That's the most likely reason, even though nobody (especially not the govt itself) would like to admit it.

Did... did ... did you really just ask that? Building #7 is a STEEL SKYSCRAPER near the WORLD TRADE CENTER. On 9-11, in addition to the WTC buildings falling to structural damage + fire, Building #7 also mysteriously shared the fate of the WTC even though it did NOT get hit by jets. If you had read this thread you would have obviously read this by now... anyways, Building #7 was further away from the WTC than a couple of other buildings and yet it was the only other building to fall that day besides the WTC. Buildings MUCH CLOSER to the WTC suffered almost identical damage as #7 did, as well as the fire intensity from the WTC, yet they did not fall. The entire time I've been posting I've made it clear that I've been talking about BUILDING #7 and NOT the WTC. So please, for fuck's sake, either start reading or stay out of the discussion.

this thread is serious business minus the business

Look fuck for brains, I'm obviously not the one who can't follow a thread. The *ENTIRE* time I've been talking, other then those little interjects now and again, has been about Building #7 and not the WTC. I even admitted throughout the thread that the WTC was probably taken down by the combination of fire + structural damage. Then you come here and start saying ridiculous shit that has nothing to do with Building #7 directly to me. "lol they were hit by PLANES rofl". When I try to explain to your dumbass that I'm not talking about the WTC (and if you?d been following the thread it would have been obvious to anyone with an inkling of intelligence) but instead Building #7, you come back again with your idiotic statements saying something like "lol, don't get all uppity LOL" to which I respond 'At least I can tell buildings apart.'. For some unapparent reason you keep trying to interject useless tidbits of blather into this conversation yet for some reason you can't get it through your thick skull that I am talking about BUILDING #7. Not the WTC....

So to summarize for you buddy since you and a couple others here have a bit of a problem with reading comprehension:

The World Trade Center was hit by two jets. Building #7 was not hit by a jet. The World Trade Center most likely fell due to the structural damage from the jets in combination with the high intense fires caused by jet fuel. Building #7, however, suffered no more or no less damage that the other building closer to the World Trade Center sustained, and as such it should have not fell because of fire w/combination of limited structural damage. Because of this, Building #7 is a highly debated issue and remains a hot topic for conspiracists and non- conspiracists alike.
*Note: Building #7 is NOT the fucking World Trade Center you god damn moron.

2 key points stand out here

1) Notabook's paranoid WTC fantasies are not just about jingoism but also about jujuism,
and
2) Notabook has no fixed ethical principles.

So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it. Whenever he is blamed for conspiring to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole, he blames his representatives. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Notabook work hand-in-glove with insincere losers. Easy as it may seem to change the world for the better, it is far more difficult to lead the way to the future, not to the past. And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand. Divided we fall. Notabook's peevish methods of interpretation will destroy us all.

:disgust :disgust

Uh... yeah, I could go use a generator as well if I wanted to be a mother fucking moron. If you can't add to the debate how about you just stay out of it and let adults talk, k junior?

all i have been doing is fucking with you and you are the one blowing a gasket. your behavior speaks volumes for your limited ability for rational thought and when looked at in the wider context of your moronic conspiracy theories, offers some insight into the potential worth of your deductions.

Curious to know - how many people commenting on this thread have actually walked those several blocks between what was once the Twin Towers and WTC7?

I was there in October 2005. I have some interesting pics to post as soon as I get them up.

Question: If WTC7 collapsed from debris and impact, why didn't the building immediately adjacent to the south collapse under the same conditions?

Maybe the debate is not as much about what did happen as it is about what will happen geopolitically. Conspiracy? LOL It's not about conspiracies - it's about agreements. I have personally (and professionally) seen it on all levels from "let's go to lunch" to various people getting a pass on a murder beef. That's reality.

I was about to leave the legal profession over all of this shit.

BTW - Interesting how things conveniently started up between Israel and Lebanon right before the mid-term elections. Gee, what a coincidence. Don't tell me you didn't see it coming.

Lastly, do you really think the government gives a fuck about regulating porn? Your answer to that question will reveal a lot. 2. If not, then why do they do it?

I think I liked your useless drivel that you got from your random text generator more. Maybe you should use it again, it sure the fuck made you sound more intelligent that the shit you just spit out right now. If you have something of serious substance to add, then by means do it. YOU can NOT ignore this simple fact: Prior to 9-11, not ONE modern skyscraper has fell to fire damage. Not one. That number again for you is ZERO. Zip, Nada, ZILCH. Structural engineers, even the ones commissioned by FEMA also state that the chance of a steel skyscraper falling to fire damage alone is nothing.

Now again for ya buddy since your brain may revert and think I?m talking about the WTC? I?M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WTC. Building #7 simply wasn?t damaged enough from the falling debris to be affected by the intense fire. Where I disagree with FEMA?s report, however, is their assertion that the falling debris from the WTC somehow did enough structural damage to Building #7, in combination with the fire, to make it collapse. Yet 97% of the evidence had already been removed by the time they got to examine the remains? for them to make that claim is, in words you can understand, RETARDED. Couple that with the fact that the buildings closer to WTC received similar if not identical conditions and were still structurally sound support the conspiracists claim that Building #7?s collapse was planned in advance.

i am going to take this opportunity before your impending ruptured aneurysm to let you know one last time that i don't care. i didn't care and probably, in the foreseeable future, won't care. you are so far off the chart with your insanity, that had 9/11 not happened you would be sitting here saying "looking you fucking no good prick idiot... i'll explain one more time... crop circles....."

while you changed no ones opinion, drove your bloodpressure through the roof and took 2 years off your life,... i got a lot of work done and a smile at the same time.

thanks.

:upsidedow

I do not have enough information to say either way, however I would not put it past a group within the US government to do such a thing. I would say the same thing about the JFK assassination.

Sadly, we will probably never know the truth.

and btw notebook, ... Building 7 was part of the WTC.... as were all the other buildings in the complex.

:disgust

I actually have chronically low blood pressure, so if anything these heated debates probably help me out physiology speaking, and honestly nothing puts a bigger smile on my face (well... almost nothing) than responding to dipshits such as yourself. All of the typing I do is mainly to kill some time while I wait for video to render. I get so fucking bored capturing clip after clip after clip and GFY is like the time killer. Time passes so easily here that I forget about the sheer boredom of my job lol. I do get a bit worked up about 9-11 because I want whoever responsible for bringing down Building #7 to be held accountable. As for crop circles, they are all fake. Sorry if ya didn't know that bud =(

You're welcome btw :)
Cheers! :thumbsup

Before 9/11

http://images.usatoday.com/graphics/...ws/julygas.jpg

After 9/11

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-d...5081600511.jpg

Does the word DUH come to mind? I use WTC to describe the twin towers for simple folk such as yourself since from the BEGINNING you assumed Building #7 was somehow the main towers of WTC. Don't try to think too hard buddy, you'll hurt yourself.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh That picture never gets old. I wish I had a tinfoil hat :( I tried to make one once, I inadvertently caused a small explosion in the process... from that point forward I decided never to try to make anything ever again.

why do you have a link to a shitty MFA site with free articles in your sig? thats definately a new one for sig-whoring! thats adsense i guess... one click at a time. :)

wow, never saw that one. those flashes coming out of it and then seconds later it falls..... :Oh crap

http://www.impawards.com/1990/poster...d_two_ver2.jpg

http://www.film.org.pl/soundtrack/im...die_hard_3.jpg

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...2.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://www.year01.com/forum/issue12/face.jpg

Somethings really wrong when the movies hints before any real shitting occurs by them.....Its all in sequence

Have you not seen the video of Goldstein (owner of WTC including WTF 7)saying "So it was decided the best thing to do was to "pull it" so thats what they did. they "pulled it" and we then watched the building collapse".

"Pull" is a demo term for taking down a building with explosives.

exactly....

as I was scrolling through this thread, I was wondering why all the discussion about WTC 7 when it was publicly stated by the OWNER of the building that it was demolished. It aired on PBS in September 2002. You have to be quite a sheep to dismiss that and still believe a fire brought it down.





Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download]

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3 download]

There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.

Even more telling is the loud thunderous explosions. Notice in the beginning there is a dust cloud at the bottom of the building, approximately 30 seconds later you hear some sort of explosion. Then as the building is falling you hear an even louder explosion. Since that video was taken from at least a mile away and the fact that sound does not travel as fast as light tells me that the first explosion caused the cloud of dust and the second explosion happened just before the building fell and was the cause of it falling.

And what the hell is with that helicopter hovering over the building for over half a minute and as its leaving the building falls?

To the people that think explosives did not bring the towers down whats your explanation of the explosive sounds?

Of course it was demolished. But there are a few things that don't add up about it.

First off they didnt admit this at first, sounds to me they finally admitted it because people were starting to question how it fell and since no other explanation made sense they figured to just admit to it.

Secondly, I find it VERY hard to believe under normal circumstances that explosives could have been brought in and set in that amount of time.
Larry Silverstein stated that they decided to demolish it late in the afternoon. So we are supposed to believe that in just a few hours they brought in explosives and set them? Bull fucking shit. Demolitions take weeks of planning not hours. And how many fucking times has anyone decided to demolish a building because they felt they couldnt contain a fire? People need to wake the fuck up.

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth.

http://www.media-criticism.com/911_Theory_10_2003.html

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bra.../pentagon.html

http://www.911-strike.com/PlaneBomb.htm

http://www.deceptiondollar.com/

http://www.deceptiondollar.com/8+/I8Front.jpg
http://www.deceptiondollar.com/8+/I8Back.jpg

come on guys lets calm down slightly,
Urgh :Oh crap

true that....

First - I am not a conspiracy theorist - I deal in science as that was my lifes work prior to retiring - as a physicist.

If anyone believes that the WTC came down due to the planes - all I can say is that it is physically impossible to fall as fast as they did without help from below and a lot of it - the 10 secs or so put out in the Official Report on 9/11 and seen visibly on tv would equate to Earth having a gravity effect of many times normal only at that one spot in NYC - whether you want to accept it or not - all things on earth fall at exactly the same speed - dependent on friction of course(which in the case of floors collapsing on top of each other is a lot of friction) -and totally independant of their weight - this has been proven over and over for at least 500 years - and is one of the very basic premises of physics(I believe it was Newton and his apple tree that started this conspiracy theory).

Second scientific problem with this is really a little more common sense - the floors where one of the planes hit - considered in the official report as the source of failure due to fire heat and metal collapse - would require certain amounts of heat to get to that point - around 1500 deg F. Assuming that all of the jet fuel (10,000 gals is what they left with on takeoff) burned inside the building (which based on the pictures posted in this thread really didnt happen - looks like most was an outside the building fireball) - I would agree that the temperature could reach that point.
However - this part doesnt make sense(and evidently based on legal suits that are being filed by firefighters associations shouldnt make sense) - just before one of the towers fell - firefighters were on their way to put out the fire - they were in the stairwell leading from the floor just below the floor where the plane hit - and were in communication with the temporary command post set up by the mayor - and reported on their radios they were going into the floor where the fire was - just as the building collapsed - of course these were some of the firefighters killed. This means that human beings were able to function normally in a temperature that is 500 degrees above the temperature used to cremate dead bodies in a mortuary.

Third and last - the actual engineering studies used when the towers were built called for the ability for a jet carrying over 20000 gallons of fuel to be completely immeresed in the building (all of the fuel burning inside - no fireball outside) and allow the firefighters 3 hours to fight the fire with structural failure assumed from the impact of the plane on the steel beams occuring at about the same rate that actually occured - and with no possibility of collapse of the building itself - note that a lot has been made of the size of the jet (707 vs 767) - the weight of the plane and attendant damage are based on the primarily the weight of the fuel since there are very small other weight differences - and again the official report states that these planes only had half of the fuel load that had been calculated for originally.

I draw no political conclusions here (although I really like the comparison someone made about the Reichstag building fire and subsequent Decree for the Protection of People and State that Hindenberg signed for Hitler being real damn close to the Patriot Act) - just scientific and common sense observations.

150 million

767 that hit the WTC and a 707 have about the same specs.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

There are many things about the events of the last 5 years that simply dont add up. Whether the buildings were rigged and brought down deliberately or not is something I wouldnt like to comment on BUT I definitely believe it to be possible that the government would have discovered the plot to hijack the planes before hand and then allowed it to happen to further their own political ends. Didnt Mossad (israeli intelligence service) warn the americans a few weeks before 911 that they had intercepted chatter related to the hijacking of passenger jets? Perhaps the plot was uncovered and the decision was made to make the most of it, they would also have had enough time to place the required charges if they had weeks of notice. 911 was obviously a deliberately chosen date so it wasnt as if the attack was gonna be rescheduled. They would have had plenty of time to prepare things. Damn I just commented on what I said I wouldnt lol wheres my tin hat :p

One thing I do know for sure though is that the US and UK government openly and blatantly lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. If they can do that and in doing so bring about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people then why couldnt they have blown up a couple of skyscrapers. In the grand scheme of things its not that big a deal and they will be replaced with even better buildings so everyones a winner except those who had the misfortune to be at the office that day... :(

interesting specs comparison there a fully fuelled 707 would almost certainly weigh more than a 767 with 10,000 gallons of fuel. If not then it would be damn close.

BINGO!

The Federal Government cannot do anything right. Do you really think they could pull of something sinister like this? What about leaks? The coordination this would take amoung hundreds of people, there would certainly be a "leaker" or someone who writes a book.

You kooks give too much credit to those in government.

No duh. Under normal circumstances, you'd have union guys stringing out the job to take as long as possible, because they're getting paid by the hour. So under NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, I'd expect the hour worth of work required to set up explosives at all load-bearing points in a building to be stretched out over several days. Gotta love the blue collar work ethic :-/

I think the manhattan project had 10,000 people working on it. And it went on without any leaks.

So Al'Qaeda planted explosives as an adjunct to ramming planes into the WTC. They had a backup plan. I don't see what's so hard to believe about that?

So your saying that it could take one hour to set up explosives in all the buildings?

If so then someone would have to give them the key to the entire building to get access to all the spots you need.

this is really stupid