Building 7 Exploding BEFORE WTC1 "Collapse"

bill you are back...oh, and once again with no new proof. same old lame "firefighters by the telephone booth" footage...really?

Well, welcome back anyway.

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
This was shown on Italian Television in 2007 and titled 'Seven is Exploding'. Hear the witness at the end saying that the FDNY directly told her that 'they were going to have to bring the building down'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Click to expand...

0:29: "As no steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire" WRONG

0:32: "The 9/11 Commission Report in fact avoids mentioning the building (WTC7) altogether as if it had never existed". SMOKESCREEN and you knoiw it. the 9/11 Commission was not at all tasked to assess the physics and engineering aspects of the damages incurred by terrorist attacks. They had no sensible reason to mention WTC7 (or WTC3, 4, 5, 6)

0:43 - 1:00: Danny Jowenko. You know that they are, as all Truthers aver do, ignoring the fact that Danny, when he said WTC7 was definiteky a controlled demolishion, did not know when the buildiung collapsed (he thought several days after), and he did not know that there had been large fires. So we know his opinion is badly uninformed. Bill, you knew this, right? So the text at 0:42 is right: "ONE man had doubts...". One man, and one man only against thousands who were better informed.

1:05 - 1:46: Several CDs next to WTC7 collapse. Bill, you are aware that these videos of real CDs arem as Truthers always do, shown without actual sound, right? And you do know what difference we would hear if they had been shown with actual sound? You do know that real CDs always (always) begin with INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs, and that WTC7 fell remarkably silently?

Around 2:00 - BBC announcing the fall WTC7 too early. We have been through this, and you know it. This "documentary" leaves nothing untouched, does is :rolleyes: Why would the NWO inform the press ahead of time about incidents they would report on anyway when they happen? How dumb and how superintelligent must you suppose the NWO to be at the same time?

Around 3:00 - same deal with CNN. Well Truthers know, but they never tell, that indeed WTC7 had been assessed by experts (NYFD, demolition crews) to be in immediate danger of collapsing because of the huge huge fires, and because it showed structural damage, and because it sounded already like it was coming apart. Simple explanation for press blunder: This info was given to the press, not fully understood, und relayed to the public less than perfectly. It is what the press does all the time: Being less than precise about matters they don't understand themselves so well.

3:33: "How could anyone know the building would collapse more than 1 hour before it did?" ANSWER: Because specialists on those matters, whose job it is to assess if a burning building is still safe or in danger of collapse and must be evacuated, did an assessment and concluded: WTC7 will likely collapse. This is on record, but Truthers always fail to mention it when spreading their lies and delusions.

3:39: Lie about "no steel structure had ever before collapsed due to fire", with Madrid's Windsor Tower in background to "support" that false claim. Bill, you know that it is noit true that no steel structure has ever collapsed in a fire, and you know that the Windsor was not steel-frame, right? So you know this "documentary" is spreading false claims here and is not telling the truth.Right?

3:44 "it appears that the fires had been anything but devastating" WRONG. Accoring to the experts of the NYFD on location the fires were widespread and devastating and burning uncontrolledly for hours.

4:25 "The Fire Department and they did use the word 'We're going to have to bring ot down'" REALLY? Bill, I want you to be chrystal clear on this:
  • Do you believe the NYFD is in on it and part of the cover up?
  • Do you believe the NYFD brought down WTC7 on purpose?
  • Do you have an explanation as to HOW the NYFD could have possibly done it?

4:32: 2 explosions. REALLY? Loud bangs is what you can say. Steal beams breaking sound that way. Steel trusses falling on top of each other may sound that way, too. We know how much explosives it would take to sever only one support column of WTC7, and we know how loud such a charge would necessarily have been. The "explosions" heard at that time were many many magnitudes to soft to be such severing CD charges. These would have been INSANELY loud.

4:43: "The building's gonna blow up" RIGHT. Because everyone sensed it was in serious static trouble. This is not what happens when you CD a building. No one can sense that someone will trigger explosions in a few seconds. These words actually confirm it was a "natural" collapse and not a CD.

5:22: "Seven is exploding". WRONG. No one says this in that clip. It is a fantasy.

5:32 - again, a video of the collapse is shown WITHOUT audio, masking the fact which Truthers know but never tell that WTC7's collapse in fact was initiated WITHOUT any explosions of the sort necessary to initiate a CD.

5:40 "Why then not tell the truth right away?" WHY INDEED! Why do Truthers know the fact but always refuse to share them? Why do Truthers always spin a narrative that is wrong? Why all the lies, distortions and ommissions by that "Truther" movement? Why not tell the truth? Why not be honest and say "There were huge fires, but no explosions"?
 
When the planes hit the two 110 story towers, with 7.6 million square feet and 50,000 occupants, then the demo team must have had some serious choices. Which one shall we demo first? Do we let most of the occupants escape?

Which one would be the best to lead to the war that both the terrorists and the government wanted.? I am sure there was much debate about this between the terrorists and the demolitiion team about what was best.

So just in case the attack on two 110 story towers plus the attack on the Pentagon were not enough they decided to demolish the empty 25 story, 600,000 square foot, WTC 7 building, some 7 hours after the other two buildings.

It is the whole absudity of this concept that has thrown the 9/11 investigation off the trail of controlled demolition. This was a risky but perhaps a masterful move on the part of the planners.

Ae911truth - You know it makes sense
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
0:29: "As no steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire" WRONG

0:32: "The 9/11 Commission Report in fact avoids mentioning the building (WTC7) altogether as if it had never existed". SMOKESCREEN and you knoiw it. the 9/11 Commission was not at all tasked to assess the physics and engineering aspects of the damages incurred by terrorist attacks. They had no sensible reason to mention WTC7 (or WTC3, 4, 5, 6)

0:43 - 1:00: Danny Jowenko. You know that they are, as all Truthers aver do, ignoring the fact that Danny, when he said WTC7 was definiteky a controlled demolishion, did not know when the buildiung collapsed (he thought several days after), and he did not know that there had been large fires. So we know his opinion is badly uninformed. Bill, you knew this, right? So the text at 0:42 is right: "ONE man had doubts...". One man, and one man only against thousands who were better informed.

1:05 - 1:46: Several CDs next to WTC7 collapse. Bill, you are aware that these videos of real CDs arem as Truthers always do, shown without actual sound, right? And you do know what difference we would hear if they had been shown with actual sound? You do know that real CDs always (always) begin with INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs, and that WTC7 fell remarkably silently?

Around 2:00 - BBC announcing the fall WTC7 too early. We have been through this, and you know it. This "documentary" leaves nothing untouched, does is :rolleyes: Why would the NWO inform the press ahead of time about incidents they would report on anyway when they happen? How dumb and how superintelligent must you suppose the NWO to be at the same time?

Around 3:00 - same deal with CNN. Well Truthers know, but they never tell, that indeed WTC7 had been assessed by experts (NYFD, demolition crews) to be in immediate danger of collapsing because of the huge huge fires, and because it showed structural damage, and because it sounded already like it was coming apart. Simple explanation for press blunder: This info was given to the press, not fully understood, und relayed to the public less than perfectly. It is what the press does all the time: Being less than precise about matters they don't understand themselves so well.

3:33: "How could anyone know the building would collapse more than 1 hour before it did?" ANSWER: Because specialists on those matters, whose job it is to assess if a burning building is still safe or in danger of collapse and must be evacuated, did an assessment and concluded: WTC7 will likely collapse. This is on record, but Truthers always fail to mention it when spreading their lies and delusions.

3:39: Lie about "no steel structure had ever before collapsed due to fire", with Madrid's Windsor Tower in background to "support" that false claim. Bill, you know that it is noit true that no steel structure has ever collapsed in a fire, and you know that the Windsor was not steel-frame, right? So you know this "documentary" is spreading false claims here and is not telling the truth.Right?

3:44 "it appears that the fires had been anything but devastating" WRONG. Accoring to the experts of the NYFD on location the fires were widespread and devastating and burning uncontrolledly for hours.

4:25 "The Fire Department and they did use the word 'We're going to have to bring ot down'" REALLY? Bill, I want you to be chrystal clear on this:
  • Do you believe the NYFD is in on it and part of the cover up?
  • Do you believe the NYFD brought down WTC7 on purpose?
  • Do you have an explanation as to HOW the NYFD could have possibly done it?

4:32: 2 explosions. REALLY? Loud bangs is what you can say. Steal beams breaking sound that way. Steel trusses falling on top of each other may sound that way, too. We know how much explosives it would take to sever only one support column of WTC7, and we know how loud such a charge would necessarily have been. The "explosions" heard at that time were many many magnitudes to soft to be such severing CD charges. These would have been INSANELY loud.

4:43: "The building's gonna blow up" RIGHT. Because everyone sensed it was in serious static trouble. This is not what happens when you CD a building. No one can sense that someone will trigger explosions in a few seconds. These words actually confirm it was a "natural" collapse and not a CD.

5:22: "Seven is exploding". WRONG. No one says this in that clip. It is a fantasy.

5:32 - again, a video of the collapse is shown WITHOUT audio, masking the fact which Truthers know but never tell that WTC7's collapse in fact was initiated WITHOUT any explosions of the sort necessary to initiate a CD.

5:40 "Why then not tell the truth right away?" WHY INDEED! Why do Truthers know the fact but always refuse to share them? Why do Truthers always spin a narrative that is wrong? Why all the lies, distortions and ommissions by that "Truther" movement? Why not tell the truth? Why not be honest and say "There were huge fires, but no explosions"?
Click to expand...

It would have been a simple matter to bring WTC7 down more or less silently. The support columns were hollow, remember ? Just drill a hole and pump in the nanothermite to your chosen amount . Ignite all columns simultaneously with electronic ignitors and down she comes without any alarming noises to frighten the debunkers. easy-peasy.

I guess the concerned citizens reading along can satisfy themselves as regards what the lady says at the 4:02 mark (the FDNY said they were going to have to bring the building down) - What time was that anyway ? lol. The lady is in the attached hyperlink.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6090162&postcount=40
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
It would have been a simple matter to bring WTC7 down more or less silently. The support columns were hollow, remember ? Just drill a hole and pump in the nanothermite to your chosen amount . Ignite all columns simultaneously with electronic ignitors and down she comes without any alarming noises to frighten the debunkers. easy-peasy.
Click to expand...

Except that nanothermite was not really in existence in 2001, had never been used by anyone for CD, burns too slowly and still vertically down to do to box columns what they do in your fantasy, the insides of box columns are not at all easily accessible without raising alarm and suspision, there was no proof of nanothermite, its residues or any steel exposed to residues found at the site, and there is not one other shred of evidence that supports this nonsense fantasy. Besides, there is no good reason to bring down Seven in the context of what else happend that day, and to do it in such an unconventional, untested and thus risky (to exposure) way.
Did I overlook anything?

bill smith said:
I guess the concerned citizens reading along can satisfy themselves as regards what the lady says at the 4:02 mark (the FDNY said they were going to have to bring the building down) - What time was that anyway ? lol. The lady is in the attached hyperlink.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6090162&postcount=40
Click to expand...

When was she interviewed?
If I interview you about a stressful event days, weeks or months later - can you guarantee that you will be able to recall the exact words, all the exact words and nothing but the exact words?
In your opinion, has every witness to anything always been correct about everything? Or do you allow for some witnesses to remember things incorrectly and have things added to their memory that did not in fact take place?

Bill, I wanted you to be chrystal clear on this:

  • Do you believe the NYFD is in on it and part of the cover up?
  • Do you believe the NYFD brought down WTC7 on purpose?
  • Do you have an explanation as to HOW the NYFD could have possibly done it? ETA: Did the NYFD have the ability and opportunity and resources to fill the box columns of Seven with nanothermite? Where would they get that from? Is the NYFD in the business of burning highrise office buildings down? /ETA

Why did you dodge these very specific and urgent questions?
 
sylvan8798 said:
It sounds to me like he's saying "◊◊◊◊ is exploding" or "stuff is exploding". The first guy on the phone is wearing a watch which looks like it says about 11:15, but it's hard to tell, and that wouldn't match with the various attempts at shadow analysis. The clip is from about 3:04 in the video. I love how the contributors to the video are all "anonymous" screennames. What a bunch of dweebs.

View attachment 17278
Click to expand...

In figure 1 of Kim's article, there is "a further collapse" at 11:15...

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
 
Oystein said:
Except that nanothermite was not really in existence in 2001, had never been used by anyone for CD, burns too slowly and still vertically down to do to box columns what they do in your fantasy, the insides of box columns are not at all easily accessible without raising alarm and suspision, there was no proof of nanothermite, its residues or any steel exposed to residues found at the site, and there is not one other shred of evidence that supports this nonsense fantasy. Besides, there is no good reason to bring down Seven in the context of what else happend that day, and to do it in such an unconventional, untested and thus risky (to exposure) way.
Did I overlook anything?



When was she interviewed?
If I interview you about a stressful event days, weeks or months later - can you guarantee that you will be able to recall the exact words, all the exact words and nothing but the exact words?
In your opinion, has every witness to anything always been correct about everything? Or do you allow for some witnesses to remember things incorrectly and have things added to their memory that did not in fact take place?

Bill, I wanted you to be chrystal clear on this:

  • Do you believe the NYFD is in on it and part of the cover up?
  • Do you believe the NYFD brought down WTC7 on purpose?
  • Do you have an explanation as to HOW the NYFD could have possibly done it? ETA: Did the NYFD have the ability and opportunity and resources to fill the box columns of Seven with nanothermite? Where would they get that from? Is the NYFD in the business of burning highrise office buildings down? /ETA

Why did you dodge these very specific and urgent questions?
Click to expand...

More to the point you should try to contact that lady who says that the FDNY directly told her that they were going to have to bring down WTC7. I suggest you read up a little on nanothermite too. While you are at it you can read the report on the copious amounts of nanothermite residue in the dust. I can provide a link if you need it. The report was compiled over two years by an 8-man scientific team including professors of Physics and Chemistry and who knows what else.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
More to the point you should try to contact that lady who says that the FDNY directly told her that they were going to have to bring down WTC7. I suggest you read up a little on nanothermite too. While you are at it you can read the report on the copious amounts of nanothermite residue in the dust. I can provide a link if you need it. The report was compiled over two years by an 8-man scientific team including professors of Physics and Chemistry and who knows what else.
Click to expand...

I have carefully read the paper by Niels Harriet, Steven Jones ed. al.
I am aware of the many methodological flaws of that paper.
I understand that it would prove that NO nanothermite was in the dust samples, if we accepted the methods used to be valid. Of course since the methods were invalid, no result is relevant.

So there is no proof of nanothermite on the premises.

Why should I talk to the lady? She clearly suggests that the NYFD told her that it was the NYFD which planned to bring Seven down.

So I stand by my point and my three very urgent and serious questions:
  • Do you believe the NYFD is in on it and part of the cover up?
  • Do you believe the NYFD brought down WTC7 on purpose?
  • Do you have an explanation as to HOW the NYFD could have possibly done it? Did the NYFD have the ability and opportunity and resources to fill the box columns of Seven with nanothermite? Where would they get that from? Is the NYFD in the business of burning highrise office buildings down?

Because that is what follows from her testimony: The NYFD was knowingly and actively involved in bringing down building 7. This together with the fact that after the day no one at the NYFD admitted as much, and Chief Nigro saying on public record that their assessment was that 7 would collapse due to fires, you must logically conclude that the NYFD and specifically Chief Nigro are also part of the cover-up.


ETA: More to the point you should try to contact Chief Nigro and others at the NYFD and ask them if they brought down WTC7 and later covered it up.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
I have carefully read the paper by Niels Harriet, Steven Jones ed. al.
I am aware of the many methodological flaws of that paper.
I understand that it would prove that NO nanothermite was in the dust samples, if we accepted the methods used to be valid. Of course since the methods were invalid, no result is relevant.

So there is no proof of nanothermite on the premises.

Why should I talk to the lady? She clearly suggests that the NYFD told her that it was the NYFD which planned to bring Seven down.

So I stand by my point and my three very urgent and serious questions:
  • Do you believe the NYFD is in on it and part of the cover up?
  • Do you believe the NYFD brought down WTC7 on purpose?
  • Do you have an explanation as to HOW the NYFD could have possibly done it? Did the NYFD have the ability and opportunity and resources to fill the box columns of Seven with nanothermite? Where would they get that from? Is the NYFD in the business of burning highrise office buildings down?

Because that is what follows from her testimony: The NYFD was knowingly and actively involved in bringing down building 7. This together with the fact that after the day no one at the NYFD admitted as much, and Chief Nigro saying on public record that their assessment was that 7 would collapse due to fires, you must logically conclude that the NYFD and specifically Chief Nigro are also part of the cover-up.


ETA: More to the point you should try to contact Chief Nigro and others at the NYFD and ask them if they brought down WTC7 and later covered it up.
Click to expand...

The lady doesn't only suggest that the FDNY said that they would have to bring down WTC7- she states it as an absolute.

And as you say, it follows from her testimony that at least some of the members of the FDNY were involved . I seriously doubt that any of those guys would admit it as you suggest for obvious reasons. And you are right that her testimony probably incriminates Chief Nigro too.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
The lady doesn't only suggest that the FDNY said that they would have to bring down WTC7- she states it as an absolute.

And as you say, it follows from her testimony that at least some of the members of the FDNY were involved . I seriously doubt that any of those guys would admit it as you suggest for obvious reasons. And you are right that her testimony probably incriminates Chief Nigro too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting your bias.

Of course since no physical proof exists for such a demolition, and not even a viable theory, and only a second hand witness report that could easily have resulted from a misunderstanding or faulty memory, I tend to dismiss your conclusion as unlikely to the extreme.

Ever been an eyewitness to an official investigation or court case?
I was - I tell you what: I did not even trust my own testimony after a few months.
 
Oystein said:
Thanks for admitting your bias.

Of course since no physical proof exists for such a demolition, and not even a viable theory, and only a second hand witness report that could easily have resulted from a misunderstanding or faulty memory, I tend to dismiss your conclusion as unlikely to the extreme.

Ever been an eyewitness to an official investigation or court case?
I was - I tell you what: I did not even trust my own testimony after a few months.
Click to expand...

Shucks now ain't that a surprise. I expect that the concerned citizens watching will have duly measured your confidence level and drawn their conclusions.
 
Last edited:
until there is any physical evidence of a demolition of WTC 7, it did not happen.

this is how true skepticism works.
 
The man on the right turns around suddenly as though hearing a normal sound, like a voice, nearby. He does not have the look of someone in fear for his life. The man on the left shows no reaction that I can see. These are men wthi some public safety experience. They would have known to at least drop to on knee or to the ground.

Fake sound.
 
Thunder said:
until there is any physical evidence of a demolition of WTC 7, it did not happen.

this is how true skepticism works.
Click to expand...

Well do you think that an extremely tall skyscraper like WTC7 could fall down naturally from only fire between two or three other skyscrapers not more than a dozen or so feet away on three sides and do only a relatively small amount of damage to those other buildings ? Would that be called 'falling into it's own footprint' which is the hallmark of successful controlled demolition.
 
bill smith said:
Well do you think that an extremely tall skyscraper like WTC7 could fall down naturally from only fire between two or three other skyscrapers not more than a dozen or so feet away on three sides and do only a relatively small amount of damage to those other buildings ?
Click to expand...

where is your physical evidence of a demolition at WTC 7?
 
bill smith said:
Shucks now ain't that a surprise. I expect that the concerned citizens watching will have duly measured your confidence level and drawn their conclusions.
Click to expand...

I think I should have much less trouble telling that lady that she probably is slightly off on her memory than you would be telling Mr. Nigro that he is a co-conspirator, if not perpetrator, of mass-murder, fraud and arson.
 
bill smith said:
Well do you think that an extremely tall skyscraper like WTC7 could fall down naturally from only fire between two or three other skyscrapers not more than a dozen or so feet away on three sides and do only a relatively small amount of damage to those other buildings ? Would that be called 'falling into it's own footprint' which is the hallmark of successful controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Well, first, yes, we all think that large and unfought fires can destroy buildings.

Secondly, you are simply wrong: WTC7 did not fall neatly into its footprint. It so massively destroyed Fiterman Hall across the street that it had to be demolished later on, and badly damaged other neighbouring buildings.
 
Oystein said:
Well, first, yes, we all think that large and unfought fires can destroy buildings.

Secondly, you are simply wrong: WTC7 did not fall neatly into its footprint. It so massively destroyed Fiterman Hall across the street that it had to be demolished later on, and badly damaged other neighbouring buildings.
Click to expand...

Well that just proves it had a big footprint then. :)
 
Oystein said:
Well, first, yes, we all think that large and unfought fires can destroy buildings.

Secondly, you are simply wrong: WTC7 did not fall neatly into its footprint. It so massively destroyed Fiterman Hall across the street that it had to be demolished later on, and badly damaged other neighbouring buildings.
Click to expand...

Well Oystein lets let the concerned citizens decide.
I could easily pull out David Chandler''s three-video series that proves that WTC7 came down in freefall for 2.2 seconds. 100 feet or more of complete freefall. That means that all the structural steel holding up that that 100-odd feet had been taken out of the equation uniformly and simultaneously across the entire building allowing the freefall to take place. This can only occur in controlled demolition.

But it should suffice for me to ask the ask the concerned citizens watching whether the left picture became the right picture in 6-odd seconds from only fire as NIST claim - and only a small amount of asymmetric fire at that. There comes a time when pictures like these tell the real story. Debunker crapola has had it's day.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom