9-11 WTC 7 Tower collapse..

jackdaw

Hi
Program on this Sunday night on BBC2 ... right now im watching the
presentation on www.ae911truth.org ...

amazing !!!!

I never believed there was a conspiracy before ... but now ...

100% convinced...

Gordon

What exactly were the points from the presentation that made you change your mind?

Sherifu

So the Architects & Engineers are shifting the blame. Nice.

meglome

jackdaw wrote: »

Hi
Program on this Sunday night on BBC2 ... right now im watching the
presentation on www.ae911truth.org ...

amazing !!!!

I never believed there was a conspiracy before ... but now ...

100% convinced...

So what exactly changed your mind?

And have you not read any of the threads in this forum? WTC7 has been talked about at length... to sum it up... building hit by debris, left to burn outta control for hours, lots of flammable materials, building falls.

Since when are architects experts in controlled demolitions? and while I'm here where has termite ever been used in a controlled demolition?

oscarBravo

Watched the BBC documentary. Conclusion: no conspiracy. Surprise, surprise.

Latchy

The bottom line about 9/11 is Americans (and the world at large ) is still finding it hard to except that it actually happend on their own doorstep .The fact that two main agencies FBI/CIA supposedly witheld information from each other that may have helped twart the attack on twin towers says more about american Incompetence,suspision and paronia than anything else .Nearly as many people killed in one single mass killing in one day than the whole of all atrocities commited in Northen Ireland during the pre ceasefire troubles , (less a thousend and a half or so) .Reminds me a bit of the JKF assassination in that so much misinformation was put out about conspiracy theories that any original theorys became so muddled up since then ,and stuff gets added on and on all the time .Be intresting to see over the year how many other theories come along about the ' towers collapsing' .

SuperSean11

Sherifu wrote: »

So the Architects & Engineers are shifting the blame. Nice.

How was the blame ever on them?

meglome

SuperSean11 wrote: »

How was the blame ever on them?

Well it doesn't look good that a steel framed building completely collapses from a fire, albeit a big outta control fire.

x in the city

A 300 tonne airliner travelling at around 500mph and carrying 216,000 litres of fuel smacking into the building might have something to do with it collapsing, no...?

GBX

x in the city wrote: »

A 300 tonne airliner travelling at around 500mph and carrying 216,000 litres of fuel smacking into the building might have something to do with it collapsing, no...?

The airliner didnt crash into WTC 7 ..

ShoulderChip

meglome wrote: »

? and while I'm here where has termite ever been used in a controlled demolition?

If it was conspired wouldn't it make sense to use new technology?

oscarBravo

GBX wrote: »

The airliner didnt crash into WTC 7 ..

Nope, but two 1300' skyscrapers did.

grainne_ed

Sherifu wrote: »

So the Architects & Engineers are shifting the blame. Nice.

Nothing to do with the architects or engineers.

The two towers were actually designed to withstand a collision by aircraft.

Anyone looking at the videos or pictures of the collapse can see explosions before the controlled demolition.

I've asked people for years how many buildings fell during the attacks at the WTC. They always say 2.

Why has this third building collapse been kept so secret??

grainne_ed

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope, but two 1300' skyscrapers did.

Not true.

oscarBravo

grainne_ed wrote: »

I've asked people for years how many buildings fell during the attacks at the WTC. They always say 2.

Why has this third building collapse been kept so secret??

I've asked people for years who the 11th president of the US was. They never know the answer.

Why has this president been kept so secret??

grainne_ed wrote: »

Not true.

Please elaborate.

Mahatma coat

its possible that WTC7 was the conspirators primary target

grainne_ed

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've asked people for years who the 11th president of the US was. They never know the answer.

Why has this president been kept so secret??

Please elaborate.

Your initial quip is irrelevant.

Why was WTC7 not even mentioned in the official government report?



Secondly, the twin towers did not damage WTC7.

Indeed buildings nearer to the twin towers remained standing & only recieved superficial damage.

grainne_ed

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its possible that WTC7 was the conspirators primary target

I doubt it.

oscarBravo

grainne_ed wrote: »

Your initial quip is irrelevant.

It's called an analogy. Look it up.

Why was WTC7 not even mentioned in the official government report?

What official government report?

Secondly, the twin towers did not damage WTC7.

Evidence, please.

Indeed buildings nearer to the twin towers remained standing & only recieved superficial damage.

Evidence, please.

woodyg

i watched the show and it was a well laid out Documentry. The conspiracy theory is well and truly dead in the water as they showed how the damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers had ripped a hole in the side of tower 7 which started and fanned the fires which caused the iron work joints to fail. these theories are laughable some times.

Nick_oliveri

Secondly, the twin towers did not damage WTC7.

They did, whether fatally or not remains to be answered. Although in the absence of another catalyst for complete destruction you might assume it would be fatal.

Also, did anyone notice the bit where NIST more or less gave out the Final Working Hypothesis, (quite obvious mind) it was blatant that this is what they are going on. Again the computer models (although absent any Physical evidence). Some people aint gonna be happy.

Jump back on the carousel boyos, its about to go around and around and around again!

The conspiracy theory is well and truly dead in the water

Far from it. Six years later the BBC decided to do not one, but two documentaries on it (9/11) in the "Conspiracy Files" series.

It is the most popular Conspiracy theory ATM, there are many forums dedicated to it on the web, this subforum is mostly dedicated to it. Its like, so hot right now. :pac: There are thousands of people dedicated to the sole subject and many people dedicated to debunking them, its nearly a sport!

meglome

woodyg wrote: »

i watched the show and it was a well laid out Documentry. The conspiracy theory is well and truly dead in the water as they showed how the damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers had ripped a hole in the side of tower 7 which started and fanned the fires which caused the iron work joints to fail. these theories are laughable some times.

I agree they should be dead in water but

When you can see the pictures of the damage to the side of the building next to the twin towers, when you can see that whole side engulfed in smoke from the fires and still people are spreading the crap that the building wasn't damaged.

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

I agree they should be dead in water but

When you can see the pictures of the damage to the side of the building next to the twin towers, when you can see that whole side engulfed in smoke from the fires and still people are spreading the crap that the building wasn't damaged.

Pics Please

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Pics Please

You're just being disingenuous now. The other 911 thread that you contributed heavily to has several pictures in it which show that. I'll get them if you really want but you've already seen them.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its possible that WTC7 was the conspirators primary target

Did we find any conspiracy yet? I've seen lots of fantasy and not much fact regarding the so called conspiracy.

grainne_ed

Video recorded minutes before the collapse of WTC7 has shown a police officer telling people to move back as the building was about to be 'pulled' (the term used by demolition experts).



I wounder why WTC4 located adjacent to the south tower managed to remain standing, whereas WTC7 located a considerable distance away collapsed?

MoominPapa

grainne_ed wrote: »

I wounder why WTC4 located adjacent to the south tower managed to remain standing, whereas WTC7 located a considerable distance away collapsed?

Incredibly wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_World_Trade_Center

grainne_ed

MoominPapa wrote: »

Incredibly wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_World_Trade_Center

How so?

MoominPapa

grainne_ed wrote: »

How so?

NOAA aerial image of 4 World Trade Center, following the September 11 attacks. Most of the building was crushed by the collapse of 2 WTC. Only a small portion remained standing. North is approximately upper right on the image.

Thats how.

grainne_ed

MoominPapa wrote: »

Thats how.

I believe the text says:

It was damaged beyond repair as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and was later demolished

MoominPapa

grainne_ed wrote: »

I believe the text says:

It was damaged beyond repair as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and was later demolished

The quoted text is the photo caption.
Heres further evidence from a source you may prefer:911research

oscarBravo

Any chance of some replies to post #19, grainne_ed?

grainne_ed

MoominPapa wrote: »

The quoted text is the photo caption.
Heres further evidence from a source you may prefer:911research

The damage to WTC4 is no shock. With its location virtually within touching distance of one of the tallest buildings in the world when the south tower collapsed. Substantial damage was caused to WTC4 during the collapse, however a substantial section of the building on the opposite side to the collapse remained standing.

WTC7 is totally different. It didnt recieve the structural damage, yet still collapsed to the ground in a sequence remarkably like a controlled explosion. This coupled with the fact NYPD said before hand that it was being 'pulled' & also the fact that the BBC reported its collapse before it actually happened leads to much suspicion.

oscarBravo

grainne_ed wrote: »

WTC7 is totally different. It didnt recieve the structural damage...

Repeating this isn't going to make it true.

...yet still collapsed to the ground in a sequence remarkably like a controlled explosion.

A controlled explosion is what army ordnance disposal teams do. I presume you meant "controlled demolition", in which case you'd still be wrong.

This coupled with the fact NYPD said before hand that it was being 'pulled'

NYPD never said anything of the kind, and the fact that the FDNY said something along those lines doesn't mean what you'd like to think it means.

...also the fact that the BBC reported its collapse before it actually happened leads to much suspicion.

They made a mistake. Big deal.

grainne_ed

oscarBravo wrote: »

Repeating this isn't going to make it true. A controlled explosion is what army ordnance disposal teams do. I presume you meant "controlled demolition", in which case you'd still be wrong. NYPD never said anything of the kind, and the fact that the FDNY said something along those lines doesn't mean what you'd like to think it means. They made a mistake. Big deal.

Controlled explosion/demolition. Lets not get caught up on the jargon.

What did the FDNY mean when they said this?? Other than the obvious reason of course.


Your fond of your analogy, try this. If the BBC reported Tony Blair had been assinated 10 minutes before it actually happened, would that not raise some eyebrows??

MoominPapa

grainne_ed wrote: »

The damage to WTC4 is no shock. With its location virtually within touching distance of one of the tallest buildings in the world when the south tower collapsed. Substantial damage was caused to WTC4 during the collapse, however a substantial section of the building on the opposite side to the collapse remained standing.

From the picture, comparing what was left to the WTC area plan most of the building was destroyed.



So what if a substantial section remained( which didn't anyway)?

grainne_ed wrote: »

WTC7 is totally different. It didnt recieve the structural damage, yet still collapsed to the ground in a sequence remarkably like a controlled explosion.

It did receive structural damage and other rational explanations have been given which also explain how a "sequence remarkable like a controlled explosion" didn't blow in the windows of surrounding buildings.

grainne_ed wrote: »

This coupled with the fact NYPD said before hand that it was being 'pulled' ...

Could mean pulling the police/firefighters out. Seems much more likely to me. The fact(?) that this is a demolition term is little to go on

grainne_ed wrote: »

..also the fact that the BBC reported its collapse before it actually happened leads to much suspicion.

This was a mistaken report which has been explained ad nauseum

oscarBravo

grainne_ed wrote: »

Controlled explosion/demolition. Lets not get caught up on the jargon.

Actually, let's. The meaning of words is rather important - as per your next point:

What did the FDNY mean when they said this?? Other than the obvious reason of course.

I don't know why you'd think it "obvious" that the word "pull" refers to controlled demolition, when (1) firefighters don't do controlled demolitions, and (2) controlled demolition experts don't refer to what they do as "pulling" (unless they actually do pull buildings down using cables, which they don't do with 47-storey buildings, and especially not when they're on fire).

Your fond of your analogy, try this. If the BBC reported Tony Blair had been assinated 10 minutes before it actually happened, would that not raise some eyebrows??

If it had been widely reported for several hours beforehand that his assassination was inevitable and was expected shortly, then: no, not really.

Any chance of some answers to post #19?

grainne_ed

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it had been widely reported for several hours beforehand that his assassination was inevitable and was expected shortly, then: no, not really.

What?

If it had been reported as fact 10 minutes beforehand, then actually occured I think most people would be asking questions.

On this basis questions should be asked as to how the BBC knew the collapse of WTC7 was imminent.

oscarBravo

grainne_ed wrote: »

If it had been reported as fact 10 minutes beforehand, then actually occured I think most people would be asking questions.

You don't really get how analogies work, do you?

On this basis questions should be asked as to how the BBC knew the collapse of WTC7 was imminent.

Just a stab in the dark, but I'm guessing it's because it had been widely reported for some time beforehand that the building was about to collapse.

Y'know, what with it having been badly damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, and the raging fires, and all that.

Any chance of you answering the questions I asked in post #19?

grainne_ed

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't really get how analogies work, do you? Just a stab in the dark, but I'm guessing it's because it had been widely reported for some time beforehand that the building was about to collapse.

Y'know, what with it having been badly damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, and the raging fires, and all that.

Any chance of you answering the questions I asked in post #19?

It takes more than a fire to cause the collapse of a steel frame, concrete core building.

People report hearing explosions, next thing WTC7 drops like a controlled 'demolition'. FDNY tell people to evacuate before this happens as the buildings is about to be 'pulled'. BBC reports its collapse before it actually happens.

Thats it in a nutshell.

SuperSean11

oscarBravo wrote: »

Any chance of you answering the questions I asked in post #19?

+1

oscarBravo

grainne_ed wrote: »

It takes more than a fire to cause the collapse of a steel frame, concrete core building.

True. As it happens, it took more than fire to cause the collapse of WTC 7.

People report hearing explosions, next thing WTC7 drops like a controlled 'demolition'. FDNY tell people to evacuate before this happens as the buildings is about to be 'pulled'. BBC reports its collapse before it actually happens.

Thats it in a nutshell.

Yeah, you've said all that. Any chance of answering the questions I asked in post #19?

Diogenes

grainne_ed wrote: »

It takes more than a fire to cause the collapse of a steel frame, concrete core building.

Yes getting hit by tonnes of debris from the collapse of the WTC towers will help.

People report hearing explosions,

People reporting hearing explosions, not bombs. Lots of things sound "like" explosions doesn't mean they were caused by explosives.

next thing WTC7 drops like a controlled 'demolition'.

No it didn't. Please give the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and point out where the collapse of the WTC displays these characteristics.

FDNY tell people to evacuate before this happens as the buildings is about to be 'pulled'.

Firstly are you suggesting that the FDNY are complicit in the 9/11 attacks? That the FDNY sacrifices 300 of their brother officers in this attack?

BBC reports its collapse before it actually happens.

As has been linked to on this forum time and time again, firefighters had been saying the building was in danger of, or about to, collapse for several hours. The BBC jumped the gun based on a Reuteurs report.

To correct your analogy. The BBC didn't report Blair was assassinated ten minutes before he was killed. The BBC reported his death prematurely after he had been shot, but before he died.

Thats it in a nutshell.

Half truths, un truths, lies, distortion, and contempt for the FDNY, yup thats the truthers in a nutshell.

grainne_ed

Diogenes wrote: »

To correct your analogy. The BBC didn't report Blair was assassinated ten minutes before he was killed. The BBC reported his death prematurely after he had been shot, but before he died.



.

The bullet created a flesh wound. It was bomb strapped to his chest that done the damage.

oscarBravo

grainne_ed wrote: »

The bullet created a flesh wound. It was bomb strapped to his chest that done the damage.

Thing is, if a bomb had been strapped to his chest, there would be evidence of that bomb having detonated.

Speaking of evidence, any chance of some answers to the questions I asked in post #19?

ShoulderChip

oscarBravo wrote: »

Speaking of evidence, any chance of some answers to the questions I asked in post #19?

no those were basic questions on the topic,
it is not our job to educate you,
do your own research, read a book, or watch a video on the subject.

if i thought you were being genuine i would help you out.

Diogenes

grainne_ed wrote: »

The bullet created a flesh wound. It was bomb strapped to his chest that done the damage.

Your analogy is insanely spurious.

The BBC were responding to reports that were coming in over the course of the day that the WTC 7 was in danger of, or imminently about to collapse. They jumped the gun.

1. WTC 7 was hit by debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers, severely damaging the building's structural integrity.

2. Fire raged uncontrolled for hours in the WTC 7.

3. It's possible that the diesel generators in the WTC 7 and their fuel contributed to this collapse.

4. Firefighters reported that the building was dangerous and likely to collapse over the course of the day.

5. The nearest structure comparable to the WTC in size is the significantly smaller Hudson building. It took expert demolition teams weeks to prep the building for controlled the demolition.

6. You're suggesting that the FNDY were complicity in the collapse and cover up of the demolition of the WTC 7. If indeed that is the case you are suggesting that members of the FNDY either allowed or suppressed, information related to the death of three hundred of their brother officers.

Missing anything? Anything you'd like to refute/clarify/deny?

rossie1977

lots of talk here but nobody mentioning the bankers trust building that was located less than 50 feet from south tower

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U__XfBQ5haw

SuperSean11

ShoulderChip wrote: »

no those were basic questions on the topic,
it is not our job to educate you,
do your own research, read a book, or watch a video on the subject.

if i thought you were being genuine i would help you out.

Humour us:cool:

bonkey

rossie1977 wrote: »

lots of talk here but nobody mentioning the bankers trust building that was located less than 50 feet from south tower

From Wikipedia: The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks after being blasted by the avalanche of debris, ash, dust and smoke that spread from WTC. The building has been in ruins ever since, and is to be demolished completely by the end of 2008.

That Bankers Trust building?

Why is it worth mentioning, other than as another total loss due to the events of 9/11?

Its also worth noting that WTC 4 - the other building mentioned copiously as "remaining standing" was 9 stories high. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a high-rise building. Indeed, it barely reached above the open atrium which comprised the first 7 floors of WTC 7. In addition, it was not of a comparable construction to WTC7, particularly with respect to not having the majority of itself being supported above the afore-mentioned 7-storey atrium.

So yes. Part of 4 remained standing. The rest was ruined. This does not, under any rational logic, qualify as one of grainne-ed's "buildings nearer to the twin towers remained standing & only recieved superficial damage.

The Banker's Trust building was ruined and is due for demolition. Again, not "superficial damage".

So we're still waiting to find out just where these buildings are, which were nearer than 7, which only suffered superficial damage.

WTC3? Nope. Gone.
WTC4? Nope. Gone.
WTC5? Nope. Gone.
WTC6? Nope. Gone.
Banker's Trust? Nope. Due to be done.
Verizon? Nope. Remained standing due to its construction. Cost $1.4 billion to repair. If you consider $1.4 billion to be superficial, there's some conspiracy theorists who think Silverstein did it for the money who want to disagree with you.

Actually, we can make it simple. Here's a comprehensive list of collapsed, partially-collapsed, and majorly-damaged buildings: http://www.tenantwise.com/reports/wtc_damage.asp

It is clear from this list that the claim that there were buildings closer to the collapse than WTC 7 which only suffered superficial damage is completely and totally wrong. There were buildings closer than WTC 7 which remained standing, but thats not the same thing. Bear in mind that the linked-to report doesn't specify which of the buildings (such as the Banker's Trust) have been subsequently written off as irreperable and have been or are due to be demolished.

OB - maybe this is why those guys didn't want to do your homework for you?

grainne_ed

bonkey wrote: »

From Wikipedia: The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks after being blasted by the avalanche of debris, ash, dust and smoke that spread from WTC. The building has been in ruins ever since, and is to be demolished completely by the end of 2008.

That Bankers Trust building?

Why is it worth mentioning, other than as another total loss due to the events of 9/11?

Its also worth noting that WTC 4 - the other building mentioned copiously as "remaining standing" was 9 stories high. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a high-rise building. Indeed, it barely reached above the open atrium which comprised the first 7 floors of WTC 7. In addition, it was not of a comparable construction to WTC7, particularly with respect to not having the majority of itself being supported above the afore-mentioned 7-storey atrium.

So yes. Part of 4 remained standing. The rest was ruined. This does not, under any rational logic, qualify as one of grainne-ed's "buildings nearer to the twin towers remained standing & only recieved superficial damage.

The Banker's Trust building was ruined and is due for demolition. Again, not "superficial damage".

So we're still waiting to find out just where these buildings are, which were nearer than 7, which only suffered superficial damage.

WTC3? Nope. Gone.
WTC4? Nope. Gone.
WTC5? Nope. Gone.
WTC6? Nope. Gone.
Banker's Trust? Nope. Due to be done.
Verizon? Nope. Remained standing due to its construction. Cost $1.4 billion to repair. If you consider $1.4 billion to be superficial, there's some conspiracy theorists who think Silverstein did it for the money who want to disagree with you.

Actually, we can make it simple. Here's a comprehensive list of collapsed, partially-collapsed, and majorly-damaged buildings: http://www.tenantwise.com/reports/wtc_damage.asp

It is clear from this list that the claim that there were buildings closer to the collapse than WTC 7 which only suffered superficial damage is completely and totally wrong. There were buildings closer than WTC 7 which remained standing, but thats not the same thing. Bear in mind that the linked-to report doesn't specify which of the buildings (such as the Banker's Trust) have been subsequently written off as irreperable and have been or are due to be demolished.

OB - maybe this is why those guys didn't want to do your homework for you?

Your hanging on the 'superficial' aspect too much.

The Bankers Trust sustained considerable more damage than WTC7, was considerably closer to the fallen towers, yet remain standing to this day.

That video posted above is excellent, well worth watching.

Not doubting in my mind the fact that all three buildings collapsed as a result of controlled demolitions.