Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[marko]

agreed johnno ;

i really don't know which videos people are watching that say that sort of stuff

it's quite fookin obvious that it's falling into itself and not keeling over towards a damaged side .

do people really understand what the story of the emperors new clothes is really about ?

I'll repeat myself again, how do you know it is falling slightly to one side?

For all you know WTC 7 could be falling slightly in the direction of the camera. With no 3-d perspective there is no possible way you can conclude it falls directly in to its own footprint. Photos suggest otherwise.

[jonno24]

Yes thanks. Have you ever considered the fact that the video is shot from a considerable distance with no 3-d perspective?

Have you ever seen a close up from after the collapse of WTC 7 that shows it strewn across roofs over the road?

Just take a look at that not sure if youve seen it before

[fleckneymike]

I'm sure Larry Silverstein was talking about pulling the firemen out of the building when he said that

Yeah right !!!

He obviously ( like Bush) forgot the old truism that liars need fookin good memories before they open their gobs

Why the **** would they involved Larry Silverstein in their conspiracy?

[marko]

Just take a look at that not sure if youve seen it before

Shame they can't even get the basic facts right.

How do you explain the debris that littered the roofs of numerous buildings over the road?

[Rincewind]

I'm interested in how people got by the emergancy services to plant a series of explosives stragetically into a building that was seriously damaged. And if planted before how they knew beforehand the damage that would have been inflicted so as to place the explosives in the right place and how much explosives to use to bring the building down in one controlled 5 seconds.

Give answers to these questions and Sme more may be swayed towawards the inside job therory.

[shen]

The reason its the first time in history is because never before have two commercial passenger jets flown into a sky scraper.

WTC 7 wasn't hit by planes nor was it's structure fatally damaged by debris from the towers, and it ultimately wasn't the planes that made the towers crash either. Up to speed, fleckneymike! If you claim these fellas here are idiots and have no grasp of science, semantics and politics, maybe you should check up on said facts. Have you looked at the WTC reports?

[marko]

I'm interested in how people got by the emergancy services to plant a series of explosives stragetically into a building that was seriously damaged. And if planted before how they knew beforehand the damage that would have been inflicted so as to place the explosives in the right place and how much explosives to use to bring the building down in one controlled 5 seconds.

Give answers to these questions and Sme more may be swayed towawards the inside job therory.

That's the point, they can't!!!

There is a blind belief it was a controlled demolition, yet no one has put forward a remotely plausible argument for how they achieved it.

[jonno24]

Shame they can't even get the basic facts right.

How do you explain the debris that littered the roofs of numerous buildings over the road?

Its is one of the highest buildings in the city so debris is going to make it onto the roofs of smaller buildings over the road.

Unless since ive been at work debris has decided to fall upwards

[Zingari]

The reason its the first time in history is because never before have two commercial passenger jets flown into a sky scraper.

No AIRLINER FLEW INTO WTC7 , so it's collapse and the cause is an altogether separate event ok ?

It is supposed to have fell due to the raging inferno that it is supposed to have endured for 8 hours ,

I really do suggest you take another look at it because i can't see massive fire damage but i can see a building collapsing in the manner of controlled demolition

if you think we are all idiots that's fine by me, but at least try to get the simple things correct

[Zingari]

Why the **** would they involved Larry Silverstein in their conspiracy?

Oh just a small thing like a 7 billion dollar insurance payout

[marko]

Its is one of the highest buildings in the city so debris is going to make it onto the roofs of smaller buildings over the road.

Unless since ive been at work debris has decided to fall upwards

They weren't that small. We're not talking bungalows here.

Hang on, you're arguing it was a controlled demolition and therefore fell in to its own footprint. It clearly didn't as debris ended on the top of roofs some distance away, as you say, it could only end up there whilst on its way down, meaning it must have fallen to one side. Not directly in its footprint.

[marko]

No AIRLINER FLEW INTO WTC7 , so it's collapse and the cause is an altogether separate event ok ?

It is supposed to have fell due to the raging inferno that it is supposed to have endured for 8 hours ,

I really do suggest you take another look at it because i can't see massive fire damage but i can see a building collapsing in the manner of controlled demolition

if you think we are all idiots that's fine by me, but at least try to get the simple things correct

You also can't see all the building. You can't see the sides or the back, or the bottom 1/3 for that matter. I'm afraid you can only see the tip of the iceberg.

[Rincewind]

But wasnt it shown that the video was not showing the side where the fires were. They were shown from the opposite side. Also part of the building had already copllapsed.

Who? When? How?

[jonno24]

They weren't that small. We're not talking bungalows here.

Hang on, you're arguing it was a controlled demolition and therefore fell in to its own footprint. It clearly didn't as debris ended on the top of roofs some distance away, as you say, it could only end up there whilst on its way down, meaning it must have fallen to one side. Not directly in its footprint.

The twin towers were by far and away were the biggest buildings in the area and 2 planes hit them debris was strewn over an immense area then they collapsed with even more debris thrown over an immense area.

The debris on the tops of other buildings arent neccesarily from WTC7

[Rincewind]

Clutching at straws comes to mind.

[shen]

I'm interested in how people got by the emergancy services to plant a series of explosives stragetically into a building that was seriously damaged. And if planted before how they knew beforehand the damage that would have been inflicted so as to place the explosives in the right place and how much explosives to use to bring the building down in one controlled 5 seconds.

Give answers to these questions and Sme more may be swayed towawards the inside job therory.

The damage would've been irrelevant. As it was, according to NIST, the building collapsed from the inside first and next pulled down the exo-skeleton so to speak. If explosives were present, they would obviously have been placed prior to the attacks. And demolition experts would've calculated the explosives needed and the arrangement to bring it down. I'm not suggesting it happened this way, but I don't see your objections as great obstacles

[marko]

The twin towers were by far and away were the biggest buildings in the area and 2 planes hit them debris was strewn over an immense area then they collapsed with even more debris thrown over an immense area.

The debris on the tops of other buildings arent neccesarily from WTC7

It really was. The pictures clearly show a trail of debris from WTC 7. Out of interest, what do you think made WTC North and South collapse? You've obviously ruled out controlled demolition of them as you state debris was thrown far and wide, which wouldn't happen with a controlled demolition as they fall straight down in their own footprint.

[Zingari]

That's the point, they can't!!!

There is a blind belief it was a controlled demolition, yet no one has put forward a remotely plausible argument for how they achieved it.

i can't tell you how penn and teller do most of their tricks , but that does not mean that i have to believe what they tell me has happened

[fleckneymike]

No AIRLINER FLEW INTO WTC7 , so it's collapse and the cause is an altogether separate event ok ?

It is supposed to have fell due to the raging inferno that it is supposed to have endured for 8 hours ,

I really do suggest you take another look at it because i can't see massive fire damage but i can see a building collapsing in the manner of controlled demolition

if you think we are all idiots that's fine by me, but at least try to get the simple things correct

I think I've got things straight now, you believe WT7 was a controlled demolition because it appears to fall straight down. You choose to ignore the speed with which it fell (which is far longer than 6 seconds) the debris field, the findings of NIST the lack of explosives and the lack of sound from said explosives had they existed. Now I also have to accept that they (who ever 'they' are) chose to involve the real estate owner in their crime so he could claim on his insurance?

[marko]

i can't tell you how penn and teller do most of their tricks , but that does not mean that i have to believe what they tell me has happened

Hardly comparable are they? You're comparing slight of hand with the time consuming rigging of a building with tonnes, upon tonnes of explosives.

[fleckneymike]

Hang on I'm confused again.

Twin Towers fall down because of planes but WT7 because of explosives?

[Zingari]

Hang on I'm confused again.

Twin Towers fall down because of planes but WT7 because of explosives?

Put very simply the twin towers were hit by aircraft and obviously sustained structural damage that is difficult to quantify but up until the moment of collapse they looked to be standing firm and were on fire but not raging infernos, ok?

Wtc7 was not hit by aircraft and had unquantifiable structural damage to one side and small pockets of fire, this is plainly obvious.

With very good reason many people will argue that the impact of the planes caused the collapse because nothing had ever happened like this before to a building.

Wtc7 was not hit by an aircraft therefore we can look at it as any other building with a much more critical eye.

Apart from the twin towers, this is the first steel high rise to collapse due to fire and therefore would be of immense interest to structural engineers architects etc because if buildings can collapse in this way , they want to know how and why but the debris was rapidly removed under intense scrutiny and sold to Asian scrap dealers so no such investigation could ever take place .why? this debris has enormous value in understanding how a building could possibly collapse in this way .

This coupled with the many images, film footage, reports of explosions, amongst many other suspicious events etc etc leads many people to believe that fire/damage did not cause the collapse and that there has been a massive concerted cover up , as to how this building did indeed collapse .

Surely you can understand the lasting suspicion with regard to this , even if you don’t believe there was a conspiracy and fully accept the official version , at least accept that there are grounds for many others to be suspicious without considering them to be fools .

They are suspicious because there is a great deal to be suspicious about.

Finally, if they can be prove that explosives were used in 7, regardless of how this was achieved, then this could act as a linchpin to reinvestigate the whole axis of events .

Remember the old saying , “Fool me once …………………….

Do you get the picture ?

[jonno24]

I also remember George Bush saying at a rally that he was in a school on the day of the attacks and that he watched the first plane hit the Twin Towers.

Which is impossible as no-one saw the first plane hit on tv until the next day. Now he is either Lying or this was one monumental **** up on his part.

Also the 9/11 commisioner who said in an interview that he 'was shocked at the events at the pentagon when a Missile ah plane hit the building'

These events combined with so many other suspicious pictures , footage , interviews are bound to breed conspiracy its only natural.

[shen]

I think I've got things straight now, you believe WT7 was a controlled demolition because it appears to fall straight down. You choose to ignore the speed with which it fell (which is far longer than 6 seconds) the debris field, the findings of NIST the lack of explosives and the lack of sound from said explosives had they existed. Now I also have to accept that they (who ever 'they' are) chose to involve the real estate owner in their crime so he could claim on his insurance?

Oh so you have read the report? Then why do you keep saying that WTC 7 suffered fatal structural damage from Tower debris?

[Rincewind]

The damage would've been irrelevant. As it was, according to NIST, the building collapsed from the inside first and next pulled down the exo-skeleton so to speak. If explosives were present, they would obviously have been placed prior to the attacks. And demolition experts would've calculated the explosives needed and the arrangement to bring it down. I'm not suggesting it happened this way, but I don't see your objections as great obstacles

So these experts would know beforehand how little or big the damage was going to be? The video does not show the other sides of the building. Where and who are these explosive experts that planted the explosives?

Who? When ? How? Before you can be sure an orange is an orange you have to peel it then taste it. Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing.