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

http://desip.igc.org/WTC7.html

I just Googled all of the above - I do not necessarily believe in any of what we are told, or what we read, etc.

News is made up, and apparently the media can lie all they want, as there are no laws against it.

I didn't even read or watch anything posted here. I just googled, copied, and pasted.

That is all...

With hindsight I'm sure the Bankers wish they had said Muslims nuked WTC7

and people wonder why they are failing in life.

I was just thinking the same, it's 10 years on now, and some people still think WTC7 fell due to a couple of fires :helpme

A tip to those who want to believe this wasn't an inside job, you're going to head into Checkmate within the next couple of moves if you continue with the argument that fire brought down WTC7. This debate can go on for a lot longer if you use a strategy along the lines of "They had to control demolition WTC7 for some legit reason". If you use that one, which is Larry Silverstein's line, you'll be able to continue debating for longer and if you play smartly you might get a Stalemate


Never let it be said that I don't help you official story guys out :winkwink:

What is your opinion on Operation Northwoods? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Don't you find it interesting that members of our government wanted to facilitate terror attacks here in the US and blame it on Cuba? The final decision makers in 1962 vetoed the plan, but its mere existence is very telling. It says that the creators knew there was a chance the government would accept it and not just write them off as nutjobs.

Now imagine a different time when another false flag terror attack was drawn up, only this time leaders accepted it. Perhaps that time was under the Bush presidency.

As for why this would happen, it is my opinion that WW3 will be fought primarily over middle eastern oil. By crusading through the middle east X number of years before the war, the west is grooming certain countries to be our allies. This work has gotten us Iraq, Afghanistan and soon Libya. China and Russia have Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Lebanon.

There is a tell tale warning sign of impending WW3 to watch for. The citizens of Iran love western culture and do not hate the US. Something must happen for them to develop an unfavorable view of the west. Look for civilian targets to be bombed "in the west's attempt to cripple Iranian nuclear facilities." This will be either a false flag by the Iranian government or Israel will do it and "accidentally" hit civilian targets.

Also, read up on the Reichstag fire, Hitler's false flag operation that gave rise to the Nazis. Some Germans had their doubts as to who was behind the fire, but those who spoke up were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Silverstein was talking about the fire unit when he said they had to "pull it." It was in reference to getting the unit out of the building.

Although I have over the years considered the possibility of a controlled demolition quickly set up by emergency demolition men (if such a thing even exists). Is it possible that the WTC buildings all had emergency plans to collapse the buildings in the event of a devastating fire? Seems unlikely. The theory obviously has a lot of problems.

The GOONS are losing - seriously you disinfo agents/shills getting paid shitty money to battle is funny.

Google/Youtube Windsor Tower,Spain,Madrid - burnt for 20 hours never collasped.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=j2_srNT8-Ow

I find "Operation Northwoods" to be both amusing and interesting. And I bet there is a lot of truth to some of them. However, it's a huge leap from making an "incident" where a handful of people might be hurt compared to destroying entire city blocks, potentially killing tens of thousands of Americans, and causing billions of dollars in damages.

At the end of the day, there is no justification for it. The only thing that happened because of 9/11 was the US invading Afghanistan, which is an utterly worthless country.

WWW3 will never happen, nor will it be for oil.

Very few countries have a blue water navy. The only country that can threaten the United States is China, and physically they are unable to touch us. (They can attack South Korea and Japan where the US has troops, but they can't hit the US mainland.) The Chinese Army, Navy, and Air Force cannot be supplied outside of China itself.

Take a look at what's happening in Libya right now. NATO doesn't have boots on the ground in Libya, and you the rag group of poorly armed rebels are defeating the army there while NATO controls the skies? These countries cannot even defend themselves against the US, no less strike out at us.

Oil? Why would the US go to war for oil? The US gets most of it's oil from.... Cananda. Oh, and Mexico. So I guess if we are going to go to war for oil we'll be bombing and invading Canada and Mexico.

There is some common misconception that all oil comes from the Middle East. This is not true at all. The Middle East has a large percentage of the world's oil reserves, but the US gets most of it's oil from elsewhere.

Trust me when I tell you I'm well aware of the Reichstag fire.

However, I don't think Hilter knew about it in advance, nor did he plan or hope for it. I think he was surprised as everyone else. However, he quickly took advantage of it. Hilter didn't use this to take over the government; He was already the Chancellor a month prior. He just used it to his advantage to further tighten controls.

If you want to talk about false flag operations, talk about how Nazi Germany started the war with Poland.

Don't get me wrong, I think the United States government does a lot of things we don't know about. I think we would be stunned and outraged if we knew half of the truth. But 9/11 wasn't one of them.

Very interesting video.

Strange that the BBC lost this video. http : // www .bbc.co.uk /blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

The NY Port authority had tried to get a permit for the controlled demolition of the WTC twice before due to Asbestos liability. On both occasions the request was turned down. The cost of removing the Asbestos from the buildings was $2,000,000,000, to demolish them it would have been $15,000,000,000. Whereas if you set up a false flag attack and demolish them at the same time, you actually make money on the insurance.

Most likely these buildings had been rigged up for demolition well in advance; they were going to come down one way or another.

Who cares besides for you?