Before and after pictures - How could anybody believe the building 7 story?

pueblo

Overheal wrote: »

Absolutely, its possible, though I don't have hard science or math for that.

You don't have ANY science or math for that, right?

Ultimately, I highly suspect that large airliner collisions were not part of the FMEA done on the building design.

Your 'suspicions' :rolleyes: are incorrect. The WTC towers were built to sustain multiple airliner strikes and still stand.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html


This video proves beyond doubt that the way in which the 3 towers collapsed was an impossibility as a result of a plane strike. It also proves the 3 towers were brought down as a result of controlled demolition.

Overheal

pueblo wrote: »

You don't have ANY science or math for that, right?

... no

Reg'stoy

pueblo wrote: »

This video proves beyond doubt that the way in which the 3 towers collapsed was an impossibility as a result of a plane strike. It also proves the 3 towers were brought down as a result of controlled demolition.

If you watch any program in which buildings are in fact brought down by controlled explosions, you will see how these explosives are placed in holes drilled into the super structure. All the charges are connected by cable and micro delays are used (because of the length of cabling) to ensure that all charges go off together or indeed in a predetermined sequence.

These charges aren't placed over a bank holiday weekend but must have been done in plain sight of the 10,000's who worked, lived and played in the towers.

Considering your contention that they were indeed brought down by these controlled explosions, I have a number of observations.
Did planes hit the towers?
Were the explosions seen when the planes or whatever in your opinion hit them, these controlled explosions you speak off?
Were the planes packed with, C4?
What would have happened had the planes missed or the hijacks had been unsuccessful?

Was this not an extremely convoluted method of achieving what goals they had in mind. Charges had to be placed or indeed a method of deliverer of charges had to be arranged. How many 100's nay 1,000's of people would be involved.

pueblo

Reg'stoy wrote: »

If you watch any program in which buildings are in fact brought down by controlled explosions, you will see how these explosives are placed in holes drilled into the super structure. All the charges are connected by cable and micro delays are used (because of the length of cabling) to ensure that all charges go off together or indeed in a predetermined sequence.

Considering your contention that they were indeed brought down by these controlled explosions, I have a number of observations.

These charges aren't placed over a bank holiday weekend but must have been done in plain sight of the 10,000's who worked, lived and played in the towers.

See 'lift modernisation' below

Did planes hit the towers?

If the towers were indeed brought down by controlled explosion the issue of the planes becomes a secondary consideration.

Were the explosions seen when the planes or whatever in your opinion hit them, these controlled explosions you speak off?

Check the video I posted he shows clearly the 'Squibs' coming from the building when the .plane hits...Squibs are shown to be going off in sucession down the side of the building before collapse. Squibs are a dead giveaway for a controlled explosion. Also search for the many eye witness reports of multiple explosions before collapses.

Were the planes packed with, C4?

Waste of good plastic explosives if the building are already rigged.

What would have happened had the planes missed or the hijacks had been unsuccessful?

I feel you want me to say there were no planes. I am still undecided however it is a possibility. If there were no planes no problem with missing the target but I believe the skill level needed to pilot the planes accurately to that target was very high so who knows?. If there were planes maybe they were locked/homed in on a signal from the towers?

Was this not an extremely convoluted method of achieving what goals they had in mind. Charges had to be placed or indeed a method of deliverer of charges had to be arranged. How many 100's nay 1,000's of people would be involved.

In the narrative I believe to be a possibility, there was extensive 'lift modernisation' work being carried out in the months and weeks before the attacks. This meant open access to the lift shafts. There is some unusual goings on with missing/non existent documentation for all this work but that needs it's own thread. Suffice to say that the security firm in charge of the WTC was Securacom.... run by? Marvin Bush the Presidents younger brother who was with Securacom until.....? 2001 :eek:

weisses

There i sat ... popcorn in hand ... waiting and waiting for an almost symmetrical collapse reaching free fall acceleration ...Nothing happened .. Not even a partial collapse .... Very disappointing, Probably will never see a collapse like that happen again, No one will is my best guess ... ///sarcasm

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/ajman/watch-huge-fire-breaks-out-in-ajman-building

DamagedTrax

weisses wrote: »

There i sat ... popcorn in hand ... waiting and waiting for an almost symmetrical collapse reaching free fall acceleration ...Nothing happened .. Not even a partial collapse .... Very disappointing, Probably will never see a collapse like that happen again, No one will is my best guess ... ///sarcasm

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/ajman/watch-huge-fire-breaks-out-in-ajman-building

Man, i thought we were gonna see the long awaited sequel... but alas it was not to be

PeterTheEighth

The thing that I find most ridiculous about Building 7 is that when these documentaries show KNOWN demolitions, the KNOWN demolitions are never ever as symmetrical or uniform as Building 7's collapse.

As one engineer "why are we paying demolition experts, and taking hundreds of hours of preparation to take down high rise buildings..... when you can just set a few fires on a few different floors and it will fall down uniformly in a couple of hours"

weisses

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

The thing that I find most ridiculous about Building 7 is that when these documentaries show KNOWN demolitions, the KNOWN demolitions are never ever as symmetrical or uniform as Building 7's collapse.

As one engineer "why are we paying demolition experts, and taking hundreds of hours of preparation to take down high rise buildings..... when you can just set a few fires on a few different floors and it will fall down uniformly in a couple of hours"

This video below is very interesting..Describing what is wrong with the official version in regards to what brought the buildings down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

JJJJNR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R889eSvuS-w

Not sure if its been posted before, but some footage of both towers and building 7 going down.

The Nal

Reg'stoy wrote: »

pueblo wrote: »

This video proves beyond doubt that the way in which the 3 towers collapsed was an impossibility as a result of a plane strike. It also proves the 3 towers were brought down as a result of controlled demolition.

These charges aren't placed over a bank holiday weekend but must have been done in plain sight of the 10,000's who worked, lived and played in the towers.

This is the main point. Explosive experts climbing over desks, wires running through offices, through halls, under peoples feet, explosives being placed under people desks while they're sitting there etc.

Its laughable. Utterly insane actually.

el diablo

The Nal wrote: »

This is the main point. Explosive experts climbing over desks, wires running through offices, through halls, under peoples feet, explosives being placed under people desks while they're sitting there etc.

Its laughable. Utterly insane actually.

Climbing over desks? What the fúck. All the explosive most probably were placed in the lift shafts etc. :pac:

Overheal

The Nal wrote: »

This is the main point. Explosive experts climbing over desks, wires running through offices, through halls, under peoples feet, explosives being placed under people desks while they're sitting there etc.

Its laughable. Utterly insane actually.

No, from a scientific perspective it's improbable, though plausible. One just simply has to model that if you had 48 hours and resources, how many people and how much material do you need to pull this off?

Just off the top of my head you wouldn't need to put explosives in the towers anywhere but in the center columns. The office floors need not be accessed. The floors were supported by the center column largely, as well as by the external steel frame.

I wouldn't call it insane really, just terrifying.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

No, from a scientific perspective it's improbable, though plausible. One just simply has to model that if you had 48 hours and resources, how many people and how much material do you need to pull this off?

Just off the top of my head you wouldn't need to put explosives in the towers anywhere but in the center columns. The office floors need not be accessed. The floors were supported by the center column largely, as well as by the external steel frame.

I wouldn't call it insane really, just terrifying.

In case of building 7 only 1 column .... According to the official story

PeterTheNinth

The Nal wrote: »

Explosive experts climbing over desks, wires running through offices, through halls, under peoples feet, explosives being placed under people desks while they're sitting there etc. Its laughable. Utterly insane actually.

When I saw Building 7 fall, and pretty much came to the conclusion that there was no way that fire could cause such a symmetric collapse, I had that same question "How could they get the explosives in the building without anybody seeing them??".

But then I saw the interview with Scott Forbes, I started to think maybe it was possible. Listen to the bit where he talks about the "guys in the overalls" towards the end of the clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrYRAEjm-xw

Obviously whoever is in charge of security would need to be in on it, to provide access to the building. Once inside, you would need a plausible reason for being there (like an Internet cable upgrade, lift upgrade.. etc) and to be appropriately dressed (luminous jacket, ACME builders Ltd logo, hard hat). It wouldnt be something that a couple of lads in a van could organise but with the right connections and the right people it could be done.

And looking at the way the building came down, it's more plausible to me that the building was rigged with explosives than it was brought down by fires. It HAS to be either A or B, and to me it's a controlled demolition.

el diablo

Not sure if this has been posted here before. I have absolutely no doubt that the building were brought down using explosives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE

The Nal

el diablo wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted here before. I have absolutely no doubt that the building were brought down using explosives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE

After watching a silly documentary?

Why would "they" (US government I presume) do it?

el diablo

The Nal wrote: »

After watching a silly documentary?

Why would "they" (US government I presume) do it?

No, not after watching a "silly" documentary. I've held this believe for quite some time.
It seems totally implausible to me that two planes can be responsible for demolishing three steel and concrete structured skyscrapers. And how can a low intensity office fire (Building 7) cause a 47 story building to turn to molten steel and dust??

Overheal

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/09/11/major-science-journal-publishes-paper-on-911-examining-the-evidence-concluding-it-was-a-controlled-demolition/

More papers coming out that are against the official story.

stevejazzx

Overheal wrote: »

How many steel buildings have had 747s slammed into them though?

Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane either.
There are too many people in the industry i.e engineering, construction and demolition who believe that building 7 could not have collapsed, in the way that it did, due to fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stOQ5Vl9d0k
We can of course ignore the mounting signed statements from these people but that'd be silly in my opinion.

Jan_de_Bakker

I know this is probably the wrong place, but I am a skeptic,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

Anyone know is there an explanation of this ? (apart from the conspiracy side of things) - maybe it's not actually WTC7 in the background ..

edit ok got it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

seems to explain it well enough, they were expecting it to collapse at this stage...

el diablo

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I know this is probably the wrong place, but I am a skeptic,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

Anyone know is there an explanation of this ? (apart from the conspiracy side of things) - maybe it's not actually WTC7 in the background ..

edit ok got it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

seems to explain it well enough, they were expecting it to collapse at this stage...

Doesn't explain steel and concrete turning to dust though.

King Mob

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I know this is probably the wrong place, but I am a skeptic,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

Anyone know is there an explanation of this ? (apart from the conspiracy side of things) - maybe it's not actually WTC7 in the background ..

edit ok got it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

seems to explain it well enough, they were expecting it to collapse at this stage...

Yup, the firefighters on the scene were concerned about the building:s stability, so they knew that it was most likely going to collapse soon.
Reporters got their hands on this information and somewhere along the line, there was a miscommunication and it was reported that the building had "collapsed", rather than "will likely collapse. In the rush of that news day, every station was eager for new updates and they were hurrying to report anything, even before they did complete fact checking.
And even then, some places said "X is reporting that another building has collapsed" which is something that was true, but passed the buck to another source.

Nothing there that requires a conspiracy to explain it. And the conspiracy scenario makes zero sense.

el diablo

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, the firefighters on the scene were concerned about the building:s stability, so they knew that it was most likely going to collapse soon.
Reporters got their hands on this information and somewhere along the line, there was a miscommunication and it was reported that the building had "collapsed", rather than "will likely collapse. In the rush of that news day, every station was eager for new updates and they were hurrying to report anything, even before they did complete fact checking.
And even then, some places said "X is reporting that another building has collapsed" which is something that was true, but passed the buck to another source.

Nothing there that requires a conspiracy to explain it. And the conspiracy scenario makes zero sense.

Doesn't explain steel and concrete turning to dust though. That explanation makes zero sense.

Jan_de_Bakker

Again, I know this is the CT forum and maybe this is not welcome, but seriously, imagine the manpower needed to pack all those explosives into a building that was until that day a normal office building with 1000s of workers in it.

Someone would have come forward, someone would have talked since then..

And also even if they had planned all this elaborate setup, you'd think someone would say "Now lads make sure the press don't get hold of the info until the actual building collapses!!"

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Nothing there that requires a conspiracy to explain it. And the conspiracy scenario makes zero sense.

What is the proper science behind the official collapse theory?

Other then A self fabricated computer model NIST used ?

Plus there were no firefighters inside buiding 7

Silverstein brought in the pull it story ....

el diablo

How does some burning office furniture and paper (and some diesel generators in the basement apparently) cause a fire to burn so hot that it turns steel and mass concrete to dust? This is something I will never understand.

The Nal

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Again, I know this is the CT forum and maybe this is not welcome, but seriously, imagine the manpower needed to pack all those explosives into a building that was until that day a normal office building with 1000s of workers in it.

Someone would have come forward, someone would have talked since then..

And also even if they had planned all this elaborate setup, you'd think someone would say "Now lads make sure the press don't get hold of the info until the actual building collapses!!"

They'd be wrapping wires and cabling around peoples desks, across halls, in lifts, planting thousands of explosives at crucial points out in the open etc. Yet no one noticed? How odd.

Wanderer78

The Nal wrote:

They'd be wrapping wires and cabling around peoples desks, across halls, in lifts, planting thousands of explosives at crucial points out in the open etc. Yet no one noticed? How odd.

The guberment has one of those time freezing machines, it's obvious, jebus!

The Nal

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The Nal wrote:

They'd be wrapping wires and cabling around peoples desks, across halls, in lifts, planting thousands of explosives at crucial points out in the open etc. Yet no one noticed? How odd.

The guberment has one of those time freezing machines, it's obvious, jebus!

They were all doing the mannequin challenge and didn't notice

el diablo

The Nal wrote: »

They'd be wrapping wires and cabling around peoples desks, across halls, in lifts, planting thousands of explosives at crucial points out in the open etc. Yet no one noticed? How odd.

Ridiculous. Why would they have to wrap wires around people's desks? Have you never planted explosives in a skyscraper before?